• Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the most asinine approach IMO.

    “Let’s release a worse product. Hey, no one likes it. Okay, let’s spend money on games so THEY can essentially force people to use our software. Hey, still, no one really likes it. Okay, let’s try to give away stuff for free. Hey, people use our thing for the free stuff but still no one likes it for any other reason.”

    They just keep spending money to up their numbers and their product is still missing features and inferior to competition. They spend big money on exclusivity, but that is only temporary - if that’s how you’re getting your customers, you’re going to have to keep doing it forever to retain them. If people only use you for free stuff, you’re just going to have to keep giving stuff away at a loss to retain them.

    This model is not sustainable. You’re not doing anything that aligns value with your customers besides just throwing free stuff at them. That’s not a business.

    What’s especially sad to me is they could literally have just spent that same money to improve their launcher and have an actual product. Instead they’ve invested in temporary stats. They’re essentially bankrolling other devs on games with temporary popularity instead of in their lifelong product.

    Using other games exclusivity as sway into your ecosystem only works when you have a good product the person would be interested in but they haven’t seen it yet. EGS is currently something people are essentially coerced into using but no one really gets any real value out of it other than “well I couldn’t buy this game anywhere else”

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plus it’s not like there wasn’t room for a good shopping client, if you go smart about it.

      Steam had at the time - and still has - tons of bad UI design, stemming for its very old layouts wrangling with newer client additions and changes. Plus Steam for the longest time until the new client solved it had serious issues with late boots and hanging closures. GOG had just tried to bring out their own client a few years before, but in the move to GOG Galaxy had gotten a lot of ire and fucked a lot of things up. All the per-developer clients were berated constantly.
      There was room there. But Epic, hell, this is so not it. Your client is so much worse than even the bad competitors…

      • Moneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam may suck at extra goodies like streaming but they sure as hell don’t suck at selling games. Constant sales, cloud saves, pre-downloads, a solid friend system for co-op games. They nail all the important shit and that’s really all that matters to most people.

    • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it just depends on how long they can do this. I think they are banking on getting the fortnite kiddies hooked on the store. They typically have far less disposable income (yet they still charge kids for 20$ skins), they will most likely not have a super large steam library (probably due to the aformentioned skins) so they are banking on the store being that kids default to Epic rather than steam. Its not terribly odd since Steam basically did the same thing, when it used to have those mega sales with the flash sales and the such. That is when the love for Steam basically exploded and its been cruising on that hypetrain for a while.