From a games consumer perspective, PC digital storefront exclusivity is at most a minor annoyance of having to install yet another launcher.
Remember when Epic launcher read your list of Steam friends without getting the user's permission? Why should anyone trust them after that? A security risk is not a "minor annoyance".
You mean like the time Valve fucked up massively and introduced a glitch a couple years back that allowed customers to randomly access cached copies of one another's accounts with personal information and card data included?
Big difference between intended actions and unintended ones.
No. No there isn't.
If what you're saying was actually true the justice system in every western country would be turned upside down. Have you ever heard of "pre-meditated, intent to commit a crime" the basis of determining guilt since the legal system was created. How about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There is beyond a reasonable doubt that epic intentionally went after steam friend lists. Next with your unbelievable lack of logic/reasoning will probably suggest the launcher programmed itself to steal steam friend lists.
Here's an example in case you don't see the difference...
1. You accidentally run someone over.
2. You consciously go out looking for someone to run over.
1. Is Steam, pure negligence.
2. Is Epic, intentionally willing to engage in a criminal act.
From a games consumer perspective, PC digital storefront exclusivity is at most a minor annoyance of having to install yet another launcher.
Remember when Epic launcher read your list of Steam friends without getting the user's permission? Why should anyone trust them after that? A security risk is not a "minor annoyance".
You mean like the time Valve fucked up massively and introduced a glitch a couple years back that allowed customers to randomly access cached copies of one another's accounts with personal information and card data included?
Big difference between intended actions and unintended ones.
No. No there isn't.
If what you're saying was actually true the justice system in every western country would be turned upside down. Have you ever heard of "pre-meditated, intent to commit a crime" the basis of determining guilt since the legal system was created. How about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There is beyond a reasonable doubt that epic intentionally went after steam friend lists. Next with your unbelievable lack of logic/reasoning will probably suggest the launcher programmed itself to steal steam friend lists.
Here's an example in case you don't see the difference...
1. You accidentally run someone over.
2. You consciously go out looking for someone to run over.
1. Is Steam, pure negligence.
2. Is Epic, intentionally willing to engage in a criminal act.
That context matters insofar as penalties/fines are assigned.
A conscious decision was made on Valve's part to cut corners. Such is intentional.
We don't let Equifax go with a slap on the wrist because they didn't personally set out to cause a data breach. What we do is determine the extent of their criminal negligence and fine them accordingly. Which is what happened to Valve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no such fine has been levied at Epic to my knowledge. Your evidence is allegations, which were based on a lack of understanding of what Epic has actually done. And it still ignores the negligence of Valve in keeping user data unencrypted and unprotected. Not that I'd expect nuance or evenly applied standards from you.
Edit: If a corporation knows about a work place hazard and fails to correct it due to costs, they've knowingly committed a negligent crime, regardless of whether they triggered that hazard.
Man that seems wrong, I don't think someone has the right to take something from someone just because it was left there unprotected, in my country that's called stealing.
And don't get me wrong, steam has done some bad shit, that's why I prefer to buy my game from GOG, if it's not there then I go to steam.
But if you think that unintended and intended behavior are the same then there is no point in talking about it.
I don't think you understand what EGS actually was getting from the Steam file it was accessing. What it was doing was rummage through that file which is on your system and then create checksums of your steam username and the usernames of the people in your friend's list then copy those hashes to a file locally. The file with those hashes was only uploaded after you decide to import your steam's friend list to EGS. Effectively the program did not really access any information that was not already on your PC, when it stored it locally it stored it in a more secure way than the information was initially available in and moreover - in a way that is almost impossible to be reversed(basically the only way to get what was stored is to brute-force through possible names and find a match that way) and when EGS uploaded the file it was already in that secure, almost impossible to reverse format.
I understand the technicalities of it, if you want to see it that way, then they were still taken something from a source from which they shouldn't have, for that purpose API's exist, now I don't know if Valve provides one that exposes Friends list, nor I think it has any importance to the topic.
They are taking something from a local source that cannot be intentionally shut down to them as a competition with the consent of the person that source belongs to and which the information pertains to. Honestly, the only way to say that is wrong is to have absolutely no idea how computers work or what the information is.
From a games consumer perspective, PC digital storefront exclusivity is at most a minor annoyance of having to install yet another launcher.
Remember when Epic launcher read your list of Steam friends without getting the user's permission? Why should anyone trust them after that? A security risk is not a "minor annoyance".
You mean like the time Valve fucked up massively and introduced a glitch a couple years back that allowed customers to randomly access cached copies of one another's accounts with personal information and card data included?
Big difference between intended actions and unintended ones.
No. No there isn't.
If what you're saying was actually true the justice system in every western country would be turned upside down. Have you ever heard of "pre-meditated, intent to commit a crime" the basis of determining guilt since the legal system was created. How about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There is beyond a reasonable doubt that epic intentionally went after steam friend lists. Next with your unbelievable lack of logic/reasoning will probably suggest the launcher programmed itself to steal steam friend lists.
Here's an example in case you don't see the difference...
1. You accidentally run someone over.
2. You consciously go out looking for someone to run over.
1. Is Steam, pure negligence.
2. Is Epic, intentionally willing to engage in a criminal act.
That context matters insofar as penalties/fines are assigned.
A conscious decision was made on Valve's part to cut corners. Such is intentional.
We don't let Equifax go with a slap on the wrist because they didn't personally set out to cause a data breach. What we do is determine the extent of their criminal negligence and fine them accordingly. Which is what happened to Valve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no such fine has been levied at Epic to my knowledge. Your evidence is allegations, which were based on a lack of understanding of what Epic has actually done. And it still ignores the negligence of Valve in keeping user data unencrypted and unprotected. Not that I'd expect nuance or evenly applied standards from you.
Edit: If a corporation knows about a work place hazard and fails to correct it due to costs, they've knowingly committed a negligent crime, regardless of whether they triggered that hazard.
As I said it was negligence but you constantly try to steer the topic away from Epic's wrongdoing by saying "but look what Steam did" as a deflection tactic. It's no different than that Pee Wee Herman saying "I know you are, but what am I, I know you are, but what am I". I strongly believe that if Steam cut corners on anything they should be held accountable just like anyone else but their faulty business decisions as it relates to Epic taking "data" that does not belong to them is not even in the same arena. You ask why no fines or charges were brought is probably because it's not worth the legal costs and if taking Steam data wasn't actually wrongdoing then why did Epic not continue doing it? Now they know that everyone knows and have stopped like most people who get caught do. In the spirit of equal punishment Steam was also caught so I'm sure they won't slip up making the same mistakes again.
Besides the fact the Epic game store is lacking feature wise in just about every way possible when compared to Steam, And besides the fact i own god knows how many games on Steam, and besides the fact Steam has treated me VERY WELL as a customer (not a dev A CUSTOMER!!!), Besides all that. This Sweeney the Weenie character comes off as a huge arrogant douchebag.
In no way, shape or form will I be supporting or buying any games from the Epic game store. And thats that.
I don't have a problem with exclusives if the company behind the game (a Mario game for Nintendo, Gears of War for XBone1/Windows, Uncharted for PS4) is making it available on it's own platform. No one is complaining that Fortnight is exclusive to EGS, Team Fortress is only available through Steam or Blizzard games only on their launcher. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if EA or Ubisoft makes their future PC releases exclusive to their platforms. I do mind, however, the way in which Epic is manufacturing and manipulating exclusivity. They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
Add in the fact that Epic has been involved in some shady dealings with developers of a lot of crowdfunded games, games that were promised by the developers during the funding period to be available on Steam or other platforms btw. The basic sentiment from these indie devs has been "We know we relied on crowdfunding to even get our game up and running but now that we have that sweet, sweet Epic Fortnight cash we don't need you anymore. If you don't like that, well tough, suck it." TAKE THAT TOXIC GAMERS!!!
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I'll take the anti-Epic store people seriously when they rage against Steam for having thousands of exclusive games only on Steam. Until then, they are a joke just mad their monopoly has a small competitor trying to break it. Nevermind the fact they make false claims of certain games being exclusive when they are on multiple PC game distributors, but just not on Steam temporarily (like Outer Worlds).
Steam doesn't have any exclusive games other than ones made by Valve and Valve has never paid developers for exclusivity as far as I know. Care to point any out? As far as I know, all the games on Steam are capable of being distributed on other platforms if the developers wanted to.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Edit: I was playing Dauntless for awhile through EGS but uninstalled both Dauntless and EGS from my PC for good last week. The whole Ooblets situation (not interested in the game in the slightest fyi) was the last straw for me when it comes to Epic paying off indie devs to betray their crowdfunded backers.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Only under the most purist understanding of the situation.
If exclusivity creates quality content that otherwise would not happen (ie: Stranger Things for Netflix, Game of Thrones for HBO), the consumer benefits.
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
I'm still trying to see a persuasive argument there's any benefit at all for consumers, while I easily laid out the inconveniences, however minor you may feel them to be.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Edit: I was playing Dauntless for awhile through EGS but uninstalled both Dauntless and EGS from my PC for good last week. The whole Ooblets situation (not interested in the game in the slightest fyi) was the last straw for me when it comes to Epic paying off indie devs to betray their crowdfunded backers.
Exclusivity != Monopoly, for one. They're two completely different things. You can still buy games, even similar games, on other platforms.
For another, I'd submit that you haven't been harmed by the fact that some movies are exclusive on Hulu or Amazon Prime rather than Netflix. Quite the opposite, it's prevented Netflix from hiking their rates and charging you more, because there's competition out there.
Just because a specific product is sold exclusively through one provider, doesn't mean it's not competitive. There's not a grocery store on the planet that doesn't have something that it exclusively carries and other stores aren't allowed to.
When you say "bad for the consumer," what you mean is that you don't want to use something else. That's not bad for the consumer. It's not even bad for you. It's just inconvenient, if that.
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
I'm still trying to see a persuasive argument there's any benefit at all for consumers, while I easily laid out the inconveniences, however minor you may feel them to be.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Because yes, it really is all about me you know.
Exactly. It's not about convenience or having to use another launcher. No one has been able to point out any tangible benefits these exclusive deals have for the consumer. If I could buy a new release game from EGS for say $40 instead of $50 then they might have a point. Instead, all that extra money developers get from Epic goes right into their own pockets. I know they keep complaining about the 30% Steam takes but clearly modern day devs have no idea what it was like before Steam and other digital distribution systems. In the past, PC games were only available in brick and mortar stores that were taking a hell of a lot more than 30%. It was often more like 50% or more.
Also, Epic's launcher is 100% Gunk (that's right, junk with a G). You would think with all that Fortnight money and looking at what Steam has done over the years they'd be able to come up with something that isn't hot garbage. They want to compete with Steam yet they make ZERO effort to create something even close to what their competitor has even with all the resources and knowledge at their disposal. And we won't even get into Epic's "customer support".
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I'm still trying to see a persuasive argument there's any benefit at all for consumers, while I easily laid out the inconveniences, however minor you may feel them to be.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Because yes, it really is all about me you know.
No joke, it really is all about you. It's not all about money, but that's a big part of it. Truth is, you'll only be able to look back a decade from now and see the benefit. No one's going to be able to point to a cheap game tomorrow and prove it's been helpful.
I expect we'll look back and there'll be new tools for consumers in the next decade due to competition. We'll probably have more effective curated content (google vs askjeeves). I suspect there'll also be other quality of life improvements that'll come out of all this, as well.
Yes, even money. Did you notice that game prices stayed about the same through the earlier 2000's? Then Steam came along and you started seeing two different trends. More early access games were sold at slowly increasing cost to the consumer, and not only did game prices go up slightly, but they started pushing digital content in the form of enhanced editions of the same game. A lot of that stems from directions the industry was going anyway, but Steam provides tools that made it easier.
You'll probably see a slow-down in those price increases over the next few years and it's possible that you'll see better supported or more finished games coming out five or six years from now.
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Edit: I was playing Dauntless for awhile through EGS but uninstalled both Dauntless and EGS from my PC for good last week. The whole Ooblets situation (not interested in the game in the slightest fyi) was the last straw for me when it comes to Epic paying off indie devs to betray their crowdfunded backers.
Exclusivity != Monopoly, for one. They're two completely different things. You can still buy games, even similar games, on other platforms.
For another, I'd submit that you haven't been harmed by the fact that some movies are exclusive on Hulu or Amazon Prime rather than Netflix. Quite the opposite, it's prevented Netflix from hiking their rates and charging you more, because there's competition out there.
Just because a specific product is sold exclusively through one provider, doesn't mean it's not competitive. There's not a grocery store on the planet that doesn't have something that it exclusively carries and other stores aren't allowed to.
When you say "bad for the consumer," what you mean is that you don't want to use something else. That's not bad for the consumer. It's not even bad for you. It's just inconvenient, if that.
I still fail to see how exclusivity benefits me (the consumer) in any way. We're starting to see what exclusivity is going to do to the streaming market as every entertainment company is starting to ramp up their own service which will mean if I want to watch Marvel movies, I'll have to subscribe to Disney. If I want to watch the next season of The Last Kingdom (love this show) then I have to pay Netflix. I only subscribed to HBO the past few years to watch Game of Thrones. All this "exclusivity" is costing me more money, not less. How is that NOT bad for me? Your grocery store example was bad, too. I can buy apples and bread anywhere. There's no store exclusive brands that are any better than what's available everywhere else.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Edit: I was playing Dauntless for awhile through EGS but uninstalled both Dauntless and EGS from my PC for good last week. The whole Ooblets situation (not interested in the game in the slightest fyi) was the last straw for me when it comes to Epic paying off indie devs to betray their crowdfunded backers.
Exclusivity != Monopoly, for one. They're two completely different things. You can still buy games, even similar games, on other platforms.
For another, I'd submit that you haven't been harmed by the fact that some movies are exclusive on Hulu or Amazon Prime rather than Netflix. Quite the opposite, it's prevented Netflix from hiking their rates and charging you more, because there's competition out there.
Just because a specific product is sold exclusively through one provider, doesn't mean it's not competitive. There's not a grocery store on the planet that doesn't have something that it exclusively carries and other stores aren't allowed to.
When you say "bad for the consumer," what you mean is that you don't want to use something else. That's not bad for the consumer. It's not even bad for you. It's just inconvenient, if that.
I still fail to see how exclusivity benefits me (the consumer) in any way. We're starting to see what exclusivity is going to do to the streaming market as every entertainment company is starting to ramp up their own service which will mean if I want to watch Marvel movies, I'll have to subscribe to Disney. If I want to watch the next season of The Last Kingdom (love this show) then I have to pay Netflix. I only subscribed to HBO the past few years to watch Game of Thrones. All this "exclusivity" is costing me more money, not less. How is that NOT bad for me? Your grocery store example was bad, too. I can buy apples and bread anywhere. There's no store exclusive brands that are any better than what's available everywhere else.
I take issue with your last sentence. There are massively superior (platform) exclusive brands which are as good as they are because of that exclusivity. Or are you going to pretend that Game of Thrones would have been the cultural phenomenon it was if it hadn't been so passionately funded to sell that subscription.
In fact, compare the Netflix superhero content to that of the CW. The superior content is obvious. Daredevil beats the everloving shit out of Flash, Arrow, Batwoman, Smallville, or any other trite garbage the CW pumps out.
I still fail to see how exclusivity benefits me (the consumer) in any way.
Then you're being intentionally obtuse because I've explained it several times. Your problem is that you keep conflating convenience with total benefit. Something can be inconvenient and still be beneficial in a myriad of ways, several of which have been listed for you in detail.
I'm still trying to see a persuasive argument there's any benefit at all for consumers, while I easily laid out the inconveniences, however minor you may feel them to be.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Because yes, it really is all about me you know.
No joke, it really is all about you. It's not all about money, but that's a big part of it. Truth is, you'll only be able to look back a decade from now and see the benefit. No one's going to be able to point to a cheap game tomorrow and prove it's been helpful.
I expect we'll look back and there'll be new tools for consumers in the next decade due to competition. We'll probably have more effective curated content (google vs askjeeves). I suspect there'll also be other quality of life improvements that'll come out of all this, as well.
Yes, even money. Did you notice that game prices stayed about the same through the earlier 2000's? Then Steam came along and you started seeing two different trends. More early access games were sold at slowly increasing cost to the consumer, and not only did game prices go up slightly, but they started pushing digital content in the form of enhanced editions of the same game. A lot of that stems from directions the industry was going anyway, but Steam provides tools that made it easier.
You'll probably see a slow-down in those price increases over the next few years and it's possible that you'll see better supported or more finished games coming out five or six years from now.
I HIGHLY doubt we'll be seeing any price reductions as a direct result of exclusives. Any and all extra money made/saved by developers will go back to them and will NOT result in lower prices for consumers. When has this ever happened for any other product? Companies cut costs and pocket the savings. Always.
It's kind of a disappointing, but expected I guess, seeing most "games journalists" supporting, even tacitly, the trend to more exclusives and other anti-consumer practices by game companies and developers. It's so hard to tell these days who's who as there is a real problem with the incestuous type of relationship "games journalists" have with developers. One day you're a "journalist" the next you're a developer or working for one.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I still fail to see how exclusivity benefits me (the consumer) in any way.
Then you're being intentionally obtuse because I've explained it several times. Your problem is that you keep conflating convenience with total benefit. Something can be inconvenient and still be beneficial in a myriad of ways, several of which have been listed for you in detail.
I'm not being obtuse. I don't accept your explanations as fact because they're not. They're opinions.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I take issue with your last sentence. There are massively superior (platform) exclusive brands which are as good as they are because of that exclusivity. Or are you going to pretend that Game of Thrones would have been the cultural phenomenon it was if it hadn't been so passionately funded to sell that subscription.
In fact, compare the Netflix superhero content to that of the CW. The superior content is obvious. Daredevil beats the everloving shit out of Flash, Arrow, Batwoman, Smallville, or any other trite garbage the CW pumps out.
Precisely. Exclusivity is just another way of capitalizing on content. Sometimes it's more profitable than nonexclusive distribution. Companies pick the best way to profit from their work, and sometimes that's just not open market.
The result... better movies/TV shows. Better beers. Better whatever.
They're essentially driving up to the front doors of all these smaller developers with a truck load of cash and buying them off. That might be good for the developers but not so good for consumers.
What exactly is "the not so good for consumers" part of exclusivity on a free launcher?
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
I'm still trying to see a persuasive argument there's any benefit at all for consumers, while I easily laid out the inconveniences, however minor you may feel them to be.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Because yes, it really is all about me you know.
But I'm not saying it's good either. It just seems neutral to me and certainly not worth all the fretting.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
In the world we live in now, arguing about a so called store "exclusive" is just a complete and utter waste of time. There has to be something better we all can be doing. Japanese have an awesome word for this. くだらない kudaranai
Google translate will tell you it means "stupid" or "frivolous", but its a combination of those and "worthless" I'd say
The more platforms a game is available on, the better it is for consumers. What's so hard to understand that a manipulated monopoly is bad for everyone (except for the one with the monopoly)?
Edit: I was playing Dauntless for awhile through EGS but uninstalled both Dauntless and EGS from my PC for good last week. The whole Ooblets situation (not interested in the game in the slightest fyi) was the last straw for me when it comes to Epic paying off indie devs to betray their crowdfunded backers.
Exclusivity != Monopoly, for one. They're two completely different things. You can still buy games, even similar games, on other platforms.
For another, I'd submit that you haven't been harmed by the fact that some movies are exclusive on Hulu or Amazon Prime rather than Netflix. Quite the opposite, it's prevented Netflix from hiking their rates and charging you more, because there's competition out there.
Just because a specific product is sold exclusively through one provider, doesn't mean it's not competitive. There's not a grocery store on the planet that doesn't have something that it exclusively carries and other stores aren't allowed to.
When you say "bad for the consumer," what you mean is that you don't want to use something else. That's not bad for the consumer. It's not even bad for you. It's just inconvenient, if that.
Err, pro tip, inconvenience is bad and something people go to great lengths or pay big money to avoid in life.
Also, your Netflix example is poor, most of their exclusives are shows they pay to produce so of course they are only shown there.
Still, I only pay for Netflix, if Prime access wasn't a free benefit of my Amazon buying account, I wouldn't pay for a separate TV sub, who wants more than one service?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Ultimately more money going to people who actually make games instead of to people who hold up a storefront is a good thing. Most of the complaints against Epic are nitpicks or things that can be substituted in multitude of ways. The only viable problem I can see is people being used to regional pricing for their region and regional pricing for that Region being missing in EGS.
Missing 80% of the customer facing features is not nitpicking. Its a bare bones distribution platform missing the features I need to objectively decide if I want to by a game. Its pretty much just here's a picture of a game with a brief description, give us your money.
Comments
If what you're saying was actually true the justice system in every western country would be turned upside down. Have you ever heard of "pre-meditated, intent to commit a crime" the basis of determining guilt since the legal system was created. How about "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There is beyond a reasonable doubt that epic intentionally went after steam friend lists. Next with your unbelievable lack of logic/reasoning will probably suggest the launcher programmed itself to steal steam friend lists.
Here's an example in case you don't see the difference...
1. You accidentally run someone over.
2. You consciously go out looking for someone to run over.
1. Is Steam, pure negligence.
2. Is Epic, intentionally willing to engage in a criminal act.
A conscious decision was made on Valve's part to cut corners. Such is intentional.
We don't let Equifax go with a slap on the wrist because they didn't personally set out to cause a data breach. What we do is determine the extent of their criminal negligence and fine them accordingly. Which is what happened to Valve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no such fine has been levied at Epic to my knowledge. Your evidence is allegations, which were based on a lack of understanding of what Epic has actually done. And it still ignores the negligence of Valve in keeping user data unencrypted and unprotected. Not that I'd expect nuance or evenly applied standards from you.
Edit: If a corporation knows about a work place hazard and fails to correct it due to costs, they've knowingly committed a negligent crime, regardless of whether they triggered that hazard.
In no way, shape or form will I be supporting or buying any games from the Epic game store. And thats that.
Aloha Mr Hand !
Add in the fact that Epic has been involved in some shady dealings with developers of a lot of crowdfunded games, games that were promised by the developers during the funding period to be available on Steam or other platforms btw. The basic sentiment from these indie devs has been "We know we relied on crowdfunding to even get our game up and running but now that we have that sweet, sweet Epic Fortnight cash we don't need you anymore. If you don't like that, well tough, suck it." TAKE THAT TOXIC GAMERS!!!
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I get that people hate Epic and Sweeny and the fact that Tencent owns a piece or whatever else annoys you about them ,and that some may want to boycott Epic for those or any other reason but I'm still waiting for a persuasive argument that it's bad for us.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
If exclusivity creates quality content that otherwise would not happen (ie: Stranger Things for Netflix, Game of Thrones for HBO), the consumer benefits.
When Epic starts saving "me" money, time or provides more convenience then maybe I'll care.
Because yes, it really is all about me you know.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For another, I'd submit that you haven't been harmed by the fact that some movies are exclusive on Hulu or Amazon Prime rather than Netflix. Quite the opposite, it's prevented Netflix from hiking their rates and charging you more, because there's competition out there.
Just because a specific product is sold exclusively through one provider, doesn't mean it's not competitive. There's not a grocery store on the planet that doesn't have something that it exclusively carries and other stores aren't allowed to.
When you say "bad for the consumer," what you mean is that you don't want to use something else. That's not bad for the consumer. It's not even bad for you. It's just inconvenient, if that.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I expect we'll look back and there'll be new tools for consumers in the next decade due to competition. We'll probably have more effective curated content (google vs askjeeves). I suspect there'll also be other quality of life improvements that'll come out of all this, as well.
Yes, even money. Did you notice that game prices stayed about the same through the earlier 2000's? Then Steam came along and you started seeing two different trends. More early access games were sold at slowly increasing cost to the consumer, and not only did game prices go up slightly, but they started pushing digital content in the form of enhanced editions of the same game. A lot of that stems from directions the industry was going anyway, but Steam provides tools that made it easier.
You'll probably see a slow-down in those price increases over the next few years and it's possible that you'll see better supported or more finished games coming out five or six years from now.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
In fact, compare the Netflix superhero content to that of the CW. The superior content is obvious. Daredevil beats the everloving shit out of Flash, Arrow, Batwoman, Smallville, or any other trite garbage the CW pumps out.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
The result... better movies/TV shows. Better beers. Better whatever.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Google translate will tell you it means "stupid" or "frivolous", but its a combination of those and "worthless" I'd say
Also, your Netflix example is poor, most of their exclusives are shows they pay to produce so of course they are only shown there.
Still, I only pay for Netflix, if Prime access wasn't a free benefit of my Amazon buying account, I wouldn't pay for a separate TV sub, who wants more than one service?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Missing 80% of the customer facing features is not nitpicking. Its a bare bones distribution platform missing the features I need to objectively decide if I want to by a game. Its pretty much just here's a picture of a game with a brief description, give us your money.