I see we come back to "just another launcher" rhetoric.
Are we really back to "just another launcher" rhetorics?
Are we really back to "just another launcher" rhetorics?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Says Only Exclusive Deals Can Combat Steam (see staff post for discussion guidelines)
- Thread starter RevengeTaken
- Start date
Honest question here, why is it bad for the PC ecosystem and for me as the user if Steam is the preferred platform and users prefer it to any other? Steam doesn't hold any prices hostage and allows for free competition over its own platform. Steam also doesn't stop anybody from a game being sold anywhere else if it's sold on Steam. Is it because of the 30% cut like Sweeney wants to make everyone believe? It's not like Steam takes the 30% as some kind of ransom-charge, you get a very robust platform and feature-set for this kind of money and as others have already pointed out there are ways you can still sell your game for 100% of the cut by selling your game on Steam and also whereever else you wish via Steam-keys which any dev can create for free.
And I've yet to see that the "lower than 30% cut" the EGS wants to so desperately push forward, is beneficial to either devs or consumers. So far all signs indicate that all the lower cut does is providing a nice little bonus for publishers and shareholders.
Now I'm not dumb and naive, I get the bigger picture why other companies hate that users sticking to Steam, they want to have 100% of the cake and 100% control over their marketing and ecosystem but it's frankly their own fault they don't have that. Back when Steam grew big everyone else abandoned PC as a platform because of piracy and all the other excuses they put out instead of making an effort. Valve did and largely curbed piracy on PC, they gained trust and goodwill from consumers and generally offered great features and marketing for devs for the 30% they take as I've said before.
And now that there's money to be made on PC again big time companies want to take it all with whatever means they have.
Only if that competition benefits the user, which EGS does NOT. We don't need more publisher with more money and users with less (having to pay up fees for uncommon payment methods).
So on one hand we have some people saying Steam's features are not important and that it's just another launcher, and on the other hand we have the majoritary owner of the EGS saying that they can't compete with Steam considering how many features Valve has developed and how much people like and use them.
This is confusing.
I don't know about him, but I know I would and I will if it's cheaper. If it's the same price or more expensive I'll go with the one that offers more features. At this time, Steam.
This is confusing.
I don't know about him, but I know I would and I will if it's cheaper. If it's the same price or more expensive I'll go with the one that offers more features. At this time, Steam.
In search for what exactly?
How would a new launcher improve the current situation (if we remove EGS)?
Well, that's what Epic is trying to convince publishers: If they all move, it'll work.
As for Ubisoft... I'd say Starlink was the last game to ever release on Steam from them, mainly because it wasn't part of a deal before. Every game Ubi announced at E3 wont see a Steam release.
Nobody wants EGS to go away. They want them to stop buying up games that were planning on launching on multiple storefronts. A game that goes from several stores to one is not competition.
Paying someone to not sell an item somewhere else is the oposite of competition.
Sure but the market already decided and thats something some people doesnt realize
Competition in an industry isn't always a benefit to the consumer, it's only when the existing parties are acting in a consumer hostile way that a "fresh of breath air" can change things.
The way Steam has operated for the last few years has, for the most part, been for the benefit of the consumer. So when "competition" launches that A. does not offer the same range of features as the existing storefronts, and B. actively works to remove games from these existing storefronts so you have to play it on their inferior platform, it doesn't actually provide the consumer any more value than they had.
I didn't actually gain anything by the EGS showing up. Games aren't any cheaper despite the change in cut.
Sure, by actually competing with a storefront and "launcher" that adds value.
All EGS does is try to subtract.
Also, "just another launcher" should be viewed as a bad faith argument at this point.
competition is welcome
epic was in a perfect position to spur some
they did it in the most boneheaded shortsighted way
limiting consumer choice isn't the "competition" people who buy games want, hell anyone wants
make a client that is better than steam, or in reality different in a few ways and you'd at least have carved out a niche, a reason for people to go to your store other than being forced into it
there are tons of things steam doesn't do, and won't do that people would like, ive listed tons of them out in threads before, some simple buy 9 games get a tenth free rewards thing would get a decent amount of people alone even if they were all still available on steam. "why wouldnt i it's basically just ten percent off" and it's not even that good of a deal
I would argue the general mass wouldn't care for store front features vs games, so Tim is correct imo what they need to do to get a user base.
The title says they think buying up exclusives is the only way
Wouldn't be the first time a capitalist sorely misunderstand human dynamics and economics.
There already are a lot of competitors who don't buy exclusives. And more competition is not always good for consumers. NBC and other broadcast corps about to prove that in TV streaming.
While I am philosophically against them, exclusives might work at building up market share against Steam, but not when your store is shite. Then you just create ill-will towards it. Where's the value in the Epic Store that other stores don't offer? There really isn't any. In fact, purely from a service level, Epic provides little more in terms of features, functionality and (arguably) security than a torrent client (and I'm not encouraging piracy here - it'd be better if people just ignore EGS exclusives than pirate them), so if you're of the belief that piracy is a service issue then EGS is only going to cause one thing.
If Epic wanted more impact among consumers, they should've spent their money building something amazing before buying up exclusives. But they thought the games would be enough and that, like cattle, consumers would just march wherever they were told to go. Now Sweeney is having Twitter meltdowns over it while a bunch of myopic developers and pundits scream "YEAH!" at his inane, Trump-esque tweets.
I get that it's hard to build up market share against such an overwhelming force like Steam, but they went about this completely the wrong way, and I really don't see a way out of the hole they've dug for themselves. At this point the more exclusives they buy, the angrier their potential customers are going to get. And it's a shame because Epic had the cash and clout to really build something incredible with EGS that would actually provide value to consumers and give Steam a run for its money, but they blew it through laziness and trying to buy their way into a market they'd earned no place in.
Or how about people who like to use pre-paid cards as currency to buy their games and DLC with? In some regions, that is far and away the number one way to buy games, but Epic will never do it because their unsustainable 12% cut makes that impossible.
There are lots of reasons why EGS is bad for customers, and to oversimplify it to "not such a big inconvenience" (coded language for "you only have to click a different icon on your desktop") at this point is wilful ignorance of the subject and bad-faith arguing.
If Epic wanted more impact among consumers, they should've spent their money building something amazing before buying up exclusives. But they thought the games would be enough and that, like cattle, consumers would just march wherever they were told to go. Now Sweeney is having Twitter meltdowns over it while a bunch of myopic developers and pundits scream "YEAH!" at his inane, Trump-esque tweets.
I get that it's hard to build up market share against such an overwhelming force like Steam, but they went about this completely the wrong way, and I really don't see a way out of the hole they've dug for themselves. At this point the more exclusives they buy, the angrier their potential customers are going to get. And it's a shame because Epic had the cash and clout to really build something incredible with EGS that would actually provide value to consumers and give Steam a run for its money, but they blew it through laziness and trying to buy their way into a market they'd earned no place in.
Say it's "not such a big inconvenience" to people who use Steam Controllers or rely on Steam Link to play their games, but thanks to EGS they can't because the client has made their games incompatible with those features (even when you add it as a "non-Steam game").
Or how about people who like to use pre-paid cards as currency to buy their games and DLC with? In some regions, that is far and away the number one way to buy games, but Epic will never do it because their unsustainable 12% cut makes that impossible.
There are lots of reasons why EGS is bad for customers, and to oversimplify it to "not such a big inconvenience" (coded language for "you only have to click a different icon on your desktop") at this point is wilful ignorance of the subject and bad-faith arguing.
Remember it's the publishers and Tim that benefit, not devs and gamers.
people said that about bethesda too
oh and microsoft with the windows store
some people hold onto hope that ea returns one day
I don't see a reason why they could be like Humble Bundle and allow you to buy games from them but give you a code for the other platforms the game can be launched from if you want to add it to your collection there.
I know why, but they could.
edit: totally ready your comment wrong. My replay has nothing to do with what I quoted. But my point still stands. It would just be a way to not seem like the bad guys in this whole mess that they clearly are.
It's a crapshoot. Some games work, others do not. Some can be made to work with hacky workarounds, but I've been messing around with the freebies and F2P stuff on EGS to see how compatibility with "Add Non-Steam Game" is and it's hit and miss, sadly.
But this is true of other launchers too, and the community will probably find a solution to it as they have Origin, Battle.net and UPlay.
One thing I don't see many people taking notice that I believe is worth pointing out is how deliberate Epic's rhetoric is about trying to portray Steam as an evil element in all this.
When talking about themselves, Epic has a "revenue split", but Valve has "Steam TAX". Steam is something that they need to COMBAT as if they're hurting the PC gaming scene somehow. They portray themselves as the Champions of small indie developers against predatory Valve.
Their choice of words shows that either they actually believe their own bullshit or that it's made in order to undermine Steam's public image. To me it's no different than propaganda.
When talking about themselves, Epic has a "revenue split", but Valve has "Steam TAX". Steam is something that they need to COMBAT as if they're hurting the PC gaming scene somehow. They portray themselves as the Champions of small indie developers against predatory Valve.
Their choice of words shows that either they actually believe their own bullshit or that it's made in order to undermine Steam's public image. To me it's no different than propaganda.
This is bs. Gamepass is real competition to Steam, Stadia/Xcloud are real competition to Steam. Even GoG with its drm free proposition is competition to Steam.
It's possible to combat Steam without actively hurt the actual player. Really shocking that a store that tries to be exactly like Steam but with shitty, worse service is not the way to do it.
It's possible to combat Steam without actively hurt the actual player. Really shocking that a store that tries to be exactly like Steam but with shitty, worse service is not the way to do it.
Origin seems way too entrenched for EA to ever do an about face on that, they've built a large enough catalog of exclusives (that they developed!) that the reduced sales from not being on Steam is offset by them taking 100% of the cut of the sale of their own games.
This is Epic's problem. If they were funding developers to make exclusive new games only for their platform, I don't think people would be terribly mad about it. You funded the game, you deserve to reap the rewards at the end.
It's the fact that they're buying already existing games, games that were already being developed and in some cases clearly announced for existing platforms, and wielding their giant money bags around to have them pulled from those stores into their own.
This is Epic's problem. If they were funding developers to make exclusive new games only for their platform, I don't think people would be terribly mad about it. You funded the game, you deserve to reap the rewards at the end.
It's the fact that they're buying already existing games, games that were already being developed and in some cases clearly announced for existing platforms, and wielding their giant money bags around to have them pulled from those stores into their own.
If they wanted to break steam's "monopoly" they should had used incentives for the consumers to make the jump. Provide a better store, better prices, better sales, discounts for pre-orders etc. Instead they buy games exclusively for their platform, effectively blackmailing the consumers, either you buy the game on our platform or you won't play it all. I am all open for more stores opening, because competition is only good for consumers but what Epic is doing with their store is not only anti-consumer as fuck but also toxic to the whole industry.
If you want to offer the same games but without the features competition has you will have a hard time dear Tim.
I was thinking about this for a long time when someone comes with drive-by posts about "it's just another launcher"
I bought more games on gog than Steam in the last year because gog gives an amazing support for old games.
I was thinking about this for a long time when someone comes with drive-by posts about "it's just another launcher"
I bought more games on gog than Steam in the last year because gog gives an amazing support for old games.
So why does Steam need to be combated? What wrongs are they perpetuating against us plebs that Super Tim needs to sweep in and save us from?
User Banned (3 Days): Ignoring Staff Post
Yup. I won't read replies to this because as always EGS 'discussions' are just echo chamber bashfests. He's right, and just because you don't like him or his store or his company or fortnite or things he's said before doesn't make him wrong. This forum's vitriol towards Sweeney and Epic are embarrassing.
Oh, of course. I'm just saying the fact that multiple EGS partners are still releasing games on Steam shows that's not the way the cookie is crumbling.
If memory serves, when the multi-game deal was announced, Ubi praised it as a way to "expand" its reach, so I think it'll go back to releasing stuff on Steam, especially if Uplay+ does reasonably well (i.e. the Microsoft approach).
How does not GOG compete with steam when I prefer to buy my games in that store? I only buy games in Steam if I cannot buy them at GOG.
With all due respect, you don't seem to understand why companies compete with each other.
All he is saying is that he (and Epic) have decided that the most efficient way in which they can compete for market share with Steam in any substantial manner is to chase exclusivity. A lot of his talk about how in the end this will be good for the devs and good for the fans is PR spin, but otherwise I have no problem with his business strategy. It is the same general strategy every company in the world uses to compete in a specific marketplace. That is to say, as a business your goal should be to identify your strengths and weaknesses and offer what the competition doesn't. Epic has decided that that strategy for them entails exclusive games. It could absolutely blow up in their face and I don't think it's sustainable -- I suspect they know it's not sustainable either - but to be trite, you can hate the player, you can't hate the game. I don't like his spin, but I can't fault the business strategy.
To be honest, EGS isn't even "exactly like Steam but with shitty, worse service". It's trying its hardest to not be Steam in many significant ways, such as no community forums (Epic believes they should be external to the store/client) and a slimmer client with fewer features to justify the unsustainable 12% cut.
If Epic were trying to be more like Steam in terms of client and store functionality, that'd actually be a positive move. But it'd become apparent very quickly that where 12% is an unsustainable margin for just a store (at least without passing costs onto consumers), for all the other quality of life customer features that are expected, 12% is a disastrous loss-making cut.
Maybe you'd understand where people are coming from if you read the thread you're posting in instead of telling everyone how you're so much wiser than them.
I wasn't trying to imply that it's bad for you to stick to the Steam ecosystem. It's an entertainment industry, you do you what causes you the most eudaimonia. If that's sticking to Steam even if in the hypothetical that EGS has "better features" then I'm not going to judge that one bit. I have my own peculiarities in preferences.
I was just arguing from EGS' side, that if they want to bring users over, it's only going to work with exclusives (or a radically different business model). I don't believe they're in it for any benign ideal of improving the PC ecosystem, they just want to get their grubby fingers in on that free money pile (I know Steam developed some features to make a case for their cut, but the only thing I personally cared about since they canceled Source 2 SDK is OpenVR, which is to say better than nothing but still not much for years).
Now for me personally, exclusives are the bread and butter of the gaming industry. Being as they're often risky undertakings in underdeveloped genres, because they don't have to play it safe (rather the opposite). Some 60% of my purchases are exclusives, 35% indies and 5% third parties. That's just my preference, I do me. It's very debatable whether EGS actually makes these risky games possible however, as they mostly just buy already developed games, I think that's a very fair complaint. I do wish the developers under Annapurna Interactive become filthy rich, so if they sell out to EGS, I support that.
Steam doesn't force anyone to not be on other stores. It's just provides a better over all service than other stores. If epic wants to be as good or better they need to focus on their over all service and not buying exclusives. It's not going to win them anything.
Get out of here with that. His whole shtick is that Steam is bad for the industry and only EGS can save it. Yet he has done nothing but be anti-consumer and limit competition. I and others have argued this stunt is actually making EGS worse for the industry than Steam ever has been.
So again, I ask, what is so bad about Steam that it needs to be combated?
All you do is join every single EGS thread to complain about the other people in the EGS threads. You don't participate in these discussions, you drop a driveby bad faith complaint about it and then move on. Actually argue why EGS is providing a value to consumers.
Well if everyone agreeing with him are just coming and saying "he's right!", there's not much to talk about is there?
Have you heard of GOG Connect, perhaps? You can link your GOG and Steam account and sometimes you may be able to redeem in GOG games you already have in your Steam account.
Besides, I doubt Valve has a say in that unless those games are developed or published by Valve. It is the publishers and indie developers who decide which games appear in GOG Connect.
Tim Sweeney is his own worst enemy, Epic needs to hire somebody who job it is to slap Tim every time he tried to make a public statement.
I am sure Activation hired somebody to do that to Bobby in first half of the 2010's, sadly for them I think that person has left the company.
I am sure Activation hired somebody to do that to Bobby in first half of the 2010's, sadly for them I think that person has left the company.
There needs to be a reason to want competition. Most PC gamers seem really happen with Steam. Valve has been consistently consumer friendly in most cases as well even with a dominant market share.
Also, healthy competition is coming Steam's way in the form of Game Pass PC. That is how you compete, by trying to change the game. You don't compete by having a lesser product and forcing consumers to use it because you bribed game developers.