I've seen a lot of Epic Store defenders in different threads since last night's TGAs. I'm definitely no "No Steam, No Buy" extremist, and I fully believe from a publisher/developer/consumer standpoint, Valve could use a kick in the ass to battle their own complacency, but I'm starting to wonder how many digital platforms PC gamers are going to have to create, input their personal and billing information into, and maintain before PC gaming just kind of breaks.
In the age of prefilled forms and fingerprint enabled payment systems this is a minor inconvenience. With the rise of Amazon's questionable labor practices I'm already less inclined to buy everything from 1 store than I was 5 years ago.
Buying from a different videogame retailer is no different from buying another online retailer.
This specific argument making a molehill into a mountain.
All of these clients require a client installation, take up a storage and memory footprint, a lot of them even when you quit out of them. All of these, on top of invasive DRM like Denuvo that hinders performance.
Storage is cheap.
CPU utilization isn't and that is a real problem. If they make a client that makes my system perform worse I won't be using their client. Simple as that.
I just wonder what kind of reaction console gamers would have to being treated similarly by these publishers and developers if they had to juggle half a dozen or more digital platforms in order to enjoy their hobby.
I've been a PC gamer since I received a Commodore 64 as a kid while my friends had an NES.
The pc gaming market has improved a lot and in most ways thanks to Valve's efforts.
One of the problems when talking about what Epic is doing is a matter of different definitions being used. What Epic is doing is competitive. What Epic is doing is also anti-consumer. Being competitive isn't inherently pro-consumer.
This isn't unlike what we're seeing in other digital entertainment like movies, TV and music, and while there are constant articles about how fracturing the consumer's ability to see or hear what they want and breaking their wallet in the process, it sounds like PC gamers at large are just expected to take it.
There is one big difference. Other forms of media platform monetize you with ads or a subscription paywall. You don't pay to use launchers. What ads exist on launchers are exactly the ads we want to see because we are at the store, using the launcher to buy and play videogames.
The problems with different launchers come from DRM which you touch onto previously.
In short this specific argument is meaningless because the serious problems with using Hulu, Netflix and HBO Now are all these subscrption fees we have to pay for.
The problems with other forms of entertainment is that the platforms they are on are a persistent and consistent burden.
The burden that comes from DRM is infrequent and random.
I already mentioned in the second part that I would stop using a platform that harms performance. Simple as that.
So when people are looking at the complaining about the Epic Store, know that it's not just about the Epic Store, it's about the merry-go-round that PC gaming is turning into, and it's not getting any better.
Nah. A lot more people aren't taking into account the wider ecosystem than you think.
Origin and Bnet are fine examples of launchers even though one of the two companies sucks in a lot of other ways. Uplay is basketcase even though I view the parent company way more favorably than Valve or EA. Microsoft store is a total shitshow. When someone provides a well made launcher there isn't an issue in having multiple well made launchers. There is a problem when you are feel forced into using a shitty one and at the beginning Steam was shit too. We don't know yet what Epic will be like entirely for the consumer experience.
But if your argument is to hate on an experience only because they made a game exclusive to their store that isn't a compelling enough reason to be concerned or to be put off.
