Epic Games Launcher appears to collect Steam friends and play history
resetera.com
resetera.com
———————————
We use a tracking pixel (tracking.js) for our Support-A-Creator program so we can pay creators. We also track page statistics.
The launcher sends a hardware survey (CPU, GPU, and the like) at a regular interval as outlined in our privacy policy(see the “Information We Collect or Receive” section). You can find the code here.
The UDP traffic highlighted in this post is a launcher feature for communication with the Unreal Editor. The source of the underlying system is available on github.
The majority of the launcher UI is implemented using web technology that is being rendered by Chromium (which is open source). The root certificate and cookie access mentioned above is a result of normal web browser start up.
The launcher scans your active processes to prevent updating games that are currently running. This information is not sent to Epic.
We only import your Steam friends with your explicit permission. The launcher makes an encrypted local copy of your localconfig.vdf Steam file. However information from this file is only sent to Epic if you choose to import your Steam friends, and then only hashed ids of your friends are sent and no other information from the file.
Epic is controlled by Tim Sweeney. We have lots of external shareholders, none of whom have access to customer data.
Daniel Vogel VP of Engineering Epic Games Inc.
This should not be done preemptively.
Maybe if these notifications were less vague, they wouldn't be hounded as annoying and useless... Just saying.
Note, I use Dark Souls as an example here (as opposed to, say, Skyrim) because Dark Souls mods were very much not developer-sanctioned at the outset. If From Software had needed to explicitly allow mods, you can bet they never would have happened.
An example of the bad side is that Nvidia says they cannot develop drivers for their cards because Apple hasn't allowed them to (Apple develops the drivers). I technically believe they can, but they would have to make the user jump through some very unreasonable steps (reboot into a maintenance mode and disable integrity protection).
Just confirming this is accurate. SIP wouldn't need to be disabled completely, just the blocking of unsigned kexts. (Apple allows you to selectively enable and disable pieces of SIP).
I don't think this would be so wholly unreasonable. The types of users installing third party video cards in their Macs are the types of users who should know how to do this. At the cost of their security, you could argue, but of course you still have normal Unix root restrictions to protect you there, as long as you're savvy enough to not grant such permissions to any random software.
Unless of course by enforce you mean taking control of the sandboxing away from the user, in which case I totally agree that should not be done because I'm against that kind of user-hostile bullshit.
Nearly every effort I've seen by OS makers to implement sandboxing by default also makes the sandbox difficult or impossible to disable. iOS, UWP, the list goes on. I agree they shouldn't be connected, but they nearly always are. And it's always done in the name of protecting users.
macOS is the one bright spot here, and even then, the new dialogs in Mojave that can't be disabled fare crippling if you make heavy use of apps that need access to other app's sandboxes[1]. I'm convinced that if Apple moves to ARM, it will likely come with a massive tightening on user restrictions, in the name of security.
[1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/339509/edit-tcc-db...
Sandboxing should be done, treating users like children who need to have control stripped from them for their own good should not.
As soon as you implement the option at an OS level, there are going to be (many!) developers who want it enforced for all users. It's the obvious path to go down.
That behaviour is a little bit gross.
99% of end users will not be able to reverse engineer the binary and find out that copy is never transmitted. The fact it is 'touching' private files at all without any consent degrades trust.
Furthermore, if I want to delete all traces of Steam from my computer how the hell would I know there is a copy of steam's localconfig in a different program's folder? or what if I backup or share privately/publicly my EpicLauncher directory without realizing all my steam contacts are in there?
Epic might be doing the right thing today. Will they tomorrow? Is every library they use trustworth forever?
~ Darth Vader
You can read the changes to the ToS at www.palpatine2020.com/toremotetomakeaneffectdemonstration
I want this to be the normal. Right now, it's basically a free for all -- record the screen, send network requests, fingerprint hardware, scan for files, examine other processes. The default, out-of-the-box security settings for most distributions are unacceptable.
I'm really excited to see that sandboxing on native is starting to move in the same direction as the web; I'm hoping that within the next year or two we start to see dramatic improvement here.
I completely understand why people do not want to pay the Steam tax, but the Epic launcher is a scummy experience. Steam is popular and has a loud following because it does not make unethical choices that annoy users. I have no issue installing multiple launchers, either, but I don't want something running on my system that operates in an unethical manor. And it's tiring how common it is for companies to operate in this way, so we, as users, have to scrutinize their behavior heavily.
For example:
1) By default, the Epic launcher appears to advertise "free games" via Windows notification (popups). I never deliberately opted in to this. When I first saw the notification, I was certain I had some sort of spyware on my system. It looked like a spammy advertisement you see in free mobile games. I don't believe even EA/ORIGIN has been gutsy enough to try something like this.
2) Epic launcher defaults to starting when Windows starts. I never explicitly opted in to this. I'm sure I "affirmed" this somehow via some kind of user agreement, but I don't ever remember seeing an explicit option.
Apparently you were correct, based on this story.
How's that any different than steam showing popups for newly released games on startup?
>When I first saw the notification, I was certain I had some sort of spyware on my system. It looked like a spammy advertisement you see in free mobile games. I don't believe even EA/ORIGIN has been gutsy enough to try something like this.
So you're upset that the notification made you think your computer was infected? And you expect that epic games to have forseen this outcome?
>2) Epic launcher defaults to starting when Windows starts. I never explicitly opted in to this. I'm sure I "affirmed" this somehow via some kind of user agreement, but I don't ever remember seeing an explicit option.
AFAIK steam does the same.
edit:
Here are the default settings for a fresh steam install: https://i.imgur.com/2SNpi1O.png. As you can see, steam engages in the same "unethical" behavior as epic.
The notification related setting in your screenshot causes the pop-up window upon launching Steam. But it's a window that belongs to the Steam client. It has the obvious interface styling of Steam and is titled "Steam - News".
I agree with you that the "launch on startup" option would be better as opt-in.
I agree with gp that Windows notifications are a step worse.
edit- changed description of pop-up
Let me get this straight: you think that showing a medium sized banner ad in a window is better than a few lines of text using the OS provided notification API? Why?
If the position was reversed, I could very well imagine the opposite argument. eg. "boo epic shows this massive ad in your face, whereas steam uses a discreet notification"
Notifications - whether they were intended to or not, are way more intrusive in my usual workflow, and I would posit the majority of people find it the same.
This is down to the fact that the steam popups advertising games are in the same icon and styling as the rest of steam -> i.e. You alt+tab or click on your steam icon and close or view it as clearly a steam thing. It also pops up during first start only.
A windows notification I find to be much more attention grabbing and not clearly defined as a particular program, and if I find it to be an ad, I'm immediately put out by this as I'm being advertised to by a program in my system tray, where I'm used to that being configuration info and/or notification of something minimising/complete etc.
Any information they give me through the notification tab is now in jeopardy of being ignored because I've been taught that they are ads now.
This isn't unique to steam for me, I'm totally used to programs opening up additional windows upon opening, but any programs that advertise through system notifications have long since bothered me.
The Epic ads appear to show whenever they want, even if Epic launcher is minimized to the system tray. You can be doing something entirely unrelated to Epic on your OS and it will pop up.
Steam does not do this. Either way, why do you think almost every single web browser has pop up window protection built-in?
Because the banner ad does not distract me from something else while the notification does. The banner shows up when Steam starts which means my attention is on Steam and specifically on waiting for it to start. The notifications come up any time which means I'm specifically focused on something else.
Jesus fuck yes.
> Why?
The OS notification system is for important stuff that I actually give a damn about, not your company's spammy bullshit. Steam shows me a window that's obviously part of the Steam client and only when I launch it. That's significantly, ridiculously, miles and miles better.
I think there is a grey area on whether those sorts of notifications you mention should be enabled by default. There is an argument to be made that they should be enabled by default, as it's basically a mechanism to train/educate the user that the feature exists. As long as they can easily opt-out.
But I do think it's a very different thing between those and what Epic is doing with advertisements regarding completely unrelated games that they want me to play/buy. It serves me no functional purpose, it only serves Epic, especially because the only reason I have Epic Launcher on my system is because it's the only way to play Metro Exodus right now; it's a means to an end.
I don't think that's true. I think Steam is popular because they were in the right place at the right time. Before Steam, the alternative for most games was driving to the store--that's who they were competing with. Steam has done many things to annoy users--they allow their store to be filled with absolute garbage shovelware for one.
They still thrive because of momentum. The games are there because the user base is there, the user base is there because the games are there.
As much flak as Valve gets for not curating games and letting games with questionable content slide until some internets make a fuss, Steam is actually, objectively, really great.
Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market?
>They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts
How does this demonstrate goodwill towards anyone? The developers are the ones lowering the prices for those sales. And pushing down the price of games to app store level prices isn’t something we should be celebrating. There's a very good argument that encouraging deep discounts hurts the industry in the long run.
>They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone.
What do you mean “than anyone”. Versus itch.io and the brand new Epic store? That’s not really a high bar. They could have 1 tool and that would literally be more than anyone.
>And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it.
They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. This is like praising Google giving away Android. Their interest in Steam is because they were worried Microsoft was going to use the Windows store to force them off of Windows.
> Steam is actually, objectively, really great
You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
They didn't always own the market. Steam was not embraced by PC gamers when it debuted, yet Valve never asked for exclusivity agreements while it was growing and still doesn't ask for them even as new competitors emerge.
> What do you mean “than anyone”.
I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. The fact that no one else even bothers doesn't detract from the fact that they try.
> They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market.
Years ago, that was a worthwhile argument. A happy alignment of interests. But now, when it is incredibly unlikely they're going to close the OS and force everyone into a walled garden? Seems wasteful of them to expend as many resources as they do on things like Proton.
> You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse.
Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse?
> A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
I don't disagree at all with that sentiment, but lets give credit where credit is due here. Valve earned their position at the top for a variety of reasons, and notably they aren't trying to use that position anti-competitively. Isn't that exactly the kind of behavior we want to acknowledge and support?
I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam, especially when they pull the anti-gamer shit they pull. There's already GOG and itch.io, which I'm much happier to support if I want to support someone for not being Steam.
Before they owned the market they were new and trying to win customers. Exclusivity agreements tend to happen when a previously dominant player starts to lose market share, not when a company is still in a growth phase.
>I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all.
That's like praising Windows PCs for having the best Antivirus software in 1997. I mean yeah you're not wrong but...
Most of Steam's competition are stores from publishers with small catalogs that don't need the kind of discovery mechanisms that Steam does. GOG is has a much smaller curated selection so they same thing applies. Itch has a large catalog, but they are so small that they can't even be considered a competitor because of the network effects in Steam's favor.
>Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse?
That sentence should have said "just because". You can't say it's objectively great just because it could be worse.
>I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam
Who wants to give them a free pass? They'd probably be worse if they had a completely dominant market position the way Steam does. I don't want anyone to be completely dominant. I want competition. Their 30% cut and refusal to filter shovelware harms the industry because for 99% of indie devs, they completely control the market.
So a market not completely dominated by 1 player is some kind of pie in the sky utopia?
>lower fees which will probably go straight into the pocket of the developer rather than result in lower prices.
That's not how pricing works for most goods. Some money will go to consumers and some will be captured by devs. Even the money captured by devs is better for the customers than going to Steam in the long run. The vast majority of Indie devs aren't wealthy. More money in developers pockets means more and better games.
> they prefer their benevolent dictator over profit craving publishers.
Steam is already catering to profit craving publishers. They are lowering their take for large games. The only people left paying 30% are the small indie devs.
That was a long, long time ago. Nowadays Steam sales are pretty mediocre and almost never the cheapest discount you can get. If you want discounts, go to IsThereAnyDeal [0], if you only want Steam keys, you can check that option.
That is not to say that I don't think Steam is the best launcher and storefront of all the options I've seen and used. Even if I buy a game somewhere else (including GoG [1]), for information about the game I go to steam because it has all the info I want (and that is excluding the reviews which, as the biggest store, are also the most useful)
[0]: https://isthereanydeal.com/
[1]: https://www.gog.com/
They're still setting the standard, without their deep sales every winter/summer/etc. the market would change.
I think people forget how much people hated Steam when it came out. I'm not sure I'd really call it "right place at the right time" either, since that sort of implies wild success pretty easily. My impression is more that Steam was 2-3 years ahead of its time but Valve believed in it and stuck through the hard times.
Here are some quotes from 2004, when Steam & Half-Life 2 were brand new:
"no one I know likes Steam at all."
"Steam is one of the worst programs I've seen in the last few years. Everyone seems to have trouble with it... why would ANYONE use it?"
"Bugs or no bugs, Steam is unacceptable IMHO."
"All hail Valve, our next Microsoft Product Activation-like overlord."
"Glad to see that they have given me an excuse to not purchase the game"
"Some ideas of Steam are nice, but I still don't like the idea of buying a product through it. Skipping the publishers is a bad thing."
"Sorry Valve, but I have no intention of letting Steam ever tough my PC."
https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-...
https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/2012208/no-half-li...
By right place, right time I don't mean they started at exactly the right time, or that they achieved success quickly. I mean they were around when technology (broadband penetration, storage space etc..) finally reached the point where people were willing to buy most of their games online.
Most "instant success" stories aren't really instant.
I consider this to be an advantage rather than annoyance.
If I want to be notified about anything (except emergencies) I should have to explicitly opt into it.
1) By default, the Epic launcher appears to advertise "free games" via Windows notification (popups). I never deliberately opted in to this. When I first saw the notification, I was certain I had some sort of spyware on my system. It looked like a spammy advertisement you see in free mobile games. I don't believe even EA/ORIGIN has been gutsy enough to try something like this.
Funny, for years Steam did this too. In fact it's only recently that I can't recall seeing one of their announce popupsAnd it was/is default on.
I'd be minding my own business on my PC, Steam minimized and not being currently used, then suddenly... popup!
I'm sure they've tuned it down since but back in the day I remember being quote offended at the manner that it was shown to me
It's never popped up on me while Steam was minimized or even just unfocused.
Anyway, if it was as bad as you say, clearly Valve has learned a thing or two and dialed it back, which I think it a net positive.
In my mind, using OS notifications to advertise deals is much, much worse because we should be able to trust that our OS notifications are relevant and useful, not that they're ads and spam.
steam doesn't take a cut from keys you sell on your homepage or third party stores
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/1...
Not true. Valve fought (and lost) a drawn-out legal battle against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over the rights of consumers using Steam, including right to refunds: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/full-federal-court-con...
The outcome of this case paved the way for Steam's current refund policy.
I found an article showing many email addresses had been signed up in the same way. Epic was not validating email addresses.
They’ve lost my business.
Here is the an article discussing others with the same issue https://twinfinite.net/2019/03/psa-epic-store-doesnt-validat...
Here is the last email I got from Epic:
Jan E. March 15, 2019, 11:39 +1300 | Conversation ID: #9950515 Hi (Player's Name),
Thanks for the information!
I know how important it is for you to update and change your country to your Epic account. No worries, I got your back and I'll do my very best to assist you with your request. Additionally, I know how frustrating it can be. Please know that here at Epic Games, we are serious about the player's security and we assure you that your email address is secured as long as you keep the password updated or enable 2FA.
In order to change the country on your account I will need you to reply with an image of one of the following items with your name and address visible:
Passport Personal identification *Recent rent or mortgage statement
Any other personal information should be blacked out.
I'll be looking forward to hearing from you soon.
That is by a considerable margin the most patronising, "how are you fellow kids" canned response I've ever seen.
A passport is somewhat ridiculous, as is the lack of initial email verification, of course.
If they allow you to log on in via a third party authentication like log in via google account or log in via facebook etc I foresee a flow like this.
Create a bunch of fake accounts attached to various emails.
For each account periodically check to see if a new method of payment is attached to the account. When one is immediately buy a bunch of gifts for other users that will be sold through some side channel like facebook/whatsapp/what have you. Example make a post on any sort of forum say message me to buy a copy of $40 game only $10 for the first 5 users to message me. For each user that pays buy a game and send the legit code for the game. This trust will keep you from being taken down immediately or perhaps even at all if the user doesn't notice the losses.
This could work because a user could say log in via oauth via another service, link their account to the unknown preexisting account by setting the same email account. Virtually no services allow more than one account with the same email address its the unique key that defines the account.
As soon as they create the account the first thing they do is buy a game because most new users installed so they could buy a game from epic. They check whatever box is required to save their method of payment.
You now have an account that can be accessed via oauth via the users preferred provider and the hackers chosen password + victims email address with a saved payment method the hacker cannot access directly but can spend and monetize via side channel.
For that to work the service would have to allow a login with email/password without verification, and then also allow oauth login to the same account.
Satisfactory is the game I wanted to buy but it's not worth it for me to send a photo of my passport to anyone. They fail to validate email addresses then I'm supposed to trust them with data that identifies me and could be used to steal my identity, no thanks.
Seeing as the accounts seem to share the same fake name. Ican Icanaw I suggest purging all such accounts and making people actually confirm email addresses before using them as identifiers like adults.
This is a junior high level mistake. So basic and so bad I no longer think anyone should trust Epic to have access to credit card info.
I had to do that when someone created a samsung account in my name and I couldn't change the country/language of it.
Their response was, in summary, "thanks for your request, we need a full copy of your passport, driving licence and a recent utility bill to correct your records".
I can open a bank account with less information!
Some other steam games have much worse behavior. The EULA you had to accept for Square Enix games was so horrible that I have games purchased on my system that I will not play. I should probably ask steam for a refund.
If you want an interesting book to read, I recommend Dan Ariely's "The honest truth about dishonesty".
In particular, license agreements seem to work like disclosure he mentions. The way it works is that there is a veneer of justification that allows for all sorts of unethical behavior.
Can you give an example and the shennanigans it does?
Since then I think they have reworded their privacy policy.
It used said they could collect basically every interaction you ever had with their games, information on your system unrelated to the game, and when agreeing it was binding, irrevocable and forever.
the current policy is here, and it is still amazing:
https://www.square-enix-games.com/en_US/documents/privacy
read the first section - they basically collect everything they can and can share it with everybody.
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...
Failing that, we could have a key that’s just stored on the Steam cloud and requires login to retrieve.
An application shouldn't be sniffing the user's private data from another app without explicit permission.
This is literally the sort of thing a piece of malware would do, grab your data and upload it to the botnet...
I certainly don't want one program snooping data from other installed programs without my explicit permission.
And this explains how Galyonkin knew how much of the Fortnite players had Steam installed and, specifically, were using it on a regular basis.
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/forums/bug-reports/battle...
About what I expected. Say what you want about Steam but they made most of their most dumbass mistakes years ago and learned from them.