Yet whilst Epic may have been in the lurch when it came to establishing consumer rapport back in the day, they knew exactly how to go about things when it came to getting developers on board. All it took was a complete undercutting of the commission percentage for product sold, that was juicy enough bait for literally anyone. (Just look at Randy Pitchford's desperate simping if you don't believe me.) But such would only ever hinge on the viability of the market, obviously; thus Epic proved themselves equally as lucky there with this entire business model piggybacking off the run-away success of their, now household, brand; 'Fortnite: Battle Royale'. So here was a platform that managed to exclusively house the current biggest game in the world, thus boasting that player base as their own users, with a more generous commission than it's biggest competitor and even some cookies, (probably) who wouldn't sign up to the Epic experience?
However, despite all this apparent good that the Epic brand was purposing on behalf of the wider gaming industry, they still had to resort to the lowest common denominator of tactics in order to win over fans. Yes, I'm talking about the accursed word; 'Paid exclusivity'. There is no more pathetic a tactic to grow a brand then to start throwing around money for exclusivity, in my humble opinion. Yes, I understand when a platform-owner goes out of their way to fund a title and then feels entitled to hoard it exclusively for their store, (I don't like it, but I get it) but there's no excuse for the guys who drive around town with a suitcase of money looking to cash off of finished products. (It's just lazy.) This practise is the equivalent of admitting that you have nothing unique enough to offer the consumer in terms of actual qualities of service, so you're forced to literally piggyback off of developers work to strongarm a consumer base. Needless to say, I was less then impressed with Epic at this stage of their career and still harbour some ill-will towards them because of it. (If you want to be better than Steam, then be better.)
But none of that is the point of today's blog, that's just the background. As yes, today I want to talk about how the Epic store turned from a place I actively avoided approaching to a store I visit weekly and a launcher I even occasionally utilise. (And yes, it's due to a gimmick.) The gaming world is absolutely no stranger to the concept of 'free games' offered through platforms on a semi-regular basis. Xbox have doing it for an age with their 'games with gold' service, Playstation have their much-applauded 'Playstation Plus' feature that comes with the odd game, and even EA were in on the action for about half a year before their inherent selfish nature grew so overwhelming that they couldn't stomach the prospect of offering free software anymore. (That's literally the only explanation. They only offered a handful of games out of their library of hundreds. There's no rational excuse for retiring the program when they did.) And yet somehow, Epic's version of the this plan has manages to stand head-and-shoulders above the others as a shining example of how to do this idea right. Super right, in fact.
Whenever this concept is implemented on a storefront it usually comes alongside a selection of caveats that we all choose to knowingly overlook because the software itself is 'free'. (We don't want to be seen as "entitled gamers", as two-bit 'reporters' are fond of labelling.) With Xbox and Playstation they have a tendency of offering the base versions of games that have expensive DLC, for fear of getting literally nothing out of the transaction. Xbox like to offer previous versions of games that are just about to see a sequel, to drum up interest. And EA literally offered up their least profitable software under the logic that they weren't making money off of it anyway. Now all of these practises are fine, in fairness, because the games on offer are mostly free. Aside from the fact that they most certainly are not, they all come behind a subscription paywall. (again, with the exception of EA, which is probably another reason why they bailed on the concept.)
Epic, on the otherhand, offers no subscription for their services. (I'd like to think that the gaming world wouldn't accept a subscription-based launcher, but then I remember that folk actually defend Stadia and I know we've just been lucky so far.) Yet they still make the effort to offer regular free games to their player base and what's more, these tend to be highly-rated, quality games with little to no 'caveats' attached. I remember not too long ago when they offered the 'Batman Arkham trilogy' (which are all incredible games) completely free. They've put up classics like 'Amnesia: Dark Decent', niche titles like 'Costume Quest', fantastic indie games like 'Limbo', 'Hyper light Drifter' and 'Moonlighter' and they even had one week which nearly crashed the entire Internet, because they offered 'Grand Theft Auto V' for free. (The absolute madmen.) This is the sort of pedigree that Epic have established with their free games program, and that's worth quite a lot of points in my book.
This harmoniously gels with Epic's proposed image of a storefront representing quality, an image that runs in stark contrast to Steam's model of "we're the face of all PC gaming". The ready openness with which Steam invites folk to their storefront has cultivated a rather negative perception, one where Steam comes across, (forgive me) as a bit of a whore. Anyone with $100 can upload their crappy asset-flip dumpster fire content to their storefront for the hopes of making a quick buck, and that deluge of filth makes it hard for genuine gems to stand out. (Also, Steam offers no weekly 'free game' service. Even though they certainly have the catalogue with which to do so and the money to make it happen.) Epic have tried, not always successfully, to ensure that only polished and good games get onto their store front and therefore whenever they offer a game from their catalogue for free the public know it's going to be a title worth playing. No matter what, they aren't going to get a crappy title that doesn't function and is probably using your CPU for crypto-mining. Sure, the same could be said for Xbox or Playstation's offers, but they more maintain that image as an unspoken rule, whilst Epic laud it, making their policy inherently more eminent and their free-catalogue shine and stand out. (Yeah, that's maybe not entirely fair. But thus is the way of marketing)
So is Epic my favourite platform now, purely for the merit of offering high-quality free games? No, they still have a long way to go in order to prove why I should pick their platform over literally any other. (Personally, I'd recommend they seek some sort of partnership with GOG and their super cool 'Galaxy' interface, but that's just me.) But their generosity has done wonders to repair their wounded reputation with me and, by natural extension, has built up quite the library of games that I own only on their launcher, encouraging me to use it. (That's five-head moves right there!) So I'm here to call a truce with those that man this storefront and offer some advice; double down on your 'marketplace of quality' thing you've got going on, it truly does set you apart. (When it works, of course, otherwise you just look silly.)
No comments:
Post a Comment