StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 00:57:
Anyway I think the "Steam is great so no worries about monopoly issues" thing is very fanboy and naive, no offense intended. I see that position a lot... "Steam is great and moral so they can control everything and it's fine!"... and it literally shocks me people would say that, like saying "Castro takes care of us well so he can be dictator and it's fine." Extreme analogy obviously but just trying to get a point across. It's never good for one company to have the vast majority of the power in a market, even if that company is pretty great for the consumer today. I'd say the same for Amazon or Google as well.

I'm a pragmatist. I don't really object to things solely as a matter of principle. I'm more interested in objective, demonstrable effects. Steam's impact on PC gaming has only been positive. If they had a true monopoly, is there a chance they could become corrupt and anti-consumer? Sure. However, given the past 15 years, there's a much greater chance that they wouldn't. And again, Steam does not have a monopoly. There are plenty of competitors and successful games that aren't on Steam. Being on Steam increases your chances of success but isn't required.

saluk wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 01:48:
Surely the developers of these exclusive games have done the analysis of how well they will do. Epic probably has spent some on exclusives (though I expect it's in some form of a better pecentage up to a certain number of sales or something to that effect), but there are plenty of other incentives. Like we saw with origin, if the game is good, most people still buy it even if it is being sold on a store that no one likes. (Origin has got to be the worst one imo - epic may be pretty bare on features, but it makes up for that in being really unobtrusive, fast to launch etc)

If most of your audience is going to buy it anyway, you are going to charge 60$ either way (because of course), and you make 88% from one store and 70% from another, you are actually limiting your income by selling it on both marketplaces. In fact, it may be that the more people dislike the Epic storefront THE MORE TRUE THIS IS. In a world where everyone just buys the steam version and not the EGS version, the dev makes less money. If the steam version is not an option - and a high enough amount of your audience follows you - you could very well do better.

Whether there are extra kickbacks from epic or not, the 12% is already a huge kickback to go exclusive.

You're making the flawed assumption that people are automatically going to buy games that interest them. That's only true if they know the games exist. Big IPs with established fan-bases don't have that problem. Games like Battlefield may sell well enough on Origin but the lesser known games like Unravel or A Way Out probably sell like shit. Smaller, lower-profile games need all the exposure they can get and you accomplish that by selling them on as many platforms as possible. That's why everything is multiplatform these days.

Honestly, it's kind of amazing that people are unaware of the payments Epic offers for these timed exclusivity deals. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or just a lack of research. In addition, there are already games that are on both EGS and Steam. Subnautica, My Time in Portia, Darksiders 3, The Witness, Bloodlines 2, etc. Your argument that selling on Steam makes no sense when EGS offers a lower cut is demonstrably inaccurate.

Also, to restate what should already be obvious: these are TIMED exclusives. Timed. Exactly one year (six months in the case of Borderlands 3). If devs and pubs were abandoning Steam because of Epic's lower cut, then why aren't these all permanent exclusives? After all, if the larger cut is more valuable than Steam's user base, why go back to Steam at all? According to your logic, the larger cut overrides all other benefits and is the primary reason for timed EGS exclusivity.

wrlwnd wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 00:12:
Really? You have a source and figures as to these obvious large amounts of money? Epic has been around a long time. They also have the hottest thing going with Fortnite, so many gamers have already downloaded their software already. If they're then willing to offer 12% instead of 30%, why wouldn't a developer consider going with them if they get to keep that revenue? Why would they want to compete with themselves because a customer decides to go to Steam to buy their product instead? "Literally the only reason". LOL

Tim Sweeney openly stated that Epic pays for these timed exclusivity deals. The developer of Phoenix Point publicly stated that even if they refunded all of their Kickstarter funding, they'd still be in the black because of Epic's cash.

This isn't rocket science. Games on Steam sell a lot more than games on EGS. If a developer wants to maximize their audience and potential profits, they need to sell on Steam. The only way for Epic to compensate for the lost revenue is by providing a large monetary incentive (i.e. a bribe) for these exclusives. That's how timed third-party exclusives work. If the only incentive for exclusivity was the larger cut, then developers would be signing up for permanent exclusivity, not just one-year exclusivity. They wouldn't be asking for bribes to do it either.

As a customer, it makes sense to either buy a game or not based on the overall value you get for the money you pay.

This whole faux indignation thing has nothing to do with that. 30% is ridiculous, no matter who does it. Tim Sweeney knows that. If Epic turns around and charges 30% once they have those "valuable" features available, then a developer would be silly to sign up for an exclusive.

Obviously gamers who have bought an exclusive from Epic feel that the money they spend for the features they get is worth it. If Valve feels they have to charge 30% to provide the features they have, then that's fine too. It's called competition.

Competition in any industry is healthy. Valve is the king, and will remain so as long as it, you know, competes.

As I've already mentioned, Epic straight up pays for these timed exclusives. Guaranteed, up-front cash. That's the incentive for developers and publishers to sign up. Some consumers buy games on EGS because they really want to play those games despite the completely worthless "service" that EGS provides. 99% of those consumers would rather buy the game on Steam but they're willing to sacrifice Steam's benefits in order to play the game.

The issue here isn't that Epic is trying to compete with Steam. The issue is that they're trying to compete through timed, third-party exclusivity deals instead of providing a competitive service to customers.

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 23:56:
Complete bullshit. The reason EA was KICKED FROM Steam was due to a violation of the Steam TOS. EA did not pull anything from Steam. They were forced out because of their business model.
EA wanted to sell DLC and establish GaaS sales from within their games at the time which bypassed the Steam store, i.e. greedy Gabe wouldn't have gotten his 30% cut of every EA DLC sale if the player clicked on a link in the EA game and would have been taken to an EA sales site.

Oh, my sweet summer child. EA just wanted to cut out the middle-man and get 100% profit on each sale. If getting 100% profit on each DLC was their only concern, then EA would still be releasing games without DLC on Steam, right? Except they aren't. There's no Mercenaries 2, no Unravel 1&2, no Saboteur, no A Way Out, etc. EA abandoned Steam because they wanted a 100% cut of everything. That's it. Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't pulled all of their older games from Steam as well. I'm guessing they want to continue monetizing those because they most likely don't sell at all on Origin.

wrlwnd wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 00:12:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:10:
Anyone with a few brain cells would be well aware that Epic pays large amounts of money for their timed exclusives. That's literally the only reason why any developer/publisher would agree to that deal. Without that bribe, they would just make their games available on both EGS and Steam.

Really? You have a source and figures as to these obvious large amounts of money? Epic has been around a long time. They also have the hottest thing going with Fortnite, so many gamers have already downloaded their software already. If they're then willing to offer 12% instead of 30%, why wouldn't a developer consider going with them if they get to keep that revenue? Why would they want to compete with themselves because a customer decides to go to Steam to buy their product instead? "Literally the only reason". LOL

Also, calling 30% "Mafia-style" is absurd. 30% is the standard cut for digital storefronts. It's the same cut that Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, GOG, Apple and Google take. Steam offers more features than all of those platforms. EGS offers 12% because it literally has no features and a tiny selection. It also passes overhead costs on to the customer.

As a customer, it makes sense to either buy a game or not based on the overall value you get for the money you pay.

This whole faux indignation thing has nothing to do with that. 30% is ridiculous, no matter who does it. Tim Sweeney knows that. If Epic turns around and charges 30% once they have those "valuable" features available, then a developer would be silly to sign up for an exclusive.

Obviously gamers who have bought an exclusive from Epic feel that the money they spend for the features they get is worth it. If Valve feels they have to charge 30% to provide the features they have, then that's fine too. It's called competition.

Competition in any industry is healthy. Valve is the king, and will remain so as long as it, you know, competes.

Agreed. Some really shallow thinking going on with some people.

Surely the developers of these exclusive games have done the analysis of how well they will do. Epic probably has spent some on exclusives (though I expect it's in some form of a better pecentage up to a certain number of sales or something to that effect), but there are plenty of other incentives. Like we saw with origin, if the game is good, most people still buy it even if it is being sold on a store that no one likes. (Origin has got to be the worst one imo - epic may be pretty bare on features, but it makes up for that in being really unobtrusive, fast to launch etc)

If most of your audience is going to buy it anyway, you are going to charge 60$ either way (because of course), and you make 88% from one store and 70% from another, you are actually limiting your income by selling it on both marketplaces. In fact, it may be that the more people dislike the Epic storefront THE MORE TRUE THIS IS. In a world where everyone just buys the steam version and not the EGS version, the dev makes less money. If the steam version is not an option - and a high enough amount of your audience follows you - you could very well do better.

Whether there are extra kickbacks from epic or not, the 12% is already a huge kickback to go exclusive.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 22:44:
The concerns over Steam being a monopoly have no basis in reality. There are plenty of games that aren't available on Steam (Blizzard's games, EA's games, Epic's games, etc). Some of the most popular games in the world aren't on Steam (like Fortnite, LoL, Minecraft, WoW, Overwatch and Crossfire). There's nothing forcing developers or publishers to use Steam. They use Steam because that's what the majority of customers want. Steam gained the biggest user base because it provided the best service, selection and pricing. Even if Steam were actually a monopoly, that wouldn't change.

You can use the forum and read reviews and whatnot without the client. It's not like GOG don't have a forum and reviews, despite being DRM free and no client required. Hell they even have cloud saves I believe, though I have no use for them because I work at work. :p

Anyway I think the "Steam is great so no worries about monopoly issues" thing is very fanboy and naive, no offense intended. I see that position a lot... "Steam is great and moral so they can control everything and it's fine!"... and it literally shocks me people would say that, like saying "Castro takes care of us well so he can be dictator and it's fine." Extreme analogy obviously but just trying to get a point across. It's never good for one company to have the vast majority of the power in a market, even if that company is pretty great for the consumer today. I'd say the same for Amazon or Google as well.

Agree to disagree though, if I've learned anything on this Epic Store business it's that there's no changing minds on it. Some people are just irate about it and I can't change that. I think it's more or less fine, as long as they continue to improve their client.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:10:
Anyone with a few brain cells would be well aware that Epic pays large amounts of money for their timed exclusives. That's literally the only reason why any developer/publisher would agree to that deal. Without that bribe, they would just make their games available on both EGS and Steam.

Really? You have a source and figures as to these obvious large amounts of money? Epic has been around a long time. They also have the hottest thing going with Fortnite, so many gamers have already downloaded their software already. If they're then willing to offer 12% instead of 30%, why wouldn't a developer consider going with them if they get to keep that revenue? Why would they want to compete with themselves because a customer decides to go to Steam to buy their product instead? "Literally the only reason". LOL

Also, calling 30% "Mafia-style" is absurd. 30% is the standard cut for digital storefronts. It's the same cut that Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, GOG, Apple and Google take. Steam offers more features than all of those platforms. EGS offers 12% because it literally has no features and a tiny selection. It also passes overhead costs on to the customer.

As a customer, it makes sense to either buy a game or not based on the overall value you get for the money you pay.

This whole faux indignation thing has nothing to do with that. 30% is ridiculous, no matter who does it. Tim Sweeney knows that. If Epic turns around and charges 30% once they have those "valuable" features available, then a developer would be silly to sign up for an exclusive.

Obviously gamers who have bought an exclusive from Epic feel that the money they spend for the features they get is worth it. If Valve feels they have to charge 30% to provide the features they have, then that's fine too. It's called competition.

Competition in any industry is healthy. Valve is the king, and will remain so as long as it, you know, competes.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 23:27:
I disagree. When Origin was first introduced, EA was definitely trying to position it as a competitor to Steam. That's why they pulled games from Steam (like Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2) and made everything exclusive to Origin. It's also why they sold third-party games in the first-place. However, once they realized that exclusives wouldn't be enough to overthrow Steam, they gave up and just used Origin as a way to sell their own games. Epic will come to the same realization once they learn that people only use EGS for the exclusives and nothing else.

Complete bullshit. The reason EA was KICKED FROM Steam was due to a violation of the Steam TOS. EA did not pull anything from Steam. They were forced out because of their business model.
EA wanted to sell DLC and establish GaaS sales from within their games at the time which bypassed the Steam store, i.e. greedy Gabe wouldn't have gotten his 30% cut of every EA DLC sale if the player clicked on a link in the EA game and would have been taken to an EA sales site.

Straight from EA...

"At EA, we offer our games and content to all major download services including GameStop, Amazon, Direct2Drive and Steam," said EA senior VP of global e-commerce David DeMartini in an emailed statement. "Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to sell downloadable content. No other download service has adopted this practice. Consequently some of our games have been removed by Steam."

"We hope to work out an agreement to keep our games on Steam," he continued.

So far, that hasn't happened. Dragon Age II still isn't available through Steam.
Crysis 2 still isn't available on Steam, after being pulled over downloadable content issues.

The erratic process of pulling EA games from Steam started a few weeks back, when Crysis 2 disappeared. EA said the reason was a change on policy regarding downloadable content, as EA and Crytek had brokered a deal for another distributor to be the exclusive host of that content.

Thus, Crysis 2 came down.

"It’s unfortunate that Steam has removed Crysis 2 from their service. This was not an EA decision or the result of any action by EA," said the company at the time. "Steam has imposed a set of business terms for developers hoping to sell content on that service--many of which are not imposed by other online game services. Unfortunately, Crytek has an agreement with another download service which violates the new rules from Steam and resulted in its expulsion of Crysis 2 from Steam."

They definitely never launched Origin as a serious competition attempt. Like uPlay it was more as a service for their own games and to run their business on their own terms.
Otherwise EA would have tried much harder to get more 3rd parties on Origin if they really would have wanted to compete. That was never the case.
They are also still selling quite a lot of games on Steam and on GOG so it's not like they ever went 100% Origin exclusive.

If it helps you sleep better at night by believing that Valve fought off a Steam killing attempt by EA then go ahead and believe in that legend though. I'm sure it's a nice li'l wet dream fantasy for the rabid Steam fanbois.

Also, calling 30% "Mafia-style" is absurd. 30% is the standard cut for digital storefronts. It's the same cut that Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, GOG, Apple and Google take. Steam offers more features than all of those platforms. EGS offers 12% because it literally has no features and a tiny selection. It also passes overhead costs on to the customer.

Absolutely - 30% is standard, and quite fair considering what you’re getting. (hosting, modding support, transactions, forums, chat... the list goes on)

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 23:21:
EA has never even begun to TRY to "kill" Steam. EA don't give much of a shit about the PC anyway. Their PC revenue has always been hovering about the ~15% mark of their total net revenue (16% for 2018). Their business is conslows.

I disagree. When Origin was first introduced, EA was definitely trying to position it as a competitor to Steam. That's why they pulled games from Steam (like Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2) and made everything exclusive to Origin. It's also why they sold third-party games in the first-place. However, once they realized that exclusives wouldn't be enough to overthrow Steam, they gave up and just used Origin as a way to sell their own games. Epic will come to the same realization once they learn that people only use EGS for the exclusives and nothing else.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 22:44:
That's not a sustainable strategy and won't turn it into a Steam-killer (Origin has had permanent exclusives for years and still can't fill that role).

EA has never even begun to TRY to "kill" Steam. EA don't give much of a shit about the PC anyway. Their PC revenue has always been hovering about the ~15% mark of their total net revenue (16% for 2018). Their business is conslows.
And ever since EA has introduced their subscription program any comparisons with non-subscription stores/services are all but void anyway. Origin is no longer a "real" store (yes, you can still buy the games but that option is now almost "hidden" away behind the subscription stuff).

BTW, I don't think it would be or would have been hard to "kill" Steam at all if the big guys would have ever actually tried.
All it would take is e.g. EA, Ubi, Activision and Take2 to get together, pull their games from Steam and join forces on a newly created sales platform (maybe even the EGS).

I'm actually kind of baffled that they haven't already done that years ago. Of course they wouldn't "kill" Steam cuz Valve would do shit like release Half-Life 3 if they had to survive but if some of the big guys got togther they could have long established a very serious Steam competitor.

If I were Epic's Swim Teeny then I'd work more towards such joint ventures than spending so much on exclusivity deals.
Maybe he already has but the problem is that most of the big gigs only care about the conslows so they can't even be bothered. It's more convenient for them to just throw their games on Steam, grab a little extra revenue from PC sales and be done with it than to actually start a fight.

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 23:00:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 22:44:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 21:25:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:21:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:15:
I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.

Please clarify how EGS is going to strengthen PC gaming. So far, it's only weakened it.

For starters, Better terms for developers.
How has EGS weakened gaming?

EGS has no features.

I asked how EGA has weakened gaming.

No one is saying Epic is out to be a Steam killer, but if no one dares go up against Steam I don't see how that could possibly be good for the consumer.

As for the features you listed, how many were available when Steam launched?

I literally just gave you a long list of the ways EGS has weakened PC gaming. Did you even read my post..?

As for Steam's features at launch, yes, there were very few... in 2003. Valve had no precedent to work from. They were paving new ground. Epic, on the other hand, has plenty of reference for competitive analysis. They can just look at Steam, Uplay, Origin, XBL, PSN, etc, and see what basic features they all have in common. Nobody's expecting EGS to have feature parity with Steam at launch. However, we are expecting EGS to have basic shit like shopping carts, cloud saves and achievements. EGS doesn't even show you how much space a game requires when you install it.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 22:44:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 21:25:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:21:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:15:
I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.

Please clarify how EGS is going to strengthen PC gaming. So far, it's only weakened it.

For starters, Better terms for developers.
How has EGS weakened gaming?

EGS has no features.

I asked how EGA has weakened gaming.

No one is saying Epic is out to be a Steam killer, but if no one dares go up against Steam I don't see how that could possibly be good for the consumer.

As for the features you listed, how many were available when Steam launched?

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 21:25:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:21:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:15:
I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.

Please clarify how EGS is going to strengthen PC gaming. So far, it's only weakened it.

For starters, Better terms for developers.

How has EGS weakened gaming?

EGS has no features. Regardless of your anecdotes, there are plenty of people that make use of and enjoy Steam's features. Cloud saves, achievements, forums, user reviews, trading cards, mod support, groups, curators, discovery queues, built-in screenshot sharing, community guides, Steamplay, marketplace, broadcasts, universal controller support, Big Picture Mode, wishlists, shopping carts, Family Sharing... it's a long list. If I buy a game on Steam, I'm objectively getting more value for my money.

Then there's Valve's pro-consumer approach to competition. Valve lets publishers and developers generate and distribute Steam keys for free. They take a 0% cut from keys sold in this manner. This means games that use Steamworks can be sold on a wide variety of third-party storefronts like GMG, resulting in more competitive pricing. Conversely, EGS games are sold exclusively on EGS. Look up Metro Exodus on Isthereanydeal.com and then look up its predecessors. You'll notice a stark difference.

Finally, Steam supports far more regions than EGS. If you live in China, you can't use EGS. Games that are exclusive to EGS are unavailable to you. Even if your region is supported by EGS and you live outside of the U.S., you'll likely have to pay extra transaction and currency conversion fees because EGS doesn't cover those.

People keep touting that EGS is good because it provides competition. Competition is only good if it results in better service and pricing for customers. EGS provides neither. Steam has had competitors ever since it launched. Impulse, Direct2Drive, Gamefly, Gamestop, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, Battle.net, GFWL, Windows Store, Bethesda.net, GOG, Desura, Itch.io... Steam has stayed on top because it provides objectively superior service, selection and pricing. EGS is vastly inferior in those regards and relies entirely on timed exclusives to draw any kind of audience. That's not a sustainable strategy and won't turn it into a Steam-killer (Origin has had permanent exclusives for years and still can't fill that role).

StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 21:19:
I only play singleplayer games, and I do it with Steam either offline or logged out of friends, and with the in-game interface off. So there's literally nothing it offers me other than DRM. I get that some people love it though, so whatevs... it sucked at the start though, and took some time to get okay. Who's to say Epic can't do the same thing?

I think the monopoly concerns are more important than the patience needed for Epic to improve its client, in other words. Though for a game like Borderlands I'll admit the online features being sorted out is a bigger deal.

See my response above. I'm similar to you in that I only play single-player games however I make use of many of Steam's features. I often play games at work, for example, and cloud saves are incredibly convenient for that. I like trading cards because I can sell them for store credit. I like forums because they're a good place to find info on bugs and other obscure issues. I like user reviews because they provide a good sense of a game's overall quality.

The concerns over Steam being a monopoly have no basis in reality. There are plenty of games that aren't available on Steam (Blizzard's games, EA's games, Epic's games, etc). Some of the most popular games in the world aren't on Steam (like Fortnite, LoL, Minecraft, WoW, Overwatch and Crossfire). There's nothing forcing developers or publishers to use Steam. They use Steam because that's what the majority of customers want. Steam gained the biggest user base because it provided the best service, selection and pricing. Even if Steam were actually a monopoly, that wouldn't change.

This comment was edited on Apr 7, 2019, 22:59.

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 6, 2019, 23:07:

Many people around here are gaming addicts who are very easily seduced by hype and flashy trailers. They can't NOT preorder a hyped game or buy it on release day. Many folks have zero self control or restraint.

I'm sometimes wondering whether they are actually more annoyed about their own addiction issues or really about the actual exclusivity.
I'm sure it's the former for most because they somehow feel "forced" to buy it on EGS regardless of their resentments.

They simply can't NOT buy the game on release because it would make them feel like an inferior being if they didn't play the game at the same time as "everyone else" does.
They have to be among the ones to discover and experience it "first"... which is all but an illusion, of course, when millions are playing the game simultaneously.

Oh well... to each their own but it'd be great if people were more honest with themselves by admitting that they are the problem and not the EGS exclusivity.

I don't think you could have been more bang on with this. I'm angry at gamers being so fucking stupid that they preorder shit in an age where there's no reason to... Pre-orders used to be because physical copies at midnight weren't guaranteed... Now it's all digital downloads

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:21:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:15:
I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.

Please clarify how EGS is going to strengthen PC gaming. So far, it's only weakened it.

For starters, Better terms for developers.

How has EGS weakened gaming?

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:10:
If Steam was garbage, I'd agree with you. However, over the past 15 years, Steam has become the most fully featured and customer-centric platform in existence. Valve has only made PC gaming better. One could argue that they saved PC gaming when things were looking bleak during the 360/PS3 generation (the same generation where Epic jumped ship to Xbox and blamed it on PC piracy).

I only play singleplayer games, and I do it with Steam either offline or logged out of friends, and with the in-game interface off. So there's literally nothing it offers me other than DRM. I get that some people love it though, so whatevs... it sucked at the start though, and took some time to get okay. Who's to say Epic can't do the same thing?

I think the monopoly concerns are more important than the patience needed for Epic to improve its client, in other words. Though for a game like Borderlands I'll admit the online features being sorted out is a bigger deal.

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 6, 2019, 23:17:

Mordhaus wrote on Apr 6, 2019, 22:08:
Doesn't matter. I don't buy games from companies that do exclusives. I still won't buy EA games, and now any game that goes exclusive with Epic. I will buy from GOG and Steam when and if the games become available there.

Wat?!?

Which is it now... you buy the games or you don't?

And if you do: Why the hell would you buy from Steam out of all places then? Steam is Valve's exclusive publishing platform. They have never released a single one of their games outside Steam (contrary to EA or Epic who have many of their older games on GOG and/or Steam). Valve/Steam have all but invented digital store exclusivity. Among the big stores they are also the last bastion of exclusivity. Even Blizztard are selling Diablo and ancient Warcraft games on GOG now. Valve? Nope. 100% Steam exclusivity of their games to this day.

Your reasoning makes zero sense. I mean, just admit you hate Epic and be done with it but pulling nonsensical reasons outta your ass makes ya look kinda foolish bruh!

Valve released their games other than the multiplayer shooters on a disk, or did you forget the orange box? Blizzard still maintains exclusivity on all of it's newer games and THAT IS FINE!

Let me rephrase a bit, I don't give a damn if a company releases their own product on their platform. But when a company like EA buys up game studios and then forces them to stop releasing games on anything but the EA store, that means they lose my business. When a company like Epic starts doing console shit like buying up exclusive rights to games, they lose my business.

The developers might still get my money, ONCE the exclusive access is pulled, but it will be through another store, not Epic.

Epic is of the same mindset as EA, games as a service not as a standalone game. Sadly this is a direction that a lot of companies are going in, but most of them aren't buying up exclusive rights to games I've been wanting to play since they were announced.

Sorry if that doesn't makes sense to you. Hopefully you understand now that I've clarified, because I don't think I could break it down to a lower common denominator than grade school intelligence.

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:15:
I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.

Please clarify how EGS is going to strengthen PC gaming. So far, it's only weakened it.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 19:10:

StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 16:16:

Razumen wrote on Apr 7, 2019, 09:40:
And exclusives don't belong on PC. They're not good competition for consumers, and they're not good for the market.

It's also not good for the market to have one company, Valve, largely control distribution and DRM. I'm not a big fan of Epic not selling keys elsewhere, but them offering a real rival to Steamworks and using exclusives to get entrenched consumers to branch out is probably a good thing in the long run, honestly. It's gonna be rough for a while with Epic's client needing improvements and features, but 10 years from now we'll probably be glad Steam didn't rule everything forever. That's my view anyway.

I wish everything was DRM free on GOG, but it's not a perfect world.

If Steam was garbage, I'd agree with you. However, over the past 15 years, Steam has become the most fully featured and customer-centric platform in existence. Valve has only made PC gaming better. One could argue that they saved PC gaming when things were looking bleak during the 360/PS3 generation (the same generation where Epic jumped ship to Xbox and blamed it on PC piracy).

EGS has done absolutely nothing to benefit consumers in any way. The platform has no features and timed third-party exclusives only serve to hurt customers.

I'm willing to wait 15 years for the Epic Store to catch up to Steams features, of which off the top of my head I can't think of any I use. I must be one of those rare gamers who buys a game and plays it.
Epic's store is only going to strengthen gaming.