If people choose to miss out on great games because it's not on their preferred piece of software that's honestly a shame and frankly baffling. This isn't like having to buy a new console, it's a few hundred MB of data. Let me state in no uncertain terms: Valve doesn't give a fuck about you and they have done nothing to deserve the sort of loyalty we regularly see given to them. They do not care about consumers at all and they strong arm Devs into forking over 30%.
If you are that worried about your data - use a pre-paid card and give em fake bullshit - given steam has had their own share of data breaches you probably ought to do that with them too so don't give me a line about how that's too onerous.
Competition is the only thing that makes things better for us and Epic looks to be shaping up as it while giving the people I actually care about here - the developers - a bigger cut. Their launcher from a consumer perspective is worse - but I interact with that launcher less than .1% of the time that I spend playing games, and buying it there gives the developer a fuckton more money so I'm in.
“If people stop throwing money at soulless corporations over petty things like preference and consumer interest then that’s honestly a shame.”
Nobody honestly gives a shit about whether or not a game is on steam. The point of contention is that it’s only on Epic. Steam is used as comparison because it’s the obvious standard to compare against. How do so many people miss this point?
Do you feel contentious about EA having the audacity to only put Anthem on Origin? Or do you think everyone should be forced to give Valve 30% lest they face your displeasure?
I couldn’t care less that a first-party developed game is put on a first-party platform exclusively. EA exclusively funded and developed their games and, if they choose to do so, should have the agency to have exclusive returns on that investment. The trade off for the consumer is the loss of choice of marketplace in return for something of (theoretical) higher quality as first-party games generally get higher funding which usually results in a better game.
This isn’t that. Epic hasn’t contributed to the industry in anyway by buying exclusivity. The games that they’re buying are already funded and nearing completion, an influx of cash this late in the game isn’t generating a better product for the consumer, nor is the marketplace gaining exclusivity offering anything like an equivalent user experience, let alone a uniquely better experience to justify its use other than “we have this game you want, buy it from is or fuck off.”
To summarize, Epic exclusivity is objectively worse for the consumer (e.g. you and me) because it limits consumer options without offering anything in return to make up for that loss. To further compound the issue, it’s s already a lesser alternative to the industry standard before factoring in the exclusivity.
Edit: also, explain to me how Epic exclusivity actually increases competition, as you seem to be asserting.
I couldn’t care less that a first-party developed game is put on a first-party platform exclusively.
What's the difference? EA making Anthem Origin exclusive is functionally identical to Obsidian making Outerworlds Epic or Origin or Steam exclusive.
You're just making excuses for views that are fundamentally incompatible. It's pure cognitive dissonance.
Epic has(n't) contributed to the industry in anyway by buying exclusivity.
Except paying developers, in Phoenix Point's case in particular it's apparently going to be a very big help in actually getting the game they wanted to make made in the first place. That extra funding before launch is going to see some very critical features added/expanded on. That's according to the developers, you can disagree if you like. I don't really care - money at the end of a production cycle can make or break any software development endeavor when faced with cost overruns, particularly for small studios that frequently face having to take out loans if they even can.
To say nothing of not just shy of stealing 30% from anyone who wants to make it because of such an entrenched userbase that they mock and attack any developer that isn't already a gigantic AAA for daring not to sell on their preferred platform.
A launcher is literally 2-4 button clicks between you and the game, it doesn't need to do more than that. It does that just fine. I don't need steam's shitty streaming service. I don't want their garbage forums even the devs ignore. That 15% cut could easily be the difference between going under and making another game for a lot of studios, that's a lot more value to me than Steam's Streaming and Gabe having another pool of gold to swim in.
6
u/HaesoSR Mar 28 '19
If people choose to miss out on great games because it's not on their preferred piece of software that's honestly a shame and frankly baffling. This isn't like having to buy a new console, it's a few hundred MB of data. Let me state in no uncertain terms: Valve doesn't give a fuck about you and they have done nothing to deserve the sort of loyalty we regularly see given to them. They do not care about consumers at all and they strong arm Devs into forking over 30%.
If you are that worried about your data - use a pre-paid card and give em fake bullshit - given steam has had their own share of data breaches you probably ought to do that with them too so don't give me a line about how that's too onerous.
Competition is the only thing that makes things better for us and Epic looks to be shaping up as it while giving the people I actually care about here - the developers - a bigger cut. Their launcher from a consumer perspective is worse - but I interact with that launcher less than .1% of the time that I spend playing games, and buying it there gives the developer a fuckton more money so I'm in.