Ultimately, ownership of digital items should be a universal notion, independent of stores and platforms. So much of the digital world today is frustrated by powerful intermediaries whose toll booths obstruct open commerce to keep customers and their purchases locked in.
roguebanshee wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 08:23:Well, depending on the number of games which qualify for that rating, I might actually agree. I mean I'm a gamer and have been since before personal computers were a thing. There are certainly many thousands of games available on the various platforms which hold no interest for me. I've owned my share, but I'm not like some here with literally 500+ games in my Steam library. That said, I realize there are many games which I have no interest in which are excellent, well made games. Different strokes for different folks.
No, I'm saying that 99.99% of AAA games aren't worth my money or time.
roguebanshee wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 08:23:
No, I'm saying that 99.99% of AAA games aren't worth my money or time.
jdreyer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 16:03:Cutter wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 19:15:jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Yes, but he's engaging in and promoting anti-consumerist behavior. That's like letting Hitler skate by saying, 'Well, people didn't have to join the Nazis.' You don't need running shoes to run but they sure fucking help.
Neither of your analogies really describes the situation.
jdreyer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 16:02:Kxmode wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 13:58:Then they can choose Steam. My point is that the publishers are choosing, not Epic.jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Actually, no it's not up to publishers according to an email from an Epic Store rep. "We aren't in a position yet to open the store up to games that simship." That is an absolute lie because they allowed it for Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2. As the developer rightly said: "I wish there wasn't a double standard and indie developers were given an equal opportunity to sell their games across multiple storefronts, so the players can enjoy what they seem to want the most: a choice." That's precisely the opposite of what Tim is tweeting. What he says doesn't reflect the actions or values of his company. All that matters is WHAT Epic Games does. Based on their activities since launching their store, they are in no position to use "universal ownership" until they've earned it.![]()
jdreyer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 16:03:Cutter wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 19:15:jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Yes, but he's engaging in and promoting anti-consumerist behavior. That's like letting Hitler skate by saying, 'Well, people didn't have to join the Nazis.' You don't need running shoes to run but they sure fucking help.
Neither of your analogies really describes the situation.
Cutter wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 19:15:jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Yes, but he's engaging in and promoting anti-consumerist behavior. That's like letting Hitler skate by saying, 'Well, people didn't have to join the Nazis.' You don't need running shoes to run but they sure fucking help.
Kxmode wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 13:58:Then they can choose Steam. My point is that the publishers are choosing, not Epic.jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Actually, no it's not up to publishers according to an email from an Epic Store rep. "We aren't in a position yet to open the store up to games that simship." That is an absolute lie because they allowed it for Cyberpunk 2077 and Red Dead Redemption 2. As the developer rightly said: "I wish there wasn't a double standard and indie developers were given an equal opportunity to sell their games across multiple storefronts, so the players can enjoy what they seem to want the most: a choice." That's precisely the opposite of what Tim is tweeting. What he says doesn't reflect the actions or values of his company. All that matters is WHAT Epic Games does. Based on their activities since launching their store, they are in no position to use "universal ownership" until they've earned it.![]()
jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.
Darks wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 16:29:Silent Bob wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:38:Avus wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 12:26:
I definitely worry Epic game store will go out of business MUCH MORE than Steam.
It’s interesting. For Valve, Steam is the endless stream of revenue that drives the rest of their business. It’s also allowed them to make enough mistakes that would have shut down most other companies. Or forced them into a buyout.
For Epic, it’s Fortnite and that revenue won’t last forever. So the clock is ticking for them to take enough of Steam’s market share to generate a sustainable profit.
I really wonder what the conversion rate of a game that was exclusive on EGS, and people who bought it there actually moved over to Steam once it became available. I'm betting a lot! And I know a few people who have done exactly that!
I know what the argument here could be, that they already got their slice of the pie from the sale, but the real problem is, they cant maintain that slice of the pie if you keep loosing out to Steam, the preferred platform.
RedEye9 wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:18:No, Sweeney is suggesting a better way for his company. When you are a wealthy, but medium-sized, competitor against an industry leader, without as much cash on hand but with a loyal fan-base, what would you attack? The loyalty.Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:10:The de facto Monopoly makes the rules.Jonjonz wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 06:36:
This is laughable coming from one of the industries main proponents of "games as a service."
Is it incompatible? Fortnite is his plan for games as a service. People own Fortnite.
Anyway, I read what Sweeney is saying is to change the rules. Epic is playing by the current rules, but wants new rules. They do not feel confident in being able to start a new business and create new rules, but they'd like the end-state to be new rules.
Unless there is huge consumer demand, changing the rules as an entrant is new impossible. Changing the rules when you're competing with someone that has a >80% share is also near impossible, again, unless consumers are going to choose you vs the incumbent due to those new rules. I think GOG proves that this isn't true, as GOG is a fraction of a percent the size of Steam despite no DRM.
I'm glad Mr. Sweeney is suggesting that there is a better way for the consumer.
Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:10:The de facto Monopoly makes the rules.Jonjonz wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 06:36:
This is laughable coming from one of the industries main proponents of "games as a service."
Is it incompatible? Fortnite is his plan for games as a service. People own Fortnite.
Anyway, I read what Sweeney is saying is to change the rules. Epic is playing by the current rules, but wants new rules. They do not feel confident in being able to start a new business and create new rules, but they'd like the end-state to be new rules.
Unless there is huge consumer demand, changing the rules as an entrant is new impossible. Changing the rules when you're competing with someone that has a >80% share is also near impossible, again, unless consumers are going to choose you vs the incumbent due to those new rules. I think GOG proves that this isn't true, as GOG is a fraction of a percent the size of Steam despite no DRM.
Jonjonz wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 06:36:
This is laughable coming from one of the industries main proponents of "games as a service."
wtf_man wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:24:No, I'm saying that 99.99% of AAA games aren't worth my money or time.roguebanshee wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 14:46:wtf_man wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 12:49:Since I haven't purchased any AAA titles on EGS (or on any other platform in the last couple of years), the AAA games I have on EGS are limited to the various freebies.roguebanshee wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 11:49:
For a solid portion of EGS titles (over half the titles I've grabbed through the weekly freebies), the EGS launcher can be ignored after installation.
I've seen this expressed before in another thread... but never got my subsequent questions answered.
* How many of those "over 50% EGS Titles" that can allegedly ignore the launcher are AAA games that have all forms of DRM removed? (Not Indies)
* Do they clearly state that the launcher is not required on the game's page? (Before I buy)
Of those, the Batman games (LEGO and Arkham) all run without EGS and the Ubisoft titles require Uplay login (like they do everywhere else),
So, you are basically saying that my chances of finding a DRM-Free AAA game that is not already on GOG is slim to none? Sign me up!![]()
Simon Says wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 21:58:
Advocates for something, ownership should be universal, so all games should be available on all stores, while doing the exact opposite, RL going Crap Store exclusive from now on... AGAIN.
Don't gauge someone by what he says, look at what HE DOES.
If you're still fooled by the Epicly Crappy Store and this guy after all the saying one thing while doing exactly the opposite... I really don't know what to say to you at this point. I give up.
jdreyer wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 18:01:Kxmode wrote on Jul 22, 2020, 13:36:
With all due respect, Mr. Sweeney. You're the last person to talk about "universal ownership." If you genuinely believe in it, you can put your words into action by making all your store exclusives no longer exclusive. All this lip service is nothing more than PR. Anyone interested in using your store would've signed up by now. Continuing to hold third-party games hostage on your platform isn't going to change people's minds now. Please do the right thing by releasing publishers from their exclusivity contracts. Then focus on making your store as good or better than Steam. Only then will your platform succeed.
It's not up to Sweeney to make games exclusive or not. That's the publishers. If they don't want to sell exclusively on Epic, they'll reject Sweeney's offers. Publishers are the people you really should be complaining about.