This is really disappointing news, as this is one of the best games of last year and from an independent studio nonetheless. I guess there were a few things that were holding back this incredible...
This is really disappointing news, as this is one of the best games of last year and from an independent studio nonetheless.
I guess there were a few things that were holding back this incredible game. Like horror just seems incredibly risky for a mainstream game, it didn't have a physical release (even though the game was full price) and on the PC it was exclusively released on Epic.
But hopefully this game continues to sell throughout this year, they've yet to release any DLCs, so it'll end up picking some steam when those are out I bet.
This technically isn't true, as Remedy Entertainment is both a public company (which is why this news outlet had anything to report on -- they're looking at info and attending meetings for...
from an independent studio nonetheless.
This technically isn't true, as Remedy Entertainment is both a public company (which is why this news outlet had anything to report on -- they're looking at info and attending meetings for Remedy's shareholders) and has Tencent as one of its major shareholders.
I'm also not quite convinced that the news is as dire as this outlet wants to imply, since even they acknowledge that Remedy's revenue has increased by more than 50% compared to Q1 last year. My instinct is that Alan Wake 2 sold quite well considering that it's not on Steam, but that not being on Steam is handicapping the sales of what was probably a very expensive game to develop. I wouldn't be deeply worried about the studio based just on this.
A 50% boost in sales over a quarter that is three years removed from their last major release seems kind of terrible. Quarterly earnings don't mean as much in game development because studios...
A 50% boost in sales over a quarter that is three years removed from their last major release seems kind of terrible.
Quarterly earnings don't mean as much in game development because studios typically go years without releasing any kind of product, then make all their money in the first few months after releasing something.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with the technical definition of independent studio. For me it just means that the studio is able to independently make their decisions (of course in...
This technically isn't true, as Remedy Entertainment is both a public company (which is why this news outlet had anything to report on -- they're looking at info and attending meetings for Remedy's shareholders) and has Tencent as one of its major shareholders.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with the technical definition of independent studio. For me it just means that the studio is able to independently make their decisions (of course in cooperation with publishers etc.), that decisions aren't singlehandedly made by their owner.
According to Wikipedia, Tencent owns 14%, whereas the other majority owners are three Finnish dudes, who own 23.7%, 4.15% and 2.22% (one of which is Sam Lake, the face of Remedy). Maybe that doesn't mean anything but I just thought to put it out there since I went to the trouble of looking it up.
I think we probably were looking things up in the same places :D In my understanding, an independent studio is more likely to have decisions made singlehandedly by their owner (as you say, in...
I think we probably were looking things up in the same places :D
In my understanding, an independent studio is more likely to have decisions made singlehandedly by their owner (as you say, in cooperation with publishers and the like), since they're not beholden to shareholders. My understanding is that to be independent a game studio needs to be privately held and not owned by a large public corporation. Some people more narrowly only use it for sufficiently small studios, afaik. Of course what counts as "indie" within gaming circles doesn't necessarily map onto that... but gaming circles sometimes use "indie" more to denote an aesthetic than anything about the studio's financials.
Well, looks like they should have wanted (gone for) more money from Epic then. It may not be that easy to get your money back if you are not using all the different storefronts available in the...
exclusively released on Epic
Well, looks like they should have wanted (gone for) more money from Epic then. It may not be that easy to get your money back if you are not using all the different storefronts available in the world... I'm not sorry for their decision.
I'd love to help them out, but I ain't a buyer on any storefront where they want to sell the game, and I imagine that I'm not the only one. I really think it's that simple. I won't do Epic for PC...
I'd love to help them out, but I ain't a buyer on any storefront where they want to sell the game, and I imagine that I'm not the only one.
I really think it's that simple. I won't do Epic for PC and I won't do digital for PS51 so even though I love Alan Wake, Control, and basically everything that Remedy has ever done2 they won't meet me where I'm a buyer and I'm less than surprised that they're not "Earning their budget back." Which, honestly? Fuck 'em.
They would have got my money anytime they wanted to do the barest minimum to earn the sale, instead they took Epic money to be exclusive and probably sunk any possibility of ever making even a fraction of what they could have made being both a physical release and on the most prominent storefront for their showcase platform at launch. As it is, I've seen far too many spoilers for the game now to warrant paying full price if it ever comes to a format where I would make a purchase. I hope the Epic exclusive was worth it, but it sorta seems like it maybe wasn't?
1 a position that has proven sapient as Sony has repeatedly decided to un-own stuff for users on PSN
2 and I have often bought multiple copies of their games in the past, usually once for Console and once for PC going all the way back to Xbox360 and the OG Alan Wake
From what Remedy has publicly said, it was totally worth it. I'm paraphrasing, but they called Epic a really good publishing partner who let them basically do what they wanted. There's the grain...
From what Remedy has publicly said, it was totally worth it. I'm paraphrasing, but they called Epic a really good publishing partner who let them basically do what they wanted. There's the grain of salt and all that, after all it's in their interest to keep a good relationship with their publisher but there's a chance we might not have gotten this game otherwise.
I mean, the premise of the article is that they haven't made back what they spent to make the game, so in the most literal sense (so far) it hasn't been worth it beyond their being able to make...
it was totally worth it.
I mean, the premise of the article is that they haven't made back what they spent to make the game, so in the most literal sense (so far) it hasn't been worth it beyond their being able to make the art that they wanted to make (which I'll give you is probably justification enough, but that's not how you keep being a going concern.)
I'd wager decent money that they could have made what they wanted and could have earned back their budget at launch if they had released on Steam day and date with Epic, it's obviously a project where there's a lot of love and while it's terrible that it's true, a lot of artists will suffer a great deal for the art they love so this probably would have happened either way. 🤷‍♂️
My understanding is that Epic hasn't made its money back, which is different. (Unless I misunderstood) And who knows how Epic's graphs play out, maybe this is a loss they're willing to take to the...
I mean, the premise of the article is that they haven't made back what they spent to make the game, so in the most literal sense (so far) it hasn't been worth it beyond their being able to make the art that they wanted to make (which I'll give you is probably justification enough, but that's not how you keep being a going concern.)
My understanding is that Epic hasn't made its money back, which is different. (Unless I misunderstood) And who knows how Epic's graphs play out, maybe this is a loss they're willing to take to the chin as an olive branch for other devs.
I'd wager decent money that they could have made what they wanted and could have earned back their budget at launch if they had released on Steam day and date with Epic, it's obviously a project where there's a lot of love and while it's terrible that it's true, a lot of artists will suffer a great deal for the art they love so this probably would have happened either way.
But they shopped around and Epic made the best deal? I'm not sure what you're wagering. Yes, if someone else saw the potential and was willing to bet on Remedy this would've played differently and I agree they probably would've made more money but no one did.
This was an earnings statement for investors in Remedy Entertainment Plc, not Epic, so it would be weird for them to be talking about Epic's concerns: Granted I'm not certain how things work in...
Unless I misunderstood
This was an earnings statement for investors in Remedy Entertainment Plc, not Epic, so it would be weird for them to be talking about Epic's concerns:
In February 2024, Remedy announced that Alan Wake 2 had sold 1.3 million units as of the beginning of February. Alan Wake 2 sales have continued with a high average price. At the end of the first quarter, the game had recouped a significant part of the development and marketing expenses. During the first quarter, the team focused on working on the downloadable content (DLC) that will extend Alan Wake 2.
Granted I'm not certain how things work in Finland, but I think it would still be weird for them to be releasing an investor report that is telling their investors how the American company Epic Games, Inc. is doing publishing Remedy's game when the investors are probably more interested in the company they invested in.
But they shopped around and Epic made the best deal?
Epic made the best up front deal by guaranteeing a payout for exclusivity. It probably reduced the amount of worry and uncertainty in making the game, but Steam typically has double the daily active users of EGS, and EGS has Fortnite so I imagine that most of that EGS number is Fortnite and not people who might want to give a heavily story driven, sequel, single player, with high PC graphical requirements, sort of experience a go. As I said, Remedy probably would have made the game anyhow without Epic, but it's impossible now to see what that path would have looked like. It probably would have been more stressful and worrying (as I said, more suffering for the art) but I suspect that they wanted it enough that it would have happened with or without Epic's money despite what anyone says because they clearly have a story that they wanted to get out into the world that they're passionate about and such people don't often allow money to stop them for too long.
It is wholly a horse of a different color, but it bears mentioning that when the original Alan Wake released on Steam back in 2012, it made back (and them some) its development and marketing budget in 2 days, while Alan Wake 2 has had the better part of 2 quarters and hasn't yet crossed that line despite having vastly superior name recognition, word of mouth, critical acclaim, and all the wind in their sails anyone could hope for including a huge presence at the VGAs. The budgets are obviously worlds of difference, but I think it's illustrative of what a good platform can do for a game and Epic just isn't yet a good platform for developers aside the truckloads of money that they'll drive up to your door for exclusivity.
They didn't take Epic money for exclusivity (I don't think that's still happening in general anymore). Epic funded and published the game, same with Alan Wake Remastered. A similar situation...
They didn't take Epic money for exclusivity (I don't think that's still happening in general anymore). Epic funded and published the game, same with Alan Wake Remastered.
A similar situation happened with the Bayonetta games where 2 and 3 are Switch exclusives whereas the first was on PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. When asked by fans why they did this, the devs simply responded because Nintendo paid for it and there would not be a Bayonetta 2 or 3 otherwise without them. It's not like anyone else was offering to allow them to make the games.
It doesn't seem like anyone else was champing at the bit to get Alan Wake 2 made. Microsoft sat on the rights to the series for years themselves because it was never a big seller and Remedy weren't putting out anything flying off the shelves that would have tipped the scales at the time.
That all said, I'm hoping by the time I upgrade my PC into a state where it can play AW2 at the quality I want, it'll be available on Steam considering the EGS seemingly isn't doing too well, and I've already had more than my fair share of major issues with that launcher.
Tomato, tomato. EA and Ubisoft both publish games that are developed by outside devs which aren't locked exclusively to Origin and UPlay respectively, so clearly the exclusivity is its own...
They didn't take Epic money for exclusivity (I don't think that's still happening in general anymore). Epic funded and published the game, same with Alan Wake Remastered.
Tomato, tomato. EA and Ubisoft both publish games that are developed by outside devs which aren't locked exclusively to Origin and UPlay respectively, so clearly the exclusivity is its own distinct shitty thing.
That's only a recent change. They both tried that and failed. For a while, neither were putting their games on Steam either because they were pushing their own storefronts (and EGS as well in...
That's only a recent change. They both tried that and failed. For a while, neither were putting their games on Steam either because they were pushing their own storefronts (and EGS as well in Ubisoft's case). They both came back to Steam after a few years.
I mean... No part of what you've said does anything to dissuade me from seeing how publishing a game and making it exclusive to your storefront are not intrinsically bound together... So, yeah,...
I mean... No part of what you've said does anything to dissuade me from seeing how publishing a game and making it exclusive to your storefront are not intrinsically bound together... So, yeah, it's a shitty thing that publishers sometimes do, but it's clearly not a requirement.
It's that taking the money to be a store exclusive and being tied to the limitations of your publisher are two distinct things. One is a lot more understandable than the other when the alternative...
It's that taking the money to be a store exclusive and being tied to the limitations of your publisher are two distinct things. One is a lot more understandable than the other when the alternative is that the game does not exist at all.
No other publisher would have required this, sure, but they also weren't willing to fund Alan Wake 2 (without significant compromises at least).
I have a fairly solid friend group who all have Steam accounts (many of which who have kids who also have Steam accounts) and are pretty regular buyers there, I can't say that I've heard a single...
I have a fairly solid friend group who all have Steam accounts (many of which who have kids who also have Steam accounts) and are pretty regular buyers there, I can't say that I've heard a single one of them saying anything about EGS or games therein. I don't think that outside of dedicated gamers and/or Fortnite players, Epic Store even exists. It's just not a name that has the popularity of Steam and that's where it really matters.
I (like you) also think that the "people who know what EGS is and won't buy there" crowd is pretty small, unfortunately for Tim and Co. there's the larger problem that the "people who don't even know that EGS exists" crowd is massive and they're not going to be drawn in by these exclusives to figure it out when there's known platforms (PlayStation & Xbox) that have the same games available.
My perspective on the Epic Game Store is that they’re not playing for the current gaming crowd but for younger audiences who aren’t as established on the other platforms. Fortnite remains huge...
My perspective on the Epic Game Store is that they’re not playing for the current gaming crowd but for younger audiences who aren’t as established on the other platforms. Fortnite remains huge among kids and teenagers, and their steady drip feed of free games builds up the kind of library inertia that so many of us currently feel with regards to Steam. It’s also an incredibly appealing tactic for those specific demographics because they don’t have the ability to purchase a lot of games on their own.
I don’t see Epic’s strategy as being “let’s compete with Steam right now” but rather “let’s lay the groundwork to compete with Steam ten years down the road” after an entire cohort of people have effectively been “raised” on EGS.
Yes, we are in the minority, no matter how solid OP's friend group is. People buy what they want and they don't abandon it, just because of their principles. I wish they did, but they don't.
Yes, we are in the minority, no matter how solid OP's friend group is. People buy what they want and they don't abandon it, just because of their principles. I wish they did, but they don't.
Steam has features that I use that have loads of increased friction to extend to games acquired via EGS. Steam Deck and Steam Link primarily. I can get EGS games working on my Steam Deck, but it's...
Steam has features that I use that have loads of increased friction to extend to games acquired via EGS. Steam Deck and Steam Link primarily. I can get EGS games working on my Steam Deck, but it's work when I'd rather be gaming and it often requires ongoing work to keep it working so it's just a treadmill of me doing stuff that feels like the stuff I'm gaming to get away from.
That said, I'm against paid exclusives and walled gardens in principle so even if EGS had parity for features I love, it'd still be a no from me until the exclusivity shit ends.
Out of curiosity, are you running EGS games from the desktop mode (and Lutris) or the SteamOS? I've had really smooth experiences launching BioShock from the desktop mode after getting it...
I can get EGS games working on my Steam Deck...
Out of curiosity, are you running EGS games from the desktop mode (and Lutris) or the SteamOS? I've had really smooth experiences launching BioShock from the desktop mode after getting it installed through the EGS.
That said, the vast majority of my games are on Steam, so I don't have a lot of experience with other titles played through EGS.
I've had decent luck with Heroic Launcher, but since the friction for Steam titles is basically 0, even 'works perfectly in desktop mode' is still enough of a lift when I could just boot FTL again.
I've had decent luck with Heroic Launcher, but since the friction for Steam titles is basically 0, even 'works perfectly in desktop mode' is still enough of a lift when I could just boot FTL again.
Heroic seems to be the smoothest experience from what I've tried. Though I did just get notified about Junk Store this morning that looks like it may be even better than that? I might give it a...
Heroic seems to be the smoothest experience from what I've tried. Though I did just get notified about Junk Store this morning that looks like it may be even better than that? I might give it a try just to see what the state of the art is right now.
Agreed, I'd pick it up if I could buy a physical copy for PS5 or a digital copy on steam. I don't want my paid library spread across multiple platforms that could be shutdown on the whim of a...
Agreed, I'd pick it up if I could buy a physical copy for PS5 or a digital copy on steam. I don't want my paid library spread across multiple platforms that could be shutdown on the whim of a corporate owner.
It's more or less guaranteed to come to Steam, considering Alan Wake 1 was brought back, and more importantly Control is on Steam after being an Epic exclusive for a while Epic exclusives probably...
It's more or less guaranteed to come to Steam, considering Alan Wake 1 was brought back, and more importantly Control is on Steam after being an Epic exclusive for a while
Epic exclusives probably aren't allowed to talk about exclusivity terms, I've never seen a publisher mention "coming to Steam in a year" while being Epic exclusive
That's actually not necessarily true. Alan Wake 2 was actually published by Epic, (as opposed to Alan Wake 1 which was published by Microsoft, and Control by 505). Alan Wake 1 Remastered and Alan...
That's actually not necessarily true. Alan Wake 2 was actually published by Epic, (as opposed to Alan Wake 1 which was published by Microsoft, and Control by 505). Alan Wake 1 Remastered and Alan Wake 2 were funded by Epic.
This is really disappointing news, as this is one of the best games of last year and from an independent studio nonetheless.
I guess there were a few things that were holding back this incredible game. Like horror just seems incredibly risky for a mainstream game, it didn't have a physical release (even though the game was full price) and on the PC it was exclusively released on Epic.
But hopefully this game continues to sell throughout this year, they've yet to release any DLCs, so it'll end up picking some steam when those are out I bet.
This technically isn't true, as Remedy Entertainment is both a public company (which is why this news outlet had anything to report on -- they're looking at info and attending meetings for Remedy's shareholders) and has Tencent as one of its major shareholders.
I'm also not quite convinced that the news is as dire as this outlet wants to imply, since even they acknowledge that Remedy's revenue has increased by more than 50% compared to Q1 last year. My instinct is that Alan Wake 2 sold quite well considering that it's not on Steam, but that not being on Steam is handicapping the sales of what was probably a very expensive game to develop. I wouldn't be deeply worried about the studio based just on this.
A 50% boost in sales over a quarter that is three years removed from their last major release seems kind of terrible.
Quarterly earnings don't mean as much in game development because studios typically go years without releasing any kind of product, then make all their money in the first few months after releasing something.
Fair enough, but wasn't Alan Wake 2 released back in October 2023? The first few months after its release would've been mostly in Q4.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with the technical definition of independent studio. For me it just means that the studio is able to independently make their decisions (of course in cooperation with publishers etc.), that decisions aren't singlehandedly made by their owner.
According to Wikipedia, Tencent owns 14%, whereas the other majority owners are three Finnish dudes, who own 23.7%, 4.15% and 2.22% (one of which is Sam Lake, the face of Remedy). Maybe that doesn't mean anything but I just thought to put it out there since I went to the trouble of looking it up.
I think we probably were looking things up in the same places :D
In my understanding, an independent studio is more likely to have decisions made singlehandedly by their owner (as you say, in cooperation with publishers and the like), since they're not beholden to shareholders. My understanding is that to be independent a game studio needs to be privately held and not owned by a large public corporation. Some people more narrowly only use it for sufficiently small studios, afaik. Of course what counts as "indie" within gaming circles doesn't necessarily map onto that... but gaming circles sometimes use "indie" more to denote an aesthetic than anything about the studio's financials.
Well, looks like they should have wanted (gone for) more money from Epic then. It may not be that easy to get your money back if you are not using all the different storefronts available in the world... I'm not sorry for their decision.
I'd love to help them out, but I ain't a buyer on any storefront where they want to sell the game, and I imagine that I'm not the only one.
I really think it's that simple. I won't do Epic for PC and I won't do digital for PS51 so even though I love Alan Wake, Control, and basically everything that Remedy has ever done2 they won't meet me where I'm a buyer and I'm less than surprised that they're not "Earning their budget back." Which, honestly? Fuck 'em.
They would have got my money anytime they wanted to do the barest minimum to earn the sale, instead they took Epic money to be exclusive and probably sunk any possibility of ever making even a fraction of what they could have made being both a physical release and on the most prominent storefront for their showcase platform at launch. As it is, I've seen far too many spoilers for the game now to warrant paying full price if it ever comes to a format where I would make a purchase. I hope the Epic exclusive was worth it, but it sorta seems like it maybe wasn't?
1 a position that has proven sapient as Sony has repeatedly decided to un-own stuff for users on PSN
2 and I have often bought multiple copies of their games in the past, usually once for Console and once for PC going all the way back to Xbox360 and the OG Alan Wake
From what Remedy has publicly said, it was totally worth it. I'm paraphrasing, but they called Epic a really good publishing partner who let them basically do what they wanted. There's the grain of salt and all that, after all it's in their interest to keep a good relationship with their publisher but there's a chance we might not have gotten this game otherwise.
I mean, the premise of the article is that they haven't made back what they spent to make the game, so in the most literal sense (so far) it hasn't been worth it beyond their being able to make the art that they wanted to make (which I'll give you is probably justification enough, but that's not how you keep being a going concern.)
I'd wager decent money that they could have made what they wanted and could have earned back their budget at launch if they had released on Steam day and date with Epic, it's obviously a project where there's a lot of love and while it's terrible that it's true, a lot of artists will suffer a great deal for the art they love so this probably would have happened either way. 🤷‍♂️
My understanding is that Epic hasn't made its money back, which is different. (Unless I misunderstood) And who knows how Epic's graphs play out, maybe this is a loss they're willing to take to the chin as an olive branch for other devs.
But they shopped around and Epic made the best deal? I'm not sure what you're wagering. Yes, if someone else saw the potential and was willing to bet on Remedy this would've played differently and I agree they probably would've made more money but no one did.
This was an earnings statement for investors in Remedy Entertainment Plc, not Epic, so it would be weird for them to be talking about Epic's concerns:
Granted I'm not certain how things work in Finland, but I think it would still be weird for them to be releasing an investor report that is telling their investors how the American company Epic Games, Inc. is doing publishing Remedy's game when the investors are probably more interested in the company they invested in.
Epic made the best up front deal by guaranteeing a payout for exclusivity. It probably reduced the amount of worry and uncertainty in making the game, but Steam typically has double the daily active users of EGS, and EGS has Fortnite so I imagine that most of that EGS number is Fortnite and not people who might want to give a heavily story driven, sequel, single player, with high PC graphical requirements, sort of experience a go. As I said, Remedy probably would have made the game anyhow without Epic, but it's impossible now to see what that path would have looked like. It probably would have been more stressful and worrying (as I said, more suffering for the art) but I suspect that they wanted it enough that it would have happened with or without Epic's money despite what anyone says because they clearly have a story that they wanted to get out into the world that they're passionate about and such people don't often allow money to stop them for too long.
It is wholly a horse of a different color, but it bears mentioning that when the original Alan Wake released on Steam back in 2012, it made back (and them some) its development and marketing budget in 2 days, while Alan Wake 2 has had the better part of 2 quarters and hasn't yet crossed that line despite having vastly superior name recognition, word of mouth, critical acclaim, and all the wind in their sails anyone could hope for including a huge presence at the VGAs. The budgets are obviously worlds of difference, but I think it's illustrative of what a good platform can do for a game and Epic just isn't yet a good platform for developers aside the truckloads of money that they'll drive up to your door for exclusivity.
They didn't take Epic money for exclusivity (I don't think that's still happening in general anymore). Epic funded and published the game, same with Alan Wake Remastered.
A similar situation happened with the Bayonetta games where 2 and 3 are Switch exclusives whereas the first was on PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. When asked by fans why they did this, the devs simply responded because Nintendo paid for it and there would not be a Bayonetta 2 or 3 otherwise without them. It's not like anyone else was offering to allow them to make the games.
It doesn't seem like anyone else was champing at the bit to get Alan Wake 2 made. Microsoft sat on the rights to the series for years themselves because it was never a big seller and Remedy weren't putting out anything flying off the shelves that would have tipped the scales at the time.
That all said, I'm hoping by the time I upgrade my PC into a state where it can play AW2 at the quality I want, it'll be available on Steam considering the EGS seemingly isn't doing too well, and I've already had more than my fair share of major issues with that launcher.
Tomato, tomato. EA and Ubisoft both publish games that are developed by outside devs which aren't locked exclusively to Origin and UPlay respectively, so clearly the exclusivity is its own distinct shitty thing.
That's only a recent change. They both tried that and failed. For a while, neither were putting their games on Steam either because they were pushing their own storefronts (and EGS as well in Ubisoft's case). They both came back to Steam after a few years.
2019: EA Returns to Steam, Starting With New Star Wars Game
2022: Ubisoft PC Games Returning to Steam Starting With Assassin's Creed Valhalla
This is why I added my last paragraph there.
I mean... No part of what you've said does anything to dissuade me from seeing how publishing a game and making it exclusive to your storefront are not intrinsically bound together... So, yeah, it's a shitty thing that publishers sometimes do, but it's clearly not a requirement.
It's that taking the money to be a store exclusive and being tied to the limitations of your publisher are two distinct things. One is a lot more understandable than the other when the alternative is that the game does not exist at all.
No other publisher would have required this, sure, but they also weren't willing to fund Alan Wake 2 (without significant compromises at least).
I'm in the same boat not wanting to deal with the Epic store. But I think that people like us are in the minority.
I have a fairly solid friend group who all have Steam accounts (many of which who have kids who also have Steam accounts) and are pretty regular buyers there, I can't say that I've heard a single one of them saying anything about EGS or games therein. I don't think that outside of dedicated gamers and/or Fortnite players, Epic Store even exists. It's just not a name that has the popularity of Steam and that's where it really matters.
I (like you) also think that the "people who know what EGS is and won't buy there" crowd is pretty small, unfortunately for Tim and Co. there's the larger problem that the "people who don't even know that EGS exists" crowd is massive and they're not going to be drawn in by these exclusives to figure it out when there's known platforms (PlayStation & Xbox) that have the same games available.
My perspective on the Epic Game Store is that they’re not playing for the current gaming crowd but for younger audiences who aren’t as established on the other platforms. Fortnite remains huge among kids and teenagers, and their steady drip feed of free games builds up the kind of library inertia that so many of us currently feel with regards to Steam. It’s also an incredibly appealing tactic for those specific demographics because they don’t have the ability to purchase a lot of games on their own.
I don’t see Epic’s strategy as being “let’s compete with Steam right now” but rather “let’s lay the groundwork to compete with Steam ten years down the road” after an entire cohort of people have effectively been “raised” on EGS.
Yes, we are in the minority, no matter how solid OP's friend group is. People buy what they want and they don't abandon it, just because of their principles. I wish they did, but they don't.
I don't personally have any strong opinions on the PC storefronts, so out of curiosity, may I ask why the resistance to EGS?
Steam has features that I use that have loads of increased friction to extend to games acquired via EGS. Steam Deck and Steam Link primarily. I can get EGS games working on my Steam Deck, but it's work when I'd rather be gaming and it often requires ongoing work to keep it working so it's just a treadmill of me doing stuff that feels like the stuff I'm gaming to get away from.
That said, I'm against paid exclusives and walled gardens in principle so even if EGS had parity for features I love, it'd still be a no from me until the exclusivity shit ends.
Out of curiosity, are you running EGS games from the desktop mode (and Lutris) or the SteamOS? I've had really smooth experiences launching BioShock from the desktop mode after getting it installed through the EGS.
That said, the vast majority of my games are on Steam, so I don't have a lot of experience with other titles played through EGS.
I've had decent luck with Heroic Launcher, but since the friction for Steam titles is basically 0, even 'works perfectly in desktop mode' is still enough of a lift when I could just boot FTL again.
Heroic seems to be the smoothest experience from what I've tried. Though I did just get notified about Junk Store this morning that looks like it may be even better than that? I might give it a try just to see what the state of the art is right now.
Agreed, I'd pick it up if I could buy a physical copy for PS5 or a digital copy on steam. I don't want my paid library spread across multiple platforms that could be shutdown on the whim of a corporate owner.
Does anyone know if they will ever be releasing Alan Wake 2 to Steam?
It's more or less guaranteed to come to Steam, considering Alan Wake 1 was brought back, and more importantly Control is on Steam after being an Epic exclusive for a while
Epic exclusives probably aren't allowed to talk about exclusivity terms, I've never seen a publisher mention "coming to Steam in a year" while being Epic exclusive
That's actually not necessarily true. Alan Wake 2 was actually published by Epic, (as opposed to Alan Wake 1 which was published by Microsoft, and Control by 505). Alan Wake 1 Remastered and Alan Wake 2 were funded by Epic.