Pretty much just epic paying devs money in order to give away their game, almost directly buying them market share for their launcher. They will probably stop doing it some day. Or maybe they won’t.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Probably waiting to stop once their store hits a critical mass and repeat business

Guessing that never happened and never will

Steam has great prices, great sales, great features for the users

GOG has a decent selection, is good with older games, and no DRM. That's still an advantage

Epic has....an ability to make you have to log in or update constantly? I don't see the advantage over anything. I personally refuse to give them money for taking away store choice with exclusives

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You mean... Giving devs money so they're guaranteed an income instead of relying solely on the success or failure of their game which can be fairly random in some cases? Or the part where they keep a share of the profit much smaller than Steam?

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Not sure what part of my comment you interpreted as dissing this business practice, or what the second half of your comment is even referring to as I never mentioned profit splitting, but you keep on waffling about epic. I am sure that will fix their launcher sucking dick.

[–] InfiniteVariables@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Even if you accept the premise of your argument, what percentage of games do you think is getting that deal? It's still sink or swim for the vast, vast majority of indie games in that case. I'm all for competition, I just don't like that specific business practice.