It has to be 100% on purpose to make you get the launcher. I tried to check out my EA games, and a forum post said they used to have it on the web, but not anymore.
I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine. I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost. I think they’re making the smart move sticking to their wheelhouse.
I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine.
Does it? Lets envision the minimum viable product for a game store. You have a very basic wrb interface and you download games or installers from it. Something like itch.io, or similar to GOG. Is using Epic’s launcher better than just downloading the installers from a browser? I’d argue not, given the hastle of creating a new account, installing the launcher with all its spyware and using it, rather than the bare minimum of just downloading an installer, running it, and then running the game directly.
I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost.
Look at how other platforms have eaten into Steam’s control most successfully without resorting to anything too shady. Humble Bundle and Fanatical offer unique bundles with better deals. Itch.io works more closely with devs, esspecially smaller devs. GOG cut out a niche by specifically seeking out old games to licence or fix themselves, as well as by ensuring everything is DRM free.
None of these had even a fraction of the funding Epic did. Imagine if Epic spent their early years trying to replicate these practices rather than paying to remove stuff off other platforms. Instead of spending millions on exclusivity deals, they offered customers things like weekly discount bundles, a designated DRM free section on their store, or maybe a community games section with less moderation, meant for quick-and-easy publishing for new devs.
If that isn’t enough, and they aren’t busy spending ten or hundreds of millions on pissing off their potential customers, then they could also look at loyalty programs, better sales, or even just straight-up marketing for their platform and the games on it. Epic isn’t a small company and their store has been a major investment.
All of that is just easy, obvious stuff off the top of my head, none of which even affects the launcher. Implement even half of it, (without burning the bridge with your customers first) and I’m confident you’ll have a very strong competitor to Steam.
Hard disagree on every point. Majority of their “user base” just get the free games but spend the money on steam or gog. That will never change unless the store itself becomes worth spending money on.
I don’t think anything about the launcher would have to change for them to get my money. Hell, one of the reasons I like GOG is because I don’t need to use their launcher.
Let’s remember they are already the second largest games store. Okay, let’s assume they try to compete with Steam on features. What do you think it would take to get users to switch?
When the majority of “user base” is there for free games then being second largest store doesn’t mean anything. They already said they are operating on a loss so that further invalidates it.
That said, the last time I used their launcher was a couple years ago when I was still using windows so these points are based solely on my experience back then. They didn’t even have chat option or removed at some point so there was no way to directly message or call a friend from the launcher which means I couldn’t even ask if anyone wanna play. Library GUI was shit, missing so many filter and highlight features of steam. No user review and no I don’t consider the so called game journalist reviews as actual reviews. The store suggestions was also very lacking compared to what steam offers. No workshop support like steam, no community pages, guides etc. Regional pricing was same as steam but they offer more cut to the devs which is nice but I as an user get insanely low value buying on epic than steam. The entire launcher experience was nothing but annoying at every point when Steam is at least usable and had a lot of features that makes it worth using despite all their issues. All this time, they focused on getting exclusives and developers but didn’t give 2 fucks about user experience so let’s see them fix that. Although I vehemently hate epic for a lot of things so I don’t see myself ever buying from them but I don’t see how an average user would care about any of that.
Okay, but any significant plans to make the launcher or store itself worth using?
Wondering the same… just last week i found out you cannot view your library in the web browser, only your transactions. Even after all this time.
It has to be 100% on purpose to make you get the launcher. I tried to check out my EA games, and a forum post said they used to have it on the web, but not anymore.
I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine. I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost. I think they’re making the smart move sticking to their wheelhouse.
Does it? Lets envision the minimum viable product for a game store. You have a very basic wrb interface and you download games or installers from it. Something like itch.io, or similar to GOG. Is using Epic’s launcher better than just downloading the installers from a browser? I’d argue not, given the hastle of creating a new account, installing the launcher with all its spyware and using it, rather than the bare minimum of just downloading an installer, running it, and then running the game directly.
Look at how other platforms have eaten into Steam’s control most successfully without resorting to anything too shady. Humble Bundle and Fanatical offer unique bundles with better deals. Itch.io works more closely with devs, esspecially smaller devs. GOG cut out a niche by specifically seeking out old games to licence or fix themselves, as well as by ensuring everything is DRM free.
None of these had even a fraction of the funding Epic did. Imagine if Epic spent their early years trying to replicate these practices rather than paying to remove stuff off other platforms. Instead of spending millions on exclusivity deals, they offered customers things like weekly discount bundles, a designated DRM free section on their store, or maybe a community games section with less moderation, meant for quick-and-easy publishing for new devs.
If that isn’t enough, and they aren’t busy spending ten or hundreds of millions on pissing off their potential customers, then they could also look at loyalty programs, better sales, or even just straight-up marketing for their platform and the games on it. Epic isn’t a small company and their store has been a major investment.
All of that is just easy, obvious stuff off the top of my head, none of which even affects the launcher. Implement even half of it, (without burning the bridge with your customers first) and I’m confident you’ll have a very strong competitor to Steam.
Hard disagree on every point. Majority of their “user base” just get the free games but spend the money on steam or gog. That will never change unless the store itself becomes worth spending money on.
I don’t think anything about the launcher would have to change for them to get my money. Hell, one of the reasons I like GOG is because I don’t need to use their launcher.
But the average user who will be the majority doesn’t really care about DRM and well happily use their launcher if they find it useful
Let’s remember they are already the second largest games store. Okay, let’s assume they try to compete with Steam on features. What do you think it would take to get users to switch?
When the majority of “user base” is there for free games then being second largest store doesn’t mean anything. They already said they are operating on a loss so that further invalidates it.
That said, the last time I used their launcher was a couple years ago when I was still using windows so these points are based solely on my experience back then. They didn’t even have chat option or removed at some point so there was no way to directly message or call a friend from the launcher which means I couldn’t even ask if anyone wanna play. Library GUI was shit, missing so many filter and highlight features of steam. No user review and no I don’t consider the so called game journalist reviews as actual reviews. The store suggestions was also very lacking compared to what steam offers. No workshop support like steam, no community pages, guides etc. Regional pricing was same as steam but they offer more cut to the devs which is nice but I as an user get insanely low value buying on epic than steam. The entire launcher experience was nothing but annoying at every point when Steam is at least usable and had a lot of features that makes it worth using despite all their issues. All this time, they focused on getting exclusives and developers but didn’t give 2 fucks about user experience so let’s see them fix that. Although I vehemently hate epic for a lot of things so I don’t see myself ever buying from them but I don’t see how an average user would care about any of that.