yeah thats why I said gaming is not a certainty to get risen piracy, but what I do know is that a noticeable amount of consumers want everything on steam, and so see it as a barrier if they have to use another launcher.
Epic Games Store now open!
- Thread starter ic1male
- Start date
yeah thats why I said gaming is not a certainty to get risen piracy, but what I do know is that a noticeable amount of consumers want everything on steam, and so see it as a barrier if they have to use another launcher.
dont agree with that.
EA make a killing with fifa games, yet the content diversity from them has decreased and by a significant amount.
When was the last dragon age game? as an example.
Microsoft killed off studios yet they make decent money, less content diversity.
Rockstar make a killing from GTA5, result? all single player DLC cancelled for the game and no new game for several years until RDR2.
Instead they seem to restrict their products to IP's that are low risk and spend more money on fewer titles. They make games with bigger budgets? yes, more games? no.
But bigger budgets also raises expectations, I dont care for big budget size of games, most of my favourite games are low budget.
To point out you dont need a big budget for a good game, unless you fooled by realistic graphics, and value novelty things like graphics over gameplay.
The product diversity from the big studios is hitting tipping point, its very very bad right now, most games produced are online multiplayer, have micro transactions in one form or another, and are usually shooters as well.
That wasn't my point. People are talking about getting people to use yet another launcher. Well that part is sorted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,150
Just downloading subnautica now, should there be some sort of confirmtaion email, as i didn't get one for registering or when i 'bought' the game?
Ah fair enough. I'm not sure thats what most people have been talking about in this thread when they refer to competition, but noted.
I think its a little naive from a business point of view to expect a company to sit on a software product until its got parity with its competitors.
They need it to be making money as early as they can (whilst having acceptable features) to then feed back into its development. If they wait until its feature complete then they will continually be chasing steam with features and it will never be released. They can also ride the current popularity of Fortnite to get it exposed to a very large number of potential customers overnight.
The indie developers pulling their games of steam have simply guaranteed I wont buy their games. What exposure do they get to me when I dont even have the epic launcher installed. Also as popular as fortnite may be, its userbase wont be anywhere near steam's. Indie's jumping ship for an extra 10% or so but from much lower sales seems ludicrous, its like saying yeah I prefer 90% of £100 to 50% of £1000, just because its a bigger share even tho its less money.
But on the other hand the dev's jumping early will also get more exposure by fact the platform has hardly any games so they competing with less indie developers, that side of it makes sense. So I can understand adding epic as an extra launcher, but not ditching steam, they should have just been on both launchers. Epic I expect paid them a fair lump of cash for the timed exclusivity. Which as I said earlier its a practice I dont like in the games industry.
Now I do have the GOG launcher, what got me pulled over to that was the DRM policies. Thats a proper unique killer feature.
But on the other hand the dev's jumping early will also get more exposure by fact the platform has hardly any games so they competing with less indie developers, that side of it makes sense. So I can understand adding epic as an extra launcher, but not ditching steam, they should have just been on both launchers. Epic I expect paid them a fair lump of cash for the timed exclusivity. Which as I said earlier its a practice I dont like in the games industry.
Now I do have the GOG launcher, what got me pulled over to that was the DRM policies. Thats a proper unique killer feature.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 6,848
This is why I think the best solution would be a system where the base price is the same on ALL storefronts but the steam/epic/oculus/what ever storefront fee is added on top and paid for by the consumer, that way if users really want to pay valve tax for the steam service they can pay it, others may want the absolute cheapest price and accept a more limited store front, that way valve don't get to use their almost monopoly position as a way to force Devs to accept smaller profits and it keeps all store fronts honest
OR we could buy DRM free direct from the Dev and not get any store front extras (but Devs would need to sort out their own network infrastructure so this last bit may not be offered for online MP games)
OR we could buy DRM free direct from the Dev and not get any store front extras (but Devs would need to sort out their own network infrastructure so this last bit may not be offered for online MP games)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 6,848
Indeed that is good of them. But I see you do not hold valve to the same standard. What if I want to buy half-life 2 or left for dead or dota2 without going through steam?
It is valve who started this whole mess by being the 1st company to lock software behind a forced 3rd party client
Last edited:
They may have started it but overall no one really cares because they barely make anything anymore. The fact is GOG is never going to allow no-hassle refunds without DRM and no doubt eventually the EU will legislate that refunding is a consumer right regardless of the products quality, along with it being regulated to not be abused (limited periods, what have you).
They can't survive that.
No, it needed to as good if not better than steam on Launch it really is that simple.
I suppose I dont care as they were first to market.
I'm completely launcher agnostic - I don't get people who "only" buy games on Steam.
I buy them wherever they are cheapest. So long as the launcher functions correctly, that's all I care about.
If I were to choose which launcher I like the best, it would be GoG.
I buy them wherever they are cheapest. So long as the launcher functions correctly, that's all I care about.
If I were to choose which launcher I like the best, it would be GoG.
Because there are features on Steam that aren't available elsewhere. I like the rewards system, because you can acquire trading cards simply by playing, and then sell them on the marketplace for credit. I sold a bunch recently and bought Yakuza 0 with the proceeds. You can also sell cosmetics, which means PUBG has essentially paid for itself!
Then there's big picture mode, cloud saving, refunds, third-party controller support, VR etc.
Permabanned
On what premise are you basing that?
Do you have insider knowledge that gives support to that claim? I find it peculiar that a company worth eight billion US dollars would so haphazardly go ahead and launch a platform against the grain of market research.
I find it peculiar that companies like Bethesda and Blizzard are completely out of touch with their target audience, to the point of undermining their own reputation! Large companies are not exempt from making stupid decisions, especially in the pursuit of profit, and that includes releasing a barebones client to the masses.
Permabanned
No one's denying they can make mistakes.
But where's your objective argument to say that Epic making a launcher is a mistake?
Their mistake is treating it like a direct competitor to Steam, which it's not.
It's the equivalent of releasing a video streaming service which is advertised as a rival to Netflix, with only one or two good shows and a handful of obscure movies, and no features such as family sharing and offline playback. It wouldn't be well-received!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 6,848
i dunno, to me the client must be stable, low footprint and store any games i have bought on it in a clear manner with easy links to download
everything else is optional.... so your trading cards, achievements, forums, yada yada yada really are not core features which i think should stop the launch of a store front....
To be honest i think there is a fundamental difference of opinion here which i do not think can be resolved.
Some people think that all games should be on steam and that it is the developers/publishers who should be expected to foot the bill to be on steam.
Other people just want the games to be as affordable as possible (and good quality of course but that is not relevant to this discussion) and do not mind if the developer chooses to save the valve tax.
The problem as I see it however is, imagine, i dunno, Frontier for instance chose to have a sale on their own store front... in theory they can cut 30% off fees without it affecting their bottom line too much IF bought direct from then.
that is all well and good, however oftentimes some of the same people who insist in buying their games only on steam, would also complain IF Frontier were selling their game for 30% less on their own store than on steam, even tho the net cost to Frontier would be the same on both.
everything else is optional.... so your trading cards, achievements, forums, yada yada yada really are not core features which i think should stop the launch of a store front....
To be honest i think there is a fundamental difference of opinion here which i do not think can be resolved.
Some people think that all games should be on steam and that it is the developers/publishers who should be expected to foot the bill to be on steam.
Other people just want the games to be as affordable as possible (and good quality of course but that is not relevant to this discussion) and do not mind if the developer chooses to save the valve tax.
The problem as I see it however is, imagine, i dunno, Frontier for instance chose to have a sale on their own store front... in theory they can cut 30% off fees without it affecting their bottom line too much IF bought direct from then.
that is all well and good, however oftentimes some of the same people who insist in buying their games only on steam, would also complain IF Frontier were selling their game for 30% less on their own store than on steam, even tho the net cost to Frontier would be the same on both.
Last edited: