I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
I simply equated your post to campaigning - you did after all say "I hope the Epic platform fails." but didn't say the same thing about Steam even though you said you dislike it.
We live in a world of choice. And competition. Which brings with it lots of TV channels, lots of game companies, lots of stores. Which means we have to put a tiny amount of effort in.
There is an alternative: you will buy from this store, you will watch this TV channel, you will bow like all those North Koreans etc. That is a different type of world. I hope it never arrives. So I will put up with the minor issue of having a few stores.
Ah yes fair enough.
I was just putting out there my point of view, not trying to change anyone else's mind on the matter thus my objection to the phrasing that I was "campaigning".
To the others, Epic doesn't provide anything for "free" they charge a 5% royalty, so calm your bleeding hearts.
Them poor poor starving devs are not really starving and get paid for their work whether a game fails or not much less a platform.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
My point being...
People are using "the devs" as a reason for profits. They don't see anything from profits, except the next salaried paycheck.
Indies I'll agree with, IF the developers ARE the publishers. Not all indies are run the same way.
It's still a consumer-centered viewpoint, even if it's advocating for dev studios getting more cash.
If a dev studio's game blows up, sure the devs themselves likely aren't going to see all the unexpected profit land in their pockets, but the studio will see a lot of extra dough with which to pursue future endeavors (continuing employment of said devs) and, if flush enough, might be tempted to take on riskier ideas. That's a win for gamers. The more they get of the sale price, the more cash the studio receives, the more resources with which the studio can invest in new projects.
We could all give Steam a $100 tip every time we buy a game off their store... It wouldn't mean a thing in terms of getting more great games. The storefront's not the point in and of itself. It's a support service for the point.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
My point being...
People are using "the devs" as a reason for profits. They don't see anything from profits, except the next salaried paycheck.
Indies I'll agree with, IF the developers ARE the publishers. Not all indies are run the same way.
It's still a consumer-centered viewpoint, even if it's advocating for dev studios getting more cash.
If a dev studio's game blows up, sure the devs themselves likely aren't going to see all the unexpected profit land in their pockets, but the studio will see a lot of extra dough with which to pursue future endeavors (continuing employment of said devs) and, if flush enough, might be tempted to take on riskier ideas. That's a win for gamers. The more they get of the sale price, the more cash the studio receives, the more resources with which the studio can invest in new projects.
We could all give Steam a $100 tip every time we buy a game off their store... It wouldn't mean a thing in terms of getting more great games. The storefront's not the point in and of itself. It's a support service for the point.
I totally agree! But the term "developers" is used as a "let's pay the workers/little guys more" kind of term to give arguments/discussions an extra punch in the gut.
"Epic store is better because the devs get more money." No. They don't. 30% vs 15% (is that right?) is a better cut for the company, but not the developers.
Now, if people added "house" to the end of developer, I wouldn't mind. Or if they used the word "company" instead of developer, I'd be fine, but people don't care and will write whatever will their give post more "oomph!"
Enough of this off-topic stuff. Sorry I brought it up
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It's still a consumer-centered viewpoint, even if it's advocating for dev studios getting more cash.
If a dev studio's game blows up, sure the devs themselves likely aren't going to see all the unexpected profit land in their pockets, but the studio will see a lot of extra dough with which to pursue future endeavors (continuing employment of said devs) and, if flush enough, might be tempted to take on riskier ideas. That's a win for gamers. The more they get of the sale price, the more cash the studio receives, the more resources with which the studio can invest in new projects.
We could all give Steam a $100 tip every time we buy a game off their store... It wouldn't mean a thing in terms of getting more great games. The storefront's not the point in and of itself. It's a support service for the point.
I totally agree! But the term "developers" is used as a "let's pay the workers/little guys more" kind of term to give arguments/discussions an extra punch in the gut.
"Epic store is better because the devs get more money." No. They don't. 30% vs 15% (is that right?) is a better cut for the company, but not the developers.
Now, if people added "house" to the end of developer, I wouldn't mind. Or if they used the word "company" instead of developer, I'd be fine, but people don't care and will write whatever will their give post more "oomph!"
Enough of this off-topic stuff. Sorry I brought it up
Fair point! I think it may be simple laziness, though; I think many folks may be implying the studio itself when they refer to "devs," but I also don't disagree that some have used terms and phrases to work that "little guy" angle into the argument, too.
Anything that benefits the folks creating these experiences seems like a win for those of us who enjoy playing those experiences. But what worthwhile, enjoyable experience do I get from Steam or Epic Store itself? Little to none. The stores are a tool, a means to an end, distribution support for the devs, nothing more. The idea that I should be "offended" by any of these tools when they aren't actively costing me money or enjoyable experiences is baffling to me (indeed, in this instance, Epic seems to be pursuing goals that would realistically help to create more enjoyable experiences for me).
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
My point being...
People are using "the devs" as a reason for profits. They don't see anything from profits, except the next salaried paycheck.
Indies I'll agree with, IF the developers ARE the publishers. Not all indies are run the same way.
It's still a consumer-centered viewpoint, even if it's advocating for dev studios getting more cash.
If a dev studio's game blows up, sure the devs themselves likely aren't going to see all the unexpected profit land in their pockets, but the studio will see a lot of extra dough with which to pursue future endeavors (continuing employment of said devs) and, if flush enough, might be tempted to take on riskier ideas. That's a win for gamers. The more they get of the sale price, the more cash the studio receives, the more resources with which the studio can invest in new projects.
We could all give Steam a $100 tip every time we buy a game off their store... It wouldn't mean a thing in terms of getting more great games. The storefront's not the point in and of itself. It's a support service for the point.
I totally agree! But the term "developers" is used as a "let's pay the workers/little guys more" kind of term to give arguments/discussions an extra punch in the gut.
"Epic store is better because the devs get more money." No. They don't. 30% vs 15% (is that right?) is a better cut for the company, but not the developers.
Now, if people added "house" to the end of developer, I wouldn't mind. Or if they used the word "company" instead of developer, I'd be fine, but people don't care and will write whatever will their give post more "oomph!"
Enough of this off-topic stuff. Sorry I brought it up
Or, you know, it is for brevity sake because it is obvious that everyone is talking about the development studios.
It's baffling to me to see so many consumers who are anti-competition; who want Steam to reign forever with a stranglehold as a game delivery platform. Hint: Competition among corporations is good for you. You end up getting better and cheaper products as a result of them clawing to stay on top.
It's baffling to me to see so many consumers who are anti-competition; who want Steam to reign forever with a stranglehold as a game delivery platform. Hint: Competition among corporations is good for you. You end up getting better and cheaper products as a result of them clawing to stay on top.
Not if the competitor is Epic. Might as well be EA next. No thanks.
I don't want big publisher to own distribution platforms
If you think that's healthy for the customers, you are quite naive.
Valve is a small developer, and never gave me the impression they are abusing their digital distribution monopoly. If it wasn't for Steam (and their generous discounts) my game library would have been so much smaller.
It's baffling to me how people twist themselves into pretzels trying to pass off a narrative that if you don't like EPIC and what they're doing it's anti-competition. Please understand how dumb that is and cut it out.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
It's baffling to me how people twist themselves into pretzels trying to pass off a narrative that if you don't like EPIC and what they're doing it's anti-competition. Please understand how dumb that is and cut it out.
Exactly. Those people forget how greedy big game publishers can be. Some people have really short memory.
If Epic was in the same position as Steam, I bet my balls, we wouldn't get the same type of discounts Steam offers on a weekly basis.
In fact the reason we get those kind of discounts is because the 30% commission gives Steam more leeway to offer better deals. If they asked 5% we wouldn't get those generous discounts without them losing money (like Epic is doing at the moment).
It's baffling to me to see so many consumers who are anti-competition; who want Steam to reign forever with a stranglehold as a game delivery platform. Hint: Competition among corporations is good for you. You end up getting better and cheaper products as a result of them clawing to stay on top.
Not if the competitor is Epic. Might as well be EA next. No thanks.
I don't want big publisher to own distribution platforms
If you think that's healthy for the customers, you are quite naive.
I'm asking sincerely, why?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Because big publishers are more greedy than anyone else?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Because big publishers are more greedy than anyone else?
Do you feel you are getting good value for your money from games released by big publishers in the past 5 years? I really don't.
Rushed releases, overpriced EAs, half backed games which get completed by expensive DLC (you pay for), Cash Shop galore, slot machine loot boxes.
And you want those companies to monopolize digital distribution? Really?
I am getting excellent value for my money. As I have mentioned this before, gaming is a cheap hobby and I love gaming now more than ever, there are more titles than before and definitely more work and monies are being invested in these titles. I am not saying this applies to every company's every single game, obviously. But in general, this is true. There are flaws, of course, but that's for a small part of the market. Which I can easily stay away from since I am having more options than ever.
As for your second question; more companies getting involved in digital distribution (no matter how evil you feel they are) is the exact opposite of a monopolized market. Few exclusive deals is part of the competition, not a monopoly. No one in Epic even dreams to eliminate Steam. They are struggling to secure their share in the market. Good for them.
And how is Epic a greedy big publisher anyways? They currently have one successful title. They don't have that much publishing going on. And I am not sure how Fortnite is considered greedy--it's a F2P game with a cosmetic shop, ain't it?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I am getting excellent value for my money. As I have mentioned this before, gaming is a cheap hobby and I love gaming now more than ever, there are more titles than before and definitely more work and monies are being invested in these titles.
I am not talking about all publishers (Valve is also a publisher/developer), I am talking about big publishers (EA, Activision/Bliz, Ubisoft, Bethesda, and now Epic)
Did you get good value for money from those publishers for the past few years? Do you feel they are customer friendly? I didn't get this impression.
Epic didn't do anything wrong yet, to be fair. But the huge success of Fortnite is quickly getting to their head (they expect to do in few months what Steam took 15 years to make).
The way they are trying to bully Steam out of business is not only clumsy, but their aggressive attitude doesn't make me feel too comfortable as a customer either.
Because big publishers are more greedy than anyone else?
Do you feel you are getting good value for your money from games released by big publishers in the past 5 years? I really don't.
Rushed releases, overpriced EAs, half backed games which get completed by expensive DLC (you pay for), Cash Shop galore, slot machine loot boxes.
And you want those companies to monopolize digital distribution? Really?
You really think Valve would be immune to that if they actually gave a fuck about their IPs and continued to make games? Valve intentionally let's these EXACT kinds of shit games be peddled to you via Steam.
So that's pretty naive, too, on your part. It's not just the big bads that make these mistakes.
You really think Valve would be immune to that if they actually gave a fuck about their IPs and continued to make games?
But they don't, they focus on their damn digital store.
Epic not only has the most lucrative game on the market, but also the best selling game Engine too, and now they want to have also the biggest digital store (and fast!). This is the kind of aggressive expansion big corporations like EA would do (like buy smaller developers because they can't create shit themselves), and we all know how much in touch with their customers and how caring those companies are, particularly the past few years.
The only certainty right now, is that Steam has always good deals, dozens, every single week. It saved me a shitload of money. And that's a fact.
You want to trust Epic to serve you better than Valve?
You really think Valve would be immune to that if they actually gave a fuck about their IPs and continued to make games?
But they don't, they focus on their damn digital store.
Epic not only has the most lucrative game on the market, but also the best selling game Engine too, and now they want to have also the biggest digital store (and fast!). This is the kind of aggressive expansion big corporations like EA would do (like buy smaller developers because they can't create shit themselves), and we all know how much in touch with their customers and how caring those companies are, particularly the past few years.
The only certainty right now, is that Steam has always good deals, dozens, every single week. It saved me a shitload of money. And that's a fact.
You want to trust Epic to serve you better than Valve?
Be my guest.
Lol no. I will use both to my advantage, because I'm not virtue signalling over freeware.
Besides, Valve was fine with taking our money for that shit ass broken game Atlas. They don't give a fuck about you like you think they do.
I bought two games I have no interest in playing, and one game there was a small chance I could like just to thumb my nose at the people raging at the epic store.
Its too bad I can't buy Outer Worlds yet - that's a game I know for certain I will like and really want. I think not putting that on pre-order was a really big mistake for not getting more people to jump onboard.
Lol no. I will use both to my advantage, because I'm not virtue signalling over freeware.
Besides, Valve was fine with taking our money for that shit ass broken game Atlas. They don't give a fuck about you like you think they do.
They are distributors, they don't do nanny duties. They are not responsible for the quality of a game. They just offer a service. We are responsible for what we buy. And there is a refund policy anyway.
If you go to Walmart and buy Fallout 76 and then you realize it's crap, you gonna blame Walmart because it sold you a shitty game? Why Steam should be treated different than any other retailer? And Walmart doesn't have a refund policy if you don't like a game. But Steam does.
All businesses want to make money, nobody disputes that. But there are business that do business more ethically than others.
Lastly, there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of both stores, that's fine. But remember that for Epic, this is just a temporary thing, because Epic desperately needs customers, and it is willing to bleed money in order to do so (Fortnite money).
Once they get where they want to be, and with Steam hopefully out of the way, you can be sure that all those juicy deals will be more difficult to find.
Again, I am not against competition, I am against big publishers taking control of the gaming distribution. I think we both want the same thing, we just disagree with who should deliver it.
Lol no. I will use both to my advantage, because I'm not virtue signalling over freeware.
Besides, Valve was fine with taking our money for that shit ass broken game Atlas. They don't give a fuck about you like you think they do.
They are distributors, they don't do nanny duties. They are not responsible for the quality of a game. They just offer a service. We are responsible for what we buy. And there is a refund policy anyway.
If you go to Walmart and buy Fallout 76 and then you realize it's crap, you gonna blame Walmart because it sold you a shitty game? Why Steam should be treated different than any other retailer? And Walmart doesn't have a refund policy if you don't like a game. But Steam does.
All businesses want to make money, nobody disputes that. But there are business that do business more ethically than others.
Lastly, there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of both stores, that's fine. But remember that for Epic, this is just a temporary thing, because Epic desperately needs customers, and it is willing to bleed money in order to do so (Fortnite money).
Once they get where they want to be, and with Steam hopefully out of the way, you can be sure that all those juicy deals will be more difficult to find.
Again, I am not against competition, I am against big publishers taking control of the gaming distribution. I think we both want the same thing, we just disagree with who should deliver it.
I still use Steam, so what's your point?
My point was Steam allows shitty games on their storefront because it can still make them money off a few shmucks. It's not to help the little guys or anything like that, but if you do believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
If Epic's store stops being useful to me, I'll stop using it. Same for Steam. This isn't hard. They're tools. They're free. One gives you free games every week or so. The other runs sales weekly. USE them, and stop trying to find things to be pissy over when they don't actually affect you in any way. You owe neither company any loyalty.
Or don't use them, I don't care either way. But shit people, the hate train for Epic is pathetic at this point.
My point was Steam allows shitty games on their storefront because it can still make them money off a few shmucks. It's not to help the little guys or anything like that, but if you do believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
My point was Steam allows shitty games on their storefront because it can still make them money off a few shmucks. It's not to help the little guys or anything like that, but if you do believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Steam is not Jesus, that's not what I am saying.
I don't think you read my whole post.
Valve IS a giant in this industry now. They're aren't some scrappy little studio or company like you seem to be arguing. And they seek profits like a heatseeking missile just like Epic and EA.
Steam IS a giant in this industry now. They're aren't some scrappy little studio like you seem to be arguing.
Yes they are giant in the digital distribution, that's what they are focusing their business on. It took them 15 years to be where they are, they didn't bulldozer the market with the help of a truck load of money made by a lucky game (Fortnite). They are not trying to take over every branch of the gaming industry, and they are not bullying other companies out of their business with dirty tricks.
Steam are not the good Samaritans, but I trust them more running a universal digital store than EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Bethesda or Epic.
I hope someone else will be able to challenge Steam, as long as they are none of the companies mentioned above.
Could you imagine EA's Origin Store taking over the digital distribution market? If Epic can do it, maybe EA could give it a go too. And do you think customers would be better or worse off if that happens? I don't even want to contemplate that scenario frankly.
Comments
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
If a dev studio's game blows up, sure the devs themselves likely aren't going to see all the unexpected profit land in their pockets, but the studio will see a lot of extra dough with which to pursue future endeavors (continuing employment of said devs) and, if flush enough, might be tempted to take on riskier ideas. That's a win for gamers. The more they get of the sale price, the more cash the studio receives, the more resources with which the studio can invest in new projects.
We could all give Steam a $100 tip every time we buy a game off their store... It wouldn't mean a thing in terms of getting more great games. The storefront's not the point in and of itself. It's a support service for the point.
"Epic store is better because the devs get more money." No. They don't. 30% vs 15% (is that right?) is a better cut for the company, but not the developers.
Now, if people added "house" to the end of developer, I wouldn't mind. Or if they used the word "company" instead of developer, I'd be fine, but people don't care and will write whatever will their give post more "oomph!"
Enough of this off-topic stuff. Sorry I brought it up
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Anything that benefits the folks creating these experiences seems like a win for those of us who enjoy playing those experiences. But what worthwhile, enjoyable experience do I get from Steam or Epic Store itself? Little to none. The stores are a tool, a means to an end, distribution support for the devs, nothing more. The idea that I should be "offended" by any of these tools when they aren't actively costing me money or enjoyable experiences is baffling to me (indeed, in this instance, Epic seems to be pursuing goals that would realistically help to create more enjoyable experiences for me).
Might as well be EA next. No thanks.
I don't want big publisher to own distribution platforms
If it wasn't for Steam (and their generous discounts) my game library would have been so much smaller.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Those people forget how greedy big game publishers can be.
Some people have really short memory.
If Epic was in the same position as Steam, I bet my balls, we wouldn't get the same type of discounts Steam offers on a weekly basis.
In fact the reason we get those kind of discounts is because the 30% commission gives Steam more leeway to offer better deals.
If they asked 5% we wouldn't get those generous discounts without them losing money (like Epic is doing at the moment).
But I want to ask another question myself.
Do you feel you've been ripped off by Steam?
And if the answer is yes.
Why?
I really don't.
Rushed releases, overpriced EAs, half backed games which get completed by expensive DLC (you pay for), Cash Shop galore, slot machine loot boxes.
And you want those companies to monopolize digital distribution?
Really?
As for your second question; more companies getting involved in digital distribution (no matter how evil you feel they are) is the exact opposite of a monopolized market. Few exclusive deals is part of the competition, not a monopoly. No one in Epic even dreams to eliminate Steam. They are struggling to secure their share in the market. Good for them.
And how is Epic a greedy big publisher anyways? They currently have one successful title. They don't have that much publishing going on. And I am not sure how Fortnite is considered greedy--it's a F2P game with a cosmetic shop, ain't it?
Did you get good value for money from those publishers for the past few years?
Do you feel they are customer friendly?
I didn't get this impression.
Epic didn't do anything wrong yet, to be fair.
But the huge success of Fortnite is quickly getting to their head (they expect to do in few months what Steam took 15 years to make).
The way they are trying to bully Steam out of business is not only clumsy, but their aggressive attitude doesn't make me feel too comfortable as a customer either.
So that's pretty naive, too, on your part. It's not just the big bads that make these mistakes.
This is the kind of aggressive expansion big corporations like EA would do (like buy smaller developers because they can't create shit themselves), and we all know how much in touch with their customers and how caring those companies are, particularly the past few years.
The only certainty right now, is that Steam has always good deals, dozens, every single week.
It saved me a shitload of money. And that's a fact.
You want to trust Epic to serve you better than Valve?
Besides, Valve was fine with taking our money for that shit ass broken game Atlas. They don't give a fuck about you like you think they do.
Its too bad I can't buy Outer Worlds yet - that's a game I know for certain I will like and really want. I think not putting that on pre-order was a really big mistake for not getting more people to jump onboard.
They are not responsible for the quality of a game. They just offer a service.
We are responsible for what we buy. And there is a refund policy anyway.
If you go to Walmart and buy Fallout 76 and then you realize it's crap, you gonna blame Walmart because it sold you a shitty game?
Why Steam should be treated different than any other retailer?
And Walmart doesn't have a refund policy if you don't like a game. But Steam does.
But there are business that do business more ethically than others.
Lastly, there is nothing wrong in taking advantage of both stores, that's fine.
But remember that for Epic, this is just a temporary thing, because Epic desperately needs customers, and it is willing to bleed money in order to do so (Fortnite money).
Once they get where they want to be, and with Steam hopefully out of the way, you can be sure that all those juicy deals will be more difficult to find.
Again, I am not against competition, I am against big publishers taking control of the gaming distribution.
I think we both want the same thing, we just disagree with who should deliver it.
Just thinking about it, gives me the chills.
My point was Steam allows shitty games on their storefront because it can still make them money off a few shmucks. It's not to help the little guys or anything like that, but if you do believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
If Epic's store stops being useful to me, I'll stop using it. Same for Steam. This isn't hard. They're tools. They're free. One gives you free games every week or so. The other runs sales weekly. USE them, and stop trying to find things to be pissy over when they don't actually affect you in any way. You owe neither company any loyalty.
Or don't use them, I don't care either way. But shit people, the hate train for Epic is pathetic at this point.
It took them 15 years to be where they are, they didn't bulldozer the market with the help of a truck load of money made by a lucky game (Fortnite).
They are not trying to take over every branch of the gaming industry, and they are not bullying other companies out of their business with dirty tricks.
Steam are not the good Samaritans, but I trust them more running a universal digital store than EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Bethesda or Epic.
I hope someone else will be able to challenge Steam, as long as they are none of the companies mentioned above.
Could you imagine EA's Origin Store taking over the digital distribution market?
If Epic can do it, maybe EA could give it a go too.
And do you think customers would be better or worse off if that happens?
I don't even want to contemplate that scenario frankly.