Epic Games Store - the console war comes to PC

[Curratum]

Maybe they're exclusive to Steam because no other platform cares to offer service to Linux

Steam has more people playing games on Mac than on Linux. This should tell you a lot about why nobody cares about people on Linux.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Maybe they're exclusive to Steam because no other platform cares to offer service to Linux

Steam has more people playing games on Mac than on Linux. This should tell you a lot about why nobody cares about people on Linux.

 

[Black Angel]

You guys spoke only about Valve games being only on Steam, and I was clarifying there's a fuckton of games only on Steam. I know you see a massive difference between exclusively on Steam and exclusive to Steam, as if it matters to the consumer, but it's still helpful to point out the whole "games should be available everywhere" crusade you guys are supposedly on stops at Steam's doorstep. When something is only on Steam, you don't complain. I've told you a thousand times I hate clients, and my preferred platform is GOG. Are you upset I can't buy shit like Resident Evil 3 on GOG? I doubt it.

And Epic's shenanigans supposed to change all this?

The most important question you forgot to ask here. GOG has been around for far longer, but only when Epic starts making a fuss (in the wrong way, no less) does you cucks starts preaching to the choir.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

no other platform cares to offer service to Linux

Even Linux doesn't offer service to Linux.

 

[Reinhardt]

If epic is so great and steam is so shit then why everyone jump to steam as soon as exclusivity period ends but no one release their games on epic after steam without bribe?

 

[abija]

SamSho as a EGS exclusive with its lack of native controller support, no userbase and no crossplay is dead on arrival

How does it work on Stadia if it has no controller support?

 

[DalekFlay]

Being exclusive to Steam is objectively better than being exclusive to Epic tho.

Steam is a fuck-lot better than Epic, sure. And if most people were honest in their arguments by saying "I want everything on Steam and Epic is cock-blocking me" then that would be one thing. It's the hypocritical "games should be available everywhere!!!" argument that rings hollow, when those people never complained once about things being exclusively available through Steam.

The most important question you forgot to ask here. GOG has been around for far longer, but only when Epic starts making a fuss (in the wrong way, no less) does you cucks starts preaching to the choir.

My cucks does been preaching against DRM since Mass Effect had a SecuROM activation limit, but history has shown very few people give a damn so there's not much point bringing it up anymore.

 

[Curratum]

Maybe they're exclusive to Steam because no other platform cares to offer service to Linux

Steam has more people playing games on Mac than on Linux. This should tell you a lot about why nobody cares about people on Linux.

Hahaha. No.

 

[fantadomat]

LoL you do know that those numbers are not really accurate,many people don't allow steam to get their numbers.

 

[Black Angel]

My cucks does been preaching against DRM since Mass Effect had a SecuROM activation limit, but history has shown very few people give a damn so there's not much point bringing it up anymore.

Implying Steam's DRM is anywhere near the atrocity that is SecuROM, but that's not my point.

My point is that GOG has been around long enough to be seen as a proper competition to Steam, and if people were truly butthurt about Steam deciding to make their games exclusive to their own storefront AND developers/publishers not making their games available without needing Steam, then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning? I'll be honest here I don't know how GOG started, but the way I see it GOG is literally everything that Steam wasn't (complete, full-on DRM-free products AND a catalog of old games not published on Steam).
And so seeing you cucks applauding Epic's shenanigans and their 'one upping Steam's (((((((((((monopoly))))))))))))' when the reality is they ALSO robbed GOG of a chance to get Day 1 release is just facepalming.

 

[Dexter]

In both cases devs make those deals because they earn money.

There are no "deals" with Valve to keep games Exclusive to their platform. Devs are allowed and sometimes encouraged to release on other platforms or Stores, or on their own Website or whatever. Your issue is either with the developers only releasing on Steam for whatever reason or with Valve for making such a good service customers are flocking to that developers don't think it's worthwhile to release on other Stores.

 

[Silentstorm]

People have been championing GOG from the very start, at least those who can't stand DRM but also don't mind digital copies since some people refuse to get any game that isn't in a physical form, and GOG fan's attempts have not been that successful, mostly because a lot of gamers really really don't care about DRM to a point where they get genuinely confused seeing people hate clients so damn much.

 

[DalekFlay]

then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning?

I've literally been cheering GOG since the very beginning and saying I hate all clients. I don't think you pay attention very well, you just scream "EPIK CUKKK!" and think it's some kind of deep analysis.

 

[Silentstorm]

Heck, there are people who apparently only have Steam accounts to ask for games on GOG, seriously, i have seen quite a few threads on game forums in Steam for indie or the more interesting games that aren't on GOG, and you get threads of people asking the developers to put the game on GOG saying they don't really get anything on Steam, again, making me think they only made accounts to ask developers to use GOG more.

I don't think it ever worked, for example, a game that quickly came to mind, Wild Guns Reloaded, i recall seeing someone asking for the game on GOG, the developer saying it probably won't happen, and sure enough, it's not on GOG, but it's not as if no one tried to get the game on GOG, developers just tend to go for Steam.

 

[Black Angel]

then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning?

I've literally been cheering GOG since the very beginning and saying I hate all clients. I don't think you pay attention very well, you just scream "EPIK CUKKK!" and think it's some kind of deep analysis.

We're both screaming past each others ears here. Did you not notice some dumbfucks like Perkel and the likes keeps parroting Steam monopoly? And did you not notice Dexter's arguments that, perhaps, as I also has been saying over and over again, the problem isn't with Valve/Steam (who are exact opposite of the problem in truth, because they offered such good service in the first place), but with developers and publishers who for some reason didn't release their games anywhere else other than Steam?

But I think I get what other people felt when Valve decided to lock their games on Steam back in 2004. Half Life Alyx has just been released but you need VR. Meanwhile I don't have VR and I don't think I'll get one in foreseeable future, but I understand it's Valve's game and just like with Steam they're trying to pave a path to a market (which, this time happened to already have a size, no matter how small it seems in comparison to already existing ones).

I'm sad, but what can I do? It's not like they bribed a developer/publisher who is halfway through developing their games to exclusively publish their games on their (half-assed) storefront, no matter if only for a year or half.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Steam doesn't have a monopoly, it's a market leader. They aren't the same thing.
If Steam was actively paying developers to exclusively publish on their platform then you'd have an argument. Hmm…

 

[DalekFlay]

We're both screaming past each others ears here. Did you not notice some dumbfucks like Perkel and the likes keeps parroting Steam monopoly? And did you not notice Dexter's arguments that, perhaps, as I also has been saying over and over again, the problem isn't with Valve/Steam (who are exact opposite of the problem in truth, because they offered such good service in the first place), but with developers and publishers who for some reason didn't release their games anywhere else other than Steam?

Valve also didn't create Steam and push Steamworks for altruistic reasons though, let's be honest. They knew the more essential they made Steam to the modern features people wanted, and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have. Trust me I get your argument that it's a different thing, and I agree... and Valve earned that power, which is also important to point out. I've said many times Valve saved the PC at a very tricky point in its history. I get why Epic coming in and throwing money around to try and get into the same position is seen as shitty. However I also think "I just wants games to be available anywhere" is spin-talk for "I want all my games on Steam" most of the time. No one was upset about 90% of AAA PC games being only available through Steam for a decade, earned or not.

The "Valve earned my loyalty and I want all my games in the same place, so fuck you Sweeney" argument is one that makes a lot more sense. We'd still disagree probably, because of the DRM issue and me not liking the idea of one company having so much control, but I respect that position.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have

IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.

 

[Sentinel]

and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have.

Steam had exclusives because it was the only platform with a DRM option for a very long time. Other stores (like uPlay and Origin) did not accept third parties, which meant that Steam was the only option.

 

[DalekFlay]

IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.

I'm talking about stuff the Xbox 360 popularized that Valve brought to PC, like friends lists, achievements, etc. You could put those in the game itself (replayed FEAR 2 recently and it did that) but it wasn't the same as the social media style implementation on the official big services. It's a big reason people want all their games in one place, and a big reason publishers didn't bother releasing games elsewhere. Which again, is fine... Steam worked for those games to be only on Steam. Just don't tell me you're all about games being available on any store if you never cared about them only being on Steam. Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining, as they say.

As for DRM, Steam made DRM people tolerated, yes, for those features. This was all by design, go read Newell's "games as a service" talks from 15 years ago, he lays it all out.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Being exclusive to Steam is objectively better than being exclusive to Epic tho.

People are so stupid. The main problem with Steam is that it runs like a dog's ass and makes some of your games disappear when you uninstall them. You want to provide an alternative, make a better platform, more friendly, reliable and intuitive. It's that simple. In the long run it will be a battle of attrition. But they will have none of that, instead, they want to force gamers with stupid exclusives that make developers lazy and unproductive. Imbeciles.

 

[Sentinel]

Yes he lays the philosophy of "piracy is a service problem" all out. That's what Steam is - the service is better than what pirates offer. Steam has stayed true to that.

As some guy said above Steam isn't a monopoly as much as it's a market leader. It just has no competition, no one puts any effort. Not because Valve stops the competition, but because they're either unwilling or unable to compete due to incompetence.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.

I'm talking about stuff the Xbox 360 popularized that Valve brought to PC, like friends lists, achievements, etc. You could put those in the game itself (replayed FEAR 2 recently and it did that) but it wasn't the same as the social media style implementation on the official big services. It's a big reason people want all their games in one place, and a big reason publishers didn't bother releasing games elsewhere. Which again, is fine... Steam worked for those games to be only on Steam. Just don't tell me you're all about games being available on any store if you never cared about them only being on Steam. Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining, as they say.

As for DRM, Steam made DRM people tolerated, yes, for those features. This was all by design, go read Newell's "games as a service" talks from 15 years ago, he lays it all out.

Maybe if developers didn't make their games exclusive to windows I would care when their game is exclusive to the platform that lets me play windows games on my OS.

 

[DalekFlay]

Yes he lays the philosophy of "piracy is a service problem" all out. That's what Steam is - the service is better than what pirates offer. Steam has stayed true to that.

As some guy said above Steam isn't a monopoly as much as it's a market leader. It just has no competition, no one puts any effort. Not because Valve stops the competition, but because they're either unwilling or unable to compete due to incompetence.

This is absolutely true. I wish people cared more about DRM free than they do Steam's features, but they don't. I have also said many times that Epic banking on exclusives and freebies long term is retarded. They can get people there with those, but they can't keep them. I'm not sure there's any way to keep them after giving Steam free reign for 15 years.

Maybe if developers didn't make their games exclusive to windows I would care when their game is exclusive to the platform that lets me play windows games on my OS.

Not sure two companies having more power than they should is better than one, but I get the defeatism.

 

[Black Angel]

Valve also didn't create Steam and push Steamworks for altruistic reasons though, let's be honest.

But I, and I believe everyone else who's been called Steam fanboys ITT, never argued that Valve has *any* altruistic reasons. Our point all along is Epic shenanigans are NOT the correct way to compete with the current market leader, let alone slicing a piece of the cake for themselves.

They knew the more essential they made Steam to the modern features people wanted, and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have. Trust me I get your argument that it's a different thing, and I agree... and Valve earned that power, which is also important to point out. I've said many times Valve saved the PC at a very tricky point in its history. I get why Epic coming in and throwing money around to try and get into the same position is seen as shitty.

Meh, if Gaben is here and saw what you wrote here I'm pretty sure he would say something along these lines:

However I also think "I just wants games to be available anywhere" is spin-talk for "I want all my games on Steam" most of the time. No one was upset about 90% of AAA PC games being only available through Steam for a decade, earned or not.

The "Valve earned my loyalty and I want all my games in the same place, so fuck you Sweeney" argument is one that makes a lot more sense. We'd still disagree probably, because of the DRM issue and me not liking the idea of one company having so much control, but I respect that position.

Now you're being dishonest here. Does people pointing out they've prioritized GOG ITT not matter to you? Or the fact that GOG admitted they actually could compete with Steam if they get a chance to Day 1 release games with Steam? And that Epic shenanigans hurts GOG more than it hurts Steam?
There's the matter of GOG not accepting some of more niche games, unfortunately, which pushed some people here away and back to Steam. But that doesn't translate to "I want all my games on Steam" like you've been accusing people who're not okay with Epic's shenanigans ITT.

I get that you aren't okay with launchers and DRM, and I got that the nth time you mentioned it. But what I'm objecting to is your stance that everyone who complained about Epic's shenanigans just 'wants all their games on Steam'. It's not true, and for some reason you just can't accept it.