eisberg77: This is why Epic's strategy using the coupons, free games, and exclusives has a far better chance at being successful vs working on features instead. With Epic's strategy these things happen:
- Exclusive games get people to start having games on another library
- Free games also gets people to start having games on another library and it gets people to have a large library rather quickly.
- Coupons appeal to the wallet while also helping to get people to have games on another library.
Everything Epic is doing is literally to combat the "all my games are on Steam so I want all games I buy to be on Steam" mentality, which is clearly the biggest mentality out there and the biggest hurdle to overcome. Also all of those things above get their Fortnite players on the PC who may be just starting out into PC gaming or will some day in the future to have a very large library of games on the store so they end up the mentality of "Epic is where all my games are at, so I want my games to be here as well"
Features is not the key at all, and GOG has literally proved that for the last 6 years since the release of GOG Galaxy.
SpikedWallMan: Epic may be making that type of gross profit, but news outlets are reporting a net loss of ~$500M since the founding of EGS. So it appears that the only reason EGS even exists now is because they've been wasting tons of money on a failing effort, and the reason that their effort is failing is because they don't seem to want to be bothered by making a "killer feature" that will attract customers. Instead, they just decided to lazily swing around Fortnite money to bribe devs to only release on Epic, and that action has actually hurt EGS considerably because it has caused a significant portion of the gaming community to strongly dislike EGS. So please don't act like GOG is some sort of lost cause because they're smaller than Steam while Epic is some sort of up and coming market leader because they simply know how to write a check. EGS's revenue may be higher, but EGS's expenses are so above and beyond what would be considered a normal operating loss that it's absolutely shameful. From the recent report, it looks like a lot of GOG's loss is more of a bookkeeping and organizational issue than it is them just dumping money into a black hole.
Except their efforts are not failing, those are planned losses, its their investment into growing the store. Like it has been shown earlier, features do not bring customers to a store, if it did, then GOG would have grown in market share everytime they added a new feature, but they didn't grow at all, staying at ~$40 million in sales revenue each year for many years now, and that is for both first and third party games together, mean while Epic has been making $250+ million each year, far outpacing GOG's revenue.
Also it is not out of the realm of a normal operating loss, it's actually pretty low for the company of it's revenue size (talking about Epic Games revenue from all sources, not just the store) when getting into a new business venture, those are really marketing expenses.
BanditKeith2: Also EGS is anti consumer for the shit they pulled early on and literally 'buying'' exclusives and word came out they was 'strong arming in mafia style'' devs and smaller studio's to go exclusive to them to basically try forcing people to use it as basically a ''artificial competition'' to Steam and other crude they more recently has pulled and admitted to on social media of in truth more or less wanting to be a monopoly of sorts
Simply put, Epic made a competitive offering to dev/pubs, and the dev/pubs chose to take that competitive offering. That's the nature of competition. We even do it as customers, we look at the competitive offerings of different stores and made a decision based on what ever criteria we each have.
Epic did not strong arm, in any fashion especially not in mafia style fashion, any dev/pub to be exclusive to the store. I don't even know where you got that from? Did you just make that up?
They also did not admit on social media to wanting to be a monopoly, again, no idea where you are getting that idea from. Are you making that up as well?
Breja: DRM FREE. I could swear we've been over this.
BanditKeith2: And? Their is other drm free storefronts that focus way way more on newer games then GOG does now thus the weirdness of coming here for newer drm free games
Can you name such a store? Because what I see on GOG is mostly new games that come to the store, showing their focus is on newer games and less about old games. I doubt I would have bought 200 games on GOG, with only about 10% of them being old games, if their focus really was on old games and not new games.
eisberg77: While I occasionally buy an old game, out of the 200 games I have on GOG, only about 10% of them are old games. I use GOG due to DRM free, and it being a curated store that has introduced to me some great indie games.
BanditKeith2: This is atleast fair as you as far as I can tell haven't been a regular being like'' retro junk'' in commenting on indie game news announcements here like others I see when indie devs go the retro artstyle and the like matter.. Whatever the case what do you see as old games? Asking as I have found some see even the early to mid 2000 games as old games and retro when to me early to mid 90's I'd call old .. and anything newer as sorta old and oldish.. with anything from 2015 up as new for sure
Breja: That's news to me. And to most other people here. I imagine your definition of "DRM free" does not align with mine or theirs.
Your obsession with asserting the blatantly false is rather peculiar.
BanditKeith2: Eh I can't recall what the storefront is but it was brought up in a thread here awhile back after the devotion debacle.. I never used the site mentioned so the name escapes me at the moment but Eh don't believe me or not .. just don't call me a liar as you just did in the later bit of your reply
Nearly all the old games I have bought came from the 80's and 90's, some early 2000s like Freespace 2 which released in 2001.