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.

    • theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not fully sure the steam comparison works only because that was a different time.

      With that said I still think epic has staying power if for no other reason than anyone mildly interested has a massive epic library sitting there. I don’t spend a ton of time thinking about epic, but I do want to keep my account because of all those games.

      • XenoStare@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Making it seem like Steam’s problems for the first ten years were some software bugs inherent to all software.

        It required you login every 48 hrs to two weeks to play most games for DRM purposes, they had no return policy, app’s buttons barely worked, overlay made games run considerably worse, it frequently took up a shitton of resources. The 48 hr thing meant that if you were offline for a bit and Steam was down or slowed (any time a bit sale happened or a big game was launched) most games were unplayable.

        Steam came out in 2003 and tons of people complained about Steam DRM hearkening the end of actually owning videogames until at least 2012. GoG came out in 2008, didn’t require a launcher at all, sidestepped everything wrong with Steam.

        There’s been non-buggy, not anti-consumer software as long as there’s been computers, Steam prior to like 2016 was not that. There’s been an alternative, buying physical games (until they all started using Steam DRM or worse) and GoG.

        Yeah Epic Launcher is barebones. Both Steam and Epic are anti-consumer because of DRM, and making users beholden to any buggy software update to play software they purchase. At least Epic pays devs.

        • theragu40@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I mean I hope my comment doesn’t seem like it’s blindly defending Steam or anything. I think steam today is a good platform. Not talking about their 30% cut, I just mean from the perspective of gamers.

          But its launch was anything but smooth. I HATED steam when it launched as a requirement for HL2. I had dialup and the experience was utter shit. I recall being so upset at what a pain it was.

          Nothing about epic has ever been as frustrating as the early life of steam.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam literally forced me to install it when I bought Portal on CD back in the day.

        The only thing that was on that CD was a Steam installer and a code.

        • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is kind of like complaining that you have to own a Switch to play Nintendo 1st party games.

          Portal is a Valve game. Steam is the PC launcher for Valve games.

          FWIW, Portal was available on other platforms without Steam. I had my copy of the Orange Box for the Xbox 360 and that didn’t require Steam or a Steam account to play.

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Civ 5 for me. I stuck with physical because “all my games in one place” was my CD binder.

          Steam suuuuuuuuucked back then I avoided it just as much as the “Fuck Epic” people do to that. Hated everything it stood for. The idea of a launcher for a game was madness.

          I got over it.

      • moody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The alternative back then was to buy physical games or to pirate them.

        As bad as the Steam experience was at the time, it was still convenient. Nowhere else could you reliably download games at those speeds, and you could legally purchase games without leaving the house, not to mention the prices.

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      When a new product like a TV from a new manufacturer shows up people judge it by standards from 10 years ago as opposed to current ones? Same from software?

        • NightOwl@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Half Life 2 launched in 2004. Which will be 20 years next year. I’m not sure why state of a product from over a decade ago matters for judging products now. I’m not exactly time traveling and being forced to use 2004 steam.

            • NightOwl@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s an incredibly poor look having to even resort to comparing the state of 2004. That’s like someone referring back to the days of flip phones for why a new current day phone release should get a pass. Even having to do that says it all.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why couldn’t that happen a second time?

              Maybe because steam is already extremely popular and has improved more in the last few years than Epic has.

              I don’t know how popular stardock was but it couldn’t have been anywhere close to how popular steam is now.

              Epic hasn’t really done anything to improve.