Interview: Epic CEO Tim Sweeney after Google antitrust win
theverge.com
theverge.com
- does not control the OS and prevent you to install app outside of it (even on steamdeck)
- d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶(̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶"̶P̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶R̶u̶l̶e̶"̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶a̶m̶ ̶k̶e̶y̶s̶)̶.̶
They do enforce their cut on in-app purchase but since you can sideload app I see it at less of an issue (suppose all games would become free with a 40e in game purchase otherwise).
Edit: on the price parity while the policy might be listed as applying only for Steam key it's possible they engage in anti competitive practice since :
- http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-ac...
- https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-t...
So while being the default (or only) store is clearly valuable, it is not the only path to a dominant position. As a Steam user, I find myself groaning if a game is exclusive to Epic or Battle.net (or whatever it's called now), but don't mind if I have to buy a game from GOG or a dedicated site put up by the developer. So the actual complaint isn't that the game isn't on Steam, it's that I don't want to have to install and use some shitty game launcher. I don't want it on my computer. People felt like this about Steam initially too, and it certainly has its shitty parts still, but it actually adds sone value over a raw installer exe, unlike some other stores.
It's all about the user experience. Minimal steps between them and the product. Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). I think I'll pass.
That same logic could apply to Steam if you don't have it installed and have Epic installed. You're basically describing first-movers advantage.
Personally I don't see that as a reason not to try others. Nor as a reason to give Steam a monopoly (on my game purchases).
if
Steams memory footprint is generally lower. The social aspect of it actually works and can be disabled to free up resources (first mover I'll admit). And the UI is dramatically less offensive than the other "game launcher/stores"
Steam gives me the option to launch into my library instead of the store which makes it feel dramatically less "blah".
In comparison, just to play diablo IV I had to click off two popups in the battle.net launcher of "buy this".
When you add shortcuts to games on your desktop it bypasses the steamui entirely and just launches the DAMN GAME. (it still does do an update/validly check with steam if you are connected to the internet tho).
Try them and dislike them, that's the proper way to do it. You've tried the sushi, I'm not disagreeing with any of your real complaints that have substance. But I would try to convince someone to try sushi before making deciding it is bad. Deciding something is bad without trying isn't keeping an open mind.
Steam certainly isn’t faultless here but it’s less clunky and and adds value with features like shoring up of Windows’ abysmal controller support, which makes a big difference. If competitors want people to want to install their stores, they need to be treating the project with respect and hiring on a team of full time well compensated high quality engineers to build it. Be a VS Code, not an MS Teams.
Nobody likes buying exclusives, but it's basically the only way to break into a market under such heavy capture.
Unfortunately this is not an option. Valve's Steam agreements forbid publishers from charging less money on competing platforms.
https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex...
(Others have pointed out that this fact is contested, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225)
The rumor, for many years, was that you could sell a game separately and if it didn't use steam keys and steam services Valve did not care. If you wanted to sell steam copies, there seemed to be two conditions. 1. Keys sold off of steam must make up less than some percentage of on-steam sales. 2. If you have a sale on another storefront, there must be a matching sale on Steam in some time window.
It is entirely possible that valves notoriously bad communication abilities resulted in a company believing a total ban on discounts was policy, but the fact that other publishers seemingly are not and were not held to that standard for many years is certainly odd.
I can see it being reasonable to ban selling steam keys for less than they are sold at steam. But selling a steam-less license for less than what it costs at steam seems reasonable.
Sure, and that goes into ways it should be able to compete well with other stores, not just be "the default".
> a uniform way
Also known as "a complete monopoly", and this is exactly the mountain that any competitor has to completely break. Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed.
Only once both stores are somewhat similarly available to you, can Epic really compete on the price and features aspects.
EDIT: The other thing that's important to realize about monopolies is that nothing remains the same forever. You might like Steam today, and feel we should all just let Steam be a monopoly because they're "good", but what happens when Gabe retires and a private equity firm comes in?
The only difference between Steam and Ticketmaster is that Steam hasn't tried to maximize value extraction yet.
The epic store program is trash though, it is extremely slow and clunky and power hungry and lack most of the features I have in steam. They do have multiplayer integration which is nice, I have played games with friends there that were free, but the store being such a bad program is the main reason I still buy games on steam.
Steam isn't some super well made program, if epic store was a better program I would prefer buying games there for that reason. But as is epic store is way worse in almost every way, it takes seconds just to view a page, the epic store is much nicer to browse as a web page than in their dedicated program but I can't play the games from their web page.
If they fixed that then I don't think people would hate buying games on epic store, but until then I am pretty sure the main reason people still prefer steam is that epic store is garbage. Not sure why they don't just fix the app instead of spending so much money on exclusives or free games.
I buy from GOG sometimes, because they also have a unique value proposition with their anti-DRM stance. Other than that, Steam simply provides the best service by leagues, and it's very take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to the 30% cut.
I personally would love for them to reduce their cut, I think 30% is massive. It is worth pointing out that the 30% cut is well-established in many industries outside of gaming, such as franchising. But it's also fairly standard within gaming.
- Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy and Wal-Mart take a 30% cut.
- PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo each take 30% from their console stores.
- GOG, Microsoft take 30% from their game stores.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
Yet. Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. The problem with monopoly capture is once a company has it, it can choose to abuse it at any time in the future. And even if you have complete faith in Valve's current leadership, those people get old and die or retire, and the next guys may not run things the same way.
> But it's also fairly standard within gaming.
One of the things uncovered by these lawsuits is largely than everyone settled on the 30% cut because Steam picked it and got away with it. We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.
I would expect a bunch of bright, freshly-laid-off engineers would get together and try to seriously compete either through a single platform offering, or a system of integrated services. I'd love to see Valve's platform advantages a little more democratized; but you can't deny the level of engineering that goes into their products. SteamVR, Steam Play, streaming, Steam Deck, Proton, it goes on and on.
> We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.
No more than we blame anyone else who followed suit, as a gain, Valve chose a number that was already massively standardized in many industries. If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin.
And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%.
Epic's cut is 12% because they can afford to lose money on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweene...
They spend a ton of money on exclusives, enticing offers and other substitutes for attractive features.
If Steam was just a store frontend, I wouldn't use it. I just established their competitive offering above.
In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's anti-consumer, and a poor substitute for engineering a competitive feature offering.
I actively avoid their store for this reason, and have passed up on their exclusives in the past, despite being interested in the IP.
You're only noticing because of the competition. Without it games would be exclusive to Steam and you would never notice. Anything from The Finals to Lethal Company, PUBG to Destiny 2. Are these any less anti-consumer because they're only on Steam? I don't think so.
You're blaming Steam for not having worthy competitors, but that isn't their job. Valve/Steam doesn't engage in exclusivity deals, EGS does. And Valve-published games obviously don't count, there's no deal, they just decide not to publish elsewhere.
And remember: the closest competition is literal piracy. I'm not only noticing that Steam provides a quality service worth paying for because of EGS. I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.
So why does a deal between a publisher and Valve or EGS make a difference to me, the consumer? Why aren't all exclusives anti-consumer regardless of a deal that might or might not exist?
> I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.
I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.
The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level.
> I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games?
My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture.
> I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.
No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.
>The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not.
Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer.
To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer.
So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer so it doesn't change how anti-consumer it is.
Years before Half Life: Alyx, Valve said they would never make single player games again. It made sense - TF2 was making silly money selling silly cosmetics. Presumably, the economics have now changed to make single-player viable again: any further player-base goodwill means a few more years of getting away with predatory BS.
This is a strange allegation; While I have little personal experience with Steam's consumer service, the typical report I hear is that it is excellent and very helpful, while Google more or less doesn't have it at all. I've even successfully refunded some games that were a bit over the 2 hour window.
Twice I have renewed the ticket with staff deeply apologizing and asking for them to print a new RMA, offering to pay this time, and they just send me a new RMA free of charge, which I have twice disregarded. I can't think of another digital business off the top of my hand which would put up with my shit.
I think alyx/deskjob primarily exist to sell hardware rather than make silly money on their own. You even get a free copy of the former with any index hardware.
That's not correct from what I've read. You are more than welcome to ask for a source instead of accusing me of falsehoods.
"To help maintain its monopoly power, Valve uses what is known as a Platform Most Favored Nations (“PMFN”) clause in its agreements with game publishers which prevents game publishers from selling their games on other on-line gaming sites with lower costs, fees, and/or sales commissions for less than the game publishers sell their games on the Steam platform"
https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex...
Nothing about that refers to Steam Keys. I did do some cursory searching to find sources which disagreed with this interpretation but was unable to find any. There's always the possibility that the class action lawsuit was misguided or incorrect- so if you have any sources that say otherwise, please provide!
..Or I suppose, some examples of games that sell for less (excluding temporary sales) on other stores than they do within Steam.
EDIT: Elsewhere someone provided this Ars Technica article where an unidentified source at Valve said this does only apply to Steam keys, which is likely what you are referring to: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...
So it's definitely a contested fact.
Valve is practically the ones that mainstreamed lootbox gaming with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, and Dota 2. When others like Rocket League have removed lootboxes from their games altogether, Valve don't bother. The lootbox "winnings" being tradable and having an item marketplace (in which they take a cut of all transactions), makes it even more egregious to me.
Origin, U-Play, EA Play, etc. Blizzard titles are not on Steam. Microsoft Game Pass, and before that Games for Windows Live. Some physical releases require Steam, many do not. GOG. Edit: itch.io. So it's easily disproven. The other option sucking (e.g. not allowing reviews) does not a monopoly make.
Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam? Is EGS making profits? Is 12% really sustainable?
No hate nor shade towards epic but man valve kills it. Best video game company (studio or platform) by far for several decades now imo.
I'd say that Steam is a great service that customers love and demand that game developers provide, and the 30% fee is the price of that service.
I know that in my own case I've bought games on Steam that were available cheaper elsewhere, or even given away for free on EGS.
And the attempts at creating alternatives have all been unable to create a good alternative. (Except perhaps Good Old Games, which stands out by being DRM-free.)
I know I've seen games given away for free on EGS while they were also for sale on Steam, and seen lower prices on IsThereAnyDeal, but those might all be temporary.
According to Ars, "Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms."
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...
After reviewing the article, it's still a second hand unidentified source, but definitely clear the facts are contested.
I updated that thread with these details.
Even then, payment processing isn't just about taking a $10 transaction. A single dispute on Stripe will cost you $25 whether you are succesful or not. Handling payments in non-local currencies is 3.5% + 20p on stripe, plus currency conversion fees.
I don't think 30% is the right cut, but 2% isn't a fair comparison for the service.
Steam provides a ton of value add on top of payment processing. Advertisement, distribution, a storefront, a boatload of users.
This is a rhetorical question I don't know how to answer.
>Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam?
In my opinion, no.
>Is EGS making profits?
No. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23949372/the-epic-games-s...
>Is 12% really sustainable?
I don't know.
Needs some qualification.
EGS is not profitable as they are spending like crazy to try and gain users. But the EGS is not where Epic makes its money, that’s Fortnite for now.
The 12% is still more then enough to profitably be a platform middleman because it costs very very little and is basically pure profit to stay the course.
https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...
Epic having its own store front means they can use dark patterns there too.
Apple is limiting the worst of these companies’ behaviors.
Assholes are still assholes, even when they do something for everyone else, once.
Note that Sweeney is no stranger to harming others to enrich himself:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...
I find the idea that his actions are making the world better to be ridiculous. Overall, they are making the world worse. I guess I should not be surprised that his propaganda about making the world better has gained traction. Most people who hear it do not have the full picture to consider and will happily consider only what they have been told. :/
If one Leviathan threatens another, things get ugly.
I’d have expected a journalist from better times, not accepting to be put there just to buttlick, to also ask questions not given by the press department, when the ceo said we want to make the world better, if they would have also stopped exploting kids in order to achieve that, but now newspapers are just external press departments
https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...
They are as unethical as they come.
> Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...
> 15 privacy violation settlements amounting to roughly $1 billion between 2011 and 2023 with government regulators in various countries and private litigants
https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/google_childrens_priv...
Or do you believe that we should not acknowledge any positive actions from someone who has done something wrong in the past?
Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557
That discussion is rather poor in quality and this article looks more substantive, so maybe we can try a reset.
The product person in me does wonder what the experience of using an App Store is going to be like in another few years if we continue down this path. Am I going to be forced out to some slow and clunky checkout experience in my browser every time an app wants money from me? Are the days of being able to manage most of my digital subscriptions from a single screen in the settings of my phone over?
While this ruling was only against Google (and the recent outcome against Apple was different) I don’t know that I love the picture this paints for me as a consumer. I don’t buy the argument that this is going to result in lower prices for me - probably just a worse experience.
I’m sure that Google (and Apple, should a similar fate eventually come their way) will fight this every step of the way, and I can imagine there’s a lot they could do to nudge users to opt for the better experience of using their native payments infrastructure. I don’t know to what extent courts are willing or able to micromanage some of those details but it will be interesting to see it all play out.
Some things like Netflix and Amazon were already this way, even on Apple devices.
As a product person myself, I would hope that the net result is that we would be allowed to offer both: that we could have a fast friction free purchase via iOS/GPlay and pay the toll, but present the option to pay us directly if the user wants to support us more, or offer lower prices when the transaction is via a provider that takes 3% instead of 30%. I find that to be much more likely. Friction is a real thing in subscription services, and that isn't changing just because the OS vendors might not be able to force apps to use the platform IAP system anymore.
I think you mean "you'll now have to use the developers preferred app for billing".
As I mentioned, I think high quality apps will overwhelmingly still offer a convenient way to pay using IAP, because the friction cost of adding a new subscriber is high when everyone has their CC in their store. And probably that will come with lower prices for those who are willing to punch in a credit card onto a form.
I do think it's still well within the rights of Apple and Google to expect certain security practices from these billing solutions, and I expect that will replace the time reviewers currently spend looking for where the app dev tries to do off platform billing today.
Really? right now, to rent a video on Prime on android, you have to switch to a web browser. Netflix doesn't let you sign up in app. Epic decide to sue Apple and Google to avoid paying the IAP fees. All the signs point to major players being willing to circumvent the app store for
> Before all of this you had no choice if you didn't like, for instance, giving your credit card information to Google, or if you wanted more of your money to support the app you were using
Sure you do, sign up outside the app like Netflix and co provide support for. In fact, if you go look at other aplications taht offer payment outside of the app store, you can likely already do that. Calm, for example offers a discount if you punch your details into the form online.
Here's an example of exactly what's going to happen - I live outside the US and I signed up for NYT Cooking on their website. In order to cancel it, I have to _phone_ them to cancel.
This will not give customers "more choice", this will allow Billion dollar companies like Epic, Meta, Netflix to run their own app stores and force you to download from there instead.
You applaud this ruling yet you fear the outcomes. Don't you think this is dissonant?
Keep in mind the kind of ruthless practices we've seen from Epic Games' store make Google and Apple seem like child's play.
Nothing good will come out of this fragmentation. It makes no sense in the first place to have multiple app stores per one OS. An OS only exists to host apps on the device, and the store exists to host apps in a central repository from where devices copy. Both are part of one service continuum.
The apps target the same APIs and the same OS. I wish we'd see more OS and hardware platforms instead, each with its own store. A healthy market would be 3-5 types of devices with their own OS you can pick from. Alas.
Then the store needs to have the apps I want available. If they don't, why shouldn't I be able to look at other stores?
I disagree - all EGS did was fund exclusives. Meanwhile, both Apple and Google have been propping up other categories with gaming spends, and offering hushed sweetheart deals to other categories.
> The apps target the same APIs and the same OS. I wish we'd see more OS and hardware platforms instead, each with its own store. A healthy market would be 3-5 types of devices with their own OS you can pick from. Alas.
Could not agree any more.
The app stores will quickly work out the 75th percentile (or 90th or whatever) and reduce their take accordingly.
I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?
In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.
Certain parts of App Store policy are the result of this sort of thing. For example there is a carve out for media services-- unlike the rest of the app ecosystem, it is OK for subscriber only media services to have an app that requires login to use it. This was a result of Netflix refusing to use IAP.
If you didn't know, it is otherwise not allowed to have a login only experience. You can't even require users to sign up for an account before a user purchases an IAP product or subscription, let alone require a signup before the app is used.
While this is a pro consumer move, it does mean headaches for any user that purchases a subscription without attaching an email address and then expects the app's customer support to be able to identify their subscription. It also confuses users because they'll say they're emailing on the same email as their Apple account, but that doesn't help because a subscription purchase doesn't come with the user's email.
But I do fall more on the side of your opinion after spending 5 years managing these sorts of systems and working with the support team.
> “Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on,” Apple said in a statement given to The Verge. “On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Atlice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
If Spotify for example left iOS devices all it would do is drive up Apple Music subscriptions. Very, very few people would switch operating systems for a single app.
The average joe doesn't even think about app availability when picking a phone.
At most I'd say theres likely some grey area about managing 3rd party subscriptions that arent being done via the app store.
If Spotify and Netflix were not on iOS I’m pretty sure lots of people would go look for an android. Not everyone, but a percentage above 0 (and probably above 2 or 3 percent I bet)
Is it? I know that it has happened in the past, but in 2020, Tim Cook testified to Congress that they treat everybody equally. Is there any evidence showing that they still offer special deals today?
epic needs to put more money into their software not exclusives
I smell something here - think Tim was encouraged to go on this crusade.