Epic: A Marketing Black Hole

[Spalls Hurgenson]

(TL;DR: Some developers are questioning the benefits of selling on the
Epic Game Store)

You know me; I like railing on the Epic Game Store. Their aggressive
marketing, their client's lack of features, the exclusives... none of
these strategies sat well with me. Yet, for all that, I actually
welcomed their entry into the digital-games marketplace.

I don't necessarily have an issue with Steam - other than the sort of
issue I have with /any/ digital storefront where you are dependent on
the goodwill of the seller to keep playing your game - but its utter
dominance of the marketplace is unnerving. Valve has - by and large -
been an exceptionally good custodian of PC gaming, but there is no
guarantee that they won't shift gears tomorrow, cutting back on the
pro-consumer features and polices that make them so popular. The best
way to avoid this is through strong competition, and - as much as I
love GOG and Itch.io - they really wasn't anyone up to the task. Until
Epic.

So yay for Epic getting in the game, boo for how they implemented it.
Still, even if Epic did act in a way that many customers found
offensive, it had a lot of promise to developers.

Except some developers have started to question the benefits of EGS,
and whether Epic's exclusivity is worth it. In particular, this
discussion was started with Dave Oshry - Indie developer behind "Dusk"
and other games - who commented that EGS is a "marketing black hole".*

For a developer, going to the Epic Game Store has some immediate
benefits. Epic has been extremely generous with payouts to Indie
developers; they take a smaller cut of the initial sale, there's the
immediate payment if you agree to sell exclusively on the EGS, and
reduced licensing fees if you use EGS and Unreal. For a small
developer, that sort of money can mean the difference between
releasing a half-assed, unfinished beta that only gets to market
because you can't actually afford to keep developing it, and actually
creating the game as initially envisioned that has a chance of
recouping some of your investment.

But it's more than just the money. There are more ephemeral benefits
too. For instance, if you publish on the Epic Game Store, you're
facing less direct competition. There are several dozen new games on
Steam every day; it's easy for even the best Indie titles to get
buried beneath the deluge. With fewer daily releases - and fewer total
games - in Epics storefront, any new game has a better chance of being
noticed. Epic's strict control on user feedback is also extremely
beneficial to developers; it essentially hides any downvotes and only
promotes positive ratings. For better or worse, a game released by an
awful publisher can't get review-bombed. This insulation from user
feedback also helps developers feel less at the mercy of a small cadre
of users during early-access releases. This lets the developers create
the game /they/ want as opposed to having to follow popular trends in
order to forestall bad reviews before the game even gets out of Alpha.

But...

Epic Game Store's marketplace is tiny in comparison to the behemoth
that is Steam (Epic was initially hoping to reach 30% market share by
2024, and has since retracted that initial goal, implying both that
they won't achieve it, and that they haven't even reached that much
yet). Epic simply is not a destination for most PC gamers, with most
people never going further than looking for a game on Steam.** Epic is
terrible at promoting its games, both in the client and outside its
storefront. Its recommendation algorithms are vastly inferior to those
of Valve's. The only people, one developer notes, who know to go to
Epic to look for your game, are the die-hard fans who already know
about your game. But everyone else? The Epic Game Store does nothing
to push your game towards them.

In fact, many smaller developers say that the best use of Epic is as a
revenue source to do a 'soft launch' of a game that then funds the
polishing of the title so it will be well-received when - after the
exclusivity deal ends - the game is inevitably released on Steam.

None of which is really a surprise. The advantages of Epic to the
developer has, in fact, been one of Epic's own selling points. But its
advantages to the customer, the people that actually buy and play the
game? Those have been more nebulous. Their client is worse. The prices
aren't really any lower (except when subsidized through $10 vouchers
from Epic itself). There's less opportunity for player's to have a
voice or be part of a community. There's less people using EGS, so any
community would be smaller anyway. Epic's aggressive tactics soured
the opinion of many from the start, to the point where many people
purposefully avoid buying products on the storefront. And now it turns
out that the better version of the game ends up on Steam anyway. So -
other than the rare instance where you just MUST have a new game on
day one - why not just use Steam? Sure you may have to wait a while
for the game to get there... but it is not like there's a dearth of
new titles anyway.

All of which I am sure Epic knows. Their plan seems to be to just keep
doing what they've been doing in hope that - eventually - their
marketshare will make them formidable enough that gamer's don't
consider the EGS as an also-ran that you never think about (except
maybe on Thursdays, when you get a free game).

Indie developers - especially the smaller ones - aren't going to
abandon them either; the financial incentives offered by Epic are more
often than not the only thing that keeps them afloat long enough to
finish their games. But the situation does little to attract the
mid-tier and larger developers, and in the long run that may be
devastating to Epic's plans. The tiny Indies sometimes manage to
deliver massive hits, but do enough of them do regularly enough to
counterbalance the excessive investments Epic is making into their
creation? It honestly seems doubtful that even Epic's Fortnite
warchest can keep up with that sort of outlay for much longer.

What Epic really needs is to come out with a 'killer app' of their
own; a reason for gamers to want to use EGS rather than the
competition. It can't just be another game - even the appeal and
mega-success of "Fortnite"wasn't enough to damage Steam's popularity -
but instead it needs to be something about EGS itself that attracts
the gamer. But honestly - short of Epic handing out EGS-only VR
headsets free to all its users (or something as outrageously wild as
that) I can't imagine what it would take for people to see Epic as
their first-stop when it comes to gaming. And if Epic can't promise an
audience - and the sales that come with it - why should any but the
most cash-strapped developers see it as an alternative to Steam?

(Alternately, Epic might also win if Valve does something incredibly
stupid but that seems even less likely and hardly something on which
to base a multi-billion dollar business plan).

Epic Game Store isn't going anywhere, but unless and until Epic
reveals some cunning strategy, it seems less and less likely that it
will ever come close to matching - must less overcoming - Valve's
success with Steam. And it looks like developers are starting to take
notice of this, and reconsidering their options.


----------------------
* https://twitter.com/DaveOshry/status/1555436238814924800

** there's a related story - I can't find the link, I'm sorry - of how
- when searching for a new, exclusive-to-Epic game on Google - that
the first search results point to the game's page on Steam (where it
tells you the game isn't released there yet) and how few people then
follow up to look for the game on Epic. This points to how
inconsequential Epic is to most customers - they don't even think to
look there - and how poorly Epic does with its marketing and
search-engine optimization

[JAB]

On 18/08/2022 20:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> (TL;DR: Some developers are questioning the benefits of selling on the
> Epic Game Store)
>

<snip>

I did watch a video about the same topic recently and the example they
used was Darkest Dungeon II. I've heard of the first one but I didn't
realise II had been released even though the original was pretty
successful. I get my game release news from three main places - YT,
YouTube for PW :-), Steam and of course our little group. If a game
doesn't appear there I'm unlikely to have heard about it.

One thing you did touch on was algorithms that 'push' games towards
players. Steam is ok with that but the two problems I find are there's a
lot more to liking a game than is it the same genre tag. So I get
recommend Elden Ring even though I don't own a single game like that.
Related is how self-reenforcing is it. So I buy a game because it was
recommended to me and the algorithm then just offers me more of the same
and so on goes that circle.

As you say though it would be nice to have at least some real
competition to Steam as although so far I think I'd describe them as
pro-customer who knows what would happen if someone comes in with an
offer that Gabe can't ignore.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:46:03 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 18/08/2022 20:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>> (TL;DR: Some developers are questioning the benefits of selling on the
>> Epic Game Store)

><snip>

>One thing you did touch on was algorithms that 'push' games towards
>players. Steam is ok with that but the two problems I find are there's a
>lot more to liking a game than is it the same genre tag. So I get
>recommend Elden Ring even though I don't own a single game like that.
>Related is how self-reenforcing is it. So I buy a game because it was
>recommended to me and the algorithm then just offers me more of the same
>and so on goes that circle.

Steam's algorithms are imperfect but they apparently are
head-n-shoulders above Epic's attempts. Valve's attempts at least
present less-commonly known games out of its libary to players whereas
Epic's recommendations are - so say some developers - just titles that
are popular. So if you're game isn't a hit, you'll never gain enough
of an audience to become one... unless you've resources enough to
advertise the game outside Epic (hence, the 'black hole' description).
Steam is less restrictive in its selection, promoting well-reviewed
titles even if they smaller audiences.

Of course, Steam's huge library (more games to compete against) and
somewhat dodgy recommendations means that promotion may not result in
extra sales... but developers on Epic sometimes feel as if they've put
a game on EGS only to find its been buried never to be seen by mortal
men again (thus, only fans who know of a game's existence finds it).

Steam's algorithms may not be effective, but they at least give
developers the appearance that Valve is on their side, whereas on EGS
it seems as if Epic isn't doing anything.

>As you say though it would be nice to have at least some real
>competition to Steam as although so far I think I'd describe them as
>pro-customer who knows what would happen if someone comes in with an
>offer that Gabe can't ignore.

Or if Mr Newell has the inevitable coronary failure he's been courting
for decades. Its unlikely his heirs will have the same passion towards
the business as he does and who knows what changes they'd make to
score a bit of extra revenue?

[JAB]

In fairness to Steam I don't really know how you solve the issue because
how can their algorithm really know what games you might like if they're
quite different to ones you've already played and what makes someone
like a game is also a rather complex affair.

They also do have Steam labs and there's quite a few experiments they've
tried to improve the search capabilities. I was just playing with the
new discovery queue and it's just more pleasant to use as it's basically
a pre-loaded set of 'tiles' you can quickly flick through compared to
the somewhat clunky current version.

[Werner P.]

Am 18.08.22 um 21:44 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> So yay for Epic getting in the game, boo for how they implemented it.
> Still, even if Epic did act in a way that many customers found
> offensive, it had a lot of promise to developers.

Well my only problem with Epic is Tim Sweeney and his attitude, they
really had all the goodwill but their stance on locking games away as
timed exclusives cost them their entire goodwill. Add on top the
occasional trolling comment of Tim Sweeney, which usually bites him in
the ... a few years later and the general attitude of, Valve earned
billions by opening a market which we declared dead and now we want in
by all force, does not make them sympathethic.

The funny thing is
Sweeney declares PC gaming basically dead and not worthwhile due to piracy
Newell sees piracy as a service issue and rakes in billions a few years
later.
Sweeney jealous now tries to force hin is own store with less service
dumps millions into locked games does not get any inch forward.
The same now with Linux gaming.
Sweeney: Gaming on Linux is like people shouting they want to move to
Canada for political reasons
Valve sees Linux as their saftey net just in case Microsoft closes
windows, dumps in millions to improve game compatibility and now brings
out a successful console on top of it which runs basically 90% of their
huge catalog day zero.
Epic cries fould and tries to smear a weird picture in social media that
the Steam Deck should run Fortnite (which Epic refuses a port for
political reasons)

So the entire picture I have of Epic is like this unwanted bully with
too much cash, who pays to have friends but literally no one really likes.
Or also a compariso would be that Epic/Sweeney is the Eric Cartman of
gaming, that comes probably closer!

[Spalls Hurgenson]

I can't say I disagree; as I said, it's Epic's implementation and not
its idea that was wrong. Epic didn't enter the market with the idea of
offering a better product but instead hoped that its massive Fortnite
warchest would allow the company to, essentially, buy its way to
market prominence (either by locking games behind exclusivity deals,
giving customers $10 vouchers, or just a lot of free games).

And it worked... to a degree. EGS went from almost no users to tens of
millions, and many developers rushed to the platform. But millions of
users doesn't necessarily translate to millions of sales. A vast
number of its users only visit the Epic Game Store for the free games
and never buy anything there. Whether this is because they don't like
Epic, or find EGS inconvenient, or because it doesn't have any games
or prices they like, a lot of them turn to Steam first. And the
titular 'black hole' that is Epic's marketing does nothing to change
that.

I admit, I'm not a fan of EGS for... well, pretty much everything you
listed in your post. Still, I was willing to give the company a chance
/because/ I recognized the importance of a competitive marketplace.
But they've done nothing to appease (or even really answer) critics -
whether those critics are gamers or developers - and that hands-off
approach seems to finally be biting them in the ass.

The thing is, under better management the Epic Game Store probably
could have been a real competitor to Steam. While I appreciate that
Valve hasn't been too egregiously evil in their stewardship, neither
have they been very proactive. Mostly, Valve just sits there and
collects its cut. Had Epic not been so aggressive in its attitude, and
had it waited until it had a competitive client (and I don't just mean
something with a shopping cart, but with things like remote play,
broadcasting and mod-support built in) it probably would have done a
lot better.

But their frat-boy attitude may very well have cost them their chance.

And sadly, that means that the only real competitors to Steam are
subscription based services, which are becoming increasingly popular
but that I think are - in the long run - worse for gamers. So while
Sweeney and his hyper-aggressive masochism can DIAF, I nonetheless
wish Epic had made a better showing.

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 02:24 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> And it worked... to a degree. EGS went from almost no users to tens of
> millions, and many developers rushed to the platform. But millions of
> users doesn't necessarily translate to millions of sales. A vast
> number of its users only visit the Epic Game Store for the free games
> and never buy anything there

Yes, I am one of those, sure I have the EGS store installed, but only
for the free games, and given their stance on timed exclusives it stays
that way. I was bitten twice by them by buying away kickstarter projects
which I spent money on to get a steam or gog key. Thats what brought
them onto my radar big time to begin with, my distaste for them has not
been reduced since them.

Add on top their knee ass reaction regarding the steam deck which has
become my prime gaming machine and I have even less incentive to buy
there. Sure you can install games on the deck from the EGS thanlks to
the work of the Heroic project people, but why should I even bother,
this is more hazzle than simply buy it from steam click on a button and
be done with it.

As I said, Eric Cartman of game stores, you cannot avoid them for the
free candy they offer but stay the hell away from them dealing with them
for any other reason.

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 07:38 schrieb Werner P.:

>
> As I said, Eric Cartman of game stores, you cannot avoid them for the
> free candy they offer but stay the hell away from them dealing with them
> for any other reason.

Just to give another quote from Sweeney: "Our customers are not the
people buying the games but the game studios"

I think this attitude says it all, he said that regarding the EGS and
their behavior buying exclusives!

[JAB]

On 24/08/2022 01:24, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I can't say I disagree; as I said, it's Epic's implementation and not
> its idea that was wrong. Epic didn't enter the market with the idea of
> offering a better product but instead hoped that its massive Fortnite
> warchest would allow the company to, essentially, buy its way to
> market prominence (either by locking games behind exclusivity deals,
> giving customers $10 vouchers, or just a lot of free games).
>
> And it worked... to a degree. EGS went from almost no users to tens of
> millions, and many developers rushed to the platform. But millions of
> users doesn't necessarily translate to millions of sales. A vast
> number of its users only visit the Epic Game Store for the free games
> and never buy anything there. Whether this is because they don't like
> Epic, or find EGS inconvenient, or because it doesn't have any games
> or prices they like, a lot of them turn to Steam first. And the
> titular 'black hole' that is Epic's marketing does nothing to change
> that.

To me that's always felt like a bit of a flaw in their plan. Yes you can
basically throw money at people but unless you make a product that is at
least as good as what's already available (and for that think Steam)
then why would someone make Epic their choice of convenience in the long
term.

Personally I just look at it and think why would I want to tie a large
part of my games library to a store-front which is worse than the one I
already use and it's run by a company that I have very little trust in
to not to try and screw their own customers over if they could make a
quick buck.

[JAB]

It still amazes me that people in his position don't realise the damage
they can slowly do to their own brand just with statements like this. Oh
so you're not sure that Epic are customer friendly, well let me just
clarify that you're absolutely right.

It's not quite as bad as Gerald Ratner though who pretty much destroyed
his own very successful company with a single speech.

https://www.businessblogshub.com/2012/09/the-man-who-destroyed-his-multi-million-dollar-company-in-10-seconds/

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 11:20 schrieb JAB:

> Personally I just look at it and think why would I want to tie a large
> part of my games library to a store-front which is worse than the one I
> already use and it's run by a company that I have very little trust in
> to not to try and screw their own customers over if they could make a
> quick buck.

The entire store feels like a personal greed vendetta of Sweeney he has
with Valve because they are successful in areas Sweeny over and over
dismissed as not viable.
The Steam Deck and their success with it is just one of those areas
where Sweeney ultimately failed to see any market!
Thats also the reason why they are so aggressively anti Steam with
everything they do but have less problems with the other stores.

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 11:29 schrieb JAB:

> It still amazes me that people in his position don't realise the damage
> they can slowly do to their own brand just with statements like this. Oh
> so you're not sure that Epic are customer friendly, well let me just
> clarify that you're absolutely right.

Well Epic is in the comfortable position of having one product which is
really good and everyone uses and another one which rakes in tons of
money with low effort.

The problem is also their biggest stakeholder is Tencent and given that
Fortnite will not be a cash cow forever they probably cann take a hit in
revenue less easily than Valve who does not give a ... about having a
quarter with less income.


Also one of the main reasons why they move so aggressively to the store
section, they see that others have been raking in billions over stores.
Problem for them is, they do not get it, they are too late for the game
and they are not smart enough to open themselves long term opportunities.

Whatever sweeney says it wont make any difference regarding their main
two cash cows, but it damages the store which is a money bleeder and
will be forever!

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:39:47 +0200, "Werner P." <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 24.08.22 um 07:38 schrieb Werner P.:
>>
>> As I said, Eric Cartman of game stores, you cannot avoid them for the
>> free candy they offer but stay the hell away from them dealing with them
>> for any other reason.

>Just to give another quote from Sweeney: "Our customers are not the
>people buying the games but the game studios"

I'd not heard that quote, but it fits with their modus operandi. It's
not really a bad strategy either; there was an increasing amount of
bad will between developers and Valve, not just because of the
supposedly onerous fees Valve charged for listing their games, but
because - by opening the floodgates to every Tom, Dick and Harry
developer - it was becoming very hard for new games to make their mark
on the storefront.

Unfortunately, Epic's strategy doesn't really do much for the average
gamer. Oh sure, they pushed the narrative that their lower fees would
benefit the developers, but it didn't result in lower prices for the
end-user and games on Epic weren't suddenly heads-n-shoulders better
than games on Steam. (In fact, reports are that many Indies use their
Epic exclusivity as a sort of 'early access' and the product that
eventually gets released on Steam a year later is the better version).
All of which suddenly made EGS less valuable to their self-proclaimed
'real' customers, the developers.

So it was ineptly done, regardless.

>I think this attitude says it all, he said that regarding the EGS and
>their behavior buying exclusives!

And prior to all that, when Epic was really starting to make a name
for themselves with their "Gears of War" series, Clifford Bleszinski
(one of Epic's big-name designers) went on record as saying that PC
gaming was dead because it was a den of pirates. Sweeney - and Epic -
did nothing to distance themselves from his assertions.

The company has a long history of arrogance and disdain towards its PC
customers that wasn't improved with the release of EGS, which is
strange considering their roots are in PC gaming. A lot of the damage
is self-inflicted too, and Epic seems either unaware of their
reputation or doesn't care to repair the relationship. I suspect they
believe that the disaffected are just a small percentage of older
gamers (and they are probably right). Perhaps they believe that their
popularity with the younger set (namely, "Fortnite" players) will keep
them afloat long enough for the old grudges to die away. But nasty
whispers of a minority can have a telling effect, especially since EGS
isn't a compelling product to begin with.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 13:04:39 +0200, "Werner P." <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 24.08.22 um 11:20 schrieb JAB:
>> Personally I just look at it and think why would I want to tie a large
>> part of my games library to a store-front which is worse than the one I
>> already use and it's run by a company that I have very little trust in
>> to not to try and screw their own customers over if they could make a
>> quick buck.

>The entire store feels like a personal greed vendetta of Sweeney he has
>with Valve because they are successful in areas Sweeny over and over
>dismissed as not viable.

I disagree it's a vendetta. But Epic has marked Steam as its main
competitor, and has decided to confront them directly, hoping to
leverage and redirect the popularity of some of their franchises to
prop up their Game Store. They also leaned hard into the aggressive
attitude that made their games a success on XBox when pushing PC. It's
- on the fact of it - not a bad strategy.

But...

It's not just that Epic failed to deliver a good product with the EGS
client. It's not just that Epic failed to read the room when marketing
the thing, not realizing that their methods and history would work
against them. It's also that they've absolutely failed to adapt to
these failures. It's cost them (paying) end-users, and it's causing
disaffection with its developers.

Epic needs to do a complete rethink of how they will move forward,
because simply throwing money around and pushing forward bullishly
isn't going to work. It was a strategy that was - arguably - a great
way to introduce themselves into the market, but now that they're a
feature it's probably working against them more than it helps.

>The Steam Deck and their success with it is just one of those areas
>where Sweeney ultimately failed to see any market!

Not supporting the Steam Deck actually makes sense. The Steam Deck is
primarily a device designed to push sales towards Steam, after all.
Yes, you /can/ get EGS running on it, but most gamers won't bother
with that, and even if they do, Steam will still remain their primary
interface to the device. Propping up the functionality of Steam Deck
by adding EGS support helps Valve far more than it does Epic.

>Thats also the reason why they are so aggressively anti Steam with
>everything they do but have less problems with the other stores.

That's because the other stores have comparatively tiny market-shares
compared to Steam; they aren't competitors worth talking about (mind
you, Epic might have done better taking out the smaller fish rather
than face off against the big dog first, but that's a moot point now.
Epic set its sights on becoming the number one store from the start,
and that meant taking on Valve/Steam).

Unfortunately, hard numbers aren't readily available, but I recall
that GOG is estimated to have only 2-5% of total PC game sales. EA
Origin, UPlay and BattleNet are probably in a similar position
(individual games probably sell better on publisher-specific stores,
but they a smaller storefront overall, so it averages out to the
same). Epic has an impressive user count, but reports are that most of
them don't actually buy anything; let's be generous and give them 10%.
Subscription services are probably doing better, at least in total;
let's give the lot - Playstation Plus, MS Game Pass, Stadia, Geforce
NOW - 15%. That leaves over 50% of sales to Steam alone.

Given Epic's strategy was to 'go big or not try at all', their focus
on Steam absolutely makes sense. Add to that their very brash
attitude, their aggressive statements towards their competitor fit in
well. As I said, I think they fundamentally misread the market when
they chose this strategy, but - having chosen their path - their
actions are less angry 'vendetta' and more a 'persona' purposefully
chosen because they thought it would advance their cause.

A mistake, I think.

But remember, Epic is lead by Sweeney and he isn't really trained for
business. He's a self-taught programmer and he studied mechanical
engineering. His early games catapulted him - and his company - to
levels of success and prominence he isn't really up to handling.

Then again, very few C-levels (even those trained in business) really
are.

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 17:34 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> In fact, reports are that many Indies use their
> Epic exclusivity as a sort of 'early access' and the product that
> eventually gets released on Steam a year later is the better version

Yes quality wise that fits the bill, problem is, that once the game hits
steam after half a year on epic it has lost marketing momentum, and also
the developers wont get a long period anymore where they can charge full
price. Some games have tried but in the end they had to lower the price
quickly. This might pay off for small indies who might get enough money
for that deal, but that does not pay off for AAA titles to go that route.

[Werner P.]

Am 24.08.22 um 18:20 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> Not supporting the Steam Deck actually makes sense. The Steam Deck is
> primarily a device designed to push sales towards Steam, after all.

> Yes, you/can/ get EGS running on it, but most gamers won't bother

> with that, and even if they do, Steam will still remain their primary
> interface to the device. Propping up the functionality of Steam Deck
> by adding EGS support helps Valve far more than it does Epic.

Yes, but it goes far beyound that. The funniest part was one employee
from Epic recently was complaining that he could not play Fortnite on
the Steam deck (a clear knee jerk marketing move)
Of course this backfired because he soon was discovered to be from Epic
and then he got the quotes from Sweeney regarding Linux thrown against
his head and that Epic deliberately does not want a Linux or Steam
version of Fortnite.

Microsoft definitely has a better attitude regarding all this.

Epic is Epic, they will not change.

[JAB]

On 24/08/2022 17:20, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> It's not just that Epic failed to deliver a good product with the EGS
> client. It's not just that Epic failed to read the room when marketing
> the thing, not realizing that their methods and history would work
> against them. It's also that they've absolutely failed to adapt to
> these failures. It's cost them (paying) end-users, and it's causing
> disaffection with its developers.
>
> Epic needs to do a complete rethink of how they will move forward,
> because simply throwing money around and pushing forward bullishly
> isn't going to work. It was a strategy that was - arguably - a great
> way to introduce themselves into the market, but now that they're a
> feature it's probably working against them more than it helps.

If I was being cynical their whole strategy of just throw money at
people comes as somewhat arrogant in that it treats gamers as somewhat
stupid. Did no one put their hand up and say, you do realise that a lot
of gamers will just get the free games and then go back to Steam.

There could also be an aspect of who wants to be the one who stands up
and says, that plan you put in place, well it's rubbish and didn't work
so we need to come up with a new one. Something that is depressingly
common in my career has been things gain their own momentum and nobody
wants to take a step back and just say that doesn't work and force of
will isn't going to change that.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:17:51 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 24/08/2022 17:20, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>If I was being cynical their whole strategy of just throw money at
>people comes as somewhat arrogant in that it treats gamers as somewhat
>stupid. Did no one put their hand up and say, you do realise that a lot
>of gamers will just get the free games and then go back to Steam.

The free games policy was, I think, largely an attempt to quickly
build up their user base; its purpose was to make people sign up,
download and install the EGS client. That is a surprisingly large
hurdle for most people; Epic could have entered the market with a
client that matched or exceeded Valve's in every way and offered lower
prices on games to boot, and - without the free games - likely would
still have come out in second place.

The free games ensured they got people to sign up.

The thinking is that, once that hurdle is past, once the client is
installed, THEN they'll buy stuff. There's a reason, after all, you
have to scroll three or four pages down the store page before you see
the free games on Thursday; they want you to see all the stuff you can
buy first.

So the free games strategy? It's actually a pretty good one; it's been
proven again and again that it works (the whole Black Thursday sales
bonazas American stores do in November are based on the idea). Lure
people in with the idea of getting a bargain (or freebie) and then
rake in the cash from when they buy extra stuff once their in the
store. Because just getting them to the store is always the hardest
part.

But is it arrogant? Is it a dismissal of gamer's inate intelligence?
Not any more than /any/ marketing scheme is, I think, and if it is the
fact that it works sort of proves them right. ;-)

However, where Epic failed is that they failed to alter their strategy
as events changed around them. Forget their ignoring to heed any and
all criticism; at this point the free games program is almost
certainly doing them more harm than good. It's become too regular; as
you say, a lot of people ONLY use EGS for free games. You just open
the client, scroll thrice without looking at the page, click "add free
game", click "OK", then close the client. There's nothing special,
nothing exciting about the offers; it's routine. And it doesn't
encourage random purchases.

I think Epic is well aware of this, which is why the free games on
offer are of lesser quality than they were a year ago. Still, the
impact of even those freebies probably would be higher if they weren't
so neatly scheduled; instead of once a week (and on the same day every
week, to boot), change it up to a more randomized schedule. Get people
excited again, get those endorphins pumping in people's brain so it
clouds their reasoning ability and makes them more likely to make
unnecessary purchases.

Which is what - I suspect - we'll see happen in 2023.

>There could also be an aspect of who wants to be the one who stands up
>and says, that plan you put in place, well it's rubbish and didn't work
>so we need to come up with a new one. Something that is depressingly
>common in my career has been things gain their own momentum and nobody
>wants to take a step back and just say that doesn't work and force of
>will isn't going to change that.

Heh. I've been that guy to stand up and point out the problems. But I
understand the pushback too. There's often a demand for quick returns
from 'higher ups', a need to prove a strategy, a lack of resources or
trust to make the necessary changes, a resistance to change out of
fear, apathy and lethargy and - always - personalities, pride and
emotion getting involved.

(I've also been on the other side of the pushback too and I can't say
I've always reacted any better. But I try; I really do.)

[JAB]

On 25/08/2022 19:51, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So the free games strategy? It's actually a pretty good one; it's been
> proven again and again that it works (the whole Black Thursday sales
> bonazas American stores do in November are based on the idea). Lure
> people in with the idea of getting a bargain (or freebie) and then
> rake in the cash from when they buy extra stuff once their in the
> store. Because just getting them to the store is always the hardest
> part.
>
> But is it arrogant? Is it a dismissal of gamer's inate intelligence?

> Not any more than/any/ marketing scheme is, I think, and if it is the

> fact that it works sort of proves them right.;-)

From a UK perspective Black Fridayand it's ilk how never really caught
on, at least to the level I understand in the US, in the high street and
even big seasonal sales aren't as much in fashion as before. The reasons
I seen given are that you can drain peoples money before the big Xmas
spend and also that a lot of the sales were basically all this stock we
can't shift, well you can have it on the cheap.

Again from what I've read the prevailing thought is manage your stock
better so you don't have to bribe people to buy it and what you actually
want to do is convert a sale into people becoming a regular customers as
that's where the real money is. The UK supermarkets are an interesting
point in case as instead of silly offers (baked beans for a penny or the
rather famous buy these bananas and get points that are actually worth
more than the bananas) have kinda faded away. The emphasis is on your
total shop is 'value for money'. Even then money is the only determining
factor as we still have more up-market ones who realised that couldn't
compete on price so instead have leaned heavily into the overall
shopping experience. I could probably save 10%-20% on our weekly shop
but I really dislike being in the average supermarket.

So anyway where was I, the reason I think there's a certainly level of
arrogance in they thought that just by giving people free stuff they
would become magically become customers and not just people who have
accumulated lots of free games. As you say, you need to offer them
something more to get them to stick around and that strategy really
doesn't seem to have worked very well.

[JAB]

The shorter version is, yes people can be stupid but not many people are
that stupid.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 8/26/2022 2:23 AM, JAB wrote:
> The shorter version is, yes people can be stupid but not many people are
> that stupid.
>

Respectfully I have to disagree about the number of stupid people.

First, companies wouldn't still be using "cheap" gimmicks that rely on
people being "stupid" if they didn't work.

Second, I've worked before with law enforcement in a tech support role
and am currently working at my local District Attorney's office. (The
local agency that prosecutes criminal cases in the US.) Many of the
defendants are "How do they remember how to breathe?" stupid. And there
are LOTS of them.

My favorite way of illustrating this is, think about how dumb the
average person is and then realize that by definition half the human
race has to be dumber than THAT. ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[JAB]

On 26/08/2022 15:22, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 8/26/2022 2:23 AM, JAB wrote:
>> The shorter version is, yes people can be stupid but not many people
>> are that stupid.
>>
> Respectfully I have to disagree about the number of stupid people.
>

I will have to respectfully, respectfull disagree :-)

> First, companies wouldn't still be using "cheap" gimmicks that rely on
> people being "stupid" if they didn't work.
>

They do as they are psychological tricks that do work. So as an example
in-game currency in WoT. At Xmas there is a lootbox event and a lot of
what you get is gold (the in-game currency that you can buy with real
money). Now the trick here is to convince you that you get 'value for
money' when in fact what a lot of people do is spend more than they
normally would and then convince themselves that they did the right
thing. The second trick is once you've brought in-game currency that
money is gone so when it comes to spending it, it's 'easier' to do that
as it has a perceived lower value.

The problem I have with the Epic one it relies on a link that I just
don't think is there. So take the Black Friday example, get people in
the store to grab a 'bargain' and even if they can't get it they are
more likely to just buy any old tat that don't really want because of
sunk cost fallacy. Free games on the ES just really don't translate, in
my opinion, as you've got your bargain (a free game) so what motivation
is there to buy a full price game just because you visited their site or
indeed what is your digital store of choice.

> Second, I've worked before with law enforcement in a tech support role
> and am currently working at my local District Attorney's office.  (The
> local agency that prosecutes criminal cases in the US.)  Many of the
> defendants are "How do they remember how to breathe?" stupid.  And there
> are LOTS of them.
>

I'm not sure that your average criminal can be used as a representative
sample of the average intelligence of a PC gamer!

> My favorite way of illustrating this is, think about how dumb the
> average person is and then realize that by definition half the human
> race has to be dumber than THAT.  ;)
>

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't think they aren't lots of
stupid people about but instead your average person is neither stupid
nor intelligent. They are just well, average. There's even been some
studies on how people perceive someone when they make a mistake. To put
it simply if it's you, or someone you know, you're far more forgiving
than if it's a stranger as they 'just made a mistake' (like we all do
from time to time) and it's not because they are incompetent.

[JAB]

On 26/08/2022 15:22, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 8/26/2022 2:23 AM, JAB wrote:
>> The shorter version is, yes people can be stupid but not many people
>> are that stupid.
>>
> Respectfully I have to disagree about the number of stupid people.
>
> First, companies wouldn't still be using "cheap" gimmicks that rely on
> people being "stupid" if they didn't work.
>
> Second, I've worked before with law enforcement in a tech support role
> and am currently working at my local District Attorney's office.  (The
> local agency that prosecutes criminal cases in the US.)  Many of the
> defendants are "How do they remember how to breathe?" stupid.  And there
> are LOTS of them.
>
> My favorite way of illustrating this is, think about how dumb the
> average person is and then realize that by definition half the human
> race has to be dumber than THAT.  ;)
>

Oh, and for stupid people you'd have to be one to fall for the device
linked below. It claims to reduce fuel consumption of your car between
15% and 50% (it depends on which one you buy) just by plugging it into
the computer port. The reality, naturally, is that it does nothing
except flashes some LED's. I honestly find it difficult to believe how
anyone is going to look at it and think, well that looks legit.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Multibao-Economy-Tuning-Petrol-Benzine/dp/B09YCM5RMD/ref=asc_df_B09YCM5RMD/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=570341760913&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8647188059514574594&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006565&hvtargid=pla-1655925555262&psc=1

[Dimensional Traveler]

And yet large numbers of people do....

[Dimensional Traveler]

They are a representative sample of "humans" so.... Seriously, most of
the calls made to 911 have nothing to do with a crime. And many of the
ones that do, do so only because the individuals involved are so dumb
that they commit a crime without intent.

Another way of viewing it is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. We don't
"think" about what we're going to do. We don't act based on a plan, we
react based on an emotion.

[Werner P.]

Am 25.08.22 um 20:51 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> The thinking is that, once that hurdle is past, once the client is
> installed, THEN they'll buy stuff. There's a reason, after all, you
> have to scroll three or four pages down the store page before you see
> the free games on Thursday; they want you to see all the stuff you can
> buy first.

Did work out well, didn´t it. Epic overestimated the stupidty of the
average people big time!
A first in history!

[JAB]

On 27/08/2022 12:06, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>> I'm not sure that your average criminal can be used as a
>> representative sample of the average intelligence of a PC gamer!
>>
> They are a representative sample of "humans" so....  Seriously, most of
> the calls made to 911 have nothing to do with a crime.  And many of the
> ones that do, do so only because the individuals involved are so dumb
> that they commit a crime without intent.
>

They aren't representative though as people don't phone up the police to
say I saw this but I'm not so stupid as to think it's a crime so I'm not
reporting it. The second example is also self-selecting as you've only
got dumb people in the sample. What about all the other people who don't
do that?

[JAB]

I can understand the idea of this is a good way of getting people to
come to the store but there seems very little in-place after that to
actually get people to make it there digital store of choice.

[Dimensional Traveler]

The "dumb people sample" is a significant percentage of the total
population.

I'm not clear on who the "People" are in your question but I think most
likely they are either the half of the population above average in
intelligence or are the people who don't call 911 when they see
something stupid that isn't a crime or ends in need of emergency medical
assistance.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Yeah, Epic made two big blunders:

1) They didn't provide a service people actually wanted. Their client
was a mess, their prices were competitive but not significantly lower
than could be found elsewhere, and it divided gamers from their
friends by being yet-another-service.

2) They seriously misunderstood the market into which they were
entering, and their attitude and responses to that community's
criticisms hurt them far more than it helped.

The former fault is understandable. The prices of their games, after
all, were not entirely under their control; even their massive
Fortnite war chest wouldn't have allowed them to subsidize all the
games for very long. They did their best - $10USD vouchers and lower
costs to developers helped - but in the end Epic had very little
leeway there.

Similarly, a major complaint from gamers is that they didn't want to
switch to another service because all their games - and friends - were
already on Steam; Epic worked really hard to mitigate this; what do
you think all those free games are about. Over the years Epic has
given away literally hundreds of free games, and - if you've been
halfway attentive (and greedy ;-) - it's likely your Epic library
rivals your Steam library in number of games.* This makes it more
likely that, if a friend says, "hey, wanna go play some GTA5?" that
odds are in favor of you both firing up Epic as Steam.

But Epic dropped the ball with its client. It's fun to point out how
EGS didn't even have a shopping cart when it launched, but that's just
because it's indicative of how feature-poor the software was even when
compared to UPlay or Origin. When put up against Steam - and,
remember, Epic vocally insisted Valve was their main competitor - the
client was so lacking it became a meme. This, again, was a survivable
problem... except Epic shot themselves in the foot by (more or less)
blowing off gamer's concerns by - instead of actually improving the
client - instead pushing out a developmental planning list instead.**

But these failings all tie into Epic's fundamental mis-reading of the
PC gaming market. I disagree with the assertion that this was a result
of the company thinking PC Gamers were 'stupid' (or, if they did, I
don't think Epic thought PC gamers were any more stupid than any other
customer ;-). Rather, I think that - for whatever reason - they chose
marketing tactics that were a poor fit for the audience.

Epic has always maintained a practiced 'too cool for you' brashness,
an arrogant assumption of superiority over its competitors. This
attitude goes back decades - think back to the era of Quake vs. Unreal
- and was honed during its heyday on the XBox360. And - let's be frank
- that attitude worked exceptionally well for them back then. Whether
it was because they were seen as a plucky underdog (during the early
Unreal engine days) or because it fit well with the secondary
education/university-aged, largely male audience that comprised the
core of their players (during the XBox360 era), their excessive
braggadocio was a winning formula.

Why did Epic choose this strategy? Why did they try to burst into the
market with the self-stated arrogance of taking down Valve? I can't
answer that. I suspect it was because it was considered part of their
brand, and its decades of success made people think it would work
everywhere. But the PC audience tends to skew older, and what sold
well in the 90s doesn't ring as favorably in the 2020s.***

I think it might be because Epic has - for a long time - been in its
own little pocket of gaming; first on XBox360, later surrounded by an
adulating horde of Fortnite fans. Its CEO's lack of business acumen -
and being someone who came to age in the aforementioned 90s - also
meant he'd look more favorably on any marketing strategy that used
bold assertions. A desire to impress developers likely also skewed
their plans. But however it came about, Epic's choice was disagreeable
to many PC gamers.

Like Epic's lackluster client, this was a survivable mistake. The
correct option would be to do some market research and change
direction. But Epic instead doubled-down, and looked ever more the
arrogant bully rather than the upstart company making good. In fact,
it managed to make VALVE look like an underdog, despite it being an
almost monopolistic market-leader. They could have backed away from
the widely-disliked 'exclusives' scheme; they could have focused more
on bring players features rather than trying to bribe them****, they
could have stopped with the endless law-suits against competitors...
but they stuck to the course they'd chosen.

And now its lack of success and same ham-fisted handling of developers
is working against it on the internal front.

None of Epic's tactics are bad; they're just misguided and
mis-prioritized. Epic's biggest fault is that - whether out of
arrogance, or incorrect research data, or because they have an
overarching strategy we aren't aware of***** - it hasn't listened to
what its customers - be they the people buying the games or the ones
making them - have demanded of it.



-------------------
* unless you're one of those nutcases who has thousands of games on
Steam. ;-)
** As an example of how long Epic ignored criticisms about its
client's shortcomings, it took THREE YEARS before the much-maligned
shopping cart was added.
*** seriously, go back and watch some commercials from the 90s and see
if many don't make you cringe
**** bribery works, but it doesn't make you loved
***** Epic is doing some amazing stuff selling its tech to Hollywood.
Perhaps the whole 'games store' thing is just a diversion intended to
raise awareness of the company to make its non-game divisions more
recognizable and valuable? Who knows.

[JAB]

I'm sorry but it's just not as you're using a self-selecting sample to
then go to what seems that half the population is dumb.

[Werner P.]

Am 28.08.22 um 12:32 schrieb JAB:

>
> I can understand the idea of this is a good way of getting people to
> come to the store but there seems very little in-place after that to
> actually get people to make it there digital store of choice.

Well for that they were 10 years too late. You can either be better or
first. Epic so far has been neither. They try to bully their way in.

The problem Epic has, also they promised lower costs compared to Steam
for the studios selling there. However in order to do that they cut down
on services steam provides within that margin. That goes even so far,
that they basically
forced the game developers to use the Steam forums as support forums for
Epic.
It is even a wonder they have implemented cloud saves, which is a pretty
big money drain which costs gog a ton of money.