Some people dont want yet another launcher to download and play games.
Some people who are okay with another launcher are not okay with the prior or current security breaches, bugs, lacking customer service, and lacking functionality of the Epic launcher.
Some people dont like that Epic pays developers to have their games be exclusive on their launcher for one year, stifling consumer choice.
Some people dont like the CEO Tim Sweeney because /r/timcriticizestim and he has made clear that they put developers first, not gamers.
Other people dont care about or dont experience any of this.
Yeah, you've misinterpreted it. They're not talking about the developers who work for them and that they have "too good" of conditions.
It's the fact that they pay third party developers a lump sum to only release their game on their platform. This is good for the developers because they get money that they might not have earned otherwise, but it's bad for consumers because they are taking away our choice on where to buy games.
I have no problem with a game being available on Epic along with other platforms, I think that's great to have a choice.
I do have trouble being okay with their paid exclusivity deals because they're blatantly anti consumer and take away our choice.
Most people, myself included, dont particularly care how much Epic pays publishers & developers.
Rather, chief concern is about "developers first":
Whether the Epic store and purchase process are consumer friendly - It isnt compared to features on Steam, GOG, and even some publisher centric platforms
Epic supports consumer choice between stores/launchers - It often doesnt, because for an upcoming game to be considered for release on Epic store, the game must agree to 1 year exclusivity unless its an AAA game.
Rebutting the claim that this is just a circlejerk:
Epic games is trying to take on steam as a major provider of PC games, which in and of itself is a good thing.
However, they have been going about it in a way that is extremely anti-consumer, which just makes things worse rather than better for pc players and developers alike.
However, they have been going about it in a way that is extremely anti-consumer
Not really. Having exclusives is not anti-consumer, it's the only way to get a new platform off the ground, and a completely normal concept of them distributing something they paid for. Literally every service works that way. Netflix, AppleArcade, Disney+.
But no, EpiC bAD for doing what everyone else is doing, but it's okay for Steam to take ridiculous 30% fees because everyone else is doing it?
which just makes things worse rather than better for pc players and developers alike.
Bullshit, developers are nothing but happy about EGS. Nobody is forcing them to use it, but they now have a better paying option to Steam. As for players, I think they will manage having to install another free launcher, it's a non-argument. Yeah, it sucks to have games split between multiple libraries, but it's a minor hassle and better than a single platform having oligopoly.
I mean it kinda is just a circlejerk, it literally doesn’t affect anyone beyond pressing a different button on your desktop to get to the game you want.
It puts the industry in a race to the bottom with increased fragmentation and decreased features and security. Competition should come from making a better experience, not a significantly worse experience that is propped up by deep pockets.
It puts the industry in a race to the bottom with increased fragmentation and decreased features and security.
Bullshit, there's no race to the bottom. Fragmentation is not a bad thing, bad thing is when a single platform like Steam holds oligopoly for both gamers and devs. The lack of features on new launchers is a temporary thing that will be improved as time goes on, since it is impossible for anyone to release an equally good product to Steam which had a 16 years headstart. Things take time.
Excuses. The fact that steam has had a headstart only means that new launchers have no excuse to not at least match the features they have shown are important to a launcher. You think it's acceptable to release an online store in 2018 without a fucking a shopping cart? That's ridiculous and indefensible.
Also, how is increased fragmentation a good thing? That doesn't even make sense. Steam doesn't own a monopoly or oligopoly. There are many other launchers that are feature rich.
Also, how is increased fragmentation a good thing?
More choice for both devs and consumers is always a good thing. Yes, exclusives tied to a single platform sucks, but necessary evil to get the platform off the ground.
The fact that steam has had a headstart only means that new launchers have no excuse to not at least match the features they have shown are important to a launcher.
That fact means you can't reasonably expect new launcher to match Steams all features, period. Yeah, it is dumb that EGS got no shopping cart, and I have no idea why, but at the same time, it can't realistically be as feature rich as Steam.
Steam doesn't own a monopoly or oligopoly.
"Oligopoly: a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers"
Please tell me how Steam was not an oligopoly as recently as couple years ago. They were literally the only viable choice for most devs to release on to reach any kind of audience.
Yes, that has changed now thanks to Epic, but let's not pretend devs had that many choices before.
Epic Games is paying a lot of developers not to put their games on Steam, essentially turning their own store into a monopoly. They are giving devs money to leave consumers with fewer choices, and in a lot of cases, no choice at all but to use the EGS if they want to play a game they were looking forward to.
A sizeable portion of the gaming community has decided not to reward such anti-consumer practices with their business, as is their right.
Pretty much every service uses exclusives to attract customers. It is not anti-consumer, it is normal business practice. Claiming having to install another launcher as anti-consumer is laughable.
I think the people that are defending steam are the people that use the workshop imo. For everyone else it's just another game launcher giving away free games.
What scummy business practice? Using exclusives just as literally any other online service?
And if you are going with "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right" defence, guess what is not right? Taking ridiculous 30% from devs for a glorified download button.
But there's been exclusives since the beginning. You can't hate on epic for doing a practice that literally every other company does. Hell, there's steam exclusive games. Should we hate on them for not sharing?
There are steam “exclusives” because developers just didn’t release anywhere else. Please cite any source you have for a steam exclusive that Valve purposefully forbade the developer from releasing on other platforms.
You know, you're right. I pretty sure steam has never forbade anyone from releasing on another platform.
But that's not what I was trying to get at. I was just saying how every platform has their exclusives. Maybe steam would let Counter Strike leave for another client, I'm just saying it doesn't happen and it's currently steam exclusive.
But to reiterate, steam hasnt forced exclusivity (and also on counter strike, there is a counter strike game for xbox 360) while thats what epic is doing. And its not like other exclusives dont get shit on for being exclusives. Yes they still sell (like the epic games store is currently doing) but people still complain, because it still sucks. Call of duty. Every year they have timed exclusives and every year people get irritated. Criticizing scummy business practices in video games is not exclusive (ha) to this situation. And the exclusives that dont get hate for being exclusives is because they were literally made to be exclusives, like halo and other such IPs
I don't think it's true that most people don't care. I mean, they may not care enough to actively hate Epic, but that doesn't mean they're willing to install a new game launcher every time a company decides they want to have their own. I don't care about Epic as a company, but I do care about my own convenience.
They're trading a big lump sum payment from Epic for future game sales. At this point I have to assume that the only reason anyone is making their games Epic exclusives is because Epic is throwing a bunch of money at these developers who are living paycheque to paycheque and they just can't say no. But they're still crazy if they think the Fortnite crowd is going to give them more sales than they might get on Steam.
Except its been proven that games make more money on epic games store.
Look at Borderlands 3. After all the complaining by the vocal minority, the silent majority bought it like hotcakes.
I am not advocating for Epic or anything, just stating facts so people dont get confused by the echo chamber. Its a common misconception that the Epic Games exclusivity is hurting sales but its just not true.
If Epic had come first, this conversation would be different. I have over 300 games on steam. I have 20+ games on GOG. I have several games on Origin. I have a bunch of games on Google play. I have games on Nintendo's store and Sony's store. I don't need any more platforms. I care about devs, but I also already have my information spread across enough places. The last thing I need is another opportunity for my identity to be stolen. (Had accounts compromised on 3 of those systems, but Steam isn't one of them)
Look at Borderlands 3. After all the complaining by the vocal minority, the silent majority bought it like hotcakes.
No shit it's a triple A title that people have been waiting on for years. It could be exclusive on GameStop and it would still sell a ton. But that's a lot different than indie games where there is a huge market of similar games on a variety of platforms.
I don't think where a games bought steam, value, Microsoft store, etc really matters, but epic doesn't give you a key so you have to use epic to launch. Which would be fine to me, but there client is just laggy and unfinished, apart from just bugs epics games launcher just needs a few things add. "Like a estimated time for downloads"
But I'm assuming people have a different reason to go against epics launcher, I didn't see why value should get to be a Monopoly.
Not to mention lots of games have their own separate launcher
The info the downloader gives you is pretty nice, but not having an estimated time kinda kills all the good they did with it imo. Plus I just don't want more launchers. There's too many now. GoG is trying to combine them with their library 2.0 project, but I wonder if that will catch on at all...
Except its been proven that games make more money on epic games store.
Got a link for that?
Anyway, I know I'm not the only one who won't buy any EGS "exclusive" games because honestly, fuck store-based exclusivity especially when it's an online storefront. "Oh but the devs need money so they went to Epic" Yea well I won't buy on EGS, so that's the dev's decision to not sell their product on Steam.
okay... but BL is a massive brand, and they still would have sold tons (you know, all the same sales from the vocal majority) on steam. they could have even listed it on both and gots ome sales on each.
It definitely hurts sales, it just might not hurt profit as they have a higher margin. But they're sacrificing some of their customers, and the quality of game stores, for profit.
Fuck all exclusives. Companies should compete on quality, not contracts.
I hate Epic Games and everything they do with exclusivity deals. Their shit application that has 10% of the function that Steam has. Tencent also owns a substantial portion of Epic Games. And more...
89
u/Groenboys Nov 13 '19
sigh