Jerykk wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 17:17:

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On one hand, it's impossible to release something that competes directly with Steam in features. Steam has a multi-billion dollar, decade-and-a-half head start. EA and Ubisoft did not launch something even remotely comparable, and neither did EGS. To expect this is, frankly, lunacy. It's just not realistic, and if you feel that the industry is better off with a Steam competitor, you have to accept warts and growing pains.

Nobody expected EGS to launch with feature parity to Steam. They expected it to launch with features standard to distribution platforms in 2018. Achievements and cloud saves, for example. That's far from unreasonable.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On the other hand, people probably would accept this, had they not been forced to use it for some games (though I'd wager most of the people complaining never would have purchased any of these games.) It's easier to accept growing pains and warts from something you're choosing to use, rather than something you're forced to use.

The "EGS critics wouldn't have bought those games anyway" claim isn't actually based on any semblance of fact. It's just a convenient deflection from legitimate criticisms about EGS' lackluster feature set, anti-consumer business strategies (i.e. timed exclusives) and limited currency and payment method support.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On to some third hand, but no one would use it. It's frankly stupid to use something inferior for "political" reasons, which is why the handful of rabid AMD fanboys we have here baffle me (it doesn't feel like any Intel fanboys remain, but AMD ones do. They're winning right now, though, because man, are those new chips something else.) EGS would just die if it didn't have a reason for people to use it, and building a reason is costly, risky, and time consuming. A better way to get your user count up is by offering something so compelling that developers come over exclusively. Often, this is done without being announced as such. EGS probably made a mistake by using the term so loudly.

A better way to get your user count up is to provide a valuable service to both developers, publishers AND consumers. EGS doesn't do that. Steam does. That's why developers and publishers choose to use Steamworks and make Steam exclusives without any financial incentive from Valve. It's also why consumers choose to buy games on Steam even when they're available from resellers and other platforms.

The question every company needs to ask itself is "why would customers use my platform instead of Steam?" Epic's answer is "because we don't give them any choice." That's not a good answer.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
And, on some Goro-esque 4th hand, this does lock people in, but it's a necessary evil. And as such, I just don't get why people so happily refer to it as evil, as in, some kind of Omen-esque scheme for putting people into involuntary servitude. To the point that you see outright lies, like "if you don't go exclusive, they won't sell you!" But that roadmap needs to move faster.

Why is it a "necessary" evil? What is it necessary for? Steam has had competitors since its inception. Direct2Drive, Gamefly, Impulse, Gamestop, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, GOG, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, Rockstar Game Store, Windows Store, etc. Plenty of companies have tried challenge Steam with their own digital distribution platforms. They just failed to supplant Steam as market leader. That failure doesn't mean they aren't competitors, however.

Also, the DARQ and Skatebird devs already confirmed that if you don't agree to an exclusivity or giveaway deal, EGS won't sell your game. Exceptions are made for the big, highly-anticipated AAA games like Cyberpunk and Bloodlines 2 but if you're a small indie dev, gg.