481
Epic Games Store is offering developers 100% of revenue for six months of exclusivity (www.videogameschronicle.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.world
333 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Epic First Run programme allows developers of any size to claim 100% of revenue if they agree to make their game exclusive on the Epic Games Store for six months.

After the six months are up, the game will revert to the standard Epic Games Store revenue split of 88% for the developer and 12% for Epic Games.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

Someday maybe they will try to improve the launcher instead of burning all the money in exclusives that only pisses people off. I uninstalled that shit and don't even bother to take the free games anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    I had to request and confirm the deletion of my account to stop chinese people trying to hack it or something because I kept getting e-mails from Epig that someone in China is trying to access my account EVERY GODDAMN MONTH.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -34 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The launcher launches the games and that's good enough for me 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Why should you be happy it has the most bare functionality it could possibly have. It's 2023. On Steam I can stream from a Linux PC to my living room, play on some Nintendo Joycons with full gyro support, have a YouTube video playing picture-in-picture and bringing up an achievement guide with one button press. Epic is just a launcher, Steam is a full-fledged gaming platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So...download with epic and launch via steam as a non-steam game. What's the problem?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    The issue is not the launcher. The issue is the exclusivity. It demonstrates an anti-consumer mindset. The GOG, which people here have demonstrated acceptance of, is yet another launcher, the launchers less elegant to steam, and everyone is just fine with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It will probably work fine but it's not an officially supported use case of the software. You can't exactly submit a ticket to Valve if something doesn't work right because the game isn't even on their store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fucking hell, don't hurt your back carrying that goalpost mate!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -23 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Funny you should mention Linux...

    "Linux is so much nicer than Windows because it doesn't have all the bloat! Yuck!"

    "Epic is so much worse than Steam because it doesn't have all the bloat! Yuck!"

    The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago

    ... What are you even talking about. I never even said the first statement so how could I possibly be a hypocrite lmao. And having features isn't "bloat". Your argument is just all kinds of nonsensical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I could launch my games without a launcher. And I prefer it that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The way people talk about the epic store its like the company personally kicked their dog.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Take the free game and shut the fuck up

    They would have been complaining about Steam killing distributors when it released and vowing to boycott it forever. I'm old enough to remember these guys back in the day, now they're basically sucking Gaben's dick and bowing in front of his virtual monopoly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There is a core difference.

    A better analogy, would be shut up and eat the cheese it's only a trap if you get caught.

    It's still designed as a trap.

    We know epic has demonstrated that their anti-consumer by their public, frequent, numerous exclusivity deals for their store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Steam had de facto exclusivity for years and I didn't see anyone complain, weird how that goes, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Steam did not force any developer to make an exclusive. The developers had the choice of using every platform available to them. They thought steam was good enough.

    And the reason nobody complained about steam being the de facto place to get games? It treated people fairly, it was easy, good enough. More convenient than piracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If the only choice is storefront A that's used by 100% of consumers and storefront B that's used by 0.1% of consumers then storefront A has a monopoly even if technically there's a competitor. They means storefront A doesn't need to sign exclusivity agreements because it knows no one will choose not to sell through them as it would mean not selling at all.

    Epic doesn't force third party developers to sell exclusives with them either, they're free not to take their offer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think you're missing a big thing here.

    Let's take your scenario where there's stores a with 99.9% and store b with 1%

    A developer of a game can list their game on store a and store b. Store b will have to compete with higher revenue share. But that would make it enticing for developers to dual list.

    -- Legally epic is not forcing anyone to take their exclusive at the offers, but I as a customer realize they're removing choice from me as a customer. I consider that a personal affront to my agency. And I will not do business with a company who I consider as a negative, removing my choices.

    If epic just offered a better cut to developers, nobody would have an issue of them. It's the exclusivity trying to fragment the space that makes it annoying and to be avoided

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •