If I were to be brief I'd say my problem with Epic is that Epic's exclusivity campaign was premature, is hypocritical, and opens up the game market for the same type of "competition" that happened in the movie streaming market where the consumers ended up with the short end of the stick. But I always feel the short and sweet answers don't describe the problem strongly enough... So sit back and "enjoy" my rant I guess, lol.
Did streaming movies become more convenient and consumer friendly when Netflix got competition? Subscription fees went up, and the individual streaming sites started pursuing exclusivity deals, creating monopolies on individual products. I dunno, but statistics that shows that people went full circle over the last two decades shouldn't really be surprising, e.g. people went from pirating movies, to subscribing to Netflix, to then pirating movies again. Similarly Steam was essentially a working solution against rampant piracy in the gaming market as well. A 30% cut is nothing if it secures the market for your products in the future. I can understand the complaints from Indie developers who only plan to release one title and then retire, but AAA studio's getting on the train disgust me to no end, because they are sacrificing both reputation and the future market for short term benefits.
Currently Steam and GoG are the primary innovators in the computer gaming market, Steam might be taking a 30% cut, but they are continuously developing their platform. Like the recent feature that allows you to enjoy local co-op and split-screen games with your online friends, it has given many affected titles a renewed life. Epic is in the stone age in comparison, they didn't even bother to catch up even a little before they tried to force themselves onto the market. Hence why their campaign is premature.
Epic's solution to Steam's benign "monopoly" is by enforcing a true monopoly on individual products. They are arguing about the lack of choice while trying to solve it by taking away peoples choice. This is a hypocrite form for business. The reasons you want to avoid monopolies in the first place is due to the risk of stagnating innovation and high prices for low quality, pitfalls that Steam haven't fallen into. Steam also never were a true monopoly, they simply have the highest market share because they are offering the gold standard. And in a digital market you always have piracy as a competitor too.
Yeah sure, people where pissed back in the day when retail products required you to begin using Steam, but that wasn't Steam forcing their product, it was publishers and developers choosing Steam as their games form for DRM as Steam was decent for that purpose without being as intrusive on consumers as many of the alternatives. And as history proved many consumers eventually found buying games on Steam to be easier than piracy. This process was essentially natural selection, not dirty bribes.
Which brings me to my final issue with Epic: they consistently downplay the importance of the consumers, having made several statements that the developers are the sole key to success and eluding to the average gamer being a sheep. Maybe that would be true in any other market, but here's the thing: as crazy as it might sound, people actually care about their escapism more than they care about their reality. The average gamer is more invested in the gaming market than the average person is invested in politics. This is how EA earned the golden poop so many years in a row, despite competing with companies that are guilty of ecocide and worse. Epic should have ensured that they had something better to offer the consumers as well, that they argue against this shows how out of touch with the market they are.
Personally I was never bothered by buying certain games on other platforms outside of Steam before and I occasionally did, but because of all the above reasons I will not support Epic and will not favorably be touching their store willingly until at least their "Epic Early Access Program" is done and over with.
