Epic Games Store completely eliminates revenue fees for smaller developers

Epic takes no cut for first $1 million in annual per-game revenue under new plan.

See full article...

 

[Thomas Cochrane]

Oh sweet child, those game giveaways aren't customer friendly.

They're all about user acquisition and data collection.

Funniest part is that it never really worked for user acquisition. People would log in and claim the free game but still buy all their games on Steam.

Epic's "customer" with their store is still game publishers. That's why they've bought exclusivity deals which publishers like as it's just "free" sales. It's why the UX to actually buy games is hugely lacking and it's lacking in features to actually make it an enjoyable platform to use/comminicate with friends.

What, and Steam isn't? There's a reason monopolies don't have to compete, you know. It's because they're monopolies.

They ways in which people tie themselves in knots trying to argue that competition, free stuff and low fees are bad things is delightful.

 

[mpfaff]

The paid exclusive stuff means that I won't ever be using the Epic store.

Competition is good, but Epic's not bringing competition that is meaningful for the end users. Steam had a monopoly more or less, and still churned out new features that made their platform increasingly better for their users. Big Picture, Proton, Steam Input... all made PC gaming better for people who play PC games.

From the jump Tim Sweeney just kind of shrugged at doing things for the customers. He was even opposed to sales at the beginning until the reality of operating an inferior product set in.

They're doing all this because at some point the Fortnite money train will end and they want to have something that doesn't rely on one product.

 

[lordcheeto]

Gabe can't hear you from his yacht.

 

[42Kodiak42]

Sweeney is quite insufferable when he cosplays as a champion of small businesses. It’s about as convincing as when Zuckerberg tried to do it to argue against app tracking transparency when he was bitching about Apple.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I may not actually like Sweeney, but this is an actual action that benefits smaller developers and not just useless talk in this direction. Yeah, he's doing it because he wins too, but this is a "winning together" ordeal, not some matter where he's taking advantage of the little guy.

 

[42Kodiak42]

As a developer who's currently working on an indie game, this makes me almost consider putting it on Epic. Unfortunately for EGS, I'm including a multiplayer component and really don't want to split my users across different online subsystems (Steam integration and the Epic online subsystem don't talk to each other), and I am certainly not going to roll my own as a one-man-band here.

 

[Midnitte]

Nice to see some competition around the terms for Devs like this

The problem is they haven't invested in the actual store compared to Steam.
Can you purchase games for others on the EGS? Do they have gift cards?

I think the general populace animosity towards EGS continues to be that they just miss so many features that Steam has had for so many years that it just feels like 3 steps back, despite having friendlier terms for developers by and large.

 

[lordcheeto]

Gabe can't hear you from his yacht.

Excuse me, his 6th yacht.

 

[vonduck]

i take it they are going to allow people to set up their own store inside egs or fornite, use epic's data centre and all, and have their own payment system done outside that?

 

[Yarrum]

Man, I know people like to hate on Epic, and there's plenty of reasons to do so. But that 30% charge stings when you are looking at a small bottom line. And you should also recognize that Unreal Engine has been good for developers and fan communities, and Epic has offered a lot of free games from its shop for customers. And yes, they do have demand:



(emphasis added) Source: (https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/epic-games-store-2024-year-in-review)

I haven't looked at their storefront in years, I only have an Ubuntu system and it doesn't support Linux. I think the last Epic game I played was the UE4 open source Unreal Tournament they were doing while it was in development, which IIRC was cancelled because Fortnite. But it shouldn't be that hard to recognize and acknowledge that competition in the market is good, there's room for more than Steam, they do have a lot of users, and at least they're not EA or Ubisoft.

Though you did miss a key metric from that report:

Player spending on third-party applications using Epic Payments reached $255 million, down 18% year over year.

The EGS has users, but those users are basically spending nothing on third-party titles (less than $1 per user a year) and the spending is decreasing whilst the number of users increases.

 

[s73v3r]

You can when he’s only doing so in an attempt to make more money himself.

So fucking what? He's arguing for things that are good for him, but are also good for small developers.

 

[Nihilus]

Man, I know people like to hate on Epic, and there's plenty of reasons to do so. But that 30% charge stings when you are looking at a small bottom line. And you should also recognize that Unreal Engine has been good for developers and fan communities, and Epic has offered a lot of free games from its shop for customers. And yes, they do have demand:



(emphasis added) Source: (https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/epic-games-store-2024-year-in-review)

I haven't looked at their storefront in years, I only have an Ubuntu system and it doesn't support Linux. I think the last Epic game I played was the UE4 open source Unreal Tournament they were doing while it was in development, which IIRC was cancelled because Fortnite. But it shouldn't be that hard to recognize and acknowledge that competition in the market is good, there's room for more than Steam, they do have a lot of users, and at least they're not EA or Ubisoft.

In regard to the linux comment you might want to try Heroic Launcher. Open source launcher that is lightweight and combines Epic, Gog and Amazon with Wine/Proton integration.

I'm actually really, really hoping that third party launchers become a thing as if these stores have any common sense they'll realise that agreeing to a standard and letting users access their libraries via a single app is the only hope in hell they have of competing with Steam.

 

[s73v3r]

At the end of the day it is a PR Stunt and nothing more.

It's a move that benefits small developers, and might force Steam to do something similar.

Epic as a company is absolutely horrible.

So is literally every company.

IF they really wanted to acquire customers and help make the gaming industry better for gamers they would put policies in place to protect customers/gamers.

Gamers aren't the only people in this equation. This move helps developers.

 

[araczynski]

haven't bought a game on steam since... half life orange box.... their whole system is way too bloated, i prefer buying on epic cuz its cleaner/simpler withough endless walls of text/icons/achievement crap/etc.

GOG first of course, then Epic.

let me buy the game and GTFO of my way so i can play it.

 

[Yarrum]

From the article, they have 1 billion in annual sales. That’s much smaller than steam, but 10% of 10 billion is still a massive number.

The problem is 75% of that spending is on Fortnite - users spent $250m on third-party titles, which gives Epic a max cut of $30m from third-party sales.

The other issue Epic have long-term is that we know from the various court cases and Sweeneys tweets that their 12% cut is less than their operating costs (and that is excluding the costs of exclusives, free games and coupons), and it seems at this point they have given up on the store ever being profitable, so the long-term future of the EGS isn't looking great once the Fortnite money starts to dry up.

 

[meisanerd]

In regard to the linux comment you might want to try Heroic Launcher. Open source launcher that is lightweight and combines Epic, Gog and Amazon with Wine/Proton integration.

I'm actually really, really hoping that third party launchers become a thing as if these stores have any common sense they'll realise that agreeing to a standard and letting users access their libraries via a single app is the only hope in hell they have of competing with Steam.

What I would like to see (which will probably happen around the same time I am gifted a unicorn) is to have a unified, standardized, non-publisher-controlled, non-profit game system. Where all publishers are allowed to put their games, with a central API for things like license activation, friends systems, etc. It could have a store component, but also just allow activation of keys from wherever. So Ubisoft could be like "nope, everyone has to buy keys from us so we don't have to share our cut with retail", but the game would activate on the central system, downloads would be managed by the central system, etc. The publishers would all have to contribute to running the system and feature improvements, and it could also be funded by proceeds from in-system game sales.

 

[Little-Zen]

Though you did miss a key metric from that report:

The EGS has users, but those users are basically spending nothing on third-party titles (less than $1 per user a year) and the spending is decreasing whilst the number of users increases.

I did see that. Immediately following it was this:

This number does not include publishers generating revenue via their own payment solutions. Total spending, including Epic’s games, achieved $1.09B in 2024, up 15% from 2023.

So spending overall is up, but not on 3rd party games. And there's no information on sales via other payment solutions (though I can't imagine it would meet or exceed that 18% drop).

To me that says the customer base is there, but primarily interested in using EGS just for Epic's games. Probably getting everything else on Steam. What else can they do, but try to get more developers on the platform to try and drive interest and purchases from the customer base?

It's one of those chicken and egg scenarios. You want to attract customers with games, but developers don't want to make their games exclusive because of the smaller userbase. They publish on multiple platforms (like EGS and Steam and GOG) but the majority of the sales are on Steam. So you have to find a way to make the terms way more favorable to developers and hope for some breakout hits, that attracts more users, making others more likely to look at the platform for distribution. Dropping the revenue fees for small developers is a good start towards that.

(They could maybe also consider dropping the overall rate from 30% to, say, 25%, but for whatever reason a bunch of companies have settled on 30% and don't want to change that).

 

[killerhurtalot]

Sweeney is quite insufferable when he cosplays as a champion of small businesses. It’s about as convincing as when Zuckerberg tried to do it to argue against app tracking transparency when he was bitching about Apple.

While insufferable, his actions are saying otherwise?

 

[Chmilz]

You can attract as many developers as you want, epic. Your store is trash and your reputation is tainted from the exclusive shenanigans you pulled early on.

Have you considered doing CUSTOMER friendly things? You have supply. Do you have demand?

What is your stance on Steam operating a gambling site aimed at children?

 

[Boskone]

i take it they are going to allow people to set up their own store inside egs or fornite, use epic's data centre and all, and have their own payment system done outside that?

No, because EGS isn't baked into an OS.

 

[Rindan]

You can’t call it cosplaying while he has a track record and is actively championing small business.

Wild to me the people hating on epic for doing something great for small developers with no strings.

Epic's actions are just round one of Enshitification. Steam, the privatly held company run by Gabe Newell, which has been around for nearly a quarter of a centaury, has never engaged in Enshitification. Steam has only gotten better with time, course corrected their few mistakes, and they have ushered in a golden era of indie gaming. Steam has held prices comically low for consumers for years. Most games cost the same as they did 20 years ago on Steam, despite inflation meaning that that is significantly less money. Steam has fought ruthlessly to defend the PC gaming market, and done it without resorting to shitty tactics. They won by being good for a very long time, and never engaging in Enshitification. Seriously, in what industry has prices for consumers gone down as a monopoly sized player takes over more and more?

If you think that Epic isn't going to engage in Enshitification the very second they have the market share to do so, you don't know and understand Epic. They can compete all they want, but Epic can burn in a lake of fire as far as I am concerned. It's simply not worth the temporary and tiny price drops for the consumer in exchange for handing over the PC gaming market to a publicly held company that WILL, with 100% certainty, engage in Enshitification the very second they have the market share to do so.

My biggest fear with Steam is that one day Gabe will die, and the person that takes over won't be content with the comically truckloads of money pouring in and try to squeeze harder. Until that day though, Epic can really can go get fucked. There is zero percent chance I will fall for their obvious bait and switch. Long live Gabe. No, seriously. I hope Gabe lives a long time at the head of Steam, and his successor is half the PC gaming hero that Gabe is.

 

[Little-Zen]

In regard to the linux comment you might want to try Heroic Launcher. Open source launcher that is lightweight and combines Epic, Gog and Amazon with Wine/Proton integration.

I'm actually really, really hoping that third party launchers become a thing as if these stores have any common sense they'll realise that agreeing to a standard and letting users access their libraries via a single app is the only hope in hell they have of competing with Steam.

Neat! I wasn't aware of Heroic. I set up Lutris for GOG and a few older standalone games, but I've never used the hooks it has for other services. I really like that I can buy from GOG directly through the Heroic interface, so I may switch to using that for GOG.

Regarding the ability to connect to other accounts, though (and this speaks to what I was just saying above about users only going to EGS for Epic games and not others) there isn't anything on EGS that actually interests me, or that I don't already have on Steam or GOG. When Epic cancelled UT4 and decided they weren't going to support Linux with EGS I just removed them from the list of potential services I'd use, as I've found Steam and GOG to have everything I want to play anyways.

 

[Dean0]

I'm of 2 minds on this.

On the Valve side, their rationale is related to scale. I guarantee the costs to administer the first million dollars in sales as a percentage is higher than the subsequent million, and so on. So in that sense, cutting fees at high volumes is fair to the developer.

On the Epic side, they're trying to incentivize the little guy using their development platform and marketplace, with the idea that if a small dev hits a home run, Epic will reap the benefits of high sales. It doesn't hurt them too much because most small devs have low sales.

2 very different philosophies resulting from competition that incentivized experimentation. This is how the free market is supposed to work, happy to see it functioning a little bit.

 

[BucketOfChum]

ITT: Monopolies are good, actually, when I enjoy using their product

 

[saanaito]

I am cautiously optimistic about this move providing incentive for Steam to not rest on its laurels (they are dangerously close to having a de facto monopoly on the PC games market), but EGS still makes a bad taste in my mouth. I’m more than a little annoyed that some games I desire are still exclusives. Developers do deserve better, but probably not with restrictive terms that hurt their sales in the long run.

Also, as a Linux and macOS user, the EGS client wants nothing to do with me. While I am familiar with Heroic Games Launcher (and glad that other people have mentioned it in this thread), every little bit of extra friction is a downside, especially on my Steam Deck. Steam, GOG, and itch.io all accommodate Mac and Linux users, while Epic won’t even mention us on a single page.

 

[vonduck]

No, because EGS isn't baked into an OS.

but the point is that it's not about the now. their goal is to have egs/fortnite on all os and platform and get to be the equivalent of steam or apple app store in the metaverse kind of thing in the future.

everyone is.. meta, google, blah blah.

they certain as shit aren't going to allow someone else to piggyback on that on the cheap.

 

[mpfaff]

ITT: Monopolies are good, actually, when I enjoy using their product

Competition is good when it does something for the consumer. Epic isn't trying to compete with Steam in any way other than being another no frills storefront.

 

[Yarrum]

What, and Steam isn't? There's a reason monopolies don't have to compete, you know. It's because they're monopolies.

They ways in which people tie themselves in knots trying to argue that competition, free stuff and low fees are bad things is delightful.

Well it's a good thing Steam don't have a monopoly on PC Gaming then - the PC Market is worth ~$37Bn with $10Bn being spent on Steam, which gives them ~25% market share, instead what Steam are is the Market Leader. At best they have a monopoly on paid third party games that activate on the store you purchase on, but that is only because you've reduced the market to literally some of Steam, GOG and Epic. (As you'd also be removing the first party and IAP revenue from those stores).

I'd also point out competition, free stuff and low fees can all have negatives, (though not necessarily bad overall) and in the case of Epic we have examples of each of them;

Competition - Epic competed by paying publishers upfront for exclusives, good for publishers, but bad for customers as we went from having a dozen sites to buy a game with price competition, to the game just being on Epic at full RRP.

Free Stuff - Good for customers, Good for publishers who Epic paid to give their games away, unless enough people who would have bought the game didn't as they expect it to be free, also maybe not good for Epic long-term as they have now taught an entire generation of gamers to expect regular free games (which is a bit ironic considering at launch Epic bemoaned that sales devalued games and caused a race to the bottom).

Low fees - Good short term for devs, not great long-term relying on a store that is selling at a loss, also limits expansion into other regions and development of features devs may use in future. Bad for Epic as they are losing money, also ended up bad for customers as the savings didn't get passed on, instead prices of Epic keys increased compared to Steam keys due to way Epic recoup funds from key sales. (The likes of GMG and Humble instead of having the 30% cut to use to reduce prices only had 12% cut from Epic keys, which meant they only got 5% discounts instead of 20%).

 

[RhoSinePhi]

You may want to look at the terms and conditions on those accounts again. They're not transferable, so your great grandkids may not be inheriting anything.

https://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2024/05/after-you-die-your-steam-games-will-be-stuck-in-legal-limbo/

https://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2024...ves-game-account-but-only-with-a-court-order/

It was mostly a jest but if I was serious about passing on the games I own, it would be via passing on my password and account details. It's not like I'm taking those achievements with me after I shuffle off this mortal coil.

 

[Dano40]

Did someone say outlaw? That escalated quickly.

In most of the second and third world there are no consumer loans, If you don’t have the cash, you can’t buy.

 

[Dano40]

Don’t trust Epic and Sweeney Todd far as I can throw them. Who is as sleazy as they come.

 

[evefavretto]

In most of the second and third world there are no consumer loans, If you don’t have the cash, you can’t buy.

I don't know about other countries, but Brazil has this weird thing that allows merchants to offer installments on credit card purchases.

 

[Yarrum]

So spending overall is up, but not on 3rd party games. And there's no information on sales via other payment solutions (though I can't imagine it would meet or exceed that 18% drop).

To me that says the customer base is there, but primarily interested in using EGS just for Epic's games. Probably getting everything else on Steam. What else can they do, but try to get more developers on the platform to try and drive interest and purchases from the customer base?

They have always excluded spending via other payment solutions.

But yes it's been a problem they have had since day one trying to get people to actually spend money on third-party games on the store, and over the last six years they have made barely any attempts to even solve the issue - their only plan seemed to be users would flock to the store because exclusives wouldn't give them a choice (ignoring that on PC there are enough games releasing daily that there are no really must have games) and they seemed to assume a small vocal group of indie devs and gaming press that were unhappy with Steam represented the majority and everyone would leave Steam if a second store opened (ignoring we already had GOG and other stores).

The bigger problem Epic have isn't that people are buying on Steam (or being Steam Fanboys), as a few years back they revealed 50% of their users didn't even have a Steam account - so they cannot even convert non-Steam players into paying users. It's that they completely misunderstood the PC market - they seemed to be stuck in a console mindset and thought the PC landscape was the same as when they left ~2010, and even now still don't really seem to be paying attention (on some level it feels like the EGS was just a pawn in their fight against the console and mobile fees rather than actually proper plan to divest from Fortnite).

Whilst there are plenty of things they could have done or do to attract users;

• Take the best features from Steam, GOG, consoles and compete on features, they are bigger and richer than Valve so no reason they couldn't have made an actual modern full featured platform, or they could have gone the other way and made a lightweight client. (Instead we get a slow barebones resource heavy client).
• Or they could have launched with a backend that didn't require the single Epic employee to approve and upload manually the builds and assets for games.
• They could have tried to solve the Discoverability and Curation problems - they could have opened/purchased a gaming review publication and reviewed every game before they'd let it on the store, or only let games above a certain standard on the store (but have reviewers independent of store/publisher influence).
• Offered a similar service to GOG Connect - paying publishers to allow you to import your Steam library.
• Or they could have been an Epic and Steam key with purchases.

 

[rochrist]

Competition can only be good. They'll turn the screws once they have more market position, but an equilibrium will be lower than what Steam charges now, so that's not bad.

I wish google had a real competitor.

They're never going to have the 'more market position'. They've had going on seven years and that store is as bad as it was when it started.

 

[scrimbul]

You can attract as many developers as you want, epic. Your store is trash and your reputation is tainted from the exclusive shenanigans you pulled early on.

Have you considered doing CUSTOMER friendly things? You have supply. Do you have demand?

That's what I'm thinking here too.

Does Epic Games get good boy PR credit here for doing what they should have done at launch instead of buying exclusives? Honest question because they'd actually be profitable now had they done this first.

 

[tumblrfan69]

What, and Steam isn't? There's a reason monopolies don't have to compete, you know. It's because they're monopolies.

They ways in which people tie themselves in knots trying to argue that competition, free stuff and low fees are bad things is delightful.

Steam doesn't have to compete because they've delivered a comprehensive platform that meets the needs of both sets of customer profiles. Offers a comprehensive platform for publishers which includes seasonal discounts and promotions as well as offers a ton of user value for the gamers themselves.

Epic has never made the case as to why I, as a gamer, would use their platform. Like I still claim their free games from time to time, if only because it might cost them money and pay a developer for that copy. But for playing the odd game like Rocket League with my daughter, I use Heroic rather than their own launcher as it both works better on Linux and I don't trust Epic Store to not collect more data than they should from my PC.

 

[tumblrfan69]

I don't know about other countries, but Brazil has this weird thing that allows merchants to offer installments on credit card purchases.

Pay-in-4/Installments has become really popular in North America. My bank even offers (at some places) the ability to do credit card purchases that are also in installments (however that works).

 

[tumblrfan69]

What is your stance on Steam operating a gambling site aimed at children?

Like Fortnite?

Oh wait, that's Epic...

 

[Deleted member 1085004]

These corporate wars with one side always trying to appeal to being on the side of labor or the consumer are always clearly for a reason. Of course I like Epic's drive to give the developer more of a share, and I think it's good for the industry. The reason why they're doing it though is obvious, they have the biggest game in the world and don't want to give anyone a cut and that's where most of their revenue comes from. Practically all of Valve's revenue comes from Steam.

Applying similar philosophies about openness, Tim Sweeney has been very anti-Linux oddly enough. If he were such a advocate of openness, then you would think all that money paid for free games could have established a whole department of developers to put their games and Unreal Engine on Linux.

Or, Unreal Engine itself, another engine such as Godot could ask why they're taking such a percentage of revenue from major games for using the engine and I'm guessing Epic would fight back. And if there were laws and regulations to force game makers to have a menu option to completely remove microtransactions from view inside the game itself, they would fight tooth and nail to not let that happen.

So really, I don't get caught up in feeling like any of these companies have my back, they fight each other on the grounds of what would give them more revenue and sometimes by happenstance that might be a more consumer or labor friendly environment for a window of time.

 

[kleinma]

Does Epic launcher have text chat, voice chat, gaming sharing, game gifting, ability to invite friends to games from launcher, big picture? Gamers are going to use the platform that offers them the most, not the one that offers devs the most.

 

[PonderousWombat]

All these revenue deals are great for devs but it doesn’t solve the core issue the Epic Games Store has- there’s no reason for a consumer to want to use it when Steam exists. They’ve really just wasted the last seven years giving out free games and securing exclusives when they should’ve been adding features to make it a viable competitor.