Epic Games Announces More Exclusives and Features

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Steam was the front-runner; most people didn't even think it was possible at the time. Once it was proven viable and the risk was removed other companies started clamoring to get in. Other stores haven't caught up because Steam kept working on their store client with updates and new features that had never before been seen in the market.
This is some revisionist history. Stardock already had digital distribution before Steam, I remember thinking at the time I was surprised it hadn't been done by Microsoft before Valve. If anything, Valve was slow to the party, but by that time the entire industry was focused on consoles and the PC was largely neglected, leaving Valve plenty of time to get their act together. To be clear, just about everyone hated Steam then too, since they saw it as a loss of control over what they bought. Hell, I still feel that way to a certain degree.

Bankie said:
Not comparable. Why would anyone that cares about PC gaming want console market tactics to come to the PC? The EGS as it sits is a redundant platform and by making a game exclusive to their store they're already removing options to play a game since you're forced onto their inferior platform with inferior features.
It's completely comparable because it exposes the hypocrisy of most people whining about the Epic store. If you don't like exclusives in ANY form, I can respect that (and agree to some extent). But I've seen more hell raised about the Epic store than I've EVER seen about console exclusives, even ones that started on the PC. I find all this "outrage" to be so fake when people are up in arms about Epic exclusives, yet just shrug when a 3rd party company is paid off to only release on Playstation (and would otherwise release on all platforms). The latter has happened a LOT more than the number of exclusives Epic has grabbed, yet I don't see anyone complaining about that. That's why this all hypocritical. The only way you can protest what Epic is doing AND have any actual principles is to protest console exclusives. Anything less is just whining.

And no, they're not even close to removing options the way console exclusives do. Let me ask you, does Epic store:

-Lock what resolution and framerate you can run the game at?
-Disable graphics options?
-Only allow gamepad to play the game?
-Require you to buy an additional x86 machine for hundreds of dollars?

Because that's what console exclusives do.

Bankie said:
By buying exclusivity they're not bringing competition. By supporting EGS you're telling "other stores" that they can't compete without throwing bags of money at the developers that they themselves previously supported. EGS will worsen the market for PC gamers as they gain more influence. Steam has yet to act like a typical monopoly while EGS is already aiming to be one.
"Yet" being the key word. I don't trust ANY monopoly, including Valve. I don't want Epic to be a monopoly either. Do I want them to create enough pressure to get rid of the 70/30 split and not let any one storefront have too much power? Absolutely. I haven't heard any alternative ideas in how that would happen (aside from the government breaking up Valve). I'll take solutions where they come from.

Bankie said:
The bottom line is that if you support a company that functions in this way when they come into the market you are personally responsible for the bullshit tactics and anti-competitive behavior that will become common place.
And the same could be said if you own a console. Go ahead and try to reason your way out of that, I'll wait.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
On my second point, Steam has actively encouraged competition on the digital distribution market by allowing publishers and developers to create and distribute steam keys for their games. That's why sites like Humble Bundle, GMG and even the gray market are able to exist, providing direct pricing competition to Steam, while still allowing users to reap the benefits of Steam. You can even nearly completely avoid all Steam fees by selling a game solely on your website and activating it via Steam Keys.
I think it's very dubious claiming you're encouraging competition by allowing companies to sell games for your platform. All the does is bolster their ecosystem. Origin, Uplay, GOG, are actual competition to Steam. Gamersgate, Humble Bundle, etc. are NOT competition, they're not direct revenue for Valve, but they're signal boosters. They're selling Steam keys for god's sake. Ecosystem entrenchment has immense value, if not always upfront.
 

Fix Me

Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
699
This is some revisionist history. Stardock already had digital distribution before Steam, I remember thinking at the time I was surprised it hadn't been done by Microsoft before Valve. If anything, Valve was slow to the party, but by that time the entire industry was focused on consoles and the PC was largely neglected, leaving Valve plenty of time to get their act together. To be clear, just about everyone hated Steam then too, since they saw it as a loss of control over what they bought. Hell, I still feel that way to a certain degree.

It's completely comparable because it exposes the hypocrisy of most people whining about the Epic store. If you don't like exclusives in ANY form, I can respect that (and agree to some extent). But I've seen more hell raised about the Epic store than I've EVER seen about console exclusives, even ones that started on the PC. I find all this "outrage" to be so fake when people are up in arms about Epic exclusives, yet just shrug when a 3rd party company is paid off to only release on Playstation (and would otherwise release on all platforms). The latter has happened a LOT more than the number of exclusives Epic has grabbed, yet I don't see anyone complaining about that. That's why this all hypocritical. The only way you can protest what Epic is doing AND have any actual principles is to protest console exclusives. Anything less is just whining.

And no, they're not even close to removing options the way console exclusives do. Let me ask you, does Epic store:

-Lock what resolution and framerate you can run the game at?
-Disable graphics options?
-Only allow gamepad to play the game?
-Require you to buy an additional x86 machine for hundreds of dollars?

Because that's what console exclusives do.

"Yet" being the key word. I don't trust ANY monopoly, including Valve. I don't want Epic to be a monopoly either. Do I want them to create enough pressure to get rid of the 70/30 split and not let any one storefront have too much power? Absolutely. I haven't heard any alternative ideas in how that would happen (aside from the government breaking up Valve). I'll take solutions where they come from.

And the same could be said if you own a console. Go ahead and try to reason your way out of that, I'll wait.
As far as complaining about console exclusivity goes, have you read any Front Page News threads about Red Dead Redemption 2? Every single thread that I can recall has people complaining about it not coming to PC. I always thought the extent of the complaining was a bit ridiculous, though I do own a PS4. I would assume some of the same folks are complaining about the Epic Store exclusivity.

That said, if the games are selling well despite the exclusivity, it's here to stay and there's nothing we can do about it.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,884
Epic doesn't care if 50 or 90% of gamers boycott them, it's still a win for them. They literally pay the publishers/developers to compensate them for any lost revenue they suffer by becoming exclusives.
Their goal is not to sell games or serve the audience, there goal is to kill the competition, by bleeding them dry. It doesn't matter to them that they operate at a loss too. If they pay 2 million to a niche indie game dev to be on the epic store imagine how much they had to pay to the big dogs?

It is disgusting and anyone who even considers supporting the epic store should be ashamed of themselves.
None of that makes any business sense. They don't care about selling games? They don't care about serving the audience? They don't care about operating at a loss? Their only goal is bleed others dry? Of course they want to sell games. This is obviously a power play to get their store viewed as more than "that client I need to play Fortnite." So how do you do that? You pay money up front to convince devs to try your platform instead of that other service fully entrenched as the market leader; they likely would not do it otherwise. Additionally, suggesting that Valve is in any position to be bled dry is nothing short of ridiculous.

There's plenty of exclusivity in the market already:
- If I want Blizzard games, Destiny 2, or COD:BO4 I must get them from the Blizzard store with their launcher
- If I want EA games I need Origin
- If I want Fortnite or UT (lol) I need the EPIC launcher
- If I want TF2 or CS:GO I need Steam

Whatever happened to capitalism and the free market and all that? I see that sentiment pop up on these forums all the time, yet it's not supposed to apply here? If prices, service, or features aren't good then people won't buy the games, and developers definitely care if people are playing their games. If the EGS becomes known as the place franchises go to die then it will hardly last.
 

ryno9100

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
217
I think it's very dubious claiming you're encouraging competition by allowing companies to sell games for your platform. All the does is bolster their ecosystem. Origin, Uplay, GOG, are actual competition to Steam. Gamersgate, Humble Bundle, etc. are NOT competition, they're not direct revenue for Valve, but they're signal boosters. They're selling Steam keys for god's sake. Ecosystem entrenchment has immense value, if not always upfront.
I did specify that they're encouraging pricing competition. Yes, the Steam keys are ultimately still used on Steam, but you're not having to give Steam a 30% cut for the sale, and you're still reaping most of the benefits of the platform. Looking at it purely from a consumer standpoint, Steam offers me the absolute best service and experience, so why wouldn't I want to use them? If I can buy keys cheaper on Humble Bundle, then use Steam as my platform for playing those games, it seems like a win win. Again, this is purely looking at pricing competition, which is what I, personally, care most about.When someone else comes along offering me a better platform to actually play my games from, I'll jump ship.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
I find two things strange about all this:

1) I find it really strange that people react more negatively to PC store exclusives, than they do to console exclusives.

With a console exclusive, you can't get the game at all if it is on the other console. It's a total lockout.

With a PC Store exclusive, you just have to visit a different digital storefront... Which is a tiny inconvenience in comparison.

2) Why did it take so long for other publishers to recognize what a gold mine Steam was and chase a piece of that pie.
I can spout all kinds of ancillary reasons for this. Some objective, some more subjective. I've done that in several other threads on this subject, so I don't want to retype it yet again.

For me personally though, it comes down to personal preference. Plain and simple. I have 340 games in Steam. I have 80 in GOG (most of which I got because they filled a niche of releasing old games that weren't available legally otherwise anymore). GOG is kind of a special case.

So there is my BIGGEST reason. Because I like my games pretty much in one spot, on the same platform as all my friends, (and kids) and since I bought heavily into the Steam platform, and they haven't done me any wrong in 15 or so years, I figure that's a good enough reason.

And no, I don't LIKE that consoles have exclusives, but guess what, that's how it's been since some of the earliest consoles, so there, it's just "the way it is" in my mind. I don't like it, but I have no basis for comparison there.

I also don't like how Epic is going about getting devs into these exclusive deals. It's something that wasn't happening (at least on a large scale) in PC games until just now, and if anyone sees buying off devs to not release on other platforms (timed or not) as a positive, you may need a head exam.

So, that's my compressed version. You can see more in the countless other Epic store threads...
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,326
I purchased the game on Epic because it was cheaper than cdkeys.com. $50 is a fair price for a solid single player game. I also wanted to support the devs.

Don't really care about having multiple clients; we are way beyond that point with or without Epic.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,187
Okay, multiple points:

First, I was referring more to your statement that Epic was doing this to eliminate the competition. Amazon rose to power by essentially undercutting everyone and not having to pay the same taxes the same time they were in an emerging market. If you sell something on Amazon, they contractually state you're not allowed to sell it at a lower price elsewhere. There are countless examples of major corporations operating at a loss in order to eradicate competition. Hell, even Valve started Steam as a means of capturing the market. If they really wanted to be fair, they would have offered the choice between Steam or offline copies of HL2 wouldn't they? Don't get confused about their motivations either. They've enjoyed a captured market for a decade and a half.
Valve paid for HL2, it is their own product they can sell it in a shed located at the north pole if that's their fancy. That's not even remotely the same. If I build a product I can sell how I want it there is nothing wrong with that ethically. But epic is now the person wearing a long trench-coat whisking away developers into a side room, while they are on their way to sell their game to gamers on steam and a number of other platforms. They pay them money to not sell their games anywhere but their own shop. Basically screwing ower not just steam / gog / cdkeys / gmg etc. in the process, but most importantly gamers, who were already anticipating those releases on those platforms. For newly announced games that they fund the development of it would be fine to make them their own exclusives. But they don't want to build up their market share, they'd rather steal it, and give nothing back to gamers. On the contrary they are screwing over gamers, and they don't seem to show the least bit of remorse about that. They act as the vultures who buy up newly released hardware that they then try to palm off on ebay for a premium. They are the same scum, only the scale is different.




But you're talking about exclusives, fine, I get it, you want choice where you buy your game. I hope you actually stand by your principles then and boycott console games, because they do the exact same thing, only worse. They pay 3rd party developers ALL THE TIME to release exclusives on their platform. Sometimes these are games that start off for the PC, only to get axed. At least Epic games don't require you to buy a redundant platform and remove options to play the same game, it's still on the PC. So if you also boycott Sony and Microsoft, fine, you're being principled, I'll give you props for that. If you DON'T though, you're just being a hypocrite. Which is it?
I absolutely detest consoles for that very reason, the lack of choice. But they are still not the same as the epic store. The consoles don't offer a choice, sure. But they didn't take away a choice that existed before. There was no choice of platform for those games to begin with.
However I'm boycotting microsoft, even though I wanted to play forza and quantum break. I stand by firmly that if a game is a windows store exclusive, then it is not really on PC.

Second, as for competition, yes, it applies for the customers too. Epic has given out half a dozen free games. Valve gave out some too in the same timeframe. That probably wasn't a coincidence.
That's not about serving customers, that's about baiting in users with the offer of free games. (most of which I wouldn't want even for free and I don't event though I'm registered on the epic store a few months ago I haven't claimed a single one of their free games) But some people just can't say no to free stuff.
It's about building an user base quickly, nothing else.
The competition comes from Steam and other stores having to offer something additional in order to attract more customers, or rather NOT do shittier things and get away with it.
The mistake you make here is that steam doesn't need to build an user base, it already has one, so they didn't need to respond to this, but they did regardless probably to take the wind out of epic's sails a bit.

Pretend all the 3rd party stores didn't exist and it was just Steam. What would stop them from RAISING prices?
The fact that prices are set by the devs/publishers not steam. Didn't you just mention that? Or was that someone else, I can't remember.

Just because Valve has mostly been good so far, I think you seriously underestimate what monopoly power can do. All it takes is Gabe to retire, Valve going public and Steam becomes a shitshow. Imagine having to pay a monthly fee to access your library for example. Having competition between storefronts helps prevents that. If you really think it adds NO competition for the customer, I think you're naive as to how bad things can get.
So your argument is that we must accept shit in order to avoid shit? That's weak. Asking money from you to access games you already paid for? I'm pretty sure that is illegal. You never agreed to a lease that expires, you own the rights to play those games.
If the competition was about serving the gamers better, then you'd be right. But so far it seems the competition is about snatching up developers while pissing on gamers. Nothing good comes to us from the tactics epic employs, if anyone I could see them changing to a subscription service, and then snatching up exclusives, with google following closely behind. Streaming exclusives, can you imagine that? You think this is all for the better?

Hence why things like internet access are over twice the cost in USA than they are in Europe.
Internet is expensive in the US because of collusion, and paid for politicians. There is no other country where the institution of government lobbyists could fly. Where you have people in charge of the FCC whose every recent move that made it into the media was 100% anti-consumer, and pro corporation.
Third, as for money not going to the creators, it depends on how big the game you're talking about is. For AAA games, yes, you're right. For indie games? Not the case at all, every dollar counts. If Epic's presence causes more money to go to them in the long run, that's a good thing.
I don't really care about indie games, but I think they are taking even more of a risk alienating their fans, the money that epic pays up-front might be good now, but what about when they try to release their next game to crickets?
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I absolutely detest consoles for that very reason, the lack of choice. But they are still not the same as the epic store. The consoles don't offer a choice, sure. But they didn't take away a choice that existed before. There was no choice of platform for those games to begin with.
However I'm boycotting microsoft, even though I wanted to play forza and quantum break. I stand by firmly that if a game is a windows store exclusive, then it is not really on PC.
Okay, fair enough, that means you actually have principles on this and aren't in the hypocrite crowd, that was the main thing bugging me from some of the posts.

Addressing your latter point though, that's not quite accurate. Games like Alan Wake and Heavy Rain were originally developed for PC and even announced they would be coming to PC first before any talk of consoles. In both cases, both Sony and Microsoft came in, paid them for exclusive deals to keep it OFF other platforms and thus PC copies got cancelled. We lost PC game releases directly because of console exclusivity. Now Alan Wake eventually released years later due to the contract expiring, but this sort of thing has happened more than a few times. Again, console releases are WORSE because then they're removing tangible gameplay experience options like resolution, graphics controls, modding options, etc. and require you spend additional money to play them on another platform. Conversely, Epic brought both Flower and Journey to PC, which both used to be console exclusives. I understand some people are upset about games like Metro Exodus, but the irony here is their exclusivity deals have actually brought MORE games over to PC that used to only be for consoles. If that's not serving customers, I don't know what is.

It's not that I like exclusives, I just see the "harm" from store exclusives so much lower than console exclusives that it's just trivial to me.

That's not about serving customers, that's about baiting in users with the offer of free games. (most of which I wouldn't want even for free and I don't event though I'm registered on the epic store a few months ago I haven't claimed a single one of their free games) But some people just can't say no to free stuff.
It's about building an user base quickly, nothing else.
Call it what you want, but free games aren't a positive thing for gamers? It's like you want to have this black and white view of the situation when the reality is muddier than that.

The mistake you make here is that steam doesn't need to build an user base, it already has one, so they didn't need to respond to this, but they did regardless probably to take the wind out of epic's sails a bit.
This is very true, they enjoy de facto monopoly status. So many discussions of the situation act like that isn't the case.

So your argument is that we must accept shit in order to avoid shit? That's weak.
It's more like the enemy of your enemy can be your ally kind of situation. Look at it this way, what's the alternative? How do you fight monopoly status? By launching a games service with better features? Like what? What features could be so attractive that people would leave Steam for it? I can't think of any realistic options on that front. Remember, I'm not pro-Epic, I'm not pro-Valve, I'm anti-monopoly. Right now, Epic is a force I see pushing back against that and they're the ONLY game in town with a better cut for developers. That's a better standard in that department at the very least. It's not as black and white as Valve good, Epic bad, you have to look at it from multiple angles and where that takes us over time.

Asking money from you to access games you already paid for? I'm pretty sure that is illegal. You never agreed to a lease that expires, you own the rights to play those games.
That was just a quick example. Fine, let's say in the future Steam changed their policy to have bandwidth caps on how many GB you could download a month before paying an extra fee. Or hey, like you suggested, they decide to start promoting streaming-only games through them. If you don't have a real competitor (and there's a whole shit ton of games that are ONLY on Steam), depending on the game, there won't be any choice. Again, just because Valve has been good so far is NO indicator of how it can be in the future. That goes for all companies.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,187
Okay, fair enough, that means you actually have principles on this and aren't in the hypocrite crowd, that was the main thing bugging me from some of the posts.

Addressing your latter point though, that's not quite accurate. Games like Alan Wake and Heavy Rain were originally developed for PC and even announced they would be coming to PC first before any talk of consoles. In both cases, both Sony and Microsoft came in, paid them for exclusive deals to keep it OFF other platforms and thus PC copies got cancelled. We lost PC game releases directly because of console exclusivity. Now Alan Wake eventually released years later due to the contract expiring, but this sort of thing has happened more than a few times. Again, console releases are WORSE because then they're removing tangible gameplay experience options like resolution, graphics controls, modding options, etc. and require you spend additional money to play them on another platform. Conversely, Epic brought both Flower and Journey to PC, which both used to be console exclusives. I understand some people are upset about games like Metro Exodus, but the irony here is their exclusivity deals have actually brought MORE games over to PC that used to only be for consoles. If that's not serving customers, I don't know what is.
You know there is a difference between a few random examples from a decade worth of games and doing it as a way of life. Besides if you think I'm being a hypocrite you can read my Alan Wake review. The only reason I didn't mention it in the context of Heavy Rain because I never knew that was originally meant for PC.

It's not that I like exclusives, I just see the "harm" from store exclusives so much lower than console exclusives that it's just trivial to me.
I don't think either one is worse than the other. The difference is that Epic brings a practice that was only on consoles until now to the PC, a platform that was always considered free.
Call it what you want, but free games aren't a positive thing for gamers? It's like you want to have this black and white view of the situation when the reality is muddier than that.
No, I'm saying epic is giving out free games to quickly build up their user base. Giving the first taste for free, then squeeze you dry after you're hooked. Not unlike the unlike the hardcore drug world. Obviously I'm not saying that epic is as bad as drug dealers, but they operate based on the same principle.
This is very true, they enjoy de facto monopoly status. So many discussions of the situation act like that isn't the case.
There is a difference between a monopoly and a market leader. Yet I didn't feel I suffered as a consumer under steam's market domination. Epic is already giving me a hard time, and they are only getting started. So no, I'm not welcoming the newcomer who barges into my house so hard that the door falls off its hinges and acts like it owns the place.


It's more like the enemy of your enemy can be your ally kind of situation. Look at it this way, what's the alternative? How do you fight monopoly status? By launching a games service with better features? Like what? What features could be so attractive that people would leave Steam for it? I can't think of any realistic options on that front. Remember, I'm not pro-Epic, I'm not pro-Valve, I'm anti-monopoly. Right now, Epic is a force I see pushing back against that and they're the ONLY game in town with a better cut for developers. That's a better standard in that department at the very least. It's not as black and white as Valve good, Epic bad, you have to look at it from multiple angles and where that takes us over time.
Easy, giving half of incentive to the gamers directly. If a game releases both on steam and epic and it costs 60 on steam, but only 50 on the epic store, I might have walked over there voluntarily. Instead they got greedy and wanted to force me there with a cattle prod. Well I'd rather wrestle the prod from their hands and shove it up their ass, if that's what it takes, but I'm not getting into the cattle-pen.
That was just a quick example. Fine, let's say in the future Steam changed their policy to have bandwidth caps on how many GB you could download a month before paying an extra fee. Or hey, like you suggested, they decide to start promoting streaming-only games through them. If you don't have a real competitor (and there's a whole shit ton of games that are ONLY on Steam), depending on the game, there won't be any choice. Again, just because Valve has been good so far is NO indicator of how it can be in the future. That goes for all companies.
But it is not steam who are threatening to do these things, but the people who you think are saving us from the evil steam monopoly. Well thank you very much but I didn't need saving.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
961
I'm presuming you "ment" to say meant but I digress.

It matters because Epic is being shady AF getting games pulled from Steam and paying publishers to avoid other platforms. It has nothing to do with the technical merits of their client. If they released their service with the current terms without the behind scenes shenanigans, I would have no problem with them.
LOL you got me there on the spell chucker thing. I've been using 'ment' for some time now, no one ever corrected me on it. Thanks (I mean it)

Regarding "shady" business practices are you also going to boycott all the other tech companies that have clearly been shown to use shady business practices (for example NVIDIA and their 4GB GTX 970 cards that were really 3.5GB and they got sued in court over it and lost) clever (lying) marketing, etc? Or how about MFG's they screw folks over time and again in the Warranty department? And how about the many Customers who try to screw over the companies when they hose a GPU card then say it just suddenly died?

And when it comes to shady data stealing Facebook and Google come to mind years before I would, if ever, think about Epic (if at all and no, I don't work in any tech field anymore). So have you stopped using Google, Facebook and all the others known to use shady practices, or just Epic?

And how about EA? Do you use the EA client and is EA squeaky clean of any 'shady' business practices? What User data have they nabbed, if any, or promoted a game that they knew would flop but maybe was hoping it somehow wouldn't but they wanted to get back as much $$$ as they could on it just the same (Mass Effect Andromeda comes to mind) so they sent it to market anyways and we all saw what the Customer response was, right? I mean, suddenly Casey Hudson is on his way back to save BioWare.

I doubt they (almost any company or human being for that matter) are innocent of such shady practices but that's just my opinion based on the little I am beginning to learn about my own human nature.
 
Last edited:

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
You know there is a difference between a few random examples from a decade worth of games and doing it as a way of life. Besides if you think I'm being a hypocrite you can read my Alan Wake review. The only reason I didn't mention it in the context of Heavy Rain because I never knew that was originally meant for PC.


I don't think either one is worse than the other. The difference is that Epic brings a practice that was only on consoles until now to the PC, a platform that was always considered free.

No, I'm saying epic is giving out free games to quickly build up their user base. Giving the first taste for free, then squeeze you dry after you're hooked. Not unlike the unlike the hardcore drug world. Obviously I'm not saying that epic is as bad as drug dealers, but they operate based on the same principle.

There is a difference between a monopoly and a market leader. Yet I didn't feel I suffered as a consumer under steam's market domination. Epic is already giving me a hard time, and they are only getting started. So no, I'm not welcoming the newcomer who barges into my house so hard that the door falls off its hinges and acts like it owns the place.



Easy, giving half of incentive to the gamers directly. If a game releases both on steam and epic and it costs 60 on steam, but only 50 on the epic store, I might have walked over there voluntarily. Instead they got greedy and wanted to force me there with a cattle prod. Well I'd rather wrestle the prod from their hands and shove it up their ass, if that's what it takes, but I'm not getting into the cattle-pen.

But it is not steam who are threatening to do these things, but the people who you think are saving us from the evil steam monopoly. Well thank you very much but I didn't need saving.
God damned right!
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
LOL you got me there on the spell chucker thing. I've been using 'ment' for some time now, no one ever corrected me on it. Thanks (I mean it)

Regarding "shady" business practices are you also going to boycott all the other tech companies that have clearly been shown to use shady business practices like those (NVIDIA and your 4GB GTX 970 cards) clever (lying) marketing, etc?

And when it comes to shady data stealing Facebook and Google come to mind years before I would, if ever, think about Epic (if at all and no, I don't work in any tech field anymore).

And how about EA? Do you use the EA client and is EA squeaky clean of any 'shady' business practices? What User data have they nabbed, if any or promoted a game that they knew would flop but maybe was hoping it somehow wouldn't but they wanted to get back as much $$$ as they could on it just the same (Mass Effect Andromeda comes to mind) so they sent it too market anyways and we all saw what the Customer response was, right?

I doubt they (almost any company or human being for that matter) are innocent of such shady practices but that's just my opinion based on the little I am beginning to learn about human nature.
Everyone chooses their own battles. Everyone should have the right to determine when something has gone too far for themselves. Everyone can get as granular and subjective as they wish when it comes to where they want to spend their money. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of all of this, and the responses to it.

Plain and simple. I don't like what Epic is doing, so I will not support them with my money. That may even extend to the studios allowing it as well. I'm not telling you that you can't buy from them, or that you have to feel the same way as me one bit. Go for it. For me, they're doing something that's moving things backwards. I don't have to apply these principles to another company, if that company hasn't crossed a line with me personally though. I'll pick and choose as it pertains to me, and you're free to do the same.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
You know there is a difference between a few random examples from a decade worth of games and doing it as a way of life. Besides if you think I'm being a hypocrite you can read my Alan Wake review. The only reason I didn't mention it in the context of Heavy Rain because I never knew that was originally meant for PC.
No, I'm saying you're NOT being a hypocrite, which I appreciate, a lot of people upset with this practice I think are though.

As for "a few random examples" if you really want to get into how much damage has been done with exclusives, it's not much of a stretch to look at every Xbox exclusive game there has ever been. Microsoft had a burgeoning PC gaming scene prior to the release of the Xbox. After that, they dumped a LOT of resources into making console exclusives which kept games OFF the PC. That was more or less their policy for 15 years, it's likely resulted in hundreds of games being kept off PC. At least with Sony, the PC was always their competitor. With Microsoft, Xbox exclusives probably did more to set back PC gaming than any other thing I can think of.

I don't think either one is worse than the other. The difference is that Epic brings a practice that was only on consoles until now to the PC, a platform that was always considered free.
Again, I think consoles are clearly worse. It's easy:

Console exclusivity = reduced gameplay & graphics options + I have to buy an additional machine for hundreds of dollars
PC store exclusivity = I have to spend an additional 5 minutes registering online

By all means, argue how that's equal. One of them sure costs a hell of a lot more than the other. As for the difference, you're right in this could be the first 3rd party exclusives on the PC, but in real-world terms it doesn't mean much. For example, I would take store exclusivity and no DRM every single time over store freedom + DRM that means I may not be able to run my game in the future. What kind of freedom actually exists on the PC is pretty important. I've never given a shit which store I get a game from, so long as I keep access to the game I have. With "games as a service" that's been going out the window left and right, yet that hasn't brought even a fraction of people as upset over the Epic store. It's skewed priorities, let's get upset over the things that actually impact us the least, but ignore the stuff killing gaming.

No, I'm saying epic is giving out free games to quickly build up their user base. Giving the first taste for free, then squeeze you dry after you're hooked. Not unlike the unlike the hardcore drug world. Obviously I'm not saying that epic is as bad as drug dealers, but they operate based on the same principle.
Let's not get off track, I brought that up because you said the only competition by Epic was for the developers, not the consumers. Giving out free games to play on your platform isn't competing for customers? That's why I said this isn't a black and white issue. Let's look at the pros and cons PURELY from a customer perspective:
+They've brought some previously console-exclusive titles to the PC
+They've given out free games
-They're forcing 3rd party exclusives
-Their storefront is lacking features

Yes, clearly nothing positive for customers there at all.

Easy, giving half of incentive to the gamers directly. If a game releases both on steam and epic and it costs 60 on steam, but only 50 on the epic store, I might have walked over there voluntarily. Instead they got greedy and wanted to force me there with a cattle prod. Well I'd rather wrestle the prod from their hands and shove it up their ass, if that's what it takes, but I'm not getting into the cattle-pen.
Possibly, though since developers set the price, Epic would have to pay the difference for each sale and then some so every sale on Epic would result in more money for them. My guess is that market penetration would be so slow it might not change much. I'm guessing they did the math and decided that exclusives were going to be more effective.

There is a difference between a monopoly and a market leader.
All depends on the laws defining it. 70% of marketshare certainly qualifies as monopoly influence in a lot of regions.

But it is not steam who are threatening to do these things, but the people who you think are saving us from the evil steam monopoly.
What exactly has Epic threatened to do? Streaming only games? My understanding is both Valve AND Epic are paving the way on that front. There are no good guys in this (except maybe GOG).
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,187
As for "a few random examples" if you really want to get into how much damage has been done with exclusives, it's not much of a stretch to look at every Xbox exclusive game there has ever been. Microsoft had a burgeoning PC gaming scene prior to the release of the Xbox. After that, they dumped a LOT of resources into making console exclusives which kept games OFF the PC. That was more or less their policy for 15 years, it's likely resulted in hundreds of games being kept off PC. At least with Sony, the PC was always their competitor. With Microsoft, Xbox exclusives probably did more to set back PC gaming than any other thing I can think of.
You are pivoting to another point. You originally said there were games that were meant for PC then Sony / MS paid the dev to make them exclusives. I agree that is just as worse if not worse than epic's deals now. But games that are built and announced as exclusives are fine. Well obviously they aren't fine as I hate console exclusives. But at least they are not pulling the rag from under me. It's an honest practice. Pay the dev to make a game for your platform. What is not honest: pay off devs with already finished products so they keep their game off of other platforms. That's disgusting. And that is what epic has done more just this year, than anyone ever in the history of gaming.

Again, I think consoles are clearly worse. It's easy:

Console exclusivity = reduced gameplay & graphics options + I have to buy an additional machine for hundreds of dollars
PC store exclusivity = I have to spend an additional 5 minutes registering online
Obviously console exclusives are more of a hindrance, but that's a different point, not the one you were originally making.

Let's not get off track, I brought that up because you said the only competition by Epic was for the developers, not the consumers.
Giving out free games to play on your platform isn't competing for customers? That's why I said this isn't a black and white issue. Let's look at the pros and cons PURELY from a customer perspective:
Well if it wasn't clear enough already that you're being naive this proves the point beyond any doubt. They are giving away free games to build up their user numbers, so they can tout those numbers in the backroom deals where games originally cited for steam or any other platform become epic exclusives. There is nothing benevolent in their action, and it is definitely not for the benefit of the customer.
+They've brought some previously console-exclusive titles to the PC
+They've given out free games
-They're forcing 3rd party exclusives
-Their storefront is lacking features
The fact that I get 12 useless games for free won't make me buy other games over the epic store if it has worse pricing and / or worse deals than other sellers for the same game.
And It wasn't them who bought those games over to PC, quantic dream has cut ties with sony, that's what brings those games to PC, And without epic interfering I'd probably happily get all of them from cdkeys or gmg. Unless you know something I don't and epic specifically subsidized quantic dream to port those games to PC. Which they wouldn't have done otherwise.



Yes, clearly nothing positive for customers there at all.
As I've clearly demonstrated what you count as positives are actually not very positive. And let's add to the negatives shall we?

- Who knows what data they are sending to the tencent mothership in exchange for the trucks full of money that they use to ruin the entire PC gaming market.
- Barring the use of third party key sellers who always had much better prices than steam / origin / uplay themselves. Even EA lets cdkeys sell origin keys. And you're arguing that a company being more greedy than EA is good for us? Just snap out of it already!


Possibly, though since developers set the price, Epic would have to pay the difference for each sale and then some so every sale on Epic would result in more money for them. My guess is that market penetration would be so slow it might not change much. I'm guessing they did the math and decided that exclusives were going to be more effective.
That's exactly the point, they don't give a fuck about gamers and public perception. And all for a what is pure guess work. Because we know how accurate market predictions are especially in such a market as pc gaming.

All depends on the laws defining it. 70% of marketshare certainly qualifies as monopoly influence in a lot of regions.
Semantics. As long as they don't abuse their power I don't mind. Epic already does.
What exactly has Epic threatened to do? Streaming only games? My understanding is both Valve AND Epic are paving the way on that front.
They didn't threaten they came and did and then some. Like 3rd party exclusives, spying, and shutting out 3rd party sellers isn't bad enough for you? I know they denied the spying part I'm not gonna take their word for it, who knows what is in the encrypted packets they're sending to their servers. And their excuse for why they didn't use official steam api to access your friends list is the weakest ever.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
961
Obviously console exclusives are more of a hindrance, but that's a different point, not the one you were originally making.
and that's exactly the same experience I've had (with a different member) in this thread as well ;) but now I'll be moving on to other threads here
 

Zulgrib

n00b
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
31
I'm simple, if there is an intrusive DRM I don't purchase the game.

Installing a game manager to play a game is excessive, I have a game directory with a shortcut to each of them, I don't feel the need to be babysitted.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
There is a difference between a monopoly and a market leader. Yet I didn't feel I suffered as a consumer under steam's market domination. Epic is already giving me a hard time, and they are only getting started. So no, I'm not welcoming the newcomer who barges into my house so hard that the door falls off its hinges and acts like it owns the place.
.
That's not the difference. You like Steam, so you are ok with the Steam monopoly, and you are rationalizing that it isn't a monopoly.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
That's not the difference. You like Steam, so you are ok with the Steam monopoly, and you are rationalizing that it isn't a monopoly.
One doesn't have to rationalize anything at all. Use Steam. Don't use Steam. Steam works for me, and has for well over a decade. It's not a monopoly either, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that competition isn't good. I think the only thing in question here is the methods employed to compete. Some of us don't like Epic's tactics.

I think having choices of where to buy things is great. I choose Steam for me. However, now I'm starting to miss out on a few things that I wouldn't mind having because of Epic forcing these asinine exclusives. I don't want Epic's client. I don't have to justify that at all. Epic having a storefront is totally fine by me, just stop taking games away from the way(s) I do want to buy them.

Epic is not some "underdog with heart". They're right up there with the other big boys. If you want to cheer on an underdog (I'm assuming this based on the monopoly comments) cheer on GOG.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,187
That's not the difference. You like Steam, so you are ok with the Steam monopoly, and you are rationalizing that it isn't a monopoly.
If anyone is rationalizing anything it is the people who think we need a company to completely disregard and exploit consumers, to prevent another company from exploiting customers, even though that company didn't do anything to upset customers in it's 15+ years.of existence.
What is there to like about steam? I use it. would you argue that I like origin and uplay too? Because I use those as well? I use them because they live and let live. Then Epic comes and tries to squeeze the life out of everyone and you want me to applaud them like they are the second coming?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,910
That's not the difference. You like Steam, so you are ok with the Steam monopoly, and you are rationalizing that it isn't a monopoly.
Sometimes monopolies aren't exactly bad. When the monopoly happens to be run by a guy like Newell things aren't too bad. That being said Valve was loosing its dominance anyways in regards to AAA games. All the big publishers are going to their own client. Epic is merely giving competition in regards to the developers/publishers that aren't big enough for their own application.

Time will tell if this ends up helping the average gamer. Short term I think it will be bad. Long term when Newell steps down we may be happy that Steam has competition. Newell is Valve and when he is gone it will go down the drain.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,071
That's not the difference. You like Steam, so you are ok with the Steam monopoly, and you are rationalizing that it isn't a monopoly.
Its marginally a monopoly of access. It sure as hell isn't a monopoly on price. Not when the last 5 of 10 games I've bought that activate on Steam were not from the Steam store but 3rd party key sites like GMG.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
One doesn't have to rationalize anything at all. Use Steam. Don't use Steam. Steam works for me, and has for well over a decade. It's not a monopoly either, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that competition isn't good.
Don't use steam, and there goes what? 90%+ of the PC games available today?

It's a de facto monopoply. Lets not pretend otherwise. If you don't want to be cut off from the vast major of PC games, you MUST use steam. That is monopoly power in action.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
Don't use steam, and there goes what? 90%+ of the PC games available today?

It's a de facto monopoply. Lets not pretend otherwise. If you don't want to be cut off from the vast major of PC games, you MUST use steam. That is monopoly power in action.
I could be wrong here, but as far as I know, Valve has never been sued for anti-competitive practices.

They are a successful company. Partially based on timing, partially based on skills and talent, and partially due to high adoption rate during an influential era. They've provided hardware, new ideas (many of which flopped, but they still push for a better PC experience). Yes, they're still a big corporation, but there are other reasons for their success and size. Poaching games out from under other storefronts isn't something I've personally seen them do. I could be wrong there, but then why would they have something like GOGConnect if they weren't fairly cooperative?
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
I only said they were a monopoly, not they they abused that position.
I guess I fail to see the issue there then.

Also, my points aren't just aimed squarely at Epic. It's also the studios and publishers taking these deals. It all leaves a bad taste.

Put it out on all of the storefronts, and let everyone choose where they get it. That would be the best way to do it. How does that hurt anyone?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
IPut it out on all of the storefronts, and let everyone choose where they get it. That would be the best way to do it. How does that hurt anyone?
Because everyone will just stick with the monopoly then. If you are looking to break into a market that essentially has a monopoly, then you need to offer extra incentive.

For this market, Exclusives are the incentive to consumers, and more money is an incentive to devs. It is pretty much the only option to leverage against a monopoly.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
Have PC enthusiasts always been this fragile?
In what way?

As an "enthusiast" I want to do it MY way. I want a clean PC. OCD comes into it. I want it to operate precisely the way I want. I want to manage my games and other media precisely the way I want. I want it to perform the way I want. When someone (in this case Epic) starts attempting to dictate any of this, I become less happy. In my case though, it's not the end of the world. I'll just skip the game. Fuck it, I don't have time to worry about it. The only reason I even have time to debate it is because I'm multi-tasking. :p

I'm not going to cry and lose sleep over it, but I don't have to like it either.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
M76 said:
I don't think either one is worse than the other.
M76 said:
You originally said there were games that were meant for PC then Sony / MS paid the dev to make them exclusives. I agree that is just as worse if not worse than epic's deals now.
M76 said:
Obviously console exclusives are more of a hindrance
See, this is making this discussion a mess, you're directly contradicting yourself now. So which is it? Neither one is worse, or obviously console ones are worse?


M76 said:
As mentioned before, the only competition is for the developers, not for the customers
M76 said:
They are giving away free games to build up their user numbers
Again, this sounds like a contradiction to me. They're not competing for customers, and yet they're giving away free games to get more customers? That's some upside-down logic to claim that's not being competitive. Now of course that can have additional motives, but you seem to want to deny the obvious just to try and make this a black and white issue. How is giving away free games to get people to use your platform NOT competitive?


M76 said:
even though that company didn't do anything to upset customers in it's 15+ years.of existence.
Right, that's why they were sued by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission due to complaints over breaking the law and refusing to offer refunds. Plus Valve has a stellar history on customer service, right? And OF COURSE everyone was on board and thought Steam was great and not a violation of rights at all when Half-Life 2 came out?

I don't think there's much reasoning with you when you keep saying the opposite of what you said earlier / observable reality. I agree exclusives are generally bad. I think Epic's exclusives are NOTHING compared to console exclusives. I also see what Epic is doing as a whole as having SOME positives, particular in the long term, even if you don't see that. But whatever, black and white thinking can be quite common these days.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
Because everyone will just stick with the monopoly then. If you are looking to break into a market that essentially has a monopoly, then you need to offer extra incentive.

For this market, Exclusives are the incentive to consumers, and more money is an incentive to devs. It is pretty much the only option to leverage against a monopoly.
I still fail to see what's wrong with a monopoly that isn't abusing its position then. That's pretty much the end-game for ANY of these companies. You don't think Epic would have taken on that role if they could have? None of this really matters anyway, because these companies are going to keep doing what they're doing. I'll keep doing things my way. You keep doing them yours. I'm not here to have my mind changed. Just having a conversation. You've got points, and I'm not saying they're wrong. I just don't see things your way.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I still fail to see what's wrong with a monopoly that isn't abusing its position then. That's pretty much the end-game for ANY of these companies. You don't think Epic would have taken on that role if they could have?
In the short term, nothing. In the long term, you'd be hard pressed to find any de facto monopoly that HASN'T abused its position. And yes, pretty much all companies want to be monopolies, it's the end-game of capitalism.

As for Valve, the fact that Epic is trying to move in with 88/12 dev pricing shows that monopoly status hasn't made things as optimal as they could be. From a dev standpoint at least, there have been many criticisms of it.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,422
You guys throwing around the word monopoly in reference to Steam in this market of 2 dozen+ online game stores really need to go re-check the definition.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,536
In the short term, nothing. In the long term, you'd be hard pressed to find any de facto monopoly that HASN'T abused its position. And yes, pretty much all companies want to be monopolies, it's the end-game of capitalism.

As for Valve, the fact that Epic is trying to move in with 88/12 dev pricing shows that monopoly status hasn't made things as optimal as they could be. From a dev standpoint at least, there have been many criticisms of it.
I like competition. I'm for the little-guy being able to eek out a living, or enter into a particular space. I do occasionally cheer on the underdog (provided they're worth cheering for :D ) I love how GOG got to where they are now for example. They found a niche, and built on it until they became a force to be reckoned with. My ratio of 340 Steam to 85 GOG speaks to that.

Epic is in no way the lovable little guy. They're more like, I don't know, a bully trying to squeeze in on a likable popular guy's action. :D Not a great analogy, and as a somewhat-likable pseudo-nerd growing up I didn't really care for either the likable popular guy or the bully. :p Still though I feel like people view Epic as "fighting the power" when they're really just muscling in.

Once again though, it's not even that important to me. Just talking about it because it's the conversation that pulled me in today.
 

Croak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
1,138
I'm not sure it matters much, they get most of their money up front from the Fartnite coffers. Games sales are just filler.
Thing is, Sweeny knows that Fortnight's revenue stream will dry up (it's already peaked). Can't easily reproduce that lightning in a bottle that was Fortnight, don't make stupid money selling engine licences, and don't make stupid money on internally developed games. EGS has the potential to make stupid money and do it without a lot of staff overhead, and even "buying off" the developers/studios to be exclusive on EGS is still probably cheaper than a typical AAA title would cost Epic to develop.

That said, it's a dick move and hurts the consumers, and it can and will hurt developers too, especially once EGS yanks away the safety net that even Epic admits isn't sustainable.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
You guys throwing around the word monopoly in reference to Steam in this market of 2 dozen+ online game stores really need to go re-check the definition.
Hence the reason some of us are using "de facto" monopoly. It's about marketshare. There are dozens of search engines too, yet it's pretty safe to call Google a de facto monopoly. Yes, even with Bing existing.

I like competition. I'm for the little-guy being able to eek out a living, or enter into a particular space. I do occasionally cheer on the underdog (provided they're worth cheering for :D ) I love how GOG got to where they are now for example. They found a niche, and built on it until they became a force to be reckoned with. My ratio of 340 Steam to 85 GOG speaks to that.

Epic is in no way the lovable little guy. They're more like, I don't know, a bully trying to squeeze in on a likable popular guy's action. :D Not a great analogy, and as a somewhat-likable pseudo-nerd growing up I didn't really care for either the likable popular guy or the bully. :p Still though I feel like people view Epic as "fighting the power" when they're really just muscling in.

Once again though, it's not even that important to me. Just talking about it because it's the conversation that pulled me in today.
Oh I hear you, it's more like I see them all as companies that will stab you in the back if it suits their business interests, hence the reason I don't want any one on top (including Epic). As far as I'm concerned GOG is the only one that actually does right by the customer. They're the only that can guarantee you'll get to keep all your games. So yeah, Epic is by no means a lovable little guy. Neither is Valve.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
As far as I'm concerned GOG is the only one that actually does right by the customer. They're the only that can guarantee you'll get to keep all your games. So yeah, Epic is by no means a lovable little guy. Neither is Valve.
Ditto. GoG and CDPR are really the only platform and Game company that has my full respect these days. My only concern is that a platform shakeup might result in lower platform revenue cut, which will hurt little guy like GoG.
 
Top