sepheronxthis is why I want to go back to the disk era. I want physical media and I want to be able to buy it from walmart, eb games, etc etc etc. And no, not a disk with a steam code or whatever.

But that may just be me.

I never actually liked that. I liked boxes, but not the discs. It took a long time to install something (imagine now with such huge games), and you usually needed to have the disc in the drive to play the game because of DRM.

I like the digital era. To me it is almost perfect. You get things like GOG updating old games to run properly on modern hardware, but on the other hand you get bullshit like exclusivity or publishers removing music from games because of expired licenses.

THU31I never actually liked that. I liked boxes, but not the discs. It took a long time to install something (imagine now with such huge games), and you usually needed to have the disc in the drive to play the game because of DRM.

I like the digital era. To me it is almost perfect. You get things like GOG updating old games to run properly on modern hardware, but on the other hand you get bullshit like exclusivity or publishers removing music from games because of expired licenses.

Digital is meh. I agree, disks are slow. But heck, I want cartridges back. But I am getting old and I am stuck in the good ol days.

ValantarDo I need to go back several pages? I have been plenty clear that EGS is not good. I have gone into quite some detail that while their policies are beneficial in specific ways, I do not regard them as good - I simply don't accept the exaggerated claims of them being evil either, and am thus forced into arguing for them not being particularly bad. People misreading that for me saying they are good? That's not my problem, not when I'm clear on this not being the case. IMO, they're entirely comparable to Valve, except I haven't been paying them a stupidly high 30% of most of my game purchases for a decade and a half. But both are corporations, and I owe neither any allegiance. I am entirely aware of the cynicism behind their policies. That doesn't mean I can't be equally cynical in exploiting them. That's not buying into the PR, that's being conscious of my actions.

As for the Linux comparison: you're changing your argument as you go. You said that I, in choosing to also use EGS, was comparable to never-MS Linux diehards crippling themselves by consciously choosing away a more feature-rich option. I responded that I haven't chosen away anything. I use these features if I feel like it. Using EGS does not prevent me from doing so (except in the very few situations where a feature is directly tied to a game). Please at least have the decency to admit that your comparison didn't work, instead of trying to twist it into meaning something different from what you said.

And again: the entirety of your first paragraph here rests on the assumption that using EGS means not using Steam! I don't understand how hard it is to grasp that both can be used. Sure, I won't get to play my EGS games on the Steam Deck I have pre-ordered, but ... so what? I don't care much. I'm perfectly fine with playing only my Steam library in those cases - though if it's a game I'm particularly fond of I might buy another copy if it's cheap enough, or just find a way to play EGS games through Proton. But it's not a big deal.

I will agree with your first paragraph, and I appreciate you stating your stance on Epic. The 30% fee is across every platform and brick and mortar. Epic is using it for PR purposes only. You are not receiving a cut back or back quality games as a result.

Linux comparison still stands, and I won't whitewash it away. Linux lacks Windows features. EGS lacks Steam features. Whether you desire them or not they are there and provide users with more functionality and usability. Whether or not you ignore doesn't mean they aren't there. I haven't changed my argument on this at all.

Using Steam means I don't need EGS for any reason. I don't need both when one offers less, not more. Not hard to understand.

big_glassesis epic still pushing the pay cost to customer, or are they 'tanking' it now?
For certain customers/areas/payment methods, the surcharge cost is quite a big add-on.
Like the Steam payment cards, steam takes a 10-15% loss
www.resetera.com/threads/steam-wallet-cards-cost-valve-10-15-of-the-price.107147/
ofc not including the lawyers/legal work to make different payment options (like their own cards)

www.resetera.com/threads/what-cut-do-valve-actually-take-from-devs-is-it-really-as-high-as-some-people-think-lets-find-out.109435/

edit:
Oh wait, they still charge higher processing fees directly to purchasing customers :)
www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/about

I mean, EGS supposedly takes a 12% commission for their sales. At a 15% processing fee for a payment method, they'd be damn right to charge the customer for it. Like, you go do the fucking math there ...

RavenasI haven't projected anything. You are just a very defensive or insecure person that can't deal with an opinion that isn't yours. The truth and opinion are two different things though, admittedly so in your previous posts.

You said that the Epic launcher isn't worth using because it isn't as feature rich as Steam. Stated that way it seems to target everyone, i.e. nobody should be using the Epic launcher, even people who don't care about anything other than purchasing, downloading, and playing games (which the Epic launcher does just fine). Maybe the Epic launcher is not worth using for you. If that is what you meant, then fine, but it didn't seem that way. It is perfectly worth using for gamers who simply want to play some games.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: it seems that there is a group of people who don't use storefronts/launchers to download/play games, but instead use games to... play storefronts/launchers.
Similar to how audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment, instead of vice versa (like normal people).

ValantarAll the while, most game developers struggle to make ends meet, studios go under with shocking regularity, the job security of people in the business is terrible, which in turn harms their phsyical and mental health and affects their families and friends, causing most people in development to change careers after shockingly short times, causing a constant loss of talent ... and the list goes on. So, when someone comes along and offers to pay developers better, even financing studios wholesale for a period of time, while offering me free games, an alternative storefront (=more sales and coupons), and still deliver the core of this competently? I see absolutely no reason to not take that offer. None whatsoever. If that makes me support a cynical corporation ... well, I've already been doing so by buying Steam games for the past decade and a half.

Exactly this.

So many people dismiss the tangible benefit that Epic's policies have towards developers simply because they're Epic's policies. I'm willing to bet money if Valve/Steam had introduced these policies on their own accord, people would be singing their praises for months. There would probably songs written.

Somehow, in the minds of these people, especially those who consider themselves gamers, a multi-billion multi-national corporation (Valve) is more deserving of their support than the very people who make the games (you know, the thing we go to these stores for!), people with ideas, desire and passion who want to share those with others via their creations.

It boggles the mind.

NRANMYou said that the Epic launcher isn't worth using because it isn't as feature rich as Steam. Stated that way it seems to target everyone, i.e. nobody should be using the Epic launcher, even people who don't care about anything other than purchasing, downloading, and playing games (which the Epic launcher does just fine). Maybe the Epic launcher is not worth using for you. If that is what you meant, then fine, but it didn't seem that way. It is perfectly worth using for gamers who simply want to play some games.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: it seems that there is a group of people who don't use storefronts/launchers to download/play games, but instead use games to... play storefronts/launchers.
Similar to how audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment, instead of vice versa (like normal people).

Again, stating facts about EGS compared to Steam does not equal me telling others they shouldn't use EGS. Those two things simply don't equal.

You mentioned projecting things, you are projecting both of the following:

1. You are projecting I am saying people should not use EGS. I have never said anyone should not use EGS. I have said EGS is not a platform I consider using based on the facts I have stated, and I never said you or anyone else shouldn't use it for whatever valid reason you have.
2. You are projecting that there is a group of people who play distribution platforms. Maybe so, but again you constantly assume things.

You keep claiming that I am making a projection or that it seems like I am saying something I am not, when in fact you are the only one projecting narratives.

The facts are the facts in the comparison, if that seems like I am telling someone not to use a store to you then perhaps you are self-examining your own thoughts. Use what makes you happy.

ValantarBut ... you're using GOG. GOG Galaxy does all the organization for you. Every library, across PC and consoles. In one app. Shows where you own the games, lets you organize and categorize, launches them directly. It bypasses that problem entirely. No, it doesn't let you cross-shop, that's the one weakness.

That's a valid argument, but as much as I love GOG, I find Steam's user interface miles better, and I've got most of my games there - which for me is a valid reason to keep buying new ones there. The less fragmented my game collection is, the better. They've also got game sharing and streaming among friends and Remote Play via local network (playing on my HTPC while actually running the game on my main rig), which currently no other platform can do.

ValantarNah, sorry. Those needs are still pretty basic. Food, shelter, safety, social relations, something to keep our brains busy/entertained. There are of course many possible variations on and specific instances of these, but as you go more specific (I'd say "online storefront+library application selling and distributingcomputer-run games plus various other features" is pretty specific (going something like 'games' -> 'videogames' -> 'videogames sold online' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online in an application' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online in an application that also has various secondary features' - when the innovations you're asking for is in those secondary features, it's pretty difficult to implement anything radical), the list of possible future innovations shrinks. Of course it might all take a radical left turn and change entirely, but that's quite unlikely. VR and its niche long-term appeal is a good example of this. Do you have an example of someone radically changing how these needs are covered that doesn't constitute inventing an entirely new medium? 'Cause that's pretty rare.

Yes, we now heat our food using electricity or gas, which is transported through massive wire networks or tubes, trucks, trains, etc. But we still heat our food. That's the base need. The changes are in method, not in effect. The same goes for games - we now buy them online and download them rather than walk/bike/drive/whatever to a store and pick up some sort of physical storage medium. Yet you're asking for something radically new - what would that be? What Steam did was not radically new, it was the systematic application of relatively obvious ideas by a company with the resources and content to make this stick. Yet you're asking their competitors to pass a much, much higher bar. Why?

I'm not talking about basic needs. The internet is not a basic need. PC gaming is not a basic need, either. I'm talking about services that improve your overall experience. I mentioned things like game sharing. Is it a necessity? No, but it's nice to have. Of course, there's a degree of experimentation when you create something new. VR hasn't managed to become more than a niche because of its price and hardware/room requirement. You can't compare that to a little free extra that a game distribution platform can offer.

ValantarThis seems to be a rather underinformed view of the games industry. Most studios are small. Sure, the huge ones take the vast majority of profits (and to a large extent, sales), and there's little reason to support these. EA or Activision is no better than Valve or Epic, after all. But for all the small ones? That 18% increase, or EGS buying a guaranteed minimum copies of their game might be the difference between them going bankrupt or not. These studios don't generally have well-off CEOs or the like. I'm not talking about pay raises in big companies, I'm talking about small companies staying afloat and being able to pay their employees at all. The EAs and Activisions of the world will be okay nearly no matter what (and the ways in which they mistreat their developers are generally not pay related.)

That's another valid argument, but then again... I'm not paying for ideals. I'm paying for a product / service. If Steam provides a better service, I'm gonna buy my games through there, and you do what pleases you. Simple as.

ValantarAs for "most people are cynical" (yes, that's a paraphrasing of your first sentence) ... is that an argument for ... also being so? If anything, it's an argument for the opposite, no? It's also rather weird to somehow project the evils of predatory capitalism solely onto Epic, as if they are somehow worse than Valve in this regard.

Interesting paraphrase, though I wouldn't say that using a better service just because it's better is a sign of cynicism. I don't think most people have the slightest idea about Valve's or Epic's policies towards developers. Before you buy a packet of cheese or a loaf of bread at your local supermarket, do you ask the shopkeeper how much the farmer got for it? It's the same kind of thing.

ValantarBut they weren't the first. That was the entire point. Steam grew big due to exclusives. In particular, HL2 and its derivatives. Also, comparing EGS to a decade-old smartphone ... I still haven't seen any actual descriptions of how using EGS makes for a worse gameplay experience. I would honestly love to hear some.

They probably weren't the first, but I didn't hear about anything else before I was forced to install Steam to play HL2. That's right, I'm not defending anybody. I outright hated the fact that I needed an online game distribution platform to play an offline game. But then it grew and incorporated lots of extras, and a user-friendly interface which made me like it in the end. If EGS goes through the same steps down the road, I might start to like it too, eventually. All I'm saying is (turning back to my original argument) that in its current state, EGS offers nothing that would compel me to register and buy my games there instead of on Steam.

NRANMExactly this.

So many people dismiss the tangible benefit that Epic's policies have towards developers simply because they're Epic's policies. I'm willing to bet money if Valve/Steam had introduced these policies on their own accord, people would be singing their praises for months. There would probably songs written.

Somehow, in the minds of these people, especially those who consider themselves gamers, a multi-billion multi-national corporation (Valve) is more deserving of their support than the very people who make the games (you know, the thing we go to these stores for!), people with ideas, desire and passion who want to share those with others via their creations.

It boggles the mind.

Like I said, people aren't buying ideas. They're buying products and services. What boggles my mind is the fact that some people willingly put up with an inferior service for the same money just because a distributor company says something about their policies = plays "the good guy" card without any evidence. I wouldn't buy dull, tasteless food only because it allegedly grew in the garden of a lovely old lady in a nice village in the middle of nowhere. If the food is actually good, that's a different story.

RavenasYou are projecting I am saying people should not use EGS. I have never said anyone should not use EGS. I have said EGS is not a platform I consider using based on the facts I have stated, and I never said you or anyone else shouldn't use it for whatever valid reason you have.

You said "there is no reason to use it". That is not the same as "I have no reason to use it".

RavenasYou are projecting that there is a group of people who play distribution platforms. Maybe so, but again you constantly assume things.

Based on how people vehemently oppose Epic and defend Steam, being ready to not play a game just because it is released on Epic first (or even boycott the game/developer), my conclusion is that those people put more value on the platforms than on the games themselves.

AusWolfLike I said, people aren't buying ideas. They're buying products and services. What boggles my mind is the fact that some people willingly put up with an inferior service for the same money

"Inferior" is relative and subjective.
If the features that Steam has but Epic's launcher doesn't are of critical importance to you, then yes, Epic's launcher is inferior.
If those extra features are useless to you, then for all intents and purposes Epic's launcher is not inferior, it is equal, as it offers everything you need.
These "some people" in your example are "putting up" with the service, because it is completely sufficient for their needs.

Again, just because you need or use a certain feature in a software product or service (in this case Steam), doesn't mean that everyone else does. People are different, with different preferences and requirements of the products/services they purchase and use.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

AusWolfI wouldn't buy dull, tasteless food only because it allegedly grew in the garden of a lovely old lady in a nice village in the middle of nowhere. If the food is actually good, that's a different story.

What?
Do you not realize that the "food" in your metaphor is the equivalent to the games that the storefronts sell.
Are you implying that the games are better when purchased on Steam, compared to Epic?
Unless the "food" actually refers to the launchers themselves, but that would mean that you are spending money NOT to play the games, but to use said launchers. Although that would neatly lead me back around to my previous argument that some people actually "play" their launchers, and games are a means to an end.

SelayaI mean, EGS supposedly takes a 12% commission for their sales. At a 15% processing fee for a payment method, they'd be damn right to charge the customer for it. Like, you go do the fucking math there ...

Obviously EGS can't take the processing fee.
But comparing 30% vs 12%, but ignoring processing fee is then a bullshit comparison. At that rate, you're paying more for a EGS game than the same on steam.

and again, if it's the dev cut you care about, your better off buying steam keys directly from the devs.

SelayaI mean, EGS supposedly takes a 12% commission for their sales. At a 15% processing fee for a payment method, they'd be damn right to charge the customer for it. Like, you go do the fucking math there ...

Yep... I haven't seen one EGS advocate say the games needed to be cheaper. I think people still select on price IF the product is readily available. And I think that's also the core of the issue for those attached to Steam and opposing EGS: they see a price inflation happening with little to show for it while they are 'forced' (lol... speak of entitlement generation, let's face it) to buy at EGS because exclusive (or timed). Well... they're right! And that's the market, right there, and as customers we have every option to keep looking at it critically and judge for ourselves whether each product sold on the market is worth buying, now or in the future.

But some people can't swallow that so they go outrage mode :) Good luck to them, though I like how the tone of discussion has moved in this topic, we're still talking argument based. Its about understanding the market for distribution correctly, I think, in a general sense, and how it is changing. At the same time, for us customers being so very aware of what's happening is also a good thing. Be hypercritical. Judge with your feet. But also: be flexible and open to new information. In my personal view... I'm just as ready to delete EGS tomorrow if they start acting funny.

big_glasses[ ... ] At that rate, you're paying more for a EGS game than the same on steam.

[ ... ]

I mean, if the same game's sold at the same price across platforms (which charge different commissions) then it's them being fucking retarded and, in that case deserve to receive less revenue ...
Like, the point of a platform charging less commissions is to enable developers offering their stuff for cheaper on those which in turn would translate into a competitive advantage for said platform. In the case this doesn't manifest then yeah, it's them being retarded.

NRANM"Inferior" is relative and subjective.
If the features that Steam has but Epic's launcher doesn't are of critical importance to you, then yes, Epic's launcher is inferior.
If those extra features are useless to you, then for all intents and purposes Epic's launcher is not inferior, it is equal, as it offers everything you need.
These "some people" in your example are "putting up" with the service, because it is completely sufficient for their needs.

Again, just because you need or use a certain feature in a software product or service (in this case Steam), doesn't mean that everyone else does. People are different, with different preferences and requirements of the products/services they purchase and use.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

True. Though let's not forget how long Steam has been around. It's extremely hard to be the newcomer and expect success in a market with already established competitors. Look at how much Intel is struggling to enter the GPU market. You really have to offer something extraordinary to convince people to swap over. Marketing BS about revenues alone won't do the trick.

And again: I'm not against Epic. I wish they will improve on their service and start offering something of value over the competition in the future. I'm just simply not buying their exclusive deals and marketing crap.

NRANMWhat?
Do you not realize that the "food" in your metaphor is the equivalent to the games that the storefronts sell.
Are you implying that the games are better when purchased on Steam, compared to Epic?
Unless the "food" actually refers to the launchers themselves, but that would mean that you are spending money NOT to play the games, but to use said launchers. Although that would neatly lead me back around to my previous argument that some people actually "play" their launchers, and games are a means to an end.

You do realise that when you're buying a game online, you're also paying for the maintenance of said online service, right?

Maybe my example lacks some refinement... let's say you have the option to buy food at a supermarket that's next to your house, clean, offers a wide range of products, and the shopkeeper smiles at you every time you walk in. You can buy the same piece in another supermarket 2 miles down the road that's not as clean, offers less variety, and the shopkeeper is always busy playing on his phone instead of helping you. The price is the same, but the not-so-pleasant store claims to help local farmers more. Which one will you choose?

ValantarAlso ... are you claiming to notice 1-2-3% performance differences? If so, that's pretty impressive. Most of us aren't even close to that. I guess I'm lucky in that regard? Resorting to 'slippery slope' style arguments is also a surefire sign that you don't have much of an argument to begin with. Unless you know of dozens of alternative game launcher/storefronts that are on the cusp of launching? If not: let me know when this goes from being a rhetorical device to an actual problem.

I forgot to add this to my previous comment for some reason. Never mind. :oops:

I don't notice a 1% performance decrease due to background processes, but I do notice a decrease in available disk space. You might argue that the disk space loss is tangible too, but why should I keep something installed that I don't need?

AusWolfAnd again: I'm not against Epic. I wish they will improve on their service and start offering something of value over the competition in the future. I'm just simply not buying their exclusive deals and marketing crap.

And in order to offer actual competition, Epic needs to build a user base and momentum, and exclusive games are an effective way to achieve that goal.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not thrilled about exclusivity, I get no orgasms from Epic having exclusive games, but I understand why they are doing it. It is a... "necessary evil", if you will.
If it were up to me, all games would be released on all stores at launch. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works.

AusWolfYou do realise that when you're buying a game online, you're also paying for the maintenance of said online service, right?

I completely realize that, and I acknowledge that this is the case.
However, the game is still the most important element of the transaction. If I want to purchase let's say BioShock, when I go to the checkout I'm going to see the name "BioShock", not "BioShock + maintenance fee" or "Steam account fee + BioShock", or the charge being broken down into multiple items (with maintenance being among them).
It is naive or disingenuous to argue that the maintenance of the online service is even remotely close to the importance of the actual product (game) the user is purchasing.

I feel silly having to explain this. Without the games the online service would have no reason to exist. Steam was created for the very reason to distribute Valve's games.

AusWolfMaybe my example lacks some refinement... let's say you have the option to buy food at a supermarket that's next to your house, clean, offers a wide range of products, and the shopkeeper smiles at you every time you walk in. You can buy the same piece in another supermarket 2 miles down the road that's not as clean, offers less variety, and the shopkeeper is always busy playing on his phone instead of helping you. The price is the same, but the not-so-pleasant store claims to help local farmers more. Which one will you choose?

Your analogies are either just wrong or deliberately manipulative.

Firstly, how is Steam the equivalent to a smiling and polite shopkeeper, whereas Epic is the equivalent to an always busy shopkeeper? Are you implying that shopping on Steam is easier? Faster? More enjoyable? How does that even work? Neither Steam, nor Epic is "smiling" at me. I mean, neither storefront makes me glad to be shopping there. It's just a user interface, I make the necessary clicks, and that's it.

Secondly, the distance argument falls flat, because while in real life that is a factor, online it isn't. Unless Epic's services are for some reason slower where you live, but that would most likely be an ISP problem.
Apart from the lack of a shopping cart, shopping at Epic isn't any different compared to Steam: open the client, find the game, make several clicks, choose payment method and enter necessary information, done. What is the problem?

I also fail to see what the big deal is about the lack of a shopping cart. Yes, technically, that is a drawback. Having a shopping cart is better than not having it. But is it really that much of an issue? Do people really purchase so many games so frequently that they need a shopping cart that badly? Especially considering how many people who complain about that are the same people how more or less vow to never shop there because Epic = bad.
If your primary storefront is going to be Steam, and you are going to go to Epic on that very rare occasion when they have what you want, how much use are you going to get out of a shopping cart?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be implemented, quite the contrary, it should, I just find this issue blown way out of proportion.

NRANMAnd in order to offer actual competition, Epic needs to build a user base and momentum, and exclusive games are an effective way to achieve that goal.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not thrilled about exclusivity, I get no orgasms from Epic having exclusive games, but I understand why they are doing it. It is a... "necessary evil", if you will.
If it were up to me, all games would be released on all stores at launch. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works.

I understand their goal. It's just not the right means in my opinion.

NRANMI completely realize that, and I acknowledge that this is the case.
However, the game is still the most important element of the transaction. If I want to purchase let's say BioShock, when I go to the checkout I'm going to see the name "BioShock", not "BioShock + maintenance fee" or "Steam account fee + BioShock", or the charge being broken down into multiple items (with maintenance being among them).
It is naive or disingenuous to argue that the maintenance of the online service is even remotely close to the importance of the actual product (game) the user is purchasing.

I feel silly having to explain this. Without the games the online service would have no reason to exist. Steam was created for the very reason to distribute Valve's games.

Of course. But if a distribution service offers extras, why not use it? If you don't need anything else than a store where you buy a game with a click of a mouse, that's understandable.

NRANMYour analogies are either just wrong or deliberately manipulative.

Firstly, how is Steam the equivalent to a smiling and polite shopkeeper, whereas Epic is the equivalent to an always busy shopkeeper? Are you implying that shopping on Steam is easier? Faster? More enjoyable? How does that even work? Neither Steam, nor Epic is "smiling" at me. I mean, neither storefront makes me glad to be shopping there. It's just a user interface, I make the necessary clicks, and that's it.

Secondly, the distance argument falls flat, because while in real life that is a factor, online it isn't. Unless Epic's services are for some reason slower where you live, but that would most likely be an ISP problem.
Apart from the lack of a shopping cart, shopping at Epic isn't any different compared to Steam: open the client, find the game, make several clicks, choose payment method and enter necessary information, done. What is the problem?

Let me explain:
The supermarket that's next to your house with the friendly shopkeeper is the distribution service you've been registered to since ages ago, you know its user interface, you know how it works, etc.
The supermarket far away is the service you have to register to, learn how it works, and so on.
I guess the difference in variety explains itself.

NRANMI also fail to see what the big deal is about the lack of a shopping cart. Yes, technically, that is a drawback. Having a shopping cart is better than not having it. But is it really that much of an issue? Do people really purchase so many games so frequently that they need a shopping cart that badly? Especially considering how many people who complain about that are the same people how more or less vow to never shop there because Epic = bad.
If your primary storefront is going to be Steam, and you are going to go to Epic on that very rare occasion when they have what you want, how much use are you going to get out of a shopping cart?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be implemented, quite the contrary, it should, I just find this issue blown way out of proportion.

EGS doesn't have a shopping cart? I didn't even know. :eek: Not the end of the world, but I imagine it would be very uncomfortable to use it with my shopping style. When I see a game that I like, I move it to my wish list. During big sales, I take a look at my list, and buy several, most often heavily discounted games at the same time. One more reason to stay with Steam and GOG, I guess.

SelayaI mean, if the same game's sold at the same price across platforms (which charge different commissions) then it's them being fucking retarded and, in that case deserve to receive less revenue ...
Like, the point of a platform charging less commissions is to enable developers offering their stuff for cheaper on those which in turn would translate into a competitive advantage for said platform. In the case this doesn't manifest then yeah, it's them being retarded.

I think the less commission fee isn't gonna cover the sales lost due to platform changes.
There are obvious reasons for EGS only getting "Timed" exclusive deal instead of "Real" exclusive (Like PS5 exclusive)
The developers knew putting games on EGS will generate significantly less revenue over time.

So they set the same price.:)

AusWolfLet me explain:
The supermarket that's next to your house with the friendly shopkeeper is the distribution service you've been registered to since ages ago, you know its user interface, you know how it works, etc.
The supermarket far away is the service you have to register to, learn how it works, and so on.

This doesn't make sense because the Epic store doesn't need getting used to, not really. This applies to all launchers. I think the worst launcher is Origin, however, if I need to make a purchase there, I will figure it out.
The notion that one needs to "get used to" a game launcher is ridiculous to me. They are not complex, anyone can figure out how they work. One does not interact with them constantly like for example a chat/communication program so that if it isn't intuitive, the experience suffers significantly.
I'm not saying users cannot find a certain UI more convenient, but the issue is hugely blown out of proportion, as if Steam is flawless, and Epic's launcher is unusable.

NRANMThis doesn't make sense because the Epic store doesn't need getting used to, not really. This applies to all launchers. I think the worst launcher is Origin, however, if I need to make a purchase there, I will figure it out.
The notion that one needs to "get used to" a game launcher is ridiculous to me. They are not complex, anyone can figure out how they work. One does not interact with them constantly like for example a chat/communication program so that if it isn't intuitive, the experience suffers significantly.
I'm not saying users cannot find a certain UI more convenient, but the issue is hugely blown out of proportion, as if Steam is flawless, and Epic's launcher is unusable.

I didn't say Steam was flawless and Epic was unusable. All I said was that I'm familiar with Steam and I generally like the way it works. I feel like registering for another distributor is unnecessary unless it offers something of value that I need and Steam doesn't have - for example my old favourite games with no DRM on GOG.

Why do advocates of Epic have to assume that whoever doesn't want to register is a fanboy of Steam and hates EGS for no reason? I don't hate EGS. I just find their marketing BS and lack of innovation perplexing. Why is it wrong to be happy with Steam and expect something new from EGS and other potential newcomers?

AusWolfI didn't say Steam was flawless and Epic was unusable. All I said was that I'm familiar with Steam and I generally like the way it works. I feel like registering for another distributor is unnecessary unless it offers something of value that I need and Steam doesn't have - for example my old favourite games with no DRM on GOG.

Why do advocates of Epic have to assume that whoever doesn't want to register is a fanboy of Steam and hates EGS for no reason? I don't hate EGS. I just find their marketing BS and lack of innovation perplexing. Why is it wrong to be happy with Steam and expect something new from EGS and other potential newcomers?

Yep. I actually prefer GOG to steam for the offline (and DRM free) installers. No intention of ever using Epic as they don't give me a good reason to. GOG was able to supplant Steam for me with a better refund policy and no-DRM / offline installers so I'll always buy a game there over Steam if it's available at both places, but Epic just throws money at developers and publishers to not sell games at their competitors. That doesn't benefit me as the customer in any way so I'll continue to say no to Epic.

Money losing, this should not come as a surprise. EPIC entered the market guns all blazing, promising low fees for game developers (lower if using Unreal Engine), cheaper games for gamers (due to lower fees for developers) and free games every week. The idea is to try and brute force customers away from Steam. Now I am not saying that Steam is great, but EPIC's strategy is full of flaws,
1. Lower fees - This move have not really forced Steam to lower their fees. And over a prolong period, you can certainly tell it is taking a toll on the company. I suspect the lower fee is really just a carrot at the start, and hopefully if they gain market share, then they will start increasing it. In short, it is not sustainable. If I were to try and find a comparison, it is those days where Uber first started and throwing money away with great deals. I guess everyone should recollect how it went over time.

2. Free games to build up a new library - There are some good games for sure, but not every free game is one that people like to play. Assuming I visit EPIC every week for the free game, I would have a massive library now, but how many do we actually play? Everyone have their preferred genre of games to play, so visually I have 100 games in my library for example, there are only but a handful of titles that will interest me. Its free, so people just grab without hesitation. As compared to a library of 20 games in Steam which many of us would have considered before paying real money for it. So on the surface it is 100 vs 20 games in my example, but chances is that you will still go back to Steam for that 20 games. I believe a lot of people visiting EPIC is mainly for free games unfortunately.

3. Exclusive titles - This probably contributed the most to EPIC, but at the same time, also cost the most for them. So how much are they making from it, i.e. profit?

I don't know about everyone, but I am just looking to game. Where most of my games are (ones that really matters), that is likely the main platform I use. It is not like I buy a game every other day that the cost really matters. In my opinion, if EPIC just continues on the same path, the results will not change. They know it and they are on borrowed time with the current success of Fortnite. If that last defence falls, they will need to rely on external loan/ investment all the time to keep up with the bleeding.

watzupken3. Exclusive titles - This probably contributed the most to EPIC, but at the same time, also cost the most for them. So how much are they making from it, i.e. profit?

Interesting question. Here's another one: Epic claims to be all for the developer with lower fees and such. But then, how much does making deals exclusive cost those developers? I mean, as a developer, you're paying lower fees to sell your game on EGS, but you're not selling anything anywhere else - basically restricting your customer base to that of Epic's. Sure, selling on Steam is (allegedly) more expensive, but if you're selling on all platforms, you'll end up selling more, and making more money, right? The "all for the developer" Epic is happy to deny you this option with the false hope of making more profit per game sold, but with a much smaller customer base that earns you less money in the end.

AusWolfInteresting question. Here's another one: Epic claims to be all for the developer with lower fees and such. But then, how much does making deals exclusive cost those developers? I mean, as a developer, you're paying lower fees to sell your game on EGS, but you're not selling anything anywhere else - basically restricting your customer base to that of Epic's. Sure, selling on Steam is (allegedly) more expensive, but if you're selling on all platforms, you'll end up selling more, and making more money, right? The "all for the developer" Epic is happy to deny you this option with the false hope of making more profit per game sold, but with a much smaller customer base that earns you less money in the end.

My thought is that when a game is exclusive to a platform, i.e. in this case EPIC, they should get some sort of guarantee of a minimal sale. So it is up to the developer to decide if they want a guaranteed sale (or get a compensation), or try to sell it across other platforms and get a non-guaranteed sale number. And because it is timed exclusive, so after x date, they can also start selling on other platforms if it sells really badly on EPIC. I may be wrong, but that's my impression of how time exclusive works.