mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
Did Valve poop in a bunch of people's nests or something?

I know, right? Where is all the Valve/Steam hate coming from? I've seen this mob mentality so many times before it's damn obvious that is what it is.

I have used the Epic Games Store (EGS) to buy Ashen (great game BTW), and that's it, because the Epic Games Launcher (EGL) is lacking in so many areas it's hilarious that people would ever prefer it to Steam.

Some of the things that EGL doesn't have that Steam does (in my most important order):
1. User reviews
2. User mods (Steam Workshop)
3. Integrated controller mapping
4. Integrated discussion forums
5. Friend functions like inviting to game/text chat/voice chat
6. Streaming capability (Steam Link)

And the list goes on and on what the Epic Games Launcher doesn't have and likely won't have.

You people who think Steam is bad and the Epic Games Launcher is better are fucking nuts. Next thing you'll tell us is that the Bethesda Launcher is the creme-De-la-creme of store and game fronts and Fallout 76 is actually a good game... WTF?!?

I understand how competition is a good thing, but we already had that from publisher run launchers like Uplay, Origin, Bethesda Launcher, etc. How is Epic getting exclusives COMPETITION? Here's a hint, it's NOT.
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,252
I loved the Division until I hated it..... MMO gear mechanics just don't work in an fps. I'm sure the game was fun for people staying ahead of the gear curve.

I don't mind that the game is not on Steam. You needed to use Ubi Launcher anyways and I won't make the mistake of buying it again.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,172
I know, right? Where is all the Valve/Steam hate coming from? I've seen this mob mentality so many times before it's damn obvious that is what it is.

I have used the Epic Games Store (EGS) to buy Ashen (great game BTW), and that's it, because the Epic Games Launcher (EGL) is lacking in so many areas it's hilarious that people would ever prefer it to Steam.

Some of the things that EGL doesn't have that Steam does (in my most important order):
1. User reviews
2. User mods (Steam Workshop)
3. Integrated controller mapping
4. Integrated discussion forums
5. Friend functions like inviting to game/text chat/voice chat
6. Streaming capability (Steam Link)

And the list goes on and on what the Epic Games Launcher doesn't have and likely won't have.

You people who think Steam is bad and the Epic Games Launcher are fucking nuts. Next thing you'll tell us is that the Bethesda Launcher is the creme-De-la-creme of store and game fronts and Fallout 76 is actually a good game... WTF?!?

Who said Steam is bad? I love Steam.

But that being said, I also love competition that sparks innovation and also gets me better deals on products. Sure the EGS isn't as full-fledged as Steam is, but it also just released a couple months ago so give it some time to develop.

Some people are being petty about having to install another launcher (despite it already being on millions of PCs thanks to Fortnite) and are acting as if it ruins PC gaming completely. How about we see how EGS develops over the next year and if it results in competition? Users being complacent with their utilization of Steam as their only platform is exactly what Steam wants to prevent any competition.
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,618
If you want to limit the scope of competing platforms to just this one game then sure. But the introduction of this new platform overall isn't a loss for the consumer. You don't have to pay anything for the new launcher and you still get to play the same games on your same PC. It's a minor inconvenience at best.

Seems that some people value convenience over competition. I'd rather endure the minor inconvenience of installing another free launcher if that means Steam's monopoly is now be challenged and sparks competition.
Thing is, it doesn't actually encourage competition when they remove the game from one store and sell it exclusively in another store.

It's only when a game is available on multiple stores, that these stores have to compete for our purchase.
Here I'll agree with you, that it's fine to have additional launchers, if it meant purchasing at a cheaper price for example.
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
18,757
I know, right? Where is all the Valve/Steam hate coming from? I've seen this mob mentality so many times before it's damn obvious that is what it is.

I have used the Epic Games Store (EGS) to buy Ashen (great game BTW), and that's it, because the Epic Games Launcher (EGL) is lacking in so many areas it's hilarious that people would ever prefer it to Steam.

Some of the things that EGL doesn't have that Steam does (in my most important order):
1. User reviews
2. User mods (Steam Workshop)
3. Integrated controller mapping
4. Integrated discussion forums
5. Friend functions like inviting to game/text chat/voice chat
6. Streaming capability (Steam Link)

And the list goes on and on what the Epic Games Launcher doesn't have and likely won't have.

You people who think Steam is bad and the Epic Games Launcher is better are fucking nuts. Next thing you'll tell us is that the Bethesda Launcher is the creme-De-la-creme of store and game fronts and Fallout 76 is actually a good game... WTF?!?

All good points.

Honestly? I'm not one of these people that "I have to have all my games on Steam or else..." but it's easily getting into silly land here with everyone and their mother having their own launchers.

I really loathe the idea that I'm going to have to get that Bethesda Launcher to play Rage 2 which so far looks promising to me. Is it the end of the world? No. Just silly.


I understand how competition is a good thing, but we already had that from publisher run launchers like Uplay, Origin, Bethesda Launcher, etc. How is Epic getting exclusives COMPETITION? Here's a hint, it's NOT.


https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/...lve-steam-competition-pc-gaming-distruibition

https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/13/epic-games-store-steam-competition/


OP-EDs like these are where I first saw the "Epic is good news/competition" talking points.


The only real criticism I've seen of Valve that I can understand would be the percentage price cut they demand to use Steam. That's business. That's where you get a bunch of people to roll their sleeves up and negotiate.

First world problems. LOL. ;)
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,172
Thing is, it doesn't actually encourage competition when they remove the game from one store and sell it exclusively in another store.

It's only when a game is available on multiple stores, that these stores have to compete for our purchase.
Here I'll agree with you, that it's fine to have additional launchers, if it meant purchasing at a cheaper price for example.

I know - my first sentence meant I was agreeing with you.

Selling games exclusively on one store is a sign of competition; and unfortunately is one of the few anti-consumer approaches to competition. But that doesn't mean we won't see competing sales/deals between the two platforms for games universally available on both platforms.

The EGS is trying to capture market share from Steam and the two best (from a business standpoint) ways of doing that are through exclusives and better deals. If the EGS captures enough market share over the next few years then exclusivity may die down. I'm willing to give it a chance just because Steam has been basically unopposed for 15 years which isn't much different than a game being exclusively sold on one distribution platform anyway.
 
Last edited:

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,529
The oft-unspoken downside of this is that sites like CDKeys almost never have anything except Steam games.

Well, that and I'm sick of having like 15 required launchers.
 

thenapalm

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Messages
413
Personal opinion incoming:

I have Steam, GOG, and Battle.net launchers installed. If a game is not available on one of them, the developers can flatly get fucked. I will not have a dozen launchers installed for games.
 

katanaD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
1,987
i will be sticking with steam. come 2020, im betting at least half of all these new startups will be gone
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,897
Seriously fuck store exclusives.

Make every title available in every store, let the market decide which one wins.

I will never have more than one stores client installed on my machine, and since I own countless titles in Steam already, I'm unlikely to switch.

What this means is, no matter what title you are selling, unless it's in Steam, I'm not buying it.

If they don't want me as a customer, that's their choice I guess.
 

Yaka

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
613
i get the hate peeps have for steam and valve

but pc games as exclusives for a single store front is just not on. just dont buy these games end of its the only way they will listen.
 

Stanley Pain

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
2,486
I wanted to check out that stupid game Last Year the Nightmare until I heard it's exclusive on... wait for it... the DISCORD store for like a month. In a month that game will be deader than dead. Thanks game company for saving me $30.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I wanted to check out that stupid game Last Year the Nightmare until I heard it's exclusive on... wait for it... the DISCORD store for like a month. In a month that game will be deader than dead. Thanks game company for saving me $30.
Discord has its own storefront?

upload_2019-1-10_14-8-51.png
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,000
Which still doesn't nessecarily benifit the consumer and we now have yet another launcher to install, another item running the background sucking up system resources.

As a consumer I'd consider that an 'Epic' fail that's right up there with the fabled trickle down effect.

Your opinion is noted and immediately discarded. The gaming companies only care about one thing: increasing profits. Hence the reason Steam exists in the first place. Valve wanted to maximize profits and tethered a popular game to a platform no one wanted. Guess where that garbage launcher with the non-functional "friends" feature is now?

As for your second comment that is nice but entirely but wrong. Origin offered a seamless way to install games to a different drives. Valve got off their asses and added that feature promptly after. Same with refunds.

Seriously fuck store exclusives.

While I also agree with the concept in general I find it ironic that no one complains about Valve forcing their games to be tethered to Steam, even if a physical copy. They've been doing this for 15+ years now.

I will never have more than one stores client installed on my machine, and since I own countless titles in Steam already, I'm unlikely to switch.

I just don't understand this line of thought anymore. I'm certainly against another, crappy launcher but Steam is far from the only platform. Steam lost this battle ~8 years ago. My PC is perfectly capable of installing another launcher and yes, if needed, can run both at the same time. But I close every launcher unless it is in use. I only started leaving Steam on very recently due to the friends list but most people seem to have stopped using that as well and moved to Discord.

Personally I've never had any problems organizing games from different platforms. When Steam came out I had no problem organizing my Steam vs non-Steam games and still don't. Each to their own.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
A sampling of this thread has convinced me that at least 60% of the users on the forum are NPCs.

Welcome fair traveler. I have a request to make of you. I am in need of somebody to recover my 100 glass orbs that I have lost. Each one contains a golden skull belonging to one of my ancestors. If you return them all to me I will give you a reward.
Do you accept this quest?
> Yes
No
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
While I also agree with the concept in general I find it ironic that no one complains about Valve forcing their games to be tethered to Steam, even if a physical copy. They've been doing this for 15+ years now.

You must be young.

Steam was a DRM solution before it was a storefront.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I know, right? Where is all the Valve/Steam hate coming from? I've seen this mob mentality so many times before it's damn obvious that is what it is.
Well I don't hate Steam, so I can't speak for people on that side, it's more that I see the danger of having all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Steam is generally good NOW. What about in 10 years or 20? What if Gabe retires, Valve decides to go public, shareholders want more money grabby techniques, then all your gaming is held hostage to some tie-in shit you don't want? Or hey, what if they decide to "phase out" ownership and go for a games as a service model, where you lose access to library unless you start paying a monthly fee? This is the danger of monopoly power. You can trust people, you can't trust companies. So in my case, it's not that I'm anti-Steam, so much as I'm anti-monopoly.

Seriously fuck store exclusives.

Make every title available in every store, let the market decide which one wins.
That would be Steam, since they have a decade and a half of entrenchment. If they all competed equally, no one will ever significantly challenge them, no matter how good their service is. I'm not fond of exclusives either (though it's a HUGE difference between a store exclusive v. a platform one in my eyes), but in the long term, I think it could be argued it's a necessary evil in order to prevent monopoly influence.

Zarathustra[H] said:
What this means is, no matter what title you are selling, unless it's in Steam, I'm not buying it.
This is pretty much the textbook definition of a fanboy, just saying.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,897
This is pretty much the textbook definition of a fanboy, just saying.

Nope. I'm not saying Steam is perfect, the best, or even great.

I'm saying I already have lots of titles in it, and I refuse to have multiple platforms installed on my machine. I want everything in one place.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,897
I just don't understand this line of thought anymore. I'm certainly against another, crappy launcher but Steam is far from the only platform. Steam lost this battle ~8 years ago. My PC is perfectly capable of installing another launcher and yes, if needed, can run both at the same time. But I close every launcher unless it is in use. I only started leaving Steam on very recently due to the friends list but most people seem to have stopped using that as well and moved to Discord.

Personally I've never had any problems organizing games from different platforms. When Steam came out I had no problem organizing my Steam vs non-Steam games and still don't. Each to their own.

I don't trust any of them. My philosophy on my computer is the same as my philosophy on my phone. Trust no one, and keep your exposure limited, this means having as few apps/platforms/stores installed as possible. I also don't like background threads and processes.

I never really used the community in Steam. I also don't use Discord or Twitch. If I want to talk to someone I'll Text, Call or email them, I don't need that shit built into a gaming platform. When I did the whole clan thing, we had our own vbulletin-style forum and our own Teamspeak server. Neither Twitch nor Discord will ever be installed on my machine.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,000
Well I don't hate Steam, so I can't speak for people on that side, it's more that I see the danger of having all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Steam is generally good NOW. What about in 10 years or 20? What if Gabe retires, Valve decides to go public, shareholders want more money grabby techniques, then all your gaming is held hostage to some tie-in shit you don't want?

That is my biggest fear with Valve. Once Newell is gone I am sure the company will slowly go to shit.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
That is my biggest fear with Valve. Once Newell is gone I am sure the company will slowly go to shit.

Same here, but it's not the departure of Gabe that worries me, it's if it ever goes public (which will probably be at the same time).

It seems to be that once a company answers to shareholders, they stop answering to customers.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
Well I don't hate Steam, so I can't speak for people on that side, it's more that I see the danger of having all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Steam is generally good NOW. What about in 10 years or 20? What if Gabe retires, Valve decides to go public, shareholders want more money grabby techniques, then all your gaming is held hostage to some tie-in shit you don't want? Or hey, what if they decide to "phase out" ownership and go for a games as a service model, where you lose access to library unless you start paying a monthly fee? This is the danger of monopoly power. You can trust people, you can't trust companies. So in my case, it's not that I'm anti-Steam, so much as I'm anti-monopoly.

I agree with this 100%, but I refuse to believe that there is any other games launcher/store/community better than Steam at this time.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,687
Well I don't hate Steam, so I can't speak for people on that side, it's more that I see the danger of having all your eggs in one basket. Sure, Steam is generally good NOW. What about in 10 years or 20? What if Gabe retires, Valve decides to go public, shareholders want more money grabby techniques, then all your gaming is held hostage to some tie-in shit you don't want? Or hey, what if they decide to "phase out" ownership and go for a games as a service model, where you lose access to library unless you start paying a monthly fee? This is the danger of monopoly power. You can trust people, you can't trust companies. So in my case, it's not that I'm anti-Steam, so much as I'm anti-monopoly.

That would be Steam, since they have a decade and a half of entrenchment. If they all competed equally, no one will ever significantly challenge them, no matter how good their service is. I'm not fond of exclusives either (though it's a HUGE difference between a store exclusive v. a platform one in my eyes), but in the long term, I think it could be argued it's a necessary evil in order to prevent monopoly influence.

This is pretty much the textbook definition of a fanboy, just saying.

Although I agree with most of your point IME exclusives do not do what you think they actually do the opposite they create monopolies. Afterall it was valves monopoly that was all started with HL2 being exclusive to the platform. Windows and office, and so on, exclusives are always in the best interest of rich and powerful that can obtain them. Wake me up when the division decides to partner with some small indie store as their exclusive partner. Even when it seems like they are, they usually are just being backed by some massive money trying to break into the market. IMO things would actually be competitive if IP law was changed to say something to the effect of you have to offer your product or service to anyone who wants to sell it at a set price, then people have to actually fight over offering the customer better value.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,000
Now I know the BBB is pretty much a scam organization, but I still thought this was relevant:

From WaPo:

Fortnite maker Epic Games earns 'F' rating from Better Business Bureau

Valve received similar. Epic has been in business for a long time and everything I'd heard about them has been great. The general consensus is that they've been better than Crytek (who had hidden fees and features behind paywalls if I recall) when it comes to support and Valve trailed by a massive margin to both. I'm going to assume most of these new complaints are the average idiot who had some regrets buying some cosmetic item in Fortnite. But Epic is first and foremost a game engine company. They've only done maybe one game franchise at a time historically. Fornite just blew up in popularity and its the most popular game right now. All of a sudden they have an active player base that tops anything on Steam by a huge margin. Add in the general demographic (kids and idiots) it is popular with and I'm going to assume support is going to be difficult and has to be scaled up.

Valve on the other hand has pretty much been garbage in terms of support for both business and average consumers for many years even when growing at a massive rate. I remember the one time they sold me a game without having CD keys in stock. Wish they had told me so up front so I wouldn't have had to wait 3-4 days for them to finally activate my purchase. I could've purchase elsewhere and received the key immediately but I think that was before sites like GMG were popular.

Something else I am sure that has Valve scared is South Dakota vs Wayfair. I see them loosing a massive amount of US buyers in the coming months.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Now I know the BBB is pretty much a scam organization, but I still thought this was relevant:

From WaPo:

Fortnite maker Epic Games earns 'F' rating from Better Business Bureau
So in other words, they're like everyone else:

https://techraptor.net/content/valve-customer-service-f-better-business-bureau

The gaming industry has become incredibly consumer-hostile to be honest. They're trying their damndest to eradicate game ownership and are largely winning. The fact that you can buy a game that requires you to connect to the company, they can shut down the game at any time and brick your game and leave you with nothing is a terrible standard. Pretty much GOG is the only company to do good by the consumer in that regard.
 

focbde

Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
545
I'm with others on this - whilst I do lament the multiple-store situation, I do think that Steam has been ripping off developers for far too long... this was bound to happen.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I'm with others on this - whilst I do lament the multiple-store situation, I do think that Steam has been ripping off developers for far too long... this was bound to happen.
Better add every other store to your list, then. 30% is still the industry standard cut that digital storefronts take.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,172
Better add every other store to your list, then. 30% is still the industry standard cut that digital storefronts take.
Not for long it seems. EGS and the Discord Store both have cuts of 12% and 10% respectively. This caused Valve to rethink their strategy and their cut is now based on the game's generated revenue with tiers of 30%, 25% and 20% instead of the flat 30% for most games that Valve has been charging for years.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,897
Better add every other store to your list, then. 30% is still the industry standard cut that digital storefronts take.

I don't think 30% is such a large chunk considering the fact that they host 50+GB titles for all eternity and allow users unlimited downloads. The bandwidth and server costs alone must be pretty outrageous, not to mention the staff to maintain the client, networks and servers.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure how these lower cost storefronts are going to make a profit or even stay in business. I'm betting these are just interim costs, and that they plan on operating at a loss until they gain market share, and jack prices back up.

Brick and mortar stores usually have a 100% markup on items they sell, not to mention agreements that manufacturers take back any opened or damaged merchandise for a full refund. Then add in the cost of boxes, pressing discs, printing manuals, trucking games across the country and the world.

There is a reason Valves Steam took off as fast as it did when they launched, and it was the fact that they ONLY took 30%, a tiny fraction of what pressing, printing, packaging, sales and distribution used to cost.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,172
I don't think 30% is such a large chunk considering the fact that they host 50+GB titles for all eternity and allow users unlimited downloads. The bandwidth and server costs alone must be pretty outrageous, not to mention the staff to maintain the client, networks and servers.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure how these lower cost storefronts are going to make a profit or even stay in business. I'm betting these are just interim costs, and that they plan on operating at a loss until they gain market share, and jack prices back up.

Brick and mortar stores usually have a 100% markup on items they sell, not to mention agreements that manufacturers take back any opened or damaged merchandise for a full refund. Then add in the cost of boxes, pressing discs, printing manuals, trucking games across the country and the world.

There is a reason Valves Steam took off as fast as it did when they launched, and it was the fact that they ONLY took 30%, a tiny fraction of what pressing, printing, packaging, sales and distribution used to cost.

Valve likely makes immense profit off of Steam (won't know for sure since it isn't publicly traded). I highly doubt they are scraping by with a 30% distribution cut even after operational costs. Most of their infrastructure is also already developed so costs are mostly maintenance with periodic upgrades to infrastructure. Both Epic and Discord also have infrastructure set-up from the services they already provide.

I also highly doubt that Epic and Discord didn't do extensive research to determine what cut they should take while still being able to effectively operate and still generate profit. It'll most likely be less profit than Valve/Steam rakes in by a large margin, but its still profit. Valve already responded to the EGS and Discord Store's reduced distribution fee by adjusting theirs (20/25/30% tiers). They know they still have the vast majority of the marketshare and that's probably why they didn't go down any further. But if they start losing marketshare I bet you'll see that distribution % begin to drop even further.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,713
I am guessing you are thinking of this because Epic does not support Linux and Steam does, am I right? Competition is a good thing and hopefully, this will drive it in the right direction.

Not at all. When I was running Windows I stopped playing EA games because Origin was garbage and I didn't want yet another launcher running in the background.

Your opinion is noted and immediately discarded. The gaming companies only care about one thing: increasing profits. Hence the reason Steam exists in the first place. Valve wanted to maximize profits and tethered a popular game to a platform no one wanted. Guess where that garbage launcher with the non-functional "friends" feature is now?

As for your second comment that is nice but entirely but wrong. Origin offered a seamless way to install games to a different drives. Valve got off their asses and added that feature promptly after. Same with refunds.

Did you just respond to the wrong person? Your reply literally does not relate to anything I posted in any way whatsoever.

Let me just say though, that on release Origin did not offer the user the ability to save games where ever they wanted and I used the same HDD for all of my titles downloaded under Steam since it's release with HL2 under an vast number of Windows installs - So it's always been possible to transfer games to a different drive, you just had to know how.
 
Last edited:

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
I don't think 30% is such a large chunk considering the fact that they host 50+GB titles for all eternity and allow users unlimited downloads. The bandwidth and server costs alone must be pretty outrageous, not to mention the staff to maintain the client, networks and servers.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure how these lower cost storefronts are going to make a profit or even stay in business. I'm betting these are just interim costs, and that they plan on operating at a loss until they gain market share, and jack prices back up.

Brick and mortar stores usually have a 100% markup on items they sell, not to mention agreements that manufacturers take back any opened or damaged merchandise for a full refund. Then add in the cost of boxes, pressing discs, printing manuals, trucking games across the country and the world.

There is a reason Valves Steam took off as fast as it did when they launched, and it was the fact that they ONLY took 30%, a tiny fraction of what pressing, printing, packaging, sales and distribution used to cost.

storage is cheap.
 

Litfod

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,462
Personal opinion incoming:

I have Steam, GOG, and Battle.net launchers installed. If a game is not available on one of them, the developers can flatly get fucked. I will not have a dozen launchers installed for games.

But you'll have 3? Why not tell Activision/Blizzard to get fucked too? They could put their games on Steam if they wanted.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,713
But you'll have 3? Why not tell Activision/Blizzard to get fucked too? They could put their games on Steam if they wanted.

My thinking exactly. I don't want half a dozen launchers in the name of Capitalism, this benefits the consumer about as much as Apple's T2 chip and is every bit as annoying.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,000
Did you just respond to the wrong person? Your reply literally does not relate to anything I posted in any way whatsoever.

Oh it does, you just disregarded it because I didn't jump on the "Steam is gr8t!" bandwagon. Your opinion is great but no ones cares about it. See Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard & more. They want to maximize profits and will create their own storefront and will force their titles to be exclusive to it (exception being Ubisoft, for now).

Besides, you pretty much contradicted yourself in your next line to. Read below:

Let me just say though, that on release Origin did not offer the user the ability to save games where ever they wanted and I used the same HDD for all of my titles downloaded under Steam since it's release with HL2 under an vast number of Windows installs - So it's always been possible to transfer games to a different drive, you just had to know how.

On release it didn't, but if offered flawless alternate install paths before Steam did. Same for refunds. There were shoddy work arounds for Steam, sure, but they were shoddy and didn't work well. EA forced Valve to start adding better features. Which proves that competition works. This isn't hypothetical, it literally happened.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,713
Oh it does, you just disregarded it because I didn't jump on the "Steam is gr8t!" bandwagon. Your opinion is great but no ones cares about it. See Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard & more. They want to maximize profits and will create their own storefront and will force their titles to be exclusive to it (exception being Ubisoft, for now).

Besides, you pretty much contradicted yourself in your next line to. Read below:



On release it didn't, but if offered flawless alternate install paths before Steam did. Same for refunds. There were shoddy work arounds for Steam, sure, but they were shoddy and didn't work well. EA forced Valve to start adding better features. Which proves that competition works. This isn't hypothetical, it literally happened.

I never disputed that these capitalistic companies want to maximize profits, in fact if you read my post you will see that I actually quoted that's exactly what they want to do.

My point was that none of this is beneficial to the end consumer.

We now have half a dozen stores/launchers all sucking down system resources that effectively all do the exact same thing and any savings experienced by the developer are not passed in any way on to the consumer. It's all about greed and not customer experience, because that's what capitalistic USA is all about. I don't give two shits regarding what you think about Steam, who cares about Steam ten years ago?
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,715
I never disputed that these capitalistic companies want to maximize profits, in fact if you read my post you will see that I actually quoted that's exactly what they want to do.

My point was that none of this is beneficial to the end consumer.

We now have half a dozen stores/launchers all sucking down system resources that effectively all do the exact same thing and any savings experienced by the developer are not passed in any way on to the consumer. It's all about greed and not customer experience, because that's what capitalistic USA is all about. I don't give two shits regarding what you think about Steam, who cares about Steam ten years ago?
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Top