The Epic Games Store has seen a strong increase in user numbers over the past six years, reaching an impressive total of 295 million users. However, third-party revenue has not grown at the same pace.
I always felt there was promise to a new store with a big backing to challenge Steam. I think Steam is great and it’s my primary PC games store, but I see the concern of only having one real player in the market. But EGS simply hasn’t done it. It feels like they recognized the reasons Steam is such a huge player in the space; it’s not just the library and the sales, but the level of consumer-focused support and features the platform offers. And that’s the key, Steam is a platform, not just a store.
EGS has never become a platform. It’s missing features, it’s social features are anemic, it’s like they put some effort in to get it off the ground and not broken, and then have just hoped giving away free games will somehow magically convince people to spend money there.
I think there’s reasons to be concerned about Steam, but you cannot ignore how broadly consumer friendly the platform is. Their hardware initiatives only highlight what a complete package their ecosystem is and they’re loaded with some of the most consumer-friendly choices in the industry.
EGS is stuck in no-man’s land. Steam is a better platform, GoG is more consumer-friendly. Humble has Choice which can be a good deal. Fanatical does a better job with sales and credit from purchase. EGS just kind of sits in a no-mans land with no compelling features other than you don’t need to spend money to get games, which is great for us but a terrible business strategy for Epic.
The problem is these stores (Epic but also the Microsoft Store and Amazon’s PC game store) only come along because some executive says “hey what if instead of Valve taking a cut from most PC games, we took a cut from most PC games”, there’s 0 interest or intent for them to be competition (as seen by the exclusives) for Steam or improve the developer/user experience.
Any time these massive companies offer a cheaper subsidised alternative to any existing product it’s to push out the smaller players with less resources and build their own monopoly.
Absolutely. It’s also an immense amount of work to get a platform up to a competitive standard with Steam; I’m not sure a small company will ever be able to catch up in any short term time frame.
But stores like Fanatical, GreenManGaming, GameBillet, etc. have the better idea of just being stores that focus on getting customers better deals. They don’t even attempt to edge onto Steam’s turf because a storefront can’t compete with Steam, nor can a half-baked launcher.
Reality is that Valve has functionally a 20 year head start on any company that wants to try and edge in on their turf. So it can’t be done just to get a cut of sales because you’re not going to have the follow-through to build the user base if that’s your reason.
I disagree with your statement. 20 years of head start could also be seen as 20 years of polishing a previously non-existent service. Today Steam’s features are widely known. Just make an app with same or similar features and you’re golden. The blueprint is there!
As an example of “what-could-have-been” I would present Immich which is an alternative to Google Photos and iCloud. Developed by a tiny group of people. It does lack some features that Google Photos/iCloud has. But for the most part it easily could substitute anyone’s photo-storing needs.
If bunch of people with no money in their pocket and only free time off work managed to develop a fully functional, well polished photo app that would rival market giants, why cant market giants make something that would rival Steam?
I see your point, but I also think that Steam is so much more than what your example gives. In your case, Steam also has Instagram built in, it has photography forums, it has low-level interfaces to standardize hardware control across multiple camera brands and types, it has a body & lens store, it offers additional software to aid in photo editing, and… and… and…
It’s really an impressive accomplishment what Valve have done with Steam and the hardware/software in its orbit. And that’s not even mentioning all the work that they’ve poured into the open-source community to make Linux a viable gaming platform. Yes, it serves them all in the end, but little of it is easy and it’s all taken a lot of work over the years.
Comparing a photo app to steam is like comparing basic addition to quantum physics.
The sheer amount of complexity that goes into the business side out side of just the app it self is truly immense.
Steam is more then just an app. It’s entire business empire with years and years of connections, agreements and contracts, secondary services, infrastructure and more.
Even if you managed to clone steam 1:1 you would still have nothing. The app alone is honestly the least important aspect of the entire thing.
Point of my comparison is that even if photo app as good as Google Photos can be recreated with barely any money in the pocket, companies that have pockets full of money could do much more than a simple photo app. Epic has cash to fund a fairly competitive Steam clone. Microsoft is in exact situation and probably has even more money than Epic. Both of them have teams that could do this in a span of a year or so. They are just choosing not to.
Steam is more then just an app. It’s entire business empire with years and years of connections, agreements and contracts, secondary services, infrastructure and more.
Yeah. So is MS and Epic. And they both are older than Valve.
One of the reasons EGS fails is Fortnite in my opinion. In Fortnite they have done all these things: they created a platform with social abilities and all that. Fortnite still brings them lots and lots of money, but this shouldn’t be in Fortnite it should be in their launcher. It could be even more integrated than Steam does. Why not let games grant you skins you can use in other games as a character model (given the game supports it)?
Skins part would work only if that is a game made by Epic and only if they would want to implement it. If we are talking about skins that after purchase are available in every or most games - that will never happen. That idea is dead on arrival. I recall web3 supporters claimed that this will happen and even then everybody laughed at them.
I always felt there was promise to a new store with a big backing to challenge Steam. I think Steam is great and it’s my primary PC games store, but I see the concern of only having one real player in the market. But EGS simply hasn’t done it. It feels like they recognized the reasons Steam is such a huge player in the space; it’s not just the library and the sales, but the level of consumer-focused support and features the platform offers. And that’s the key, Steam is a platform, not just a store.
EGS has never become a platform. It’s missing features, it’s social features are anemic, it’s like they put some effort in to get it off the ground and not broken, and then have just hoped giving away free games will somehow magically convince people to spend money there.
I think there’s reasons to be concerned about Steam, but you cannot ignore how broadly consumer friendly the platform is. Their hardware initiatives only highlight what a complete package their ecosystem is and they’re loaded with some of the most consumer-friendly choices in the industry.
EGS is stuck in no-man’s land. Steam is a better platform, GoG is more consumer-friendly. Humble has Choice which can be a good deal. Fanatical does a better job with sales and credit from purchase. EGS just kind of sits in a no-mans land with no compelling features other than you don’t need to spend money to get games, which is great for us but a terrible business strategy for Epic.
The problem is these stores (Epic but also the Microsoft Store and Amazon’s PC game store) only come along because some executive says “hey what if instead of Valve taking a cut from most PC games, we took a cut from most PC games”, there’s 0 interest or intent for them to be competition (as seen by the exclusives) for Steam or improve the developer/user experience.
Any time these massive companies offer a cheaper subsidised alternative to any existing product it’s to push out the smaller players with less resources and build their own monopoly.
Absolutely. It’s also an immense amount of work to get a platform up to a competitive standard with Steam; I’m not sure a small company will ever be able to catch up in any short term time frame.
But stores like Fanatical, GreenManGaming, GameBillet, etc. have the better idea of just being stores that focus on getting customers better deals. They don’t even attempt to edge onto Steam’s turf because a storefront can’t compete with Steam, nor can a half-baked launcher.
Reality is that Valve has functionally a 20 year head start on any company that wants to try and edge in on their turf. So it can’t be done just to get a cut of sales because you’re not going to have the follow-through to build the user base if that’s your reason.
I disagree with your statement. 20 years of head start could also be seen as 20 years of polishing a previously non-existent service. Today Steam’s features are widely known. Just make an app with same or similar features and you’re golden. The blueprint is there!
As an example of “what-could-have-been” I would present Immich which is an alternative to Google Photos and iCloud. Developed by a tiny group of people. It does lack some features that Google Photos/iCloud has. But for the most part it easily could substitute anyone’s photo-storing needs.
If bunch of people with no money in their pocket and only free time off work managed to develop a fully functional, well polished photo app that would rival market giants, why cant market giants make something that would rival Steam?
I see your point, but I also think that Steam is so much more than what your example gives. In your case, Steam also has Instagram built in, it has photography forums, it has low-level interfaces to standardize hardware control across multiple camera brands and types, it has a body & lens store, it offers additional software to aid in photo editing, and… and… and…
It’s really an impressive accomplishment what Valve have done with Steam and the hardware/software in its orbit. And that’s not even mentioning all the work that they’ve poured into the open-source community to make Linux a viable gaming platform. Yes, it serves them all in the end, but little of it is easy and it’s all taken a lot of work over the years.
Comparing a photo app to steam is like comparing basic addition to quantum physics.
The sheer amount of complexity that goes into the business side out side of just the app it self is truly immense.
Steam is more then just an app. It’s entire business empire with years and years of connections, agreements and contracts, secondary services, infrastructure and more.
Even if you managed to clone steam 1:1 you would still have nothing. The app alone is honestly the least important aspect of the entire thing.
Point of my comparison is that even if photo app as good as Google Photos can be recreated with barely any money in the pocket, companies that have pockets full of money could do much more than a simple photo app. Epic has cash to fund a fairly competitive Steam clone. Microsoft is in exact situation and probably has even more money than Epic. Both of them have teams that could do this in a span of a year or so. They are just choosing not to.
Yeah. So is MS and Epic. And they both are older than Valve.
By going the route exclusives they deliberately avoided being competition and cemented themselves as the early access platform with no features.
Hades was as good as it was because it had a year to be mediocre on EGS first
One of the reasons EGS fails is Fortnite in my opinion. In Fortnite they have done all these things: they created a platform with social abilities and all that. Fortnite still brings them lots and lots of money, but this shouldn’t be in Fortnite it should be in their launcher. It could be even more integrated than Steam does. Why not let games grant you skins you can use in other games as a character model (given the game supports it)?
Skins part would work only if that is a game made by Epic and only if they would want to implement it. If we are talking about skins that after purchase are available in every or most games - that will never happen. That idea is dead on arrival. I recall web3 supporters claimed that this will happen and even then everybody laughed at them.