Epic, Valve, exclusives and "competition"

Even if you're just casually involved in PC gaming, which is unlikely since you're a reader of Ragequit.gr, it's certain that in the past quarter you've heard some topical words somewhere: Epic Games Store, moneyhats, exclusives, Valve, commissions etc. If Epic Games, creator of the popular Fortnite and the Unreal Engine, had intended to create buzz and draw the spotlight onto its new creation then it undoubtedly succeeded. Starting with a barrage of announcements from the Game Awards and continuing to occupy news headlines in various ways, Epic has managed to bring its new digital distribution store to the forefront of the news, with which it aspires to compete with the undisputed dominant player in the field, the equally well-known Valve's Steam. Epic's primary goal, it seems, is to attract developers to its service through various means.

According to the company itself, the battering ram with which it is attempting to bring down the gate of Valve's castle is the much more generous revenue sharing rate compared to the standard rate established by most major market "players". Valve, like other companies (Sony, Microsoft, Apple Google, etc.) retain 30% of the money from any software sales through their services. Epic, on the other hand, withholds 12%, leaving the remaining 88% in the hands of the developers. While in the PC gaming space there are other services with a reduced percentage, e.g. itch. io that allows the developer to decide for himself how much he wants to pay and the Discord Store that now charges only 10%, Epic's store has created waves and got everyone's attention, in both positive and negative ways, due to the company's decision to... entice developers with sizeable amounts of money to make their products available exclusively through the Epic Games Store for at least a year, thus excluding Steam and other similar services.

Since then a constant and quite fierce "battle" has been going on in various corners of the internet between the proponents of Epic's policy and the dissidents. The main arguments of the pro-Epic camp are based on the logic that Valve has a virtual monopoly on the PC gaming market, that it has rested on its laurels and doesn't offer as much as it should, and that a strong competitor needs to emerge that will bring a greater balance for the good of developers and of course gamers. That competitor, according to its fans, is Epic, which through the amount of money it has earned from Fortnite has the financial clout to counter Valve. As for the burning issue of purchased timed exclusives, the company's supporters believe that it is a reasonable and legitimate policy because Epic, as a new entrant in the digital distribution space, has to compete with Valve's established powerhouse by any means possible and "force" consumers to come to its store, otherwise they will continue to choose Steam.

Personally, I'm on the other side of this controversy, that of Epic's critics, because I believe that this kind of artificial competition has absolutely nothing to offer to the PC gamer and may even damage PC gaming in the medium term. I will explain my position by first stating that I partially accept the other side's position on Valve's monopoly in the PC gaming market. Not because the formal requirements for using that definition are necessarily met, but based on the reality that Steam is by far the number one choice for most publishers, developers and gamers. I also accept the general premise that competition benefits the consumer in most cases, with the necessary asterisk that such competition is conducted on such terms as to offer the ordinary gamer tangible and concrete benefits.

So what "proper" competition, the most advantageous for consumer rights? In my opinion, it is the competition in which companies compete with each other to offer their customers the highest possible amount of benefits compared to their competitors. Basically any company that enters the PC gaming market and tries to make money by offering better services to customers, better prices or some special features not offered elsewhere. I believe that such a company contributes in a positive way to increasing competition and improving consumer benefits. Instead, Epic Games has chosen to claim market share from Steam and other services, not in the positive way of offering additional incentives and benefits to gamers, but in the negative way of removing the availability of certain games from other services.

So I think the difference between competition in a positive way and competition in a negative way is clear. The former provides additional benefits and choices to consumers, the latter takes away. Epic could compete with Steam by choosing the "path of virtue", offering better prices and advanced services than its competitor. Instead, it chose to 'force' customers to prefer its store by making sure that it secured exclusive distribution rights to some games, including the recent Metro:Exodus. As a result, players who would like to buy these games are obliged to purchase them through a service that does not offer the functionality and features of Steam, GOG and other similar services.

The counter-argument put forward by most defenders of Epic's policy is that the strategy of securing exclusives is widely used in console gaming and is a legitimate move when a new entrant in the industry is trying to quickly gain market share. They add that even if Epic offered a wealth of services and benefits from the outset, most customers would continue to prefer Steam purely out of habit or because of the already long-standing use of the service and the concentration of a large number of games on it. So my answer is as follows: First of all, I don't care at all what is considered fair practice in console gaming. That market, which is dominated by closed walled gardens that exclude from the outset any possibility of competition on the same platform, has a very big history of practices aimed at bleeding customers dry by any means and claiming market share at all costs. The se practices there have no place in PC gaming, an inherently open platform with a strong element of competition.

As for the argument that Epic couldn't easily and quickly claim market share any other way, I'll just say... I don't care. I am not a shareholder of Epic nor is Tim Sweeney my cousin so that I would care whether Epic gains large market share or not. As an ordinary consumer and PC gamer, I care about being able to choose where to give my money without being artificially forced to pay for a service that I don't think is worth the money. It took Valve several years to convince customers and developers that they are the best choice for distributing and buying games. Epic should be prepared to put in the same time, effort, and money to eventually be considered a worthy rival to Steam and lure in customers who will willingly prefer the Epic Games Store over Steam because it offers a superior level of service, not because they are forced to use it since the game they want doesn't exist elsewhere.