That’s easy to explain. EGS managed to make everyone hate them just as it started. How do they expect to be profitable if they piss off the entire market?
There are other stores such as GoG that have actual users.
Comment on Steam announces game recording beta.
tb_@lemmy.world 4 months agoBut how does the EGS exist?
Because they are able to subsidize it with investor as well as Fortnite money. I doubt it’s turned a profit for them.
Wouldn’t exactly call that “viable competition”
calcopiritus@lemmy.world 4 months ago
woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 months ago
EGS is the Fortnite launcher. Fortnite’s player base is insanely huge. Those people have EGS installed, they just choose not to buy anything else on that platform, except maybe V Bucks.
bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
That’s the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it’s Epic’s entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam’s customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.
Zozano@lemy.lol 4 months ago
One of the problems Epic has is that it is only a store front. Steam is a fully featured platform.
Epic, in their lawsuit, wants to break Steam’s store and platform into separate applications, so they can compete.
Sort of like how people want to have different app stores on their iphones.
Difference is: Steam has no restrictions in the first place. You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want. You can use Proton if you want.
Steam offers all of these features for free. What is the point in breaking them apart.
uis@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Most important difference: Steam isn’t the only way to install apps. Even on Steam Deck.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
That’s what all users want
Oh so it’s not a store, it’s just a launcher like Heroic…wait no, it’s still a problem
Any client should be able to implement part of steam into it and any part of steam should be a standalone company
bitfucker@programming.dev 4 months ago
So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?
lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
Are they succeeding? I have no idea of the actual figures and the Internet tends to form echo chambers, so I don’t know if the sentiments I read that they’re still not much of a threat is actually representative.
EddoWagt@feddit.nl 4 months ago
Based on the fact that I’ve literally never heard anybody actually like the epic games store, I don’t think they’re successful
lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
That would be rather pathetic then, to resort to anticompetitive practices and still not prevail.