Hacker News Reader

Comment by m00x | Hacker News Reader

You can't really call them a broken clock for your own subjective view. Epic games makes good games and a phenomenal game engine that's allowed countless devs to make great games with great graphics.

A big plus for me is that they used their massive force to sue, and eventually budge Apple of their 30% revenue cut on their walled garden, but that's subjective.

View on HN

They've also been subject to a class action lawsuit, the Epic Games Store they set up was so barebones and badly put together that there were major security breaches in the first few weeks. Refunds still don't work properly. They eventually resorted to bribing people with free games to join their platform, and pressuring devs into exclusive deals with lower platform cuts instead of fixing their damn product. Their handling of problems has usually been dismissive and out of touch and seems to lead to toxic communities around their games. They're as anti-consumer of a company as it gets, although nobody really beats EA there I guess.

I mean congrats, they sued Apple adding a precedent to let devs use external ways of paying for microtransactions, something 99% of actual devs don't have the infrastructure to do anyway. It only helps Epic stuff their face a bit more. Like winning a lawsuit that lets you run self-refined gas in your car or something.

Also they're owned by Tencent, so yeah.

> Also they're owned by Tencent, so yeah.

They own "only" 40% of Epics shares from what I can gather.

Something a lot of people don't realize: they've taken like $3+ billion in private funding since 2018. I think a lot of those store exclusives and free games are investor money going up in flames lol

Just saying, but them giving out free games is actually much cheaper than advertising. If you checked the numbers from the Apple vs Epic lawsuit, you would see that they got new users extremely cheap.

Users who only take the free games and never spend a dime in the store, yes.

You don't need everyone to spend. Even if only like 1% or 2% of the acquired users purchase 1 or 2 full priced games year or multiple smaller ones they're already recouping the costs.

> They eventually resorted to bribing people with free games to join their platform, and pressuring devs into exclusive deals with lower platform cuts instead of fixing their damn product.

You frame it as a bad thing but this is not a bad thing.

Epic seems like a pretty decent company overall. Not perfect by any measure of course.

Exclusive deals are bad for consumers - there's no way to frame it otherwise. And it's not like Epic paid full price for all of the games they gave away.

The only real downside for consumers is having to install Epics software. Exclusive deals tend to have a timelimit after which they can be distributed on other platforms as well. The upside is cheaper games and some badly needed competition for Steam.

They limit customer choice. Different platforms have different features and policies, which we should be able to pick between. If I want good Linux support, I go to Steam. If I wanted something else that someone else did better, I'd go there. With exclusives, that choice is gone.

This feels like one of those "over-reacting to smallish issues" that to an outsider seem like a puzzling aspect of the gaming community.

(I play games occasionally and I follow trends but there's lots I don't get about the culture)

PC gamers just hate having any other game stores besides Steam. In the long run, a Steam only world is not good for anyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com