Sections

Epic has actually listened to developers

An attractive revenue share isn't Epic's biggest promise for its new digital store; for many creators, a platform free of Steam's often-abused community features is essential

For quite a number of years, Valve has perceived one major challenge to the dominance of its Steam platform for digital distribution of PC games - namely the ambition of major publishers, who chafed against the firm's position of power from the outset.

Publishers had, somewhat na´vely, imagined the digital future as one in which retailers would be removed and they would assume command of both the significant profit share once taken by distributors and retailers, and perhaps more lucratively still of the customer relationship itself.

The replacement of a fragmented set of retailers large and small, all of whom could be leaned upon to some degree to a publisher's gain, with a single global retail platform big enough to simply ignore the demands -- or commercial tantrums -- of an individual publisher was a development which prompted more than a decade of wailing and gnashing of teeth. With that came occasional efforts to supplant Steam with publisher-owned services; the likes of EA's Origin opened the floodgates to publishers trying to find a way around Steam's iron grip on the market.

"After watching Steam grow so big and concentrate so much industry power in Valve's hands, they'll be wary before handing Epic enough support to do the same thing all over again"

That's the challenge to Steam which Valve has seen and acknowledged. It's responded to that challenge in ways that primarily appeal to publishers' financial sense - with one hand pointing out the sheer size of the Steam customer base which firms eschew by going to their own platforms, with the other trying to entice them back with sweeter deals on the platform's revenue share. Valve's recent price changes are well documented and discussed, and they're the most clear statement of its priorities imaginable; laser focused on enticing the industry's giants back onto the platform.

What makes Epic Games' new digital store interesting, to my mind, isn't the alternative it offers to those big publishers. It's got a slightly more enticing revenue share, but at present its user-base is, well, zero; granted, Fortnite is about as good a title to use as the foundation for a digital store as Half-Life 2 was all the way back when, but it'll still take Epic a very long time to match Valve's numbers.

Besides, publishers have been around this merry-go-around before; after watching Steam grow so big and concentrate so much industry power in Valve's hands, they'll be wary before handing Epic enough support to do the same thing all over again. (For the same reason, it doesn't matter that much how attractive Valve's revenue split becomes; the big publishers don't want the PC sector to be dominated by a monolithic retail player, no matter how generous its revenue sharing scheme looks.)

No, what makes Epic's store into such a major challenger to Steam is, rather, the fact that it's attacking from a different angle (well, multiple angles at once, as Christopher Dring pointed out earlier this week -- but this, I think, is the most important one). Sure, it'll put pressure on Valve's appeal to big publishers, but more importantly it aims to pull the rug out from underneath Steam's feet by directly appealing to the indie and mid-market developers who are the bread and butter of the PC games market.



That's reflected in the pricing structure, of course -- Epic's structure is clearly designed to be a better deal for small and mid-range developers -- but you can see it even more clearly in the commitments Epic is making about how its platform will deal with store pages, community infrastructure, news feed management and so on. The details aren't entirely nailed down, especially with regard to discovery and curation -- but Epic gives every impression of having listened carefully to years' worth of complaints and problems that Valve has, at best, been high-handed about.

The Epic Games Store launched last night with a telling focus on indies and smaller creators

The Epic Games Store launched last night with a telling focus on indies and smaller creators

To some extent that's a function of a cultural mismatch between Valve and the small or mid-sized developers to whom it ended up providing a vital platform; it's also to some degree a consequence of that blinkered focus on keeping the big boys happy, which has made Valve take the indies and mid-sized developers for granted. Those creators, after all, don't have the resources or audience required to strike out and build their own distribution platform; they need Steam's audience. They might complain a lot, and some of those complaints might be very legitimate, but where else would they go?

Well, now there is a 'where else' and Epic is making a very good fist of actually trying to build a service that will work for the indie and mid-size creators in a way that Steam has largely ceased to. To be entirely fair, this isn't just down to a lack of care and attention from Valve; many of the bad decisions made on Steam are the product of the era in which the service was created and it's monumentally harder to roll back those decisions now than it is to launch something new and make better decisions from the outset.

Steam is the product of an era in which Web 2.0 systems were new and exciting, so people thought that literally everything on the Internet could be improved by building community features into its very bones; those communities would in turn provide data which could be mined to make the service better, to make better recommendations and fine-tune the user experience. And if there was a problem within the community itself? Why, given the right algorithm, the data would have the answer to that too; that was the magic of Web 2.0.

"Valve could match Epic's revenue share tomorrow; but [not] the promise of a better place to do business, somewhere not open to the brigading, trolling and hate campaigns that have swept across Steam in recent years"

Put like that with the benefit of many years of hindsight, it all sounds impossibly na´ve; how could we not have recognised how those community features would become vectors for abuse of many sorts, that bad-faith actors would figure out how to game the algorithms and twist them to their purposes, that building "community" into the most fundamental functioning of our online services would just make it nigh-on impossible to extricate those features when they turned bad?

This is the rock and hard place situation Valve has found itself in; Steam's community and the problems it has incubated isn't just a matter of forums and comment pages within Valve's control, but a network of infected tissue that spreads throughout the platform, its algorithms, its data, and out to other places beyond the firm's control where brigading, trolling and campaigns of abuse are coordinated. Weeding this out of the platform would be insanely hard work, not just technically but in terms of customer relations; it would make Valve itself into the target of all the bad actors who have spent the past few years targeting indie and mid-range developers on the platform, wrecking the livelihoods of many and the personal lives of quite a few.

Epic has the benefit of starting from a clean slate and being able to avoid those issues from day one. It's building a store in an era where the mistakes made by Web 2.0 approaches have become not only common knowledge within the industry but the topic of newspaper editorials and governmental investigations. More than that, though, it also actually seems to have been listening and to be prepared to take tough decisions which may sacrifice some commercial success in favour of a healthier, more positive ecosystem for creators. That's a big deal for many smaller developers, for whom the wrong word in the wrong place can turn Steam overnight into a vector for attacks on their livelihood and their person - a possibility of which many developers are all too aware, even if they haven't personally experienced it as yet.



Epic isn't making a big song and dance about this aspect of its attack on Steam's business, but it's telling that those decisions are being promoted up front alongside the indie-friendly revenue share. While I don't doubt that Valve's focus will remain on the big industry players for the time being, the reality is that Epic is triangulating on Steam's market in a way that goes far beyond finances.

Valve could, with some pain, match Epic's revenue share tomorrow; but the promise of a better place to do business, somewhere that's not open to the kind of brigading, trolling and hate campaigns that have swept across Steam in recent years... That could genuinely start to change the tide and entice away a whole strata of game creators that Valve has taken for granted for many years.

The indie and mid-range development scene are increasingly the industry's strongest bastion of diversity and demographic growth, which is vital to the future commercial health of gaming as a whole and the PC platform in particular; if Epic's platform becomes the go-to distribution option for those creators, Steam's operators may find themselves longing for the relative simplicity of negotiations with EA and Activision.

Related stories

Epic shuts down Fortnite data miner

[UPDATE]: Developer says the takedown was for promoting and advertising game mod tools, "not directly related" to leaking

By Brendan Sinclair

Epic's Fortnite was the highest trending game on Google US in 2018

Red Dead Redemption 2 and Fallout 76 were second and third

By Matthew Handrahan

Latest comments (8)

Eyal Teler Programmer 7 days ago
sacrifice some commercial success in favour of a healthier, more positive ecosystem for creators
I think that Epic will end up implementing some of the features Steam has, because if not, it will sacrifice quite a bit of commercial success. The abused features are also a cornerstone of a good store. Customers want to read reviews before buying, and to interact with others who play the game and get help from them. Not having these features on the Epic store will mean that users will go somewhere where they do exist. They might still end up buying at the Epic store, but Steam will be their first home. It's kind of like Amazon being the go-to place for reviews of a lot of products.

Epic could have a draw if they, for example, establish themselves as having really good customer service, or lower prices in general. But removing features which customers consider basic seems to me like a problem.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 7 days ago
Due to Fortnite, Epic's platform certainly has more users than content and expanding to become an online video games retailer seems like a now or never moment.

Over the long haul though, plenty of video games go after people playing games exclusively for long periods of time. Developers want their players to form smaller and larger groups playing the game together and keeping attachment rates up. That segment of players only has one unifying address, Discord. Chasing after Steam is meaningless, sure people buy `games there, but who honestly has their clan and online friends there? Steam is not going to be killed by "Clone of Steam", it is going to be replaced by something that does something fundamentally better than Steam while also being Steam. Epic is not that, Discord is.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Michael Ball Studying Computer Science, Georgia Southern University7 days ago
Steam's community and the problems it has incubated isn't just a matter of forums and comment pages within Valve's control, but a network of infected tissue that spreads throughout the platform, its algorithms, its data, and out to other places beyond the firm's control where brigading, trolling and campaigns of abuse are coordinated.
Imagine disliking a company so much that you accidentally compare its entire customer base to rampant disease. I don't agree with the author's sentiment, but he might want to change that first bit to something like "The problem plaguing the Steam community isn't just...".
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (8)
Keldon Alleyne Strategic keyboard basher, Avasopht Ltd7 days ago
Imagine disliking a company so much that you accidentally compare its entire customer base to rampant disease
It didn't compare its entire customer base. It was quite specific on what it meant:
- "brigading, trolling and [coordinated] campaigns of abuse"
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Michael Ball Studying Computer Science, Georgia Southern University7 days ago
@Keldon Alleyne: "Steam's community" is a parallel subject of clause of the sentence. Like it or not, the author's poor wording led to an undoubtedly accidental implication, since as a subject of the sentence, the rest of the sentence will inevitably be about it. Here's a link to the diagram of a sentence that, while nonsensical with regard to subjects and adjectives, is of the same fundamental structure. I would have simply entered the whole sentence, but the site's character limit cuts it off.

Again, this was clearly unintentional on the author's part, which is why I, despite disagreeing with the overall thrust of the article, suggested an alternative wording that removes the unintentional implication without changing the idea he wants to convey.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Michael Ball on 9th December 2018 5:48pm

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 7 days ago
Sadly, the entire video game industry has a similar strategy when confronted with consumer lashbacks.

(1) Cherry pick the most extreme comments.
(2) Make a broad generalization that claims all forms of current criticism were equally extreme comments.
(3) Paint yourself as the victim and being the one on moral high ground.
(4) Stir the pot some more by giving extreme responses designed to bait out even more extreme answers you can then cherry pick again.
(5) Repeat the cycle until all arguments that are presented in a reasonable and reputable fashion are drowned out. Anything that may have started out as a sincere wish falls victim to the shouting match.

In the end, both PR and the platforms on which it happens destroy one of their best resource, reciprocity. As the PR of a company does this process more often, people stop believing in the mutual benefit of interacting with PR in a realistic manner. Interaction becomes "for the lolz", as nobody believes there to be an intrinsic value to the communication.

In the case of Steam, this cycle has happened often enough, that the distorted version of this reality has become an accepted narrative and the platform is seen as toxic and hostile, no matter how reasonable the feedback there might be in reality.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Coote Independent Game Developer 6 days ago
Males a lot of sense. Unmoderated, anonymous text-based reviews are obsolete in an age where people can just watch a let's play or stream.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic 5 days ago
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.