Steam vs Epic. Two blood sucking vampires fighting over gamer blood. Why don't you introduce amazon, facebook and google to it and have a perfect customer apocalypse. Only morons think any of those companies work in customer interesst.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
you said "probably", so your defense of steam's revenue model is based on information you actually don't know.
I don't know either, but it's definitely not 50%. That would have killed physical games on consoles faster than Steam killed it on PC. Which reminds me, fuck steam for killing physical PC games and forcing DRM.
They already had DRM before Steam came onto the scene, heck, before Valve. I was breaking DRM back in the 80s, though it had a different name.
Come to think of it, they still have DRM, even the copies sold on Steam.
For that matter, Steam has it's own DRM, but I don't mind Steams DRM because it's pretty invisible, and I haven't had any issues with, unlike the ones the Software Companies slap on.
And yes, I know GoG is big in things not having DRM. Of course, they aren't much in the way of competition for Steam either as their primary focus is old stuff and things from CD Project Red.
I'm not going to bother with any other points, good or bad, I just had to bring up the DRM stuff.
Also, as someone who actually owned Fortnite years before the BR mode was even an idea, I've have more attempted account hijackings on their platform than on any website I've ever been registered on. Now that might not necessarily be their fault, but it makes me extra worried about using them.
Just pointing out that the Early Access releases of Fortnite and Fortnite: Battle Royale were only separated by a few months. Hyperbole sucks.
As for the actual launcher debate, I have no skin in the game. If I want a product badly enough and it's only available at one place, I'll go there. If yet another company feels like digging through my data to figure out what I buy and how I spend my time, I hope they have a big supply of 5-hour Energy because I am not that interesting. I do hope Epic can create a successful store, so that those who are actually responsible for creating the things I enjoy can explore distribution options that may lead to more money back in their pockets.
Watching all them players, journalists, youtubers, content creators etc shredding epic store to pieces and praising Steam like some divine entity makes me laugh.
My only issue with Epic is that their store/launcher is objectively inferior to Steam. All it is is a launcher with a friends list. No mod support, reviews, game forums, streaming, family share, none of the community features that valve has built. If it wasn't getting exclusives I wouldn't care one bit but to be forced to purchase products from an inferior platform simply rubs me the wrong way.
All I can do is vote with my wallet as I have done recently by not purchasing anything from them. If they build up their store into something even remotely comparable to Steam I'd have no problems buying games there but they are many years away from being close to that.
Also, as someone who actually owned Fortnite years before the BR mode was even an idea, I've have more attempted account hijackings on their platform than on any website I've ever been registered on. Now that might not necessarily be their fault, but it makes me extra worried about using them.
And here I thought that the point of a game launcher was to launch games. I don't want to spend all day staring at a game launcher. I want it to do its job and get out of the way. More time spent fussing with a launcher means less time playing games.
And that's why options are good. B3 gives no options though (for pc, obviously there is the option to play on a console) by being a paid exclusive on a single digital distribution platform. This isn't an issue for me in this case as I am not a fan of the Borderlands series anyway and wouldn't be buying it on Steam either.
This is all down to personal preference in the end. I've been on Steam for nearly 10 yrs and love the service that they have provided over that time, that good service gets rewarded by me with the loyalty that I always look to them to puchase my digital pc games. Everyone's opinions on this will be different though as I know that some people out their absolutely despise Steam.../shrug
The problem is that the "options" that you are demanding is that rather than "you can play the game if you pay the developer a substantial amount of money", you want the choice of paying the developer that substantial amount of money or paying the developer a different and considerably smaller amount of money. I think that the reasons why developers are not eager to give you that sort of "option" should be incandescently obvious.
Steam's policies prohibit the developer from posting the game on both stores such that the developer gets paid the same regardless of where you buy it. If not for that, then developers likely would be eager to offer that as an option, and there wouldn't be the paid exclusives. Epic wouldn't feel the need to pay for exclusive games if they could say, you can buy the game for $40 through the Epic store or $50 through Steam--and if using Steam is worth that extra $10 to you, then go ahead and pay it.
3. I don't want my PC lunching multiple game launchers every single day - Origin for Apex, Steam for my 200 games, Epic for Borderlands and so on. I hate clutter
Have you considered using shortcuts to launch whatever game it is that you want to play that day? The old methods that existed before Steam still work just fine. I've got a handful of shortcuts to games that I've played recently on my taskbar. Windows still has plenty of functionality beyond just being a platform that Steam can run on. So does Linux or Mac OS X if you're into that.
I'm fine with competition but the second you force me to use your client to buy a game and tag it "exclusive" for a PC game that should be everywhere, you're dead to me.
In that case, Steam was dead to you many years ago. Where do you prefer to go to play games these days, then?
And, as always, the better the competition, the happier the customers. At least I am, look why'd I give 10-15$ more if I don't have to?
Epic - Hmm, should we just lower our prices to be competitive to attract people to the Epic store?
Also Epic - Nah, lets go with exclusives that way they have no choice but to.
To answer your question, they know people would spend $10-$15 more not to use their launcher.
While there are Steam fanboys who genuinely would prefer to pay an extra $10 so that they can play exactly the same game through Steam rather than Epic, there probably aren't that many of them. Regardless, it's Valve, not Epic, that is vetoing that option. Please direct your ire at the proper source if you're going to complain about not having that option.
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
How much more are you folks going to twist and bend yourselves around? It's ridiculous.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
You're crying over something that costs you nothing. You are the one that needs to get it together.
That's like saying Developers are crying over nothing since all Steam did was trade their production costs for physical boxes and discs into a digital distribution / library. Any way you decide to slice this argument, it still comes down to greed on the developer / publishers. I mean, I'm all for them making as much money as they can, but if there's no benefit to the players in return, why the hell should we support it?
If the costs of doing something greatly decline over time, sometimes people expect that what they have to pay to get that should also decline. A modern Chromebook has massively more performance than a top of the line gaming desktop from the day that Steam launched. If today's Chromebook cost the same today as 2004's high-end gaming desktop and the price of higher end hardware only went up from there, people would be upset about computer prices today and rightly so.
For those who are under the delusion that game prices have remained unchanged, I present you with exhibit A:
Original price raised to console price range without the need to offset any console hardware costs.
Various versions of the game with different content and the base price with the bare minimum game.
Season passes
DLC even on pre-release.
Microtransaction stores even for single player games.
Game as a service (see Fallout 76 or Anthem)
The above has become the norm these days. For the days to come, these companies seem adamant to monetise your frustration. Blizzard is already doing it (the reason I left Overwatch), but it seems they are becoming more sophisticated about it (monitoring women's menstruation circle? wtf?).
The reason the other additions came into play was because the sticker prices haven't changed and companies need to make up the difference. Had game sticker prices inflated like everything else you'd be looking at $90 on average or more.
Makes you wonder why game developers / publishers decided to be deceptive instead of just increasing the base price of games, don't it?
They get more overall sales this way. If everyone had to pay $90 for a game fewer would buy it, but if you can get it at regular price and only pay for the extras you really want you save money overall. Whales will buy more than they need and increase that profit even more. It's really a win/win idea until high advantage items are put in to lure whales.
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
How much more are you folks going to twist and bend yourselves around? It's ridiculous.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
You're crying over something that costs you nothing. You are the one that needs to get it together.
That's like saying Developers are crying over nothing since all Steam did was trade their production costs for physical boxes and discs into a digital distribution / library. Any way you decide to slice this argument, it still comes down to greed on the developer / publishers. I mean, I'm all for them making as much money as they can, but if there's no benefit to the players in return, why the hell should we support it?
If the costs of doing something greatly decline over time, sometimes people expect that what they have to pay to get that should also decline. A modern Chromebook has massively more performance than a top of the line gaming desktop from the day that Steam launched. If today's Chromebook cost the same today as 2004's high-end gaming desktop and the price of higher end hardware only went up from there, people would be upset about computer prices today and rightly so.
Of course, all these advances in technology certainly made it easier to develop games too no? I'm sure most game developers would agree that the advances in computer hardware and software technology has DRASTICALLY reduced production costs over what it was back in 2004 as you say. Creating world landscapes today probably takes a fraction of the time it did back then.
Getting into development is easier and cheaper than ever before,but AAA development has increased a lot. Posted a reply about that earlier.
And, as always, the better the competition, the happier the customers. At least I am, look why'd I give 10-15$ more if I don't have to?
Epic - Hmm, should we just lower our prices to be competitive to attract people to the Epic store?
Also Epic - Nah, lets go with exclusives that way they have no choice but to.
To answer your question, they know people would spend $10-$15 more not to use their launcher.
While there are Steam fanboys who genuinely would prefer to pay an extra $10 so that they can play exactly the same game through Steam rather than Epic, there probably aren't that many of them. Regardless, it's Valve, not Epic, that is vetoing that option. Please direct your ire at the proper source if you're going to complain about not having that option.
How is Epic Store panhandling to developers / publishers not the focus of this argument? Nothing Epic Store is doing has ANY indication of supporting gamers. NONE! The fact people paying more money for the same game versus being forced to use a different and far more inferior launcher says a lot more than claiming everyone's just a Steam fanboi.
My theory is that developers getting paid well to make games that I like supports my gaming preferences. The whole store argument is all about developers getting paid.
My problem is with Epic being a complete *SHITE* store interface lacking in SO MANY WAYS - I don't care about their future roadmap - they are a behemoth of a company and it's kind of insulting to think their store is in the shape it's in based off of the revenue they have available. Sure, Steam collects data too - but was Steam compromised by hackers that we know of recently? Not that I have heard. How about the Epic store? Yup.
I'm happy to support Epic when their actual store (interface, features, etc.) is closer to rivaling Steam. In the mean time, I will continue to use other stores.
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
That is actually false. Both the higher per unit profits and the overall size of the market have made gaming more profitable than ever. There is a reason profits from gaming are bigger than profits from the film and music industry combined.
- the move to digital distribution has allowed developers to retain a far higher % of the sale cost of the game. - as a result of digital distribution games can be released around the world. - hence the revenue after distribution that a developer gets can be much higher.
The downside of worldwide digital distribution - it applies to every other developer in the world - marketing the game - simply being one of many thousands of games of Steam doesn't get you in the eye of the potential purchaser. (On Epic - maybe at the moment ironically!) Potentially marketing can be very expensive - especially to reach a big audience.
As far as costs go well when it comes to producing TV HD quality has greatly increased costs - despite digital recording, better cameras, editing etc. I would assume that this applies to HD quality games as well. To produce an "old quality" game though - maybe not.
Physical versus digital saves 2 dollars per 60 dollar product, its not that much. Especially when you consider costs for creating a game and its advertisement have gone up a factor 12 to 13 over the last fifteen years. But sales have gone up too right? Yes, but a factor 5 only, So profits and ROI are under huge pressure. Especially since with the introduction of F2P the massess have been conditioned into thinking that games have become less expensive instead of more, therefor rehecting a higher price. And I am fully aware that the industry did this to itself but alas, it is the situation we are in.
Why do you guys think AAA titles play it safe, many companies are going under, different ways of generating revenue have been created, almost all of the AA games have disappeared?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Don't disagree etc. but the biggest saving from digital is not in the production costs but - potentially - from "bricks and mortar" stores not having unsold stock that then have to be stored, difficult to sell on to a 3rd party etc. Whilst you can get unsold digital stock (unsold keys if a buyer agrees a price for so many keys) these don't have the same issues.
Know what though,i think the statement is not accurate.It is for the really bad games but those don't matter anyhow,like $5 games selling for 20,i am not buying them anyhow. The good games,i do not feel like any cost is being added on ,i actually often see MUCH higher prices on console games,go figure on that scam.
So the only burden is on the developers but is it really THAT bad.Well as far back as i can remember a publisher would take at least 25% and could be much more depending if they invest in the game.So Valve took an industry standard of 25% and added on 5% because it is also a storage app/cloud.
Of course there is perhaps a big difference but again maybe not and that is publishers are expected to MARKET the game,Steam doesn't do that and likely charges an added fee if put on their highlight reel.Just being on Steam is marketing enough because MANY people go there and sift through games or que ues.
So in all honesty the entire ordeal is a bit blown out of proportion,i see this new competition as nothing but good for all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
My problem is with Epic being a complete *SHITE* store interface lacking in SO MANY WAYS - I don't care about their future roadmap - they are a behemoth of a company and it's kind of insulting to think their store is in the shape it's in based off of the revenue they have available. Sure, Steam collects data too - but was Steam compromised by hackers that we know of recently? Not that I have heard. How about the Epic store? Yup.
I'm happy to support Epic when their actual store (interface, features, etc.) is closer to rivaling Steam. In the mean time, I will continue to use other stores.
Steam also got hacked… EPIC is brand new in the gaming industry, so yeah. They wont have everything STEAM has. If you think that steam was perfect at launch then Im a chinese astronaut.
and Account theft has been around since Steam began, but with the introduction of Steam Trading, the problem has increased twenty-fold as the number one complaint from our users. Having your account stolen, and your items traded away, is a terrible experience, and we hated that it was becoming more common for our customers.
We should be a little careful pointing fingers because we "don't know"all the facts.Example i have a firm belief that often hacking is done via inside access.Example a laid off or angry employee.
So this article is from 2015 ,that is TWELVE years after they began,so how good a job is Valve and/or their security team doing...not very well at all.
So what Steam does now and it is a VERY lazy fix and one that annoys the heck out of me.If you login to Steam from a different machine tag or via some website it auto flags you and ask if it is you.OK so i thought this is dumb i'll answer yes it is me,>>>LOL it doesn't matter what you answer yes/No it still requests you to go to your email and recover a code to enter.
The problem is that this is not JUST for YOUR safety it is because they are paranoid of anyone allowing others access to the account to play free games.So it used to flag you EVERY single time you would go from one computer to the next in the same house.Now they allow you to login from two computers after you are checked once or twice but still flags you otherwise WITHOUT noticing your IP is still the same.
So the fact your IP is not involved tells me this security measure is ONLY for Valve's paranoia and not much of a security feature.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm fine with competition but the second you force me to use your client to buy a game and tag it "exclusive" for a PC game that should be everywhere, you're dead to me.
Like Valve did with Half Life 2 on Steam or how Epic does it with B3? Or both? All digital stores have been guilty of it, that is the funny part.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Give a better example than Half Life please considering the company that developed it is Valve. If they do the work I think they're entitled to keep it on their launcher same for Epic.
How about Skyrim?
Back in the day, on launch day, I bought Skyrim on disk exactly to avoid Steam -- silly me. Turned out it didn't matter, the disk was just basically a link to install Steam. To play the game I'd bought on disk I had to install Steam and have a Steam account.
Why are developers behaving like they're being forced to sell physical items at a brick and mortar who is owned by the mob?
Valve/Steam put their work and time in to building their consumer base and distribution platform. Everyone was giving them s#!% in the beginning.
Nobody has a problem with EPIC providing an alternative (outside of it being garbage in comparison).
The problem is all these jaded crybaby developers (and the knobbers who cosign them) who don't like the idea of paying a 30% split can't grasp the concept of going independent or leveraging ALL major platforms to maximize revenue. They're picking a side in a platform war they have no business getting involved in. Maybe they think if they put their crumby Battle Royale game exclusively on EPIC next to Fortnite they can buy a Lambo.
Bottom line is Steam is feature rich and super convenient for people who use it. Trying to draw a line in the sand and make people leave feature rich convenience for bare bones trash so you can make more money is dumb and fucks the industry up. BETA MAX vs VHS anyone?
I'm not a developer, and I don't make money off your exclusive better split with EPIC. As a consumer I'm on the better platform (clearly), FUCK any developer who won't distribute to me in addition to lesser pleb platforms.
The continued comparison to physical hardware platforms is laughable, and shows how much grasping at straws those trying to doomcall about this are doing.
The irony of this example is that consumer experiences aren't why VHS even won out... It was how much easier VHS was for producers. Not unlike how much better Epic's contract with devs are compared to Valve..
Why are developers behaving like they're being forced to sell physical items at a brick and mortar who is owned by the mob?
Valve/Steam put their work and time in to building their consumer base and distribution platform. Everyone was giving them s#!% in the beginning.
Nobody has a problem with EPIC providing an alternative (outside of it being garbage in comparison).
The problem is all these jaded crybaby developers (and the knobbers who cosign them) who don't like the idea of paying a 30% split can't grasp the concept of going independent or leveraging ALL major platforms to maximize revenue. They're picking a side in a platform war they have no business getting involved in. Maybe they think if they put their crumby Battle Royale game exclusively on EPIC next to Fortnite they can buy a Lambo.
Bottom line is Steam is feature rich and super convenient for people who use it. Trying to draw a line in the sand and make people leave feature rich convenience for bare bones trash so you can make more money is dumb and fucks the industry up. BETA MAX vs VHS anyone?
I'm not a developer, and I don't make money off your exclusive better split with EPIC. As a consumer I'm on the better platform (clearly), FUCK any developer who won't distribute to me in addition to lesser pleb platforms.
The continued comparison to physical hardware platforms is laughable, and shows how much grasping at straws those trying to doomcall about this are doing.
The irony of this example is that consumer experiences aren't why VHS even won out... It was how much easier VHS was for producers. Not unlike how much better Epic's contract with devs are compared to Valve..
It's not grasping at straws. You're just reaching for semantics to make your point. My analogy was clearly to point out that Beta Max was the much better platform and lost to an inferior one for reasons beyond that. Keep twerking around the point though.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The question isn't how many features a game launcher has, as if more features is automatically better. The question is what features it has that I actually want. Microsoft Word has a lot of features that Gedit doesn't, but I use Gedit a lot because it does what I want without trying to also do a bunch of other things that I want for it not to do.
I've used a lot of different game launchers over the years. While Steam has a lot of features that most others don't, those features tend to be a lot of junk that I don't actually want. That is, after all, why most other launchers didn't bother to implement them. The most salient distinguishing feature between various launchers is how many clicks does it take to actually launch a game. Can it be a single click from taskbar icon, or do I have to launch a launcher, wait for that to open, do something in the launcher, wait for some other menu to open, and then launch the game from there? A single click on the taskbar wins, regardless of which launcher it's ultimately routed through.
Other than that, the only significant feature I've seen that is nifty in launchers other than being able to download, update, and launch games is one that I've only ever seen in the Paradox launcher. When playing Stellaris, the launcher lets you move to a different version of the game whenever you please. That can be updating as many launchers will do for you, but it will also revert to an older version of the game. It uses some sort of delta compression so that you only have to download the difference between the currently installed version and the one that you want to switch to. If you don't like the latest patch, you can refuse to apply it and just keep playing whichever older version of the game you like. Or you can apply it, see that you don't like it, and then revert it to how the game was before.
Ok, I'm beginning to see a trend here of certain individuals avoiding the obvious problems.
Epic Store versus Steam
#1 - Which platform is better? Steam #2 - Which platform has better deals? My guess is, neither. #3 - Which platform takes less of developer / publisher costs? Epic
Based off those 3 key things, I'd love for one of you Epic ponies to please explain the advantage of being FORCED to use Epic as beneficial to players / gamers? I certainly don't see any advantage to being FORCED to use Epic.
The obvious outcome being, if developers / publishers offered their games on every platform and let players decide, you'd definitely be seeing more purchases from Steam. If that isn't enough proof in the pudding that Epic Store is a barebone pile of developer / publisher ass kissing, I don't know what is. There's a reason Epic is doing exclusives and it's NOT because their platform is better.
I actually prefer the look / feel of the Epic store but at the end of the day I'm pretty agnostic. Most of the time I just use a desktop shortcut as well but if it came down to it I can cope with having more than one icon on my desktop.
As for deals maybe Epic has the edge since they are offering "free" games but if things are the same then I would support the platform that - well like most people I suspect - is cheaper but failing that gives the devs the most money.
As for being FORCED? You are complaining I assume about some deals being exclusive. Simply a part of life. Car dealerships don't stock every make of car; Walmart doesn't stock every product; if you want to see the Sistine Chapel its exclusive to Rome. However in recent times by virtue of being the dominant platform for so long if you wanted to play a whole host of games you were FORCED to use Steam. And why should devs be forced to pay Steam a bigger %? If you want the features that Steam provide maybe Steam should charge for them.
Ok, I'm beginning to see a trend here of certain individuals avoiding the obvious problems.
Epic Store versus Steam
#1 - Which platform is better? Steam #2 - Which platform has better deals? My guess is, neither. #3 - Which platform takes less of developer / publisher costs? Epic
Based off those 3 key things, I'd love for one of you Epic ponies to please explain the advantage of being FORCED to use Epic as beneficial to players / gamers? I certainly don't see any advantage to being FORCED to use Epic.
The obvious outcome being, if developers / publishers offered their games on every platform and let players decide, you'd definitely be seeing more purchases from Steam. If that isn't enough proof in the pudding that Epic Store is a barebone pile of developer / publisher ass kissing, I don't know what is. There's a reason Epic is doing exclusives and it's NOT because their platform is better.
The only reason I ever downloaded Steam was to play a game I couldn't get from anywhere else. WHY WAS IT GOOD TO FORCE ME TO DO THAT? I certainly did not and still do not see any advantage to being FORCED to use Steam to play any game. Period.
Your argument is so one-sided it's sickening.
You know why they have exclusives, it's to get people to download and use the store. The same reason Steam did it. Do they have to be a bit more aggressive than Steam did? Obviously, because Steam already has such a large foothold.
Epic store brings competition. That's how things improve for everyone in a free market situation. Steam had an absolute MONOPOLY on game distribution to the point where you simply COULD NOT even get some games without a steam acct. Now Epic is challenging that. That's really a good thing. Unfortunately we live in an age of an "all or nothing" mentality so the fanbois on both side want to turn what should be a natural and good situation into some kind of street brawl. It's pretty sad. And pathetic.
Comments
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
They already had DRM before Steam came onto the scene, heck, before Valve. I was breaking DRM back in the 80s, though it had a different name.
Come to think of it, they still have DRM, even the copies sold on Steam.
For that matter, Steam has it's own DRM, but I don't mind Steams DRM because it's pretty invisible, and I haven't had any issues with, unlike the ones the Software Companies slap on.
And yes, I know GoG is big in things not having DRM. Of course, they aren't much in the way of competition for Steam either as their primary focus is old stuff and things from CD Project Red.
I'm not going to bother with any other points, good or bad, I just had to bring up the DRM stuff.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Just pointing out that the Early Access releases of Fortnite and Fortnite: Battle Royale were only separated by a few months. Hyperbole sucks.
As for the actual launcher debate, I have no skin in the game. If I want a product badly enough and it's only available at one place, I'll go there. If yet another company feels like digging through my data to figure out what I buy and how I spend my time, I hope they have a big supply of 5-hour Energy because I am not that interesting. I do hope Epic can create a successful store, so that those who are actually responsible for creating the things I enjoy can explore distribution options that may lead to more money back in their pockets.
Steam's policies prohibit the developer from posting the game on both stores such that the developer gets paid the same regardless of where you buy it. If not for that, then developers likely would be eager to offer that as an option, and there wouldn't be the paid exclusives. Epic wouldn't feel the need to pay for exclusive games if they could say, you can buy the game for $40 through the Epic store or $50 through Steam--and if using Steam is worth that extra $10 to you, then go ahead and pay it.
I'm happy to support Epic when their actual store (interface, features, etc.) is closer to rivaling Steam. In the mean time, I will continue to use other stores.
The good games,i do not feel like any cost is being added on ,i actually often see MUCH higher prices on console games,go figure on that scam.
So the only burden is on the developers but is it really THAT bad.Well as far back as i can remember a publisher would take at least 25% and could be much more depending if they invest in the game.So Valve took an industry standard of 25% and added on 5% because it is also a storage app/cloud.
Of course there is perhaps a big difference but again maybe not and that is publishers are expected to MARKET the game,Steam doesn't do that and likely charges an added fee if put on their highlight reel.Just being on Steam is marketing enough because MANY people go there and sift through games or que ues.
So in all honesty the entire ordeal is a bit blown out of proportion,i see this new competition as nothing but good for all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/steam-hacked-2011-11
and in 2015 too.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/115219/20151210/77-000-steam-accounts-hacked-each-month-heres-what-valve-is-doing-to-stop-it.htm
and
Account theft has been around since Steam began, but with the introduction of Steam Trading, the problem has increased twenty-fold as the number one complaint from our users. Having your account stolen, and your items traded away, is a terrible experience, and we hated that it was becoming more common for our customers.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/19618/
We should be a little careful pointing fingers because we "don't know"all the facts.Example i have a firm belief that often hacking is done via inside access.Example a laid off or angry employee.
Going through a transition phase could leave backdoors open and Valve HAS been hacked ALL the time.
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/10/77000-steam-users-are-hacked-every-month-heres-how-valve-is-fixing-it/
So this article is from 2015 ,that is TWELVE years after they began,so how good a job is Valve and/or their security team doing...not very well at all.
So what Steam does now and it is a VERY lazy fix and one that annoys the heck out of me.If you login to Steam from a different machine tag or via some website it auto flags you and ask if it is you.OK so i thought this is dumb i'll answer yes it is me,>>>LOL it doesn't matter what you answer yes/No it still requests you to go to your email and recover a code to enter.
The problem is that this is not JUST for YOUR safety it is because they are paranoid of anyone allowing others access to the account to play free games.So it used to flag you EVERY single time you would go from one computer to the next in the same house.Now they allow you to login from two computers after you are checked once or twice but still flags you otherwise WITHOUT noticing your IP is still the same.
So the fact your IP is not involved tells me this security measure is ONLY for Valve's paranoia and not much of a security feature.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The irony of this example is that consumer experiences aren't why VHS even won out... It was how much easier VHS was for producers. Not unlike how much better Epic's contract with devs are compared to Valve..
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I actually would pay that little extra to have that game on my favorite storefront. But I'm getting no say in this.
I've used a lot of different game launchers over the years. While Steam has a lot of features that most others don't, those features tend to be a lot of junk that I don't actually want. That is, after all, why most other launchers didn't bother to implement them. The most salient distinguishing feature between various launchers is how many clicks does it take to actually launch a game. Can it be a single click from taskbar icon, or do I have to launch a launcher, wait for that to open, do something in the launcher, wait for some other menu to open, and then launch the game from there? A single click on the taskbar wins, regardless of which launcher it's ultimately routed through.
Other than that, the only significant feature I've seen that is nifty in launchers other than being able to download, update, and launch games is one that I've only ever seen in the Paradox launcher. When playing Stellaris, the launcher lets you move to a different version of the game whenever you please. That can be updating as many launchers will do for you, but it will also revert to an older version of the game. It uses some sort of delta compression so that you only have to download the difference between the currently installed version and the one that you want to switch to. If you don't like the latest patch, you can refuse to apply it and just keep playing whichever older version of the game you like. Or you can apply it, see that you don't like it, and then revert it to how the game was before.
As for deals maybe Epic has the edge since they are offering "free" games but if things are the same then I would support the platform that - well like most people I suspect - is cheaper but failing that gives the devs the most money.
As for being FORCED? You are complaining I assume about some deals being exclusive. Simply a part of life. Car dealerships don't stock every make of car; Walmart doesn't stock every product; if you want to see the Sistine Chapel its exclusive to Rome. However in recent times by virtue of being the dominant platform for so long if you wanted to play a whole host of games you were FORCED to use Steam. And why should devs be forced to pay Steam a bigger %? If you want the features that Steam provide maybe Steam should charge for them.
Your argument is so one-sided it's sickening.
You know why they have exclusives, it's to get people to download and use the store. The same reason Steam did it. Do they have to be a bit more aggressive than Steam did? Obviously, because Steam already has such a large foothold.
Stop being so foolish.