Kxmode wrote on Feb 21, 2021, 12:54:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 20, 2021, 20:55:
You see it your way. I see it my way. We can agree to disagree, and I vehemently disagree with your viewpoint.

I do appreciate our conversations, jdreyer. So please don't take my comment above in any other way but an amicable discussion.

Of course! You're one of my favorite people.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 20, 2021, 20:55:
You see it your way. I see it my way. We can agree to disagree, and I vehemently disagree with your viewpoint.

I do appreciate our conversations, jdreyer. So please don't take my comment above in any other way but an amicable discussion.

You see it your way. I see it my way. We can agree to disagree, and I vehemently disagree with your viewpoint.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 23:06:
Yup. Epic is using anti-consumer tactics to buy their userbase from Valve essentially. I've used "astroturfing" as an apt descriptor because at the end of the day, how loyal is a person to Epic if their loyalty only extends as far as the next freebie? Once the freebies stop, is that person going to convert into a buying consumer? I doubt it. Apples to apples: Steam offers more. Epic knows this. That's WHY they're doing exclusives because they know that their store is pitiful on merit alone. It's not even a minimum viable product. Basically, Google never designed the Chrome browser for launching games. That they somehow shoehorned in that functionality from a technology standpoint is pretty cool, but that's beside the point.

I keep explaining it to you, and you keep not understanding. I strongly suggest you take business and economics courses, as I have. This is capitalism. It's not "anti-consumer" and it's not illegal. It's done in every single industry. Complaining about it in gaming while ignoring every other instance where it happens is silly.

Also, the "freebies" are divorced from the exclusives. Don't conflate the two. The freebies are used to build brand awareness. The exclusives are differentiation.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 23:02:
Yup. Cars, spatulas, grills, toilet paper, milk, eggs, bread, pizza. All of these things have one thing in common: more than one company produces them. They are also known as brands.

More than one company produces RTS games too. Or space games.

For example, he keeps using cars as a comparison. By way of example, in the United States for trucks, you have Ford, Ram, Chevy, GMC, Jeep, and Toyota, so if a person needs to buy a truck, they have six brands to choose from. Now granted, a situation might come up that a person cannot get a Toyota truck, but they can get a Ford truck as an alternative. The point is they were able to buy "a truck."

If someone needs to buy a military shooter, they have several brands to choose from: Call of Duty, Battlefield, Crysis, Medal of Honor. Now granted, a situation might come up that a person cannot get Call of Duty for some reason, they can get Battlefield as an alternative. The point is they were able to buy a "military shooter."

The converse to that is that there are NO brands for video games. There's ONE Valheim (developed by Iron Gate, published by Coffee Stain). ONE World of Warcraft (developed and published by Activision-Blizzard). ONE League of Legends (developed and published by Riot). ONE Fortnite (developed and published by Epic). And so forth. So jdreyer saying a third-party exclusive on EGS (the only store where a person can purchase that game) is the same as six different trunk brands is not even remotely the same.

This argument holds no water. Developers are less prolific than car companies, but you know what to expect from a Rockstar game, a Codemasters game, a Call of Duty game, etc. Of course there are brands. There are developers, publishers, and franchises.

Just be cause you say "All other products are variations on a theme, but games are unique and special snowflakes!" doesn't make it true. I can only order pizza from Boston Pizza or my son won't eat it. I can't call up CPK and order a Boston Pizza from there. I have to call Boston Pizza.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 22:48:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 18:28:
Those are types of products. You can buy a "car" from any dealership (someone will decide to buy a Toyota versus a Ford). You can buy "Legos" from any retailer (someone will choose to buy a Star Wars playset from one store and another playset from another). You can only purchase third-party video game exclusives from ONE STORE: Epic Games Store. There's no CHOICE, nor is there an alternative. If you want to play a specific PC game, and it is sold exclusively at EGS, that's the only place to buy it. That's what anti-consumer choice means. Epic has taken away the consumer's ability to buy the game where they wish.

This makes no sense. There's no difference. You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

One could argue that the publisher chose to make their game exclusive to EGS, which is true. But it is equally valid that Epic's business modal of offering a ton of money to go exclusive is like the business equivalent of offering crack to a drug user. Of course, many businesses are going to take the offer (those who haven't, like the Darq developer, have done so for consumer-friendly reasons, and have been praised for their decision not to "sellout"). It is equally valid that Valve doesn't pay money to third-party publishers to go exclusive on Steam. A TP publisher decides to put their product on Steam free of influence, and should they decide to sell on GOG or EGS, Valve won't object. You take away Epic's impact, and the company is back to choosing the best platform to sell their game on. Most would pick Steam.

And if I could get a Stealth from Hyundai I would, because I would like that 10 year/100,000 mile warranty. But Hyundai doesn't sell the Stealth because they didn't pay for the rights to sell it. So I have to get it from Chrysler/Dodge if I want a Stealth. If I want a sports car with Hyundai's warranty, I'll have to get a Genesis or whatever. EGS did pay Tripwire for the rights to sell Chivalry 2, so I'll have to get it there and not Steam if I want to play it. If I want to play a medieval melee combat game on Steam, then I'll have to get Mordhau or Mount and Blade 2: Bannerlord or For Honor or whatever.

Further, I'm not talking about games (like AC Valhalla) where consumers choose to buy from different stores. I'm talking about genuine exclusives where one store is the ONLY choice.

For example?

Feel free to skip to "Here's the point" if you understand first-party versus third-party exclusives. I include it because it provides background context to help reinforce my point. :)

I mean, I just walked through the difference in the comment you quoted, but okay. 1P: L4D2 vs Corvette, 3P: Stealth vs Chivalry 2. Remember?

Based on what store sells a game, it is either first-party or third-party. If the publisher sells it on their store, it's first-party. The publisher spends the money to produce the product, and they want to sell it in their store, which is fine. Epic does it for PC Fortnite; Valve does it for their products; Blizzard does it for their products; EA does it in Origin. Nobody has a problem with that. There's a mutual understanding that first-party exclusivity is something that has been around since the dawn of video games.

What difference does it make if the publisher has it made in-house or if they acquire it otherwise? The result is the same. It's only sold in one place.
"It matters!"
"Why does it matter?"
"Because it matters!"
That's circular logic.

However, if the publisher sells their product on a store that they do not own, it's third-party. Since the beginning of PC gaming, there have NEVER been third-party exclusives before EGS. That's a fact. Manipulation by money to pick one storefront to sell a game on is something Tim Sweeney and his company introduced in late 2018 with the launch of EGS. That's a fact.

IIRC, both Toys-R-Us and Gamestop had PC exclusives back in the aughts. No one complained then.

PC video games aren't cars, toasters, screwdrivers, hammers, toilet paper, eggs, cereal, and so forth because different companies manufacture them. There are five toaster brands and toilet paper from seven companies when you shop at Target or Walmart. Eggs take up an entire display case, all produced by various companies. A person can buy a truck from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and so forth. Right? Those products exclusively sold at a car dealership or in a grocery store are "brand" based. So if I want eggs or toilet paper and this one store only carries this one brand, my reaction is, "I don't care, I'll just pick up this company's toilet paper and eggs." Or, I need a truck, and the dealership only sells Toyotas. "Fine. I'll buy a Toyota truck. I don't care what brand it is."

The converse to that is there are no brands for video games. There's only ONE company that created and published that ONE version of the game. And if that game is sold exclusively at EGS, that's the only store on the entire Internet where you can buy it.

It's not the same as cars, Legos, toasters, toilet paper, eggs, and so forth. Stop conflating video games with other consumer products. They are not the same.

Just because you say it's not the same doesn't make it so. It's exactly the same. It's a product. People don't say "I'll buy a Toyota Truck." They say "I'm going to buy a Tacoma." Because Tacomas have excellent design and reliability, so they have loyal buyers over the decades and fan clubs. Toilet paper is the same: some people only buy Charmin because of its unique qualities, and buy no other brand. It's the same with video games. CoD is a military shooter, just a like a Tacoma is a truck. There are lots of military shooters: CoD, BF, MoH, etc. just like there are lots of trucks: Tacoma, Ram, F-150, etc. Some people prefer specific ones. The attitude you're talking about might apply to a Russian who stepped off the boat from the USSR in 1990, but no one thinks that way today "a truck is a truck is a truck. Who cares?" No one thinks like that. People develop brand loyalty and prefer those brands. Games are no different.

Lego makes brick sets, Tripwire makes games. There are Lego sets that are sold exclusively at Walmart, and there's a Tripwire game sold exclusively at EGS. Same. Exact. Thing.
If you don't like Legos, then let's go with movies. Hulu picked up the Adam Sanberg/Max Barbakow comedy Palm Springs. It can only be watched on Hulu. Not Netflix. Not Prime Video. Not Apple TV or HBO. However, there are lots of other comedies on those streaming services you can watch that aren't Palm Springs. Just like there are lots of other medieval melee combat games you can buy from other game services that aren't Chivalry 2 which is only available on EGS. Differentiation.

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 12:18:

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:57:

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
What would you prefer Epic do to get customers? What levers would you have them pull?

Provide a superior product/experience. To be fair, Steam has been around much longer, so "superior" might be a bit unfair at this point. How about just "competent" and not a minimum viable product? However, "experience" isn't confined to just the launcher/website features/interaction, they can provide incentives for customer acquisition. For example, they already have the "buy a game, get a coupon for $10 on the next purchase" dealie (though I think it's only available during sales?). I'm not going to do Epic's job for them to come up with this stuff, I believe you get the idea. They should concentrate on providing a product/service that is attractive to users. Buying their way into a market by brute-force with exclusives may be a viable business strategy, but it's shady and turns a lot of people off.

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
And ask yourself, honestly, if you'd switch from the ecosystem you've been using for 17 years, with all your games, all your contacts, etc., with the options you're suggesting.

I have no particular loyalty to a specific store/ecosystem, and I have no issues purchasing games from and using most of them. I suspect that most others who don't agree with these practices feel the same. If Epic would actually compete by putting in even the slightest effort instead of behaving like a spoiled rich kid who needs to throw their money around to get everything everyone else has right now, I would have no issue giving them my money.

Even if EGS hit parity with Steam, you think you'd go there? You already have Steam installed on your computer. You already have a large library of games on it. You have friends, you have screenshots, you have achievements, you have cards that got crafted or whatever stuff they've done in sales. You have all your time spent in games. Everything in one place.

Getting someone to switch from that is near impossible. Parity alone does not do it. Not to mention, Steam has had 17 years to build its features, along with billions upon billions of revenue to reinvest.

You complain about a "spoiled rich kid," but can't give a single real reason why anyone would go to them instead of Steam if they simply had parity, and you also seem to misunderstand how hard it is to get to parity. I'm not asking you to do they're job, I'm asking you to give a suggestion for how they beat Steam if they are selling the same exact products at the same exact prices (remember, retailers don't control the pricing on these storefronts) with Steam having a 17 year head start.

Yup. Epic is using anti-consumer tactics to buy their userbase from Valve essentially. I've used "astroturfing" as an apt descriptor because at the end of the day, how loyal is a person to Epic if their loyalty only extends as far as the next freebie? Once the freebies stop, is that person going to convert into a buying consumer? I doubt it. Apples to apples: Steam offers more. Epic knows this. That's WHY they're doing exclusives because they know that their store is pitiful on merit alone. It's not even a minimum viable product. Basically, Google never designed the Chrome browser for launching games. That they somehow shoehorned in that functionality from a technology standpoint is pretty cool, but that's beside the point.

This comment was edited on Feb 18, 2021, 23:21.

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 09:45:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:
You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

You keep comparing 3rd party exclusivity to 1st party exclusivity. They're not the same thing and it's a bad analogy.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 03:08:
This is a common practice across many retail industries. It's called "differentiation" and lets retailers offer something unique that can draw customers. It's such a long standing and important practice that it's enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8. That defines copyrights and patents, and lets the holder of said rights determine whether their goods and works can be sold by a single retailer or many. It's the opposite of "anti-competition." It's pro-competition.

Ok? No one is claiming what EGS is doing illegal or "anti-competition". They (and by extension the publishers) are, however, being anti-consumer/customer and it's a shitty thing to do, especially considering the sorry state of the EGS.

It seems that most who are against this are in favor of competition, but disagree with EGS's methods. Calling what they're doing as "competition" is a bit of a stretch.

Yup. Cars, spatulas, grills, toilet paper, milk, eggs, bread, pizza. All of these things have one thing in common: more than one company produces them. They are also known as brands. For example, he keeps using cars as a comparison. By way of example, in the United States for trucks, you have Ford, Ram, Chevy, GMC, Jeep, and Toyota, so if a person needs to buy a truck, they have six brands to choose from. Now granted, a situation might come up that a person cannot get a Toyota truck, but they can get a Ford truck as an alternative. The point is they were able to buy "a truck."

The converse to that is that there are NO brands for video games. There's ONE Valheim (developed by Iron Gate, published by Coffee Stain). ONE World of Warcraft (developed and published by Activision-Blizzard). ONE League of Legends (developed and published by Riot). ONE Fortnite (developed and published by Epic). And so forth. So jdreyer saying a third-party exclusive on EGS (the only store where a person can purchase that game) is the same as six different trunk brands is not even remotely the same.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 18:28:
Those are types of products. You can buy a "car" from any dealership (someone will decide to buy a Toyota versus a Ford). You can buy "Legos" from any retailer (someone will choose to buy a Star Wars playset from one store and another playset from another). You can only purchase third-party video game exclusives from ONE STORE: Epic Games Store. There's no CHOICE, nor is there an alternative. If you want to play a specific PC game, and it is sold exclusively at EGS, that's the only place to buy it. That's what anti-consumer choice means. Epic has taken away the consumer's ability to buy the game where they wish.

This makes no sense. There's no difference. You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

One could argue that the publisher chose to make their game exclusive to EGS, which is true. But it is equally valid that Epic's business modal of offering a ton of money to go exclusive is like the business equivalent of offering crack to a drug user. Of course, many businesses are going to take the offer (those who haven't, like the Darq developer, have done so for consumer-friendly reasons, and have been praised for their decision not to "sellout"). It is equally valid that Valve doesn't pay money to third-party publishers to go exclusive on Steam. A TP publisher decides to put their product on Steam free of influence, and should they decide to sell on GOG or EGS, Valve won't object. You take away Epic's impact, and the company is back to choosing the best platform to sell their game on. Most would pick Steam.

And if I could get a Stealth from Hyundai I would, because I would like that 10 year/100,000 mile warranty. But Hyundai doesn't sell the Stealth because they didn't pay for the rights to sell it. So I have to get it from Chrysler/Dodge if I want a Stealth. If I want a sports car with Hyundai's warranty, I'll have to get a Genesis or whatever. EGS did pay Tripwire for the rights to sell Chivalry 2, so I'll have to get it there and not Steam if I want to play it. If I want to play a medieval melee combat game on Steam, then I'll have to get Mordhau or Mount and Blade 2: Bannerlord or For Honor or whatever.

Further, I'm not talking about games (like AC Valhalla) where consumers choose to buy from different stores. I'm talking about genuine exclusives where one store is the ONLY choice.

For example?

Feel free to skip to "Here's the point" if you understand first-party versus third-party exclusives. I include it because it provides background context to help reinforce my point.

Based on what store sells a game, it is either first-party or third-party. If the publisher sells it on their store, it's first-party. The publisher spends the money to produce the product, and they want to sell it in their store, which is fine. Epic does it for PC Fortnite; Valve does it for their products; Blizzard does it for their products; EA does it in Origin. Nobody has a problem with that. There's a mutual understanding that first-party exclusivity is something that has been around since the dawn of video games.

However, if the publisher sells their product on a store that they do not own, it's third-party. Since the beginning of PC gaming, there have NEVER been third-party exclusives before EGS. That's a fact. Manipulation by money to pick one storefront to sell a game on is something Tim Sweeney and his company introduced in late 2018 with the launch of EGS. That's a fact.

That establishes what first-party versus third-party means. So if any third-party video game is sold on EGS exclusively, then that's the only store you can buy that game.

Here's the point.

PC video games aren't cars, toasters, screwdrivers, hammers, toilet paper, eggs, cereal, and so forth because different companies manufacture them. There are five toaster brands and toilet paper from seven companies when you shop at Target or Walmart. Eggs take up an entire display case, all produced by various companies. A person can buy a truck from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and so forth. Right? Those products exclusively sold at a car dealership or in a grocery store are "brand" based. So if I want eggs or toilet paper and this one store only carries this one brand, my reaction is, "I don't care, I'll just pick up this company's toilet paper and eggs." Or, I need a truck, and the dealership only sells Toyotas. "Fine. I'll buy a Toyota truck. I don't care what brand it is."

The converse to that is there are no brands for video games. There's only ONE company that created and published that ONE version of the game. And if that game is sold exclusively at EGS, that's the only store on the entire Internet where you can buy it.

It's not the same as cars, Legos, toasters, toilet paper, eggs, and so forth. Stop conflating video games with other consumer products. They are not the same.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 18:42:
4) Regardless of the age of the vehicle, rebranding exclusivity is something that happens sometimes in the auto industry. I chose that because it's fairly iconic, but there are other vehicles out there.

Yeah and not a good example of what's going on with Epic exclusives.

You'd need an auto industry where manufacturers routinely sell cars at independent retail locations.
Ford produces a new car, and the third largest independent auto dealer chain pays them to only sell it on their lots, even though it was intended to be sold eveywhere.
Not... one manufacturer contracts with another to jointly design and manufacture a car under two different badges.
That's closer to the relationship you see between devs and dev/pubs like Turtle Rock and Valve or whatever back in the day. But even then that doesn't exactly fit.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 18:42:
4) I provided a more modern example with Lego, which happens annually with Walmart and Target.

I can't speak to the Legos, but I know a lot people dislike Walmart having Transformers exclusives.

Does the car rebranding exclusivity thing affect the product? Like, does Dodge or whoever offer different add-ons or warranties than if Ford or GM had the partnership?

Sepharo wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 17:35:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 17:44:

Sepharo wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 16:42:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 16:08:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 14:43:

Apple’s control of its platform had tilted the level playing field.

Can I file an antitrust complaint against Epic for taking away my consumer choice?

I cannot wait for Apple to pummel Epic in the various courts, and they will. These complaints are nothing more than contract disputes. Courts generally side with the contract holders (e.g. Apple). The burden of proof is on Epic's side, and their case is weak sauce.

Complaining about Epic is like complaining that Ford and GM don't sell the Dodge Stealth.

You've said this twice now but the metaphor makes zero sense.
Go ahead and spell it out for me if you can.

Third party vendor: . Ubisoft W W W WW Mitsubishi W W W Lego
Exclusive product: .. AC Valhalla W W W. Stealth W W W W Windmill (4000029)
Retailer: W W W WW Epic Game Store W Chrysler/Dodge W Walmart

So this dumb metaphor hinges on the reader's familiarity, not only with a car from the early 90's, but the specifics of that car's manufacturing arrangement and partnership between Dodge and Mitsubishi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO
Metaphors are supposed to make concepts more accessible not less

Fair enough, but:
1) Lots of people on this site are of the age to remember that car.
2) I gave the details of the arrangement in my explanation.
3) Google is a thing.
4) Regardless of the age of the vehicle, rebranding exclusivity is something that happens sometimes in the auto industry. I chose that because it's fairly iconic, but there are other vehicles out there.
5) I provided a more modern example with Lego, which happens annually with Walmart and Target.

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:57:

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
What would you prefer Epic do to get customers? What levers would you have them pull?

Provide a superior product/experience.

They are. That's what differentiation does: it offers an experience that no one else has.

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 09:45:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:
You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

You keep comparing 3rd party exclusivity to 1st party exclusivity. They're not the same thing and it's a bad analogy.

What are you talking about? The Dodge Stealth is a third person exclusive for Chrysler/Dodge, just like Chivalry 2 is a third person exclusive for EGS.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 03:08:
This is a common practice across many retail industries. It's called "differentiation" and lets retailers offer something unique that can draw customers. It's such a long standing and important practice that it's enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8. That defines copyrights and patents, and lets the holder of said rights determine whether their goods and works can be sold by a single retailer or many. It's the opposite of "anti-competition." It's pro-competition.

Ok? No one is claiming what EGS is doing illegal or "anti-competition". They (and by extension the publishers) are, however, being anti-consumer/customer and it's a shitty thing to do, especially considering the sorry state of the EGS.

It seems that most who are against this are in favor of competition, but disagree with EGS's methods. Calling what they're doing as "competition" is a bit of a stretch.

Lots of people on this forum are calling EGS's tactics here "anti competitive" and "monopolistic," of which it is neither. They can disagree with differentiation (which is a pro-competitive strategy, not anti), but it's strange that they haven't had an issue with this in literally any other industry until now.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 17:44:

Sepharo wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 16:42:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 16:08:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 17, 2021, 14:43:

Apple’s control of its platform had tilted the level playing field.

Can I file an antitrust complaint against Epic for taking away my consumer choice?

I cannot wait for Apple to pummel Epic in the various courts, and they will. These complaints are nothing more than contract disputes. Courts generally side with the contract holders (e.g. Apple). The burden of proof is on Epic's side, and their case is weak sauce.

Complaining about Epic is like complaining that Ford and GM don't sell the Dodge Stealth.

You've said this twice now but the metaphor makes zero sense.
Go ahead and spell it out for me if you can.

Third party vendor: . Ubisoft W W W WW Mitsubishi W W W Lego
Exclusive product: .. AC Valhalla W W W. Stealth W W W W Windmill (4000029)
Retailer: W W W WW Epic Game Store W Chrysler/Dodge W Walmart

So this dumb metaphor hinges on the reader's familiarity, not only with a car from the early 90's, but the specifics of that car's manufacturing arrangement and partnership between Dodge and Mitsubishi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO
Metaphors are supposed to make concepts more accessible not less

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 12:18:
Even if EGS hit parity with Steam, you think you'd go there? You already have Steam installed on your computer. You already have a large library of games on it. You have friends, you have screenshots, you have achievements, you have cards that got crafted or whatever stuff they've done in sales. You have all your time spent in games. Everything in one place.

Getting someone to switch from that is near impossible. Parity alone does not do it. Not to mention, Steam has had 17 years to build its features, along with billions upon billions of revenue to reinvest.

You complain about a "spoiled rich kid," but can't give a single real reason why anyone would go to them instead of Steam if they simply had parity, and you also seem to misunderstand how hard it is to get to parity. I'm not asking you to do they're job, I'm asking you to give a suggestion for how they beat Steam if they are selling the same exact products at the same exact prices (remember, retailers don't control the pricing on these storefronts) with Steam having a 17 year head start.

Flipped around, this sounds like an argument that customers should hate the EGS since it will never achieve parity and the only path forward is to use exclusives to force people to play games on a feature-starved platform.

But some suggestions I can throw in:

• Just straight up steal GOG's hook and start offering games DRM-free. GOG's not overtaking Steam, but they're not going anywhere, either, and there are people who buy from them over Steam.

• Make those mobile storefronts they keep talking about in their lawsuits, and implement mobile-PC cross-buy.

• Create predatory metagames like Steam's trading cards and achievements. Free Fortnite items for games you own (unless that's already a thing). Publish some free supercasual games, like a deckbuilder or a match-3 and have those free cards, items, badges, etc. show up there, too. I don't think it would be hard to out-predatorize Steam with more prizes and bonuses for people with huge libraries of games.

• Implement a less restrictive version of Steam's Family Sharing that lets two people play off the same account at the same time. Maybe a feature where the parent account buys a game and the family shares can join their multiplayer session for free.

• Set up a calendar with a schedule of events. Freeplay Fridays, play with a developer on Wednesday, free pretend money if you play on Monday, whatever.

• Once there's some kind of hook, anything, for buying on Epic, put in something like GOG Connect to give people's accounts a jumpstart.

• Establish a subscription service, which seems to be all the rage.

• Work with a VR headset manufacturer like HP or HTC and go after the Oculus Quest with a competing low-cost standalone headset with PC game cross-buy through the EGS, but doesn't make you connect your Facebook account.

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:57:

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
What would you prefer Epic do to get customers? What levers would you have them pull?

Provide a superior product/experience. To be fair, Steam has been around much longer, so "superior" might be a bit unfair at this point. How about just "competent" and not a minimum viable product? However, "experience" isn't confined to just the launcher/website features/interaction, they can provide incentives for customer acquisition. For example, they already have the "buy a game, get a coupon for $10 on the next purchase" dealie (though I think it's only available during sales?). I'm not going to do Epic's job for them to come up with this stuff, I believe you get the idea. They should concentrate on providing a product/service that is attractive to users. Buying their way into a market by brute-force with exclusives may be a viable business strategy, but it's shady and turns a lot of people off.

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
And ask yourself, honestly, if you'd switch from the ecosystem you've been using for 17 years, with all your games, all your contacts, etc., with the options you're suggesting.

I have no particular loyalty to a specific store/ecosystem, and I have no issues purchasing games from and using most of them. I suspect that most others who don't agree with these practices feel the same. If Epic would actually compete by putting in even the slightest effort instead of behaving like a spoiled rich kid who needs to throw their money around to get everything everyone else has right now, I would have no issue giving them my money.

Even if EGS hit parity with Steam, you think you'd go there? You already have Steam installed on your computer. You already have a large library of games on it. You have friends, you have screenshots, you have achievements, you have cards that got crafted or whatever stuff they've done in sales. You have all your time spent in games. Everything in one place.

Getting someone to switch from that is near impossible. Parity alone does not do it. Not to mention, Steam has had 17 years to build its features, along with billions upon billions of revenue to reinvest.

You complain about a "spoiled rich kid," but can't give a single real reason why anyone would go to them instead of Steam if they simply had parity, and you also seem to misunderstand how hard it is to get to parity. I'm not asking you to do they're job, I'm asking you to give a suggestion for how they beat Steam if they are selling the same exact products at the same exact prices (remember, retailers don't control the pricing on these storefronts) with Steam having a 17 year head start.

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
What would you prefer Epic do to get customers? What levers would you have them pull?

Provide a superior product/experience. To be fair, Steam has been around much longer, so "superior" might be a bit unfair at this point. How about just "competent" and not a minimum viable product? However, "experience" isn't confined to just the launcher/website features/interaction, they can provide incentives for customer acquisition. For example, they already have the "buy a game, get a coupon for $10 on the next purchase" dealie (though I think it's only available during sales?). I'm not going to do Epic's job for them to come up with this stuff, I believe you get the idea. They should concentrate on providing a product/service that is attractive to users. Buying their way into a market by brute-force with exclusives may be a viable business strategy, but it's shady and turns a lot of people off.

Beamer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 10:03:
And ask yourself, honestly, if you'd switch from the ecosystem you've been using for 17 years, with all your games, all your contacts, etc., with the options you're suggesting.

I have no particular loyalty to a specific store/ecosystem, and I have no issues purchasing games from and using most of them. I suspect that most others who don't agree with these practices feel the same. If Epic would actually compete by putting in even the slightest effort instead of behaving like a spoiled rich kid who needs to throw their money around to get everything everyone else has right now, I would have no issue giving them my money.

Nullity wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 09:45:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:
You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

You keep comparing 3rd party exclusivity to 1st party exclusivity. They're not the same thing and it's a bad analogy.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 03:08:
This is a common practice across many retail industries. It's called "differentiation" and lets retailers offer something unique that can draw customers. It's such a long standing and important practice that it's enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8. That defines copyrights and patents, and lets the holder of said rights determine whether their goods and works can be sold by a single retailer or many. It's the opposite of "anti-competition." It's pro-competition.

Ok? No one is claiming what EGS is doing illegal or "anti-competition". They (and by extension the publishers) are, however, being anti-consumer/customer and it's a shitty thing to do, especially considering the sorry state of the EGS.

It seems that most who are against this are in favor of competition, but disagree with EGS's methods. Calling what they're doing as "competition" is a bit of a stretch.

What would you prefer Epic do to get customers? What levers would you have them pull?
And ask yourself, honestly, if you'd switch from the ecosystem you've been using for 17 years, with all your games, all your contacts, etc., with the options you're suggesting.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 01:59:
You can buy a "game" from any retailer, just like you can buy a "car" from any dealership. You can buy "L4D2" from Steam only, just like you can buy a "Corvette" from Chevy only. And you can get "Chivalry 2" by Tripwire from EGS, just like you can get a "Stealth" by Mitsubishi from Chrysler/Dodge. You can't get "Chivalry 2" from Steam just like you can't get a "Corvette" from a Ford dealership.

You keep comparing 3rd party exclusivity to 1st party exclusivity. They're not the same thing and it's a bad analogy.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2021, 03:08:
This is a common practice across many retail industries. It's called "differentiation" and lets retailers offer something unique that can draw customers. It's such a long standing and important practice that it's enshrined in the US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8. That defines copyrights and patents, and lets the holder of said rights determine whether their goods and works can be sold by a single retailer or many. It's the opposite of "anti-competition." It's pro-competition.

Ok? No one is claiming what EGS is doing illegal or "anti-competition". They (and by extension the publishers) are, however, being anti-consumer/customer and it's a shitty thing to do, especially considering the sorry state of the EGS.

It seems that most who are against this are in favor of competition, but disagree with EGS's methods. Calling what they're doing as "competition" is a bit of a stretch.