You can now easily run the Epic Store on Linux with Lutris, Epic suggests applying for a grant

Quoting: kneekooHow about we look at the Epic Games Store (EGS) like it's something new? How about acknowledging the need for a business to establish a new product first, and later evaluate expansion opportunities? How about considering the fact that opening the EGS client for Linux-based operating systems also means dealing with a different set of other customer support issues?

My point is that whatever their plans are, it makes perfect sense for them to be cautious with a market that they're new to. It's only logical to take smaller steps and see where it leads, while making sure what is built can sustain itself, because no one wants to burn money just because they have a lot of it.

As a Linux user for nearly 2 decades now, I also want more software available on my distros of choice - or at least the most popular ones. But we know a long list of reasons why Windows still has a large market share and how that impacts the decisions of other software makers. So why not leave them to do whatever they have planned and see where everything goes, without any kind of drama? We can still criticize the exclusive games, in a civilized/mature manner, without throwing them under a bus for not supporting Linux early on.

Aren't we supposed to be "smarter" than the average PC user because we're aware of, care for and uphold privacy and software freedom? Let's also try to be better people, not just more informed. I'm tired of all the drama we see all over the internet. Let's make our community a better one, for fun's sake.

1000x this. Everyone here is like "oooh epic bad", "exclusives bad". Steam has exclusives, origin has exclusives, battle.net has exclusives, uplay has exclusives. I don't like exclusives either but this is the world that we live in right now.

Everyone is ragging on Epic because it's the new cool thing to do, not thinking of all the money Epic are getting to Devs by taking less of a cut than Steam. It's Epic taking a financial hit here, I'm sure they could have entered the market taking a teeny bit less % than Steam. But they've come in waaayy below steam. And you know what that means right? More money spent of making a good, fun game.

Don't get me wrong I love steam and all the work they have done in getting Linux gaming to the place it is now. But everyone here seems to think that competition to steams store model is a bad thing which it is not.

I also saw comments on here saying that Epic was trying to pay off Lutris with a less than working wage for getting the epic store working on Linux with the grant. I'm sorry but whoever you are that thinks this, you are an idiot.

Quoting: riiskyy

Quoting: kneekooHow about we look at the Epic Games Store (EGS) like it's something new? How about acknowledging the need for a business to establish a new product first, and later evaluate expansion opportunities? How about considering the fact that opening the EGS client for Linux-based operating systems also means dealing with a different set of other customer support issues?

My point is that whatever their plans are, it makes perfect sense for them to be cautious with a market that they're new to. It's only logical to take smaller steps and see where it leads, while making sure what is built can sustain itself, because no one wants to burn money just because they have a lot of it.

As a Linux user for nearly 2 decades now, I also want more software available on my distros of choice - or at least the most popular ones. But we know a long list of reasons why Windows still has a large market share and how that impacts the decisions of other software makers. So why not leave them to do whatever they have planned and see where everything goes, without any kind of drama? We can still criticize the exclusive games, in a civilized/mature manner, without throwing them under a bus for not supporting Linux early on.

Aren't we supposed to be "smarter" than the average PC user because we're aware of, care for and uphold privacy and software freedom? Let's also try to be better people, not just more informed. I'm tired of all the drama we see all over the internet. Let's make our community a better one, for fun's sake.

1000x this. Everyone here is like "oooh epic bad", "exclusives bad". Steam has exclusives, origin has exclusives, battle.net has exclusives, uplay has exclusives. I don't like exclusives either but this is the world that we live in right now.

Everyone is ragging on Epic because it's the new cool thing to do, not thinking of all the money Epic are getting to Devs by taking less of a cut than Steam. It's Epic taking a financial hit here, I'm sure they could have entered the market taking a teeny bit less % than Steam. But they've come in waaayy below steam. And you know what that means right? More money spent of making a good, fun game.

Don't get me wrong I love steam and all the work they have done in getting Linux gaming to the place it is now. But everyone here seems to think that competition to steams store model is a bad thing which it is not.

I also saw comments on here saying that Epic was trying to pay off Lutris with a less than working wage for getting the epic store working on Linux with the grant. I'm sorry but whoever you are that thinks this, you are an idiot.

Again, Epic can only take 18%, because they sell user data. I simply don't understand why consumers (I hate the word) use the 18% as an argument for EGS, when they do not profit from it at all. On the contrary, prices for exclusive deals (and no, Steam has no exclusive deals other than their own games) will create high prices, and your data (what you play, how long and when you play, what you do when you play) will be their data mining product on top of that! The 18% are the reason why Epic has to sell your data, where it will not only be used for commercial purposes, but will also feed deep learning machines figuring out how human crowds can be managed and exploited more easily.
Epic already don't take their customers more seriously than Google, Microsoft, Facebook, or their chinese counterparts.
I loved the idea of Linux support in the Epic store at first, but that was when I didn't know about everything else they would do.


Last edited by Nevertheless on 19 April 2019 at 9:06 am UTC

Their store doesn't even have a bloody shopping cart, something considered generally integral to all online transaction design in the modern world and thereby a day one requisite feature for an online storefront, and their own roadmap targets that as six months or more out with a store page redesign as a near term project (three months or less) taking the priority. To me, that whole roadmap screams "we're still in alpha here" (as they haven't finished implementing all the basics most people expect of a modern online storefront yet) and they are *already* negotiating exclusives out from under other stores. I personally wouldn't want them trying to support Linux themselves at this point when they haven't even figured out how to handle UX for a store yet let alone becoming a true competitor to any of the existing storefronts.
In short, I find their business priorities suspect when they're more focused on growing their customer base than presenting an experience their existing base wants to repeat (the lifeblood of this type of business).

Epic Game Store: "Love early access games?"

"no.."

Epic Game Store: "Then you'll love the first early access store!"

"no thanks.."

Epic Game Store: "Too bad, that game you were going to buy is now exclusively on our store!"

"please stop"

Epic Game Store: "We're here to save the PC gaming market from Valve and Steam who were wrecking it!"

Ugh..

Quoting: kneekooHow about we look at the Epic Games Store (EGS) like it's something new? How about acknowledging the need for a business to establish a new product first, and later evaluate expansion opportunities? How about considering the fact that opening the EGS client for Linux-based operating systems also means dealing with a different set of other customer support issues?

I see no reason to consider squat. I'm not a charity. If I were, megacorporations with slush funds of literal billions of dollars would not be what I gave charity to. Let's be clear on the relationship here: They are supposed to be offering things which consumers want enough to give them money for. The consumers then give them money to get what they want. Well guess what? As a consumer, I'm a Linux user. If they consider it too difficult or expensive to cater to my wants, needs or interests that's understandable but not a reason for me to give them money or even hesitate to speak ill of them.

And further, corporations are legal entities established for the express and, these days, sole purpose of extracting money from the public. They have no emotions or consciences or ethics. And their executives are basically sworn to take that same viewpoint. I have some responsibility with normal fellow human beings to give them some benefit of doubts, to not speak too ill of them, to take into account their point of view and so forth. That responsibility does not extend to corporations and is seriously diminished when it comes to their executives while in an official capacity.

Quoting: kneekooHow about we look at the Epic Games Store (EGS) like it's something new? How about acknowledging the need for a business to establish a new product first, and later evaluate expansion opportunities? How about considering the fact that opening the EGS client for Linux-based operating systems also means dealing with a different set of other customer support issues?

My point is that whatever their plans are, it makes perfect sense for them to be cautious with a market that they're new to. It's only logical to take smaller steps and see where it leads, while making sure what is built can sustain itself, because no one wants to burn money just because they have a lot of it.

As a Linux user for nearly 2 decades now, I also want more software available on my distros of choice - or at least the most popular ones. But we know a long list of reasons why Windows still has a large market share and how that impacts the decisions of other software makers. So why not leave them to do whatever they have planned and see where everything goes, without any kind of drama? We can still criticize the exclusive games, in a civilized/mature manner, without throwing them under a bus for not supporting Linux early on.

Aren't we supposed to be "smarter" than the average PC user because we're aware of, care for and uphold privacy and software freedom? Let's also try to be better people, not just more informed. I'm tired of all the drama we see all over the internet. Let's make our community a better one, for fun's sake.

Yeah, no. I'm not willing to touch any store that's openly anti-consumer and proud of it, regardless of their stance on Linux and/or whether you think it's "smarter" or not (yes, I took the bait, but still I think it decidedly unwise to give money to a company doing their best to undermine open competition, consumer rights and have been caught stealing personal data, but hey, whatever floats your boat).

Regardless, well done Lutris team, I hope this brings free games to many penguins.

Wow, 6 whole pages of pure hatred in the comments. In the meantime, some of us are silently playing the excellent Satisfactory on Epic with zero issues (thanks Lutris team!).

Do I think Epic is being extremely aggressive with their store? Yes. Do I think there is any other realistic way of ending Steam's dominance? No. Do I think they should spend time officially supporting Linux? In the future, maybe. Right now they need to be laser-focused on Windows and that's fine by me.

Quoting: callciferDo I think Epic is being extremely aggressive with their store? Yes. Do I think there is any other realistic way of ending Steam's dominance? No.

Why would we *want* to end Steam's dominance? For a regular PC gamer that makes no sense but it makes doubly so no sense for a Linux gamer..


Last edited by gradyvuckovic on 20 April 2019 at 5:48 am UTC

Quoting: callciferWow, 6 whole pages of pure hatred in the comments.

Yeah, you could say stuff like that. Or you could go to the trouble of engaging any of the substantive points made on their merits.

Quoting: callciferWow, 6 whole pages of pure hatred in the comments. In the meantime, some of us are silently playing the excellent Satisfactory on Epic with zero issues (thanks Lutris team!).

Do I think Epic is being extremely aggressive with their store? Yes. Do I think there is any other realistic way of ending Steam's dominance? No. Do I think they should spend time officially supporting Linux? In the future, maybe. Right now they need to be laser-focused on Windows and that's fine by me.

So arguments against Epic are "pure hatred"? No wonder you see Valve as some kind of oppressor!

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: gradyvuckovic

Quoting: callciferDo I think Epic is being extremely aggressive with their store? Yes. Do I think there is any other realistic way of ending Steam's dominance? No.

Why would we *want* to end Steam's dominance? For a regular PC gamer that makes no sense but it makes doubly so no sense for a Linux gamer..

Well Valve could use some competition, and I would say doubly so for GNU/Linux. Epic Store isn't the competition I had in mind, but while gaming is dominated by a single company and locking it with proprietary software, then that's not ideal.
No, Valve aren't doing bad things, but the situation is still not as many GNU/Linux users want.

But don't their methods kill every hope for a better competition to arise somewhere, sometime?

Quoting: Guest[...]
I like Valve, for the most part. I just don't like them having the control of what games I play instead of me. The situation isn't good for end users.

I don't quite follow. How does Valve control which games you play?

Semi off-topic but EG on-topic.
Try search on Twitter with "world war z" or "@wwzthegame" keyword (as I want to look on why this game hyped so much), you'll see few 'content creator' tweets which said:

Quoteif you buy this game, you can support me by use the creator tag "*code*"

You know, it's typical content creators tweets who participating on "Support a Creator" program created by EG.

Here the issue people, isn't "Support a Creator" actually considered as advertisment paid by EG, and 'content creator' considered as 'advertising agency' in the eyes of the law? You know in almost all countries on Earth, there are many different rules and regulation on advertising. In some countries, they are rules for example to put a disclaimer, some countries have some limitation here and there and some countries, those maybe/probably illegal. So, your opinions?

TLDR: "Support a creator" can considered as ads and maybe violating ads law in some countries. Opinions?

p/s: I want to post some screenshots but I afraid I will violate fosstodon guideline.

Quoting: GuestI don't mind a company for not supporting my small platform because of a business decision because we're not yet profitable, but up until now that really hasn't been seen. Now that Epic sees Valve has paid out to Codeweavers and done a great deal of work with Proton/Wine, now they can jump on that bandwagon for a few thousand dollar grant and take some of those customers too. It's shady...

I started being a sysadmin since the MS-DOS and Windows 3.x era and I can easily see how different it is to support different versions of Windows, let alone completely different OS families. From a business point of view, it makes perfect sense to focus on the huge market share first.

Maybe some people don't know or have forgotten that Valve was bad-mouthed in the Linux community before they worked on a Linux client. And, by far, they're not as good as GOG at keeping (old) games functional/supported on various Windows versions, the Linux Steam client still doesn't have Broadcast support after all these years, and their business practice is also far from ideal.

Quoting: GuestIt's sad to see someone defending Epic on a Linux based website when overall, Epic and Linux's relationship is only being held together with a string. Hell, the only reason Epic even made the Unreal Engine's Linux support better at all was Valve.

There's no excuse/defense in my earlier post. EPIC, Valve, GOG, all have shady anti-consumer practices - yes, even GOG. They all do it for money, it's just that some do it better for their customers, to a certain degree. But the EPIC store is new and even if they had solid plans to expand to Linux territory, I won't hold my breath until that happens - because I believe it will happen at some point.

Valve still has a lot of work to do, GOG hasn't even hinted at a soon-to-be GOG Galaxy for Linux, and their Windows version only came out of beta 2 years ago. It's only logical to see how things move slowly for others as well, so it makes no sense to bash EPIC this early for a business choice. It makes people look like haters, which is why I kindly reminded everyone that we should try to be better than that. Because making ourselves look hostile is not a good idea for a business that would naturally expect hostility in their customer support departments, and bad reviews for even the slightest mistakes. Would you want that for your business?

Quoting: GuestThey are trying to be shady and take as much money as possible and they don't care about you and I because we are too small.

Every business wants our money - it's the purpose of their existence, so never expect any company *not* to want as much of your money as possible. That's how capitalism works: profit first. Even the Polish GOG did their financials in a tax haven (Cyprus) for years, and only decided to fully move their business to Poland after Cyprus lost its tax haven status. So yeah, businesses can look weird and shady in various ways.

And long before Microsoft acclaimed its public love for Linux, it still tried to enforce its Universal Windows Platform (over win32) onto software developers and that made both Gabe Newell (Valve) and Tim Sweeney (EPIC) to voice their concerns about it. The fact that Valve made the leap to Linux before EPIC makes sense - Valve had a horde of games on sale in their store, so they wanted to give Microsoft a solid reason not to mess up. But just in case Microsoft messed up, at least Linux would be a better world to grow in, compared to the other money-hungry business behind macOS. Valve choosing Linux was a better decision because PCs are by far more popular than macs, and with Linux they had access to the source and do whatever they needed with it, no NDAs and profit shares required by Apple, had they chose macOS. And as bonuses, they would get to become trend setters for others and gain popularity in a userbase minority that hadn't been tapped into (financially) seriously by other companies.

Quoting: GuestOf course, let Valve do the heavy lifting and tossing the Lutris guys a few thousand bucks to pick up on all of Valve's work sounds appealing to them.

The fact that they supported Lutris not even 6 months after the release of the EPIC store is rather an indicator that they're interested about the Linux market. Clearly they're not ready to commit to it, and there are a lot of reasons, like getting enough experienced people to take care of the development and support of all Linux-related software. Because you don't want your Linux customers to feel treated differently compared to Windows customers, right? And you can't make that happen with Windows-people, so it will be a process for EPIC to jump into new territories. Because doing Unreal Engine 4 for Linux is one thing, and addressing customer support issues for a host of games on Linux is another.

Quoting: GuestI'm sorry, but until Epic becomes a company I can respect, I will not have any need for anything from them, even free titles.

Surely that's your choice, but if they expand to Linux you will probably regret not adding the free games to your library. As for respect, I think you're turning a blind eye at everything wrong with Steam and probably GOG, because both of them have shady/anti-customer practices and they got a lot of (fair) criticism for it. That doesn't mean I won't continue buying games from them if I like their offer. I don't have to like them to do business with them. I just don't have to dislike them to an extent that makes me avoid them.

Quoting: GuestThe Epic store is a mirage. It looks all shiny and new but if you put your faith in it you're probably going to die of dehydration.

I don't put faith in businesses. I look at them pragmatically, and try to get the best from them, just as they want from us. It's only fair.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI see no reason to consider squat. [...] As a consumer, I'm a Linux user. If they consider it too difficult or expensive to cater to my wants, needs or interests that's understandable but not a reason for me to give them money or even hesitate to speak ill of them.

I see no point in wasting energy by speaking ill on any manufacturer who doesn't make the car that I need. I just go to the ones who make it and pick what's best for me. After all, if I keep shouting at those who don't make what I need, does it make any sense to expect them to starting making what I want? Do you get pleasure from people speaking ill of you and start doing what they want, as a result?

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd further, corporations are legal entities established for the express and, these days, sole purpose of extracting money from the public. [...] I have some responsibility with normal fellow human beings to give them some benefit of doubts, to not speak too ill of them, to take into account their point of view and so forth. That responsibility does not extend to corporations and is seriously diminished when it comes to their executives while in an official capacity.

Not to speak too ill of normal fellow human beings? Wow, you must be popular with people who don't aim to please you. Forgive my sarcasm, but my point is that that's both unnecessary and not constructive. I share your distrust in corporations, but that doesn't make me any less objective when it comes to what's good for me. If I can fairly use them to my benefit, I will do so. If not, I'll focus on those who can provide me with what I need. I'm grown-up enough to know that not every company or corporation will do what I need.

Quoting: kneekoo

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI see no reason to consider squat. [...] As a consumer, I'm a Linux user. If they consider it too difficult or expensive to cater to my wants, needs or interests that's understandable but not a reason for me to give them money or even hesitate to speak ill of them.

I see no point in wasting energy by speaking ill on any manufacturer who doesn't make the car that I need. I just go to the ones who make it and pick what's best for me. After all, if I keep shouting at those who don't make what I need, does it make any sense to expect them to starting making what I want? Do you get pleasure from people speaking ill of you and start doing what they want, as a result?

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd further, corporations are legal entities established for the express and, these days, sole purpose of extracting money from the public. [...] I have some responsibility with normal fellow human beings to give them some benefit of doubts, to not speak too ill of them, to take into account their point of view and so forth. That responsibility does not extend to corporations and is seriously diminished when it comes to their executives while in an official capacity.

Not to speak too ill of normal fellow human beings? Wow, you must be popular with people who don't aim to please you. Forgive my sarcasm, but my point is that that's both unnecessary and not constructive. I share your distrust in corporations, but that doesn't make me any less objective when it comes to what's good for me. If I can fairly use them to my benefit, I will do so. If not, I'll focus on those who can provide me with what I need. I'm grown-up enough to know that not every company or corporation will do what I need.

You're making an unwarranted assumption: That words have no effect. Ask the multi-billion dollar advertising industry about how true that is. I can't reach millions of people, like a super-bowl ad, but clearly at least one person has read something I said (ie you, 'cause you replied to me) and some may even have found it persuasive ('cause I got a couple of likes). So if there is a corporation, and it does things I dislike, so I speak ill of it, and some people agree with me and refrain from doing business with it, that was not pointless. The extreme case is the boycott, but negative buzz has hurt plenty of companies in the past. So you're quite wrong, it's not pointless at all.
True, it's not nice to the corporation--but as I've pointed out, corporations are not things in a category that it's morally relevant whether I'm nice to 'em. Complaining I'm not nice to a corporation is like complaining I'm not nice to a rock, except corporations are generally more destructive than rocks.

As to responsibilities with respect to normal persons--see, you're an actual person, not a corporation. And you're not as far as I know speaking as an officer of one, but rather for yourself. So when talking to you, I'm engaging your arguments--I haven't spoken ill of you, said anything bad about your motives et cetera. That would be nasty; it's always possible that you have bad motivations, but I have no particular evidence of it being so, and even given some I would give some benefit of doubt if the evidence wasn't good. I explain this because despite getting on the high moral horse, you don't seem to be doing that, you are instead getting personal and I don't appreciate it. So no, I don't forgive your sarcasm and would appreciate an apology for it, especially since your sarcasm seems to be the result of working hard to negatively misconstrue what I was saying.

This is just too long to comment on everything, but:

Quoting: kneekooMaybe some people don't know or have forgotten that Valve was bad-mouthed in the Linux community before they worked on a Linux client.

I've been running Linux as my main OS since 2000 and I don't remember Valve ever being bad-mouthed in the Linux community. Sure, people wanted their games on Linux before they arrived, but "bad-mouthing"? Don't remember any of that; not that it's really relevant as the complaints against Epic are on a generic business level and aren't Linux related.

Quoting: kneekoo[...] It's only logical to see how things move slowly for others as well, so it makes no sense to bash EPIC this early for a business choice. [...]

I don't see anyone's bashing Epic for "a" business decision or is targeting their lack of Linux support, but looking at the company's practices in general, there's certainly enough to criticize - just like a large part of the general, non-Linux gaming community is already doing.

Quoting: kneekoo

Quoting: GuestThey are trying to be shady and take as much money as possible and they don't care about you and I because we are too small.

Every business wants our money - it's the purpose of their existence, so never expect any company *not* to want as much of your money as possible. [...]

Sure, but there's a difference between wanting money and actively acting against the consumer.

Quoting: kneekoo

Quoting: GuestOf course, let Valve do the heavy lifting and tossing the Lutris guys a few thousand bucks to pick up on all of Valve's work sounds appealing to them.

The fact that they supported Lutris not even 6 months after the release of the EPIC store is rather an indicator that they're interested about the Linux market.

They aren't. Lutris added support for them, not the other way around.

I gotta say that I give Valve more benefit of the doubt because the origins of the steam store never seemed dubious to me. And even amidst Valve pushing their business model they didn't seem to abandon their previous fanbase.

This might sound silly to most people, but I actually spent years with my head under a rock just happily using Steam on a daily basis and never realizing how big it got.
And THAT speaks volumes about how Valve handles itself, doesn't it? I never realized how big they got because I never felt their newer business models creeping in on their older territory. I didn't have to re-buy non-steam games, I could just "activate" them in the steam store. I never felt pressured from Valve to change what I was doing. They continued to support their old games, and they continued (for a while) to push out some new games targeted at their original fanbase which were pretty true to the original games for the most part.
Their games also seem to be genuinely made for the sake of being fun, as opposed to a lot of modern games coming out today that just feel like a cash grab.

Epic, on the other hand, seems to be doing it the other way. They're showing all the signs that they won't be giving a shit about their original fanbase from this point on, and they're showing a lot of red flags for not even caring about gamers in general. They made big bucks by catering to the largest, dumbest, audience to play it safe.

To me that's a sign of developers who care more about charts and statistics than about me. And this goes beyond just GNU/Linux support. Even with Windows only support they're still just throwing up tons of red flags and I think everyone wants to just pretend those flags aren't there these days. We make excuses for companies like "they need money" but game development companies got on just fine for years before any of these shady business models existed in the first place (and they made better games too )


Last edited by ison111 on 22 April 2019 at 10:56 pm UTC

Wonder why Linux users would want to install spyware on their computers. I thought the almost no virus environment was the reason some users ditched Windows.

Quoting: kneekooMaybe some people don't know or have forgotten that Valve was bad-mouthed in the Linux community before they worked on a Linux client.

Any source of this, because I dont recall anyone on Valve saying "Linux is not good". Now not even Epic is being bad with Linux, they just dont care.

Quoting: kneekooThere's no excuse/defense in my earlier post. EPIC, Valve, GOG, all have shady anti-consumer practices - yes, even GOG. They all do it for money...

Those people there steal, so I steal, those people there murder so I am a murder, these kind of arguments are just too old.

Quoting: kneekooEvery business wants our money - it's the purpose of their existence.

Even in this era of radical capitalism, some companies respect the environment, some pay good money to their employees and left them go to home at 5:00PM, it seems that you rely on your "everyone else do it, so" argument, to justify how shitty Epic is.

Quoting: kneekooI don't put faith in businesses. I look at them pragmatically, and try to get the best from them, just as they want from us. It's only fair.

Pragmatism is not a word that describes you. I dont know why you almost write a wall of text when you could only resume your reasoning in the old argument that "one just have to follow the trend, the status quo"
There are people who goes according the status(you) and others who try to change it with little things as not installing or buying games from companies like Epic. Maybe things will not change today, but it will change eventually, if companies are as shit as you say, I try my best to keep my participation at a minimum level. The worst thing I can do is installing another shitty launcher and store and the reason why Liam is trying to shove Epic through our throats beats me but Im not installing this and when Valve or Gog or anyone else does shitty things, I go to their social media and tell them directly, not wasting time playing the pragmatic guy who thinks everything is shit and nothing can be done about it.


Last edited by orochi_kyo on 22 April 2019 at 11:39 pm UTC