I launched Epic’s new store preview and it popped open faster than my coffee could cool. I blinked, then checked the UI: spare, swift, and oddly proud. The company told me the whole thing was “vibe-coded,” and that’s when the grin on their press release started taking shots at Steam.
I cover games and software for a living, and you should know I tinker with launchers until they betray their secrets. You and I both care about two things: speed that actually helps you, and features that keep you. Epic has clearly chosen to prioritize the former—and to brag about it loudly.
On my test machine the launcher opened in under a second — speed, but at what cost?
Epic’s pitch is simple: AI programming agents built the store from prompts, and the result is a lighter, faster app. They compare cold-start load times to Steam and claim their preview is twice as fast. That sounds impressive, and as someone who hates waiting for software to crawl, I get the appeal.
But speed here is a focused trade-off. The preview omits forums, workshop access, built-in recording, Big Picture comforts, and other features you expect from Valve’s ecosystem. It’s a deliberate shave of functionality to hit a headline metric.
What is vibe-coding?
Vibe-coding is Epic’s shorthand for delegating development work to autonomous AI agents that turn prompts into code and UI. In practice you type high-level instructions, the agents generate implementations, and humans review and stitch things together. The result can be startlingly fast to produce—but it also makes odd UX choices that a mid-level programmer would avoid.
The preview is a speedboat in crowded waters — tradeoffs show up fast
The app launches quickly and feels spry, but it’s missing much that anchors a platform: community tools, discovery features, mod hosting, and controller-friendly modes. Steam’s ecosystem is vast: workshops, forums, Big Picture mode, achievements, cloud saves, overlays. Epic’s preview strips a lot of that away to polish load-time benchmarks.
That strategy is audacious advertising. It’s also tactical: Epic wants to own the narrative that AI can accelerate development cycles and shave costs. Epic claims the approach reduces development time and overhead—an assertion that reads well on a balance sheet but less so when you want to spend an hour reading player guides and mod lists.
Is the Epic Games Store actually AI-generated?
Yes—at least in the sense Epic describes. The company says agents wrote the bulk of the code, and human teams provided prompts and oversight. The preview’s README even calls this a first release that’s “light on features.” Think of it as a testbed for AI-driven workflows, not a finished consumer product.
I ran a few quick checks — practical implications for players and developers
If you’re a player, the immediate win is reduced waiting time. If you’re a developer, the promise is faster iteration. Epic also hints at cost savings; one internal example circulated suggested cutting iterations that would cost about $100,000 (€93,000) in developer hours on a traditional project. That’s a headline-friendly number, but it doesn’t account for QA cycles, usability fixes, or community-building work that follows.
You should expect more rough edges with agent-generated code: misplaced settings, odd error messaging, or features implemented in a way only agents think makes sense. The preview already shows some of that—workarounds that a human would not ship without user testing.
The marketing tone matters too. Epic’s release takes aim at Valve and Gabe Newell by comparing raw speed metrics and mocking Steam’s complexity. You can read that as competitive theater or a statement of intent: push AI workflows, ship faster, and trade inclusive feature sets for velocity.
How is Epic’s new store faster than Steam on a cold start?
Cold-start speed is a narrow metric. Epic likely cut background services, trimmed UI layers, and removed persistent community modules. Those removals lower memory footprint and disk I/O at launch, shaving seconds. But speed without persistent functionality is a different product than the one Steam offers: the latter is heavier because it carries community, modding, and multimedia features in the same package.
The preview’s tone felt oddly performative—like a speedboat with no life jackets. Their PR sounded confident, borderline smug, and a bit theatrical—like a garage band pretending to be an orchestra.
Read what’s behind the latest news in gaming (with a bit of snark) by subscribing to the Moyens I/O Checkpoint newsletter!
I’ll keep testing this preview and watching how Epic iterates. You should try it if you want the thrill of fast launches and don’t rely on Steam’s broader feature set. But one question remains: will speed alone win hearts, or will users push back until the store grows into something worth keeping?
