It's new(ish), it's barebones, and its from a company I don't really know well. They've made a butt load of cash from Fortnite, a game I dislike and view as just the latest fad. I don't know what other money they have.
This means that in my eyes, I'm not willing to trust their store. Not yet. I don't want to start sinking money into their store, only to have it shut down in a years time because they couldn't stand up to the competition. I've already lost access to maybe £150 worth of games that I bought through digital stores, either due to technical fuckups (looking at you EA) or the company ceasing business.
<snip>
Epic have been around longer than Valve actually. Their most well known product is the Unreal game engine and most of their revenue up to now has been coming from it rather than from direct game sales. What they are doing with the store is expanding the cut they already receive from the game developers using their engine. For Epic developers are their primary customers and players are basically the customers of their customers. Which actually explains quite a lot about why the store was launched in the state it was launched.
For me, the issue is less about exclusives or competition, and more about how I will be able to access my games in the future.
<snip>
I no longer own the game. My ability to play the game in the future is 100% dependant on the digital store where I made my purchase.
<snip>
Being able to play games - and other products - that have an online element is an issue.
Don't - however - make the mistake of believing you don't own a game that you buy electronically.
In the case of Steam they have now lost multiple legal battles within the EU - most recently in September this year when the court ruled that their ban on reselling games was contrary to European law. Ditto their previous attempts to stop you moving your games to another platform - if the other platform would have them etc.
Steam are selling the games. They are not renting them to you. They are not leasing them. They are not charging you for Gaming as a Service. As such you own the game.
Now what happens when a platform - for games, films, music and other stuff - that is a different matter.
Whilst I agree with you in principle, the reality is slightly different.
The recent legal cases showed that we are purchasing the license, not the game nor access to the digital distribution. So, I may well be able to take my license elsewhere, but that license doesn't automatically get me access to digital distribution, so if Steam did indeed go down there is no guarantee that I'd be able to play my games through some other means. For example, Epic would be well within their right to deny us digital distribution for a game we purchased elsewhere. Hell, there is no guarantee that Epic would even have the rights to distribute the game!
So, yes, in theory I will always "own" something of the game, but the practicality of actually getting access to it in the event of steam/epic going down is still too sketchy for my liking.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
TBH they all do it and all have been garbage at first.
Uplay division, origin ME3, DA2 etc
Stores have lost their way remember when it was going to be the saviour of gaming delivering cheaper products to the gamers and driving sales, then they cottoned on gamers were happy to pay through the nose for convenience and its never changed since they all want a slice of grossly overpriced pie and exclusives is the only way to get people using that platform.
It's new(ish), it's barebones, and its from a company I don't really know well. They've made a butt load of cash from Fortnite, a game I dislike and view as just the latest fad. I don't know what other money they have.
This means that in my eyes, I'm not willing to trust their store. Not yet. I don't want to start sinking money into their store, only to have it shut down in a years time because they couldn't stand up to the competition. I've already lost access to maybe £150 worth of games that I bought through digital stores, either due to technical fuckups (looking at you EA) or the company ceasing business.
<snip>
Epic have been around longer than Valve actually. Their most well known product is the Unreal game engine and most of their revenue up to now has been coming from it rather than from direct game sales. What they are doing with the store is expanding the cut they already receive from the game developers using their engine. For Epic developers are their primary customers and players are basically the customers of their customers. Which actually explains quite a lot about why the store was launched in the state it was launched.
that really doesn't explain anything. It'd be understandable if Epic was some startup that didn't have the resources to create a game launcher with a good portion of the bells and whistles found on the steam launcher. I thinks its probably safer to assume that epic didn't want to invest a lot of resources in to a launcher that had the potential to fail. Instead they decided to go for something a bit more barebones so it could be rolled out to the general public faster. Then shifted resources around to get exclusivity deals and increase their chances to successfully compete with Valve while programmers worked in the background to improve the launcher.
It's new(ish), it's barebones, and its from a company I don't really know well. They've made a butt load of cash from Fortnite, a game I dislike and view as just the latest fad. I don't know what other money they have.
This means that in my eyes, I'm not willing to trust their store. Not yet. I don't want to start sinking money into their store, only to have it shut down in a years time because they couldn't stand up to the competition. I've already lost access to maybe £150 worth of games that I bought through digital stores, either due to technical fuckups (looking at you EA) or the company ceasing business.
<snip>
Epic have been around longer than Valve actually. Their most well known product is the Unreal game engine and most of their revenue up to now has been coming from it rather than from direct game sales. What they are doing with the store is expanding the cut they already receive from the game developers using their engine. For Epic developers are their primary customers and players are basically the customers of their customers. Which actually explains quite a lot about why the store was launched in the state it was launched.
that really doesn't explain anything. It'd be understandable if Epic was some startup that didn't have the resources to create a game launcher with a good portion of the bells and whistles found on the steam launcher. I thinks its probably safer to assume that epic didn't want to invest a lot of resources in to a launcher that had the potential to fail. Instead they decided to go for something a bit more barebones so it could be rolled out to the general public faster. Then shifted resources around to get exclusivity deals and increase their chances to successfully compete with Valve while programmers worked in the background to improve the launcher.
Exactly, Sweeny isn't stupid he minimized the risk like any good investor would. If it flopped they would be out millions instead of 100s of millions and with fortnite hitting all cylinders they could risk taking a small hit.
That said a basic cart system is not an overly complex system a good programmer could bang that out in a day.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
@op ; They did it this way because that is how a smart business would do it when competing versus a monopoly like Steam. They NEED exclusive rights and are very much in the right to do so since they offer a better deal to their providers than what Steam/Valve is willing to offer.Why shouldn't Epic gain something from offering a better deal,i mean you want Epic to give better rates competing versus Steam and get nothing?
I think we should realize that Steam being established for a lot of years and would have a MUCH bigger audience would mean that NOBODY could compete with them.So the only avenue Epic has is to BOTH give better rates,meaning less profit doing the same thing Steam is doing but also gaining some exclusive rights.
Then more importantly,this decision of where to sell still falls on the game studio,they can sell their game wherever they want,this has NOTHING to do with Epic.So if for example Blizzard chose to sell it's games with Epic,that is THEIR choice,Epic doesn't force any studio do what they don't want to do.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I am a simple person. I understand that business is a cutthroat world and companies will do whatever they want to secure their chunk of the pie. In a gaming business, it doesn't really bother me because at the end of the day.
"Just shut up and buy the game from wherever and play it, not a big deal, no one is really hurt by your decision."
People are literally offended that a company with billions of dollars pays money to only allow a game to be sold on their platform. This type of shit happens all the time with patents/copyright/exclusive rights, etc. Normal business stuff guys, no need to flip out over it.
When you think about companies doing similar types of bullshit in healthcare for example or big pharma, then it is an issue, but for gaming, who the hell cares, just get your game as cheap as you can get it, play it and don't care about exclusives or not. It's just business. No one's health or livelihood is pinned to it like a lot of other businesses are. The healthcare business is complete and utter BS and that has real consequences not the epic store.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
For me, the issue is less about exclusives or competition, and more about how I will be able to access my games in the future.
In the old bricks-and-mortar days, when I bought a game, I owned the physical copy. As long as I looked after that physical copy, I would be able to play that game for the rest of my life. What happened in the wider industry had no effect on my ability to play games I already owned. It didn't matter that the store I bought Mario Kart 64 from shut down, because I already owned the game.
Digital distribution is a different beast entirely.
I no longer own the game. My ability to play the game in the future is 100% dependant on the digital store where I made my purchase.
This changes the relationship between customer and business entirely. I now have a vested interest in making sure the company I purchase my games from stays afloat. If Steam were to shut down tomorrow, I lose access to a few £1000 worth of games. That is completely unacceptable, hence I have a very strong desire to see Valve succeed.
So, the Epic store.
It's new(ish), it's barebones, and its from a company I don't really know well. They've made a butt load of cash from Fortnite, a game I dislike and view as just the latest fad. I don't know what other money they have.
This. I do not want multiple game libraries. I would like to buy the game I choose on steam, to add it to my library there. Not have several different accounts on several different platforms. Steam is solid, and will be here for a long time. Epic on the other hand, they could decide to pull the plug in a year after this venture not turning out as hoped.
I am glad Epic is there, to keep steam prices in check, but what i dont like is games launching that I cannot add to my steam library because it is exclusive to Epic.
It does spark the curiosity a bit. There was definitely a rush to market with a half-finished product. The Epic strategy seems to be more focused on "exclusive" content, rather than any desire to compete with Steam. I guess they hope that their exclusive offerings will drive customers to their store rather than the features of their storefront.
Home Depot seems to do okay with cement floors; I can only guess that Epic is following that model rather than putting carpet in every store.
Epic is trying to leverage the Fortnite userbase numbers. If they took a year (or two) developing their platform, those numbers would likely be greatly diminished. They are just trying to make a move when they are on top, even if their product isnt that great.
With people stating they don't want multiple game libraries - I didn't see a lot of complaints when Bioware released games only on origin, or Blizzard through their store, etc.
Is TV better or worse having Netflix and prime and cbs all access and hulu, etc, etc, etc?
Of course. Steam and only steam isn't the answer. Its a bad solution that hurts gamers, especially PC gamers. Support Epic, MS store, etc.
A point - Epic are not responsible for the prices they are selling games at at their store - developers and publishers are. And some of them, although not many, have actually lowered their prices due to the increased cut their get from Epic.
This isn't entirely true. The cut that Epic takes out of the games helps to drive the prices to the point they are. I heard rumors of Steam taking up to 60% of revenue from a game.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
So as a buyer you want a choice of who to buy from so that you get the best deal yes? And - because of the competition you see a game sold by X at one price and the exact same game sold by another at a higher price. You buy from the cheaper store I assume. Three cheers for competition.
Now put yourself in a game developers shoes. They are also buyers - specifically buyers of a platform on which to sell their game. They look at all the stores out their: Steam, Origin, UPlay ... Epic. One store offers to sell them what they need at X, another at X+Y, another at X +30% etc. etc. They - may - decide to buy from the cheapest store. Three cheers for competition yes?
And they may very well feel that you should not tell them were to buy from.
So if you really believe what you posted you should be fully behind any developer who goes with e.g. Epic because Epic offer them a better deal.
"We" don't dictate anything.
Publishers can always sell their own games and keep 100% of the profits.
Or they can sell at a higher return for a worse community/library set.
Or they can get less profit for a strong community and vast library.
Lots, and lots of choices, vastly unlike their "exclusivity." Not even a comparison.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
For me, the issue is less about exclusives or competition, and more about how I will be able to access my games in the future.
<snip>
I no longer own the game. My ability to play the game in the future is 100% dependant on the digital store where I made my purchase.
<snip>
Being able to play games - and other products - that have an online element is an issue.
Don't - however - make the mistake of believing you don't own a game that you buy electronically.
In the case of Steam they have now lost multiple legal battles within the EU - most recently in September this year when the court ruled that their ban on reselling games was contrary to European law. Ditto their previous attempts to stop you moving your games to another platform - if the other platform would have them etc.
Steam are selling the games. They are not renting them to you. They are not leasing them. They are not charging you for Gaming as a Service. As such you own the game.
Now what happens when a platform - for games, films, music and other stuff - closes that is a different matter.
If I may ask... How about if you piss off Valve (Steam) in some way and they ban your account. Can you play your games then? Do you "own" them?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Sir, many were lost and badly injured during the MMORPG.COM Steam vs EGS Battle
Please don't ask us to pick up arms again. I fear we won't make it this time.
My apologies, sir. I don't want to see anyone else inured. I guess my curiosity got the better of me
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I'm sure the major thing in Epic's mind was launching as quickly as possible during Fortnite's massively popular prime.
Those games can come and go so quickly, that it could have - theoretically - been disastrous to wait and fully develop the store-front before releasing.
Will there ever be a better time for a store rollout than during your peak?
I'm not sure I fully agree with approaching it that way. I feel like it started their store out with a negative image, but I'm sure the company's fanbase and huge popularity balanced it out.
I agree that they needed to take advantage of their population spike, but I think they should have developed at least the basic features before launching.
That being said, giving out loads of free games probably was the correct way to smooth over discontent brought about by the crummy store.
The store sucked, but... they gave me lots of free games, so who cares
I know that they'll get the store straightened out over time, so it's not something I'd worry over much - evidenced by the fact that they have already massively improved the story from its launch.
@op ; They did it this way because that is how a smart business would do it when competing versus a monopoly like Steam. They NEED exclusive rights and are very much in the right to do so since they offer a better deal to their providers than what Steam/Valve is willing to offer.Why shouldn't Epic gain something from offering a better deal,i mean you want Epic to give better rates competing versus Steam and get nothing?
I think we should realize that Steam being established for a lot of years and would have a MUCH bigger audience would mean that NOBODY could compete with them.So the only avenue Epic has is to BOTH give better rates,meaning less profit doing the same thing Steam is doing but also gaining some exclusive rights.
Then more importantly,this decision of where to sell still falls on the game studio,they can sell their game wherever they want,this has NOTHING to do with Epic.So if for example Blizzard chose to sell it's games with Epic,that is THEIR choice,Epic doesn't force any studio do what they don't want to do.
Yet Steam is not a monopoly. Origin, UPlay, GOG and sooooo many other launchers/stores exist.
I've always felt that if you "half-ass" anything, you get a "half-ass" return. This concept has been forgotten in today's gaming industry as a whole. The Epic Game Store cut corners and released "half-assed."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I still haven't DL the Epic store so I'll have to take your word for it being a half-assed launch. But as others have said they launched when they did because their brand name was riding high due to Fortnite. No need to look beyond that for reasons.
"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
I still haven't DL the Epic store so I'll have to take your word for it being a half-assed launch. But as others have said they launched when they did because their brand name was riding high due to Fortnite. No need to look beyond that for reasons.
That does make sense. I heard that Fortnite is finally waning a bot bit.
Post edited by AlBQuirky on
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It does spark the curiosity a bit. There was definitely a rush to market with a half-finished product. The Epic strategy seems to be more focused on "exclusive" content, rather than any desire to compete with Steam. I guess they hope that their exclusive offerings will drive customers to their store rather than the features of their storefront.
Home Depot seems to do okay with cement floors; I can only guess that Epic is following that model rather than putting carpet in every store.
But the carpet in your example serves no real purpose its just for looks. We are talking about feature sets and tools that provide real value to the user. I think I can answer the OP's question by saying EPIC truly doesn't care yet about the end users experience, they just want traffic right now, and they are buying their traffic with exclusives and free games not by providing a superior shopping experience.
All the folks talking about "being forced to buy it from this store" when you literally just click a few times either way. If clicking your mouse makes you feel "forced" then perhaps you've been unemployed for too long.
This reminds me of certain rootkits and such that come with some MMOs. Sometimes a particularly bad rootkit/copyprotect will make a decision as to whether or not to play a game.
People also like having their things in one place so they don't need to remember yet another password. Have to remember just which launcher I had that game from 3 years ago that I was considering revisiting -- lets check, steam no uplay no, gog no, epic there it is.
Exclusives are bad. Now if they had the game for $30 on epic and $40 on steam, sure -- one can pay for convenience if one wants to or go with the launcher the dev wants and save money, but one specific launcher or else isn't nice.
For me, the issue is less about exclusives or competition, and more about how I will be able to access my games in the future.
<snip>
I no longer own the game. My ability to play the game in the future is 100% dependant on the digital store where I made my purchase.
<snip>
Being able to play games - and other products - that have an online element is an issue.
Don't - however - make the mistake of believing you don't own a game that you buy electronically.
In the case of Steam they have now lost multiple legal battles within the EU - most recently in September this year when the court ruled that their ban on reselling games was contrary to European law. Ditto their previous attempts to stop you moving your games to another platform - if the other platform would have them etc.
Steam are selling the games. They are not renting them to you. They are not leasing them. They are not charging you for Gaming as a Service. As such you own the game.
Now what happens when a platform - for games, films, music and other stuff - closes that is a different matter.
If I may ask... How about if you piss off Valve (Steam) in some way and they ban your account. Can you play your games then? Do you "own" them?
The court case (French heard in Paris) I mentioned lasted 3 years which resulted in (another) loss for Valve. Summary judgement:
"The owner of the right concerned can no longer object to the resale of this copy (or copy) even if the initial purchase is made by downloading. The publisher of the software (or its beneficiaries) can no longer oppose the resale of this copy or copy, notwithstanding the existence of contractual provisions prohibiting a subsequent assignment."
Valve has filed an appeal - this would probably impact there bottomline after all and resellers have never been popular with game companies. So this is not done yet but at the heart of the case is ownership of digital rights. Clearly the result could be very significant.
Now if Steam decided you could no longer play - your - games:
As I said how you would continue to play a game with an online element is different to ownership however:
Once ownership has been clearly established - and this may vary country by country of course - not letting you use what you own would be theft; no different to a bank saying you couldn't withdraw your money etc.
Then there are games that whilst "bought" through Steam that are hosted by the developers e.g. LotR. Or - maybe - another platform may step in. Google has done this for a number of movie sites that has ceased for example. I suspect Google Stadia would probably be happy to do the same if Steam decided to go down this route.
@op ; They did it this way because that is how a smart business would do it when competing versus a monopoly like Steam. They NEED exclusive rights and are very much in the right to do so since they offer a better deal to their providers than what Steam/Valve is willing to offer.Why shouldn't Epic gain something from offering a better deal,i mean you want Epic to give better rates competing versus Steam and get nothing?
I think we should realize that Steam being established for a lot of years and would have a MUCH bigger audience would mean that NOBODY could compete with them.So the only avenue Epic has is to BOTH give better rates,meaning less profit doing the same thing Steam is doing but also gaining some exclusive rights.
Then more importantly,this decision of where to sell still falls on the game studio,they can sell their game wherever they want,this has NOTHING to do with Epic.So if for example Blizzard chose to sell it's games with Epic,that is THEIR choice,Epic doesn't force any studio do what they don't want to do.
Yet Steam is not a monopoly. Origin, UPlay, GOG and sooooo many other launchers/stores exist.
I've always felt that if you "half-ass" anything, you get a "half-ass" return. This concept has been forgotten in today's gaming industry as a whole. The Epic Game Store cut corners and released "half-assed."
How do you define monopoly? It has never meant 100% market share. Google controls 92% of online searches - surely you consider them a search engine monopoly?
How many non-exclusive games are sold through a online PC distribution platform should dictate if it is a monopoly or not. Or how many games are exclusively on a specific platform. Steam is certainly a monopoly in both cases, with overwhelming market control in both cases. I don't have modern numbers but numbers were given for sales of games on three platforms two years ago, and Steam had over 90% in two cases and close to 90% in the third. They are the exclusive online distributor of more games than you can shake a stick at. I have no numbers on this, but since I stopped supporting steam I haven't been able to buy a ton of games I want because they are only on steam (I'll just stress the word buy).
Healthy competition is great for consumers, and the really only way to make a new entertainment focused platform viable and/or penetrate a market is through exclusive content, Epic has no choice but to chase exclusive content (and give away content, etc.). Exclusives aren't anti-consumer. They are very pro-consumer.
I really can't understand why people are so against a healthy, competitive market when it comes to tech companies. That is the truly the anti-consumer aspect to all this. I just don't understand it.
You make it sound like epic are only selling exclusive but not working on their storefront. They most likely are doing both at the same time.
As for exclusive I think it is necessary. People won't jump to epic if they aren't incentive to do so. Regular free games, promotion, exclusive to make people a habit to use their store.
As a consumer, I wish epic and steam go to a price war. But don't look like it at the moment.
What I'm talking about is why not offer a better (or at least as good as) service than Steam offers,
instead opening a half finished storefront, then working to finish while
offering exclusives?
I don't think they are purposely doing a bad job on their storefront... They are most likely trying but just haven't done a good job yet...
My point is weather they sell exclusive or not have no effect on how well their storefront is.
Your argument sound like people saying why mmorpg developer purposely make bad games. Why don't they just make their game better.
Comments
Uplay division, origin ME3, DA2 etc
Stores have lost their way remember when it was going to be the saviour of gaming delivering cheaper products to the gamers and driving sales, then they cottoned on gamers were happy to pay through the nose for convenience and its never changed since they all want a slice of grossly overpriced pie and exclusives is the only way to get people using that platform.
"We're allowing politics" management locked the other thread they fired up.
Pay me no mind, and ignore this.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I thinks its probably safer to assume that epic didn't want to invest a lot of resources in to a launcher that had the potential to fail. Instead they decided to go for something a bit more barebones so it could be rolled out to the general public faster. Then shifted resources around to get exclusivity deals and increase their chances to successfully compete with Valve while programmers worked in the background to improve the launcher.
That said a basic cart system is not an overly complex system a good programmer could bang that out in a day.
They did it this way because that is how a smart business would do it when competing versus a monopoly like Steam.
They NEED exclusive rights and are very much in the right to do so since they offer a better deal to their providers than what Steam/Valve is willing to offer.Why shouldn't Epic gain something from offering a better deal,i mean you want Epic to give better rates competing versus Steam and get nothing?
I think we should realize that Steam being established for a lot of years and would have a MUCH bigger audience would mean that NOBODY could compete with them.So the only avenue Epic has is to BOTH give better rates,meaning less profit doing the same thing Steam is doing but also gaining some exclusive rights.
Then more importantly,this decision of where to sell still falls on the game studio,they can sell their game wherever they want,this has NOTHING to do with Epic.So if for example Blizzard chose to sell it's games with Epic,that is THEIR choice,Epic doesn't force any studio do what they don't want to do.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I am a simple person. I understand that business is a cutthroat world and companies will do whatever they want to secure their chunk of the pie. In a gaming business, it doesn't really bother me because at the end of the day.
"Just shut up and buy the game from wherever and play it, not a big deal, no one is really hurt by your decision."
People are literally offended that a company with billions of dollars pays money to only allow a game to be sold on their platform. This type of shit happens all the time with patents/copyright/exclusive rights, etc. Normal business stuff guys, no need to flip out over it.
When you think about companies doing similar types of bullshit in healthcare for example or big pharma, then it is an issue, but for gaming, who the hell cares, just get your game as cheap as you can get it, play it and don't care about exclusives or not. It's just business. No one's health or livelihood is pinned to it like a lot of other businesses are. The healthcare business is complete and utter BS and that has real consequences not the epic store.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I am glad Epic is there, to keep steam prices in check, but what i dont like is games launching that I cannot add to my steam library because it is exclusive to Epic.
Is TV better or worse having Netflix and prime and cbs all access and hulu, etc, etc, etc?
Of course. Steam and only steam isn't the answer. Its a bad solution that hurts gamers, especially PC gamers. Support Epic, MS store, etc.
Publishers can always sell their own games and keep 100% of the profits.
Or they can sell at a higher return for a worse community/library set.
Or they can get less profit for a strong community and vast library.
Lots, and lots of choices, vastly unlike their "exclusivity." Not even a comparison.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I've always felt that if you "half-ass" anything, you get a "half-ass" return. This concept has been forgotten in today's gaming industry as a whole. The Epic Game Store cut corners and released "half-assed."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
People also like having their things in one place so they don't need to remember yet another password. Have to remember just which launcher I had that game from 3 years ago that I was considering revisiting -- lets check, steam no uplay no, gog no, epic there it is.
Exclusives are bad. Now if they had the game for $30 on epic and $40 on steam, sure -- one can pay for convenience if one wants to or go with the launcher the dev wants and save money, but one specific launcher or else isn't nice.
"The owner of the right concerned can no longer object to the resale of this copy (or copy) even if the initial purchase is made by downloading. The publisher of the software (or its beneficiaries) can no longer oppose the resale of this copy or copy, notwithstanding the existence of contractual provisions prohibiting a subsequent assignment."
Valve has filed an appeal - this would probably impact there bottomline after all and resellers have never been popular with game companies. So this is not done yet but at the heart of the case is ownership of digital rights. Clearly the result could be very significant.
Now if Steam decided you could no longer play - your - games:
As I said how you would continue to play a game with an online element is different to ownership however:
Once ownership has been clearly established - and this may vary country by country of course - not letting you use what you own would be theft; no different to a bank saying you couldn't withdraw your money etc.
Then there are games that whilst "bought" through Steam that are hosted by the developers e.g. LotR. Or - maybe - another platform may step in. Google has done this for a number of movie sites that has ceased for example. I suspect Google Stadia would probably be happy to do the same if Steam decided to go down this route.
How many non-exclusive games are sold through a online PC distribution platform should dictate if it is a monopoly or not. Or how many games are exclusively on a specific platform. Steam is certainly a monopoly in both cases, with overwhelming market control in both cases. I don't have modern numbers but numbers were given for sales of games on three platforms two years ago, and Steam had over 90% in two cases and close to 90% in the third. They are the exclusive online distributor of more games than you can shake a stick at. I have no numbers on this, but since I stopped supporting steam I haven't been able to buy a ton of games I want because they are only on steam (I'll just stress the word buy).
Healthy competition is great for consumers, and the really only way to make a new entertainment focused platform viable and/or penetrate a market is through exclusive content, Epic has no choice but to chase exclusive content (and give away content, etc.). Exclusives aren't anti-consumer. They are very pro-consumer.
I really can't understand why people are so against a healthy, competitive market when it comes to tech companies. That is the truly the anti-consumer aspect to all this. I just don't understand it.
My point is weather they sell exclusive or not have no effect on how well their storefront is.
Your argument sound like people saying why mmorpg developer purposely make bad games. Why don't they just make their game better.