Epic Games Store - the console war comes to PC

[Silly Germans]

Steam drove me to 100% piracy of all steam exclusives that I'm interested in.
Gabe was right when he said piracy is a service problem. I will not pay for a service that forces me to install and 24/7 run third party software unrelated to the game I'm trying to play. DRM is the single greatest service problem with video games.

I fully agree. That the success of Steam would lead to the use of launchers including telemetry(the nice euphemism for spyware) by other companies was obvious.
I still wish i could understand how the minds of people work that defend/use Steam while at the same time criticizing Epic, given that these retards are responsible for the current state of things.

 

[J_C]

I still wish i could understand how the minds of people work that defend/use Steam while at the same time criticizing Epic, given that these retards are responsible for the current state of things.

Let me help you with this. We don't want to use a dozen game launchers to play our games, and like to have all of our collection in one place. How many launchers do we have now? It's almost a dozen.

 

[FeelTheRads]

We don't want to use a dozen game launchers to play our games, and like to have all of our collection in one place.

Right, so therefore nobody but Valve should be allowed to sell games. Got it.

How many launchers do we have now? It's almost a dozen.

Even one is too many. But I never hear you crying when a game requires you to use Steam (and ONLY Steam).

 

[cvv]

I still wish i could understand how the minds of people work that defend/use Steam while at the same time criticizing Epic, given that these retards are responsible for the current state of things.

Let me help you with this. We don't want to use a dozen game launchers to play our games, and like to have all of our collection in one place. How many launchers do we have now? It's almost a dozen.

Do you own only Steam games? You don't have anything on GOG or uPlay or Origin or Battlenet?

 

[Damned Registrations]

I still wish i could understand how the minds of people work that defend/use Steam while at the same time criticizing Epic, given that these retards are responsible for the current state of things.

Let me help you with this. We don't want to use a dozen game launchers to play our games, and like to have all of our collection in one place. How many launchers do we have now? It's almost a dozen.

Do you own only Steam games? You don't have anything on GOG or uPlay or Origin or Battlenet?

GOG and Battlenet games don't require starting up a separate launcher, and I avoid uPlay and Origin games for this exact reason. I have a few games on Epic store (mostly free ones + the one game I wanted to try badly enough to pay for it) and I don't even open it up to check for whatever free shit they're peddling at this point, let alone play anything or buy shit.

 

[Blaine]

I have a multi-page GOG library. GOG games are DRM-free, and don't require a launcher.

I have a large Steam library because, frankly, I was in my early 20s in the early 2000s, and the ramifications of Steam as a DRM client didn't make much of an impression on me. I was eased into using it for digital distribution as it evolved. Regardless, Steam has evolved into a relatively trustworthy and consumer-friendly digital distribution/DRM platform. I continue to use it because it's so ubiquitous, and because I own a lot of titles through it; it's a grandfathered-in compromise.

I have never and will never use Origin, uPlay, nor any other publisher-specific DRM platform. I don't want my PC loaded down with invasive, datamining DRM clients. The Epic Store is actually worse than the lot of them because of their exclusivity bribing and the fact that they take all comers, especially independent games, and not just games under the umbrella of a particular publisher.

 

[J_C]

I still wish i could understand how the minds of people work that defend/use Steam while at the same time criticizing Epic, given that these retards are responsible for the current state of things.

Let me help you with this. We don't want to use a dozen game launchers to play our games, and like to have all of our collection in one place. How many launchers do we have now? It's almost a dozen.

Do you own only Steam games? You don't have anything on GOG or uPlay or Origin or Battlenet?

I have GOG games because the classics were available there, and it does not require a launcher. I have accounts on uPlay, Origin and Battlenet, but I never bought a game there. Not one, because I realized that I don't want to have half a dozen launcher on my computer.

 

[Silly Germans]

We could have been spared all those fucking launchers if people had boycotted Valve until they made their launcher optional.
We have even reached the point where launchers are made to handle launchers with GOG Galaxy 2.0.

 

[Blaine]

I'd also like to record my in-depth thoughts on exclusivity bribing and the many reasons why it's a bad thing.

Proponents suggest that exclusivity bribing is one of the only feasible ways (or at least the most immediately effective way) to compete with Valve's monopoly. That might be true, but nevertheless it's inarguable that these exclusivity agreements are deliberately intended to coerce users away from Steam and to the Epic Store. Anticipated games typically take a long time to release as it is; impatience is the entertainment media consumer's greatest weakness, so holding games hostage for a year following release unless consumers switch platforms is a powerful manipulative tool.

This should be obvious, but if the Epic Store's exclusivity bribing proves too effective, then Valve could conceivably choose compete with Epic for exclusivity agreements. Other digital distributors would quickly follow suit. Now, instead of one platform using "extracurricular" tactics to bribe titles away from Steam, every platform would be vying for exclusivity agreements. It would be an industry standard.

That brings me to my final point: Consolization. Consolization is a fundamental aspect of the decline which previously tended to affect games only on an individual level. This takes many forms, such as: simplified control schemes; console-focused UI design; limited level design to fit within a console's limited hardware capabilities; and many more. With the advent of exclusivity agreements across multiple DRM clients on the PC, the very distribution of all PC games threatens to become consolized. We're talking about platform exclusives on the same hardware platform, via DRM clients, aping game console title exclusivity.

 

[Valky]

Steam exclusivity and windows 10 have already consolized PC gaming.

 

[Blaine]

We could have been spared all those fucking launchers if people had boycotted Valve until they made their launcher optional.
We have even reached the point where launchers are made to handle launchers with GOG Galaxy 2.0.

You're not wrong. A lot of people have forgotten (or never knew to begin with), but there was a huge backlash against Steam when it was new. Back in the day, Western PC gamers were vehemently opposed to DRM clients, cash shops, on-disc DLC, exploitative DLC practices, exploitative gambling-like systems, the whole gamut.

Unfortunately, as PC ownership VERY rapidly became more and more accessible to the hoi polloi, the voices of the old guard carried less and less clout. Thus, it wouldn't have mattered how hard the old guard boycotted Steam. It was a boycott doomed to fail.

 

[Blaine]

Steam exclusivity and windows 10 have already consolized PC gaming.

There is no such thing as "Steam exclusivity" in a general sense. While Valve's own titles are exclusive to its own DRM platform, it doesn't require (or even seek out) exclusivity agreements with any of the thousands of other developers and publishers who use Valve's platform.

If a developer or publisher chooses to release their game via Steam only, then that's their choice. They receive no additional benefits, other than not needing to pay for other forms of DRM. In fact, this approach has some disadvantages, because there are people who refuse to use Steam. Since DRM is ineffective except in the very short team, their game will soon be pirated anyway.

In my ideal world, everyone would realize that DRM is entirely ineffective at combating piracy, publishers and developers would quit paying for it, and all games would be released through all digital distribution vectors.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If a developer or publisher chooses to release their game via Steam only, then that's their choice.

Getting money from Epic is also their choice. Getting a bribe is a choice. Epic didn't put a gun to anyone's head.
But did any Steamtard ever complain when a company didn't release their game anywhere else? Nope, they didn't, because they didn't care. All the rage against Epic from cucks who like to rent games while pretending they buy them boils down to "waaah it's not in my favurite shop"

it doesn't require (or even seek out) exclusivity agreements with any of the thousands of other developers and publishers who use Valve's platform.

And like I said a million times, it doesn't make any difference to the user. You HAVE to use Steam to get those game. More than that, an Epic exclusive likely ends after 1 year. There are games on Steam that have been there and only there for like 7 years if not more. And I'm not talking only about Valve's own game. There are way, way more Steam-only games and than probably any other platform. Including consoles. So I really can't see how waiting 1 year to get it somewhere else is worse than waiting forever if you don't like the current client/platform it's on.

 

[Silentstorm]

Honestly, i only didn't care for Epic because it just offers less of everything when compared to Steam, only offering free games which are mostly games i had already bought or the exclusives were not something i needed right now, and at least Steam lets people form their own communities and write reviews, oh, and have more payment options even having things like Steam Wallet cards just for places like Japan where people don't really care all that much about using credit cards to pay for stuff online.

That's the thing, Epic came in with much less stuff to a point where they really can only compete with exclusives...which are only there for a while on a store that has less features, at least GOG gives something different, Epic is really just "Steam but less", not that i didn't end up getting a few games but since Steam has most of my backlog and has more stuff i just mainly use that one.

Not getting into the "launcher" discussion, but honestly, i am one of those that really don't care about the Steam DRM nor do i even notice it, heck, i can play the games offline and i know that because there were a few times i had a power outage, and the saves were still there afterwards.

 

[cvv]

Valve doesn't require (or even seek out) exclusivity agreements

They didn't need to. If Sweeney came up with the idea of a digital store first and Newell decided to butt in 15 years later he would've gone after exclusives too because he wouldn't have had a choice. Not that exclusives help Epic anyway, Steam is WAY too entrenched for that. MAYBE if they were lifetime, juicy, AAA exclusives....but they're mostly indies that always come to Steam anyway so....lol. It's like going after a Tyrannosaurus Rex with a BB gun. Sweeney is literally throwing money out of the window, the fool that he is. Good for devs at least.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

If a developer or publisher chooses to release their game via Steam only, then that's their choice.

Getting money from Epic is also their choice. Getting a bribe is a choice. Epic didn't put a gun to anyone's head.
But did any Steamtard ever complain when a company didn't release their game anywhere else? Nope, they didn't, because they didn't care. All the rage against Epic from cucks who like to rent games while pretending they buy them boils down to "waaah it's not in my favurite shop"

it doesn't require (or even seek out) exclusivity agreements with any of the thousands of other developers and publishers who use Valve's platform.

And like I said a million times, it doesn't make any difference to the user. You HAVE to use Steam to get those game. More than that, an Epic exclusive likely ends after 1 year. There are games on Steam that have been there and only there for like 7 years if not more. And I'm not talking only about Valve's own game. There are way, way more Steam-only games and than probably any other platform. Including consoles. So I really can't see how waiting 1 year to get it somewhere else is worse than waiting forever if you don't like the current client/platform it's on.

You dishonest little sack of shit.

This thread is full of people saying that they don't like Steam's monopolistic status, of people that are purposefully not buying titles on Steam because they're waiting to see if they'll appear on GOG so they can buy it there (for keeps, not rent) and of people that were wary (and still are) of Steam as a DRM platform right from the start. In short, people who DO care.

But you dismiss them all outright and brand them as "Steamtards", because you like that Epic Game Store cock so much and you want to show it as being a viable alternative to Steam, or just viable in general. They aren't, and it'll be a cold day in hell when they ever will be.

 

[Metro]

You're just now discovering FeeltheEdge has an irrational hatred and agenda against Steam?

 

[Reinhardt]

Epic Store is shit and has 0 interesting games is not because Steam is evul. It's because EPIC STORE IS SHIT, THEIR SERVICE IS SHIT AND THEIR GAMES ARE SHIT. It would still be shit if Epic was the only store in the world.

 

[Blaine]

If a developer or publisher chooses to release their game via Steam only, then that's their choice.

Getting money from Epic is also their choice. Getting a bribe is a choice. Epic didn't put a gun to anyone's head.

No, it's the not the same thing at all. Epic deliberately seeks developers of specific, highly anticipated games in order to bribe them; they actively work to influence them. Steam seeks out no one in particular, but passively offers its exposure and DRM model.

"But they can AFFORD to be passive!". Yes, but that doesn't matter. Epic is still like a pushy salesman eyeing wealthy-looking marks, while Steam is like a megacorp content to wait for consumers to choose products or services and proceed to the self-checkout.

Valve doesn't require (or even seek out) exclusivity agreements

They didn't need to.

Irrelevant. "B-BUT STEAM IS THE TITAN OF THE INDUSTRY!" isn't a blanket justification for anything and everything.

 

[Perkel]

No, it's the not the same thing at all. Epic deliberately seeks developers of specific, highly anticipated games in order to bribe them; they actively work to influence them. Steam seeks out no one in particular, but passively offers its exposure and DRM model.

I like when you say "bribe" as if Epic corrupted someone. Devs are free to make a deal with them or not. So if you have problem with that it should be completely on developers not on Epic, because Epic is in last position to force anything.

 

[DalekFlay]

I like when you say "bribe" as if Epic corrupted someone. Devs are free to make a deal with them or not. So if you have problem with that it should be completely on developers not on Epic, because Epic is in last position to force anything.

Developers are supposed to be pure, moral crusaders, risking massive losses by turning down sweet exclusivity deals so they can make sure no one has to leave Steam's wonderful embrace. WTF is wrong with you dude? Did you side with the Muslims during the crusades too? Because that's what I'm hearing!

 

[Silly Germans]

Epic Store is shit and has 0 interesting games is not because Steam is evul. It's because EPIC STORE IS SHIT, THEIR SERVICE IS SHIT AND THEIR GAMES ARE SHIT. It would still be shit if Epic was the only store in the world.

And Steam isn't shit ?

 

[Metro]

Developers are supposed to be pure, moral crusaders, risking massive losses by turning down sweet exclusivity deals so they can make sure no one has to leave Steam's wonderful embrace. WTF is wrong with you dude? Did you side with the Muslims during the crusades too? Because that's what I'm hearing!

My problem is with developers who try to argue 'this is a good thing' when they really just mean, 'well, we got bribed to do it.' Travis Baldree is a prime example of this nonsense.

 

[Silly Germans]

All i see are two piles of shit. One large, ripened and mature steaming pile of shit and then besides it a smaller pile trying to grow to epic proportions.
Additionally we see some flies buzzing around in the vicinity of the steaming pile making agitated noises every time some new shit is added to smaller pile.
Some flies are quick to adapt and don't mind giving each heap a chance while others seem very conservative and convinced that their pile is the one and only true piece of shit
begrudging every accretion of the newly formed cluster. All in all its not a niece view and the behavior of the flies is mind-boggling.

Unable to make sense of it i'll be gone and be done with this shit.

 

[Perkel]

Developers are supposed to be pure, moral crusaders, risking massive losses by turning down sweet exclusivity deals so they can make sure no one has to leave Steam's wonderful embrace. WTF is wrong with you dude? Did you side with the Muslims during the crusades too? Because that's what I'm hearing!

Wait a second.. you are trying to say that you shouldn't blame devs for making correct choice ? Is it me or the irony meter just broke down ?