• expired

[PC] Free - Minit (Rated 93% Positive on Steam) - Epic Store

1570

The next freebie from the Epic Store.

This week the free game is: Minit

Steam page (ONLY for information): https://store.steampowered.com/app/609490/Minit/

From the website:

Minit is a peculiar little adventure played sixty seconds at a time. Journey outside the comfort of your home to help unusual folk, uncover countless secrets, and overcome dangerous foes, all in hopes of lifting a rather unfortunate curse that ends each day after just one minute. Minit is a collaboration between Kitty Calis, Jan Willem Nijman, Jukio Kallio & Dominik Johann.

Enjoy!

Related Stores

Epic Games
Epic Games

closed Comments

  •  

    Free - Minit

    Spearminit or Pepperminit ???

  • +4 votes

    Left my scooter outside the dairy

  • +1 vote

    At this rate you can build up a bigger library than your steam library without paying for a single one.

    •  

      Dunno, there's a lot of garbage shit that indiegala gives away

      •  

        I never claim those. I'm willing to bet 99.9% of those who do never even install them.

        I only get freebies from Humble. The rest I buy.

        • +1 vote

          What about Steam freebies or GOG freebies?

          •  

            @Lysander: Yeah I claim those. But GoG games do not activate on Steam, so wasn't part of my not-quite-literal claim.

            I haven't played a ton of giveaway games because I haven't even gotten through all the paid ones yet (the ones that actually interest me).

            I do have to wonder how much all these giveaways are costing Epic. Steam isn't shelling out to match them I think because they know they don't have to.

            •  

              @lostn: I think it will backfire on Steam. Epic will or already is serious competition both in terms of consumers and attracting devs, Steam has legal problems in Europe as despite what the fans says Steam is far from being clean and ethical, and I believe that at some point there will be a slow down in game purchases especially if prices increase.
              Anybody who believes that publishers and devs will forgo a guaranteed income and profit plus have 18% more left in their sales share is either naive or lies to themselves. Everybody would do the same if in the same position.
              Steam will not go bankrupt but their numbers for this financial year will be less than impressive.
              BL3 alone will have taken a large chunk of turnover away from them.

              If one assumes 2 million sales on PC until year end and we assume a price of $50 US (which is very low given the higher priced editions) this means that Steam lost $100 million turnover of which they would have received $30 million in fees. That is now gone.
              Add Metro Excodus plus the other games to it and I reckon Steam will lose a minimum in $100-150 million in fees this year. I think this is a magnitude they will feel.

              • +1 vote

                @Lysander: Steam is facing real competition for the first time and will lose market share and dominance, but they're not facing an existential threat.

                Anybody who believes that publishers and devs will forgo a guaranteed income and profit plus have 18% more left in their sales share is either naive or lies to themselves. Everybody would do the same if in the same position.

                The question is whether they'd be willing to go Epic exclusive forever, and not just 1 year. So far the answer is no. Second question is how deep Epic's pockets are and whether they will be able to keep this up forever. They may have the war chest to keep doing this, but the more money you spend, the less profits you get to keep.

                If one assumes 2 million sales on PC until year end and we assume a price of $50 US (which is very low given the higher priced editions) this means that Steam lost $100 million turnover of which they would have received $30 million in fees.

                They would lose even more than that if they reduced their cut to 12% on all games sold. Or if they give away a ton of free games at their own expense. That's why they're not doing it.

                Let's say Steam drops their cut to 12% and the game sells 1 million on Epic and 1 million on Steam. Steam will get 6 million in fees instead of 0. 6 million is not a lot of return for what they must give up: losing 18% on every other game sold. It's better to wait out the year and make 30% on whatever copies sell when the exclusivity expires. To make up that $6 million they only need to sell 200,000 copies which they can easily do.

                Google, Apple, Sony, and Microsoft all charge the same 30% cut that Steam is charging. If Epic wants to set up an Android store to compete with Google Play and expect Google to reduce their cut to 12%, by all means go right ahead. Google isn't going to budge though because their store still has tens of thousands of apps that Epic won't have and their reach is too great for an app developer to forego to take an exclusive.

                I really would like to see a dev go Epic exclusive permanently, and not just the one year. If it really works out better for them to lose Steam sales in order to pick up an extra 18%, there would be no need to go back to Steam a year later. Steam are just going to wait out the year because they know their audience is too big for a developer to forego.

                Add Metro Excodus plus the other games to it and I reckon Steam will lose a minimum in $100-150 million in fees this year. I think this is a magnitude they will feel.

                That is honestly a drop in the bucket on the scale Steam operates on. The number of games they have is in the tens of thousands. If you give up 18% on every sale of those tens of thousands of games, you're losing way more than 150 million.

                Steam is going to lose potential revenue as a result of Epic's competition, but they would lose that anyway if they played Epic's game or acceded to their demands. Money will be lost no matter what they do. They've chosen the path of loss minimization, which is to maintain the 30% cut and wait out the timed exclusivity. It's a war of attrition now. Epic have said that they will stop buying exclusives if Steam reduces their cut to 12%. By not doing that, they're going to have Epic continue pouring cash into exclusives, which they would stop doing if Steam played ball. If Steam is going to lose money no matter what, they may as well make Epic lose money too.

                • -2 votes

                  @lostn: True but they will lose more. Epic also has other leverage such as their engine.

                  I am amazed though how people love Steam so much who does not give back anything and Epic donates millions and millions to charities and still get blasted.
                  I for one will give Epic preference if the price is equal or slightly higher than on Steam. Steam is way too dominant (which really is the summary of what you said and that is right) and it is time that some of the publishers come together and leave.
                  I think it can be done - EA, Ubisoft etc. also lose sales by not having their games on Steam using your argument but they still stick with their strategy so I guess it is worth it.
                  I believe that people will follow the games so Steam could be out of luck. I do not believe that very many people wait the one year exclusivity out for games like BL3. The lion share of sales will be done in a year, especially during Christmas sales.

                  Epic is not making a loss - the money they pay devs is part for the exclusivity and part advance of sales money. So, unless Epic makes many bad judgments and the sales do not make up the sales advance they paid the devs, Epic won't run out of money. Plus, there is Fortnite and the Unreal Engines fees.

                  • +1 vote

                    @Lysander: I added to my post some calculations (regarding the example of the 2 million copies game and Steam missing out on $30 million in fees) while you were responding so you might have missed some of it.

                    I think it can be done - EA, Ubisoft etc. also lose sales by not having their games on Steam using your argument but they still stick with their strategy so I guess it is worth it.

                    EA and Ubisoft started their own store because they didn't want to give a cut to anyone else if they didn't have to.

                    Steam has no say in this. There's nothing they could have done to keep those guys on their store. Unless they reduce their cut to zero which isn't going to happen.

                    Anyone who believes they have the clout to start their own store and keep their games exclusive to it is free to do so.

                    EA Origin and UPlay are a good enough vehicle to sell their own games on without giving a cut, but they're not going to be a successful competitor to Steam for making a cut off other people's games. It's just an avenue they are taking to avoid paying the Steam tax. They would love to do the same to Sony and MS if they could but they can't because Sony and MS own the platform and can dictate terms.

                    Epic also has other leverage such as their engine.

                    I believe Epic's deal is you get free access to their engine if you go Epic exclusive? This helps an indie mostly. They don't have the power to exclude games using their engine from being sold on a competitor's store. If they attempted to do this, I think they will instead see the downfall of their engine.

                    I am amazed though how people love Steam so much who does not give back anything and Epic donates millions and millions to charities and still get blasted.

                    I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I'm not blasting them. I'm merely giving an unbiased analysis of the tug of war between the two and Steam's apparent approach to the new competition.

                    I am amazed though how people love Steam so much who does not give back anything and Epic donates millions and millions to charities and still get blasted.

                    Here's what I don't get. Steam's fee is the industry standard. They charge the same cut as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Sony. I presume Nintendo also. But they're the only ones under fire for it. Why aren't Apple and google under getting the same criticism for charging 30%? Is it because developers are powerless against those guys but not powerless against Steam? Is that really a valid criticism of Steam? Their sin is that they don't own the platform they are on, and therefore they should lower their cut while everyone else should be free to continue charging 30%?

                    Steam is way too dominant (which really is the summary of what you said and that is right) and it is time that some of the publishers come together and leave.

                    The same thing can be said of Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. But no one complains that they are too dominant and that their dominance is a bad thing. Why is no one advocating for a comeptitor to PSN, Xbox live or the App store or for them to lower their fees?

                    Amazon is the only one with the clout to start their own Android store. But no one is begging for a competitor to make a new store on Android because Google is too dominant. I suspect if someone tried it, people would stick to Play and criticize devs who go exclusive to the new store. People don't want to search two stores for apps and manage purchases separately when one store will do the job.

                    Epic is not making a loss - the money they pay devs is part for the exclusivity and part advance of sales money.

                    I am talking about the free games they keep giving away. You would have to presume Epic is paying for those.

                    If the exclusivity money is only an advance, then the deal is even less attractive to the developer, since they will lose the 12% cut until it has paid back.

                    Epic won't run out of money. Plus, there is Fortnite and the Unreal Engines fees.

                    I don't think they'll run out of money. But businesses are all about profit. The more you spend, the less the shareholder gets. And shareholders are the greediest people on the planet. People's jobs always get cut even in the face of record profits so that these guys can have higher dividends.

                    If Epic is privately owned like Steam, then there will be no shareholders, but more spending means less money being paid to the executives. If they're fine with that, then they're very different to any other big corporation I've ever seen.

                    I have not taken a single freebie from Epic not because I don't want them or that I hate Epic. But my PC has Steam, Windows store, Uplay, Origin, and Battle.net all installed. I'm not even including launchers to which a single game is on it like League of Legends. All of them have a separate friends list to manage and different achievements. I have decided that enough is enough and don't want another launcher. It's nothing personal.

                    And now Rockstar is starting their own store. Next Square Enix and Activision will do the same thing and pretty soon every publisher is going to have their own launcher. I don't see this as a good thing from the consumer's point of view.

                    • +2 votes

                      @lostn: Man, sucks to be you not taking a single freebie. Seriously, who cares, what's a computer made for? To install programs, big whoop if you have to install another launcher.

                      Life is filled with so many problems, don't let this get your undies in a knot, like seriously lol

                      Install, enjoy, and make a cup of tea.

                    • -2 votes

                      @lostn: You are totally right. Apple, Google etc. are also charging too much.
                      They are also dominant and should be regulated.
                      And they steal lots and lots of consumer data but people love them still (same with FB etc.). That is the insanity and stupidity of people.
                      I know you were not blasting them - I was not referring to you of course. Your points are very valid.
                      Fact is, they are all companies out to make money. Any so called "care" for their consumer is not real but if there is any it is only pretense in order to maximise profits.

                      But my hope is that soon some other company will come up with a new, better, cheaper OS system and Google loses importance.
                      Remember internet giant AOL - virtually gone now. There are quite a few companies like that and it is likely that one or a few of the big tech companies will suffer the same fate.

                      With the advance, it is still more attractive. On Steam you make sales, Steam takes their cut and then the devs/pubs get paid. If you only sell 10000 copies that is what you get.
                      On Epic, the devs/pubs get the money for say 50,000 sales upfront. Advantage is they have the money straight away and can plan with it and also if the game only sells 40000 copies they still get to keep the money they received for 50,000 copies.

                      The free games will cost Epic money but they will have negotiated great fees with the publishers - Epic will use it as tax deductions as marketing.

                  • +1 vote

                    @Lysander: you know i'm not trying to be rude or anything but you always do come across as a very biased epic fanboy. competition is healthy yes but you come across as a one dimensional consumer

                    • -1 vote

                      @Kozhutki: I will buy wherever it is cheapest and the the developers actually get most. Also, wherever I get what I need and as need no features my choices are wide.
                      Funny you say that about being biased - I can say the very same thing about many people here - in fact the Steam defenders remind me of the Apple lovers who do not understand that dominance in a market and a walled garden approach is bed for the consumer and competition.
                      But I can assure you I am not biased - I have plenty of games on Steam and also use Origin, UPlay, Epic, GOG and even Bethesda (God help me). But I am not happy about Steam only doing things that are consumer-friendly if they are forced by the courts, such as refunds, and yet due to Epic's competition now portray themselves as a consumer advocate. I don't like this in people and I don't like it in companies or governments.

                      •  

                        @Lysander: But isn't EGS doing exactly what you just said steam is doing? If anyone's making a walled garden its EGS. Steam has no problem with the game being on other stores or generating keys and selling them outside of steam. EGS specifically locks games from being on Steam.

                        On top of that EGS changed its refund policy to be in line with steams. While I do agree steam's refund policy was bad for a while they did have to change it. They made it universal which in my mind is better than if they had per region refund rules. They didn't have to do that yet they did.

                        My biggest problem is not that EGS exists or that games are on EGS but the fact that EGS are buying up titles with Fortnite money to prop up their shit store that has the bare minimum of features. If they want to put games on their store go ahead but don't force us to use a client that doesn't support game streaming, linux or big picture modes(just to name some of the features I use).

                        • -1 vote

                          @CriticalImpact: So, as you said EGS does not stop other stores from selling the games, just Steam. And that is understandable as that is the de facto monopolist or dominant player in the market. If you want to compete with such player, you cannot treat the player as any other store which is why in law there are specific rules for dominant players (such as duty to supply in some cases for example).
                          This happens in real life all the time - companies that hold patents give patents to many small companies all the time but they would not give such patent (which is a right to exclude) to their competitors. This is totally accepted and people agree. Why it should be different just because it involves video games is a bit beyond me.

                          Plus, you forget to mention Steam had no refund policy whatsoever and refused to implement one until an Australian court forced them to introduce one. I do not consider customer friendly.

                          The features: I understand some people love every little thing Steam does and offers but there are many, many people who do not care about trading cards, badges, friends lists etc. So, for those people the Epic launcher is better as it less resource heavy.
                          Personally, I just want to play the game and as long as that is possible I do not care about anything else.
                          Or in other words, I am more than happy and only want the base version of the car (as I have no use for any extra features) but other want a car with everything in it (even, if in many cases, they do not even use those features often enough to warrant them) and that is fine - people are different. But it is still not okay then to denigrate the other launcher just because it does not suit your needs while meeting those of others.

                          And finally, even if I agreed that Epic is doing the same as Steam then: why does Steam get no hate? Can Steam really complain that another company is doing what they are doing (of course they are as now they are on the receiving end which is never nice)?
                          I wish people would understand that game companies are companies as every other company. Yes, they will have people that are passionate about gaming but at the end of the day it is a business. Steam is angry because they are missing out on triple digits millions of dollars profit this year due to Epic - who would not be cross about that? But they are NOT angry because of any inconvenience etc. for gamers or advocate for the gamers. I am sorry but anyone believing this is naive in my opinion as it just does not reflect the real world.

                  • +1 vote

                    @Lysander: Steam gave us proton and contribute to mesa. They're also working on vr for Linux.

                    Without steam, Microsoft would force all games to go through their shitty store.

                    I'll happily pay more to get the same thing on steam.

                    • -1 vote

                      @idonotknowwhy:

                      Without steam, Microsoft would force all games to go through their shitty store.

                      No they wouldn't.

                      This thread is yet another example of competition being bad for consumers. I see people saying how great it is that EGS is there competing but it seems there has been no significant reduction in prices for games and obviously platform exclusivity means zero price competition.

                      How is this beneficial to consumers?

  • +1 vote

    nek minnit

  • Top