Epic Games Store - 88% split goes to devs


Man, I hate it when daddy, daddy, daddy, and daddy fight.

Seriously guys, it’s becoming a bit acidic in here.


What I don’t understand is the actual cycle of discussion. It’s something like this

“X game is announced to be exclusive in the Epic store for one year”

Cue 60 posts with arguments and debate around it.

Then, three week later:

“Y game is announced to be exclusive in the Epic store for one year”

Cue the another batch of 60 posts with the same arguments and debate around it.

Literally zero has changed today with respect yesterday. Epic and Steam policies are the same. There is no news here, nothing new that can alter the arguments used before, not even to review them at least.


You have a developer with backers, actual money given to them, who gave a pitch that included Steam and GOG releases who decided that Epic’s money was more important than actually delivering what they promised. That’s kind of new. I mean these guys already did a round of collecting. It’s a new low.


I can see that point as valid. Although they are offering the option to refund people, so I think it should be all right?


They cancelled linux support, too. People still begrudge them that (though only dumb linux assholes).


To some extent that is true.

I think the new pieces are this may be the first backer-funded project that Epic picked up (not 100% sure?). Beyond that there was an “Investment” campaign in Fig that further complicates this deal as I don’t know how investors will be handled.

This makes most upcoming popular backer-funded projects somewhat suspect as to if they will switch to Epic and reneg on backer promises for those with concerns about the Epic store.

Maybe a few other angles I failed to mention.

Edit: Whoops!, @Nesrie already responded, sorry.


That’s just silly. Proton will do a far better job of supporting Linux than they ever could. Oh, wait…


This thread is where I come to get my daily two minutes hate. Where else can I find such a perfect enemy?


The GOP?


No one waited for proof about Division 2.


Fig is a little weird, because it’s got that investment component, but refunds is certainly appropriate. It’s not going to buy them back any good will they just lost though.

Is there anything going to Epic that isn’t exclusive and comes with some sort of guarantee/Epic paid to do it? Thy’re being pretty open about this, well aside from actual numbers.


For your edification, I did back Phoenix Point on Fig, and their changing distributors doesn’t bother me at all. It would be like being mad if something I preordered was sent to me via DHL instead of UPS.


I don’t know if that is a fair comparison, because once DHL delivered it you would never have to deal with DHL again. In this case you have to sign up for the Epic store, install it, than run it from the Epic store every time you want to play that game.


That’s the trouble with making a point by analogy, if I don’t agree with the analogy you’ve made no point as far as I’m concerned.


I heard in this thread they promised it would still be DRM free, so you’d only need to install and use the store exactly once. I, for one, find it convenient to have my games update automatically in the background, especially in this case where we’re getting a free year of DLC content on Epic’s dime.


While I disagree with you and @legowarrior here I do really respect both of your thoughts here on QT3 along with anyone else here that sees this as a non-issue. I hope my up-thread jokes were seen as playful and not personal. I apologize if they went too far.

I sympathize in a way since I was kind of an early adopter of UPlay, Origin, and Windows Store (UWP) clients long before there was wider acceptance among the gaming population and even people here. Despite that I could usually understand why people had reservations, complaints, or concerns even if they were a non-issue to me at that time.

While I definitely can see the “Epic store is a non-issue” position, for some reason I have been overly bothered by Epic’s non-competitive practices and Fortnite-subsidized approach to the marketplace that I think has potentially long-lasting negative effects on the marketplace (such as hurting DRM-free GOG). I guess I worry that the Epic store comes in hot in 2019 with their subsidized approach, has a major disruption to the marketplace and then potentially abandons their approach down the road leaving the market destabilized, competitors like GOG limping, and chases some other fancy…dropping the store as fast as they dropped Unreal and Paragon.

Maybe my reservations are completely unfounded, but Epic’s approach does bother me at the moment.

Just wanted to apologize if my posts went too far. I need to do a better job of articulating my position in a respectful way.


Gotta love ResetERA , with the rage of the Phoenix Point timed exclusivity announcment burning like a thousand suns, someone found a epic quote from Tim Sweeney regarding selling on a closed platform from back before Fortnite was a thing.

“Well, I should be very clear,” Sweeney said. "The thing that I feel is incredibly important for the future of the industry is that the PC platform remains open, so that any user without any friction can install applications from any developer, and ensure that no company, Microsoft or anybody else, can insert themselves by force as the universal middleman, and force developers to sell through them instead of selling directly to customers. I’ve been selling games directly to customers since 1991 when I was mailing out floppy disks, and when you take that power away suddenly you have onerous certification processes, you have a distribution monopoly that tends to move towards an advertising-centric sales model."


I don’t really get the problem with Epic having a store.

OTOH, I won’t buy from them because I’ve lost access to my Epic account at least twice, and I still get messages a couple of times a week (latest: 1:30 this morning) from them saying that someone is banging on my account trying to get in. Sometimes they lock my account, sometimes they don’t. I don’t need that hassle.


To those dismissing Chinese ownership as a scare tactic: for me it’s like Murdoch owning news outlets or the Koch brothers hypothetically deciding to launch a games platform. It could appear completely open but I would remain deeply suspect, given the known political stance of ownership, and willingness to impose that view on others, and potentially use user data for other means beyond a improving a market for gaming.

When I read off hand dismissal of Tencents ownership I get the impression of ignorance of that company’s background, ties to the the CPC, etc.

Additionally, the use of “Chinese” is not racist - it’s a usage imposed by the CPC and surrendered by effectively everyone else. But when someone is criticizing China, they typically mean the CPC, just as when someone is criticizing the USA, they typically mean the US federal government or national level politicians.

That probably warrants an entire different thread if people want to dig into that, but it’s just to highlight the ownership matters. We shouldn’t pretend it doesn’t or dismiss the concern as xenophobic.


They own 40% of an online game merchant/developer. That’s not owning news outlets.