Epic Games Store now open!

uncle_rufus said:
"it's nice to have a choice"

Well that choice is what Epic are choosing to take away from you, and if they get there way over time more and more "choice" will be removed for you
Click to expand...

I think you're taking it way out of context. It's okay for Steam to do it because there wasn't an alternative? Well there are now alternatives and they didn't do it with Half Life: Alyx but that's okay because Steam are the good guys? Steam are in it for the money as much as anyone else are. Epic will stop doing the exclusives because it was a way to drive people to there platform just like Steam did with the Half Life series. As the platform becomes more popular, which it has done with them giving free games like GTA V, they won't need to do the exclusives as much.



M.
 
Frubeling said:
That was Phoenix Point
I got it refunded when they made that announcement. I have no issue with the EGS, but I don't like being outright lied to.
Funnily enough I still got the game and all the other backer perks despite refunding
Click to expand...

Metro: Exodus too, people pre-ordered on Steam and then Epic spunked a load of cash to make it an exclusive. And even the physical copies had a crappy EGS sticker placed over the Steam logo on the case.
 
m4cc45 said:
I think you're taking it way out of context. It's okay for Steam to do it because there wasn't an alternative? Well there are now alternatives and they didn't do it with Half Life: Alyx but that's okay because Steam are the good guys? Steam are in it for the money as much as anyone else are. Epic will stop doing the exclusives because it was a way to drive people to there platform just like Steam did with the Half Life series. As the platform becomes more popular, which it has done with them giving free games like GTA V, they won't need to do the exclusives as much.
Click to expand...

You said it was nice to have a choice (about what launcher to buy games on). Epic are actively trying to take that choice away from you by finding games that would otherwise have likely come out on multiple launchers (i.e. the choice you are praising) and instead having them only release on their launcher (hence removal of your choices)

Valve didn't make Half Life just to drive people to Steam, they created Steam in an attempt to make it easier to distribute games and updates for them etc (which didn't really exist prior, and is a model that has been copied by tons of others since, Epic included). But they haven't ever taken someone else's game off of other stores just to restrict it to their own, that is the objectionable part of this. I think I have 7 or 8 launchers on my system, and am more than happy to buy games through any of them depending on what is cheapest, and I agree that Steam has plenty of clunkiness and problems - but Epic are a bunch of hypocrites who do not have any good intentions towards PC gaming as a whole (people must have very short memories because it wasn't long ago all Tim could bang on about was how we were all pirates and the platform was pointless to develop for - around the time they killed Unreal Tourny)
 
uncle_rufus said:
Valve didn't make Half Life just to drive people to Steam, they created Steam in an attempt to make it easier to distribute games and updates for them etc (which didn't really exist prior, and is a model that has been copied by tons of others since, Epic included). But they haven't ever taken someone else's game off of other stores just to restrict it to their own, that is the objectionable part of this)
Click to expand...

But they did. When Valve first opened up Steam to non-valve games they signed exclusivity deals with the first games on the system. An example of this is Darwinia, for which digital copies had to be removed from the devs own store and had to be sold via Steam - https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203

Once Steam got traction, I'm sure exclusivity deals were not required because they didn't have any direct competition.

[edit] Re-reading that thread, it's interesting how history repeats itself. 16 years ago, gamers were concerned about dev/storefront cut (it was claimed Steam took 40% back then), lack of Linux support, and general performance of the client :)
 
Exactly - all companies will do it to drive people to there platform.

HL2 was available on CD so you can't just say that Steam was created because of that. They wanted to build a platform that was going to drive revenue. If the platform was not going to make them money then it wouldn't be there now.

It's not about making great games anymore it's about making money.



M.
 
ZombieFan said:
But they did. When Valve first opened up Steam to non-valve games they signed exclusivity deals with the first games on the system. An example of this is Darwinia, for which digital copies had to be removed from the devs own store and had to be sold via Steam - https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203

Once Steam got traction, I'm sure exclusivity deals were not required because they didn't have any direct competition.

[edit] Re-reading that thread, it's interesting how history repeats itself. 16 years ago, gamers were concerned about dev/storefront cut (it was claimed Steam took 40% back then), lack of Linux support, and general performance of the client :)
Click to expand...

There are certainly some parallels, but given the state of things at the time there was a far stronger emphasis and benefit on the developer's side - you agreed to make Steam your distribution platform of choice (versus hocking keys / downloads via your own website) and give them a cut and in return you got Valve's infrastructure and support behind your game (which at the time was a new and pretty significant offering versus what had been available before - i.e. nothing really).

So I think it's unfair or at least a little disingenuous to say that Valve back then did what Epic are doing now. If Epic were to do something equivalent it would be more like - look at the current state of things (which granted are different now to when Steam was created), assess the main problems and ways they could improve them, and then launch their own competing service that does things better (Steam has plenty of issues that a competing service could do better and would feel like a breath of fresh air).

Compete on price, compete on features (for both users and/or developers), compete by directly funding development of new "Netflix Originals" style games to drive attention to their platform**. But instead they are going the Google Stadia or Amazon style route of just blasting $400 million down the pan trying to buy their way in without doing anything to contribute to the market they are entering. I am not for a second trying to suggest Valve are some messianic organisation that aren't in it for the money too, but they at least appear to recognise that you have to offer something to justify your place in the market other than bags of Fortnite cash

** And before anyone says it, paying already practically finished game's publishers massive amounts of cash to restrict to their store is not the same thing as funding development of a title :p
 
ZombieFan said:
But they did. When Valve first opened up Steam to non-valve games they signed exclusivity deals with the first games on the system. An example of this is Darwinia, for which digital copies had to be removed from the devs own store and had to be sold via Steam - https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203
Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't think I would have ever played Darwinia if it hadn't been on Steam. Turned out to be one of the best games I've ever played and still is 16 years later.
 
I think a lot of this is down to a dislike of Tim Sweeney TBH (he is a bit of a dick)
I have had 2 EGS accounts, one I gave to my friend's boy when we built him a PC and the other is accruing games for the hell of it.
I personally do not see the difference between this and publisher launchers that have had exclusive titles for as long as they have been around. It is only now that they are moving to Steam as a storefront ie EA (not available on EGS). Have the EGS chucked money at exclusives over Steam? Hell yeah, Have some bee time-limited releases? yes. Is it only the publishers and devs winning? sort of. Will EGS as we know it go away? defo. They simply can't sustain the current business model and it will be interesting when they do throw the towel in as to what happens to those who have actually spent money with them.
EGS offers nothing to me personally to go with it. All my stuff is on steam or publisher launchers. I don't buy the "another launcher on my PC" that is just throwing toys out the pram. Disable it in start up, just like the rest. What is attractive to those indie game producers that have taken the money, is the cut in storefront sales. However, Epic is not accustomed to breaking EULA to try and force their part of that pie and personally I think the EGS is just a tool to try and further that position in court with Google and Apple. If they fail in that endeavour, the EGS will fail as well. It will have served it's purpose as an outlier to point back to in that case. If they win, it will change direction and Tim Sweeney will be insufferable.
 
uncle_rufus said:
Compete on price, compete on features (for both users and/or developers), compete by directly funding development of new "Netflix Originals" style games to drive attention to their platform**. But instead they are going the Google Stadia or Amazon style route of just blasting $400 million down the pan trying to buy their way in without doing anything to contribute to the market they are entering. I am not for a second trying to suggest Valve are some messianic organisation that aren't in it for the money too, but they at least appear to recognise that you have to offer something to justify your place in the market other than bags of Fortnite cash
Click to expand...

Yea. I like Valve and have a massive Steam collection, but I do get annoyed when people (not claiming this is you!) take a polarized view of 'Steam good Epic Bad'. Let's not pretend Steam is whiter-than-white.

Valve have invested a lot into Steam but most (all?) of the features are intended to either encourage people to not wander off the platform (forums, reviews, videos, workshop etc) or to rinse money from customers (badges, wallet, trading cards etc). Linux support, Steam Boxes (remember them?) and Steam VR where investments to protect their revenue stream from potential competitor threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom