Umm. Still not what a monopoly is. By all means Metro is property of one party that decided to engage in willing partnership with another party.Paying to remove competition isn't anti-competition.
It's the very first time I use this gif:
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market
- Thread starter GhostTrick
- Start date
You're right but they're using tactics monopolies use. Which only makes them all the more stupid.
OP
OP
From Epic's perspective: That's good.
But this thread isn't about "Big company backed by Tencent's billons" but "Customers and the market".
It's not a monopoly indeed. But these are monopolistic tactics.
Valve doesn't pay for steam store exclusivity, genius. In fact this was being sold in many many stores and it got pulled out from every single one of them. That's fucking lack of competition. They are actively paying to remove games from every single store that isn't theirs. Even the fucking UWP version MS announced on stage got pulled.
OP
OP
That is factually not true. Those products are available on different platforms like Xbox One, Playstation...
Yea, and read above. You are basically trying to use "monopoly" with "exclusive"...and it's a timed exclusive at that. LOL.
You mean tactics that businesses use? LOL. Yall throwing this monopoly word around when it's not right.
OP
OP
You're reasoning in term of platform wars here. Hence why you're thinking is wrong. People are thinking in term of storefronts.
You know fine well I meant PC, that doesn't change the point.
And a number of those are PC only, so even more so doesn't change the point.
Epic has a monopoly on those products on the PC.
This completely. I hate seeing the gross business tactics of consoles invading the PC space like this. This isn't competition, it's the removal of the chance for stores to compete at all, and in that way it's anti competitive. It's fine for the game to be on Epic, but the money hatting is gross.
For the people that are OK with this, imagine this scenario. There's this amazing scone that you always get with your morning coffee, and it's sold at most coffee shops in the area. Suddenly, a new coffee shop opens up right next to your regular one, and instead of selling the scones there and trying to compete with the other coffee shops on the merit of their coffee, they start paying the scone bakers extra to only distribute to the new coffee shop, thus removing the ability for the coffee shops to compete at all, at least with regards to getting this particularly tasty scone. That would be pretty obnoxious and I think anyone can agree with that, so why's it OK for Epic to money hat our Metro scones? It's not "good for the industry" to remove the chance for free market competition, and it never has been. Sure, I can walk across the street to get my Metro scone at the new place, but I've been going to the Steam coffee house every time I need a scone fix for the past ten years, and I don't appreciate this new Epic coffee house trying to muscle me into their new house just by removing my ability to get scones at the Steam house, especially when the Epic house has such shitty coffee that all they can really offer me is the scone!
.....Dammit now I want a scone.
It's still not a monopoly just because you have some exclusives. A monopoly would mean that they would be FORCING their will on services in a market because they own majority of that market and other stores can't compete or can barely compete. That is not the case, at all. Every other storefront has the same opportunity that Epic does.
Let's say they didn't money hat exclusives
Would they really be able to compete with Steam if they went head to head on features?
Wouldn't people stick with Steam anyway as it's where they have all their games and if the features are the same, why buy elsewhere?
I just struggle to see how anyone can realistically compete with Steam and not money hat exclusives. I 100% agree it sucks, but from a business point of view it's probably the best way to get some of Streams market share
Other stores exist but they make barely anything compared to Steam. If Epic don't want to compete for scraps then isn't this their only viable tactic, even if it's a net negative for consumers?
Would they really be able to compete with Steam if they went head to head on features?
Wouldn't people stick with Steam anyway as it's where they have all their games and if the features are the same, why buy elsewhere?
I just struggle to see how anyone can realistically compete with Steam and not money hat exclusives. I 100% agree it sucks, but from a business point of view it's probably the best way to get some of Streams market share
Other stores exist but they make barely anything compared to Steam. If Epic don't want to compete for scraps then isn't this their only viable tactic, even if it's a net negative for consumers?
Name a buisness that does this and I'll tell you if they're a monopoly or stupid.
That's just one side. When the game release in the epic store, we will have the full history.
If Valve was still making games that people actually want to play, they wouldn't even have to worry about the Epic Store. This is their just deserts for turning their back on their fans and deciding that counting the money was more important than developing their IP.
OP
OP
You're not even making sense here.
Tell me how Half Life 3 being a thing has anything to do with that ? Epic would've said "Shit, Half Life 3 is a thing ! We wont moneyhat games !"
That makes absolutely no sense. At all.
Steam sells games. Epic sells games.
This has got f' all to do with valve developing games.
No, you won't, because they obfuscate the sales and don't show any stats or data whatsoever. Ironically, the person behind the store, after harvesting Steam sales data for years and years, isn't willing to have his store have the same openess.
These dumb ridiculous shitposts are getting really really tiring.
Hilariously ironic too considering Epic literally killed every single of their non-Fortnite games.
No evidence of money hatting? Satisfactory dev in a Q&A straight up said they got paid for the timed exclusivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V4UPiBOshY&feature=youtu.be&t=88
Its ridiculous that when you see a game on Steam there's no guarantee it'll actually release on Steam now. I'm here worried Sekiro will be pulled next so im crossing my fingers that if it does happens It happens after Feb 22nd so I can preorder it on Steam in time
Yes, but I rarely buy PC games at Launch, and I expect epic store yo have good/decent sales.
What even is this post? Epic literally killed off IPs and WIP IP and part of Fortnite as they put all their eggs into battlegrounds basket. How that is not abandoning your IPs so you can rake in and count that MTX cash? Does it mean that Epic is just as evil as Valve or what is your point here?
Agreed. This is how it starts. And then once the competitors are out of business and the demand for growth increases, prices rise and developer cuts drop.
OP
OP
Then if you care about the price, why are you saying that you don't care if there's no competing storefronts ?
As for your expectation: Epic said they won't have seasonal sales.
It's not hard to find your own selling point. Epic even have a couple of actual selling points to start with (the well quoted 88-12 being one of them).
That's the real trick. Get features people want, find things which Steam doesn't have. Steam's recommendation algorithm is shit, Valve don't have a commitment to DRM free gaming like GOG, Steam doesn't run games in a sandbox to protect user data (Epic actually track MORE user data than Steam does). Steam is great, but it doesn't take long to find things which it doesn't have.
Free games are also totally fine. They are already doing that, we can see that it works.
Using their own exclusive games is also fine. They could use their exclusivity money to finish Unreal Tournament or Paragon. People would be happy with that.
There are a lot of things they COULD do to get people interested in their store which isn't just taking away consumer choice.
There are many, many competing stores. They can also try money-hatting the games to a lower price instead of getting them as an exclusive for one.
This portrays the popular console perspective on this forum perfectly.
It almost seems like Epic Games wants to be the only store which sells big AAA games and they're ready to pay the publishers enough for them to pull their games from every other store and give it to Epic Games only. Yeah.. this is complete bullshit and I'm not going to support them, especially if they keep going down this road.
Epic actually have Fotrnight at least. What do Valve have atm? Artifact?
My only point was that Valve's treasure trove of IP's would have provided a nice defence against competition from another storefront. They abandoned most of them though and now they have a dearth of quality exclusives and a cashed up rival with the most popular IP in the world.
I don't know what any of this has to do with the "console perspective". I do most of my gaming on PC.
To be clear, Epic does not have a "monopoly." Nor does Epic even have exclusivity. Metro Exodus will still be sold at GameStop, Walmart, Xbox Store, PlayStation Store, etc.
I'm curious why the same complaints can't be levied towards Nintendo.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is still a Nintendo-exclusive that can only be purchased for Nintendo's consoles. It's rarely on sale. Nintendo fixes the price.
Is Nintendo being anti-competitive by having exclusives for their platform?
Why is it bad for Epic to have partial exclusives for their platform, but not Nintendo?
Or...
Counter-Strike, DotA 2... These are exclusive to Steam. Is it "ok" for Valve to have these exclusives?
Or...
Battlefield V, The Sims... These are exclusive to Origin. Is it "ok" for EA to have these exclusives?
I'm curious why the same complaints can't be levied towards Nintendo.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is still a Nintendo-exclusive that can only be purchased for Nintendo's consoles. It's rarely on sale. Nintendo fixes the price.
Is Nintendo being anti-competitive by having exclusives for their platform?
Why is it bad for Epic to have partial exclusives for their platform, but not Nintendo?
Or...
Counter-Strike, DotA 2... These are exclusive to Steam. Is it "ok" for Valve to have these exclusives?
Or...
Battlefield V, The Sims... These are exclusive to Origin. Is it "ok" for EA to have these exclusives?
Heard this gem (paraphrased) on Shark Tank last night and seems fitting even in jest
Would you rather have 70% of millions or 88% of thousands
Would you rather have 70% of millions or 88% of thousands
They could compete with literally everything people bitch about Steam.
Customer service, curation, discoverability, developer cut (done), pricing, chat client, forums, reviews, promotion, adult content, "censorship", not enough "censorship", etc.
They could add additional features like a subscription program, loyalty pricing, better developer tools, open source controller configuration, better overlay support (something like built in rivatuner, frame time analysis, etc). Do some work to smooth out Windows performance for game with client side optimization. Create a better way for consumers to find out how well a game will run on their machines. Direct developer diagnostic tools for when things go wrong it can directly message developers without having to do anything.
I've thought about it for 30 seconds. What do you think?
Tidal signing music artists for exclusivity on streaming their music.
Would you say that Tidal is a monopoly?
Nordstrom having clothing brands exclusively in their store.
Would you say that Nordstrom is a monopoly?
Dick's sporting good having exclusive brands for certain apparel.
Would you say that Dick's is a monopoly?
Jared having exclusive brand of jewelry to their stores.
Would you say that Jared is a monopoly?
I can keep going on and on. This is a normal business practice.
One way to think of moneyhats is that the publisher decided to sell the game to a platform rather than to consumers.
That sucks for consumers, but I can see the business logic: the platform offers a safer guarantee of money in this case. Selling directly to consumers is riskier.
It's hard to say who to blame. Can you blame the publisher for trying to get the best deal? It seems the real problem is with the situation: the platform has more buying power than consumers. It's another example of large corporations bullying consumers. I'm not really sure what a good way to solve that problem is, but I agree it's a problem.
That sucks for consumers, but I can see the business logic: the platform offers a safer guarantee of money in this case. Selling directly to consumers is riskier.
It's hard to say who to blame. Can you blame the publisher for trying to get the best deal? It seems the real problem is with the situation: the platform has more buying power than consumers. It's another example of large corporations bullying consumers. I'm not really sure what a good way to solve that problem is, but I agree it's a problem.
Other stores already have exclusive features, GOG with no DRM for example, and Stream still obliterates them. Even if GOG adds all the features Steam has, and more, and keeps the no DRM, most people playing on PC are embeded in Steam, and you probably won't get that many people moving over. I just fail to see how this tactic will eat into Steams market share. Of course GOG are sustainable, but if they really wanted to challenge Steam and get more of the market I can't see how a features arms race will make much of a dent
The same goes for Epic, which is probably why they're being so aggressive with exclusives (which again, I agree sucks for the consumer)
Having a few percent of the market compared to Steam being 75% of the market isn't really competing though. I mean, Epic could probably do that, but if they want more than a few percent of the market I don't think a features arms race will make as much of a dent as being able to offer a ton of exclusives
You uh might want to take a look at the top played games on Steam. Valve definitely still is popular. It is insane to believe they have dropped their projects which are some of the best supported games ever.
Electronic Arts, Origin - Battlefield V, The Sims
Valve, Steam - Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Artifact
PlayStation, Naughty Dog - The Last of Us, Uncharted
Hamilton - Only performed at select theaters
- CS:S
- CS:GO
- DOTA 2
- TF 2
- Artifact
So then the other storefronts should offer to take only a 12% cut and not markup so much.
Epic don't want to compete. They want to throw their weight around such that they don't have to compete. They haven't yet come up with a compelling reason for customers to choose their store, so are simply paying their way to removing alternatives. I can't see any arguement for how removing consumer choice benefits consumers.
I brought up Tidal earlier and it's one of the most infamous failures in music. Definitely stupid. Like they had to fidge the number to make them look better kind of stupid.
The rest of your examples aren't the same. A lot of exclusive brands are made in house and not really "moneyhatted". And there's a big difference between a golf club or a ring which serve the same kind of purpose than a game. They're not actively taking away content from the consumer.
A better example would be Walmart actively paying Kelloggs to keep Frosted Flakes and Fruit Loops from other stores.
Most of these games are old as shit though. Well supported yes but old news.
I think that could take years and years, a ton of R&D and investment, and Valve could see them undertaking this strategy and counter it by working on those things themselves
Paying for an exclusive that will sell a few million copies and bring people over to their store is a lot easier and a lot more likely to show instant results
I've thought about it for 30 seconds. What do you think?