The Problems With The Epic Store (The Jimquisition)

If these were the only issues, then I wouldn't mind just not having an account on the storefront and ignoring it and letting those that don't mind it those issues use it. "Yeah, your storefront is crap, is barren with features, has worse turnaround customer service time than Valve, and is the equivalent of the rich kid trying to buy his way into the popular kids club, but it's fine because I wanna play X game." The actual problem (and, I really wish you would have discussed this) is that the service is outright malicious. For instance, their data security is so well implemented that they make a wet paper bag look like Fort Knox. How is it acceptable that within Epic store's brief existence, they have already had two massive data breaches? And, outside of that, security is effectively non-existent either, be it for securing your accounts or not wanting to have some idiot create an account with your credentials, waiting for you to take it back and buy some games, so the prick can contact support and take away the account away from you. Additionally, their outright refusal to comply with GDPR is certainly concerning. I realize that GDPR isn't all chocolate tulips (e.g. Article 13, etc.), but it's also one of the strongest means of consumer data protections available. And, that nicely brings us back to Tencent. I'm aware that you name dropped them, but I wish you would have elaborated on their history and what they contribute to the field of gaming. Because, you know how you're worried that GDPR Article 13 is going to censor creators? That's literally what the entire purpose of Tencent's existence is. They live only to censor creators, kill creativity, spy on everyone they can, and sell that data to the Chinese government. Just as a little example, WeChat is effectively China's WhatsApp that's operated by Tencent. Tencent takes all of those conversations and people's identities and relays them to the Chinese government. People have litearlly gotten arrested for talking negatively about the Chinese government on the platform. If you're dubious in any way, there's always this disclaimer that spells it out about as plainly as it is possible: "We may share personal information we collect within our family of companies. We also will share information with service providers that perform services on our behalf and under our instructions."

Egor A. Palchyk

Interesting. All I could find (easily) was that they owned 40%, but not whether any one party owned a majority. And that's voting shares? I've heard of companies with nonvoting shares.

Twit In A Hat

cool

I wouldn't be too surprised if Linux support is on their roadmap somewhere, but with a market share hovering around 1%, there's no advantage to announcing Linux support ahead of time. The way the games industry is nowadays, you can't announce anything unless you're 100% sure you're going to do it, and do it on time. The slightest slip-up and you've got hordes of people (who wouldn't even use the thing) crowing that you've "lied to customers again".

Andy

First, a brief nitpick: Tencent isn't Epic's parent company. They aren't a majority shareholder either. They just have a lot of shares in Epic. It's a common myth and conspiracy that Tencent/the Chinese government owns Epic, and one that (not in your video, but elsewhere) often ties into not terribly subtle conspiracy theories laden with anti-Chinese racism. So that out of the way, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed this video. I don't quite agree with your take but it's such a detailed, nuanced, and insightful analysis of the launcher war. Nice work!

As someone who has always preferred DRM-free and only ever tolerated Steam, I have seen timed Steam exclusives time and time again for <em>yonks</em> (just never announced as such), or even worse, the non-Steam versions of a non-exclusive left to rot while the Steam version gets updates. So I have absolutely zero sympathy for Steam users here. I have also never cared about Steam's other features, which Steam defenders are always quick to point out ("it's not just a store!"). I just want a store, to buy my games, download them, and play them. So Epic Games Store requiring you use a launcher is bullshit. I also fear their lack of Linux support is a step backward for the industry's general increasing support for the platform. It's also a bit perplexing, as the company's own game engine supports Linux.

Twit In A Hat

That Pink Floyd Reference! Was beautiful. More of that.

Steam itself has such a cult following. (Sorry, I tried to do a paragraph break and it taking that as an enter.) The only reason I gave in and installed it was Broken Age.

Dorkvania

Yet when Broken Age decided to give it's backers Steam copies in place of DRM-free I couldn't complain anywhere without the Steam fans yelling at me like I was hurting gaming by not having Steam. (They said they'd send DRM free copies later, it was just a timed thing. but I had to install Steam to play it when others were and I never got my DRM-free copy.)

Dorkvania

Sweeny owns the majority share of Epic, a takeover is not possible unless he decides to sell to Tencent.

Mithos56

Main reason why I stick to Steam: Linux support, since I am using Linux and Valve supports it greatly. Epic not only didn't release EGS for Linux, but they seem to actively ignore it completely.

RTheren

A few things I feel obliged to bring up. At last I heard, Tencent owns 40% of Epic. It's certainly enough to be concerning- and raises the looming question of how easy a takeover by China's games behemoth would be, with all the attendant issues there- but, technically, that doesn't make them Epic's "parent company". Epic's more favorable profit-share is certainly a justifiable reason to have a game on their store. But it's entirely possible to have a game on both Steam AND Epic's store; it's not a A not B situation (until one agrees to it for that sweet, sweet exclusivity loot.) Phoenix Point is in an un-enviable situation, and one could easily do a whole video on crowd-funded projects done by groups or individuals that had no clear understanding of how much money they would *actually* need to fulfill their ambitions (and another whole video about those who had enough for their original ambitions, then proceeded to allow that to *broaden* their ambitions until they could no longer fulfill their original prospectus.) But at the same time, the implication that they're being held to an unfair level of scrutiny rings false to me. No one forced them to tell their backers they would provide the game on Steam and GOG; they made that promise and reneged. Their original, stated plan and the funding it raised was what allowed them to create something that could attract Epic's attention in the first place. I don't blame the backers for being pissed off. I should also note that while consoles are becoming more like PCs every day, there's still usually some level of conversion work necessary to bring a game from PS4 to Switch or from XBox to Steam. Exclusivity *within* a single platform is something new, and understandably, unwelcome. And certainly the borderline monopoly imposed by Steam renders talk about the "openness" of the PC platform somewhat moot, but still; the fact that what stands between the consumer and their game is not the ability of the code to run on the platform at all but rather the shenanigans of the gatekeepers cannot help but chafe. (Cue rose-tinted nostalgia for physical media with a round of forgetfulness about DRM.) Finally, amongst its other growing pains, it should be noted that Epic has suffered some data breaches. That in particular quivers the hairs on the back of my neck whenever someone speaks of installing the Epic launcher as though it were a mere inconvenience. I should very much like the option to wait until a more mature platform can convince me my data is secure. (And, yes, Steam has in the past had issues of its own; that doesn't make opening *another* potential security door into my system any more appealing.)

Kraken