As far as the definition of competition in the now twice quoted post... There was competition. Epic won and secured the business by offering the most favorable terms. You're corrected.
But that's competition that favors the gaming industry NOT THE CONSUMER/GAMER. Are you a dev, a shareholder , Are you CEO of a studio ?..... . That's healthy competition for the people that make the game not the one's buying it.
This is why it baffles me when people go around on these message boards saying competition for Steam is good, HOW ? Explain it to me . Give me a bunch of examples how Epic & Orgin and alllll the other platforms out there are going to make my gaming experience better and put more money for games in MY POCKET.
well if thats the case no company will do that for you when they are competing be it movies, books, tv shows, or video games. Unless I am misunderstanding your words here there should be no seperete TV channels, movies should all be made by one company, etc...
Clearly, Amazon Prime's upcoming Lord of the Rings show shouldn't be allowed. If it can't be on Netflix, that must be anti-competitive.
Why do you and your new friend keep comparing things that are completely unrelated to PC gaming when discussing this subject. Apple's and oranges.
It really isn't apples and oranges. That is a perfect example of an entertainment product being locked exclusively behind a particular streaming platform. It's literally the best possible analogy for what is going on now.
Amazon/Netflix/Hulu even offer exclusives that they had no direct part in the creation of, much like Epic. But, again, it's a fair means of funding third party creators, increasing the content produced, and making their services more appealing.
And in many cases, it is the ONLY substantial way to make your service more appealing to a vast majority of potential users. Your average Joe doesn't care about livestreaming functionality or user reviews. They care about content. I'm not going to subscribe to Netflix because they offer a particular feature I'm unlikely to ever use. I'm going to subscribe to them because they offer Daredevil, Castlevania, The Dragon Prince, and Stranger Things. That is how competition works in a practical sense.
The same is true of consoles, by the way, despite how much you claim that they are different. If people cared about objective power or media functionality, the Xbox One X would be the console of choice right now. But it isn't, because the slightly weaker PS4 and the much weaker Switch offer more of what people actually care about - quality content.
Now in theory, all 3 stores would ideally be offering the same merchandise. And they would do that because they are the same type of store. Those who offer the better service or lower prices would get the consumer. But if a game is exclusive to a launcher, there is no competition.
The problem is that Steam won’t allow that. If I release a game on steam for $60 I also have to sell it on epic for $60. If I were allowed to take advantage of the lower cut and drop the price on the epic store more devs would be willing to do so.
I don't know if I trust any company to drop the price of a game just because the cut was smaller. Even if Steam allowed the competitor to allow a price cut at launch I don't think the publisher of said game would
As far as the definition of competition in the now twice quoted post... There was competition. Epic won and secured the business by offering the most favorable terms. You're corrected.
But that's competition that favors the gaming industry NOT THE CONSUMER/GAMER. Are you a dev, a shareholder , Are you CEO of a studio ?..... . That's healthy competition for the people that make the game not the one's buying it.
This is why it baffles me when people go around on these message boards saying competition for Steam is good, HOW ? Explain it to me . Give me a bunch of examples how Epic & Orgin and alllll the other platforms out there are going to make my gaming experience better and put more money for games in MY POCKET.
First, one thing you need to understand is that there was never a launcher competition for you or any other consumer. Because Steam had a monopoly. There were store competitions such as Humble Bundle and such... that all sold keys for Steam's launcher. The closest you get to being fawned over is when Steam lowers the prices on the games that Humble Bundle just announced as early unlocks for the monthly bundle.
As far as how it will benefit you, here we go: Games are a luxury good. Look around and it has been stated and made clear repeatedly that a large percentage of the consumers of said luxury good are unwilling to pay more than the current rate. That rate has been relatively unchanged since, at least, 2011. The cumulative price change from 2011 to 2018 was 11.63%, meaning that 60 dollar game should be 67 bucks out the door. Just to account for that change. Over most of those years, the inflation on luxury goods has increased roughly double or slightly more than double average inflation. Game prices haven't changed. If you can find anything else: cars, houses, movie tickets, milk; that hasn't increased in price since at least 2011 you better grab all you can because you're getting a steal.
The cost of living and doing business has changed. The demand for better, more revolutionary (and risky) games has changed. Cutting edge graphics. Mo cap. On and on. Yet, when gamers who refuse to pay more are presented with an alternative, be it loot boxes, season passes, whatever, they freak out there too. So studios either get bought up by the big dev groups everyone loves to hate, close shop, or manage to just scrape by. We've seen more and more closing up all the time.
Now, an extremely basic business principle is to maximize your margins. Particularly if your current margins are in the red. The final price is locked in because we won't pay more. The production cost is locked in, if not rising. What do you do? Cut the amount the middle man gets by agreeing to more favorable terms. Continue to exist and meet increasing demands. Do you honestly think these developers would completely bypass the largest launcher and sales channel, by far, if the terms they were given were even vaguely, marginally, remotely close?
So, it helps YOU by potentially allowing more developers and studios to remain open. It will also likely help YOU further by there actually being more than one launcher being able to compete for your business in the not so distant future, thereby driving final prices lower while still allowing the true creators of the hobby we enjoy to be able to prosper more from their creations. There aren't a bunch of examples to give because it's rather basic and simple.
Conversely, can you tell me how this is so bad for you and takes more money from your pockets? How does this hurt you aside from not being able to play something immediately on a launcher that you should not give a shit about once the game is running anyways? Are you concerned about higher medical costs because your finger will be injured due to the Epic store requiring clicking twice as hard to start? I could understand that since medical care inflation has risen almost as much as luxury goods. Wouldn't want you having to shutter shop to keep up with those increasing costs...
One thing people miss, because gamers don't often think of developers as human beings, is that a lot of these development studios have to consider the financial health of their company. Gaming development is notoriously unstable, and one of the most dangerous times to be a game developer is the time period between one game launch and the commencement of work on the next game. Mass layoffs following a game's release are expected and tragically commonplace in this industry.
When developer Snapshot games signed a deal for Epic exclusivity on Phoenix Point games, I guarantee you they didn't want to betray their customers. Their first moral and business priority is and has to be the job security of their employees as an independent developer, and a sudden cash flow is going to be an immense help in putting those employees to work on the next game or long term support for their current one.
But how does that benefit me as the consumer?
I really shouldn't have to explain that more resources on the developer end means more, faster, and better content delivery. It means more games get made. It means that Obsidian's historical financial issues don't have to repeat themselves and hinder the development of the next game that you will no doubt desire. It means that an independent developer like Phoenix Point might not have to turn to Kickstarter to provide the initial funding for their next game. It means that The Division 2 will be more stable and likely have better long term content support than the first Division.
If you care about a developer, you should support them and be glad when more of their game sales revenue reaches them. It means that they will be able to allot more resources to the games you love, both current and future. And who knows? They may not even resort to bad business practices like lootboxes to support that content now that they are getting a more appropriate percentage of the game's sale price.
Pirate bay *cough cough* I ain't giving a penny to epic or downloading epic store launcher.
You won't find love with that shit here. You might think you are some V for vendetta super hero but you are not, you are a thief, scum and filth. You are no different than the wal-mart shoppers that shove clothes and hams in their pants and walk out the door. Just cause it is digital doesn't make it anymore your property.
You're not much better with the name calling and lowering yourself to even lower standards...at least he was civil in his post unlike some others here.
Might want to get off the horse and start spit shining the black spots/residue off the armor.....
Personally I wont be giving Epic a single penny as they are just as bad with their own thievery and data collection mishaps.
Furthermore before throwing bricks at others you might want to change that rather offensive avatar which is blatantly promoting drugs and how the use of drugs is cool....
"I think all non-white people should cease to exist. Respectfully, of course!"
It's like expecting every product on the planet to be sold at every store. It's not how it's done in "the real world" so why should it be done on the virtual one?
I can't even... It is like every major release game is sold at every store that sells games. That IS how it's done in the real world...
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
>Take ESO for example, the steam version is riddled with problems, thus I would avoid it even if the price is superior to the Zenimax shop.
Explain? Biggest problem I had with it was the gameplay hyper dull.
That being said, I'll still wait and see, because developers using a new engine for the first time usually fuck the bed in half when it comes to optimization. Moreover the whole thing reeks of scummy politics. I wish Epic would make an effort to make a good alternative to steam instead of assaulting, spying, and bribing their way into the market space. Epic has already made it clear that they don't care about consumers, which is an interesting tactic.
A final note, to all those shouting at clouds about piracy. Exclusivity breeds piracy, you've known this for about a decade now. If anything the childish reactions to water is wet is only giving people more reasons to pirate the game. Or people just don't like China, who knows?
Steam offer support for Linux and you can buy your keys from retailers if you don't trust Valve about security. Why Epic don't sell key on Humble? I'll never use the crappy Epic shop to buy anything with CC or Paypal. And...how you buy a game on the Windows Store without Windows? You can play and buy Windows games with Steam/Proton or use Wine more easily with DRM free version from GOG. Okay,I own a shitty wobbly 10 too but I give my money only to Steam/GOG and Humble. Because they do things for me the consumer. Great prices,Linux and/or DRM free.
So far I haven't found Epic's business practices to be trustworthy. Granted Value is worse in some ways but I already have that on my computer. Epic will have to earn my trust before I consider them.
Considering what the social media sites, amazon, and basically everyone else on the internet does with our information, I am surprised this even bothers people anymore.
Privacy is no longer a thing and the expectation of is a dream in the digital age.
Note: I do not agree with it but is the world in which we live.
Thing is those are all websites you go to using a browser. It's expected you'll see targeted ads. What Epic did was use its program to go into your computer's Steam folder and read files without your permission. That's way beyond Amazon or whatever seeing what ebook you looked at and showing you ads for similar titles. What Epic did was spyware as far as I'm concerned.
Hope It's true because the Epic Shop is really too dangerous to use. And I have heard that the Epic Launcher collect Private DATA without your consent,that's true? Or It's just the usual thing? I'm not a Steam fangirl. I use Steam because they support Linux...my favorite shop is GOG...so,I'm used to wait for games...
It's like expecting every product on the planet to be sold at every store. It's not how it's done in "the real world" so why should it be done on the virtual one? It's not like the game isn't available on other platforms including the Windows store. If it's that big a deal, wait a year and play it on Steam.
Epic and other game store platforms are providing competition for Steam that people have become so accustomed to using they can't see anything else.
People hate change. This whole thread epitomizes that.
Well for one thing it's different because you're not selling physical items that have to be manufactured. You're selling nigh-infinite virtual copies that cost almost nothing to make after the initial product. Don't forget the publisher promised to release the game on Steam then changed their mind.
No one is saying Steam doesn't need a competitor. What many of us are saying is that Epic is not a store that can be trusted and is not acting ethically.
And FYI not everyone has consoles or that eager to use M$ store. So yeah, many of us are going to wait a year, if we buy it at all.
Epic Store needs to improve a lot before it's a decent competitor to Steam and it's not going to do that by getting publishers to break their word and stop selling on Steam.
As far as the definition of competition in the now twice quoted post... There was competition. Epic won and secured the business by offering the most favorable terms. You're corrected.
But that's competition that favors the gaming industry NOT THE CONSUMER/GAMER. Are you a dev, a shareholder , Are you CEO of a studio ?..... . That's healthy competition for the people that make the game not the one's buying it.
This is why it baffles me when people go around on these message boards saying competition for Steam is good, HOW ? Explain it to me . Give me a bunch of examples how Epic & Orgin and alllll the other platforms out there are going to make my gaming experience better and put more money for games in MY POCKET.
well if thats the case no company will do that for you when they are competing be it movies, books, tv shows, or video games. Unless I am misunderstanding your words here there should be no seperete TV channels, movies should all be made by one company, etc...
Clearly, Amazon Prime's upcoming Lord of the Rings show shouldn't be allowed. If it can't be on Netflix, that must be anti-competitive.
Why do you and your new friend keep comparing things that are completely unrelated to PC gaming when discussing this subject. Apple's and oranges.
It really isn't apples and oranges. That is a perfect example of an entertainment product being locked exclusively behind a particular streaming platform. It's literally the best possible analogy for what is going on now.
Amazon/Netflix/Hulu even offer exclusives that they had no direct part in the creation of, much like Epic. But, again, it's a fair means of funding third party creators, increasing the content produced, and making their services more appealing.
And in many cases, it is the ONLY substantial way to make your service more appealing to a vast majority of potential users. Your average Joe doesn't care about livestreaming functionality or user reviews. They care about content. I'm not going to subscribe to Netflix because they offer a particular feature I'm unlikely to ever use. I'm going to subscribe to them because they offer Daredevil, Castlevania, The Dragon Prince, and Stranger Things. That is how competition works in a practical sense.
The same is true of consoles, by the way, despite how much you claim that they are different. If people cared about objective power or media functionality, the Xbox One X would be the console of choice right now. But it isn't, because the slightly weaker PS4 and the much weaker Switch offer more of what people actually care about - quality content.
"It really isn't apples and oranges" the fact that you can't see how comparing unrelated publicly traded companies in different industries with entirely different methods of operation to private ones or how the PC game market differs from the console market makes any further discussion on this subject pointless. If we were to continue though while in the spirit of discussing unrelated things I'd ask why you conveniently left out the mobile market and focused soley on consoles but I already know the answer to that and I'm sure others do as well. Good joust though, til' next time.
Will also leave this here in case anyone was wondering if something another poster mentioned was true or not.
Not a big fan of exclusives. Kinda wish they’d just sell it wherever people prefer to purchase. It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I really wish people would stop using the "Other companies scrape from steam. What's the big deal?" The other companies scraped from steam using steam's public API. They are going the route that steam says "Sure," because they are following the rules. They have a terms of use for their API. Those companies agree to those terms of use. They do everything by the book as far as steam is concerned.
Epic did not. Epic scraped from steam's files instead of hitting the public API because they don't want to agree to steam's terms of use. Too many things in there that would be bad for Epic. That is what the big deal is. It isn't that they are scraping user data, but rather they are scraping user data that they shouldn't be seeing while skirting steam's rules in place for using their end users information and getting caught doing it.
Don't look at things that you are not supposed to see. Don't take things you're not supposed to take. It's such a simple concept, because steam's API does exactly what Epic said that they were scraping steam's files for.
And in regards to someone saying something about Valve's vetting standards for what goes on their game store; the player base is just as much to blame as Valve for that. Before they wouldn't allow smutty romps on the steam store, or borderline hate games. Steam didn't allow them. Players and the developers behind those games screamed "STOP CENSORING US." And steam pulled the PERFECT r/MaliciousCompliance and said "ok." and now we're at where we're at. They stopped censoring their store. Never saw a moment where I felt that blizzard's dumb quote "You think you do, but you don't," is applicable then I do now.
Hope It's true because the Epic Shop is really too dangerous to use. And I have heard that the Epic Launcher collect Private DATA without your consent,that's true? Or It's just the usual thing? I'm not a Steam fangirl. I use Steam because they support Linux...my favorite shop is GOG...so,I'm used to wait for games...
Depends on what you define private data.
Is your list of friends private data?
Is your game wishlist private data?
Is the games you browsed in the steam store private data?
Some other things, like the games in your library can be public, depending on your settings. It is interesting that Epic decided to bypass the Steam restrictions and basically do a massive scale market research by snooping on a platform that it's not their own.
>Take ESO for example, the steam version is riddled with problems, thus I would avoid it even if the price is superior to the Zenimax shop.
Explain? Biggest problem I had with it was the gameplay hyper dull.
The ESO client connected to steam seems to be riddled with login problems every time a major patch is introduced to ESO. The problems stem probably from Zenimax not updating properly the login process that goes through steam. Still, on one side you have the standalone ESO login launcher that works fine when servers are up and then you have the steam login launcher for ESO that breaks every time Zenimax introduces major content updates into the game.
For that reason, people are skeptical regarding the Square Enix decision to utilise the steam login process with the FFXIV copies of the game that were purchased on steam.
moosecatlol said: That being said, I'll still wait and see, because developers using a new engine for the first time usually fuck the bed in half when it comes to optimization. Moreover the whole thing reeks of scummy politics. I wish Epic would make an effort to make a good alternative to steam instead of assaulting, spying, and bribing their way into the market space. Epic has already made it clear that they don't care about consumers, which is an interesting tactic.
A final note, to all those shouting at clouds about piracy. Exclusivity breeds piracy, you've known this for about a decade now. If anything the childish reactions to water is wet is only giving people more reasons to pirate the game. Or people just don't like China, who knows?
Are people under the false impression that only those subscribed to Netflix watch Netflix movies?
One thing people miss, because gamers don't often think of developers as human beings, is that a lot of these development studios have to consider the financial health of their company. Gaming development is notoriously unstable, and one of the most dangerous times to be a game developer is the time period between one game launch and the commencement of work on the next game. Mass layoffs following a game's release are expected and tragically commonplace in this industry.
When developer Snapshot games signed a deal for Epic exclusivity on Phoenix Point games, I guarantee you they didn't want to betray their customers. Their first moral and business priority is and has to be the job security of their employees as an independent developer, and a sudden cash flow is going to be an immense help in putting those employees to work on the next game or long term support for their current one.
But how does that benefit me as the consumer?
I really shouldn't have to explain that more resources on the developer end means more, faster, and better content delivery. It means more games get made. It means that Obsidian's historical financial issues don't have to repeat themselves and hinder the development of the next game that you will no doubt desire. It means that an independent developer like Phoenix Point might not have to turn to Kickstarter to provide the initial funding for their next game. It means that The Division 2 will be more stable and likely have better long term content support than the first Division.
If you care about a developer, you should support them and be glad when more of their game sales revenue reaches them. It means that they will be able to allot more resources to the games you love, both current and future. And who knows? They may not even resort to bad business practices like lootboxes to support that content now that they are getting a more appropriate percentage of the game's sale price.
Are you familiar with the case of the developer that got about a million in kickstarter money, then when he got the game in a state where it was ready to launch, he made an exclusive deal with Epic and disregarded those backers completely?
What does that tell you about the Epic store as a short term unsustainable bubble?
What does that tell to all the kickstarter backers that invest on the critical phase when nobody else has any faith to a developer, to have that developer abandon those backers?
For me the first case tells me that Epic's model is unsustainable. They are attempting what youtube has achieved, by drowning every competitor out of the market, instead of having a competitive market.
From the developer's perspective it is certainly enticing to basically have all your development costs getting erased regardless of the amount of actual sales. Getting owned (in essence) by Epic does create an interesting landscape of one shot wonders. It also creates the potential for titles that have no actual market value, but are only created to be purchased by the Epic store.
Not a big fan of exclusives. Kinda wish they’d just sell it wherever people prefer to purchase. It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
On that same idea though, it's not really an exclusive. We're talking about a store.. not even much of a platform change.
This is asking for a whopper at mcdonalds. If you want a whopper, you just go there and get it.
In my case, both restaurants are about the same distance. I go where the item is that i want, and in this case, people are splitting hairs.
They aren't asking you to buy a new console, they aren't asking you to pay a monthly fee or subscribe to a service.
From day 1 as a gamer, which started decades ago, my simple philosophy was to play the games I want to play no matter where they are. That meant playing zelda on the NES and it meant going to the arcade to play Children of the Atom, or buying a sega dreamcast because I loved Power Stone.
I feel bad that people (not you pale) would prefer not to play something that interests them because it's on a different platform (or a different STORE in this case)
Comments
Amazon/Netflix/Hulu even offer exclusives that they had no direct part in the creation of, much like Epic. But, again, it's a fair means of funding third party creators, increasing the content produced, and making their services more appealing.
And in many cases, it is the ONLY substantial way to make your service more appealing to a vast majority of potential users. Your average Joe doesn't care about livestreaming functionality or user reviews. They care about content. I'm not going to subscribe to Netflix because they offer a particular feature I'm unlikely to ever use. I'm going to subscribe to them because they offer Daredevil, Castlevania, The Dragon Prince, and Stranger Things. That is how competition works in a practical sense.
The same is true of consoles, by the way, despite how much you claim that they are different. If people cared about objective power or media functionality, the Xbox One X would be the console of choice right now. But it isn't, because the slightly weaker PS4 and the much weaker Switch offer more of what people actually care about - quality content.
As far as how it will benefit you, here we go:
Games are a luxury good. Look around and it has been stated and made clear repeatedly that a large percentage of the consumers of said luxury good are unwilling to pay more than the current rate. That rate has been relatively unchanged since, at least, 2011. The cumulative price change from 2011 to 2018 was 11.63%, meaning that 60 dollar game should be 67 bucks out the door. Just to account for that change. Over most of those years, the inflation on luxury goods has increased roughly double or slightly more than double average inflation. Game prices haven't changed. If you can find anything else: cars, houses, movie tickets, milk; that hasn't increased in price since at least 2011 you better grab all you can because you're getting a steal.
The cost of living and doing business has changed. The demand for better, more revolutionary (and risky) games has changed. Cutting edge graphics. Mo cap. On and on. Yet, when gamers who refuse to pay more are presented with an alternative, be it loot boxes, season passes, whatever, they freak out there too. So studios either get bought up by the big dev groups everyone loves to hate, close shop, or manage to just scrape by. We've seen more and more closing up all the time.
Now, an extremely basic business principle is to maximize your margins. Particularly if your current margins are in the red. The final price is locked in because we won't pay more. The production cost is locked in, if not rising. What do you do? Cut the amount the middle man gets by agreeing to more favorable terms. Continue to exist and meet increasing demands. Do you honestly think these developers would completely bypass the largest launcher and sales channel, by far, if the terms they were given were even vaguely, marginally, remotely close?
So, it helps YOU by potentially allowing more developers and studios to remain open. It will also likely help YOU further by there actually being more than one launcher being able to compete for your business in the not so distant future, thereby driving final prices lower while still allowing the true creators of the hobby we enjoy to be able to prosper more from their creations. There aren't a bunch of examples to give because it's rather basic and simple.
Conversely, can you tell me how this is so bad for you and takes more money from your pockets? How does this hurt you aside from not being able to play something immediately on a launcher that you should not give a shit about once the game is running anyways? Are you concerned about higher medical costs because your finger will be injured due to the Epic store requiring clicking twice as hard to start? I could understand that since medical care inflation has risen almost as much as luxury goods. Wouldn't want you having to shutter shop to keep up with those increasing costs...
When developer Snapshot games signed a deal for Epic exclusivity on Phoenix Point games, I guarantee you they didn't want to betray their customers. Their first moral and business priority is and has to be the job security of their employees as an independent developer, and a sudden cash flow is going to be an immense help in putting those employees to work on the next game or long term support for their current one.
But how does that benefit me as the consumer?
I really shouldn't have to explain that more resources on the developer end means more, faster, and better content delivery. It means more games get made. It means that Obsidian's historical financial issues don't have to repeat themselves and hinder the development of the next game that you will no doubt desire. It means that an independent developer like Phoenix Point might not have to turn to Kickstarter to provide the initial funding for their next game. It means that The Division 2 will be more stable and likely have better long term content support than the first Division.
If you care about a developer, you should support them and be glad when more of their game sales revenue reaches them. It means that they will be able to allot more resources to the games you love, both current and future. And who knows? They may not even resort to bad business practices like lootboxes to support that content now that they are getting a more appropriate percentage of the game's sale price.
....
Nope, still racist, even if it's put politely.
I can't even... It is like every major release game is sold at every store that sells games. That IS how it's done in the real world...
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
Explain? Biggest problem I had with it was the gameplay hyper dull.
That being said, I'll still wait and see, because developers using a new engine for the first time usually fuck the bed in half when it comes to optimization. Moreover the whole thing reeks of scummy politics. I wish Epic would make an effort to make a good alternative to steam instead of assaulting, spying, and bribing their way into the market space. Epic has already made it clear that they don't care about consumers, which is an interesting tactic.
A final note, to all those shouting at clouds about piracy. Exclusivity breeds piracy, you've known this for about a decade now. If anything the childish reactions to water is wet is only giving people more reasons to pirate the game. Or people just don't like China, who knows?
I for one will be getting this FROM the epic store, Just as I am getting Metro Exodus from the Epic Store.
Pirating games isn't the answer, that just hurts the developers.
Steam offer support for Linux and you can buy your keys from retailers if you don't trust Valve about security.
Why Epic don't sell key on Humble?
I'll never use the crappy Epic shop to buy anything with CC or Paypal.
And...how you buy a game on the Windows Store without Windows?
You can play and buy Windows games with Steam/Proton or use Wine more easily with DRM free version from GOG.
Okay,I own a shitty wobbly 10 too but I give my money only to Steam/GOG and Humble.
Because they do things for me the consumer.
Great prices,Linux and/or DRM free.
Thing is those are all websites you go to using a browser. It's expected you'll see targeted ads. What Epic did was use its program to go into your computer's Steam folder and read files without your permission. That's way beyond Amazon or whatever seeing what ebook you looked at and showing you ads for similar titles. What Epic did was spyware as far as I'm concerned.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
And I have heard that the Epic Launcher collect Private DATA without your consent,that's true?
Or It's just the usual thing?
I'm not a Steam fangirl.
I use Steam because they support Linux...my favorite shop is GOG...so,I'm used to wait for games...
Well for one thing it's different because you're not selling physical items that have to be manufactured. You're selling nigh-infinite virtual copies that cost almost nothing to make after the initial product. Don't forget the publisher promised to release the game on Steam then changed their mind.
No one is saying Steam doesn't need a competitor. What many of us are saying is that Epic is not a store that can be trusted and is not acting ethically.
And FYI not everyone has consoles or that eager to use M$ store. So yeah, many of us are going to wait a year, if we buy it at all.
Epic Store needs to improve a lot before it's a decent competitor to Steam and it's not going to do that by getting publishers to break their word and stop selling on Steam.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Epic did not. Epic scraped from steam's files instead of hitting the public API because they don't want to agree to steam's terms of use. Too many things in there that would be bad for Epic. That is what the big deal is. It isn't that they are scraping user data, but rather they are scraping user data that they shouldn't be seeing while skirting steam's rules in place for using their end users information and getting caught doing it.
Don't look at things that you are not supposed to see.
Don't take things you're not supposed to take.
It's such a simple concept, because steam's API does exactly what Epic said that they were scraping steam's files for.
And in regards to someone saying something about Valve's vetting standards for what goes on their game store; the player base is just as much to blame as Valve for that. Before they wouldn't allow smutty romps on the steam store, or borderline hate games. Steam didn't allow them. Players and the developers behind those games screamed "STOP CENSORING US." And steam pulled the PERFECT r/MaliciousCompliance and said "ok." and now we're at where we're at. They stopped censoring their store. Never saw a moment where I felt that blizzard's dumb quote "You think you do, but you don't," is applicable then I do now.
- Is your list of friends private data?
- Is your game wishlist private data?
- Is the games you browsed in the steam store private data?
Some other things, like the games in your library can be public, depending on your settings. It is interesting that Epic decided to bypass the Steam restrictions and basically do a massive scale market research by snooping on a platform that it's not their own.The ESO client connected to steam seems to be riddled with login problems every time a major patch is introduced to ESO. The problems stem probably from Zenimax not updating properly the login process that goes through steam. Still, on one side you have the standalone ESO login launcher that works fine when servers are up and then you have the steam login launcher for ESO that breaks every time Zenimax introduces major content updates into the game.
For that reason, people are skeptical regarding the Square Enix decision to utilise the steam login process with the FFXIV copies of the game that were purchased on steam.
- What does that tell you about the Epic store as a short term unsustainable bubble?
- What does that tell to all the kickstarter backers that invest on the critical phase when nobody else has any faith to a developer, to have that developer abandon those backers?
For me the first case tells me that Epic's model is unsustainable. They are attempting what youtube has achieved, by drowning every competitor out of the market, instead of having a competitive market.From the developer's perspective it is certainly enticing to basically have all your development costs getting erased regardless of the amount of actual sales. Getting owned (in essence) by Epic does create an interesting landscape of one shot wonders. It also creates the potential for titles that have no actual market value, but are only created to be purchased by the Epic store.
Interesting times.
This is asking for a whopper at mcdonalds. If you want a whopper, you just go there and get it.
In my case, both restaurants are about the same distance. I go where the item is that i want, and in this case, people are splitting hairs.
They aren't asking you to buy a new console, they aren't asking you to pay a monthly fee or subscribe to a service.
From day 1 as a gamer, which started decades ago, my simple philosophy was to play the games I want to play no matter where they are. That meant playing zelda on the NES and it meant going to the arcade to play Children of the Atom, or buying a sega dreamcast because I loved Power Stone.
I feel bad that people (not you pale) would prefer not to play something that interests them because it's on a different platform (or a different STORE in this case)