Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:

Op Ed

Kotaku - Why People Are So Mad About The Epic Games Store.
"This is not to say that Valve has cheated in some deliberately nefarious way by succeeding. Rather, the point is that, as Twitch streamer and personality Casey Explosion explained on Twitter, there’s no such thing as fair competition at the scale Valve and Epic are operating on. The great equalizer (or un-equalizer, as it were) is, as ever, money. That’s infuriating to realize. It is the colossal bummer at the heart of capitalism. This has been like razor blades for Steam users to swallow because it seems to have been effective. Last month, Epic said that Metro Exodus sold two and a half times as many copies at launch as its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, did on Steam. It’s not just that Epic is using tactics that are perceived as “unfair.” It’s that those tactics are working."

View
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

42. Re: Op Ed Apr 16, 2019, 17:45 RedEye9
 
Ace33 wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 17:29:
grudgebearer wrote on Apr 15, 2019, 09:58:
Except that Valve doesn't force anyone to only sell their games on their storefront,

Valve launched steam by stealing half-life ...
Who did Valve "steal" half-life from?
The internet has single handedly given game publishers/devs control over game software they are taking money for.
Sounds serious, someone should sue the Internet.
 
Avatar 58135
 
“Yeah, I’d like to order one large phone with extra phones, please.” “Cell phone. No-no-no-no, rotary! And pay phone on half.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Op Ed Apr 16, 2019, 17:29 Ace33
 
grudgebearer wrote on Apr 15, 2019, 09:58:
Except that Valve doesn't force anyone to only sell their games on their storefront,

Valve launched steam by stealing half-life and CS let's remember, man forced server lock into games that were stand alone store bought games. The man pioneered undermining game ownership.

The last 20 years of gaming has been rampant theft and undermining of game ownership.

Diablo 3 --> always online drm
SC2 --> DRM

The internet has single handedly given game publishers/devs control over game software they are taking money for.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Op Ed Apr 15, 2019, 11:50 grudgebearer
 
RedEye9 wrote on Apr 15, 2019, 10:54:
grudgebearer wrote on Apr 15, 2019, 09:58:
Valve ... lets publishers/devs generate unlimited steam keys

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 23:30:
Devs/publishers definitely can NOT generate "as many keys as they want". Requests for large volumes of keys will be denied if the dev/publisher does not offer their Steam customers a good value.

The keys are also not meant to be sold cheaper in order to increase competition or lower prices. Valve explicitly says that "Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.".

Straight from the corresponding Steam page...

While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.

[...]

Steam keys shouldn't be sold in bulk. For example, you should not sell your game on sites that offer customers the option to purchase large numbers of copies of your game for a lower price. You should also not include your game in bundles on sites that allow customers to purchase multiple copies of the bundle for a lower price.

[...]

We reserve the right to deny requests for keys or revoke key requesting privileges for partners that are abusing them or disadvantaging Steam customers.

If we detect that you have requested an extreme number of keys and you aren't offering Steam customers a good value, we may deny your request.

We reserve the right to remove key requesting privileges from any partner whose sole business is selling Steam keys and not providing value or a fair deal to Steam customers.

NOTE: Requests for large amounts of keys will be manually reviewed by Valve before processing.

[...]

Please note that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

[...]

Q: Why was my key request denied?
A: Your request may have been denied due to the amount of keys requested. If we detect that you have requested an extreme number of keys and you aren't offering Steam customers a good value, we may deny your request.

Q: How many keys can I request?
A: You can request as many keys as you need, but your request will be reviewed on a case by case basis by Valve staff to make sure Steam customers are being treated fairly and keys are not being abused.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 22:51:
Another difference is that Sony, MS and Nintendo all charge a subscription fee if you want to get basic functionality like multiplayer support. Hell, Sony even charges for cloud saves. Steam offers far more functionality at zero cost to customers.

It's hardly zero cost. You are paying with your data. Every mouse click, every move of the mouse and every keyboard stroke is monitored by Steam. They monitor everything regarding your gaming and shopping habits. Every tiny little detail.



You are being unfairly disingenuous in your characterization of Valve's policy regarding bulk steam keys.

"We’re trying to look more closely at extreme examples of products on Steam that don’t seem to be providing actual value as playable games — for instance, when a game has sold 100 units, has mostly negative reviews, but requests 500,000 Steam keys,” said Valve. “We’re not interested in supporting trading card farming or bot networks at the expense of being able to provide value and service for players.”’

If we are denying keys for normal size batches it’s likely because your Steam sales don’t reflect a need for as many keys as you’re distributing, and you’re probably asking for more keys because you’re offering cheaper options off Steam and yet we are bearing the costs. So at some point we start deciding that the value you’re bringing to Steam isn’t worth the cost to us.

For example, say you’ve sold a few thousand copies on Steam but have requested / activated 500K keys, then we are going to take a deeper look at your games, your sales, your costs, etc.


Valve confirms it may restrict issuing Steam keys, but only in ‘extreme examples’
 
Avatar 17580
 
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishfull thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
-Robert Heinlein
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Op Ed Apr 15, 2019, 10:54 RedEye9
 
grudgebearer wrote on Apr 15, 2019, 09:58:
Valve ... lets publishers/devs generate unlimited steam keys

CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 23:30:
Devs/publishers definitely can NOT generate "as many keys as they want". Requests for large volumes of keys will be denied if the dev/publisher does not offer their Steam customers a good value.

The keys are also not meant to be sold cheaper in order to increase competition or lower prices. Valve explicitly says that "Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.".

Straight from the corresponding Steam page...

While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.

[...]

Steam keys shouldn't be sold in bulk. For example, you should not sell your game on sites that offer customers the option to purchase large numbers of copies of your game for a lower price. You should also not include your game in bundles on sites that allow customers to purchase multiple copies of the bundle for a lower price.

[...]

We reserve the right to deny requests for keys or revoke key requesting privileges for partners that are abusing them or disadvantaging Steam customers.

If we detect that you have requested an extreme number of keys and you aren't offering Steam customers a good value, we may deny your request.

We reserve the right to remove key requesting privileges from any partner whose sole business is selling Steam keys and not providing value or a fair deal to Steam customers.

NOTE: Requests for large amounts of keys will be manually reviewed by Valve before processing.

[...]

Please note that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

[...]

Q: Why was my key request denied?
A: Your request may have been denied due to the amount of keys requested. If we detect that you have requested an extreme number of keys and you aren't offering Steam customers a good value, we may deny your request.

Q: How many keys can I request?
A: You can request as many keys as you need, but your request will be reviewed on a case by case basis by Valve staff to make sure Steam customers are being treated fairly and keys are not being abused.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 8, 2019, 22:51:
Another difference is that Sony, MS and Nintendo all charge a subscription fee if you want to get basic functionality like multiplayer support. Hell, Sony even charges for cloud saves. Steam offers far more functionality at zero cost to customers.

It's hardly zero cost. You are paying with your data. Every mouse click, every move of the mouse and every keyboard stroke is monitored by Steam. They monitor everything regarding your gaming and shopping habits. Every tiny little detail.

 
Avatar 58135
 
“Yeah, I’d like to order one large phone with extra phones, please.” “Cell phone. No-no-no-no, rotary! And pay phone on half.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Op Ed Apr 15, 2019, 09:58 grudgebearer
 
jdreyer wrote on Apr 10, 2019, 02:21:
Cutter wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 11:47:
So totally not surprised the bloggers of Kotaku don't understand the subject matter at hand. Capitalism ( a free market economy), at it's heart, is supposed to be a pro-consumer system. It guarentees competition which provides the best possible product and/or service at the best possible price. The EGS store exists because of anti-consumer practices which are legal thanks to Crony Capitalism, which isn't real Capitalism at all.Human history is rife with examples of why it's a bad thing. That's how empires fall.
Unregulated capitalism devolves to monopolies and exploitation. Valve is a defacto Monopoly, and there's little pro-consumer about that. Any competitor has a tiny fraction of Valve's massive share of the PC gaming market. EGS needed to do something radical to gain a toehold. It remains to be seen if they will be successful, but it's impossible to see them getting to a position to compete with Valve without taking their current actions.

Except that Valve doesn't force anyone to only sell their games on their storefront, lets publishers/devs generate unlimited steam keys, and doesn't take a cut from steam keys sold on third party sites, only the Steam store.

A de facto monopoly can only exist as long as the monopoly is providing a superior product that is in demand. Epic hasn't built a better store for consumers, they've just used exclusives to limit product availability.
 
Avatar 17580
 
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishfull thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
-Robert Heinlein
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. removed Apr 13, 2019, 00:18 Suppa7
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Apr 13, 2019, 12:57.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 23:48 Sepharo
 
Beamer wrote on Apr 10, 2019, 13:59:
Flatline wrote on Apr 10, 2019, 12:26:
Bhruic wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 20:33:
Flatline wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 12:44:
At the end of the day, vote with your money.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Like, why are you suggesting that there is some sort of mutual-exclusion between complaining about it verbally (or in written format in this case) and with your wallet? It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the market will respond to complaints if they are made loudly enough, so if you are trying to say that complaining is pointless, well, that's just not true. Voting with money is good, of course, but if they don't know why you are doing what you are doing with your money, then it loses a lot of its meaning.

This is beyond complaining though and has gone into conspiracy theory whining territory.

Plus, if you complain, and then go plunk down money on BL3, you actually do the worst of all possible outcomes and tell the vendor that you can be broken and that your complaining is meaningless. Negative feedback only works if EGS thinks that the feedback will reflect it's bottom line.

Since EGS's bottom line at this point is literally market share and not profitability, I'm not sure that whining is going to accomplish much.

I think that's my concern. People don't like it and don't want to buy it, fine, but it's the anger, as if EGS killed their dog, built a time machine and stole their mother from their father (then told them it's their fault), and will never, ever change.

I've never understood this tactic... hyperbole about supposed hyperbole.
You're the one saying it's equivalent to killing their pet, building a time machine and stealing their mother... You're the one making it a bigger deal than it is.
jackiechanwtf.jpg
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 18:27 Beamer
 
I think it's pretty clear, with people responding to the accusation that EGS is a monopoly, that the term is being used colloquially, and no one is expecting the government to break up Steam.

Sorry if you missed that.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 17:02 Eirikrautha
 
Steam on the other hand, is a defacto monopoly controlling 50 to 70 % of the market.

The fact that someone could post this with sincerity just shows that there is a sizable contingent of economic illiterates here on Blues. They are, not unexpectedly, also some of the loudest voices. Some of these threads could be veritable case studies in the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

First off, market share is never an absolute indicator of monopoly. There have been several, rather humorous, cases of US business sued under anti-trust legislation because of excessive market share (95+%) that were nearly out of business by the time the suit reached trial (a testament to both the economic realities and the glacial pace of the US court system). A basic, first-year course on economics would be enough to establish this.

Monopolies exist because of restrictions on the ability of market share to change. A company can have 100% of the market and not be a monopoly, as long as there are no outside forces that prevent other companies from entering the market. Even companies that have had 100% shares have failed, when technological or consumer changes have rendered the product obsolete. In short (for the commenters babbling above their intellectual weight-class): monopolies exist because of force. Either governmental or social forces that directly prevent other companies from creating competing products. The reason most people in the US are forced to endure monopolies or duopolies of power suppliers or cable suppliers have nothing to do with "capitalism" and everything to do with the enormous cost of entering the market, mostly due to government regulations. Without the force of government keeping others from competing, consumer options increase dramatically (see AT&T vs. the myriad of cellphone options today).

So, when some poster on here asserts that Steam is a monopoly, you can safely assume this person is an absolute moron. Because there is NO FORCE other than consumer choice sustaining their market share. No government agency, no "citizens' committee," no mafia don is preventing GOG, Ubisoft, EA, or Epic from starting their own distribution platform. Period. Anyone saying differently is writing in the sky, in letters 100 ft high, that they don't even know what the definition of a monopoly is, nor how basic economics works.

So read a damn book, you buffoons. And Das Capital (and other flights of fancy) doesn't count...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 13:59 Beamer
 
Flatline wrote on Apr 10, 2019, 12:26:
Bhruic wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 20:33:
Flatline wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 12:44:
At the end of the day, vote with your money.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Like, why are you suggesting that there is some sort of mutual-exclusion between complaining about it verbally (or in written format in this case) and with your wallet? It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the market will respond to complaints if they are made loudly enough, so if you are trying to say that complaining is pointless, well, that's just not true. Voting with money is good, of course, but if they don't know why you are doing what you are doing with your money, then it loses a lot of its meaning.

This is beyond complaining though and has gone into conspiracy theory whining territory.

Plus, if you complain, and then go plunk down money on BL3, you actually do the worst of all possible outcomes and tell the vendor that you can be broken and that your complaining is meaningless. Negative feedback only works if EGS thinks that the feedback will reflect it's bottom line.

Since EGS's bottom line at this point is literally market share and not profitability, I'm not sure that whining is going to accomplish much.

I think that's my concern. People don't like it and don't want to buy it, fine, but it's the anger, as if EGS killed their dog, built a time machine and stole their mother from their father (then told them it's their fault), and will never, ever change.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 12:57 Flatline
 
Spektr wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 17:57:
Well there are very good reasons. Unlike Store exclusives, there is a legitimate reason to make a console exclusive, and this is why people are not against them. Making a console port or developing a game on several platforms costs money. It requires people to actually work on it and invest money. Well more platforms also mean more income but a game is never ensured to sell well on a new platform whereas if Sony pays a game studio not to make that port it's sure money and getting paid for doing nothing is always good for a company. And they can create a new game for the platform, for the audience who buy their game instead of having to conquer new markets.

Nah. Console exclusives by independent 3rd parties (I'm not talking about the MS era Bungie for example) are bets by console makers that a game is going to be so popular it will bring people into the console ecosystem. That's it. It's a market share thing, just like this. And the way devs work, having money on the table in advance is necessary for operations usually. Having a bunch more money on the table in advance is even better, so it's lucrative in that capacity.

And even with companies like MS era Bungie and Naughty Dog, those are generally long term contracts locked in by console makers to help establish a brand to bring people into the ecosystem. If you're going to tell me something like Halo on the Sony ecosystem or Uncharted on the xbox would be a "risk" that it wouldn't be profitable I'm going to laugh.

And while console exclusives on a technical level made a little more sense a generation or two ago with how weird the PS3 was to program for, these days both consoles use the same PC based architecture. That barrier is severely lowered.

Nah. It's all about market share. Just like EGS.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 12:39 Flatline
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 16:42:
Jesus, you don't know the first thing about economics. Monopolies are anti-consumer, terribly inefficient and stifle innovation that's why they're ILLEGAL. That's why ANTI-TRUST laws exist. If you don't understand the subject matter at hand don't say anything. Better to be suspected the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Obviously no economic system works practically the way it does in theory which is why the Capitalism we have is just as bad a failure as the Communist systems that were tried. It always comes down to Goldilocks, not too hot, not too cold, but just right. And that's why social democracies are the best systems. You can be rich, you can even be a billionaire you just actually end up paying your fucking fair share like everyone else. Epic is anti-consumer, period. You want to support them? That's your choice but don't cry about what a shitty world we live in when its shitty precisely because of hypocrites like you.

I'm reminded of why I shouldn't play chess with pigeons.

Monopolies are efficient within a free market. They're bad for a consumer but for the seller they are the ideal state since not only do they not have to compete, at a certain point, due to market share, competition is next to impossible. We make *some* monopolies illegal because the market drifts towards them and it's obvious that it's harmful to the consumer, not because it's a shitty state for the market to be in.

That EGS has to resort to basically offering a subsidy to publishers in order to build market share actually speaks to Valve being the real monopoly in this market. Which is why you're so funny. You're so irrationally angry over this that you're defending a multi-billion dollar company that's had a 10 year monopoly on digital distribution because it's more convenient for you to keep your games in one launcher- aka more efficient (gasp! there's that word again!)

And what hypocrisy am I guilty of? I'm the one calling bullshit on this. The overall state of the PC game industry is not going to change because of this. As so many people have said, Epic's subsidy practice won't last once it gets past a certain market share, and either Epic will compete at that point or it'll just fade into another niche market that nobody uses.

I don't even know *what* you're afraid will happen here. Just that things will get shittier in some weird vague way. Which like, yeah, we live in a capitalist economy that fetishizes wealth and the seller, so it's generally a safe bet on "things will get shittier", but as far as some direct Causal effect I'm just not there. You're arguing that the subsidies and timed exclusives will somehow damage the industry but that at the same time the subsidies and timed exclusives won't last long because it's not sustainable. You're so driven by outrage that like... you aren't actually making an argument. Aside from you personally hate Epic, it's just wharrgarbl.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 12:26 Flatline
 
Bhruic wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 20:33:
Flatline wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 12:44:
At the end of the day, vote with your money.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Like, why are you suggesting that there is some sort of mutual-exclusion between complaining about it verbally (or in written format in this case) and with your wallet? It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the market will respond to complaints if they are made loudly enough, so if you are trying to say that complaining is pointless, well, that's just not true. Voting with money is good, of course, but if they don't know why you are doing what you are doing with your money, then it loses a lot of its meaning.

This is beyond complaining though and has gone into conspiracy theory whining territory.

Plus, if you complain, and then go plunk down money on BL3, you actually do the worst of all possible outcomes and tell the vendor that you can be broken and that your complaining is meaningless. Negative feedback only works if EGS thinks that the feedback will reflect it's bottom line.

Since EGS's bottom line at this point is literally market share and not profitability, I'm not sure that whining is going to accomplish much.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 08:38 Creston
 
Bhruic wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 20:33:
Flatline wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 12:44:
At the end of the day, vote with your money.

I don't understand why we can't do both. Like, why are you suggesting that there is some sort of mutual-exclusion between complaining about it verbally (or in written format in this case) and with your wallet? It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the market will respond to complaints if they are made loudly enough, so if you are trying to say that complaining is pointless, well, that's just not true. Voting with money is good, of course, but if they don't know why you are doing what you are doing with your money, then it loses a lot of its meaning.

True, but on the flipside, it's not as if anyone from any publisher reads these forums. If you truly want to complain about it, you need to send it directly to 2K and whomever, preferably for attention of their marketing people. Or complain on Reddit or something, which they DO read.

It's also important to note that many discussions here take place during people's workdays. If I didn't have some dead time during a workday to muse about PC gaming, I sure as hell wouldn't bother writing semi-long essays about the pros and mostly cons of Epic's behavior.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 04:02 Sepharo
 
jdreyer wrote on Apr 10, 2019, 02:43:
No, Cutter. EGS is not practicing monopolistic policies. In economics, it's called differentiation. Steam on the other hand, is a defacto monopoly controlling 50 to 70 % of the market. While Steam has been largely a benevolent dictator, it's definitely not a free market, and has little competition.

I'd imagine the percentage has fallen a lot since that article was written.
It seems like it's only been in the past few years that many of the other platforms, namely the publisher specific ones like battle.net, origin, bethesda, uplay have expanded their libraries and usage... a lot of it by simply pulling or not offering future games on Steam.

Not that Steam still isn't the behemoth, but that the number probably falls closer to the lower end of that range than it did in 2017.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 02:43 jdreyer
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 16:42:
Flatline wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 12:44:
Cutter wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 11:47:
So totally not surprised the bloggers of Kotaku don't understand the subject matter at hand. Capitalism ( a free market economy), at it's heart, is supposed to be a pro-consumer system. It guarentees competition which provides the best possible product and/or service at the best possible price. The EGS store exists because of anti-consumer practices which are legal thanks to Crony Capitalism, which isn't real Capitalism at all.Human history is rife with examples of why it's a bad thing. That's how empires fall.

Unless your Apple, and then you become one of the most valuable companies on earth by running a monopolized walled garden.

This is silly folks. The real narrative of the EGS seems to be that Epic and Deep Silver pulled a fucked up exclusivity deal two weeks before drop which is blatantly bullshit. And that's understandable. But now that they've announced a BL exclusive time frame for a year at the same time as the game announcement this is too much.

Valve is sitting on more money than god too right now. As of 2017 it looks like Valve is worth around 10-15 billion dollars. And Epic is worth, thanks to fortnite, about the same.

If Valve wants to compete it can. That it doesn't feel the *need* to compete, or even update it's business model at all, is pretty telling.

Also-
Capitalism ( a free market economy), at it's heart, is supposed to be a pro-consumer system.
is so fucking funny to read that I can't believe someone typed that in earnestness. There is no such thing as a free market economy. Even if you had a 100% laissez faire economy there still wouldn't be a "free market" as in Capitalist economic theory. We're monkeys and our monkey brains are wired with too many biases, shortcuts, and cognitive dissonances.

A completely free market drifts inevitably towards monopoly, because monopoly is efficient and the market reinforces efficiency.

I love the absurdness of this whole topic. It's goofy and funny to see people get their economic dander up because BL3 is going to be Epic exclusive for a year and scream that this is the end of competition. It's pretty fucking funny, especially since consoles have been doing 3rd party exclusives for decades and at this point nobody cares. Somehow the PC Master Race is different.

Whatever. While I can completely understand the anger over the fuckery of the Metro Exodus thing, this continued bitching about the BL3 exclusive is just silly, and the arguments are spinning up into cathedral like conspiracy theories and grand economic existential threats.

At the end of the day, vote with your money. I bet when BL3 drops many of the same people yelling about the conspiracies and anti-capitalist behavior and "unfair" competition is going to throw down their credit card and buy BL3 and love it.

Jesus, you don't know the first thing about economics. Monopolies are anti-consumer, terribly inefficient and stifle innovation that's why they're ILLEGAL. That's why ANTI-TRUST laws exist. If you don't understand the subject matter at hand don't say anything. Better to be suspected the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Obviously no economic system works practically the way it does in theory which is why the Capitalism we have is just as bad a failure as the Communist systems that were tried. It always comes down to Goldilocks, not too hot, not too cold, but just right. And that's why social democracies are the best systems. You can be rich, you can even be a billionaire you just actually end up paying your fucking fair share like everyone else. Epic is anti-consumer, period. You want to support them? That's your choice but don't cry about what a shitty world we live in when its shitty precisely because of hypocrites like you.


No, Cutter. EGS is not practicing monopolistic policies. In economics, it's called differentiation. Steam on the other hand, is a defacto monopoly controlling 50 to 70 % of the market. While Steam has been largely a benevolent dictator, it's definitely not a free market, and has little competition.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 02:26 jdreyer
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 15:14:
The anger at the EGS is completely misdirected. At the end of the day it is always the publisher who decides where/when/how a game gets published. THEY are the ones accepting and signing the exclusivity contracts. EGS is only making the publishers an offer. An offer they could very well refuse. But they don't refuse. They sign the deals.

All of the anger should therefore be directed towards the publishers of the games in question but for most simpletons it is probably easier to just hate on Epic because if they were consequential then they would have to boycott all of those publishers and their yummy yummy games that they absolutely MUST have, of course (gaming addiction is a very real problem for most EGS haters).

This reminds me a bit of the 1990s when the blame for selling out was always 100% directed at the evuuuuuhhhhlll publishers like EA while Garriott, Roberts, Molyneux etc. got a free pass for being sellouts.

The problem here lies with greedy publishers accepting the bribes and not with the EGS offering them. Epic can offer what they want all day. If no one would be signing their crap then there would be no exclusivity. Simple cause and effect. The greedy publishers are the culprits.
Leave your logic and common sense at the door, good sir. They have no place here.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Op Ed Apr 10, 2019, 02:21 jdreyer
 
Cutter wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 11:47:
So totally not surprised the bloggers of Kotaku don't understand the subject matter at hand. Capitalism ( a free market economy), at it's heart, is supposed to be a pro-consumer system. It guarentees competition which provides the best possible product and/or service at the best possible price. The EGS store exists because of anti-consumer practices which are legal thanks to Crony Capitalism, which isn't real Capitalism at all.Human history is rife with examples of why it's a bad thing. That's how empires fall.
Unregulated capitalism devolves to monopolies and exploitation. Valve is a defacto Monopoly, and there's little pro-consumer about that. Any competitor has a tiny fraction of Valve's massive share of the PC gaming market. EGS needed to do something radical to gain a toehold. It remains to be seen if they will be successful, but it's impossible to see them getting to a position to compete with Valve without taking their current actions.
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Op Ed Apr 9, 2019, 23:56 Jerykk
 
Bhruic wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 19:50:
CJ_Parker wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 15:14:
The anger at the EGS is completely misdirected. At the end of the day it is always the publisher who decides where/when/how a game gets published. THEY are the ones accepting and signing the exclusivity contracts. EGS is only making the publishers an offer. An offer they could very well refuse. But they don't refuse. They sign the deals.

I semi-agree, although I don't think Epic should be let off. Making the offer is just as odious as accepting it. But all those accepting it are definitely at fault here too. That's why I can't help but laugh at all the people saying that they are going to wait and buy the games on Steam when they come there. Yeah, I'm sure the publishers are crying over the fact you are going to reward them agreeing to exclusivity by telling them that you still plan to buy their game. That'll show them.

The blame goes to both Epic and the developer/publisher. In many cases, the dev/pub actually makes the offer to Epic, not vice versa. I'm sure they also make the offer to Valve. The key difference is that Valve turns down the offer while Epic signs immediately.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Op Ed Apr 9, 2019, 21:40 RedEye9
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 9, 2019, 21:28:
If you are in the business of making money, do you take a chance for less sales, or do you make sure you get ALL the sales.

Well, Deep Silver answered this question pretty clearly. Other publishers with their own platforms.. not so much.
It's a win win for the publishers, they get a big payout up-front and sales. Then a year from now they get ALL the rest of the sales.
So they win with ALL the sales plus a big payout.

Do you know why they did it this way, because they are in the business of making money.

 
Avatar 58135
 
“Yeah, I’d like to order one large phone with extra phones, please.” “Cell phone. No-no-no-no, rotary! And pay phone on half.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo