# Epic's Tim Sweeney Says They'd Stop Hunting for Exclusives if Steam Matched Epic Games Store in Comission Rates



## Raevenlord (Apr 26, 2019)

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has come out with an interesting commitment: that EPIC would stop hunting for exclusives in the PC platform is Steam were to match them in their 88% return to developers for each game sold. Being a developer themselves, Epic games have certainly looked into creating their own storefront as a way to escape the clutches of Steam's cut in the digital, PC distribution market (a move that had already been done by the likes of EA and Ubisoft, if you'll remember). A commitment to stop hunting for exclusives (and thus segregating the PC games offering across different platforms) is a clear indicator of Epic's mission with the Epic Games Store: to bring back power and returns to developers such as them (while taking a cut from the profits for themselves, obviously).

Check out after the break for the full content of Sweeney's remarks regarding their Games Store and the problem with Steam. I, for one, don't see much of a problem with virtual segregation of games across multiple PC-bound platforms - one of the strengths of PC gaming is actually the ability to install multiple applications that increase functionality, after all. But if the end game of all of this is simply to give more back to developers and Epic's move facilitates that by forcing Valve's hand in matching them for fear of drying profits - then so be it.



 

 





> If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam.30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, publishers, and everyone who relies on those businesses for their livelihood. We're determined to fix it and this is the one approach that will effect major change.
> 
> Such a move would be a glorious moment in the history of PC gaming, and would have a sweeping impact on other platforms for generations to come.
> Then stores could go back to just being nice places to buy stuff, rather than the Game Developer IRS.
> ...



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2019)

Just ridiculous. Fortnite money to bribe people will end at some point, and if they keep going like this it might be over soon, that day i'll be the first in line watching you sink with your trash game and filthy practices, hopefully you'll end up like fkn Bleszinski


----------



## Dimi (Apr 26, 2019)

So what about the Steam keys that Valve provides for free to devs/pubs to sell on other stores like GMG, Humble Bundle, Amazon... Keys they have 0% cut on. They practically lose money on those keys.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 26, 2019)

Yup no one would use epic and not many would be aware of them if it wasn't for fortnite and fortnite alone and when that bubble bursts, which it will, they will go back to obscurity


----------



## KllR007 (Apr 26, 2019)

lol. He don't have problem that Sony and MS taking 30% ? It is standard for long. He think his 12% is deal-breaker ? Cmon, if he would believe it they wouldn't buy exclusivities because every developer would be gladly with them.. Instead they need to buy off games days before release and making their monopoly on PC gaming.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

Sweeney has said before that Epic can't continue the limited exclusives forever. Maybe they are already reaching a tipping point and he's looking for a way out of this squabble with Steam in a face-saving manner. The bottom line is that what he wanted was to build up the base of EGS and he's probably achieved that or gotten close to it. Next, continue making improvements to EGS.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 26, 2019)

The plot thickens...


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 26, 2019)

64K said:


> Sweeney has said before that Epic can't continue the limited exclusives forever. Maybe they are already reaching a tipping point and he's looking for a way out of this squabble with Steam in a face-saving manner. The bottom line is that what he wanted was to build up the base of EGS and he's probably achieved that or gotten close to it. Next, continue making improvements to EGS.



In my opinion is that Valve does so much more than just sell your game, they give you data, they fix drivers, compatibility with controllers, they give you frameworks to work with etc.

it's not just a store which is why they charge a little more, maybe they've charged too much, maybe not and I won't be the judge of That.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 26, 2019)

They have no other way to justify their poor bribing move.


----------



## kastriot (Apr 26, 2019)

I think Epic was doomed from begining but at least they tried.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 26, 2019)

So he doesn't believe that a significantly better platform should be charging more for it....


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> So he doesn't believe that a significantly better platform should be charging more for it....



Basically, and that's an asinine stance to take. It would be one thing if EGS were anywhere close to on par with Steam but as it is right now they aren't close. 

Sweeney doesn't seem to be aware that the features that makes Steam stand out didn't just happen by accident. Valve has put a lot of effort and money into Steam to get it where it is.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 26, 2019)

Dont really understand all this seemingly blind hatred.... its like the people being against Tesla...

You have to spend money to make money, maybe with some exclusive content it gets people interested, this is just how you do things, this is super standard yet now you are all upset?

And the suggestion that Steam asks less money of the developers also upsets you? do you guys have a personal stake in the financial prosperity of Steam/Valve or something?

Lets not forget that because of the success of Fortnite, Epic decided to lower the cost of the Unreal engine and retro actively also paid companies who already used and paid for the engine the difference back.

I would think you guys (gamers) would be rooting for a move/a company like this, competition is always good for the consumer and more money for the devs could also mean better games or lower prices, yet you are all upset....


----------



## Shihab (Apr 26, 2019)

As much as I like Sweeny and Epic, this over-the-top idealism is provoking my cynisim. Still, if the major stakeholders in this fiasco, the developers, seem to be on Epic's side, even with all the features that make Steam a "significantly better platform" (c'mon now, do achievments and other minor features really out-weigh a better game with more funds invested in making the game itself?).
The ball is really on Valve's court here. Sweeny isn't being quite deplomatic with it, but still.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Yup no one would use epic and not many would be aware of them if it wasn't for fortnite and fortnite alone and when that bubble bursts, which it will, they will go back to obscurity


Pretty sure many gamers would easily recognize the brand that pops up everytime they boot up any of the endless onslaught of UE3/4-based titles. Without going into the fact that Epic is the house behind Gears of War and Unreal Tournament, two well known game series with a considerably large fanbase.



KllR007 said:


> lol. He don't have problem that Sony and MS taking 30% ? It is standard for long. He think his 12% is deal-breaker ? Cmon, if he would believe it they wouldn't buy exclusivities because every developer would be gladly with them.. Instead they need to buy off games days before release and making their monopoly on PC gaming.


The comparison is highly moot (and honestly is pure whataboutry). Steam and Epic both maintain an entirely cloud/software-based platform, Sony and Microsoft have a hardware side to maintain as well.


----------



## Slizzo (Apr 26, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Yup no one would use epic and not many would be aware of them if it wasn't for fortnite and fortnite alone and when that bubble bursts, which it will, they will go back to obscurity



Unreal and Unreal Tournament would like a word. Also Jazz Jackrabbit.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2019)

Shihabyooo said:


> As much as I like Sweeny and Epic, this over-the-top idealism is provoking my cynisim. Still, if the major stakeholders in this fiasco, the developers, seem to be on Epic's side, even with all the features that make Steam a "significantly better platform" (c'mon now, do achievments and other minor features really out-weigh a better game with more funds invested in making the game itself?).
> The ball is really on Valve's court here. Sweeny isn't being quite deplomatic with it, but still.
> 
> 
> ...



You have no idea what you're talking about, like someone else roaming this forum

_"(c'mon now, do achievments and other minor features really out-weigh a better game with more funds invested in making the game itself?)"_

rofl


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Apr 26, 2019)

EGS can just join the other bunch of discount stores.  Those stores never bothered Valve before, why should EGS?  

EGS would need to constantly bankroll exclusive titles for Valve to pay them any attention IMO.  If EGS isn't prepared to do this, or if game publishers are not getting the sales volume they expected, even with being paid upfront then it's probably pointless.


----------



## Metroid (Apr 26, 2019)

Epic's Tim Sweeney = aka trump of the gaming industry hehe

"Let's undo everything and get a better deal.", This is what trump is doing ehhe


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 26, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Dont really understand all this seemingly blind hatred.... its like the people being against Tesla...
> 
> You have to spend money to make money, maybe with some exclusive content it gets people interested, this is just how you do things, this is super standard yet now you are all upset?
> 
> ...



It isn't just blind hatred, there is reason to dislike the way that Epic is doing things.  Think of it like this, if Intel was paying companies(like Dell and HP) large sums of money to only use Intel processors, would you be OK with it?  No. In fact, they tried it, people freaked out about, and Intel even went to court because of it, several times.

If the platform itself, and the costs savings that come with it, was the only thing Epic was using to get these exclusives, I'd be fine with it.  But that isn't the case, they are paying huge lump sums of money to get exclusives.  Which very clearly shows that devs, and Epic themselves, know the platform alone isn't worth the what they save on commision.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 26, 2019)

meh, I'm only here to play games.


----------



## FYFI13 (Apr 26, 2019)

They just keep shooting into own feet. Well done.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 26, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't just blind hatred, there is reason to dislike the way that Epic is doing things.  Think of it like this, if Intel was paying companies(like Dell and HP) large sums of money to only use Intel processors, would you be OK with it?  No. In fact, they tried it, people freaked out about, and Intel even went to court because of it, several times.


Except in Epic's case it is _timed_ exclusivity, which makes your comparison inaccurate at the very least.



newtekie1 said:


> If the platform itself, and the costs savings that come with it, was the only thing Epic was using to get these exclusives, I'd be fine with it.  But that isn't the case, they are paying huge lump sums of money to get exclusives.  Which very clearly shows that devs, and Epic themselves, know the platform alone isn't worth the what they save on commision.


If the platform itself and the cost savings was all Epic had to offer, few people would switch. Why would they? Users tend to not like change. Why would a user switch to a different platform if the platform he is currently using offers him everything he needs? Even if Epic offers(ed) slightly lower prices, users would still most likely stick with Steam, i.e. the price cut would not be an incentive enough for users to switch, instead they would be willing to pay a higher price just to keep using what they are used to.
Epic needs a large incentive to entice users to come to them. Exclusives are such an incentive.

Incidentally, I'm also in the minority who are baffled that so many "gamers" tend to follow stores and companies, and not the games themselves.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 26, 2019)

Shihabyooo said:


> As much as I like Sweeny and Epic, this over-the-top idealism is provoking my cynisim. Still, if the major stakeholders in this fiasco, the developers, seem to be on Epic's side, even with all the features that make Steam a "significantly better platform" (c'mon now, do achievments and other minor features really out-weigh a better game with more funds invested in making the game itself?).
> The ball is really on Valve's court here. Sweeny isn't being quite deplomatic with it, but still.
> 
> 
> ...


This is true though all of those games you never needed the epic game store for afaik


----------



## PanicLake (Apr 26, 2019)

Dimi said:


> So what about the Steam keys that Valve provides for free to devs/pubs to sell on other stores like GMG, Humble Bundle, Amazon... Keys they have 0% cut on. They practically lose money on those keys.


"Steam keys that Valve provides"? I believe you got it all backwards...


----------



## Patriot (Apr 26, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Except in Epic's case it is _timed_ exclusivity, which makes your comparison inaccurate at the very least.



That is actually also fairly accurate... Can't use AMD cpu's till they are 1yr old.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 26, 2019)

Dimi said:


> So what about the Steam keys that Valve provides for free to devs/pubs to sell on other stores like GMG, Humble Bundle, Amazon... Keys they have 0% cut on. They practically lose money on those keys.



How on earth did you conclude they hand those out for free?  I certainly would not assume such, but I've never published on steam so could be wrong.  Citation please as it seems outlandish.



GinoLatino said:


> "Steam keys that Valve provides"? I believe you got it all backwards...



Of course valve provides them...  who else would?  They MAKE steam.  The stores he listed aren't key resellers.  They sell new unused keys.


----------



## olymind1 (Apr 26, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't just blind hatred, there is reason to dislike the way that Epic is doing things.  Think of it like this, if Intel was paying companies(like Dell and HP) large sums of money to only use Intel processors, would you be OK with it?  No. In fact, they tried it, people freaked out about, and Intel even went to court because of it, several times.
> 
> If the platform itself, and the costs savings that come with it, was the only thing Epic was using to get these exclusives, I'd be fine with it.  But that isn't the case, they are paying huge lump sums of money to get exclusives.  Which very clearly shows that devs, and Epic themselves, know the platform alone isn't worth the what they save on commision.



Except you can run Epic Store on any PC. If Epic Store would be Linux only, then i would understand the upset, but this is just an another game launcher for windows.

From the developers perspective they probably are happy for the one time large income, then there is the lower commission.

You could be angry at Blizzard too because they don't release their games on steam, or Bioware because they don't release games on steam anymore, or...


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

olymind1 said:


> You could be angry at Blizzard too because they don't release their games on steam, or Bioware because they don't release games on steam anymore, or...



That's not what most people are angry about. There's really nothing wrong with a Publisher making their own games made by their own Developers exclusive to their own store. Valve has been doing that from the beginning on Steam. What most people are angry about is Epic paying other Publishers to make their games timed exclusives on EGS.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 26, 2019)

Patriot said:


> That is actually also fairly accurate... Can't use AMD cpu's till they are 1yr old.


I don't recall any such specific details, but I could be wrong.

And even if that were the case, there is still the difference that Intel acted from a position of dominance, whereas Epic can hardly be called dominant.
Also, Intel's practice could be considered harmful in some way to the consumer, as in it limited people's choice, and possibly prevented them from receiving a superior product (should AMD's processors had been better for the taks(s) the user needed the computer for).
In the case of Steam vs. Epic consumers can still receive the exact same product they pay for. In fact, one could make an argument that the extra financial support from Epic could lead to a better and more polished product.



64K said:


> What most people are angry about is Epic paying other Publishers to make their games timed exclusives on EGS.


Which strikes me as outrage based (mostly) on morality and ethics, because the actual, practical downsides for the consumer are minor. Apart from reviews, every other feature that the Epic Game Store is missing seems insignificant.


----------



## Markosz (Apr 26, 2019)

Absolute non-sense... They try to play the good guys, like they are doing a favour for everyone, but it's obvious what they are doing.
If Steam suddenly matched their rates then they'd s*** their pants and do even more exclusives to stay relevant.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 26, 2019)

KllR007 said:


> lol. He don't have problem that Sony and MS taking 30% ? It is standard for long. He think his 12% is deal-breaker ? Cmon, if he would believe it they wouldn't buy exclusivities because every developer would be gladly with them.. Instead they need to buy off games days before release and making their monopoly on PC gaming.


Exactly, but I have this down as a community pr play, " hey guy's were not so Bad and it's all Steam's fault".

But in saying that if steam did bring down costs i wouldn't complain.

However none of this will happen, it's BS if steam were at 88%/12% epic would have still created their store and would still chase exclusive games to push it, he's only saying it because he knows it won't happen.
Steam have to make up for those keys some devs sell off to grey sites cheap ,while moaning about their cut.

It's complex eh.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Apart from reviews, every other feature that the Epic Game Store is missing seems insignificant.



But we all have to be careful with that. I don't care about most of Steam's features and I certainly don't care about Steam reviews but most people do so I can't say that those features shouldn't matter to anyone.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Exactly, but I have this down as a community pr play, " hey guy's were not so Bad and it's all Steam's fault".
> 
> But in saying that if steam did bring down costs i wouldn't complain.
> 
> ...



From some of Sweeney's tweets I gather he is trying to paint the exclusives as a means to force Valve to lower their cut on Steam to help other Developers and Publishers. In one he said, "_30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, publishers, and everyone who relies on those businesses for their livelihood._" 

imo Sweeney is doing the exclusives to help EGS get a head start. I doubt he's concerned very much with the welfare of competitor Publishers.


----------



## noel_fs (Apr 26, 2019)

the hero we dont deserve


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 26, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Which strikes me as outrage based (mostly) on morality and ethics, because the actual, practical downsides for the consumer are minor. Apart from reviews, every other feature that the Epic Game Store is missing seems insignificant.



Just because a feature is seems insignificant to you doesn't mean it is to others. 



NRANM said:


> In the case of Steam vs. Epic consumers can still receive the exact same product they pay for. In fact, one could make an argument that the extra financial support from Epic could lead to a better and more polished product.



That just seems like a silly idea. Just because a company can possibly save money or make more because they're selling on EGS or even their own digital store doesn't mean the company will provide a better or more polished product.

Bethesda pushed out Fallout 76 on their own store - game came out riddled with bugs and exploits.
Diablo 3 came out on Blizzard's store - game was a step back from what Diablo 2 was, plus the push for real money transactions in game.....
BattleField V came out on Origin - same rehashed crap as previous BattleField games (at least in my opinion)
BattleFront 2 came out on Origin - crappy reskinned BattleField game (at least in my opinion)

These all are probably not the best examples, but you get the idea. The publisher didn't have to worry about forking over any extra cash to a third party to help distribute their games, but the games didn't come out better or more polished.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 26, 2019)

Imsochobo said:


> they give you data, they fix drivers,


Wait what?  What data?  And when have they ever fixed drivers?  Can you please explain both of those better?



Metroid said:


> Epic's Tim Sweeney = aka trump of the gaming industry hehe
> 
> "Let's undo everything and get a better deal.", This is what trump is doing ehhe


Leave politics out of this. It has no place in this thread.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 26, 2019)

64K said:


> But we all have to be careful with that. I don't care about most of Steam's features and I certainly don't care about Steam reviews but most people do so I can't say that those features shouldn't matter to anyone.





neatfeatguy said:


> Just because a feature is seems insignificant to you doesn't mean it is to others.


Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly.

What I meant was that the core functionality is there:
- purchase game
- download/install game
- play game.

Everything else is secondary.
Of course I agree that more features and functionality is a good thing. I am all for providing users with more options, but is the lack of these extra features really _*that*_ detrimental to one's experience and enjoyment while playing a game?
Besides, some of the missing features are planned anyway.



neatfeatguy said:


> That just seems like a silly idea. Just because a company can possibly save money or make more because they're selling on EGS or even their own digital store doesn't mean the company will provide a better or more polished product.
> 
> Bethesda pushed out Fallout 76 on their own store - game came out riddled with bugs and exploits.
> Diablo 3 came out on Blizzard's store - game was a step back from what Diablo 2 was, plus the push for real money transactions in game.....
> ...


Not only are these not the best examples, they are awful examples. I wasn't referring to huge and wealthy companies that have flops not because they cannot fund them but because they don't care. I was referring to smaller developers who have much limited resources to work with, and for whom every additional bit of funding can actually help quite a bit.

Like for example Julian Gollop, who said that the extra money would be put to good use by allowing them to expand and update Phoenix Point, and to allow backers to receive all DLC released in the first year for free. Now, whether they will actually do all that is an entirely different topic of discussion. The point is it is possible, and the consumer can only stand to gain from this.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly.
> 
> What I meant was that the core functionality is there:
> - purchase game
> ...



No problem and not to single you out. It's just that Sweeney is making the comment that Steam should lower their cut to match Epic right now when Valve has invested so much more effort and money in Steam to make it the best store out there. He shouldn't be making comments that Steam should match Epic's cut until Epic has paid their dues like Valve and brought the promised new features to EGS.

If one day EGS does indeed rival Steam as a store then his words would carry much more weight. At least with me.


----------



## Dimi (Apr 26, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> How on earth did you conclude they hand those out for free?  I certainly would not assume such, but I've never published on steam so could be wrong.  Citation please as it seems outlandish.
> Of course valve provides them...  who else would?  They MAKE steam.  The stores he listed aren't key resellers.  They sell new unused keys.



"Steam keys are meant to be a convenient tool for game developers to sell their game on other stores and at retail. Steam keys are free and can be activated by customers on Steam to grant a license to a product.

Valve provides the same free bandwidth and services to customers activating a Steam key that it provides to customers buying a license on Steam. We ask you to treat Steam customers no worse than customers buying Steam keys outside of Steam. While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.

For more information on how keys work for customers, visit the customer facing support site here."

Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

They literally have *0% cut* on every key sold outside of Steam.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 26, 2019)

64K said:


> No problem and not to single you out. It's just that Sweeney is making the comment that Steam should lower their cut to match Epic right now when Valve has invested so much more effort and money in Steam to make it the best store out there. He shouldn't be making comments that Steam should match Epic's cut until Epic has paid their dues like Valve and brought the promised new features to EGS.
> 
> If one day EGS does indeed rival Steam as a store then his words would carry much more weight. At least with me.


The comments he made are his to make. I can't tell the guy what to say, and what not to. 

But yes, I agree that this was basically nothing more than empty virtue signaling.

My general point the Epic Game Store has never been that there aren't any valid criticisms about it, but that a lot of people are simply overreacting.


----------



## Shihab (Apr 26, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> This is true though all of those games you never needed the epic game store for afaik


The new UT does and the rest came before the EGS was a thing, but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't about which platforms those titles were published on, my point was that Epic has a considerably high brand recognition and are a well-known, major player in the video games industry.
Even without Fortnight they could've launched an alluring platform, though I won't deny that fortnight did give EGS a huge boost.



neatfeatguy said:


> These all are probably not the best examples, but you get the idea. The publisher didn't have to worry about forking over any extra cash to a third party to help distribute their games, but the games didn't come out better or more polished.


But then you have Overwatch, Battlefield 3 and 1 (I'm assuming from your examples that you're ok with them), some post-2011 FIFAs (I don't play them, but their fanbase sure haven't been shutting up about since then!), latest The Sims, Crysis 3 (compared to the mess that was 2), The Division, etc, etc..

I think we're both picking off the wrong tree here though. Publishers/devs who have their own platforms probably won't be troubled that much with development costs (greed exec's bonuses are what matters), it's your smaller houses that would see more benefit of this, but unfortunetly, we don't really have enough data on that front to make a judgement (though the fact that many devs welcome Epic's initiative makes me more inclined to go the pro-88% cut side on this issue).


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 26, 2019)

noel_fs said:


> the hero we dont deserve



I disagree.  'Gamers' usually get everything they deserve.  Battle royales, loot boxes, drm, etc.  You name it, they asked for it in one manner or another.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I disagree.  'Gamers' usually get everything they deserve.  Battle royales, loot boxes, drm, etc.  You name it, they asked for it in one manner or another.



It's what all of the cool kids want.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 26, 2019)

Tim Sweeney can keep running his mouth all he wants. I'm still not buying anything from his store.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 26, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Except in Epic's case it is _timed_ exclusivity, which makes your comparison inaccurate at the very least.



It's still exclusivity, and if Intel was paying Dell and HP to not use Ryzen processors even if only for a year, people would be pissed.



NRANM said:


> If the platform itself and the cost savings was all Epic had to offer, few people would switch. Why would they? Users tend to not like change. Why would a user switch to a different platform if the platform he is currently using offers him everything he needs? Even if Epic offers(ed) slightly lower prices, users would still most likely stick with Steam, i.e. the price cut would not be an incentive enough for users to switch, instead they would be willing to pay a higher price just to keep using what they are used to.
> Epic needs a large incentive to entice users to come to them. Exclusives are such an incentive.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm also in the minority who are baffled that so many "gamers" tend to follow stores and companies, and not the games themselves.



And that's the point, and the reason Epic's statement on the matter is bullshit.  They are asking for lower commission because they know their platform is inferior.  Asking Steam to lower their price ignores the fact that Steam offers a lot more and is a much more developed platform.



olymind1 said:


> Except you can run Epic Store on any PC. If Epic Store would be Linux only, then i would understand the upset, but this is just an another game launcher for windows.
> 
> From the developers perspective they probably are happy for the one time large income, then there is the lower commission.
> 
> You could be angry at Blizzard too because they don't release their games on steam, or Bioware because they don't release games on steam anymore, or...



That doesn't matter.  The point is you can't run any game on any platform.  I mean, you can still buy an AMD processor, you just can't get an HP or a Dell if you want to use AMD.  So what's the big deal if Intel pays them to not use AMD processors? Right?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 26, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> They are asking for lower commission because they know their platform is inferior. Asking Steam to lower their price ignores the fact that Steam offers a lot more and is a much more developed platform.


Who cares? No matter what launcher I use, and I use them all, I play the GAME that is there. That’s why I play on any of them, for the games. I don’t play Steam or Origin or Uplay or EGS or Galaxy. I just play the game.

Anything else is just grown people throwing fits like entitled and spoiled children do.  It’s sad.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 26, 2019)

Dimi said:


> "Steam keys are meant to be a convenient tool for game developers to sell their game on other stores and at retail. Steam keys are free and can be activated by customers on Steam to grant a license to a product.
> 
> Valve provides the same free bandwidth and services to customers activating a Steam key that it provides to customers buying a license on Steam. We ask you to treat Steam customers no worse than customers buying Steam keys outside of Steam. While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.
> 
> ...



I appreciate that.  It's kind of hard to believe, but apparently, quite true.  Steam just earned some serious developer-cred for offering this in my eyes.

I still would point out valve is ultimately generating the keys though (at their expense, it would seem, and at the developers request).


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 26, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Wait what?  What data?  And when have they ever fixed drivers?  Can you please explain both of those better?
> 
> 
> Leave politics out of this. It has no place in this thread.




Intel and AMD open source drivers mostly linux drivers, controller support and lots around that.
Vulkan on mac through MoltenVK to bring easier porting of games to mac platform.

Data through steam hardware survey for instance, also you can get pretty good data on country of purchase, age groups etc so you know who actually buys your game etc.

It's a LOT more they provide.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2019)

Sweeney is right: the 12-17% revenue share model easily sways publishers when they're offered pre-sales money up front.   If Steam was even 20%, Epic's exclusive offer becomes drastically less attractive.  At 15%, I doubt there would be any takers.  Epic's exclusives are attractive because many publishers see Steam's 30% as unfair and exclusivity is icing on the Epic cake.



R-T-B said:


> I appreciate that.  It's kind of hard to believe, but apparently, quite true.  Steam just earned some serious developer-cred for offering this in my eyes.
> 
> I still would point out valve is ultimately generating the keys though (at their expense, it would seem, and at the developers request).


Valve can't play gate keeper except in extreme circumstances (e.g. lots of keys and virtually no Steam sales).  The reason for this is because the publisher owns the IP and therefore access to it.  If Steam fights the publisher, they risk the game leaving Steam which means less exposure for Steam.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 26, 2019)

64K said:


> But we all have to be careful with that. I don't care about most of Steam's features and I certainly don't care about Steam reviews but most people do so I can't say that those features shouldn't matter to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah , all while this white night takes a cut off others work with no better then a tombolla booth to sell games from, What features exactly Do They add for that 12%, at least steam Do something.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 26, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Who cares?



Obviously a lot of people care, myself included.



rtwjunkie said:


> No matter what launcher I use, and I use them all, I play the GAME that is there. That’s why I play on any of them, for the games. I don’t play Steam or Origin or Uplay or EGS or Galaxy. I just play the game.
> 
> Anything else is just grown people throwing fits like entitled and spoiled children. It’s sad.



If all they did was launch the game, yeah, you'd have a point.  But all the features that Steam adds is worth it to a lot of people.  It is also, obviously, part of the reason Steam can charge a higher commision.  They have put a lot of money into their platform and that platform has a shitload of useful features that Epic is missing.


----------



## SniperHF (Apr 26, 2019)

Aside from that I just don't believe him when he says they wouldn't have gone after exclusives or would back off if there were changes, If we take him at his word this is essentially a form of attempted price fixing to help and or enrich publishers.  It's not a company going out and delivering the product more efficiently and better, reducing costs and having consumers pick them.  Then Valve would see the change in customer behavior and adjust.  Instead they are attempting to slowly strong arm another player in the market to do things the way they want without it having be decided by consumer choice.  There's an Adam Smith quote for that you can look up.  If Valve truly offers the better service for both publishers and gamers, they'll continue to exist as they are even if their market share drops a bit.  In the end this could all do mostly nothing.  

Though the problem is gamers are not making purely rational decisions and that will always skew the market.   They aren't price shopping bleach at Walmart vs Target.  Or comparing that they can pick up better quality shirts at Target while paying a little more for bleach in the process.  It's more an emotional decision to buy Metro Exodus from Epic as opposed to saving your money/waiting or buying another shooter.  Origin/UPlay and others have been accepted over time even if grudgingly, Epic is probably right they will be too eventually.  Cause the vast majority of gamers will always go where their heart wants in the end.

Or to compare the situation to something similar, Dirt Rally 2.0 has online only single player.  Absurd.  I won't buy it.  But it _really  _want to play it.   I love Dirt Rally 1.
Most people aren't me and if they really love Dirt Rally 1 are just gonna buy 2.0 regardless.  They might even complain about it being always online after they buy it, but they won't refund it. That's why Epic will carve out a place for itself permanently.   How big is yet to be determined.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Who cares? No matter what launcher I use, and I use them all, I play the GAME that is there. That’s why I play on any of them, for the games. I don’t play Steam or Origin or Uplay or EGS or Galaxy. I just play the game.
> 
> Anything else is just grown people throwing fits like entitled and spoiled children.  It’s sad.



Being labelled as "spoiled child" by someone whose avatar is assassin's creed and who is totally clueless about the whole matter is pretty fun actually. Maybe i should just start using the block functionality as some suggested.


----------



## Camm (Apr 27, 2019)

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Being labelled as "spoiled child" by someone whose avatar is assassin's creed and who is totally clueless about the whole matter is pretty fun actually. Maybe i should just start using the block functionality as some suggested.



People aren't clueless because they don't agree with you.  And only block people if they are truly toxic.  Just blocking people because you disagree just continues closing your mind off.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Being labelled as "spoiled child" by someone whose avatar is assassin's creed and who is totally clueless about the whole matter is pretty fun actually. Maybe i should just start using the block functionality as some suggested.


Do tell. Tell me how I am clueless, and what my avatar, which I change about every 6 months has anything to do with the issue at hand?  So you don’t like my view and that means block me? Wow, go ahead.  That’s actually going to hurt me as much as the fact that having all the game launchers hurts me...

I’m well aware of the issues, and I say if that prevents you from enjoying a game today when you could be dead tomorrow, what have you accomplished except to deny yourself some fun entertainment.


----------



## sergionography (Apr 27, 2019)

Im not very familiar with the underlying situation so I don't particularly understand many of the comments, but from a high level; to me this looks perfect. Capitalism working as it should. Company A pressuring company B to lower prices. Whats wrong with that?


----------



## sutyi (Apr 27, 2019)

Funny this.

When and if ever the EGS becomes hugely popular or gets close to the same amount of users as Steam currently has and the upkeep cost goes trough the roof as they need to increase back-end and content server capacity , customer service, etc. dramatically, then I wonder how long will it take for EPYC to raise their fabled commission rates.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

sergionography said:


> Im not very familiar with the underlying situation so I don't particularly understand many of the comments, but from a high level; to me this looks perfect. Capitalism working as it should. Company A pressuring company B to lower prices. Whats wrong with that?


In my opinion, nothing. But the ethics and morality police is always on patrol.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 27, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't just blind hatred, there is reason to dislike the way that Epic is doing things.  Think of it like this, if Intel was paying companies(like Dell and HP) large sums of money to only use Intel processors, would you be OK with it?  No. In fact, they tried it, people freaked out about, and Intel even went to court because of it, several times.
> 
> If the platform itself, and the costs savings that come with it, was the only thing Epic was using to get these exclusives, I'd be fine with it.  But that isn't the case, they are paying huge lump sums of money to get exclusives.  Which very clearly shows that devs, and Epic themselves, know the platform alone isn't worth the what they save on commision.



No... what Intel did is under the table dealing, that is illegal.
Epic (or any other company for that matter) is not hiding anythign or doing anything illegal, how do you think ANYTHING EVER gets exclusive deals? with money... thats how it works.

If you want a developer to limit its exposure only to your platform (so people go to your platform), be it a TV channel, be it a Game console, be it anything at all,
you have to pay that difference that they would have made otherwise (from all those different/other platforms), to them. 
Otherwise why would any developer go for that....

Again, this anger makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## Pumper (Apr 27, 2019)

sergionography said:


> Im not very familiar with the underlying situation so I don't particularly understand many of the comments, but from a high level; to me this looks perfect. Capitalism working as it should. Company A pressuring company B to lower prices. Whats wrong with that?



As a European I don't see any lower prices on Epic, I see the opposite in fact, as Epic does not allow third party game stores to sell Epic keys, in other words, Epic hates competition.

As for the 70/30 Steam cut, the argument is pure bullshit as you can clearly see when looking at the Steam reviews for games, that 30-40% of keys are purchased from other sites and then activated on Steam and Valve gets 0% cut from those. So in reality Steam is taking on average less than 20% from lifetime sales of a game (ant that is not including the new split of 80/20 for games with over 10mil in revenue).


----------



## amit_talkin (Apr 27, 2019)

Wow! so much hatred towares EPIC store. I haven't downloaded EPIC client either but I just don't understand why people defending steam here. 30% surely is big cut and We should be happy if devs getting more money out of their work. Previously people abused Metro Exodus devs for moving out of steam and now this sh*t continues. No wonder devs moving to consoles only titles. PC master race, yeah We are so fk**g toxic.


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 27, 2019)

So now Epic tries to play the good guy here or what?
You want to make Steam go down with its 30%?
Create a platform that is actually competing with Steam so they actually have to catch up with competition.
Epic store is spyware garbage that noone wants to use, make it great, make it 12% and make developers and gamers move to that platform by choice. Using exclusives only turns people away from your sorry creation even more.



amit_talkin said:


> Wow! so much hatred towares EPIC store. I haven't downloaded EPIC client either but I just don't understand why people defending steam here. 30% surely is big cut and We should be happy if devs getting more money out of their work. Previously people abused Metro Exodus devs for moving out of steam and now this sh*t continues. No wonder devs moving to consoles only titles. PC master race, yeah We are so fk**g toxic.



Because Steam is not a spyware, that would be 1 thing.  People abused Metro Exodus for EXCLUSIVITY BULLSHIT. Noone really cares which platform dominates the market. People will use whatever platform is the best(Epic store, even after excluding spying, is just horrible piece of software that does not match steam in any way). What PC gamers don't want is EXCLUSIVITY. Console users accept it cause they are dumb as shit and they think that saying "lol i can play uncharted cause I have playstation, playstation the best" makes them special/superior, without realizing they simply got rammed in the ass by a corporation.
Fighting in any way possible to not have exclusivity garbage on PC platform is far from toxic.


----------



## Pumper (Apr 27, 2019)

amit_talkin said:


> Wow! so much hatred towares EPIC store. I haven't downloaded EPIC client either but I just don't understand why people defending steam here. 30% surely is big cut and We should be happy if devs getting more money out of their work. Previously people abused Metro Exodus devs for moving out of steam and now this sh*t continues. No wonder devs moving to consoles only titles. PC master race, yeah We are so fk**g toxic.



Devs get jack shit from that bigger cut, it's the publishers who are pocketing the extra cash. That's why publishers are pushing for Epic exclusivity and are the ones making the deals even days before the game is supposed to be released on Steam and the devs don't even know about them doing it.


----------



## rvalencia (Apr 27, 2019)

Dimi said:


> "Steam keys are meant to be a convenient tool for game developers to sell their game on other stores and at retail. Steam keys are free and can be activated by customers on Steam to grant a license to a product.
> 
> Valve provides the same free bandwidth and services to customers activating a Steam key that it provides to customers buying a license on Steam. We ask you to treat Steam customers no worse than customers buying Steam keys outside of Steam. While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.
> 
> ...


It's fake news/bullsh*t/FUD from Tim Sweeney.



sergionography said:


> Im not very familiar with the underlying situation so I don't particularly understand many of the comments, but from a high level; to me this looks perfect. Capitalism working as it should. Company A pressuring company B to lower prices. Whats wrong with that?


Tencent acquired approximately 48.4% of Epic then issued share capital, equating to 40% of total Epic.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-how-big-tech-learning-love-party

Wang Xiaochuan, CEO of Sogou, a Tencent-backed search engine, explained this dynamic explicitly in a quote leaked in March of this year:

_We’re entering an era in which we'll be fused together. It might be that there will be a request to establish a Party committee within your company, or that you should let state investors take a stake, you know, as a form of mixed ownership_


Not a normal capitalist private company.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

Dexiefy said:


> Epic store is spyware garbage that noone wants to use, make it great, make it 12% and make developers and gamers move to that platform by choice. Using exclusives only turns people away from your sorry creation even more.


Do some research first, instead of just following internet rumor like a lemming off a cliff.  In fact it was even tested here on TPU and proven that it isn’t “spyware garbage.”



rvalencia said:


> Tencent acquired approximately 48.4% of Epic then issued share capital, equating to 40% of total Epic.
> 
> https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-how-big-tech-learning-love-party
> 
> ...


This was already addressed last week.  Ten cent is what is known as a silent partner. They have zero operational say and only sit back and get their 40% of the profits.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> No... what Intel did is under the table dealing, that is illegal.
> Epic (or any other company for that matter) is not hiding anythign or doing anything illegal, how do you think ANYTHING EVER gets exclusive deals? with money... thats how it works.



No, what Intel did was pay companies large sums of money to not use their competitor's product.  Sound familiar?

The point of this thread is the commission rate, and if the commission rate was really the only issue, Epic wouldn't need to give huge lump sums of money to devs for exclusives. Yes, money is how you get exclusives, and the lower commission rate should be enough _if_ the devs thought the platform was worth the lower commission. But obviously that isn't enough.  Alternatively, you can have a very well developed and mature platform, that appeals to people. Then you don't need to offer lower commission.


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 27, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Do some research first, instead of just following internet rumor like a lemming off a cliff.  In fact it was even tested here on TPU and proven that it isn’t “spyware garbage.”


I did, but if it makes you feel any better "shady as fuck shit", better now?  O and you can remove "spyware" part completly if it makes you feel any better, I honestly don't care, it remains to be a piece of garbage software however (and that part can't be questioned) that poses literally no competition to steam outside its "12%". As i wrote before, if they want to compete, they have to create piece of software that is competitive. Atm they created garbage and push for exclusivity (which on its own deserves to be ridiculed) while trying to sound like they are a knight in shining armor that wants to save gaming industry from evil steam. Them trying to present all of this as such only makes them appear even more dishonest. Cause you know, they surely are not doing this for $$$ afterall and exclusivity is for our own good.

Steam offers more to the developers, offers brand recognition and offers access to biggest customer base, they definately can and should take more money for that. Epic offers less, is shady as hell, tries to intrudce console type of exclusivity (which is absolute cancer and all gamers should finally start fighting that crap until its gone). Ironically enough, they would not have to push for exclusivity at all if only their epic store was actually good and made people and developers switch to it. The fact that they have to bribe developers into taking exclusivity deals speaks miles about the quality of the epic store.
This is not the first time Epic hits the news for spying/potential spying either.There were issues with Epic Games Launcher, their BattleEye (or whatever it was called) anticheat, now their store... They were shady as fuck and they continue to be. 

I am all for competition, but in order to compete, Epic needs to stop being shady company and they need to create a product that actually competes and ofc now, fix the mess they've created with "exclusivity" garbage they try to present as being for our own good.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> People aren't clueless because they don't agree with you.  And only block people if they are truly toxic.  Just blocking people because you disagree just continues closing your mind off.



In this thing here, yes they are, anyone saying EGS isn't a problem hasn't got even the tiniest clue about the thing, and that's just it. Or they just don't care, so they're superficial casual "gamers". Besides i have nothing to learn from people who know less than me or care less than me about the matter.



rtwjunkie said:


> Do some research first, instead of just following internet rumor like a lemming off a cliff.  In fact it was even tested here on TPU and proven that it isn’t “spyware garbage.”
> 
> 
> This was already addressed last week.  Ten cent is what is known as a silent partner. They have zero operational say and only sit back and get their 40% of the profits.



Tested by whom and which way, and where are these tests? It was even confirmed by epic "it was doing something it wasn't supposed to". Again, check your stuff before talking about something, playing contrarian just for the sake of it doesn't make you any more intelligent or any less ignorant than those "following internet rumors like a lemming off a cliff"

Tencent owns most of Epic, just like it owns most of Riot, and other companies, and they basically dictate how to influence the market with their methods. You're not seeing the whole picture here, in fact you're not seeing any picture at all, that's how much clueless you are.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

Let's have a hypothetical.

Let's assume for a moment that Epic did not have exclusives. Furthermore, so many people cite the lack of features as a major deterrent, so let's _also_ assume that the Epic Game Store received the exact same features as Steam.
All features and games being the same, what reason does a user have to purchase a game from the Epic Game Store if he/she already has a Steam account and is comfortable with it? None?

Now let's also assume (in addition to the above) that Epic competes with Steam with lower prices.

How much lower do the prices need to be (on average) to make it worthwhile for consumers to switch from a known client/platform, with which they are comfortable, and instead purchase a game from the Epic Game Store?
How many consumers would rather pay a higher price just so that they don't have to deal with _the unknown_?

I'd wager the answer would be "rather significantly" for the former question, and "quite a few" for the latter. Especially considering all the FUD that is being spread.

That is why Epic chose to be aggressive, and opted for exclusives -- to give them an extra edge. That is how business works. That's how it has always worked. I know some people have an ideal of how things should be, but reality is much different.

Again, it is still baffling to me how many people (supposedly passionate gamers) throw all these tantrums.
As a gamer and a consumer in gernal, I care about two things: that I get to play good games, and that I get to purchase things/stuff (games in this case) at the best possible price.
I don't defend Epic because I'm their fanboy, or because I hate Steam. I defend Epic because I see this as a potential vehicle to introduce positive changes to the industry that would benefit all consumers, me included. What's the worst thing that could happen? Things would return to the status quo, before the Epic Game Store was a thing?

How boring and/or care-free does one's life need to be if "having to use another game launcher" or "a game being exclusive to EGS for a year" are actual problems that ruin one's day, and cause such outrage. This is as good of an example of a "first world problem" as it can get.

EDIT/ADDED

And how about this proposition?

Plenty of games nowadays are released in less than ideal state, so they require a bit of patching and maybe even additional content to really reach their potential. Factoring that in, one could consider waiting a few or several months *anyway*, before purchasing the game. If that is the case, what difference does it make where it was initially released?


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Let's have a hypothetical.
> 
> Let's assume for a moment that Epic did not have exclusives. Furthermore, so many people cite the lack of features as a major deterrent, so let's _also_ assume that the Epic Game Store received the exact same features as Steam.
> All features and games being the same, what reason does a user have to purchase a game from the Epic Game Store if he/she already has a Steam account and is comfortable with it? None?
> ...



And what would these "positive changes" be exactly? They just want money, that's all and they're trying their hardest to get it, screwing over as much as consumers as possible, and not only, they're also trying to picture themselves like the saviours, and to people like you, and some others here who are clueless and also not really quick understanding stuff, they might even manage that.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> And what would these "positive changes" be exactly?


I don't know. I'm not Nostradamus. Competition is good for the consumer, and that is what Epic is trying to do -- compete. The means, with which they compete, do not concern me, as I care about the end results.
Maybe nothing will change. If that is the case, so be it. The point is I don't see a downside, only potential/possible upsides.



oxidized said:


> They just want money, that's all and they're trying their hardest to get it, *screwing over as much as consumers as possible*


Oh?

Can you provide specific examples of how Epic _*screws*_ consumers? And I don't mean some nebulous and vague notion of morality and virtue, I mean actual and practical examples of how consumers are significantly harmed by all this.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2019)

NRANM said:


> I don't know. I'm not Nostradamus. Competition is good for the consumer, and that is what Epic is trying to do -- compete. The means, with which they compete, do not concern me, as I care about the end results.
> Maybe nothing will change. If that is the case, so be it. The point is I don't see a downside, only potential/possible upsides.
> 
> 
> ...



I want to ask you a very simple question

Where do you live, planet earth or something else? Please answer honestly, because this post i quoted here really made me doubt.


And you people wanna convince me you're not clueless? Come on...


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> I want to ask you a very simple question
> 
> Where do you live, planet earth or something else? Please answer honestly, because this post i quoted here really made me doubt.
> 
> ...


Already resorting to ad hominems? 

To answer your question, yes, I am indeed from Earth. 

And now that I've humored you and answered your question, would you be so kind to indulge me as well, and answer my question?


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Already resorting to ad hominems?
> 
> To answer your question, yes, I am indeed from Earth.



Well i'm answering to you, who should i refer to? 
Too bad! if you lived somewhere else it could've been used as excuse.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Well i'm answering to you, who should i refer to?


I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you meant. Did you mean you had already answered my question, or are you asking for some further clarification on my part?


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2019)

Yeah exactly


----------



## sergionography (Apr 27, 2019)

Pumper said:


> As a European I don't see any lower prices on Epic, I see the opposite in fact, as Epic does not allow third party game stores to sell Epic keys, in other words, Epic hates competition.
> 
> As for the 70/30 Steam cut, the argument is pure bullshit as you can clearly see when looking at the Steam reviews for games, that 30-40% of keys are purchased from other sites and then activated on Steam and Valve gets 0% cut from those. So in reality Steam is taking on average less than 20% from lifetime sales of a game (ant that is not including the new split of 80/20 for games with over 10mil in revenue).


But why would third party stores sell epic keys when they can just sell their own keys? Perhaps I'm missing something because seems totally fine to me. But if it wasn't fine then that's when steam can come in and one up epic if they so wanted to. Either way; 30% share is ridiculous, what in the world would make steam(or any store for that matter) entitled to 30% of someone else's hard effort. That's almost worse than income taxes. competition is needed.



NRANM said:


> In my opinion, nothing. But the ethics and morality police is always on patrol.


yeah seems like that's the case lol


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Tested by whom and which way, and where are these tests?


Try doing a search here and you’ll see that it was done. Just search anything Epic or EGS related.  It went on for about a week so really you’d know if you didn’t just show up occasionally to bash people for supposedly not knowing anything.

If you were as knowledgeable as your arrogance portrays you to be, you would actually know that tencent does NOT own most of Epic.  They are a less than majority holder that is a SILENT partner.  They make no business decisions.  The way you speak about it, as if there is something wrong is truly indicative of someone with no business training or corporate experience.  That is fine, not everyone can, but please  stop finding conspiracy where it doesn’t exist.

You also seem unaware of just how international and multinational a great deal of the world’s companies are.  It is only a matter of time before most of the world has ownership in every facet of their life by expanding companies from the world’s largest population.


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 27, 2019)

Like many others, I buy games where I can, for the lowest possible price. That in itself is the most important decision making factor me and subsequently, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in whether it's exclusive to Tom, Dick or indeed, Harry. I've got far more important things to worry about in my life.
Furthermore, there are many games that are and have always been exclusive to either Origin or Uplay, and to a lesser extent (if I'm not mistaken), Steam.
Sure, I prefer Steam as a platform, but that won't stop me from playing a game on any other launcher/platform. That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my mum used to say.
This article from Kotaku is precise and very well written, helping to explain this mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill and it's worth bearing in mind that we don't live in a fair world, so the so-called haters need to get used to that fact.
Whomsoever said capitalism was fair?
https://kotaku.com/why-people-are-so-mad-about-the-epic-games-store-1833848770


----------



## 64K (Apr 27, 2019)

sergionography said:


> Either way; 30% share is ridiculous, what in the world would make steam(or any store for that matter) entitled to 30% of someone else's hard effort. That's almost worse than income taxes. competition is needed.
> yeah seems like that's the case lol



Steam is a kind of retailer but with perks.

Games have never been free for Publishers to distribute. Back in the day we bought boxed games and oftentimes there were extras inside beyond the game like manuals and sometimes posters and artworks. All of this cost money and the brick and mortar stores took their cut for selling the product.

Today there are online stores but they aren't free to operate either. It costs money.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2019)

Retail was about 50% so Steam's opening offer of 30% was attractive.  Now you have Discord and GOG that are in the low double-digits.

The reason why 50% was okay then but not now is because the cost of producing quality games has soared.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 27, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly.
> 
> What I meant was that the core functionality is there:
> - purchase game
> ...



Purchase a game, came doesn't show up in library.
Click support, There is no support.
Click forums, There are no forums.
Go for refund, There is no refund.

You expressed yourself just fine, you are just wrong.
It's a half assed solution.  With no search, no support, no forums.

Steam has been busy making hardware past couple of years and funding linux support.
On top of the 1000 native steam games that support linux.... by supporting proton, over half of the rest of the windows only games run flawlessly, and often better through proton than the native linux clients.   It also supports games not purchased through steam like the Witcher and Battlefield V...

Steam doesn't lock you in, does a lot of handholding, makes distributing your game pie as having servers around the world ready for whatever download load you will have is not always easy... Steam gives you use of a keygen, you can sell those keys anywhere and only on steam does steam get a cut.  And steam will advertise your title internally to the  30M users.  30% is a lot, and perhaps it should go down, or atleast go down sooner with volume, it does reduce past a certain sales point.   I remember when steam epicly sucked... but it doesn't now, and it has the largest feature set that matters... because it covers everyone's needs not just yours.

Epic on the other hand has the unreal engine, that supports linux, but their games and library do not... They espouse freedom and choice and run exclusives and lock things down to windows.  He is full of shit, and will keep doing exclusives as no publisher would choose them for any other reason.   When the fortnite fad dies, so will the store.


----------



## 64K (Apr 27, 2019)

Patriot said:


> Purchase a game, came doesn't show up in library.
> Click support, There is no support.
> Click forums, There are no forums.
> Go for refund, There is no refund.
> ...



Most likely the Epic Store will go down in history as just another Origin type store. Maybe not but who knows.

That's my read on it so far. Sweeney's communications lately have seemed disconnected from reality.


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 27, 2019)

Tim Sweeney doesn't strike me as the ideal PR man. He may be rich, but he's still a backroom boy and always will be.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

Patriot said:


> Purchase a game, came doesn't show up in library.
> Click support, There is no support.
> Click forums, There are no forums.
> Go for refund, There is no refund.



Has that happened to you? I’m genuinely curious, because it didn’t happen to me, or to anyone I know, and virtually all that I know who pc game have at least purchased Metro: Exodus on there.



64K said:


> Most likely the Epic Store will go down in history as just another Origin type store. Maybe not but who knows.


And that isn’t a bad place to be.  Origin has a respectable and sustainable portion of the marketplace.  That can only happen if the vast majority are like me: buy a game from wherever it is I want to play it, without regards to showing loyalty to a store/launcher that has no loyalty to me.


----------



## 64K (Apr 27, 2019)

Splinterdog said:


> Tim Sweeney doesn't strike me as the ideal PR man. He may be rich, but he's still a backroom boy and always will be.



Indeed, and I have made that observation from the beginning. Sweeney should just shut the f'ck up and hire a proffesional PR team to promote their store. He makes an ass out of himself at times.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

Patriot said:


> You expressed yourself just fine, you are just wrong.


I'm wrong about what exactly? That the core functionality of a client is to allow users to purchase, download, and play games? That the Epic client does not allow you to do one or more of those three?

Yes, Epic's features are currently lacking compared to Steams's. I agree completely. However, Steam didn't have all these features from the get-go. They were added throughout its lifetime. Refunds for example were added in 2016 if I'm not mistaken, which is rather late, but I don't remember a lot of people being outraged about that.
Also, support is a tricky subject. Steam is notorious for having bad support. My personal experience on numerous occasions has been mostly negative. Now, that is no excuse for Epic to not have support, or to have just as bad of a support, but it's important to keep things in perspective.

It would seem that you have given Steam the benefit of the doubt: you remember when it had "sucked" but you say it doesn't anymore, which is of course true. Why not extend that benefit of the doubt to Epic's store, and see how they do in time with their roadmap?

Again, so many people just can't wait to jump on the hate bandwagon the first chance they get. Is it that hard to keep a cool head, and react like adults?


----------



## rvalencia (Apr 27, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> This was already addressed last week.  Ten cent is what is known as a silent partner. They have zero operational say and only sit back and get their 40% of the profits.


Red herring.
1. Epic has cash injection from Chinese partly state owned company.
Tencent acquired approximately 48.4% of Epic then* issued share capital*, equating to 40% of total Epic — inclusive of both stock and employee stock options, for $330 million in June 2012.

2. Influenced Chinese "belt and road" money with Ubisoft

_On 20 March 2018, Ubisoft and Vivendi struck a deal ending any potential takeover, with Vivendi agreeing to sell all of its shares, over 30 million, to other parties and agreeing to not buy any Ubisoft shares for five years. *Some of those shares were sold to Tencent, which after the transaction held about 5.6 million shares of Ubisoft (approximately 5% of all shares).[50] the same day, Ubisoft announced a partnership with Tencent to help bring their games into the Chinese market.*[51] Vivendi completely divested its shares in Ubisoft by March 2019.[52]__[53]_

https://www.vg247.com/2019/03/20/epic-games-store-control-dauntless-ubisoft-more/
Ubisoft linkage with Epic Store via Tencent "belt and road" money.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantic_Dream
Quantic Dream linkage with Epic Store via Chinese Netease "belt and road" money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/asia/china-media-sina-sohu-netease-phoenix.html



https://supchina.com/2018/03/23/why-chinese-companies-crush-western-tech-giants-in-china/
_For example, Bloomberg published an article earlier this month titled “China protectionism creates tech billionaires who protect Xi,” with the author stating, “That’s helped create thriving domestic giants, including Tencent Holdings Ltd. and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.” Mark Natkin, managing director of Beijing-based Marbridge Consulting, was quoted as saying, “As long as they remain protected in the China market, they’ll dominate and use that money to fund their global expansion.”_

Epic's silent partner claim is BS. Epic's Chinese "belt and road" linkage is hardly normal private capitalist operation.

Try again.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Can you provide specific examples of how Epic _*screws*_ consumers? And I don't mean some nebulous and vague notion of morality and virtue, I mean actual and practical examples of how consumers are significantly harmed by all this.



Paying large sums of money for devs to use their platform exclusively, they are harming competitiveness to the consumer.  If a game is released on multiple platforms, those platforms compete for price.  When Steam has a sale on a game to get you to buy it from them instead of another platform. You won't see that when the game is exclusive on Epic or any other platform. I can almost guarantee that the timed exclusive games released on Epic will be full price the entire time they are exclusive to Epic.  While we see games on multiple platforms having sales on them discounting from full retail a month or two after they are released.

Yes, for the devs, this is good for them, they get to keep charging full price for as long as they want.  But it hurts consumers of the games.

It also hurts consumers of the games because they are forced to use a platform that doesn't have some useful features, that isn't as developed.  It's fine if you don't use those features, but those of use that do, it annoys us.



rvalencia said:


> Epic's silent partner claim is BS.



Yeah, no shit!  No company that owns 40% of another company is a "silent partner".

They actually have the right to appoint people to Epic's board of directors.  That isn't exactly "silent".


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> Red herring.
> 1. Epic has cash injection from Chinese partly state owned company.
> Tencent acquired approximately 48.4% of Epic then* issued share capital*, equating to 40% of total Epic — inclusive of both stock and employee stock options, for $330 million in June 2012.
> 
> ...


None of that makes tencent not a silent partner. They are not making business decisions.  This is nothing nefarious.  Start looking around the world’s corporations and buildings.  You’d apparently be aghast at the amount of world ownership Chinese companies have or have a percentage stake in.  They have capital, and if growth is to happen, partial ownership by Chinese businesses is a place to obtain it.

If your objection to Epic is the portion owned by a Chinese company, then I specualte that your life must be one of massive worry and isolationism, in order to shield yourself from that in your daily interactions.


----------



## Splinterdog (Apr 27, 2019)

I bet Tim Sweeney is wishing he didn't have Tencent in the picture, considering how much money he's now making from Fortnite.
Mind you, that was back in 2012 when Tencent acquired a 48.4% outstanding stake, equating to 40% of total Epic, in the company, after Epic Games realized that the video games industry was heavily developing towards the games as a service model. 
Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games


----------



## rvalencia (Apr 27, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> None of that makes tencent not a silent partner. They are not making business decisions.  This is nothing nefarious.  Start looking around the world’s corporations and buildings.  You’d apparently be aghast at the amount of world ownership Chinese companies have or have a percentage stake in.  They have capital, and if growth is to happen, partial ownership by Chinese businesses is a place to obtain it.
> 
> If your objection to Epic is the portion owned by a Chinese company, then I specualte that your life must be one of massive worry and isolationism, in order to shield yourself from that in your daily interactions.


https://supchina.com/2018/03/23/why-chinese-companies-crush-western-tech-giants-in-china/
_For example, Bloomberg published an article earlier this month titled “China protectionism creates tech billionaires who protect Xi,” with the author stating, “That’s helped create thriving domestic giants, including Tencent Holdings Ltd. and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.” Mark Natkin, managing director of Beijing-based Marbridge Consulting, was quoted as saying, “As long as they remain protected in the China market, they’ll dominate and use that money to fund their global expansion.” _

You're a native fool.

My mother's side is partly Chinese and I have no problems with Taiwanese.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 27, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> Paying large sums of money for devs to use their platform exclusively, they are harming competitiveness to the consumer.  If a game is released on multiple platforms, those platforms compete for price.  When Steam has a sale on a game to get you to buy it from them instead of another platform. You won't see that when the game is exclusive on Epic or any other platform. I can almost guarantee that the timed exclusive games released on Epic will be full price the entire time they are exclusive to Epic.  While we see games on multiple platforms having sales on them discounting from full retail a month or two after they are released.
> 
> Yes, for the devs, this is good for them, they get to keep charging full price for as long as they want.  But it hurts consumers of the games.
> 
> It also hurts consumers of the games because they are forced to use a platform that doesn't have some useful features, that isn't as developed.  It's fine if you don't use those features, but those of use that do, it annoys us.


I wouldn't call that "screwing" the consumer. "Screw" is a very strong word, whereas what you described is nowhere near those levels.

Yes, if a game is released at the same time on multiple platforms, that could cause its price to drop a bit more quickly due to competition for prices, however based on my observations most games, when released only on Steam, do not really go down in price all that quickly or that significantly. A discount of 5-15% isn't that much of a discount in my opinion.
Again, yes, I would prefer if games were released to all platforms at the same time. But I also understand that Epic has the right to offer exclusivity deals to publishers/developers, and those publishers/developers have the right to accept or decline said deals. I am not thrilled about these exclusivity deals per se, but I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a part of me that is kind of glad that someone (Epic) isn't at least trying to compete with Steam.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2019)

rvalencia said:


> You're a native fool.
> 
> My mother's side is partly Chinese and I have no problems with Taiwanese.


No, not naive. I just recognize the way the world is turning, and know it is going there whether I want it to or not.  It certainly won’t keep me from buying a product I want.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 27, 2019)

I still stand by my original point.  'Gamers' get exactly what they deserve.  Enjoy!


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Try doing a search here and you’ll see that it was done. Just search anything Epic or EGS related.  It went on for about a week so really you’d know if you didn’t just show up occasionally to bash people for supposedly not knowing anything.
> 
> If you were as knowledgeable as your arrogance portrays you to be, you would actually know that tencent does NOT own most of Epic.  They are a less than majority holder that is a SILENT partner.  They make no business decisions.  The way you speak about it, as if there is something wrong is truly indicative of someone with no business training or corporate experience.  That is fine, not everyone can, but please  stop finding conspiracy where it doesn’t exist.
> 
> You also seem unaware of just how international and multinational a great deal of the world’s companies are.  It is only a matter of time before most of the world has ownership in every facet of their life by expanding companies from the world’s largest population.



Still, why don't you post it here, granted it proves anything really, epic themselves confessed that, you can test whatever you want, epic is fishy, and tencent is a multinational so that's enough already, they have shares in many different things and also much different one from another, their interest is to make money and that's all, and to do that they pushed an agenda with fortnite and egs in general, there's no conspiracy here, it's just logic. Epic games was a bunch of people working on unreal and unreal engine, it took them so many years to develop that, and at some point they come out with the most brilliant and successful idea, how is that, and why now, there's clearly much much more behind it than what you can see (you especially), from nothing to everything in no time, the legal problems they had with pubg makers, and every controversy they were in, there's something very fishy with epic and with tencent, and if you can't see it i feel sorry for you.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 28, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> they risk the game leaving Steam which means less exposure for Steam.



That seems extreme...  I think the most they'd realisatically risk is a seperate build being marketed without steam by the developer, alongside the existing steam build.



rvalencia said:


> It's fake news/bullsh*t/FUD from Tim Sweeney.



Source?  It seems an official link.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Still, why don't you post it here, granted it proves anything really, epic themselves confessed that, you can test whatever you want, epic is fishy, and tencent is a multinational so that's enough already


Maybe @FordGT90Concept can answer your doubt. If you were truly interested in and knowledgeable on this topic you would have read every word he wrote about his findings.  Also, multinational is not the nefarious thing you think it is. In the corporate world, this is rapidly becoming the norm, since we do not live in isolation.



oxidized said:


> hey have shares in many different things and also much different one from another, their interest is to make money and that's all


If you had ANY affiliation with or were in business, you would know their only pupose is to make money!  This is not an evil concept reserved for Epic.  Providing a product or service is incidental.  Businesses provide a product or a service they perceive is needed or there is room to grow in, and make that money, because that is their goal.



oxidized said:


> there's clearly much much more behind it than what you can see (you especially)


Not the first time you have called or implied my intelligence is lacking.  Pretty bold of a thing to do just because you disagree, considering you know nothing of me, my education, background, accomplishments, or work history.



oxidized said:


> there's something very fishy with epic and with tencent, and if you can't see it i feel sorry for you


Great, I appreciate that!  You can think something is fishy with them all you want. In the meantime, they provide a place I can buy games I want to play, because life is too short to get butthurt about it.  If I wait, I may not be around, nor may you.  So, I will enjoy the service they provide. It makes no difference to me because I use all of them.  Indeed, that kind of makes me feel sorry for you.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Tested by whom and which way



Read the thread.  The program is not spyware.



oxidized said:


> it was doing something it wasn't supposed to



yeah, reading steam titles.  Big whoop.  It could easily be for future integration efforts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> That seems extreme...  I think the most they'd realisatically risk is a seperate build being marketed without steam by the developer, alongside the existing steam build.


Steam has a policy of not going astray of publishers unless the publisher clearly abuses Steam (e.g. 100,000 downloads for every copy of the game sold through Steam's store).


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 28, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Steam has a policy of not going astray of publishers unless the publisher clearly abuses Steam (e.g. 100,000 downloads for every copy of the game sold through Steam's store).



And that's what I'm praising.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Maybe @FordGT90Concept can answer your doubt. If you were truly interested in and knowledgeable on this topic you would have read every word he wrote about his findings.  Also, multinational is not the nefarious thing you think it is. In the corporate world, this is rapidly becoming the norm, since we do not live in isolation.
> 
> 
> If you had ANY affiliation with or were in business, you would know their only pupose is to make money!  This is not an evil concept reserved for Epic.  Providing a product or service is incidental.  Businesses provide a product or a service they perceive is needed or there is room to grow in, and make that money, because that is their goal.
> ...



Making money is usually the main one, not the ONLY one, which seems the case of Epic/Tencent, because literally they're flooding the market with garbage, literally the lowest quality possible, and yet they manage to make money, taking advantage of people's ignorance and superficiality on videogames and whatever floats around them.

I might not be an expert on business, but i surely am expert on videogames world and their history, and in this situation here it's much more important than the first one and i'm pretty quick spotting frauds, i said the week fortnite came out it was a garbage product for kids and unaware casual "gamers", and look who's playing the game, i was mad from back then at epic for abandoning Unreal in favour of a much much lower quality product, just because it could make loads money potentially, and the confirmation was epic creating their own store, which absolute crap in terms of everything really, and the icing on the cake is the paid, or should i say...Bought exclusives

Or
c) I'm right and you're clueless on the matter, and/or you're playing contrarian just for the sake of it.

Also i've never labelled "stupid" anyone here, i'm just saying it's possible that whoever is defending epic, is either clueless or not quick understanding how these kind of things work, which is another thing completely from "stupid". And again, on this matter it is like that, because there's really nothing else to add to show how evil and how crooked epic/tencent intentions are, you guys are just climbing mirrors you'll keep falling off from, this is a fight you can't win, unless you cease debating on the matter (as if  there's something to debate on)




R-T-B said:


> Read the thread.  The program is not spyware.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, reading steam titles.  Big whoop.  It could easily be for future integration efforts.



The program is collecting info it shouldn't and without permission essentially, that's literally spyware, no matter how important data it steals are, it's stealing data it shouldn't without any consent of the concerned user.

Besides, "it's doing something it wasn't supposed to do" aren't my words, they're actually some epic's games programmer, let's see if i manage to find the article.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> The program is collecting info it shouldn't and without permission essentially, that's literally spyware,



No, it's not.  Not in the context of the expected service it's providing.

There is furthermore no evidence of network transmission of said data.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> No, it's not.  Not in the context of the expected service it's providing.
> 
> There is furthermore no evidence of network transmission of said data.



They admitted it themselves, and the context is irrelevant, they're stealing data, end of story.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> this is a fight you can't win,


Actually, it is you minority of haters that can’t win.  You won’t stop this thing just because you don’t like it.  Argue all you want and make all your points you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Epic is hardly the only multinational corporation. They just happened to open up another game store and launcher that you don’t like.  Me, I don’t have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> product for kids and unaware casual "gamers"



The many adults that play and enjoy Fortnite would like to have a word with you.  It's not for me but whatever.

Also, can you elaborate how you can get the vaunted label 'gamer'?  Not a casual gamer.  I wanna know how to be hardcore.  How many years do you have to have invested?  How many games do you have to own?  How long does a 'session' need to be?  How many friends do you need on your list?  Since you are clearly the most knowledgeable at TPU in this area, I figured you would be best to ask.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, it is you minority of haters that can’t win.  You won’t stop this thing just because you don’t like it.  Argue all you want and make all your points you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Epic is hardly the only multinational corporation. They just happened to open up another game store and launcher that you don’t like.  Me, I don’t have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short.



We are no haters we're real loving gamers, not users who only see videogames as a way to pass time when they have nothing better to do, which in their eyes is nothing, because everything is better than playing videogames, games isn't something you do occasionally, it's almost a life style, it's an art, and like all arts there're enthusiasts and amateurs, or to better word it, casuals. You're basically saying it yourself "Me, i don't have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short". Skipping "hating and self-denial", which is actually care and interest, it's exactly what you lack, and exactly why you are entitled to, but shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't really have interests or care about, simply because it doesn't make sense, you can't know much since you simply "don't have time" for this stuff, so why do you talk about them, and how can you think you know about it. It's like if i start talking about cars, and i don't know a thing about them, and i magically know all about them, using my preference and my point of view to elaborate an argument and debate on a thing i literally have no clue about.

I don't think we aim to stop anything really, rather we aim to open eyes to who's willing to listen, and to who actually cares, facts are on our side, and that's enough to actually win this, even if it means it won't stop



moproblems99 said:


> The many adults that play and enjoy Fortnite would like to have a word with you.  It's not for me but whatever.
> 
> Also, can you elaborate how you can get the vaunted label 'gamer'?  Not a casual gamer.  I wanna know how to be hardcore.  How many years do you have to have invested?  How many games do you have to own?  How long does a 'session' need to be?  How many friends do you need on your list?  Since you are clearly the most knowledgeable at TPU in this area, I figured you would be best to ask.



Read above.
Plus you'll feel a pretty powerful and bright aura around you when you become a real gamer.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> And that's what I'm praising.


Except that it has tied Steam's hands.  You have third party resellers like Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming, and Fanatical and you have gray market sellers like G2A.    Steam is fundamentally stuck with the bill for distributing and servicing all of these customers even though they don't see a cent of it.  Unless Steam changes their policy towards key accessibility, they can't afford to lower their revenue share much, if at all.

The pressure is growing for Steam to do something.  It probably isn't enough yet for Steam to act but it will in time.  That is, unless Steam is okay being the Lord of the Flies.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> games isn't something you do occasionally, it's almost a life style, it's an art



You know, you are absolutely right.  That is why I focus all my attention on the art (video game) instead of the door to museum (launcher).  See, we agree.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> We are no haters we're real loving gamers, not users who only see videogames as a way to pass time when they have nothing better to do, which in their eyes is nothing, because everything is better than playing videogames, games isn't something you do occasionally, it's almost a life style, it's an art, and like all arts there're enthusiasts and amateurs, or to better word it, casuals. You're basically saying it yourself "Me, i don't have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short". Skipping "hating and self-denial", which is actually care and interest, it's exactly what you lack, and exactly why you are entitled to, but shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't really have interests or care about, simply because it doesn't make sense, you can't know much since you simply "don't have time" for this stuff, so why do you talk about them, and how can you think you know about it. It's like if i start talking about cars, and i don't know a thing about them, and i magically know all about them, using my preference and my point of view to elaborate an argument and debate on a thing i literally have no clue about.


What are you on about? How am I not a gamer or only a casual gamer? ROFL!! To me, that is the final proof you need to spend more time here and not just on the news section. Because if you did, and if you knew anything about me, you wouldn’t even dream of applying the casual gamer label on me, as you talk about how zealous you are about gaming.  I spend my time gaming, not worrying about the launcher.

Because you haven’t bothered to learn anything about who it is you are talking to, all while insulting me continuously, and not because we disagree, I will have no further communication with you.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> You know, you are absolutely right.  That is why I focus all my attention on the art (video game) instead of the door to museum (launcher).  See, we agree.



If the museum is not looked after and its main services like restrooms and ticket booth don't work properly the art contained won't be better than the museum itself, it'll either be on par or worse.



rtwjunkie said:


> What are you on about? How am I not a gamer or only a casual gamer? ROFL!! To me, that is the final proof you need to spend more time here and not just on the news section. Because if you did, and if you knew anything about me, you wouldn’t even dream of applying the casual gamer label on me, as you talk about how zealous you are about gaming.  I spend my time gaming, not worrying about the launcher.
> 
> Because you haven’t bothered to learn anything about who it is you are talking to, all while insulting me continuously, and not because we disagree, I will have no further communication with you.



So you talk like a casual gamer, you praise what casual gamers praise, you like videogames casual gamers like and you claim you're not a casual gamer? There's a label for that too, and i already mentioned it previously - unaware is the one. Besides you insist i'm insulting you, but still i see no insults, where exactly have i insulted you please show.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> If the museum is not looked after and its main services like restrooms and ticket booth don't work properly the art contained won't be better than the museum itself, it'll either be on par or worse.
> 
> 
> 
> So you talk like a casual gamer, you praise what casual gamers praise, you like videogames casual gamers like and you claim you're not a casual gamer? There's a label for that too, and i already mentioned it previously - unaware is the one. Besides you insist i'm insulting you, but still i see no insults, where exactly have i insulted you please show.



Remember, art is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> So you talk like a casual gamer, you praise what casual gamers praise, you like videogames casual gamers like and you claim you're not a casual gamer? T


You get one more chance. Explain yourself. You throw these insulting terms out at me without examples or explanation.  You keep calling me that but it is also plain from all your posts that you know nothing about me. So please explain your font of wisdom about me and ability to label me as some kind of lesser gamer.

A true gamer plays a wide spectrum of games. You apparently have pigeonholed yourself into some kind of singular type of game that only in your tiny mind do you think that it is the opposite of casual gaming, whatever that is. The rest of the world knows what casual gamers are, and it is not a nice term. Grow up and stop trying to label people by what you think they are or what you think they know or what you think they play. 

Also try visiting and contributing somewhere besides the news forum and you’d know a lot more about the people you are talking to.


----------



## robot zombie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> We are no haters we're real loving gamers, not users who only see videogames as a way to pass time when they have nothing better to do, which in their eyes is nothing, because everything is better than playing videogames, games isn't something you do occasionally, it's almost a life style, it's an art, and like all arts there're enthusiasts and amateurs, or to better word it, casuals. You're basically saying it yourself "Me, i don't have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short". Skipping "hating and self-denial", which is actually care and interest, it's exactly what you lack, and exactly why you are entitled to, but shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't really have interests or care about, simply because it doesn't make sense, you can't know much since you simply "don't have time" for this stuff, so why do you talk about them, and how can you think you know about it. It's like if i start talking about cars, and i don't know a thing about them, and i magically know all about them, using my preference and my point of view to elaborate an argument and debate on a thing i literally have no clue about.


Man... you are coming off so snobby here. It's good to identify with the things you like, but when you're at the point where you are modulating the way you see people based on differences in personal identity, it can quickly become toxic and unhealthy. Just because someone else doesn't share your same sense of identity doesn't mean their opinion goes out the window, or that somehow you are more enlightened simply by how you choose to integrate your own experiences. That's just plain tunnel-vision.

Get this... we are all here because we LOVE video games. Nobody who doesn't love video games puts in the time on forums or is even aware that conversations like this are happening. Gaming as a hobby is incredibly vast and diverse, more so now than ever before. It used to be simpler. It's not anymore. There is SO much out there now. And we all have to share. No one person can embody every facet of it. There are dozens of different kinds of gamers. It's not a meaningful way to compare opinions. We could be here for the next century hashing that shit out. And by then we'd be 100 years behind the times!

I guess it comes down to how seriously you take yourself versus how seriously you take your interests. You really do have to ask yourself what it's all about. Are you in it to be a gamer? Is that something people should aspire to? Or are you simply in it because you love video games?

Put whatever label you want on it. Playing video games IS a way of passing time. Nothing more. Whether you're serious or casual about it, it's still just entertainment. The only other thing it can really be is a job. The rest are things people tell themselves it is in their own heads, simply as a way of making sense of their choices. I'll never understand why people need to glorify everything they do for fun. If your heart is really in something, there is only that. There is no 'you' to be found in it. The whole idea is that you are so wrapped up in your interests that your sense of self sort of drops off. That's why people often say they 'lose themselves' when speaking of their hobbies. It's fine if you want to think of yourself a certain way because of the things you care about. But a little stuck-up to think other people should assign the same value to those experiences and beliefs about how things should be.

You are NOT the things you do on your own time. Imagine if we tried to label ourselves based on everything we like... shit might get a little confusing. Which I think is why most folks tend to avoid such labels when trying to have serious discussions. They only really work when you're looking in a mirror. The rest of the time, they're just bullshit distractions from time better spent focusing on what you claim to love. As a tool for argument, these sorts of labels are not very practical, unless your goal is to make things personal (which I don't believe is your goal - I can tell you care a lot about the subject and I do respect that.)

Personally I'd say the line between 'real gamer' and 'casual gamer' is not all that glamorous. It's not a lifestyle in itself... that's putting one facet of a person under a microscope (usually for the sake of making an argument that otherwise would fall apart... you very rarely hear of anyone invoking the 'real gamer' card for any reason other than to assert intellectual superiority.) Being whatever you consider to be a 'gamer' is only a small part of who you are. And chances are nobody cares all that much, least of all your fellow peers in the hobby. To me, a real gamer is someone who is simply passionate about video games. They spend a lot of time playing video games, learning about them, following the goings-on, and whatnot. While a casual gamer doesn't really care much at all about it and doesn't engage with it nearly as often or as deeply, it's just potato chips to them (which I'd say there's nothing wrong with, everyone like potato chips sometimes.)  A serious gamer simply wants as much of their time as possible to revolve around video games.

I think we can largely agree there... but come on, man. To take that one thing and try to invalidate someone based on that one preconceived measure of who either parties are, especially via text and nothing more, is just ridiculous. Sorry, not buying it. It is so beyond narrow and petty. Says everything about you and nothing about him. What if he actually has more games under his belt than you? Or do you somehow know that to be impossible simply based on one interaction? See where I'm going with this? Preconceiving someone else's background or identity is an easy way to make a fool out of yourself. Posturing tends to make people take your arguments less seriously. If you are who you say you are, you don't need to present yourself as such. Others will make that call and decide for themselves what to make of what you say. If your heart is truly in what you say, it will show, and people will listen to you, even if they disagree. The most serious people in any interest don't identify as such, because for them it isn't about them, but rather what they are interested in. Everything else only takes away from the conversation. Instead of arguing what is what, we're now arguing *who* is what, as if somehow that has any bearing on the facts.

You can't just project who you see yourself as onto other people and expect to draw any meaningful conclusions. Definitely won't get a good reaction either. This should be obvious. Too much ego and vanity in there for any productive conversation. It keeps you from actually seeing where the other person is coming from. If nobody knew anything before, you can now be damned sure they won't - _and neither will you._ You're getting lost in false dichotomies. "This guy isn't like me, therefore he can't know what I know." But really, how do you know that? Are you some kind of psychic timeline gazer? Can you really take a few words and see the totality of someone's life experiences? Can you tell me his hopes and dreams too? Even if you could, what does that even mean to anyone? What if actually their opinion is different because they know something you don't? That is always possible too. Additionally, sharing interests and beliefs are not one in the same. Just because someone believes differently about something doesn't mean they know or care any less.

All I'm saying is it's not a good position to put yourself in if your goal is to prove a point. All you will prove is that you're high-up on categorizing people. "You just don't care like I do..." is a pretty weak way of saying "I don't agree with you." It just doesn't quantify anything  that you can sink your teeth into, address, or learn from. When you bring an issue down to something as abstract as identity, things get muddy. There is pretty much nowhere good to go from there.



oxidized said:


> So you talk like a casual gamer, you praise what casual gamers praise, you like videogames casual gamers like and you claim you're not a casual gamer? There's a label for that too, and i already mentioned it previously - unaware is the one. Besides you insist i'm insulting you, but still i see no insults, where exactly have i insulted you please show.


That's really it right there. You actually just did it! I don't know how you don't see it. You are implying who someone else, who you don't know, and who probably cares as much as you do about gaming, is or is not in order to discredit that person's point of view and bolster your own. I mean, you are presupposing someone else's level of passion, which is as personal as it can get. Which yeah... not a very cool thing to do. Actually most people would say that is very insulting. You're basically telling the guy he doesn't know shit just because he doesn't agree with you. And all you offer in defense are your own opinions doused in a bunch of ribbons and sparkles. It comes off as narcissistic.

That aside, the idea that somehow a real gamer should be more concerned about how the game is launched than actually playing the game sounds really, really uppity to me. _That's me._ To me, if you love video games, and you want to play a particular game, you're gonna get it however you can and focus on enjoying the game. So that's what _I_ do. Sometimes getting your hands on a game or getting it to work is absolute bullshit, but you figure it out, you play the game, and your love for games grows all the same. That's what gamers do, traditionally. Anything else is a distraction from what you really wanna be doing.

To get caught up on what the companies behind them do is something else entirely. That's fine, too. But it's a different set of interests. You're literally spending less time playing games. Why would you intentionally put something between you and a game if you love games so much? How does deciding to let what is be and enjoying the game somehow make you less of a gamer? Many people have this mindset. It doesn't mean they don't care about games. It just means their passion for games steers them differently. It doesn't mean they don't know what you do, nor that they ought to have the same taste in games as you, or even value the same things.

Of course on the flipside, people can also say that a dedicated gamer is willing to wait. Which I think is also fair. It's just a different way of manifesting the same passion for the same. exact. thing. Sort of a "pick your poison" compromise. In the end, what you choose really only affects you. There is absolutely nothing lofty about it. The world keeps turning. Every single time someone tries to argue otherwise, everything falls apart. Sort of like what's happening right now.

All of this nitpicking going on... but what does any of it have to do with whether or not what Epic is doing is a good thing?


----------



## dicktracy (Apr 28, 2019)

Comment section just proved that Steam fanboys are always angry and hates competitions.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> if they keep going like this


If they don't "go like this", people will just click-buy on steam.

Exclusives are the "platform sellers". Exclusives are why people still buy ridiculously underpowered stinky hardware (TN vs IPS screen lottery anyone?) by Nintendo in droves.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> We are no haters we're real loving gamers, not users who only see videogames as a way to pass time when they have nothing better to do, which in their eyes is nothing, because everything is better than playing videogames, games isn't something you do occasionally, it's almost a life style, it's an art, and like all arts there're enthusiasts and amateurs, or to better word it, casuals. You're basically saying it yourself "Me, i don't have time for all that hating and self-denial. Life is short". Skipping "hating and self-denial", which is actually care and interest, it's exactly what you lack, and exactly why you are entitled to, but shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't really have interests or care about, simply because it doesn't make sense, you can't know much since you simply "don't have time" for this stuff, so why do you talk about them, and how can you think you know about it. It's like if i start talking about cars, and i don't know a thing about them, and i magically know all about them, using my preference and my point of view to elaborate an argument and debate on a thing i literally have no clue about.
> 
> I don't think we aim to stop anything really, rather we aim to open eyes to who's willing to listen, and to who actually cares, facts are on our side, and that's enough to actually win this, even if it means it won't stop
> 
> ...



Who's is this 'we' you speak of? These 'real' gamers? You're not speaking for me, at least. Stop trying to think you do...

These eyes are wide open and the irony here is that both 'camps' are convinced the other isn't seeing some part of this 'reality'. Here's the news: There is no 'Steam community' and 'the gamer' is not a homogenous group. And even with these two camps there aren't any homogenous groups here, just a lot of opinions that seem to align in some way at some point. That group however changes all the time. With every exclusive Epic announces, it gets smaller. The Steam 'group' is not getting bigger. Its not Facebook or Instagram, despite the features that want to make it so. Its just a portal to play games through.

Its easy to say yes at some point. Its pretty difficult to keep saying no to an increasing % of the games you had on your wishlist. That is what 'gamers' are really good at: creating their own filter bubble and then complain that 'PC gaming is dying' and 'everything is a console port'.

Its time to wake up... being a customer doesn't mean always getting it your way. It means being flexible. That is how you, personally, get the most out of each deal. Or you can wait for the angry mob to sway publishers into making big investments into your specific niche... guess where that'll go - you might want to look up that 4A dev's forum post.


The bottom line is that for 90% of gamers this really is a non issue. They simply look at their wallet, look at the offer, and consider a purchase. If that happens on Steam it means they have some extra features. If it happens on EGS it'll be one of their first experiences with a different storefront, and in both cases they'll be pressing 'Play' and be in the game. End of story. All the rest is just a minority of nerds disagreeing with one another. Let's call it what it is. Time will tell if that group was ever large enough to make a dent. I just don't feel this mob mentality is being used for a greater good here. This supposed 'boycot' is biting the very hand that feeds; if you're all about gaming, this is not the way to do it.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 28, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Steam has a policy of not going astray of publishers unless the publisher clearly abuses Steam (e.g. 100,000 downloads for every copy of the game sold through Steam's store).


That's actually exposing the "but you can sell it anywhere else" as BS.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 28, 2019)

robot zombie said:


> Man... you are coming off so snobby here. It's good to identify with the things you like, but when you're at the point where you are modulating the way you see people based on differences in personal identity, it can quickly become toxic and unhealthy. Just because someone else doesn't share your same sense of identity doesn't mean their opinion goes out the window, or that somehow you are more enlightened simply by how you choose to integrate your own experiences. That's just plain tunnel-vision.
> 
> Get this... we are all here because we LOVE video games. Nobody who doesn't love video games puts in the time on forums or is even aware that conversations like this are happening. Gaming as a hobby is incredibly vast and diverse, more so now than ever before. It used to be simpler. It's not anymore. There is SO much out there now. And we all have to share. No one person can embody every facet of it. There are dozens of different kinds of gamers. It's not a meaningful way to compare opinions. We could be here for the next century hashing that shit out. And by then we'd be 100 years behind the times!
> 
> ...



Holy crap, amen to this and hats off to you sir.


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 28, 2019)

NRANM said:


> I'm wrong about what exactly? That the core functionality of a client is to allow users to purchase, download, and play games? That the Epic client does not allow you to do one or more of those three?
> 
> Yes, Epic's features are currently lacking compared to Steams's. I agree completely.


So EGS is worse than Steam.



> However, Steam didn't have all these features from the get-go. They were added throughout its lifetime. Refunds for example were added in 2016 if I'm not mistaken, which is rather late, but I don't remember a lot of people being outraged about that.


Who cares what Steam came with? It matters what they have right now and that is WAY more than Epic offers. If you had new smartphone company comming to the market and their phones were as good as idk, Samsung Galaxy S2, would you call them competitve with other manufacturers in 2019? No, you would not, because they would not be competitve, just as Epic does not offer enough to be considered competitve and they know it themselves, thats why they go for bribes. Epic is not competing with Steam from 15 years ago, they (want to) "compete" with Steam today.



> Also, support is a tricky subject. Steam is notorious for having bad support. My personal experience on numerous occasions has been mostly negative. Now, that is no excuse for Epic to not have support, or to have just as bad of a support, but it's important to keep things in perspective.


 What is tricky about it? Steam has it, Epic does not, there is nothing to discuss. Just because your personal experience with Steam support is mostly negative does not mean it is bad in general. I personally had 2-3 reasons to actually contact Steam support in total in ~15 years that I am using Steam. That alone should speak about quality of their platform in general. As for those 2-3 times I had to contact them, my issues were resolved within a day or so.



> Again, so many people just can't wait to jump on the hate bandwagon the first chance they get. Is it that hard to keep a cool head, and react like adults?


 The hate bandwagon was created by Epic the moment they started bribing developers. Noone cares which platform is gonna be dominant one, seriously noone... People will use what is the best. Epic practices prevent people from using what is the best and forces them to use something they don't want to use cause it is simply FAR inferior product to Steam.



> I wouldn't call that "screwing" the consumer. "Screw" is a very strong word, whereas what you described is nowhere near those levels.
> 
> Yes, if a game is released at the same time on multiple platforms, that could cause its price to drop a bit more quickly due to competition for prices, however based on my observations most games, when released only on Steam, do not really go down in price all that quickly or that significantly. A discount of 5-15% isn't that much of a discount in my opinion.


You like being in denial.
First you say Epic has no feature set matching Steam's and try to talk about steam from 15 years ago as if Epic was competing wih Steam from 15 years ago, trying to show how Epic is not that bad.
Second you talk how Epic has no support whatsoever, but your personal experience with Steam support was mostly negative (or so you claim) so obviously its okay for epic to have none and Steam support existance can be disregarded.
And now appearently no discounts is better than 15% discounts... Do you even read what you are posting, or are you just trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
Ask yourself 3 yes or no questions:
Is having support better than having no support whatsoever?
Is having rich feature set on a platform better than having poor feature set?
Is having ability to buy something at 5-15% discount better than paying full price?
If you answered "no" to any of those questions, you are stupid.



> Again, yes, I would prefer if games were released to all platforms at the same time. But I also understand that Epic has the right to offer exclusivity deals to publishers/developers, and those publishers/developers have the right to accept or decline said deals. I am not thrilled about these exclusivity deals per se, but I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a part of me that is kind of glad that someone (Epic) isn't at least trying to compete with Steam.


 They are not competing with steam. They offer garbage product and try to force everyone to use it through exclusivity bribes. We, consumers, ARE NOT GAINING ANYTHING FROM IT! We are the ones who are getting screwed. It is the same shit as with PS and Xbox. If there were no exclusives, people would be able to purchase the better platform and enjoy full library of games, instead there are exclusives that block people from enjoying certain games (without purchasing another system) or force them into buying certain system. If someone loves Uncharted they HAVE TO buy Playstation if they want to play it, they can't buy an Xbox and get Xbox release. Just as it is with consoles, so it is with EGS, it is us, the consumers that are getting shafted and yet, there are people like you, trying to defend shitty practices and advocate giving companies like epic a chance...
Epic has every right to offer exclusivity deals (or bribes as they should be called) and we have every right to hate them for bringing those shitty practices on PC platform. If they want to keep their games on EGS exclusively, they can, but bribing other deves to be EGS exclusive is bad and they deserve every bit of hate, insults and all you can think of for it. 

It is simply sad to see anyone actually defending "exclusivity"...


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 28, 2019)

Dexiefy said:


> So EGS is worse than Steam.
> It matters what they have right now and that is WAY more than Epic offers.



What dó they have? We know about the featureset difference, but other than that? The games on offer are not at all representative of the entire marketplace like it used to be at some point a few years ago. They're missing a large part of the market. Blizzard/Activision, Ubisoft and EA most notably are best not accessed through Steam. Its double DRM and it has historically been plagued by problems. Its 'OK' these days, but preferable for sure it is not. Not in the least because these publishers also don't use the additional features like Workshop etc.

Another thing Steam dóes have is a large percentage of the products on offer being complete and utter junk. Not even budget bin material, but rather some middle school project of some random dude practicing with level editors. Then, one level higher than that you have the countless indie devs ripping off assets left and right to assemble something capable of tricking gullible young people into a purchase. They call that early access, and Greenlight. How did that work out again?  Even today you need serious experience and a very good bullshit sensor to avoid the early access titles that are not going to go anywhere anytime soon. Steam/Valve doesn't curate much, even when it was too late their response was questionable at best, there are many examples of it.



> What is tricky about it? Steam has it, Epic does not, there is nothing to discuss. Just because your personal experience with Steam support is mostly negative does not mean it is bad in general.



Exactly that is what's tricky about it. EGS has support just like Steam does, they are required by law. The refund policy is the same, even. And you're right - just because your personal experience with EGS was mostly negative, that does not mean it is bad in general. There is indeed nothing to discuss, so just don't. You have no knowledge on the quality of support on either platform apart from your N=1 experience.



> The hate bandwagon was created by Epic the moment they started bribing developers.



Ah yes, and war was created by the gun manufacturers. Sound logic!



> It is simply sad to see anyone actually defending "exclusivity"...



Tell me now, what is not 'exclusive' about demanding content releases on Steam and Steam alone? Preferring that one store to the extent of excluding another is the exact same exclusivity. It is one you impose upon yourself as an individual. Store exclusivity is not an end-user exclusivity at all, unless you want it to be. Access to either storefront is _free of charge._

By the way, did you notice that EGS also managed to get several console exclusives (_real exclusives)_ to the PC platform? If you're all about gaming, that is something to applaud. That is a tangible, real reduction of exclusivity for a customer, however small.

If you take a step back and judge this at face value, can you seriously not see the irony of your statements? The very same applies on the other side of the fence, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. Its just preference, and its easy to prefer Steam because of its quality of life features. Thát is what's going on here. Everything else is just trying to argue and hide that truth. People have to get out of their comfort zone to get a product they actually wanted to buy and that gets people all worked up. And guess what, if you like to wait a half year or a year and get your game on Steam, power to you. Thát is how the marketplace really works.


----------



## 64K (Apr 28, 2019)

Well, Epic plans to add a Shopping Cart feature like every other online store on the internet already has but that's one of their long term goals for the store. Maybe later this year. They did add a Search Bar like every other online store on the internet already has 2 months after the store opened though so that's something.

Should we trust Sweeney to build a store "that will rival Steam one day"? He's making a half-assed attempt so far.

Remember this thread is about Sweeney saying Steam should match his cut and he would stop the exclusives nonsense.

Honestly, unemotionally compare Steam to Epic right now. Sweeney is making this statement right now. Compare the 2 stores right now. Do you believe that Steam should be taking the same cut as EGS right now? 

There is something wrong with his thinking imo.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Remember, art is in the eye of the beholder.



Not really, there's always multiple people praising and following one art. If you're alone...Well there are some problems.



rtwjunkie said:


> You get one more chance. Explain yourself. You throw these insulting terms out at me without examples or explanation.  You keep calling me that but it is also plain from all your posts that you know nothing about me. So please explain your font of wisdom about me and ability to label me as some kind of lesser gamer.
> 
> A true gamer plays a wide spectrum of games. You apparently have pigeonholed yourself into some kind of singular type of game that only in your tiny mind do you think that it is the opposite of casual gaming, whatever that is. The rest of the world knows what casual gamers are, and it is not a nice term. Grow up and stop trying to label people by what you think they are or what you think they know or what you think they play.
> 
> Also try visiting and contributing somewhere besides the news forum and you’d know a lot more about the people you are talking to.



Again with insults, where do you see insults? Lesser gamer? You're just a casual gamer, there's nothing wrong being that, it's not like you have some deficiency, it means you're not too serious with them, nothing more nothing less.

A true gamer plays a wide spectrum of games, but always maintaining a high standard, and using that standard (crafted with years of experience of playing videogames) to judge and analyze a videogame and its contents, and not lowering his standard in order to appreciate what's currently on the market and what's launching on it just because "i want to have fun" or just because "anything else is worse" because if you only seek fun and amusement time into a videogame that's exactly when you can be labelled as casual gamer, which is not a bad thing as you seem to think, it's just a group of people who decided to take a different approach at videogames compared to who's really interested to. And before you start doing that, no, it's not a matter of tastes, not always, actually, most of the time it isn't, it's actually a matter of appreciating the art and the passion put in a game, and being able to distinguish something we refer as good (just because we like it) from something we refer as bad (just because we don't like it) liking/not liking must be a completely different thing from good/not good, i have several videogames (also music and movies) i like, but they're not necessarily good, meaning, i can't go around saying they're good because i like it, because it's not true, i like it because i like it, and that's the end of the story, same with the opposite, what i don't like isn't necessarily bad, but of course there's also the case where, i like what's good, and dislike what's bad, and this is one of those situations. There's objectively bad and good, and it has to stay separate from subjectively bad and good.

I keep seeing the same people on this forum, especially in the news section, i'm more of a "disqus" guy, that's why i mostly comment on news, i don't bother with else unless i need it, besides i don't need to know you in person to understand your point of view on videogames, it's enough reading your position regarding this matter here, which gives me a pretty significant hint, and your previous avatar also gives me another hint. Stop thinking casual gamers are bad, they're just casual gamers, it's as simple as that.



robot zombie said:


> WoT



Whew that took me 5 minutes

Anyway, i want to clarify a few things first. Number one, i'm not judging people about their life on anything except videogames, i'm only talking about videogames here, _rtwjunkie_ can be the nicest guy in the world, i can't know that, but in this discussion here, i don't really care, what i care about is his point of view on this matter, and i'm judging that only, not else, that's why him, and you should take this much more lightly than what you are, because i don't intend to insult anyone, but if any of you feels insulted there's not much i can do honestly, i'm just not insulting. Second, videogaming is time passing for everyone essentially, but there's quality time passing, that which replaces (or is part of) even of the things considered to be of utmost importance in life, that's how serious i think videogames are it's not any tunnel vision.

_"Get this... we are all here because we LOVE video games. Nobody who doesn't love video games puts in the time on forums or is even aware that conversations like this are happening "_
Wrong, many people (i'm not saying it's necessarily this situation here) like to talk even if they're way out of their field or interests, because they like to be in the middle of the discussion and like to get all sort of attentions, and that is very common on forums especially, but also in real life, speaking just for the sake of it, to create a mean to exchange a few words, because there's either nothing better to do, or we want to prove anything either to us, or to others, or both.

What i think is that if someone truly likes something, anything really, it should be their main focus, and put as much time possible in it, very logical if you ask me.

What you do determines partly who you are, and you can determine a big part of a person's character by knowing their tastes in music in movies, in anything really, included videogames, but since we're not talking about anything else except videogames i'd maintain the focus on that.

_A serious gamer simply wants as much of their time as possible to revolve around video games._
Exactly, but not anyone spends the same way this said time on them, and it's not the amount i'm talking about, it's the intensity and the passion which is equally, if not more important the the amount.

I'm just playing detective here, i'm using hints to understand people's taste, and i'm not using one hint, i'm using multiple, and until now i've been pretty much always right about my "preconceiving" and pretty much always i centered or gone very near my initial analysis. Of course i won't reveal my analysis here, it would be too easy to counter that just to make me look like a fool, no sir, i'm pretty sure i've centered 100% his character and tastes as a videogamer, we might have some favorite games in common, or some games we refer to as very high quality, but what matters is the average game.

Again what i'm talking about here is videogames only, and i can draw conclusions based on different hints, i'm not "judging" the guy on anything else except videogames, as i already said, he might even be the nicest person on the planet, but that's not the subject now. I have many friends i know in person, (and through internet) who are very casual gamers, everyone to a different degree, it's not like i'll stop being their friend just because they don't agree with what i think on this thing, but the fact they're casual gamers remains, and there's nothing wrong with that.

_"That aside, the idea that somehow a real gamer should be more concerned about how the game is launched than actually playing the game sounds really, really uppity to me"_
Not more, he should be equally concerned. What is it people, it works when the subjects of the discussion are intel, AMD and nvidia, and not when it's video game PC platforms/stores? Come on!

_Many people have this mindset. It doesn't mean they don't care about games. It just means their passion for games steers them differently. _
It steers in the casual direction - What matters is having fun, no matter how i do it, who i pay, and what i use, just fun.

_All of this nitpicking going on... but what does any of it have to do with whether or not what Epic is doing is a good thing? _
Oh it has much to do...Because until now, i've heard or read only a certain group of people defending epic, and all those shared the same mentality and way of thinking, that's what it has to do.


I ask you to be more concise next time, just because you've repeated yourself several times in this one, and you've answered stuff you misunderstood from my posts (the fault was probably mine, i'm not really that good explaining, especially in my non native language).



dicktracy said:


> Comment section just proved that Steam fanboys are always angry and hates competitions.



Competition?


----------



## NRANM (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Competition?


Yes. What Epic is doing is creating competition, which is beneficial for the consumer.

Of course, you may not like the way Epic is competing, but that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing a *textbook example* of competition being introduced to the market.

ADDED: Now that I think about it. I think this is the closest to an actual, true competitor to Steam that we have ever gotten.

You can huff and puff all you want, you aren't going to bring the house down.


----------



## 64K (Apr 28, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Yes. What Epic is doing is creating competition, which is beneficial for the consumer.
> 
> Of course, you may not like the way Epic is competing, but that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing a *textbook example* of competition being introduced to the market.
> 
> ...



Yes and no. Competition is being created but calling it a textbook example is a bit unusual. Maybe overall in a business sense it is but none of the other online game stores did what Epic is doing. None of them built up their store by paying other Publishers to make their games exclusive on their store. This is what people are "huffing and puffing" about.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

NRANM said:


> Yes. What Epic is doing is creating competition, which is beneficial for the consumer.
> 
> Of course, you may not like the way Epic is competing, but that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing a *textbook example* of competition being introduced to the market.
> 
> ...



Competition is useful and just when it offers advantages where the other part lacks, or when it offers something different, and Epic isn't doing any of it, there's no need to bring down anything, it'll fall itself with time.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> What matters is having fun, no matter how i do it, who i pay, and what i use, just fun.



What is the point of gaming then if not for having fun?

I don't understand.  You trying to make gaming like it is some kind of Templar Knight tradition that has been handed down for generations and if you haven't been initiated then you aren't 'in'.  Or a 'gamer'.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> What is the point of gaming then if not for having fun?
> 
> I don't understand.  You trying to make gaming like it is some kind of Templar Knight tradition that has been handed down for generations and if you haven't been initiated then you aren't 'in'.  Or a 'gamer'.



Oh come on guys, i mean i don't have the best english but it guess it's quite understandable what i write. I don't mean you don't have to have fun, i'm saying it's not the only thing  that matters.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 28, 2019)

64K said:


> Yes and no. Competition is being created but calling it a textbook example is a bit unusual. Maybe overall in a business sense it is but none of the other online game stores did what Epic is doing.


If we check *Merriam Webste**r* it seems pretty much spot on:


> the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms



Yes, Epic is competing using different tactics, but it's still competition, and it is still the consumer that stands to gain in the long term.



64K said:


> None of them built up their store by paying other Publishers to make their games exclusive on their store. This is what people are "huffing and puffing" about.


And how is a game being exclusive to one store prevent anyone from playing it and enjoying it? There are no hardware requirements; access to the Epic Game Store is completely free.
The only actual exclusivity is in peoples' heads when they impose ridiculous restrictions on themselves.

Sure, Epic's client is missing features. I get it. I agree that more features need to be added. But to suggest that a person needs those features to play and enjoy a game is ridiculous.
When I've played pirated games years ago I had at my disposal none of the features Steam offers now. Did I enjoy my games? Hell yes I did!
When I play a game I've purchased from GOG and install it using the offline installer I also get none of the features Steam has. Do I enjoy said game? Damn straight!

If a few missing extra features is enough to ruin your enjoyment of a game, then you need to ask yourself if you are actually in it for the game(s) or something else.

Jeez, sometimes it seems to me that some people use games to "play" their platform (Steam), instead of using the platform to play games.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Again with insults, where do you see insults? Lesser gamer? You're just a casual gamer, there's nothing wrong being that, it's not like you have some deficiency, it means you're not too serious with them, nothing more nothing less.


If it’s not an insult, stop theowing it around like one.  What makes you thoroughly “out there” is you are the only one here who would even think that is something associated with me.  You keep saying I am a casual gamer and still have not givien any evidence as to why.  Because I enjoy the hell out of my gaming time? Yeah, I learned to immerse myself into the games completely because raising two kids meant my time was limited for many years.  So if enjoying my gaming time makes me “casual” then I feel sorry for you, because obviously you claim to be the opposite, which means not enjoying yourself.



oxidized said:


> A true gamer plays a wide spectrum of games, but always maintaining a high standard, and using that standard (crafted with years of experience of playing videogames) to judge and analyze a videogame and its contents, and not lowering his standard in order to appreciate what's currently on the market and what's launching on it just because "i want to have fun" or just because "anything else is worse" because if you only seek fun and amusement time into a videogame that's exactly when you can be labelled as casual gamer,


“Crafted”,   By the time I got there I realized you are one of the most extreme cases I have ever seen of someone being full of themselves.  I included more so people could get the full effect and have themselves a good laugh as well.


oxidized said:


> unless i need it, besides i don't need to know you in person to understand your point of view on videogames, it's enough reading your position regarding this matter here, which gives me a pretty significant hint, and your previous avatar also gives me another hint


My position here, that I dont care who sells it, because that doesn’t impact my enjoyment IN THE GAME.  You DO need to have a much better idea of who I am by being a part of the gaming forum because then you would know that the only pretender in this whole gaming discussion is you.  We only know that you SAY you are a gamer.  Most of the people here you are also arguing with already know that, because they don’t only hang out in the news section.

What in the HELL does my previous avatar have to do with anything?  It’s the second time you’ve bashed it, like you are some superior being.  What are you, the avatar police?  It doesnt say anything except for about 5 months I used it because I really enjoyed a game I played.  It says nothing about who I am, and certainly is not a comment on my “true gamer” status.  You are so wrapped up in appearances. I change my avatar every 5 to 6 months.  They mean nothing as far as ANYone’s gamer status or status on ANYthing.  People use them because they like them.


oxidized said:


> _"That aside, the idea that somehow a real gamer should be more concerned about how the game is launched than actually playing the game sounds really, really uppity to me"_
> Not more, he should be equally concerned. What is it people, it works when the subjects of the discussion are intel, AMD and nvidia, and not when it's video game PC platforms/stores? Come on!


Why should I be equally concerned about the launcher as the game if I am a “true gamer?”  Because you said so?  Who are you besides some guy hanging out in the news section dictatong who are real gamers and casual gamers?  I have news for you. I xan’t play the launcher. I can play the game that comes from the launcher, and that’s what I’m going to go do. You stay here and keep being full of yourself.


----------



## 64K (Apr 28, 2019)

NRANM said:


> If we check *Merriam Webste**r* it seems pretty much spot on:
> 
> 
> Yes, Epic is competing using different tactics, but it's still competition, and it is still the consumer that stands to gain in the long term.
> ...



There's just more to it than you are seeing. From my perspective I only have one issue with Epic but I am probably in the minority. I want to see Epic give a damn about their store beyond taking a short-cut to build it up. The reason for that is because I look at buying games in the long run. I go back and replay games all the way back to the late 90's that I really enjoyed. If Epic is making a half-assed attempt at their store right now what kind of shape will it be in 20 years from now?

Epic needs to prove themselves to me. I waited a while to get a Steam account after they launched. I waited a while to get an account on GOG, Origin, Uplay, Rockstar and just lately got an account on the MS store. I will wait a while for EGS as well.


----------



## goodeedidid (Apr 28, 2019)

Dimi said:


> So what about the Steam keys that Valve provides for free to devs/pubs to sell on other stores like GMG, Humble Bundle, Amazon... Keys they have 0% cut on. They practically lose money on those keys.


They don't lose money. No company will just lose money like that, everything has a purpose.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

64K said:


> Epic needs to prove themselves to me. I waited a while to get a Steam account after they launched. I waited a while to get an account on GOG, Origin, Uplay, Rockstar and just lately an account on MS store. I will wait a while for EGS as well.


We’ve known each other a long time and that is a perfectly valid stance.  You’ve applied it equally to each of them, because they all started out with just a basic store and launcher. Bravo, because you are not one of the fanatics mad that there is competition or that it didnt start out with the same level of features that Steam has.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> If it’s not an insult, stop theowing it around like one.  What makes you thoroughly “out there” is you are the only one here who would even think that is something associated with me.  You keep saying I am a casual gamer and still have not givien any evidence as to why.  Because I enjoy the hell out of my gaming time? Yeah, I learned to immerse myself into the games completely because raising two kids meant my time was limited for many years.  So if enjoying my gaming tome makes me “casual” then I feel sorry for you, because obviously you claim to be the opposite, which means not enjoying yourself.
> 
> 
> “Crafted”,   By the time I got there I realized you are one of the most extreme cases I have ever seen of someone being full of themselves.  I included more so people could get the full effect and have themselves a good laugh as well.
> ...



I'm not throwing around anything, i'm just naming stuff with the appropriate word, if you felt that, i'm sorry but it wasn't meant as i already said. I've already explained why you're a casual gamer, not high quality standard, not interested in who sells you the game and how, not interested in their practices good or bad, you're only interested in the final product and not anymore, and that's what makes you a casual gamer, you said it yourself multiple times, and even in this post here_ "My position here, that I dont care who sells it, because that doesn’t impact my enjoyment IN THE GAME" _and that's exactly why i said that fun isn't the only important thing, because you're not going to have much fun in all games, but it doesn't mean that they're not good products basically. For example take cuphead, it's not an insanely fun game, i mean it's ok, but it's not only that, it's the rest that makes the game great, the artwork, the OST, the gameplay style and most of its bosses/enemies.

"Crafted" keep in mind i'm not a native english speaker, and i used that word because that what came to my mind at that point.

The thing is very simple, Assassin's creed is a low quality game, and it has been for years now, and they're mostly enjoyed by casual gamers (because they find it fun), and young people. That one reason i've been saying your tastes are those of a casual gamer, of course you're free to like it, i'm not here to deny any of that to anyone, anyone should be free to have fun with whatever they fit best, but talking about objective quality in general is another thing.

You do whatever you want of course, i'm saying you have to do what i say, sorry if it looked that way but again, not meant. But accept being a casual, there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> So if enjoying my gaming tome makes me “casual” then I feel sorry for you, because obviously you claim to be the opposite, which means not enjoying yourself.



It's entirely possible he/she wasn't alive during the time that gaming was just for kids and nerds.  I can totally understand the viewpoint if you consider gaming has only been truly mainstream for less than 2 decades.  One it hits mainstream, everybody and everything needs to be labeled and grouped so one can feel part of something or be able to look down upon others.



oxidized said:


> talking about objective quality in general is another thing.



Here's the problem, there is no objective quality in video games.  Quality is purely subjective in video games.  How do you define beautiful?  It's akin to asking what purple taste like.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> It's entirely possible he/she wasn't alive during the time that gaming was just for kids and nerds.  I can totally understand the viewpoint if you consider gaming has only been truly mainstream for less than 2 decades.  One it hits mainstream, everybody and everything needs to be labeled and grouped so one can feel part of something or be able to look down upon others.



Oh i was alive, and one of the best part was exactly the beginning of those decades you mention.

_"everybody and everything needs to be labeled and grouped so one can feel part of something"_

Exactly this.



moproblems99 said:


> Here's the problem, there is no objective quality in video games.  Quality is purely subjective in video games.  How do you define beautiful?  It's akin to asking what purple taste like.



Almost nothing is purely subjective, and videogames are one of the most distant things from subjective. Like movies, and music too. Your experience about them increase the more you play or watch or listen to, and your standard changes the more you do.


----------



## 64K (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Oh i was alive, and one of the best part was exactly the beginning of those decades you mention.
> 
> _"everybody and everything needs to be labeled and grouped so one can feel part of something"_
> 
> ...



Game enjoyment is mostly a subjective thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying about games being one of the most distant things from subjective.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

64K said:


> Game enjoyment is mostly a subjective thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying about games being one of the most distant things from subjective.



That's why i talk about quality, and not enjoyment. 
Well actually, even enjoyment is something that has standards and can be built up with the years of experience. There's more possibility that a person who has a short history of videogaming (both in quantity and in quality) finds enjoyable a game another person with a longer history in it. Seems pretty logical.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

64K said:


> Game enjoyment is mostly a subjective thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying about games being one of the most distant things from subjective.


You’re right. It’s totally subjective.  Just as whether a game is “low quality” or not is subjective.  I feel sorry for him because apparently he has no idea how to immerse himself and have fun in nearly any game, whether people label it bad or not.  It must be tough for him deciding what a true gamer is (because there is only his definition, not an accepted one), and what is a low quality game or high quality.  With his knowledge level he should be head of one singular Game Quality Rating Agency.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Almost nothing is purely subjective, and videogames are one of the most distant things from subjective.



Please tell me how you can repeatably measure quality in a video game?  With numbers.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> You’re right. It’s totally subjective.  Just as whether a game is “low quality” or not is subjective.  I feel sorry for him because apparently he has no idea how to immerse himself and have fun in nearly any game, whether people label it bad or not.  It must be tough for him deciding what a true gamer is (because there is only his definition, not an accepted one), and what is a low quality game or high quality.  With his knowledge level he should be head of one singular Game Quality Rating Agency.



I don't need any more proof from you honestly, you confirmed my thoughts were right 100%



moproblems99 said:


> Please tell me how you can repeatably measure quality in a video game?  With numbers.



No numbers for that, i'm sorry.


It's pretty easy to excuse everything we do only with Taste isn't it?


----------



## 64K (Apr 28, 2019)

@oxidized You are now reaching the level of trolling this guy. rtwjunkie isn't a casual. You just don't know his history with gaming and discussion about games from him.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> I don't need any more proof from you honestly, you confirmed my thoughts were right 100%


It’s sad that you are so uptight you are unable to just enjoy yourself and that you feel the need to label people.  I’m very secure in myself from my education, work accomplishments, raising 2 boys, and reaching all my life goals early enough that early retirement is in the cards.  And through it all I have games for over two decades. 

So you go on continuing to be insecure and labeling people (because that is what insecurity breeds) and missing out on some very fun games just because a “true gamer” spends half their time apparently being analytical about what store/launcher they come from.

I’m done here because there is more to life than letting someone troll me because I enjoy gaming.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 28, 2019)

64K said:


> @oxidized You are now reaching the level of trolling this guy. rtwjunkie isn't a casual. You just don't know his history with gaming and discussion about games from him.



It would be even easier if i was.



rtwjunkie said:


> It’s sad that you are so uptight you are unable to just enjoy yourself and that you feel the need to label people.  I’m very secure in myself from my education, work accomplishments, raising 2 boys, and reaching all my life goals early enough that early retirement is in the cards.  And through it all I have games for over two decades.



And what has this got to do with the argument? Have i ever questioned this? 

I'm not insecure, if i was i wouldn't be talking like this. Yes he does if he truly cares, i let the "having fun only" casual to you, i've had my share of it in the beginning, now i've moved up.


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 28, 2019)

Oh, the guy who plays EA titles and claims to not support the company that way.



Vayra86 said:


> What dó they have? We know about the featureset difference, but other than that?


Ergo, they offer more, nice of you to actually say what I said and reffered to. Probably should skip all the rest of what you wrote afterwards as it is already irrelevant after your first 2 sentences, since afterall you just said that Steam offers more tahn EGS... But what the hell.




> The games on offer are not at all representative of the entire marketplace like it used to be at some point a few years ago. They're missing a large part of the market. Blizzard/Activision, Ubisoft and EA most notably are best not accessed through Steam. Its double DRM and it has historically been plagued by problems. Its 'OK' these days, but preferable for sure it is not. Not in the least because these publishers also don't use the additional features like Workshop etc.
> 
> Another thing Steam dóes have is a large percentage of the products on offer being complete and utter junk. Not even budget bin material, but rather some middle school project of some random dude practicing with level editors. Then, one level higher than that you have the countless indie devs ripping off assets left and right to assemble something capable of tricking gullible young people into a purchase. They call that early access, and Greenlight. How did that work out again?  Even today you need serious experience and a very good bullshit sensor to avoid the early access titles that are not going to go anywhere anytime soon. Steam/Valve doesn't curate much, even when it was too late their response was questionable at best, there are many examples of it.


So you disagree with the fact that Steam has the widest offering of games on the market? You realize you are trying to disagree with facts, right?

So Steam provides a platform for potential new developers to show up on the market while EGS offers... what exactly in that regard? Seems like its another case of "Steam has that feature and EGS doesnt, steam bad".
Just because alot of people create garbage, does not mean there are no gems to be found. You can say the same about mobile market aswell. Ton of garbage apps out there and yet there are plenty of good ones aswell and plenty of developers got to earn money/jump start their carreers thanks to it. Steam workshop is another one of such features... Unknown artists from earning nothing went to work for valve and have 200 000$+ per year thanks to it. 

Also you are reffering to other companies with their own launchers for THEIR OWN GAMES. Do you even read a post before replying, or do you instantly decide to disagree and then just bable whatever comes to your mind?
I specifically wrote that if epic wanted to keep their games on their platform that is fine, problem is, they dont do that, they bribe independent developers to get their games on their garbo soft and hurt the market in the process. Who loses out cause of it? oh right, us...



> Exactly that is what's tricky about it. EGS has support just like Steam does, they are required by law. The refund policy is the same, even. And you're right - just because your personal experience with EGS was mostly negative, that does not mean it is bad in general. There is indeed nothing to discuss, so just don't. You have no knowledge on the quality of support on either platform apart from your N=1 experience.


 Where did i wrote anything about MY experience with EGS support? I was replying to logic of "my personal experience with steam support was bad so its shit in general" by saying what my experience was with steam support and hence showing how irrelevant those type of statements are since they are personal experiences.  Also support is quite general, does not necesarilly means Atmanand on a phone line 24/7.





> Ah yes, and war was created by the gun manufacturers. Sound logic!


 This analogy is supposed to be logical?
Firstly, wars predate guns, just in case you don't realize that (considering that "sound logic" of yours and extreme inability to interpret things you are actually reading, that very well might be the case). Secondly, weaponry (that also predates guns) was first created to hunt and protect yourself. In fact the first actual weapon created by humans was a spear. I don't need to say what type of weapon it is right? Or I better do, defensive, defensive weapon. A sharpened stick to keep dangerous things at bay or be able to kill dangerous animals for food without getting hurt...
Can you please tell me, how does that apply in any way, shape or form to shady company forcing you to use garbage software through exclusive titles while telling you its for your own good and that you should thank them. I really would like to know  cause I personally see literally no conection between the two, but since you are the logical one here, enlighten me please.

Look at what GoG did. They had a goal of removing DRM from as many games as they can and bring as many old games to modern operating systems as they can. Sound goal. Do you see them trying to shove anything into anyone's mouth? No, they do good work and their project grows and grows. 
Do you know who owns GoG? CdProjekt. They also own CDProjektRED. Was Witcher 3 some ultra exclusive title only to their own store? No, they could have made it so, hell, their profits from W3 would be even higher that way, but they did not. They left the choice to customers.
See the difference between good company practices where they actually want to impact the market in some sensible way and shit company who instantly shows they only want $$$ and try to disguise it as doing something for our own good? 




> Tell me now, what is not 'exclusive' about demanding content releases on Steam and Steam alone? Preferring that one store to the extent of excluding another is the exact same exclusivity. It is one you impose upon yourself as an individual. Store exclusivity is not an end-user exclusivity at all, unless you want it to be. Access to either storefront is _free of charge._



Steam alone? I am sorry, where did I write anything like that? Please quote me, cause from what i recall i wrote in my first post in this news that if epic wants to compete with steam, they should offer good piece of software that would sway people to use it by choice instead of forcing them to use bad software cause of exlusives. Unless of course you are trying to make extreme argument, insinuating that i support it, ergo, put words into my mouth and claim they are mine. I've never said I want monopoly of any store on the market(In fact I've never seen anyone ever saying they want ie. Steam to be the only platform providing games), in fact I think I even wrote I am all for competition, cause from company competition only 1 group benefits, customers. However I DO NOT SUPPORT IN ANY WAY what Epic is doing with exclusivity bribes. I even compered it to console exclusivity to present who actually loses out on exclusivity. I suggest you read and most importantly, understand, my posts before replying.



> By the way, did you notice that EGS also managed to get several console exclusives (_real exclusives)_ to the PC platform? If you're all about gaming, that is something to applaud. That is a tangible, real reduction of exclusivity for a customer, however small.


 No I did not, if they did, kudos to them, but if they continue on pushing exlusivity with their store, then all of it is for naught. So its already several - 3, so I hope several in this case is more like 10+ rather than 4.
Did they also made those console exlusives not be exclusive on other consoles? Somehow i doubt that, but I would love to be proven wrong as I sincerely would like to have every game be available on every platform.



> If you take a step back and judge this at face value, can you seriously not see the irony of your statements? The very same applies on the other side of the fence, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. Its just preference, and its easy to prefer Steam because of its quality of life features. Thát is what's going on here. Everything else is just trying to argue and hide that truth. People have to get out of their comfort zone to get a product they actually wanted to buy and that gets people all worked up. And guess what, if you like to wait a half year or a year and get your game on Steam, power to you. Thát is how the marketplace really works.


What irony? That I disagree with exclusivity as (again) customers lose out on it and only companies benefit from it? Where is irony in that? Unless ofc in your mind I want to have every game on Steam and Steam alone... If that was the case then yeah, I would see the irony... but then again, I never said I wanted singular store monopoly, so there is that...

Forgetting all the shady stuff around epic that kept popping up over the years. If Epic can create equally good piece of software to compete with any other store on the market, or well, Steam, since Steam is the market leader(even you agree about way richer featureset here) and then they show it to public and are like"Hey guys, look, we created this amazing thing, we would love for you to check it out" instead of "Hey guys, we created this garbage, it is crap compared to our competition, but we got exclusive deals, so if you want [insert game name] on release, you have to use this shit store, cool right? O also, it is for your own good, cause Steam is bad and is hurting the market" (market, that btw, Steam in big part built to begin with) then I would not say a word. 
So again I am asking, do you decide to disagree before reading anything and then just follow through on your decision, or do you have problems understanding what you are reading?
Read the first post I've made in this news post, maybe it will enlighten you what I dislike about Epic. If you disagree with spyware part, that is fine, but I, for one, do not belive in coincidences and if one company hits the news multiple times for its "spying" I am never gonna trust that company.

Also, my store of choice is GoG, not Steam.
I do not care which store is the most popular and which one is not. I am gonna chose the best option for me. If i want to buy a game I want to buy it from a store I PICKED, not a store a company I distrust chose for me and told me it is for my own good.
If nVidia wanted to release a new gpu but would say "for the first 6 months you can only buy it at XYZ store and nowhere else", would you say that is alright? Or would you rather pick the store you want to buy the product from? I prefer the latter and so does every single person who is against exclusivity bribes of Epic. Can't say it any clearer for you to understand at this point...


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 28, 2019)

oxidized said:


> I'm not throwing around anything, i'm just naming stuff with the appropriate word, if you felt that, i'm sorry but it wasn't meant as i already said. I've already explained why you're a casual gamer, not high quality standard, not interested in who sells you the game and how, not interested in their practices good or bad, you're only interested in the final product and not anymore, and that's what makes you a casual gamer, you said it yourself multiple times, and even in this post here_ "My position here, that I dont care who sells it, because that doesn’t impact my enjoyment IN THE GAME" _and that's exactly why i said that fun isn't the only important thing, because you're not going to have much fun in all games, but it doesn't mean that they're not good products basically. For example take cuphead, it's not an insanely fun game, i mean it's ok, but it's not only that, it's the rest that makes the game great, the artwork, the OST, the gameplay style and most of its bosses/enemies.
> 
> "Crafted" keep in mind i'm not a native english speaker, and i used that word because that what came to my mind at that point.
> 
> ...



Nah... this is not the right approach mate, sorry.

The idea that _you _can determine what a quality standard is supposed to be in a greater sense wrt games and its platform, is bonkers. And the reason it is so off is because of what you say and the way you say it. It only confirms you have no idea even of the definition of casual or experienced.

If you really _know_ gaming you'd say that there is a wide variety of games with very specific qualities that may or may not work for a person at a specific point in time. It has nothing to do with 'casual or not' whether you can appreciate a good game. Almost _everyone_ can appreciate a good game, as long as they _understand the game._ For most people when they meet a product of great quality, they recognize it.

On a deeper level, if you know gaming well, you have learned to recognize the very specific qualities of almost every little niche gaming has to offer. And let me enlighten you: _that is exactly what @rtwjunkie _is so damn good at. You should take a long look at his post history and the extremely wide variety of games he's played. I can only have respect for being so open minded. I know I can't play a lot of the stuff he does. Not because I can't - but because I simply lose interest.

Casual or not is about having gained an understanding of things or not. Its the same with music. True adepts in audio/musical performances can appreciate a very wide variety of styles, they can hear the difference between a skillful artist and an 'easy' one that copies every trick in the book.

Just as well, the platform 'quality' I think we all agree on is objectively lower on the EGS side. But this is simply a question of whether the bare necessities are met - for _you_ personally as a customer. For _me_ the necessities of a store are very simple: must have 2FA, must have several valid payment methods, must have a simple refund policy, and must be light and simple. The rest is bonus. For me, a purchase on EGS means nothing different from one on Steam. Is that casual? I think its _sensible_.



Dexiefy said:


> Oh, the guy who plays EA titles and claims to not support the company that way.
> 
> 
> Ergo, they offer more, nice of you to actually say what I said and reffered to. Probably should skip all the rest of what you wrote afterwards as it is already irrelevant after your first 2 sentences, since afterall you just said that Steam offers more tahn EGS... But what the hell.
> ...



Its simple - you make your choice as a customer and that is fine. The whole argumentation behind it though, is flawed in several ways. I hoped and tried to explain this so you could see that, but this nuance is lost on you, its too bad.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

What do Steam,Uplay,Origin,GoG offer me in a platform over EGS? LOTS
What does Epics 12% revenue split offer me as a Consumer? NOTHING. Games not any cheaper. 
What does Epic exclusivity offer me as consumer? Again, NOTHING except forcing me to use EGS and back to point 1.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> What does Epics 12% revenue split offer me as a Consumer? NOTHING. Games not any cheaper.
> What does Epic exclusivity offer me as consumer? Again, NOTHING except forcing me to use EGS and back to point 1.


Theoretically games should be more polished and/or have more content but that takes time to bare fruit.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Theoretically games should be more polished and/or have more content but that takes time to bare fruit.


Sorry? You’re believing trickle down economics is gonna work for games now too? Publishers are taking the cut here, devs not so much...
We’re already in an age of huge Day 1 patches because publishers forcing Devs to out products ready or not to meet financial quarters and deadlines. This will not change because of some “discount” revenue split nor can Epic or any other platform offer that “discount” forever either.
Tim Sweeney is no White Knight here. He just wants more people on his Fortnite Launcher before the Fortnite money dries up.


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Sorry? You’re believing trickle down economics is gonna work for games now too? Publishers are taking the cut here, devs not so much...
> We’re already in an age of huge Day 1 patches because publishers forcing Devs to out products ready or not to meet financial quarters and deadlines. This will not change because of some “discount” revenue split nor can Epic or any other platform offer that “discount” forever either.
> Tim Sweeney is no White Knight here. He just wants more people on his Fortnite Launcher before the Fortnite money dries up.



I don't think everyone sees these deals Epic keeps making and the low 12% cut as temporary but even Sweeney has said they can't do the exclusives forever and I don't think he will keep the 12% cut for too much longer either. Some are saying that this is good for Developers but as you said it's the Publishers that make the money. Whether or not they put some of that money saved from the lower EGS cut towards developing better games or just pocket the money remains to be seen.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Sorry? You’re believing trickle down economics is gonna work for games now too? Publishers are taking the cut here, devs not so much...
> We’re already in an age of huge Day 1 patches because publishers forcing Devs to out products ready or not to meet financial quarters and deadlines. This will not change because of some “discount” revenue split nor can Epic or any other platform offer that “discount” forever either.
> Tim Sweeney is no White Knight here. He just wants more people on his Fortnite Launcher before the Fortnite money dries up.


You're forgetting a lot of these games that signed exclusives are self-published like Rebel Galaxy Outlaw


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're forgetting a lot of these games that signed exclusives are self-published like Rebel Galaxy Outlaw


Those aren’t the games we’re talking about here  Those aren’t the ones that are being used to ply people into using EGS. Though that game is on my list....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

I assume you mean Metro: Exodus.  In which case the publisher owns the IP so they call all of the shots and that usually involves a lot of development decisions.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I assume you mean Metro: Exodus.  In which case the publisher owns the IP so they call all of the shots and that usually involves a lot of development decisions.


Borderlands 3, Outer Worlds, yeah those big IPs


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

Borderlands 3 = 2K Games
2K Games did it because 12% on EGS beats the hell out of 30%->20% on Steam and 30% on GOG.

The Outer Worlds = Private Division
Private Division turning EGS exclusive is a no brainer.  It's high risk from the get go because it is a new IP.  EGS exclusive reduces that risk by getting guaranteed sales.
Private Division literally doesn't do "big IPs."  They were created to publish games that are too small for AAA publishers to care and too big for indie budgets to handle.

Just to be clear: UE4 games get 12% on EGS, non-UE4 games get 17% on EGS.  Borderlands 3 and The Outer Worlds are both on UE4.

Metro: Exodus is an odd ball being EGS exclusive but not on UE4.  I think Deep Silver wasn't convinced it would reach the threshold for 25% on Steam ($10 million), never mind 20% ($50 million).  I believe Metro is popular in eastern Europe where GOG is also more common (30% revenue share).  Put it all together, 17% on EGS is attractive.  Exclusivity is icing on the cake.

Remember AAA publishers were abandoning Steam last year before EGS started offering exclusives.  For example, COD:BO4 was Battle.net exclusive.  That was a big money maker for Steam gone.  Not to mention PUBG was losing out to Fortnite.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Borderlands 3 = 2K Games
> 2K Games did it because 12% on EGS beats the hell out of 30%->20% on Steam and 30% on GOG.
> 
> The Outer Worlds = Private Division
> ...


Doesn’t change the fact they are just carrots dangled in front of gamers to use EGS . There’s ZERO benefits to us as consumers. Less sales on a less than desirable DSF. Better hope that 12% makes up the difference. I’m gonna buy Outer Worlds on MS Store before I ever support Epics tactics.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

My computer has EGS, Battle.net, Origin, uPlay, Steam, and GOG Galaxy installed.  Do I care?  Nope, not really.  I have 10 GiB of RAM to burn at the moment.  If you don't like it, fine.  I think competition is good.

Microsoft Store is layered DRM.  EGS is DRM free unless developers add it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're forgetting a lot of these games that signed exclusives are self-published like Rebel Galaxy Outlaw





INSTG8R said:


> Those aren’t the games we’re talking about here  Those aren’t the ones that are being used to ply people into using EGS. Though that game is on my list....





FordGT90Concept said:


> Borderlands 3 = 2K Games
> 2K Games did it because 12% on EGS beats the hell out of 30%->20% on Steam and 30% on GOG.
> 
> The Outer Worlds = Private Division
> ...





INSTG8R said:


> Doesn’t change the fact they are just carrots dangled in front of gamers to use EGS . There’s ZERO benefits to us as consumers. Less sales on a less than desirable DSF. Better hope that 12% makes up the difference. I’m gonna buy Outer Worlds on MS Store before I ever support Epics tactics.



Follow this line right here. @INSTG8R you always struck me as a sensible guy... is it too much to admit that the actual deals being made are, when you look at them in detail, actually pretty pro-gamer and pro-gaming? So first you literally say, its not about those games but obviously only about Metro and BL3 (which also got supported by evidence that these are pretty solid 'gamer's games' made by devs that understand what we're looking for and that each have a pretty strong control over their dev processes)... and then you close with saying 'but they're just carrots'. The question I have for you is this: when do those deals stop being just 'carrots' and start being an actual shift in the marketplace that may have _already_ had a positive effect? Something to consider...

The premise you hold on to is that 'exclusivity is bad' but I simply cannot stress enough how flawed that idea is. Its a perspective taken from the customer applied to a different end of the marketplace. For _you_ as an end user there is no exclusivity because you are looking at two/multiple services that are free and open to access. The exclusivity only exists between EGS and Steam. The only one that should be throwing tantrums is Valve. Everyone else can just sit back, get popcorn and enjoy the ride, snagging any nice deals (such as EGS free game offers) that come along if you want to. Thát is where the customer benefits - and has had the opportunity to do so. The very idea that Valve needs customers to help them out here in correcting the market is preposterous - and it will be ineffective anyway. Publishers have smelled blood, and they won't let go of that scent. In the longer run, that 30% cut is not going to hold. Any publisher may very well be making up the balance: 'what if I just launch my own platform' versus the other options right now. Even comparisons to other on-demand digital distribution don't hold water wrt your premise on exclusivity: take Netflix and HBO. *Paid *services that each snag exclusives away from one another, all the time. _The entertainment industry is built on exclusivity_ of content, front to back and top to bottom.

Bottom line, these changes to the market are already happening, stop blinding yourself and you may be able to spot them.

Last, as for the trickle down effect that was mentioned. YES it does apply to gaming as well. Nothing happens in a vacuum on the marketplace. When games get planned initially, the market is carefully looked at: 'do we have something to offer that is unique' 'is the timing right' 'what are we competing with'. If all those devs that release through EGS have more options to divide a budget (because that is what this is), they can simply offer more than a competitor could with the same amount of money. This is undeniable. Where that money truly lands remains to be seen, but any competing dev that wants to do 'bring more product' at the same price has an opportunity to do exactly that. People say 'but its just going into publisher's pockets' - YES. But not directly; rather indirectly: the business plan here, is that you offer more content for a price, and that will drive sales, and more sales = more $$$. And it gets better: more $$$ means a publisher can take more of a risk with the next project. That is a win-win business proposition, also for us as a customer. And there will _always be someone, _that is how the market works because everybody is cautiously looking at one another.


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Borderlands 3 = 2K Games
> 2K Games did it because 12% on EGS beats the hell out of 30%->20% on Steam and 30% on GOG.
> 
> The Outer Worlds = Private Division
> ...



If I understand Steam's new policy on cuts they aren't retroactive. Steam takes 30% until 10 million in sales and then for future sales they take 25% and then at 50 million in sales they take 20% in future sales but they don't refund the difference between 30% and 20% on past sales so yes Publishers are saving a lot of money going with Epic and taking little risk.

Anyway most of these games will be available on Steam after a year. Gamers just don't like to wait. This is why games get released buggy as hell and gamers buy them right away anyway or worse pre-order.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Follow this line right here. @INSTG8R you always struck me as a sensible guy... is it too much to admit that the actual deals being made are, when you look at them in detail, actually pretty pro-gamer and pro-gaming? So first you literally say, its not about those games but obviously only about Metro and BL3 (which also got supported by evidence that these are pretty solid 'gamer's games' made by devs that understand what we're looking for and that each have a pretty strong control over their dev processes)... and then you close with saying 'but they're just carrots'. The question I have for you is this: when do those deals stop being just 'carrots' and start being an actual shift in the marketplace that may have _already_ had a positive effect? Something to consider...
> 
> The premise you hold on to is that 'exclusivity is bad' but I simply cannot stress enough how flawed that idea is. Its a perspective taken from the customer applied to a different end of the marketplace. For _you_ as an end user there is no exclusivity because you are looking at two/multiple services that are free and open to access. The exclusivity only exists between EGS and Steam. The only one that should be throwing tantrums is Valve. Everyone else can just sit back, get popcorn and enjoy the ride, snagging any nice deals (such as EGS free game offers) that come along if you want to. Thát is where the customer benefits - and has had the opportunity to do so. The very idea that Valve needs customers to help them out here in correcting the market is preposterous - and it will be ineffective anyway. Publishers have smelled blood, and they won't let go of that scent. In the longer run, that 30% cut is not going to hold. Any publisher may very well be making up the balance: 'what if I just launch my own platform' versus the other options right now. Even comparisons to other on-demand digital distribution don't hold water wrt your premise on exclusivity: take Netflix and HBO. *Paid *services that each snag exclusives away from one another, all the time. _The entertainment industry is built on exclusivity_ of content, front to back and top to bottom.
> 
> ...


When I actually see deals for US as consumers and gamers then we can talk again. You just wasted your time typing all that out. Epic is NOT doing this for US they are padding their store for THEM...



FordGT90Concept said:


> My computer has EGS, Battle.net, Origin, uPlay, Steam, and GOG Galaxy installed.  Do I care?  Nope, not really.  I have 10 GiB of RAM to burn at the moment.  If you don't like it, fine.  I think competition is good.
> 
> Microsoft Store is layered DRM.  EGS is DRM free unless developers add it.


So do it I minus EGS. I REFUSE to support game poaching and exclusivity just to get me to use out of ALL of those a terrible DSF with zero incentives other than the games they have poached by dangling deep discounts in front of Publishers...


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 29, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> *Its simple - you make your choice as a customer and that is fine.* The whole argumentation behind it though, is flawed in several ways. I hoped and tried to explain this so you could see that, but this nuance is lost on you, its too bad.



Why not just admit defeat and that you simply can't understand my point?
I mean, read what you just wrote and then read this


> I do not care which store is the most popular and which one is not. *I am gonna chose the best option for me*. *If i want to buy a game I want to buy it from a store I PICKED, not a store a company I distrust chose for me and told me it is for my own good.*
> If nVidia wanted to release a new gpu but would say "for the first 6 months you can only buy it at XYZ store and nowhere else", would you say that is alright? Or would you rather pick the store you want to buy the product from? I prefer the latter and so does every single person who is against exclusivity bribes of Epic. Can't say it any clearer for you to understand at this point...



I bolded out the part where you basically admitted you can't understand the issue at all. Let's say I want to buy Borderlands 3 on release from [insert any non EG store], can I do it? No, I cannot. Means that if I want to play it I HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy it from EGS. Do you understand the issue with exclusivity bribes now and how us, the customers, are the ones who are being screwed by having our freedom of choice impacted?


----------



## oxidized (Apr 29, 2019)

Dexiefy said:


> Why not just admit defeat and that you simply can't understand my point?
> I mean, read what you just wrote and then read this
> 
> 
> I bolded out the part where you basically admitted you can't understand the issue at all. Let's say I want to buy Borderlands 3 on release from [insert any non EG store], can I do it? No, I cannot. Means that if I want to play it I HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy it from EGS. Do you understand the issue with exclusivity bribes now and how us, the customers, are the ones who are being screwed by having our freedom of choice impacted?



I'm glad i'm not the only one saying most of people defending Epic just don't understand what's the problem, and why more sensible, and passionate people actually complain about that. The problem is you can try and explain them as much as you want, there's no way out of this, they either don't get it or don't want to for some reason, which is playing contrarian just for the sake of it (or because they think Epic is doing them some good)


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 29, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Dont really understand all this seemingly blind hatred.... its like the people being against Tesla...
> 
> You have to spend money to make money, maybe with some exclusive content it gets people interested, this is just how you do things, this is super standard yet now you are all upset?
> 
> ...


As for me, I'm not rooting for one platform against another. I'm rooting for a platform that has worked for me for ages, that I have more than 200 games on, that has huge discounts from time to time, that has cloud saves, that has a good software base and a very low system footprint, that has community features, chat, good support, in-house streaming, game backups, broadcasting, and so on... Can I say the same about EGS? Nope.

Making games exclusive and throwing commission rates in the bag is a pitiful and disgusting move. If Epic starts providing a quality service with something that makes them stand out (like .iso downloads on GOG), I'll start thinking about installing their crapware.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> When I actually see deals for US as consumers and gamers then we can talk again. You just wasted your time typing all that out. Epic is NOT doing this for US they are padding their store for THEM...



See, that is the blindness you imposed upon yourself, right here, at work. (picked the top link, too lazy to avoid Toms' today)

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/epic-games-store-current-upcoming-free-titles,38217.html

I'm wasting time, that is indeed obvious, because you didn't even take the effort to comment on the very 180 degree turn you made in the posts I quoted of you. Instead, you fall back on this flawed argument that there are no deals for 'US' as customers, and for that... see link above. Or is free gaming not a deal to you, does it have to have a price tag to apply? Oh no, wait - its not a deal for you, because you _choose_ to avoid EGS.  So all things considered, nothing they could ever do would change your stance; even if they already did it, because you just won't see it.

Seriously man, I thought you were smarter than this? Did you ever think Valve was doing their Steam business for your enjoyment instead of their own pockets? Boy oh boy... the lack of reflection here is stunning.



Dexiefy said:


> Why not just admit defeat and that you simply can't understand my point?
> I mean, read what you just wrote and then read this
> 
> I bolded out the part where you basically admitted you can't understand the issue at all. Let's say I want to buy Borderlands 3 on release from [insert any non EG store], can I do it? No, I cannot. Means that if I want to play it I HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy it from EGS. Do you understand the issue with exclusivity bribes now and how us, the customers, are the ones who are being screwed by having our freedom of choice impacted?





oxidized said:


> I'm glad i'm not the only one saying most of people defending Epic just don't understand what's the problem, and why more sensible, and passionate people actually complain about that. The problem is you can try and explain them as much as you want, there's no way out of this, they either don't get it or don't want to for some reason, which is playing contrarian just for the sake of it (or because they think Epic is doing them some good)



There is no victory or defeat here. There is only a basic understanding of the marketplace. You either have it, or you do not.

You do not have it - and you (and others) consistently choose to close your eyes to anything/anyone trying to explain it to you.

Instead you choose to fall back on the 'storefront choice is everything' argument, completely oblivious to the fact _that no store has a basis to exist if it wasn't for products being available_ on it. Thát is why EGS snatched exclusivity. It is their unique selling point. It also applies to every other store: GOG has the unique selling points of 'no-DRM' and 'good old games'. Steam has its featureset advantage + large library of games.

'Let's say I want to buy BL3 on ...' - yes, that is exactly why stores use exclusives - they work because you wanted to buy BL3, and now you might do it on a different store than you're used to, thus giving you a chance to experience and get used to it as a place to buy games. Epic also employs other ways to entice you to come over; such as the free games mentioned above. If that feels to you as 'getting screwed' then you still don't understand the market. You're getting screwed every day, such is life as a consumer in a capitalist society. Nobody denies that. The best you can do, is pick up some fruits of that labor, such as those free games. Or: you can sit in a corner with an angry face saying NO to everything, which seems to be your preference. I've also been in that position for a few years... trust me when I say it won't help you one bit - it tends to make you a bit grumpy, too.

You can or cannot agree with that exclusivity, but its a fact to deal with. No amount of customer backlash is going to change that (deals were made, contracts signed), and we know gamers are impatient, young and very much not true to their word online. You can rest assured you won't be effecting any sort of change. The only effect you have, is that you'll play things you want to play later. If that sits well with you, then that is fine, thát is the market at work. You are given choices as a customer, and you make them. Simple. Nobody ever said you get to choose between only the nice things -  in fact, that hardly qualifies as a real choice, but rather just a preference, like what menu item to choose for dinner.



oxidized said:


> more sensible, and passionate people



Sensible and passionate don't generally go too well together, in case you haven't noticed. Do you know what 'passionate' stands for on a marketplace? *Gullible, easy prey* to keep making money off. In your case, that is what Valve is thinking about you right now. They didn't even have to issue a press release to keep you tied to their platform, let alone change anything in their 30% cut or the price for you as a customer. Easy. Prey.

Sensible, that is doing what's best for you as a customer, what aligns best with your needs and wants. If that is a Steam monopoly, by all means, do as you do. If it is not, excluding one store by default is counterproductive and _not sensible. _It directly harms your long term outlook because Steam is already damaging the market in several ways through its dominance - new, smaller players such as EGS _have to resort to exclusivity deals_ to even make a dent. And here, I think we can agree: those deals are not preferable in a general sense. That is also what the guy above here got stuck on. I'm already way past that, honestly, this discussion has also moved way past that a few pages ago.

That is what this really all boils down to, the idea that you can or cannot have things your way all the time. I'm convinced you cannot. You still think you can and somehow also think you should, because 'its logical'... they call that entitlement, and its a sign of the times. You can reflect on that with all the passion you have.


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Epic is NOT doing this for US they are padding their store for THEM...



A few days ago Sweeney had this to say, "_30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, publishers, and everyone who relies on those businesses for their livelihood. We’re determined to fix it and this is the one approach that will effect major change."_

That is wrong. I check financial statements of the big Publishers a couple times a year and most of them are making huge net profits. I don't know about Indies though. I don't keep up with them. Also, as you said, Sweeney is doing the exclusives and the 12% cut solely to build up his store. He doesn't care about helping out his competition (other Publishers). He must think PC gamers are pretty gullible to make a statement like that and think PC gamers would believe it.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 29, 2019)

Considering most in the US have forced exclusivity and lack of choice with their ISP, you couldn't use the internet if you really enforced the lack of exclusivity.  When you realize you can't beat the game, you can only play it, it makes life easier.


----------



## Dexiefy (Apr 29, 2019)

Wow... just wow...


Vayra86 said:


> There is no victory or defeat here. There is only a basic understanding of the marketplace. You either have it, or you do not.
> 
> You do not have it - and you (and others) consistently choose to close your eyes to anything/anyone trying to explain it to you.


Actually there is. So far you managed to bring literally not a single argument(other than saying"you should just bend over and accept everything") or counter argument anything of what I've said in any way. Probably because you do not understand having freedom of choice impacted by a corporation.
You can't explain anything to anyone cause you are not understanding the issue. My previous post underline to you (in bold at that) what is the issue and why people are outraged by EGS practices. THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE is impacted by a corporation. Corporation makes the choice you should be making on a personal level. The corporation therefore is threatening you with its actions (as it steps onto your freedom) so what do you do? You pick up a weapon to defend it... weapon in this case being the internet.

And of course I don't have it. When a guy who can't even make logical analogy sais so it must be true. Afterall, it is such a difficult concept... making money in any way possible as long as its legal, wow, deep, deep concept. So hard to understand, my brain nearly overloaded.
Yours certainly did though cause you grasp basic concept of it, but do not realize that it is in hands of customers how much those companies can get away with when trying to make as much $$$ as they can. But it is ok, belive that noone understands free market but you, I am sure it will allow you to feel special.



> Instead you choose to fall back on the 'storefront choice is everything' argument, completely oblivious to the fact _that no store has a basis to exist if it wasn't for products being available_ on it. Thát is why EGS snatched exclusivity. It is their unique selling point. It also applies to every other store: GOG has the unique selling points of 'no-DRM' and 'good old games'. Steam has its featureset advantage + large library of games.


 Alright, great I fall back onto the main issue with exclusivity deals... you know, the VERY PROBLEM of this entire debate. The sole reason why people are "rising up arms" against Epic.
Do you see anyone complaining on GoG removing DRM's? No, because it actually helps everyone. They gave themselves a goal to follow and people want to support them in that so they use their service so their project grows naturally.
Do you see anyone complaining about Steam featureset? No, because it helps everyone. Again, Steam features helped MANY people and made access to for example game modding much simpler for alot of people. One could write a dissertation about all good that Steam has done for gaming industry. With all that said, Steam simply grows because people like what valve is doing.
Do you see Steam/GoG try to shove anything down anyone's throat? No, because they jsut provide something good and people start using it naturally. Noone forces them to.
Do you see people complaining about exclusivity bribes of Epic? Yes because it hurts everyone and helps only Epic. Epic is not trying to create something good here. They do not have a goal like Gog, they do not expand their featureset like Steam, they try to FORCE people to use their software. See the difference?
Hmm I wonder, why people are standing up against it... God one knows, weird stuff right there...
Epic practices ARE NOT HELPING ANYONE, quite the opposite. I seriously have no idea how hard it is for you to understand such simple thing. Just analyze those few sentences 100 times, maybe you will grasp it and see the difference between proper practices that should be supported and shitty practices that should be frowned upon.



> 'Let's say I want to buy BL3 on ...' - yes, that is exactly why stores use exclusives - they work because you wanted to buy BL3, and now you might do it on a different store than you're used to, thus giving you a chance to experience and get used to it as a place to buy games.


 Actually it might only push me to pirate the game or to not play it at all rather than trusting a shady company accused of spying multiple times over the years. I don't have a spine of a snail like you do with your "EA is bad but i still play their games. But i do not support them"(rofl) and rather than being part of the issue, prefer to vote with my wallet.
Also, read again what i wrote about CDP and GoG and Witcher 3( you know, the part that completly invalidates necessity of exclusives in the first place). Then come back and explain to me, if exclusives are so necessary, why Witcher 3 was not GoG exclusive? Afterall this is how you get customers appearently. If you can't however, just stop babbling.



> Epic also employs other ways to entice you to come over; such as the free games mentioned above.


Great practice, kudos to them. Now explain why they won't employ more practices that are good for customers and market in general? Whhy instead they are trying to FORCE people to use their store?



> If that feels to you as 'getting screwed' then you still don't understand the market. You're getting screwed every day, such is life as a consumer in a capitalist society. Nobody denies that. The best you can do, is pick up some fruits of that labor, such as those free games. Or: you can sit in a corner with an angry face saying NO to everything, which seems to be your preference. I've also been in that position for a few years... trust me when I say it won't help you one bit - it tends to make you a bit grumpy, too.


Not understanding the market? Cause I stand against shitty practices rather than support them? Well fuck me. I guess it is better to let any company do whatever the fuck they want and never speak against them, Vayra style.

Saying no to everything? Because I say no to companies that bring nothing good to gaming industry? The fuck?
Do you see me saying bad stuff about GoG? No, quite the opposite.
Do you see me bash Steam? Nope, cause they just do what they've been doing for a very long time and they are not trying to grab "exclusive deals". They just provide solid service.
Do you see me bash EA/Activision? Fuck yes, cause both of those companies are cancer of gaming industry (reasons are countless)
Do you see me bash Epic now? Fuck yes, cause their exclusivity practices are hurtful to consumers by limiting their choice of service provider. They make the choice for gamers.
See the difference? No? Then you are dumb as a brick.
Yes? Great, then you should realize that you do not understand the issue.

Do you really think that anyone would say a word if Epic just had their store and kept selling games there like everyone else? Noone would give a shit and there would be no issue.



> You can or cannot agree with that exclusivity, but its a fact to deal with. No amount of customer backlash is going to change that (deals were made, contracts signed), and we know gamers are impatient, young and very much not true to their word online. You can rest assured you won't be effecting any sort of change. The only effect you have, is that you'll play things you want to play later. If that sits well with you, then that is fine, thát is the market at work. You are given choices as a customer, and you make them. Simple. Nobody ever said you get to choose between only the nice things.


 Right, shitty trend promoted by singular company is rising up. It screws gamers over. Lets just sit and watch rather than make a sound as per Vayra's advice.
This is the exact attitude that allowed MTX's to go out of hand in the first place.
This is the attitude that allowed on disc DLC's to be sold etc... Oh and speaking of, was not backlash so hard that EA and their likes backed out of it?Weird...
What was the deal with Battlefront again? Oh right, community backlash so bad that EA got in the shitter...
Community can't do shit appearently, we should just bend over and ask for harder ramming per your advice.
3 deals were signed, sure, does not mean community should keep silent and not try to prevent more of that crap in the future, or make devs think 10 times before they whore themselves out.

Also, I am all for new things and competition when they are good for the industry. As I said before multiple times. Shitty practices that are slippery slope and might force other stores to bribe devs I and many others ARE STRONGLY AGAINST. You can bend over and ask for deeper ramming if you so wish, but not everyone has a spine of  a snail and accepts any dildo corporations try to shove into people ass just to get some $$$.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

Dexiefy said:


> Wow... just wow...
> 
> Actually there is. So far you managed to bring literally not a single argument(other than saying"you should just bend over and accept everything") or counter argument anything of what I've said in any way. Probably because you do not understand having freedom of choice impacted by a corporation.
> You can't explain anything to anyone cause you are not understanding the issue. My previous post underline to you (in bold at that) what is the issue and why people are outraged by EGS practices. THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE is impacted by a corporation. Corporation makes the choice you should be making on a personal level. The corporation therefore is threatening you with its actions (as it steps onto your freedom) so what do you do? You pick up a weapon to defend it... weapon in this case being the internet.
> ...



Its too bad you can't just stick to normal ways of discussing this and get all emotional.

You have a point and I fully agree with it - no you shouldn't take everything for granted and its good to make a stand on things you don't agree with. I believe I've said as much, in almost every post I made the last few pages - I take care to note that everyone is free to make a choice, and that this is what being a customer on the marketplace is all about. That is how we exercise power. I'm also saying: pick your battles, you won't be winning each one. And I say: when its clear you won't be winning, its best to be pragmatic about it - and I am convinced the large majority does it that way; proof is in the very things we did not manage to ban from gaming; like you said: MTX, lootboxes, etc. etc. You named Battlefront 2 - great - but the lootbox is still very much alive.

My problems with this current one is_ the way_ people take a stand, the argumentation they use for it, which is flawed and/or outright media spin and blatant lying as even YOU still mention  'spyware' but research did not confirm that at all - something that happens a lot lately and must be met with caution -, and the underlying problem that is at the core of it that they fail to see. Note; its not about developers taking a higher cut. Its about a healthy marketplace, and yes, contrary to what you may be convinced of, that means you need multiple players on it. EGS is, alongside GoG & Steam, one of the very rare players that are publisher-independent in their content. If you speak of corporation chokeholds: EGS is eliminating one just as much as you say it creates one. Its not black and white and EGS is not the evil-do-it-all here, and this topic contains countless examples of that - when I and others point those out, the response we get is 'they're just carrots' and 'EGS only does it for their own good'.

You still didn't get that nuance, and you're still hurling personal insults my way. I've ignored most of them, but your last post is taking it too far.

Do you see the trend? Both you and @oxidized need to get personal and make many posts with lots of question marks - rhetorical question marks - that only underline your lack of understanding. For some reason, I have no need to do this towards you. You can try to figure out why that happens like it does, another nuance for you to discover.

Also, about EA, its just another example of me being flexible. And yes, I am open to a developer (Respawn) that is continually pushing pretty solid games out. Or is Titanfall another 'corporate chokehold' to you that must be boycotted? Man, you must live in a pretty small, sad and lonely world...

If it makes you feel better, I nicked Apex Coins from EA and bought the battle pass for it, because they had a bug/exploit in their launcher they didn't bother to fix for ages. Still playing Apex for 0,00 EUR, still costing the company money instead of giving it to them  Pragmatism.

Last point I'll be making towards you in this topic, is this:



Dexiefy said:


> Wow... just wow...
> 
> Actually it might only push me to pirate the game
> 
> Also, I am all for new things and competition when they are good for the industry. .



You're really pro-gamer here aren't you? This, right here, confirms literally everything I've been saying the last few pages: the vocal minority in this matter consists mostly (there are lots of valid reasons to avoid EGS... its really not that difficult) of temper tantrum loudmouths that fail to put their money where their mouth is. In fact, they fail to put their money period, they just go out and pirate the things they don't get their 'way' in. Its the same thing as having to hurl insults when you don't get your way. Its called entitlement and generally not considered a positive quality.

Painful, I say.


----------



## 64K (Apr 29, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> and you're still hurling personal insults my way. I've ignored most of them, but your last post is taking it too far.



Agreed. We can disagree without being obnoxious.


----------



## king of swag187 (Apr 29, 2019)

Would be a interesting play if they had any leverage


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

64K said:


> If I understand Steam's new policy on cuts they aren't retroactive. Steam takes 30% until 10 million in sales and then for future sales they take 25% and then at 50 million in sales they take 20% in future sales but they don't refund the difference between 30% and 20% on past sales so yes Publishers are saving a lot of money going with Epic and taking little risk.


Correct, they have to work down to it which isn't an attractive proposition.



64K said:


> Anyway most of these games will be available on Steam after a year. Gamers just don't like to wait. This is why games get released buggy as hell and gamers buy them right away anyway or worse pre-order.


Which is another benefit to Steam users: EGS buyers get the buggy so it should be more polished when the game does launch on Steam.



INSTG8R said:


> So do it I minus EGS. I REFUSE to support game poaching and exclusivity just to get me to use out of ALL of those a terrible DSF with zero incentives other than the games they have poached by dangling deep discounts in front of Publishers...


Then just wait and be merry when the exclusivity ends and it launches everywhere.  Most gamers have a digital library big enough to fill a year of play time.



64K said:


> I don't know about Indies though.


Pretty much every UE4 game is going to end up on EGS because of the 12% revenue share.  Exclusives are on a case-by-case basis.  A developer I know that is making a game on UE4 (Consortium: The Tower) has seriously considered an exclusive contract with EGS but hasn't done it yet.  To be honest, the game isn't in a state where it should be made exclusive (i.e. "done") so if an exclusive were agreed to, it would be for a while yet.

TL;DR: Indies love the idea because it gives them a risk-free cushion they'd otherwise not have.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I'm wasting time, that is indeed obvious, because you didn't even take the effort to comment on the very 180 degree turn you made in the posts I quoted of you. Instead, you fall back on this flawed argument that there are no deals for 'US' as customers, and for that... see link above. Or is free gaming not a deal to you, does it have to have a price tag to apply? Oh no, wait - its not a deal for you, because you _choose_ to avoid EGS.  So all things considered, nothing they could ever do would change your stance; even if they already did it, because you just won't see it.
> 
> Seriously man, I thought you were smarter than this? Did you ever think Valve was doing their Steam business for your enjoyment instead of their own pockets? Boy oh boy... the lack of reflection here is stunning.


Whoopee? Humble gives me free games for Steam, Origin used to do “On the house”, Uplay just gave me AC Unity am I supposed to cheer and take EGS up the arse for not even great free games? I’m not supporting EGS because it’s a terrible DSF trying to make people use it by poaching AAA titles and locking them behind “exclusivity” Sorry pal the fact you continue to support this anti-consumer practice as “okay” because of some 3rd rate free games. Just shows me you’re blind to it if “shiny free” is your argument for shitty business practices on a shitty platform.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 29, 2019)

Dexiefy said:


> Actually it might only push me to pirate the game





Dexiefy said:


> Also, I am all for new things and competition when they are good for the industry.



Right....because pirating is good for the industry.  Can't wait to read the rationale for that one.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Humble gives me free games for Steam, Origin used to do “On the house”, Uplay just gave me AC Unity am I supposed to cheer and take EGS up the arse for not even great free games?


Thimbleweed Park, Oxenfree, Slime Rancher, Subnautica, and The Witness are all fantastic games.  What Remains of Edith Finch, Axiom Verge, and Transistor are good enough.  The only game they gave away I wasn't a fan of is The Jackbox Party Pack...but I'm a loner so that's to be expected.



INSTG8R said:


> ...3rd rate free games.


The Witness is not "3rd rate."  In the first week it grossed over $5 million and the developer (Jon Blow) described that as being "on track" to cover the expense of making it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 29, 2019)

What Remains of Edith Finch: 95% of over 10,000 reviews are positive, so also not 3rd rate.  To put into perspective, major AAA releases many times only have 20,000 or less reviews, and nearly never that high of a rating.  That speaks to a lot of units sold as well.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/501300/What_Remains_of_Edith_Finch/


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Whoopee? Humble gives me free games for Steam, Origin used to do “On the house”, Uplay just gave me AC Unity am I supposed to cheer and take EGS up the arse for not even great free games? I’m not supporting EGS because it’s a terrible DSF trying to make people use it by poaching AAA titles and locking them behind “exclusivity” Sorry pal the fact you continue to support this anti-consumer practice as “okay” because of some 3rd rate free games. Just shows me you’re blind to it if “shiny free” is your argument for shitty business practices on a shitty platform.



So, the free games don't appeal or apply to you. But that still does make them free of charge giveaways, and last I checked that was not a bad thing. It was not enough to lure you into EGS, all good.

Blind to shitty business practices? No, _I categorize them differently_, I think I've been repeating that quite a lot in this topic, the only difference of opinion we have (which is fine...) is that I don't see how these practices are all that shitty _for the customer_. There are no customers losing out on anything, except perhaps their key unlocked through EGS when it should have been Steam (the pre orders). That is inherent to the risk you take when you pre-order - the fine print clearly reads 'subject to change' as to what it gets distributed through and in the very same way _you have a right to cancel the purchase_ until the product is delivered. After all, you purchased the product and the product is the game. Not the storefront. If that were the case, you'd have lost your right to reimbursement the moment EGS signed the deal.

See, there is just law to protect you here and regulation on the marketplace to do the same, plus customer rights you can easily throw into the mix should anything go wrong. But it doesn't really matter. Maybe you just don't like Sweeney's face, and that alone can be sufficient reason to avoid EGS. All that I ask from people who partake in this discussion is to call things what they are and stop dragging in nonsense to make a point (and casually ignore any arguments that counter your ideas - look at your response to free games). Especially when the better half of that nonsense is already debunked. Trying to paint EGS as the evil company with underhand business practices is just simply, utterly and blatantly _wrong. _And there have been countless examples (free games just being one of them, and only a very minor one) already of the presence of EGS having a positive influence on the marketplace.

All I really ask is for people to open up to that a bit more. Just being able to recognize that this is about many shades of gray rather than a black and white good/evil 'Steam vs EGS' battle. And again, we may not like every decision every company makes all the time, such is life. If one misstep is enough to have people boycot a whole store, and if you are truly consistent about that (the majority here, is certainly not, proof everywhere), it won't take very long until all you can play is Minesweeper. 

Really, all I read in the opposition here is a lot of lies and my bullshit sensor is screaming loud - not from you by the way, but from many others, I think its clear who - because most of these people either _will _cave to EGS at some point, or they already did, or they simply never were going to buy anything anyway. Those are the people saying they will pirate it then anyway - when in fact, they already did just that shortly after launch.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates  to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF.  I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...



Vayra86 said:


> So, the free games don't appeal or apply to you. But that still does make them free of charge giveaways, and last I checked that was not a bad thing. It was not enough to lure you into EGS, all good.
> 
> Blind to shitty business practices? No, _I categorize them differently_, I think I've been repeating that quite a lot in this topic, the only difference of opinion we have (which is fine...) is that I don't see how these practices are all that shitty _for the customer_. There are no customers losing out on anything, except perhaps their key unlocked through EGS when it should have been Steam (the pre orders). That is inherent to the risk you take when you pre-order - the fine print clearly reads 'subject to change' as to what it gets distributed through and in the very same way _you have a right to cancel the purchase_ until the product is delivered. After all, you purchased the product and the product is the game. Not the storefront. If that were the case, you'd have lost your right to reimbursement the moment EGS signed the deal.
> 
> ...


None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

Epic Games Launcher was originally created to deliver the UE4 dev kit and keep it updated on developer's systems.  They added store features to it, I believe, as plugins for UE4.  Then they added games for sale through it.

Epic isn't going to get rich off of 12/17% revenue share.  The exclusives are a lot of risk for Epic which is why Sweeney said they can't afford to do them forever and reaffirmed that by saying Epic probably wouldn't be doing them if Steam's revenue share wasn't so oppressive.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates  to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF.  I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...
> 
> 
> None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.



Well, it got you to install it didn't it?  Also, nothing any company does anywhere at any time is for anything else other than to con you into buying/using their product/service.  So what point are you making?


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 29, 2019)

The thing for me on EGS just keeps coming back to the exclusives. To me, that's not competition, that's just bribing a publisher to only sell an item at your store and nowhere else and to me, that's very anti-consumer and as a result I'll never do business there.

What EGS needs to do is give customers a legitimate reason to do business with them. Other people mentioned free games, which is one incentive. A bigger one, to me, would be to simply sell items cheaper there. If a AAA game goes for $60 on Steam and GOG, maybe EGS can try to sell it for $50 and entice people with that - that would be honest competition. Another way would to build a better platform than Steam / GOG, but from what I hear EGS is a LONG ways from there. Either way, paying a publisher a bunch of $ to only sell it at your store isn't competition. That's just admitting that you can't come up with a way to entice customers in a legit manner, and as a result have to bribe publishers in order to get business. That's a strategy that, IMO, will likely be finite as the $$ is going to run out at some point.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 29, 2019)

Yeah, I don’t really care about the shoddy storefront, which as @64K has provided examples of numerous times, they have already made improvements and have very specific timelines for added features. I haven’t even partaken in the free games.

Why I went there is for Metro: Exodus, which is fantastic. Also they have Control and The Sinking City on May 14, two other games I want to play now.  It’s *not* anti-consumer.  It’s the store I needed to go to to buy what I wanted.  I do the same thing in real life, because not all physical products are available everywhere.   It takes me even less effort to go to a different digital storefront.  

I don’t even pay any attention to the launcher. I use it to play, then shut it down. Incidentally that is my exact practice with Steam, Uplay, and Origin. Heck @lynx29 had to ask me on TPU why I was never on Steam. The answer is I get in to play, then get out. Playing games is something I don’t want to be interrupted on, so social features are a distraction from the business at hand.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates  to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF.  I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...
> 
> 
> None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.



I think its been explained very well how EGS benefits consumers, did you not read? (Note: you did not - or it didn't stick) Its not very hard, either, there is 18% more budget to put towards content. 'But evil publishers -' No - that was also explained earlier. FordGT90Concept also pointed out many examples to you personally of pro-consumer and pro-developer moves coming out of EGS. And I then followed up with an observation on how you casually threw those examples aside or considered them irrelevant, contradicting YOURSELF no less than one comment after the first. You just now did the same thing: free games are 3rd rate and only serve as bait, when there are thousands of reviews on most of those games that tell you the opposite is true.

You either don't want to read or you are selectively blinded by your opinion... This is not splitting hairs. This is having a discussion. Don't keep moving the goal posts when you get replies that don't sit well with your stance, just grow up a bit and admit there might be more sides to a story. You know, maybe we'll get somewhere then?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> A bigger one, to me, would be to simply sell items cheaper there. If a AAA game goes for $60 on Steam and GOG, maybe EGS can try to sell it for $50 and entice people with that - that would be honest competition.


Publishers set the price, not Epic Games.



Razrback16 said:


> Another way would to build a better platform than Steam / GOG, but from what I hear EGS is a LONG ways from there.


If you're only goal is to get and play games, mission accomplished.  All of the crap Steam does is of little value for most gamers (trading cards, achievements, matchmaking, VAC, overlay, etc.).



Razrback16 said:


> Either way, paying a publisher a bunch of $ to only sell it at your store isn't competition. That's just admitting that you can't come up with a way to entice customers in a legit manner, and as a result have to bribe publishers in order to get business. That's a strategy that, IMO, will likely be finite as the $$ is going to run out at some point.


That's the environment we're in.  If you want to rock the Steam dominance boat, you got to hit it with a wave.  Publishers aren't going to take a risk on a new platform unless the platform makes it worth their while.  Exclusives do that.  Imagine a market where Steam doesn't exist, EGS wouldn't have much incentive to offer exclusives.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I think its been explained very well how EGS benefits consumers, did you not read? (Note: you did not - or it didn't stick) Its not very hard, either, there is 18% more budget to put towards content. 'But evil publishers -' No - that was also explained earlier. FordGT90Concept also pointed out many examples to you personally of pro-consumer and pro-developer moves coming out of EGS. And I then followed up with an observation on how you casually threw those examples aside or considered them irrelevant. You just now did the same thing: free games are 3rd rate and only serve as bait, when there are thousands of reviews on most of those games that tell you the opposite is true.
> 
> You either don't want to read or you are selectively blinded by your opinion... This is not splitting hairs. This is having a discussion. Don't keep moving the goal posts when you get replies that don't sit well with your stance, just grow up a bit and admit there might be more sides to a story.


 Not moving the goal posts you just like talking in circles with some “point” that isn’t even a point. There’s. NOTHING pro consumer happening here publishers are getting the win fall not us and if you think we are I feel sorry for you. Like is said when the games $40 Instead of $50 then you can spout your long winded nonsense about it benefiting us. It’s not and I don’t ever expect it too, but live in your fantasy world where Tim Sweeney is looking out for you...



moproblems99 said:


> Well, it got you to install it didn't it?  Also, nothing any company does anywhere at any time is for anything else other than to con you into buying/using their product/service.  So what point are you making?


I’ll be honest I didn’t actually like Edith Finch I’m really not missing anything.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's the environment we're in. If you want to rock the Steam dominance boat, you got to hit it with a wave. Publishers aren't going to take a risk on a new platform unless the platform makes it worth their while. Exclusives do that. Imagine a market where Steam doesn't exist, EGS wouldn't have much incentive to offer exclusives.



Not dead set on Steam, although it is my preferred storefront. I'd probably go GOG if not Steam. Bottom line, the games should be available at a variety of storefronts to give people choices.

Edit - oh and p.s. on the pricing, that's what I'm talking about - the publishers & EGS should simply work together if they prefer EGS as the platform - let EGS sell the game cheaper as incentive. Publisher makes more money since it's a bigger cut, but people still have a choice. I see Ubisoft do this with their UPlay store where they'll have sales on UPlay but the game will be full price on Steam as incentive to push people to Uplay. No reason publishers can't do that on EGS as well.

Limiting the options, IMO, is absolutely anti consumer and as a result EGS will keep getting all kinds of negative publicity. It is what it is, though, guess we'll see what happens long-term.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Not moving the goal posts you just like talking in circles with some “point” that isn’t even a point. There’s. NOTHING pro consumer happening here publishers are getting the win fall not us and if you think we are I feel sorry for you. Like is said when the games $40 Instead of $50 then you can spout your long winded nonsense about it benefiting us. It’s not and I don’t ever expect it too, but live in your fantasy world where Tim Sweeney is looking out for you...



So the only way you measure competition is price? That is what you're saying here.

I measure competition differently. I measure it by the variety of content we can access. The ways we can access it. The number of parties involved and whether that is a healthy number or not for competition. No single company, not Valve/EGS/Any publisher likes to compete only on price. So they find other ways to compete. A big one in that is called 'USP'. A USP for EGS is exclusivity. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

Competition is _already_ pushing EGS into a continued improvement of their - and I do agree - 'shitty' storefront. It doesn't have much or do much, there is a lot to win there. I don't care about most of it, but the difference is clear to see. Nobody is contesting that. In the same way, nobody is contesting the argument that (timed) exclusives are not the ideal choice. I don't either. But it is quite a stretch to go from 'less than ideal' to 'anti-consumer'. I have yet to hear a single argument to support the idea that consumers were actually losing anything here. No babies were harmed in the process of EGS's launch, no publishers went broke, no devs got laid off, and no games were lost to anyone. Well, except for that minority that prefers a boycot over a purchase.

By the by, I could give two flying *(!@)! about Sweeney. I think the man is a worse PR-man than anything Microsoft has put on stage in its lifetime. The man should hire someone for these public outings.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Keep in mind that Epic Games is in a unique position: they have an engine that is used by AAA and indie alike; EA, Activision, and Ubisoft doesn't let indies touch their engines.  Bethesda licenses idTech engine but there's no takers in the indie market (high cost of entry indies can't afford), only AAA and mostly their own studios.  Epic Games also doesn't have a large game library to push their own store (unlike the aforementioned publishers).  Epic Games sees the struggle and weakness in indie while also the fragmentation of the market coming from AAA (EA has been Origin exclusive since 2013, Activision is starting to go Battle.net exclusive Bethesda tried Bethesda Launcher exclusive with Fallout 76).  Epic Games saw the cause of this for big and small publishers alike: 30% revenue share.  And so Epic Games Store came to be...sending shockwaves through the market, but uptake on their store was slow because change is hard; hence, exclusives to encourage publishers to take a leap of faith to a small platform while at the same time encouraging good games (which are struggling to get financing) get finished and polished.



See, here is a man that understands a marketplace and its dynamic. Take note.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2019)

Keep in mind that Epic Games is in a unique position: they have an engine that is used by AAA and indie alike; EA, Activision, and Ubisoft doesn't let indies touch their engines.  Bethesda licenses idTech engine but there's no takers in the indie market (high cost of entry indies can't afford), only AAA and mostly their own studios.  Epic Games also doesn't have a large game library to push their own store (unlike the aforementioned publishers).  Epic Games sees the struggle and weakness in indie while also the fragmentation of the market coming from AAA (EA has been Origin exclusive since 2013, Activision is starting to go Battle.net exclusive, Bethesda tried Bethesda Launcher exclusive with Fallout 76).  Epic Games saw the cause of this for big and small publishers alike: 30% revenue share.  And so Epic Games Store came to be...sending shockwaves through the market, but uptake on their store was slow because change is hard and Steam already countered to keep AAAs on Steam ($10m/25%, $50m/20%); hence, exclusives to encourage publishers to take a leap of faith to a small platform while at the same time encouraging good games (which are struggling to get financing) get finished and polished.




Razrback16 said:


> Not dead set on Steam, although it is my preferred storefront. I'd probably go GOG if not Steam. Bottom line, the games should be available at a variety of storefronts to give people choices.


You're under no obligation to do any business with EGS as a consumer.  It's not like EGS is your only supply of food or some other essential.  Fundamentally, it is the publishers intellectual property and they make the decisions where it is sold and for how much.  Bitching about EGS and publishers taking an EGS exclusivity contract accomplishes nothing except filling forums with pages of drivel.  It's not going to change (because *contract*--legally binding agreement) so just wait until the exclusivity ends and buy it wherever you please.  The game should be more polished by that point so you're still benefiting by waiting.  Just have some patience.


In the grand scheme of things, EGS is good.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 29, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're under no obligation to do any business with EGS as a consumer. It's not like EGS is your only supply of food or some other essential. Fundamentally, it is the publishers intellectual property and they make the decisions where it is sold and for how much. Bitching about EGS and publishers taking an EGS exclusivity contract accomplishes nothing except filling forums with pages of drivel. It's not going to change (because *contract*--legally binding agreement) so just wait until the exclusivity ends and buy it wherever you please. The game should be more polished by that point so you're still benefiting by waiting. Just have some patience.
> 
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, EGS is good.



Definitely disagree on EGS being good due to the exclusivity stuff, and discussion is a good thing, even if you don't agree with some opinions. People voicing their viewpoints when they don't like something a business is doing is largely positive as it gives valuable feedback on how consumers feel. I do agree on the games being better on Steam by the time they release due to patching and the like. I'll just play the games elsewhere at launch and if they're good, I'll consider buying them later on Steam or GOG.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> I’ll be honest I didn’t actually like Edith Finch I’m really not missing anything.



Doesn't matter if you liked it.  It served its purpose.

EDIT:  You say that it doesn't benefit consumers but I would like to know what damage it has done?  Who's dog or grandmother did it kill?


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 29, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Doesn't matter if you liked it.  It served its purpose.
> 
> EDIT:  You say that it doesn't benefit consumers but I would like to know what damage it has done?  Who's dog or grandmother did it kill?


Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...



But what damage has exclusivity caused?  I guess I'll need to answer my own question.  It hasn't caused any damage.  None.  It has no benefits for consumers and it has no damages.  The game is available for sale and purchase.  If you don't want to play Epic launcher then you can play Steam when it is released.  This is the whole point.  It is mountain out of a mole hill.  These exclusive deals don't have any benefits nor do they have any damages with regards to consumers.

This is purely for developers and not consumers.  Get used to things not benefiting you all the time.

I suppose I should say and to make money for Epic.  After all, you don't work for free do you?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 29, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...


As far as the publishers are conserned, that matters not to us.  DSF allows people to go in and play the game after buying. Features have already been added from their promised timeline, with more to come, for those that need to do more than play a game on a launcher.  Plenty of choice. 

Going to another digital store requires literally minimal effort. I go to different digital stores for the different digital games only accesible at specific ones with a lot less effort than I go to a specific store IRL that is the only seller of a product I want. So no loss at all on any of this for any consumer, really.

Just say you are comfortable with Steam and that would be much easier to understand, instead of these other factors that literally don’t matter.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 30, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> But what damage has exclusivity caused?  I guess I'll need to answer my own question.  It hasn't caused any damage.  None.  It has no benefits for consumers and it has no damages.  The game is available for sale and purchase.  If you don't want to play Epic launcher then you can play Steam when it is released.  This is the whole point.  It is mountain out of a mole hill.  These exclusive deals don't have any benefits nor do they have any damages with regards to consumers.
> 
> This is purely for developers and not consumers.  Get used to things not benefiting you all the time.
> 
> I suppose I should say and to make money for Epic.  After all, you don't work for free do you?


Great! So then me not supporting what I consider anti-consumer/anti-choice is completely justified. It is damaging because it does nothing to help anyone but Epic. Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable. This is just poaching to boost Epics numbers.



rtwjunkie said:


> Just say you are comfortable with Steam and that would be much easier to understand, instead of these other factors that literally don’t matter.


I have ALL the other DSFs on my computer don’t for one second thing this is pro Steam...


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> It is damaging because it does nothing to help anyone but Epic.



I am a loss as to what you are expecting.  No company (and most people) do anything if it doesn't help their bottom line.  Seriously, what were you expecting?  If they weren't making any money on this would it change the situation?  Would you be ok with it?



INSTG8R said:


> Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable.



Depends on how successful this is.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 30, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> This is just poaching to boost Epics numbers.
> 
> 
> I have ALL the other DSFs on my computer don’t for one second thing this is pro Steam...



It is poaching! You keep repeating that, but nobody is contesting it... The only thing being contested is the anti-consumer bit. You still fail to go deeper on that point. Explain how your rights and privileges have been damaged by EGS. Beyond that, it is simply a business decision, one you may or may not like. But anti-consumer, it is not.

Note, its a business decision also for the publisher. The publisher takes a serious risk putting a game on EGS alone. That exclusivity is a gamble in true form. That doesn't happen just for a bag of money that could otherwise be earned with a wide/open launch. It happens, because *interests align* in terms of the task Sweeney's set for EGS in the market.

In other words, time to boycot a whole lot of publishers while you're at this EGS topic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 30, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer...


It is not.  12% for UE4 games and 17% for non-UE4 games indefinitely.  The only thing limited is the exclusives.  They're high risk for Epic Games and Epic Games doesn't get paid anything extra because of it (they stand to lose a lot).  EGS looks at the game and decides how many copies they think will sell at what price for the exclusive period.  They take that number times the aforementioned rates and offer it to the publisher.  If the publisher signs the contract, a check is written and handed over and the contract is enforceable.  The publisher doesn't get any money from Epic Games until that presales amount has been exceeded.  Publisher gets the benefit of 12%/17% cut immediately and thereafter.



INSTG8R said:


> ...there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable.


So is slave labor.  Doesn't make it fair.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So is slave labor. Doesn't make it fair.



Ouch lol


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 30, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> It is poaching! You keep repeating that, but nobody is contesting it... The only thing being contested is the anti-consumer bit. You still fail to go deeper on that point. Explain how your rights and privileges have been damaged by EGS. Beyond that, it is simply a business decision, one you may or may not like. But anti-consumer, it is not.
> 
> Note, its a business decision also for the publisher. The publisher takes a serious risk putting a game on EGS alone. That exclusivity is a gamble in true form. That doesn't happen just for a bag of money that could otherwise be earned with a wide/open launch. It happens, because *interests align* in terms of the task Sweeney's set for EGS in the market.
> 
> In other words, time to boycot a whole lot of publishers while you're at this EGS topic.


Well go ahead, Put up or shut up! Who else should I be boycotting?


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 30, 2019)

I think epic games tried to do something good in a legitimately awful way.  I actually liked their store and enjoyed the UT beta i was playing -- uninstalled as soon as they started exclusives.  Ill stick to steam, MS and uplay - once they stop exclusives, ill jump back on.

I think (hopefully) Tim Sweeney is starting to realize just how much of his customer base he alienated with that garbage.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 30, 2019)

"Valve should move to our current unsustainable business model so we can stop throwing money at publishers."

Sure thing Tim.


----------



## NRANM (Apr 30, 2019)

xenocide said:


> "Valve should move to our current unsustainable business model so we can stop throwing money at publishers."


Whether the business model will be unsustainable, only time will tell, since it hasn't been attempted yet. It might indeed fail miserably, but maybe they can make it work.


----------



## Basard (Apr 30, 2019)

I think steam should do it for a year, watch epic disappear in short order.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

Basard said:


> I think steam should do it for a year, watch epic disappear in short order.



I think this is a losing battle for Steam.  I think all publishers will have their own launchers at the end of it all.  All it takes is one good title to pay for the system.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 30, 2019)

Basard said:


> I think steam should do it for a year, watch epic disappear in short order.





moproblems99 said:


> I think this is a losing battle for Steam.  I think all publishers will have their own launchers at the end of it all.  All it takes is one good title to pay for the system.



That idea is based on the premise that all those publishers would gladly push an exclusive through Steam. I don't think that is the case and it may also not be Valve's agenda.

I think people forget there are two parties involved in a deal and Epic/Steam is just one half of that.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> That idea is based on the premise that all those publishers would gladly push an exclusive through Steam. I don't think that is the case and it may also not be Valve's agenda.
> 
> I think people forget there are two parties involved in a deal and Epic/Steam is just one half of that.



Yeah, I am meaning that if a publisher was to build its own launcher/store, it takes one good selling title to have the commission saved pay for the launcher/store.  That should be an attractive proposition for most publishers.  Most people are weak/impatient.  They aren't going to miss out on all the games.


----------



## INSTG8R (Apr 30, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Yeah, I am meaning that if a publisher was to build its own launcher/store, it takes one good selling title to have the commission saved pay for the launcher/store.  That should be an attractive proposition for most publishers.  Most people are weak/impatient.  They aren't going to miss out on all the games.


Well Bethesda tried it and have pretty much admitted defeat and putting all future titles back on Steam. I have it for 76 and it’s really no better than EGS other than they do have their own decent titles for sale there.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Well Bethesda tried it and have pretty much admitted defeat and putting all future titles back on Steam. I have it for 76 and it’s really no better than EGS other than they do have their own decent titles for sale there.



I don't remember anyone claiming Fall Out 76 was a good a game.  They didn't fail because of the store, they failed because no one liked the game.


----------



## 64K (Apr 30, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't remember anyone claiming Fall Out 76 was a good a game.  They didn't fail because of the store, they failed because no one liked the game.



You're right about that. Fallout 76 was indeed a failure. It was a buggy, boring, repetitive, soulless abomination of the Fallout series. It should have been named Failout 76. Bethesda is still trying to put lipstick on that pig but at the end of the day it's still just a pig. Bethesda should be ashamed imo.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 30, 2019)

64K said:


> You're right about that. Fallout 76 was indeed a failure. It was a buggy, boring, repetitive, soulless abomination of the Fallout series. It should have been named Failout 76. Bethesda is still trying to put lipstick on that pig but at the end of the day it's still just a pig. Bethesda should be ashamed imo.



Pretty much describes Fallout 4.  I'm sorry, that was too harsh.  Fallout 4 was pretty bad in my opinion but I'll admit that it was likely do to me finishing my favorite game of all time before I started FO4.  Although I did go back and try playing it a year later and it was still just as boring.  If they could write stories and quests, all would be well.  They do a pretty good job of creating the lore but their quest and story writing sucks.  Pretty much every quest I have ever done in a Bethesda game is just a variation of the first Blades quest in Morrowind.  Soul-less pretty much describes all of their games since Oblivion.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 1, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't remember anyone claiming Fall Out 76 was a good a game.  They didn't fail because of the store, they failed because no one liked the game.


You realize that most of their titles are also available there too right?  Wolfenstein, Dishonered, Quake etc...Has nothing to do with 76, try to stay focused... I was perfectly willing to buy RAGE 2 there if that’s where it was gonna be.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> try to stay focused



Then please elaborate on what damage these exclusives have caused if we are going to play that game.  Let's see what we can eliminate:

No one is prohibited from acquiring the games, they are available to all
Games don't cost more and some actually cost less for those of us in the US
Some console exclusives have actually made it to PC instead of not at all
So, take it from here...


----------



## INSTG8R (May 1, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Then please elaborate on what damage these exclusives have caused if we are going to play that game.  Let's see what we can eliminate:
> 
> No one is prohibited from acquiring the games, they are available to all
> Games don't cost more and some actually cost less for those of us in the US
> ...


You mentioned publishers creating their own DSFs. I used Bethesda as a tried and failed example, you go off on 76 like it has anything to do with anything, Back to you Bob...
I’m not gonna bother with the rest of it, this has ALL been answered ad nauseam many times now just like you keep repeating it ad nauseam like it’s somehow “right”
Edit: Own all those console games on console(Big Quantic Dream fan)


----------



## moproblems99 (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> You mentioned publishers creating their own DSFs. I used Bethesda as a tried and failed example, you go off on 76 like it has anything to do with anything, Back to you Bob...



Ok, I'll expand.  When was the last time Bethesda made a game that made players want to continue playing it before they pulled out all their hair?  What about EA and Origin?  Still going.  What about Uplay and Ubisoft?  Still going.  2 that have succeeded vs 1 that has failed.  Bethesda is not a good example for anything except how not to do things.



INSTG8R said:


> I’m not gonna bother with the rest of it, this has ALL been answered ad nauseam many times now just like you keep repeating it ad nauseam like it’s somehow “right”



No, you haven't answered anything.  Saying it is bad doesn't equate to....anything.  Lack of choice doesn't hold up either as it is YOUR choice not to buy it or to wait for the launcher of your choosing.  So I ask again as over the last nine pages you have said nothing but 'It's bad' or 'I should be able to buy whatever I want when I want, where I want and for whatever price I want.'  Or some variation of those two things.

The reason you haven't answered is because you can't find any real damage that it has caused consumers.  Oh wait, that's right, Epic is only doing it so they can pay their employees, enhance EGS, enhance UE4, and make games.  Shame on them.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 1, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Ok, I'll expand.  When was the last time Bethesda made a game that made players want to continue playing it before they pulled out all their hair?  What about EA and Origin?  Still going.  What about Uplay and Ubisoft?  Still going.  2 that have succeeded vs 1 that has failed.  Bethesda is not a good example for anything except how not to do things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And? Epic has Fortnite what other great titles have they put out lately? NONE! Just paying off publishers, and yes they are paying off publishers to lock their games behind a shit DSF just like Bethesda’s equally shit DSF. But hey I’m glad that’s  okay with YOU it’s not okay with the majorly of gamers. I’m sorry you seem to think this is of any benefit to us, it’s not. I’m glad you’re happy Epic is the only winner here...you’re in minority here but carry on.

When Epic runs out of bait money and Fortnite money dries up and people like me and many others wait out this exclusivity nonsense, sales are bad and EGS goes the way of Bethesda, enjoy trying to play the 2-3 games you bought there when Tim’s failed attempt fails.

Edit: Google Phoenix Point and the way it ended up on EGS and the fact that it doesn’t even have to sell well because Epic has already paid for 91% of its costs with the bait money it got from Epic. Oh and screwing over it’s Kickstarter backers with the platform switch/exclusivity.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Just paying off publishers, and yes they are paying off publishers to lock their games behind a shit DSF just like Bethesda’s equally shit DSF.



It could be the biggest POS software ever, as long as it launches the game then it is doing its job.



INSTG8R said:


> it’s not okay with the majorly of gamers



I don't think the majority cares.  I bet you the majority on TPU don't even care.  Let alone the world.



INSTG8R said:


> I’m sorry you seem to think this is of any benefit to us, it’s not.



Do you even read? I don't think there is any benefit to us and just a few posts up I said there wasn't.  What I said is that it doesn't cause you any harm.  There many things that happen every day that benefit us.  So what?  If they don't harm us, then who cares?  All this does is change which password you enter...unless you use the same one for everything.  Tisk. Tisk.



INSTG8R said:


> When Epic runs out of bait money and Fortnite money dries up and people like me and many others wait out this exclusivity nonsense, sales are bad and EGS goes the way of Bethesda, enjoy trying to play the 2-3 games you bought there when Tim’s failed attempt fails.



I only bought one, Metro Exodus.  And when I finish it this weekend, I'll never need to play it again.



INSTG8R said:


> Oh and screwing over it’s Kickstarter backers with the platform switch/exclusivity.



How did it screw them over?  Can they not play it?  Is it somehow not downloadable or playable through EGS?


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> it’s not okay with the majorly of gamers.


Actually, you’d be hard pressed to prove that point.  What there is are a small very vocal minority.  I know a truckload full of people IRL that have played Metro: Exodus already, on EGS.  More than I remember at any time except Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Skyrim.  Anecdotal, sure, but those anecdotal sales matched the massive numbers sold. 

My suspicion is you are overstating your hand, and mistake vocal protest for numbers.  Most people just want to play, and will buy a game from wherever they need to, just like Im sure you in real life have products you buy from stores you can’t get elsewhere.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 1, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, you’d be hard pressed to prove that point.  What there is are a small very vocal minority.  I know a truckload full of people IRL that have played Metro: Exodus already, on EGS.  More than I remember at any time except Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Skyrim.  Anecdotal, sure, but those anecdotal sales matched the massive numbers sold.
> 
> My suspicion is you are overstating your hand, and mistake vocal protest for numbers.  Most people just want to play, and will buy a game from wherever they need to, just like Im sure you in real life have products you buy from stores you can’t get elsewhere.


A simple google would prove otherwise...This stuff isn’t making news because it’s being applauded...


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> A simple google would prove otherwise...This stuff isn’t making news because it’s being applauded...


Google shows results for what is vocal. The people that are just buying the games arent busy being keyboard warriors...they are playing.  Its always that way.  The vocal angry minority get a lot of press, but are just that, a miniority.  Most people just go about their lives and dont protest or raise a stink.

Until anybody has any actual sales numbers to prove “no one” is buying games on EGS then you don’t have that argument.  If they are as closemouthed about sales figures as Steam has always been, then it will remain a great mystery.


----------



## INSTG8R (May 1, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Google shows results for what is vocal. The people that are just buying the games arent busy being keyboard warriors...they are playing.  Its always that way.  The vocal angry minority get a lot of press, but are just that, a miniority.  Most people just go about their lives and dont protest or raise a stink.
> 
> Until anybody has any actual sales numbers to prove “no one” is buying games on EGS then you don’t have that argument.  If they are as closemouthed about sales figures as Steam has always been, then it will remain a great mystery.


So neither of us have any real point either way then do we? But using Phoenix Point again, the money Epic paid them means they’ve already broke even without having to even make a sale so,
 Sales numbers don’t even matter in that case. But the press coverage in general hasn’t been positive.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 1, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> So neither of us have any real point either way then do we? But the press coverage in general hasn’t been positive.


And we have found a point of agreement! 

Press coverage on any topic rarely covers the people happy or satisfied with anything, though.  It doesn’t make for good income.  Just something to keep in the back of your mind for the future.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 24, 2019)

Looks like that boycott is paying off:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/metro-exodus/sales



> “Epic Games store has exceeded our expectations in terms of sales in actual units of both Metro Exodus and Satisfactory during the quarter,” Wingefors tells us. “Epic Games store is in fact the group’s leading digital platform in terms of revenue generated by units sales in the quarter ending March.”
> 
> In other words, direct game sales through the Epic store brought in more money for THQ Nordic in the quarter than sales on Steam, PlayStation Network, or Xbox Live. That can be partially attributed to the higher revenue cut developers receive through Epic, but it takes more than a few percentage points to compete against the big install bases on console.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 24, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Looks like that boycott is paying off:


I love your sarcasm! 

The joke is that the vocal minority really thought they were leading a massive boycott.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 24, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> I love your sarcasm!
> 
> The joke is that the vocal minority really thought they were leading a massive boycott.




My guess is that Epic is paying THQ more money to say this so that people will let their guard down.  There is no way that consumers would vote with their wallet to actually support anti-consumer practices.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 24, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> My guess is that Epic is paying THQ more money to say this so that people will let their guard down.  There is no way that consumers would vote with their wallet to actually support anti-consumer practices.


If you recall, THQ was actually pissed at the move Deep Silver made, and said they were putting measures in place to make sure it didn’t happen again with one of their subsidiaries.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 24, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> If you recall, THQ was actually pissed at the move Deep Silver made, and said they were putting measures in place to make sure it didn’t happen again with one of their subsidiaries.



/s


----------

