It's funny how the onus to prove things falls exclusively on the people who are mentioning well-known and much talked-about features or negative aspects of these stores and clients, while those spouting their trolling and
-
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.
"No Steam No Buy" an explanation about competition, launchers, storefronts and monopolies on PC.
- Thread starter GhostTrick
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Yes. They decided the good way to get marketshare was allowing people to sell stuff elsewhere while providing a solid ecosystem. Others have decided the good way to get marketshare was locking people on one place to sell while providing a bad ecosystem. No one is claiming that Steam/Valve are some kind of good guy. Just that their ways actually allow competition and REAL competition.
Epic believes competition is them buying exclusive selling rights so that you come to them. Steam believes competition is allowing people to sell stuff everywhere and rely on your competent ecosystem. Plain and simple. Such a thing was never necessary before it's true. And before piracy rates were through the roof.
Everything I've said was specifically about refunds, and why praising a store's current refund policy vs another store's current refund policy makes perfect sense, whatever the legal history was behind them.
I'm not saying your views on key policies are right or wrong, I was just never talking to those points, really.
Nah man I think steam is a mess and I dislike most of blizzards products. But their launcher feels like it has the right to exist because bnet has establishes itself as a platform for a very long time.
Kind of strange that they announced an updated revenue split a couple of days before the launch of the Epic store.... Wait a minute, that's actually not strange because they aren't an altruistic service provider. They react to competition all the time.
OP
OP
You claiming you disagree proves you didn't read the thread at all. This isn't a thread about you caring about these features. This is a thread about people caring about these features and why they express their disagreement. As for the refund offered being disingenuous: Are you serious ?
Also: I'm not expecting them to launch day 1 with a Steam replica. I don't expect them to come up with a replica. I expect them to do better. Instead: We get a 2018 storefront lagging behind how the Steam store was... in 2014. Then again, I suspect you're not here to argue in good faith. Especially since all your post was adress in the OP you haven't read.
Then we have a failure of communication. But my point for referencing that refunds only happened because legal matters forced them to is because 1) it is actually very recent, and 2) shows the foolhardiness of continuing to rely on Valve being benevolent is foolhardy, because they have shown that's not their priority and provides precedent that they are capable of being very anti-consumer when they see an opening for it.
Again, I'm not talking about Epic. I'm trying to say that "free Steam keys" is only something that has value because Valve created the situation where Steam keys have value. If their intent was to support developers and consumers, they would have made a GOG-like service from the start, but their aim was to create a system where a closed loop continues to feed users into a single storefront/service.
OP
OP
So you're telling me: "Steam keys only has value because Valve made their ecosystem valuable".
Well... yes ? That's the whole point of the thread in fact. I'm not saying their intent was to support developers and consumers. I'm saying their intent was to be the bigger one and that they understood that, to reach that, they needed to make a great ecosystem for both developers and consumers.
Valve has had over ten years to polish off a lot of Steam's rough edges and get it into the state it's in today. Nobody just entering the PC marketplace now can expect to match Steam's 10-years of development from the get-go. However, in time, Epic may be able to offer just as many features as Valve does, if not more.
OP
OP
No. Steam keys are valuable because Valve created the idea of Steam keys. Half Life 2 either started or helped popularize the policy of having to redeem and register a video game online to play it, and contributed significantly towards downloading becoming the primary means of installing a game over doing so from a disk.
OP expects Epic Games Launcher to surpass Steam on Day 1. Not unreasonable at all.
In b4 read the OP even tho I have you quoted right above.
Yeah but with the same complete lack of any reason to believe in an assertion, Steam could some day suffer such great losses that they are the plucky underdog who needs our help and we'd have to support them.
Or we can live here in reality where Epic is choosing to pay developers to force customers into a worse option instead of paying to develop a better option and decide whether or not to support them based on that.
OP
OP
CD keys have been a thing before even Half Life 2. You're right, it started this way at a time where there was no service at all back then.
If this argument was about the openness of the PC platform then this wouldn't be about Steam vs Epic, it would be complaining about GOG not being more popular despite their lack of DRM.
Man, people just like changing the definition of competitor, huh? lol
I'd gladly use any Publisher's store without downloading and managing my login for their shitty launcher program. That's why I like GOG. No launcher (its optional) and I can download games right from my browser.
I have no problem with the "no steam no buy" mentality. That is consumer choice.
What I have a problem with, is gatekeepers who don't want to allow other competitors into the market and who ridicule consumers for wanting a different storefront.
The reason that the Steam fanboys become so aggressive is because they are afraid that Steam's position in the market will become less dominant and with it, all the time and money they've invested into Steam is at risk of becoming less valuable than it once was.
What I have a problem with, is gatekeepers who don't want to allow other competitors into the market and who ridicule consumers for wanting a different storefront.
The reason that the Steam fanboys become so aggressive is because they are afraid that Steam's position in the market will become less dominant and with it, all the time and money they've invested into Steam is at risk of becoming less valuable than it once was.
But who is that argument with? Like, who here is actually arguing that games should be only sold through Steam? The thread OP doesn't say that -- just that they would like the option to purchase games through Steam, which is something actual competition in an actual open market would provide.
Your arguments seem far more applicable to Epic's Store, since if you're purchasing Super Meat Boy Forever you're forced to go through them, and basically rely on the benevolence of their terrible "2 returns" policy, don't they?
The whole narrative around Epic's Store feels incredibly backwards. Why is "games should be for sale in Steam, GOG, Origin, Itch.io, etc, and let people choose which they like best" being painted as anti-competitive and "relying on Valve's benevolence"? Why is "Epic seized exclusive rights to sell this game 2 days before release, and you're forced to put up with whatever policies around the sale they deign to give you" being painted as "finally some competition! finally, we don't have to rely on a single corporation's benevolence!"?
My statement was aimed at helping to make the OP more education and easier for people to digest. Many people aren't fully update on everything has been happening, and if the intention of the OP was to inform and educate, providing references for that purpose seems natural and helpful.
If what you're complaining about is "crystal clear", then you shouldn't have any problem providing receipts.
OP
OP
Yeah, not unreasonable at all. It's only "unreasonable at all" in gaming where people are so used to get the boot that they comply to any crap. I mean, I'm talking about the industry where a lot of players are paying a paywall to use their internet connection to play online P2P. So of course, for someone such as you, it's unreasonable. But trust me, in any other industry: Competitors are expected to match or exceed each others.
As I said, when Samsung releases a new Galaxy S, it's expected to be better than the others. When Xiaomi announce a new flagship, it's expected to be cheaper and match or exceed other flagships. That's why they all keep making bigger screens with smaller bezels.
But in gaming, we're like "oh well, it took years". I mean, it's basically the only industry where people would expect Google to release a console on par with SNES because "well it took 20 YEARS for Nintendo and Sony to get there". :")
Holy fuck, spot on post. I really like your reasoning in this. I don't know why we cut slack for big time developers when they under deliver. Is it out of our fear to be seen as entitled? People said the same shit about Fallout 76 and Bethesda making a multiplayer game. "Its their first time its ok, they never made one before :)". Its semi-OK when its a small ass developer!! Not OK when its a HUGE multi-million company!!
Something about the way these arguments are going suggests to me that no matter what state the Epic Games launcher started in, some of you guys would find something you didn't like about it.
And the suggestion that in order to compete with Valve all you have to do is make a better launcher is hilarious. Competition doesn't and never has worked like that.
And the suggestion that in order to compete with Valve all you have to do is make a better launcher is hilarious. Competition doesn't and never has worked like that.
Thanks for the well detailed OP GhostTrick, I'm one of the ones who didn't understand the Steam loyalty so now it makes sense. Still glad to give other storefronts and launchers a go because I just care about playing the games and not the community or other useful features. I have given Uplay, GOG, and Origin time to improve and am fine with them, so gonna do the same with Epic.
Yeah, I like GOG a lot. I generally cross-shop titles between them, uplay, and Steam and decide mainly depending on the price (crazy, it's like these stores are in competition or something...).
I'd include Origin in that but their launcher doesn't play nice with Steam's big picture mode interface, whereas other stores have no such issues.
OP, you seem to live in a delusion where a company should only compete in one single way. What's wrong with Epic competing for developers rather than consumers? Competition is dynamic and it doesn't only need to focus on making a better widget. Valve has probably looked at their service offering and determined that they needed to have a ton of customer features so that users don't jump ship to consoles.
Epic gets to look at Valves services offering and determined that Valve has been taking for granted the partners that it uses to keep users engaged. And then they compete for games by offering a better deal to developers and buying exclusive games. There is literally zero indication that Epic has already determined that they will always lag Valve in the customer facing areas. If anything, Epic has proven themselves to be extremely agile while taking down a lumbering giant (PUBG) with an unlikely competitor (Fortnite).
Epic gets to look at Valves services offering and determined that Valve has been taking for granted the partners that it uses to keep users engaged. And then they compete for games by offering a better deal to developers and buying exclusive games. There is literally zero indication that Epic has already determined that they will always lag Valve in the customer facing areas. If anything, Epic has proven themselves to be extremely agile while taking down a lumbering giant (PUBG) with an unlikely competitor (Fortnite).
Are you talking about the cross platform stuff from Fortnite? That's admittedly awesome, but I don't really think it'll affect the store at all since those features are platform agnostic by design.
I have most of my library on Steam, but do not mind publishers keeping their own games on their own launchers. They invested fully on those games, it's ok to keep it exclusive to get 100% of the proceeds.
My beef with the Epic store is they are not the publishers of the games they are paying off to be exclusive. Those games should be available everywhere. Not only that, but the lack of features from their launcher leading to the game devs still going back to Steam Communities to get feedback and address issues is pretty pathetic. When EA left Steam they did not leave a page for their new games on Steam to be able to leech off the launcher forum functionality they did not have on Origin....
My beef with the Epic store is they are not the publishers of the games they are paying off to be exclusive. Those games should be available everywhere. Not only that, but the lack of features from their launcher leading to the game devs still going back to Steam Communities to get feedback and address issues is pretty pathetic. When EA left Steam they did not leave a page for their new games on Steam to be able to leech off the launcher forum functionality they did not have on Origin....
Epic has rubbed people the wrong way by making 3rd party games exclusive to their vastly inferior store\launcher... so yeah, they should have an amazing customer experience if they want people to support that.
And on that note, I could turn your statement around on a fuckton of people that seemingly feel the same way about Steam. Doesn't matter how great Steam is, people will be biased against it for some reason or another.
i don't know if it's very constructive to reply to valid, provable criticisms about a new market entrant lacking important features with accusations of bad faith
I'd take it further than that and say it's specifically that the games will not be on Steam. I don't get the impression that if the games were also available on GoG that suddenly everyone would be OK with the situation. A lot of people are deeply invested in Steam with huge libraries, and this is obviously the start of a competing store where they either wait a year to buy the games on Steam or split their library up between two clients. I'm sure the other benefits that Steam provides also weigh in, but not as much as that singular issue.
No, but launching in basically the same state Steam launched in and expecting people to lap it up isn't how competition works either.
Epic doesn't get a participation award.
The no steam no buy mantra is console warrism at its very core. The number of features (or reasons to use it) listed are hardly better than the various ones used for why a given game should be released on one's prefered system (better specs, better controller, better online, name change, game sharing, portability, etc).
I'm fine with people acting with the « no steam no buy » mantra but don't act like it's somehow different from the « no switch no buy » crowd
I'm fine with people acting with the « no steam no buy » mantra but don't act like it's somehow different from the « no switch no buy » crowd
OP
OP
That's a funny way to put it since people keep saying "it's just a click away" "it's just a different launcher".
Millions of people have the store installed on their computer to play Fortnite. So I'd guess some of them.
If its about convenience and not brand loyalty
Wouldnt it be convenient to play a game as soon as it releases(even if on another store) instead of being inconvenienced by waiting a year for it to come on steam?
After all you said it isnt about brand loyalty.
Yes it really is. But for some reason, it's a click to difficult to press for some people.
I use 5 « launchers » weekly and I'm surviving just fine
Well said!
Abuse power like Epic's doing right out of the gate? They're throwing that mtx money around to try and cut off any competition.
Not what I want.
Abuse power like Epic's doing right out of the gate? They're throwing that mtx money around to try and cut off any competition.
Not what I want.
OP
OP
Which is why the OP adress that claim of yours.
Well the good thing for customers (far less for developers) is that there's no shortage of games. Go tell the people who had GFWL games that "it's just another launcher" "it's about brand loyalty".
I was referring to posts like this one, that state ridiculous things such as:
Or deliberately mixing things up to argue in bad faith:
Or arguing from a completely uninformed position:
Or ignoring every argument made in the thread just to troll:
And that's just from these last two weeks. It's a constant barrage of concern trolling, of people who mysteriously forget things Valve has being doing forever, of berating other people for their expectations and preferences. It gets old fast.
You even said it yourself a few months ago, back when people were shitting up several Valve threads (I'm guilty of that too, I posted a stupid joke and got rightfully warned), that you'd treat PC gaming threads differently because "Steam is not considered a platform":
I'm honestly not trying to start a fight or anything with you. I simply want to see discussions about PC gaming improve here. If you ask around the PC threads usuals, you'll hear the same things I'm saying. This forum has a real problem with those topics, and it's truly a shame, because it doesn't have to be this way.
Do any of those launchers charge you 2~3x as much as the others because they don't support your currency? No? Then don't tell me how hard a "click" is.
Which is of course a ridiculous premise since we see plenty of products and services that provide less and do less than other already available products and services but still succeed in selling just fine.
There is no one true way to sell anything. The sooner people come to grips with that truth, which has been true since people started selling goods, the sooner they can get over themselves and either buy the games or not buy the games on the Epic Store (or Steam).
Some people buy the Gucci Bag. Some buy the Chinese knock-off. Some don't buy the bag at all. Each of them is a valid approach to a valid product offering.
Then why argue the point about not having a small minority of games come at the same time as your chosen platform when you have no shortage of game?
Besides as much as I like you answering for someone else, you didnt even answer the question about convenience.
One thing that's getting short billing here is that you pay for stream features with a price: DRM. One reason I avoid steam if possible is to avoid steam's DRM. If it was a choice between forums and a news page and a DRM free release I would choose an alternate storefront every time
You've lost me here. Epic's strategy is a valid one even if its unpopular. Offer devs less features in exchange for more revenue share. Drive traffic to the store buy bringing games people care about to the storefront. It is not anticompetitive, it's a strategy with debatable upsides and downsides. Nobody (worthwhile) calls bloodborne an anticompetitive attack on games.
You've lost me here. Epic's strategy is a valid one even if its unpopular. Offer devs less features in exchange for more revenue share. Drive traffic to the store buy bringing games people care about to the storefront. It is not anticompetitive, it's a strategy with debatable upsides and downsides. Nobody (worthwhile) calls bloodborne an anticompetitive attack on games.
Last edited:
- Status