I get that Steam is where everything and everyone is at. And that the user experience and functionality is best there BUT having another player to try an compete with Steam is a good thing, right?
If anyone can try, it’s the Fortnite Bank.
So, why the hate?
You must log in or register to comment.
I rather gladly take my free games from them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/comments/ij48bf/rfuckepic_for_dummies_2020_edition/ old but gold
There’s A LOT to talk so you better check there. If you don’t want to check, wait till your account get hacked and try ask support to get it back! You can give all the info you want but 99% of the times they just say “fuck you” and you lost everything
Edit: Can you customize your profile pic there? :)
Granted not everyone cares, I remember them giving away a pfp with Sifu but there’s still no pfp customization. Why? They don’t care about you but about your money
Here are some reasons:
-
exclusivity deals, forcing them to drop from steam even after they first announced release on there. They also target crowdfunded games like phoenixpoint.
-
The launcher is spyware
https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/epic-launcher-and-privacy/123592
-
and epic is owned by tencent 40%
-
They not really trying to improve their launcher but instead focus on hurting steam and by extension the users.
Its like some shady guy trying to lure kids to a van by offering free candy.
The launcher is security risk for your system https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/comments/1hm9mh9/epic_games_launcher_had_a_serious_security_flaw/
Even if they have fixed that specific issue, why would you believe they have fixed anything else?
first comment on the reddit thread
thlm 5mo ago
Epic Games Launcher Incorrect Default Permissions Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability CVSS SCORE 7.8 This vulnerability allows local attackers to escalate privileges on affected installations of Epic Games Launcher. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the product installer. The product applies incorrect default permissions to a sensitive folder. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code in the context of SYSTEM. DISCLOSURE TIMELINE 2024-07-16 - Vulnerability reported to vendor 2024-12-04 - Coordinated public release of advisory 2024-12-06 - Advisory Updated That timeline is disgustingSo in essence, its not bad because it trys to compete with steam. Its bad because they really dont try to compete and just do anti-user things. And people dont care because “yay free games I’m never going to look at again”.
If you want to see what actual competition looks like at the moment, take a look at GOG.
I don’t hate times exclusives that much because that’s done extra cashflow for the dev to be able to either finish their game or polish it further. I still don’t think we’d have gotten Alan Wake 2 at least the version we got without that epic deal. I also don’t know if square would’ve bothered even entertaining the idea of porting all of the kingdoms hearts games either.
-
Couple other things to add to this beautiful list others have: meta gaming and chat.
They barely added achievements and only for a couple games, while steam has that, guides, community art, and even a newish notes feature in case you’re playing an OG game that makes you track stuff. Guides have kind of been better than more traditional sources.
Chat is… better on steam, although discord kind of supplanted it. Game based emoji, stickers, etc. It’s actually very good, though, with support for couch coop stream gaming, etc, with voice comms.
One could also point to the generous family sharing function, but I’m not sure what Epic does in that regard. DRM is DRM though. Do keep in mind, though, the philosophy behind Steam is to make DRM palatable by adding features. Epic philosophy (on paper) is to give devs a higher cut, although I’ve heard devs feel more supported by steam-- especially since they aren’t afraid to throw obscure indie games into a users discovery queue.
People are overly loyal to Steam and don’t realise the huge market share they have. It’s not technically a monopoly but everyone else is fighting over the 20% that Steam doesn’t have so who can blame Epic for throwing money at the problem.
Having healthy competition is a good thing and I’ve wished for a competitor to Steam for a long time until one day the monkey’s paw curled and we got Epic Game Store. To sum it up:
- Epic actively tries to introduce exclusivity deals to PC, something that goes very much against the nature of the platform. It is something we’re supposed to be above on PC and let console players deal with. PC gamers simply don’t want fragmentation in the market. We hate all the different shitty launchers publishers are making for the same reason too.
- Epic has a very hostile attitude towards Linux. Their anti cheat for example by default detects the mere fact of using Linux as a hack. For a long time if their anti cheat was included it was an absolute no go on Linux. Their store also works like crap on Linux, if at all.
- EGS lacks necessities for then to call themselves a good store like reviews, good support and refund policies, ease of mod support, wishlists, etc.
- Their UI is just plain bad.
But the main point is the first one. If they bothered making a good store they wouldn’t need to make most of PC gamers angry by introducing exclusivity deals, but they can’t be bothered to do that, so they go for hostile competition instead at the detriment of the customers.
When they buy publishers, they had them actively remove Linux support, such as Rocket League
Also chinese conglomerate tencent is the 2nd largest shareholder of epic (35%), after Tim Sweeney at 41%.
We don’t own our games anymore, so I need to know my library’s going to stick around if I’m going to invest in it. Last I heard, EGS hasn’t made a profit, so that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in me that it’ll still be around in five years.
I think competition is the answer to a lot of problems consumers face, but unfortunately the “are you going to be there tomorrow?” problem is going to be a major disadvantage for any storefront that competes with Steam. It’s why my most preferred shop is GOG, because I still have all my games with them if they close up.
Tim Sweeney is an obnoxious hypocritical dickhead who has only gotten worse and stupider and more hostile over the years, he is constantly spouting anti-consumer and anti-common-sense nonsense while acting like he’s saving gamers and nurturing his egotistical martyr complex. He has gotten so bad that he has contradicted his own past self so many times that for awhile there was a literal subreddit “TimCriticizesTim” devoted to it. Also EGS itself is garbage resource-guzzling software that almost nobody actually wants on their computer, most of the people who do use it do it either because they’re forced to so they can play games exclusively available on it, or because Epic bribes them to by giving them free games constantly. It is nasty software that collects way more data than it needs to, spying on your files and possibly other stuff too, and they also lied about it (and as far as I know still do).
Tim Sweeney traveled to Saudi Arabia with Donald Trump’s entourage this past week.
Your question makes it sound like Epic is a small new player at the market and they are trying their best and both is not true.
Epic is actively working on enshittification, Steam, at least for now, isn’t. For me it’s easy as that.
Exactly. The app has been shitty for almost a decade now. How much slack are we supposed to cut to a multibillion dollar company?
As a customer, why would I ever shop at Epic if the game is also available on Steam and typically has more features? Epic doesn’t solve any problems for me and actively introduces others, like a lack of Linux support. Do I want to play Alan Wake II? Of course I do. Am I going to buy it when they could push an update tomorrow that breaks compatibility with my operating system and offers me no recourse as a customer since it was unsupported in the first place? No, I’m not.
There are things worth solving that Steam does poorly (if they also support Linux customers). Finding out if my multiplayer game will be playable without external servers is a nightmare; DRM sucks, and I want none of it; Steam’s multiplayer/friends network has more downtime than is acceptable; Steam Input should be a platform agnostic library; etc. Instead of solving those problems, they made the store enticing for suppliers (publishers) but not customers. If I’m shopping someplace other than Steam, it’s GOG and not Epic.
Does steam really have frequent multiplayer downtime issues? I’ve never notice any issues, but I don’t play a lot of multiplayer anymore.
It’s a lot of cutting out for about a minute, but that’s just enough to interrupt a fighting game match. If it was once per week at a predictable time, that might be okay, but it’s been happening more and more lately when it used to only be on Tuesdays.
Generally is extra competition not a good thing for customers?
Generally, yes. But Epic is not competitive in any way.
Gog, then? Itch? I’m not even going to try with Microsoft or the publisher stores because people were so mad at them they effectively killed them.
Turns out nobody is competitive in any way against Steam, which seems to be the whole problem of lacking competition and having a single player dominating a market.
Absolutely, competition is allways good for the consumer, even in this case.
Since EGS offers a worse experience, I will use Steam instead.
Blackmailing customers onto your service isn’t competition.
My dislike of epic is that they seem to be buying their way into competing, instead of actually competing on features.
Free games sounds good now, but what happens when the fortnite gravy train runs out, and epic needs to start making a profit? They’ll likely have to enshittify fast.
Steam at least has a solid history of being generally good. But who knows what will happen if Gaben ever ascends.
Yeah, if they stopped spending money on exclusivity, they could invest in store features.
While I’d like to see more advanced features in other launchers (or, ideally, at the OS level in both Windows and Linux), I don’t think it’s realistic to expect new competitors to get to that level of support with 80% of the market fossilized around Steam.
They have a twenty year head start and a ridiculously dominant position. You’re not going to get a proprietary controller translation layer or a full on video capture software right off the bat. It makes sense to focus investment on getting content first, since Steam gets all content by default by having an iron grip on the marketplace, and for business reasons other launchers prioritize multiplayer features first.
Your not wrong, but I just dont get the feeling that epic is going to transition towards actually being a competitive store. This is entirely my own myopic gut feel, not based on any facts.
Yeah, poor multi billion dollar company has only had 7 years until now to make a decent games store. That’s definitely not enough time and money.
Not really how that works, though.
To be clear, I’d agree that the prioritization by a bunch of competitors has been wonky, but Steam ONLY does client. They are a very lean company that actively builds stuff to be hands-off and has stepped away from focusing heavily on game development for a while.
Could Epic invest more heavily in their client as opposed to spending all that money on giving away free games and acquiring content? I bet. I also bet if they looked at GoG building a whole interoperable client and getting nothing in return or some of the work EA wasted on their version (twice!) for also nothing in return, then prioritizing redundant features that Microsoft provides at the OS level seems like a worse investment. Particularly when the store loses money and they could be spending that on Fortnite content or Unreal features or whatever else.
Steam is a weird outlier in that their ultimate goal has been to ditch Windows/MS for a while, so their whole consolized controller-based UI, the controller layer, the background recording, the overengineered chat all make sense in the context of SteamOS having been in development for a decade. For everybody else it’s a leap of faith.
Do I think it would have been a better choice for Epic? If it was up to me I’d have given it a shot, I think. But let me be clear: I’d have done that in the understanding that the minute you match a Steam feature the cult of Gaben shall move on to a different shortcoming as the justification for their adhesion. When Steam was behind on their refund policy nobody raged against them and nobody stopped raging against EA Origin depite offering no-questions-asked refunds. Now you hear about it as a differentiator. When Epic didn’t have a perisistent shopping cart that was the dealbreaker for a while, when they implemented it’s their store design or the library paging or whatever. Nobody complains about games only being available on Steam when they aren’t elsewhere, but Epic exclusives are a travesty. This is not about the feature set or policy.
But starting to match the feature set at least would take a talking point off the table and offer a selling point.
Did I give your trolly post way too much credit and took it too seriously? Yes. Is that an apt metaphor for this entire conversation? Absolutely.
You’re unironically defending EGS and calling me a troll. If you think that’s how a store with 7 years and a billion dollars invested (Sweeney’s words, not mine) should look like, that’s fine, that’s your opinion and you’re free to use it. Personally I’m not a fan.
I’m not “defending” anybody. I’m not taking sides at all. The only reason I even jump into these is that the absolutely cult-like zeal grown-ass men deploy in defending large corporations over each other is both some Sega-vs-Nintendo console war crap I wish we could get over and not particularly good if you want a PC market not dominated by a single player.
I don’t know what percentage of the Epic Store’s funding goes to feature work versus other areas. I can guess Epic is investing very heavily on content, and I can guess that’s because it’d be really hard to meet Steam on content when every developer of any size is effectively forced to be on Steam first and everything else if and when. I don’t know how much funding that leaves for client development.
Like I said, I’d probably have refocused on client features a bit further, but I’ll also acknowledge they probably wouldn’t see that much tangible return from that investment, given that Steam fanboys already don’t give them enough credit for the very noticeable improvements they’ve actually made and they have no effective means to run PR against Steam.
Hell, if you look at it objectively they’d probably be better off focusing on their legal fights with Apple and Google and on having a decent mobile client, which Steam very much doesn’t. Maybe there’s a path forward there. I don’t have enough of an inside view to know.
So you don’t like them because they could potentially be bad in the future?
That argument is tough to come up with, phew.
Whichever gaming store I buy into, I am going to spend thousands on games. I need to be able to trust that they’ll still exist in the future.
I trust (whether correctly or not) gaben more than sweeney.
Of course, the smart thing to do is buy from GOG and keep the games backed up yourself, but failing that, steam is the next most reliable store front.
This all boils down to a personal opinion though.
No, EGS is plenty shitty now; what they’re saying is that EGS’s one singular saving grace - the free games they give away - likely won’t last for the reason they outlined.
deleted by creator
ITT: Epic is awful, Steam is great!
Me: Is GOG a joke to you people???
Kinda, unfortunately.
It was great when it had its niche, and I still buy games there occasionally, but it has poorer integration with pretty much anything, Galaxy is bloated as hell, and it has explicitly no linux/deck support.
Eta: apparently GOG actively funds Heroic launcher, didn’t know that, thanks for pointing it out to me.
So I learned recently that GOG actively funds Heroic. Which really takes some weight off of Heroic’s support for GOG game autopatching and cloud saves, meaning it may be a bit hacky and officially in “beta”, but it’s very unlikely for GOG to object to its presence.
They may not “officially” support Linux, but they don’t “explicitly” lack support.
Also, tip of the hat to Heroic, it works extremely well and very reliably. I was frustrated with Lutris and I am bummed out by how Galaxy didn’t quite get there as the one universal support launcher to handle all your libraries, but Heroic is good enough as a replacement I don’t mind nearly as much anymore. Even on Windows I’d consider it over Galaxy.
Oh, that’s actually nice to hear, makes me re-evaluate gog somewhat.
I don’t use heroic much but it’s never too late to start.
Yep. As I understand it it’s via affiliate links, so if you buy GOG games through the storefront in the Heroic UI they get a small cut, but the Heroic devs say they have spoken to GOG reps and they are broadly supportive, so unless that changes I don’t think their ability to support GOG features would be compromised any time soon.
I bought a couple games on epic when they were cheaper. I don’t think I’d do so again.
- the client isn’t as good. It’s slower, the way it paginates your games (I got a lot of free ones) is annoying. It really wants to show you store stuff
- less (zero?) Linux support
- don’t think it does the game recording steam does
- I don’t think it has the remote play together steam does
There’s probably other stuff I’m not thinking of. It’s just not as good a service.
Here’s another win for Steam:
Subnautica has a multiplayer mod, but it only works with an older version of the game. Steam lets you downgrade the version, Epic games does not.
Console gamer here as well, though with a PC and redeeming my weekly Epic Games since a few years back. I sometimes play on my PC, but mostly games I don’t have on my console.
Most of what I hear I believe it’s mostly due to the Epic Launcher being quite a bit behind standard, and the store not having great costumer service policies. I think Epic’s games with timed exclusivity don’t garner a lot of respect from the gaming community either, as they rather have freedom of choice to purchase their games on their main storefront.
Now, I think it’ll be obvious, but all of what I mentioned is further impacted by the comparison between Epic (or most other launchers, really) and Steam. Steam might as well be called the “default launcher” at this point, and naturally not everyone can compete (or they don’t want to) with the numerous and consistently good business decisions Steam tends to have, which keeps it in the top.
Not only that, and even though I still benefit from it, I’d say Epic’s strategy of offering weekly free games might feel like a sort of ‘obvious bribe’ to some, a cheap way to try and vainly make gamers turn on their main competitor. Which isn’t really moving the needle that much, because gamers preference for Steam isn’t due to free games, but good and consumer-oriented business practices.
I’m sure from gamer to gamer there’s more depth to this, but I’d say that’s the gist of it.
