"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
feh, the way the frenchie is saying is pretty much saying it ok to put a gun in someone head to prevent him of doing something I don't want..., its extreme I know but you can't blame people for they preferences, if someone want to buy in a expensive place even when the store in front is selling the same thing cheaper, that is his problem, youa re limiting people freedom to keep your agenda and that never goes well
but most of this problems is like I said a lot more useless to matter if most people waited for the game launch all they dlc and then buy it, this time takes around a year to happen, I can understand a rush for it when the game is online, the initial rush makes the waiting queue lower(it should...) and easier to find people to play with, but on a single player? what is the point? you are paid to push reviews of it or to amke faqs out of it? do you stream that much you need to buy in the rush so you can push content to keep people wahtching you play? most no, so all of this would be a lot more doable if people waited and stoped giving money for half of a game with you will have to pay for the rest later
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
I get you, but if they released the exact same platform with the exact same games library (even if they took a lower cut than Valve), would you go through the trouble of downloading the new platform, creating an account, and managing that library separately from Steam? If not, you just answered the questiona as to how Epic would do something like this to try and compete with Steam. If so, congrats and kudos! You're one of the very, very few who would do that altruistically, and you should still realize how economically infeasible it would be to merely mimic Steam wholesale and expect to penetrate the market.
I don't do preorders or Day 1 purchases often. This title may be one of those rare exceptions.
I could care less what storefront it's on, honestly. I'd prefer to not have to install another launcher, but it's not a big deal if I do. This Epic vs Steam thing is overblown and not a big deal to me, as a consumer. I'll buy where I get the best price and service for the platform of my choosing, like I always have.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
I get you, but if they released the exact same platform with the exact same games library, would you go through the trouble of downloading the new platform, creating an account, and managing that library separately from Steam? If not, you just answered your own question as to how Epic would do something like this to try and compete with Steam.
I'd raise that stake further.
If Epic released with the exact same library as Steam with MORE features and MORE security than Steam, would you really, honestly give that store front a chance when your existing library is on Steam?
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
Then every person who wants games on steam needs to bombard VALVE, because until they change their agreements it’s not going to get better for you.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
I get you, but if they released the exact same platform with the exact same games library, would you go through the trouble of downloading the new platform, creating an account, and managing that library separately from Steam? If not, you just answered your own question as to how Epic would do something like this to try and compete with Steam.
I'd raise that stake further.
If Epic released with the exact same library as Steam with MORE features and MORE security than Steam, would you really, honestly give that store front a chance when your existing library is on Steam?
I'm actively searching for games to buy on GOG, because they are providing something steam does not.
Epic on the other hand provides nothing competitive, despite the much wealthier owner.
Also, there is a difference between understanding why something is happening and actually supporting it.
It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
The difference being you're enduring a substantial cost in terms of time and bandwidth that you wanted to avoid specifically by purchasing the CD (since data transfer rates from reading a disc are much higher than receiving packets over the web).
The argument so many of us make in response is that the Epic store is more analogous two having to disc drives, and a game's disc requiring you to use your bottom mounted disc drive instead of the top mounted one. Sure, it'd be cool to be able to use either... But does it really cost you anything of value to use the bottom mounted as opposed to the top?
Value is subjective I suppose. Like I said I’m not opposed to the Epic store or Online DL. What I’m opposed to is the lack of options, when there isn’t a good reason (in my opinion) for it. It feels like being told what to do, I guess. I like the bells and whistles steam has and prefer to use that when I can. I still use battle.net and Origin regularly though. Ideally all games could be played on all platforms. I know that will never happen; the tech is probably there, but greed will prevent it. Maybe its a matter of principle, idk.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
That attitude is why they have to ink exclusives to try and get a toehold to compete. Just sayin'.
I know but they are kind of exploiting the nature of our hobby. That just makes me dislike the whole thing even more. It's... not very moral of them. Plenty of stuff in gaming isn't very moral these days but I could have done without this extra one coming to PC gaming.
I get you, but if they released the exact same platform with the exact same games library, would you go through the trouble of downloading the new platform, creating an account, and managing that library separately from Steam? If not, you just answered your own question as to how Epic would do something like this to try and compete with Steam.
I'd raise that stake further.
If Epic released with the exact same library as Steam with MORE features and MORE security than Steam, would you really, honestly give that store front a chance when your existing library is on Steam?
I'm actively searching for games to buy on GOG, because they are providing something steam does not.
Epic on the other hand provides nothing competitive, despite the much wealthier owner.
Also, there is a difference between understanding why something is happening and actually supporting it.
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Ironically, only one of the storefronts is relatively uncurated and known for allowing crap rushed games. It isn't Epic.
I understand that a lot of people are heavily invested in Steam and prefer buying any new game there, likely because they have most of their games and friends on Steam. To me it's not a big deal to install a different launcher to play games, since I believe competing platforms will lead to many good things in the future.
The Epic launcher is lacking in features and not as good as Steam yet, they are however working to improve it. I never cared for most features on Steam anyway, it's just a program which is needed in order to play games which I've grown used to. Valve have done a lot to support Linux gaming with Proton and other initiatives, which is great. I realise most people don't care about Linux gaming, it is however better if more operating systems are viable for gaming so we get some healthy competition there as well.
If I was going to root for someone to win the 'war of digital distribution' it would be GOG. Buying from GOG is like the good old days, you buy a game and get to do what ever you want with it. You're not locked to some launcher and internet connection to be able to play and you get to download and keep the game forever.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Ironically, only one of the storefronts is relatively uncurated and known for allowing crap rushed games. It isn't Epic.
And one of these storefronts has a long and embarassing tapestry woven from verifiable consumer data breaches, caching errors, and (recently) leaving consumer data unencrypted. Again, it isn't Epic.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Ironically, only one of the storefronts is relatively uncurated and known for allowing crap rushed games. It isn't Epic.
And one of these storefronts has a long and embarassing tapestry woven from verifiable consumer data breaches, caching errors, and (recently) leaving consumer data unencrypted. Again, it isn't Epic.
Only one of these storefronts is helping support (even if in-directly) concentration camps. It isn't steam.
Kindly provide evidence for that claim. Other than Epic being partially owned by Tencent which is in (as our Cheeto-skinned overlord says it) CHYNA!
You're making multiple claims here. The biggest one being the racist claim that because Tencent is Chinese, it is responsible for China's human rights offenses. Provide verifiable evidence that Tencent themselves are funding concentration camps.
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
interesting observations: Discord also released exclusive games. Nobody has said shit about it or how monopolistic that is. Because they were pretty much all indie games. Some even use the Unreal engine so throw out that argument against Epic. Because Epic actually did it with games people have heard of and want. Also likely because "real" hardcore gamers like Discord and do not like Fortnite, and thus Epic.
Steam, bastion of fairness and defender of indies everywhere, has done exactly jack and shit to their agreement regarding lower selling (read: most indie) titles. Steam has, however, tried to fight back on losing AAA titles by reducing the cut once certain sales thresholds were reached. Steam has shown time and again to simply be reactionary. They reacted. Epic is winning right there.
If Steam was really interested in the gaming market in general, and indies in particular, the agreement would have been the other way around, with less taken from lower sales, so indies could keep more and thrive/survive. Only that would hurt them more in the AAA market if the % was increased to 30% with more sales. Lower percentage on lower sales would also introduce more shit games to have to wade through, which would show another glaring flaw in Steam. There is no easy answer here, but Steam just took the reactionary one as usual. The fact they are reacting says it all.
Discord should be the choice for indie games due to the lower distributor take. Nobody cares. Nobody will fight it or even bring it up. Steam doesn't have to react because they don't really care either.
If Epic did add forums or reviews right now, who here honestly thinks they wouldn't immediately get bombed with negatives from "real" gamers acting like complete douche nozzles? There is a reason there is a connotation associated with gamers and it ain't good.
Effectively, this is just "real" gamers arguing in a bubble. The larger market doesn't care. Just like the larger market didn't care about MMOs until WoW. The larger market probably has a larger footprint of Epic launcher installs than Steam installs just from Fortnite alone.
Hey, maybe all of this will get Steam to get off their hoard of money obtained by ridiculous distribution costs towards goods providers in a relative monopoly and actually start using some of it to make games people really want... They're the only ones really on our side anyways. Help us Obi Gabe Kenobi, you're our only hope. Right?
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Ironically, only one of the storefronts is relatively uncurated and known for allowing crap rushed games. It isn't Epic.
And one of these storefronts has a long and embarassing tapestry woven from verifiable consumer data breaches, caching errors, and (recently) leaving consumer data unencrypted. Again, it isn't Epic.
Only one of these storefronts is helping support (even if in-directly) concentration camps. It isn't steam.
Kindly provide evidence for that claim. Other than Epic being partially owned by Tencent which is in (as our Cheeto-skinned overlord says it) CHYNA!
You're making multiple claims here. The biggest one being the racist claim that because Tencent is Chinese, it is responsible for China's human rights offenses. Provide verifiable evidence that Tencent themselves are funding concentration camps.
well apple is also fuding concetration camps, well anytime you buy a chinese product you could possible do.
its a wonder when you read articles about the factorys on china have iron bar on 2nd fllor and up and not on the first floor, hint is to keep people in, not out
but that is another discussion, end of the day anyone who is liking epic will do so and people who like steam still will do so, only thing wrong is forcing people do what you think is right be it by law or force (or both).
just a side note, if you think a president is a overlord, you have some issues, and that is not a political thing
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
well you belive in a roadmap, you are defending epic for free and lost all arguments with this
yes, if anything you already give money at least once to then, or will do so for a game, trying to nitpick what he said in a general concept to fit your argument is weak
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
well you belive in a roadmap, you are defending epic for free and lost all arguments with this
yes, if anything you already give money at least once to then, or will do so for a game, trying to nitpick what he said in a general concept to fit your argument is weak
Your position that Epic is just gonna not do any of the things they've publicly announced adding in specific terms is tinfoil hat-worthy.
This ain't a damn Kickstarter campaign with an indie dev studio that's really not much more than a group of pals in the industry creating their pipe dreams.
And one of these storefronts has a long and embarassing tapestry woven from verifiable consumer data breaches, caching errors, and (recently) leaving consumer data unencrypted. Again, it isn't Epic.
Only one of these storefronts is helping support (even if in-directly) concentration camps. It isn't steam.
These types of comments are what I would expect at kindergarten, they only lead to trash talking between 'team Steam' and 'team Epic'. It reminds me of the glory days of MMORPG's on this forum, when white knights were so invested in games prior to release that they would rally to defend them from any criticism with these kinds of comments.
Comments
I could care less what storefront it's on, honestly. I'd prefer to not have to install another launcher, but it's not a big deal if I do. This Epic vs Steam thing is overblown and not a big deal to me, as a consumer. I'll buy where I get the best price and service for the platform of my choosing, like I always have.
If Epic released with the exact same library as Steam with MORE features and MORE security than Steam, would you really, honestly give that store front a chance when your existing library is on Steam?
Epic on the other hand provides nothing competitive, despite the much wealthier owner.
Also, there is a difference between understanding why something is happening and actually supporting it.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
The Epic launcher is lacking in features and not as good as Steam yet, they are however working to improve it. I never cared for most features on Steam anyway, it's just a program which is needed in order to play games which I've grown used to. Valve have done a lot to support Linux gaming with Proton and other initiatives, which is great. I realise most people don't care about Linux gaming, it is however better if more operating systems are viable for gaming so we get some healthy competition there as well.
If I was going to root for someone to win the 'war of digital distribution' it would be GOG. Buying from GOG is like the good old days, you buy a game and get to do what ever you want with it. You're not locked to some launcher and internet connection to be able to play and you get to download and keep the game forever.
You're making multiple claims here. The biggest one being the racist claim that because Tencent is Chinese, it is responsible for China's human rights offenses. Provide verifiable evidence that Tencent themselves are funding concentration camps.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
Discord also released exclusive games. Nobody has said shit about it or how monopolistic that is.
Because they were pretty much all indie games. Some even use the Unreal engine so throw out that argument against Epic.
Because Epic actually did it with games people have heard of and want.
Also likely because "real" hardcore gamers like Discord and do not like Fortnite, and thus Epic.
Steam, bastion of fairness and defender of indies everywhere, has done exactly jack and shit to their agreement regarding lower selling (read: most indie) titles. Steam has, however, tried to fight back on losing AAA titles by reducing the cut once certain sales thresholds were reached.
Steam has shown time and again to simply be reactionary. They reacted.
Epic is winning right there.
If Steam was really interested in the gaming market in general, and indies in particular, the agreement would have been the other way around, with less taken from lower sales, so indies could keep more and thrive/survive. Only that would hurt them more in the AAA market if the % was increased to 30% with more sales. Lower percentage on lower sales would also introduce more shit games to have to wade through, which would show another glaring flaw in Steam. There is no easy answer here, but Steam just took the reactionary one as usual. The fact they are reacting says it all.
Discord should be the choice for indie games due to the lower distributor take. Nobody cares. Nobody will fight it or even bring it up. Steam doesn't have to react because they don't really care either.
If Epic did add forums or reviews right now, who here honestly thinks they wouldn't immediately get bombed with negatives from "real" gamers acting like complete douche nozzles? There is a reason there is a connotation associated with gamers and it ain't good.
Effectively, this is just "real" gamers arguing in a bubble. The larger market doesn't care. Just like the larger market didn't care about MMOs until WoW. The larger market probably has a larger footprint of Epic launcher installs than Steam installs just from Fortnite alone.
Hey, maybe all of this will get Steam to get off their hoard of money obtained by ridiculous distribution costs towards goods providers in a relative monopoly and actually start using some of it to make games people really want... They're the only ones really on our side anyways. Help us Obi Gabe Kenobi, you're our only hope. Right?
This ain't a damn Kickstarter campaign with an indie dev studio that's really not much more than a group of pals in the industry creating their pipe dreams.
Ironically, only one of the storefronts is relatively uncurated and known for allowing crap rushed games. It isn't Epic.
Aeander said:
And one of these storefronts has a long and embarassing tapestry woven from verifiable consumer data breaches, caching errors, and (recently) leaving consumer data unencrypted. Again, it isn't Epic.
Baalzharon said:
Only one of these storefronts is helping support (even if in-directly) concentration camps. It isn't steam.
These types of comments are what I would expect at kindergarten, they only lead to trash talking between 'team Steam' and 'team Epic'. It reminds me of the glory days of MMORPG's on this forum, when white knights were so invested in games prior to release that they would rally to defend them from any criticism with these kinds of comments.