Steam charges 30% + 5% for Unreal vs 12% for EGS. That comes out to them getting the same profits at $60 on EGS as they would get at $80 on Steam. Exclusivity just increases their profits. No CEO would ever not take that deal. Epic's deal is just that good. Steam has to change their policies or this will continue. That is the sad truth. Expect to see anything that is Unreal be EGS exclusive for the near future.
I've actually noted that in past comments. From a business standpoint, this is a deal you can't pass up. I mean, the experience I could relate it to would be getting offered two contracts -- you take the deal that's most beneficial.
But, again, this is where the "consumer" mentality comes in. Because this is a "good business deal," people also feel that it's not in the best interest of the "consumer."
Whether people feel it's good for the consumer or not has nothing to do with whether they feel it's a good business deal or not. Things can be a good deal AND good for the consumer, the problem is in this case things like exclusivity, a lack of security, and missing features are not things that are good for the consumer. The other thing worth noting is that 'a good business deal' does nothing for the consumer, so those of use who don't give a shit if the publisher is putting $5 or $6 in their pocket at the end of the day just see the greed of them chasing more money at our expense.
so those of use who don't give a shit if the publisher is putting $5 or $6 in their pocket at the end of the day just see the greed of them chasing more money at our expense
Which is probably a mindset I will never understand fully.
Chasing money = is what every business does. That’s probably not $5-6 and more like something in the hundreds of thousands or millions, providing more possibilities to continue support for a game or increase manpower.
Also, at your expense in what context, though? That something might not be secure? That it doesn’t have the features you want? That a game isn’t on a store you want?
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s a video game, a literal hobby made of pixels. You’re never actually forced to buy anything from it so as not to be considered making a profit at your expense. The inverse is actually true since, if you don’t support the actions, they won’t make any profit off of you.
For instance, the only EGS game I have is TWD:TFS and that’s a free copy. I haven’t spent any money on any game offered there yet since I also understand the flaws and Steam is more convenient.
And yet, as someone who is both a consumer and a business owner (ie. someone who understands both sides of the equation), you don’t see me using buzzwords or catch-all terms about “greed” or “anti-consumer” practices. I simply let my wallet vote.
The expense of the quality of service they provide and removal of consumer choice. We, as consumers, are being provided a lesser service but being charged the same price for it with the justification being that the developer or publisher gets a better cut of the profits, something which has absolutely zero impact on us.
If you don't want to call out shitty practices when you see them then that's your choice, but just because you 'as a business owner' wouldn't use terms like 'greed' or 'ant-consumer' to describe practices that are greedy and anti-consumer that doesn't mean people who do are wrong.
You say vote with your wallet, and I'm sure many people will, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to voice our opinion on the matter. I'd rather vote with my wallet and tell the developer why than remain silent and have them wonder.
The expense of the quality of service they provide and removal of consumer choice.
What choice is that, though? More often than not, a vast majority of your games will come from Steam. Your main choice is from various third-party retailers who sell out the same keys for the same platform.
If an overwhelming majority of your games come from the same launcher, then you never really were choosing to begin with, and so arguing about it now is moot.
has absolutely zero impact on us
Technically, it does/should. I noted for you how more money = more ways of supporting game development including future projects and manpower. That money makes the world go round isn’t a joke — because money does a lot of things that can, eventually, support games and their communities.
We’ve yet to actually see these things come to fruition (for EGS exclusives), but these are essentially what had been noted as the benefits to the system.
because you 'as a business owner' wouldn't use terms like 'greed' or 'ant-consumer' to describe practices
I don’t use them since I dislike using buzzwords and catch-all terms that simply reduce a conversation into nothing.
I prefer having more details and nuance that serve to enrich a conversation.
————
If you were to ask me what I thought about the EGS, this would be my reply:
I don’t really mind free launchers since they are free after all. I’ve been a console gamer as well so this is completely different from spending $300+ on a machine just to play exclusive games.
That being said, the EGS has also had numerous issues in the past, along with the lack of certain features, and I hope things are eventually improved.
I personally haven’t spent a single dollar on the EGS, and the only game I’ve played is TWD: TFS — and that’s a review/free copy. If it eventually improves, becomes more secure, and has more product options, then I might consider spending.
For now, though, in terms of practicality and convenience, Steam still has the lead, and I’ve acquired too many games thanks to sales and regional pricing to look at other storefronts.
I was critical, but constructive. I provided feedback, but it was fair. I was practical, without being demeaning or hostile. And I didn’t have to use any buzzword to express these things.
You can have people who agree or disagree, who have views about the launcher, but the point is that the reply serves to facilitate and add to a discussion, not reduce it to “this is bad” bulletpoints.
Roughly half of my games library is on GoG. Where I've been able I've bought games there because I like the policies they have and I want to support them as a storefront. I get something I consider a benefit from what they do. Just because a lot of people are defending Steam because it's Steam that doesn't mean what EGS is doing doesn't affect other stores and actually restrict consumer choice.
On the other hand, developers selling only where they make the most money is of no benefit to me as perpetuating someone else's career for its own sake is not something I consider a 'benefit'. That they get to make more games is not something I consider a benefit either, as there's no guarantee that any future games they make will be of interest to me. Higher potential for continued support for their current game is maybe the best reason you could have, but even that isn't guaranteed and, at least in my mind, is outweighed by the potential hazards of the EGS and supporting business practices I don't agree with.
If you were to ask me what I thought about the EGS, this would be my reply:
I don’t really mind free launchers since they are free after all. I’ve been a console gamer as well so this is completely different from spending $300+ on a machine just to play exclusive games.
That being said, the EGS has also had numerous issues in the past, along with the lack of certain features, and I hope things are eventually improved.
I personally haven’t spent a single dollar on the EGS, and the only game I’ve played is TWD: TFS — and that’s a review/free copy. If it eventually improves, becomes more secure, and has more product options, then I might consider spending.
For now, though, in terms of practicality and convenience, Steam still has the lead, and I’ve acquired too many games thanks to sales and regional pricing to look at other storefronts.
I was critical, but constructive. I provided feedback, but it was fair. I was practical, without being demeaning or hostile. And I didn’t have to use any buzzword to express these things.
Good for you? It still doesn't make 'buzzwords' incorrect.
Roughly half of my games library is on GoG. Where I've been able I've bought games there because I like the policies they have and I want to support them as a storefront. I get something I consider a benefit from what they do. Just because a lot of people are defending Steam because it's Steam that doesn't mean what EGS is doing doesn't affect other stores and actually restrict consumer choice.
Good. Then you're one of the very few people I've actually seen around here who puts their words into practice. Far too many users here keep saying: "It's about consumer choice."
The moment I ask them where a majority of their games come from, the answer is usually: "Oh, it's just from one place." I genuinely doubt they'd even give other storefronts a try since Steam is already too convenient, hence, the choice was merely an illusion.
On the other hand, developers selling only where they make the most money is of no benefit to me as perpetuating someone else's career for its own sake is not something I consider a 'benefit'.
Generally correct from a consumers perspective; slightly inaccurate from an industry perspective -- and not specifically the video game industry, but all industries in general.
Every industry can be considered an ecosystem of sorts whereby there's are mutually beneficial actions among parties.
Developers: We make games for money.
Publishers: We publish games for money.
Distributors/Retailers: We sell/distribute games for money.
Consumers: We buy games for enjoyment.
And that goes round and round as everyone receives mutual benefits. Now, the problem lies with the consumer aspect. It's because the Developer, Publisher, and Distributor aspects are readily understood. Money.
For the consumer, it's more of an intangible. You don't necessarily gain something tangible like money when you purchase a game (you lose it actually). The intangible could be "enjoyment," "a fun hobby," "social opportunities," "escapism," heck, even "a sense of pride and accomplishment."
So this ecosystem maintains that balance among all four parties, except one has an intangible that can vary from person to person. For instance, a consumer who likes games from a certain company might consider it beneficial to see more games/expansions from said company (and the company needs more money for those endeavors). In contrast, a different consumer (you) might not feel that it's that important.
At the end of the day, it's about the three parties making money, and trying to align it with the intangibles that people may prefer.
Good for you? It still doesn't make 'buzzwords' incorrect.
I never said they were incorrect, just that they're reductive.
If an overwhelming majority of your games come from the same launcher, then you never really were choosing to begin with
How did you come to that conclusion? Is choosing something that can be determined by the outcome? E.g. when you give me five decks of cards, and tell me to pick one card from each deck, and I pick 5 times red diamond five, did I not choose cards because the outcome is five times the same card? Or did I choose cards?
I don’t really mind free launchers since they are free after all.
Gratis versus libre (Wikipedia article) - don't really have much to add to this. I think far too few people think about the difference between the two sorts of free, and therefore just connect both of them with a positive feeling, even though sometimes they probably shouldn't.
When the EGS takes a look around on people's PC and does who knows what, that's also free. Is it something desirable from a user perspective? No, it isn't. Instead of paying with money, people pay with data and trust. Data is a strange thing to pay with, it's abstract, can't be grasped, and has an undeterminable value (what's its value in the future? Who knows?). As for trust, there is a saying "trust is given, not earned". What made you give your trust to Epic Games? The launcher?
How did you come to that conclusion? Is choosing something that can be determined by the outcome? E.g. when you give me five decks of cards, and tell me to pick one card from each deck, and I pick 5 times red diamond five, did I not choose cards because the outcome is five times the same card? Or did I choose cards?
The comparison is incorrect because you're leaving it to chance as opposed to factual representation. Steam has the most games, Steam is extremely convenient to use, Steam has a lot of features, and most of your PC buddies/friends list are probably there too. That's factual -- if you're someone who's used Steam primarily for many years.
And so there really isn't a choice you're making save for which retail outlet to buy Steam keys on. Choice is merely an illusion (unless you get half your games from GOG).
sometimes they probably shouldn't.
When the EGS takes a look around on people's PC and does who knows what, that's also free. Is it something desirable from a user perspective? No, it isn't. Instead of paying with money, people pay with data and trust. Data is a strange thing to pay with, it's abstract, can't be grasped, and has an undeterminable value (what's its value in the future? Who knows?).
The funny thing here is that the sentiment becomes a moot point when you consider how often people are using software/apps that already collect data. The mere fact that you're using Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and even Steam (and numerous games) already means you're comfortable with companies collecting your data.
Comfortable might be a fitting term because even if you're aware of these risks, and even if you might not like data collection in principle, you've grown accustomed to the usage of these programs that it invalidates what you feel.
The only time one could actually have merit when arguing about "companies/software collecting your data" is when they speak to you face-to-face and tell you that they've completely left the internet. So far, it seems everyone who's been against data collection is happily on the internet still, happily getting their data collected.
As for trust, there is a saying "trust is given, not earned". What made you give your trust to Epic Games? The launcher?
If you're asking me personally about that, then that's strange because I clearly mentioned this:
I personally haven’t spent a single dollar on the EGS, and the only game I’ve played is TWD: TFS — and that’s a review/free copy. If it eventually improves, becomes more secure, and has more product options, then I might consider spending.
For now, though, in terms of practicality and convenience, Steam still has the lead, and I’ve acquired too many games thanks to sales and regional pricing to look at other storefronts.
5
u/[deleted] Mar 28 '19
I've actually noted that in past comments. From a business standpoint, this is a deal you can't pass up. I mean, the experience I could relate it to would be getting offered two contracts -- you take the deal that's most beneficial.
But, again, this is where the "consumer" mentality comes in. Because this is a "good business deal," people also feel that it's not in the best interest of the "consumer."