• 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.

Deleted member 12790

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
24,537
I agree with the rest of your post, except this. I've never heard of this whatsoever.

This was during the Xbox 360 days. Console owners would charge a fee per patch put up online. After a while, the policy changed to where devs could get 1 free patch, then have to pay for subsequent patches. This is because patches had to be downloaded from Xbox Live/PSN.

This is why games like TF2 basically died on consoles, Valve couldn't push daily patches for the game like they were on steam. This was a big deal for devs early on.
 

ZKenir

Member
Mar 31, 2018
4,439
If you look at paysafecard that's a funny definition of developing countries

iNgRIFZ.png
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,192
"Fuck foreign markets"
SWEENEY, Tim

But I'll admit, between this and P5S I'm laughing pretty damn hard. This industry is better than stand up.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,906
I agree with the rest of your post, except this. I've never heard of this whatsoever.
At least Sony / Microsoft did during the PS360 era.

Don't know if they actually charged for the "Update" itself or just the process of verfication / testing or used bandwidth. But you got charged.
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
Fuck that noise unless this "competition" does something good for consumers.

I am reminded of the benefits of Steam's ecosystem daily- when I open my email and find fresh offers from Fanatical, GMG or Humble to sell me discounted Steam keys (and guess what? These 3rd party stores do the bulk of the "discoverabilty" for me, since they constantly highlight games I've never had suggested by steam- from devs and even PUBLISHERS I never heard of before. And they offer prices where I'm comfortable enough to take a risk on a virtual unknown game.

Steam's alleged "monopoly" allows my favourite store, GOG to not merely exist, but attract more and more Day 1 releases of B and Ctier titles, despite its firm, consumer-friendly anti-DRM stance being virtually antithetical to AAA pubs and their love affair with Denuvo.

These are real benefits I see everyday. Not to mention nice things all good PC platforms provide (cloud saves, user forums for any technical issues, review systems), and extras like achievements and mod workshop (I have over 1200 hours logged in Age of Empires II HD largely due to the rejuvenated custom campaign/scenario design community, since I don't play multiplayer)

In my favourite genre (RPG), 3 big upcoming releases (Cyberpunk 2077, Bloodlines 2, Biomutant) are all gonna be available on GOG Day 1. I'll be able to buy them, download DRM-free installers and own them forever without worrying about service disruptions or any crap like that.

EGS doesn't have a shopping cart, can't figure out that Canada doesn't use USD, and wants to control prices by limiting distribution channels. And I'm supposed to pay more for less and feel good about it because it's "for the select few developers we feel worthy enough of letting use our store". While stores I genuinely like (that aren't Steam) are gonna be priced out of existance?

Yeah, no. Fuck that noise, and fuck Tim Sweeney. The man's doing more harm to PC gaming than Bobby Kotick and Andrew Wilson put together.

Man this is a really good post and I feel exactly the same way as you do.

Also, like you say, the EGS subjective curation policies harm more developers because it's exclusionary.

I, like you, love GOG, it's my goto store front, I wish we could have DRM free games on every platform, sadly that isn't the case but like you say, at least GOG exists, now if Tim Sweeney had his way would GOG exist?
 

Deleted member 279

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,270
I really dont understand why people think Epic is worse than Valve. 30% cut is absolutely ridiculous and was clearly only possible due to Valves borderline monopoly.

More $ to devs = good! Means less need for MTX and more $ for them to invest in games
 
Nov 9, 2017
3,777
PC gaming has been sooooo good for about the last decade. Things were looking dire when piracy was running rampant (still is), but at least devs/publishers see the PC as a viable way to make revenue and there have never been more good games than right now. Hopefully everyone can find a way to get along and keep things improving for PC gamers rather than drag us all to the bottom.
 

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,382
Ah, I misread this as charging customers for patches. But Hektor's list had a mix of both charging devs and charging customers. But thank you all for the clarification, I stand corrected.

I do vaguely recall devs being charged for patches, which is really awful IMO.

At the start of the Xbox 360's life you got 2 patches and then it was £50,000 per patch if I remember right.
Seven hells, what
 

THRILLHO

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,093
If Epic allows devs to generate EGS keys and sell them on their own for 100% cut, I'll be in. Otherwise, I have 500+ games in my steam backlog that will hold me over until exclusivity deals expire. See you in 2020, Outer Worlds.
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728

NoWayOut

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,073
User banned (3 days): trolling and admitting to it, ignoring mod-post
Why do you care if Valve lower their cut or not? How does it benefit you for them to do so?

It's the industry standard across multiple digital storefronts, how do you believe as a consumer you will benefit from devs/pubs getting a higher cut?

More importantly, why do you think EGS is giving devs a higher cut? For the benefit of consumers?

And if that's the case, how is this higher cut benefiting consumers as things currently stand?

Are prices lower for consumers?

Do we have more choice as to where to purchase games than with Steam?

Does EGS have a better feature set than Valve does on their storefront that benefits consumers?

Why do you believe Valve can lower their cut? And if they could then why are these questions not also being asked about other storefronts by Tim? Why is he so focused on Steam?

I personally don't give a damn about this schoolyard squabble. I can't even remember the last time I bought a PC game on Steam or other platforms. Even if I did, I would certainly not defend either of the two billionaires.

I just find the apologists for Valve (or any other game corporation) very amusing. Especially when all these financial "experts" come out of the woodwork to protect their beloved corporation like their livelihood depends on it. Just like some defend the shady business practices of EA and Activision like they are a charitable organization on the brink of bankruptcy.

They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.
 

Deleted member 3208

Oct 25, 2017
11,934
I think MS back on the 360 used to charge devs for updates, I remember reading about it a while ago but I think they stopped that back in 2013 (I could be wrong.)
I also remember Valve wanted to add free L4D DLC in the 360, yet they had to charge because Microsoft forced them to do that.
 

Cecil

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,449
They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.

They do give a shit. They're not "friends", but if you want to make money, you care about the customers, their wishes and expectations. Being customer friendly and wanting to make money are not things that are mutually exclusive.
 

MJnR

Member
Mar 13, 2019
667
Wow, I remember everyone chastising me on the last thread when I tried to defend Tim. Now, he clearly stated "let valve reduce their revenue share and we will stop exclusives" and everyone likes "LOL you FUCKING LIAR FUCK YOU YOU CAPITALIST MONSTER" like what? Lol 🤷🏽‍♂️
Heya, just decided to say that you're doing god's work there defending poor guy Tim. Maybe some of his employees who are working 100h / week could help you with that. After all, Tim has proven to honor his tweets and dismissing people's disbelief on him is the right thing to do.
 

Ionic

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
2,735
This is a weird condition to stop exclusivity deals. If 30 percent is the number 1 issue for PC developers, then now is when Epic would have their greatest leverage to bring developers to their platform. If Steam solves the "number one issue" of PC gaming by dropping their cut, then that's when Epic would actually need to leverage paid exclusives as they would no longer have a firm advantage based on cut. Nobody has ever said "if the competition gets more cutthroat, we will no longer have to compete". It's like he's trying to paint EGS as a purely altruistic endeavor.
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,001
This just sounds like bullshit

"it's THEIR fault we're doing this.. we're doing this to benefit the industry"

While destroying their own devs.

Fuck off Tim.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
Wow, I remember everyone chastising me on the last thread when I tried to defend Tim. Now, he clearly stated "let valve reduce their revenue share and we will stop exclusives" and everyone likes "LOL you FUCKING LIAR FUCK YOU YOU CAPITALIST MONSTER" like what? Lol 🤷🏽‍♂️

You meant the capitalist monster that makes his devs work 80-100 work weeks and then claims he is 'for the developers'?

Apparently not the developers that work under him?
 

PC-tan

Member
Feb 25, 2018
1,321
Yeah no. Most pc gamers have grown up with steam and if a game isn't on their chosen platform they simply won't buy it. This forum is full of posts like that. So epic uses exclusivity deals (lots of them) to try and break that. It's very close to how steam got on everyone's computer in the first place. Forced installs with HL2


Isn't one of the main difference have to so with how Valve developed HL2 and there for could do what they wanted with the game? I don't think people have issues with exclusives, I mean look at Ubisoft and EA games on Origin and Uplay.


If Epic decided to just develop games (that we're really good) and sell them only on EGS then there would be no issues and people would just buy them without much complaint.

I am one of those people defending Valve (well Steam anyway). To me in theory Epic was one of those companies that was very well known in the PC community and when PC needed them the most they just left and blamed pirates (Ubisoft did something similar and called PC just a place filled with pirates). Did any of them try to solve with issue? No? Did Valve try to solve this issue? Not really? They just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Which well when everyone else was leaving makes you wonder.


Unless I read some of your previous stuff incorrectly it seems that you have been playing PC games since the 80s? If so then our views on PC are different. When I was first playing PC games I was 5 years old in 2000 and I didn't think much of anything, I just saw a computer (be it a Windows PC or a Mac) and I just played games on it. Then around 2005 or so when I was 10 years old I would just go to a place like Walmart and buy PC games on a disc and then just install them. During that time period I didn't think about stuff like pirating or DRM, I still just thought about buying the game and playing it. In 2014 when I graduated high school I made a Steam account and started playing games that way. Prior to making that Steam account I had not been playing PC games since maybe 2007 and mostly just played on consoles and handhelds. So when I was talking to my friends in 2014 about getting back into PC gaming and mentioned Steam, I had no idea what that was.

From my understanding it was from around 2007-2012 when devs/publishers were leaving PC gaming because of pirates and they also had stuff like DRM that people didn't really like. I was not playing PC games at this time so I can't really comment to much about it.

In 2014 I was thinking of just buying an Xbox One (since I had a 360) over a PS4, in the end I just ended up getting a gaming PC (I eventually picked up a PS4 as well in 2017) and I am glad that I did. So why do I like Steam? Well of the games that I like, I enjoy JRPG and other Japanese developed games. Since 2014 the number of Japanese games released on PC just keeps growing and growing, prior to this you need a PlayStation or a Nintendo system in order to play Japanese games since that is mainly where they were (in 2014). I do okay some AAA and Indies games but I don't think I play nearly as many of those as era does. So in theory as long as Steam keeps being a thing more and more Japanese developed games will keep releasing on PC (heck there are some games that are only on PS4/PC or NSW/PC, which I think is pretty wild. If you told some one back in 2013 that DQXI would launch on PC and PS4 at the same time, they would think you are crazy).


Do I refuse to buy games if they are not on Steam? No, I have purchased some games from Origin in the past. Do I have issues with using other launchers? Yes, mainly since I have to update some of them and then update the game itself, my biggest complaint has to be in regards to forget my password, because if you don't log in for a while then you will be asked to log in again and a decent amount of the time I don't even bother to look up my password and just move on and play something else on Steam. Am I against the EGS? Sort of, I don't like the way that they are going about the exclusive game, I would have preferred it if games released on multiple clients at the same time and then people choose where to buy it. Was I one of those people that said "no Steam no buy"? Sort of, I did kind of have some of that mentality at first but then after thinking about it some more I realized that I was either not going to buy the game at launch anyway or that I was maybe only going to play half way through it before dropping the game. I am worried about the EGS security complaints since they have had issues in the last 2 years, once those are fixed I may end up buying the Quantric Dream games.


Is Steam perfect? No? Does it get the job done? Yes. Do I care for Valve as a company? I could care less if they release a number 3 game, I just care about Steam. Will you hear complaints from me if say something like SMT V came to PC and became a EGS exclusive? Possibly, but then I might cave in and just buy it anyway. I'm not sure if I mentioned this already but the only game I even pre-order/buy at launch are basically all Japanese games. The only AAA western game that I purchased, was well exactly that a AAA western game (RDR2). If I do pick up stuff like indie games it's maybe close to the end of it's Early Access.
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
I really dont understand why people think Epic is worse than Valve. 30% cut is absolutely ridiculous and was clearly only possible due to Valves borderline monopoly.

More $ to devs = good! Means less need for MTX and more $ for them to invest in games

So you're just ignoring the rest of the thread that shows that 30% is the industry standard and also ignoring that that percentage on Steam also drops to 20% after a certain amount of copies sold?

Instead you decide to say that Valve had a "borderline monopoly" despite no evidence existing to prove they are anything like a monopoly, quite the opposite actually considering the choice they offer consumers and acting like they are the only storefront taking 30%?

And like I said before, what makes you believe that developers and publishers will reinvest that money back into games?

Do you believe that if publishers could force consumers to use one single storefront and get the 12% that they would suddenly, out of the kindness of their heart, decide to pass savings on to consumers? I mean, can you show me any evidence that is happening already?

OR do you think it's more likely that, because they know consumers can only purchase their product on one store front that they can charge whatever they want or even increase prices (like they have already on EGS) keep the 12% and not reinvest the extra profit?

I mean, unless of course you believe publishers don't like making money?

Or are you just purposefully ignoring all the evidence laid out in this thread and all the other EGS threads and putting developers and publishers over your own interests as a consumer?
 

Deleted member 3196

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,280
The way I see it is Sweeney wants Valve to erode its competitive edge with customers (Valve's cut pays for a lot of customer benefits, in the end) in order to gain ground with developers and publishers (where Epic definitely seems to be currying favour right now). This seems really stupid. For starters, it vindicates Epic's approach, and big publishers will start demanding an even higher percentage of the cut in the future. Secondly, it erodes Steam's goodwill with customers around the world by hoisting processing charges onto them due to Valve now having an unsustainable cut, not to mention a decrease in features that the Steam client provides customers. Basically, Valve and their customers lose in that scenario.

Seems bonkers to me. But then Sweeney isn't being sincere here; he knows Valve will never call him on his bluff and is just saying this because it will probably make Valve's 20-30% cut a talking point in the games press again.

The way I see it is that Valve should carry on justifying their perfectly reasonable fee by continually improving Steam. They can keep on giving customers the payment methods that they want (whether that be through a certain payment processor, or via pre-paid cards, or whatever), providing client features to a wide array of differing customer needs (Linux/Mac, big picture, VR, in-home streaming and so on), and let Epic burn its cash on exclusivity deals that will never erode Steam's customer base. Sure, people may go to EGS for the odd exclusive game here or there, but when it comes down to it people will default to Steam so long as Valve provides the best client and service. If Epic carries on spending cash on exclusives and neglects to bolster its platform through features for customers (which in the end requires a sustainable cut - 12% is not that) then they will not move the needle in any meaningful way without perpetually spending fucktons of cash on exclusives. And in the end, while Epic has a Fortnite warchest, they still want to invest the money into profitable ventures; EGS will have to earn its keep at some point.

The reality is Epic can keep doing exclusives, but they need a differentiator that will apply to both exclusives and games sold across multiple stores that makes customers want to get games like Bloodlines 2 on their store rather than GOG or Steam, because EGS's profits will come from customers choosing to use their store when the game is available elsewhere.
 

ditusjack

Member
Oct 26, 2017
616
I personally don't give a damn about this schoolyard squabble. I can't even remember the last time I bought a PC game on Steam or other platforms. Even if I did, I would certainly not defend either of the two billionaires.

I just find the apologists for Valve (or any other game corporation) very amusing. Especially when all these financial "experts" come out of the woodwork to protect their beloved corporation like their livelihood depends on it. Just like some defend the shady business practices of EA and Activision like they are a charitable organization on the brink of bankruptcy.

They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.

giphy.gif
 
Jun 26, 2018
3,829
I personally don't give a damn about this schoolyard squabble. I can't even remember the last time I bought a PC game on Steam or other platforms. Even if I did, I would certainly not defend either of the two billionaires.

I just find the apologists for Valve (or any other game corporation) very amusing. Especially when all these financial "experts" come out of the woodwork to protect their beloved corporation like their livelihood depends on it. Just like some defend the shady business practices of EA and Activision like they are a charitable organization on the brink of bankruptcy.

They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.

Ah, the good old "company's only care about money, so you're fools for expecting or wanting better of them, accept your lot peasants!" argument, it's sure to add much to the discussion /s

Exclusivity is what a monopolistic company would do.
 

Polk

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
4,239
I really dont understand why people think Epic is worse than Valve. 30% cut is absolutely ridiculous and was clearly only possible due to Valves borderline monopoly.

More $ to devs = good! Means less need for MTX and more $ for them to invest in games
if 30% is ridiculous, what procentage isn't? Please provide detailed calculations including costs and benefits that Steam/Valve provides for free to all devs.
And while, yes, more $ to devs is good, in most cases they will go to publishers. And if you think this money will go to invest in games and publishers won't rely on MTX to increase profits even more you are waaaaay more optimistic then most of us (me included).
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
I personally don't give a damn about this schoolyard squabble. I can't even remember the last time I bought a PC game on Steam or other platforms. Even if I did, I would certainly not defend either of the two billionaires.

I just find the apologists for Valve (or any other game corporation) very amusing. Especially when all these financial "experts" come out of the woodwork to protect their beloved corporation like their livelihood depends on it. Just like some defend the shady business practices of EA and Activision like they are a charitable organization on the brink of bankruptcy.

They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.

It's not a "schoolyard squabble" it's about one companies (or mans in Tims case) venture to try and erode the very nature of PC gaming and consumer choice.

Nobody is trying to protect Valve or shill for them, certainly not myself, I use GOG as my main storefront and I am always open to healthy, pro-consumer competition.

You have also just admitted you can't even remember the last time you purchased a game on PC so why are you even concerned with what does or does not happen on the platform?

People can see that Valves approach is benefiting the consumer and Epics approach is simply about benefiting the devs and pubs and turning the PC into a closed market with less choice for consumers, less features and anti-consumer practices.

I do agree with your last few paragraphs though completely, that is 100% the truth, all companies are money motivated, however some companies choose to make money but also think of what benefits the consumer at the same time whilst others couldn't care less about the consumer and how they benefit.

GOG are a prime example of a company that wants to make money but also thinks about the consumer and puts them first.
 

Demacabre

Member
Nov 20, 2017
2,058
You'd think so, but somehow it's the supposed tyrannical monopoly that primarily practices those things in tandem, and not the self-touted savior of PC gaming.

Also, Sweeney has outright said he believes it's not the customers who will decide the PC market but the developers Publishers.

Wonder on what side of the fence he is with that.

You can't help but love also the always implied "Companies aren't your friends SO stop being picky and accept the worst option currently available".

I mean, to be fair... the poster claims that he or she doesn't buy on PC which implies console, so........... I can understand console consumers accept being at the mercy to a corporation who you know is not your friend. Props to them for realizing the corps are not your friends though.

Also this shows the false dichotomy of either for Epic or for Valve. At this point, I am just against Epic and how their actions can fuck up the consumer experience across the entire PC market place. I am referring specifically to storefront exclusives, lack of consumer features, and passing costs onto the consumer. Valve has some shit they need to get straight but they are leagues and strides more pro consumer. There is other storefronts also. Epic can only go on this PR crusade if they make this a false dichotomy and not address other storefronts and then their own actions on their own.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2017
8,466
Ah, the good old "company's only care about money, so you're fools for expecting or wanting better of them, accept your lot peasants!" argument, it's sure to add much to the discussion /s

Exclusivity is what a monopolistic company would do.
You can't help but love also the always implied "Companies aren't your friends SO stop being picky and accept the worst option currently available".
 

Subutai

Metal Face DOOM
Member
Oct 25, 2017
937
I personally don't give a damn about this schoolyard squabble. I can't even remember the last time I bought a PC game on Steam or other platforms. Even if I did, I would certainly not defend either of the two billionaires.

I just find the apologists for Valve (or any other game corporation) very amusing. Especially when all these financial "experts" come out of the woodwork to protect their beloved corporation like their livelihood depends on it. Just like some defend the shady business practices of EA and Activision like they are a charitable organization on the brink of bankruptcy.

They are corporations and their only goal is to make as much money as they can. They do not give a shit about you, the gaming community, the games they make or sell.
I know you're banned but here's the thing, besides the obvious fuck exclusives argument, IMO Valve is one of the more consumer-friendly companies out there. So maybe there is a reason people want to defend them? They have a lot of built up goodwill in the PC gaming community. Besides some flaws that can and are being worked on and the fact they don't "make games" anymore, (meaning, they're not putting out HL3) there hasn't been many fucked up things they have done to really earn people's hatred/dislike towards them. They've always had pretty decent policies as game devs and as the operators of Steam. Tons of free features for devs and consumers that you would think they would make you pay something for. Keeping PC gaming alive when it was in serious trouble and not backing out like some others... One of the biggest supporters of Linux gaming and no matter how niche you may think that is, it's still very cool for the people who want to have a choice. Pretty early adopters and developers of VR tech, again, it may be niche but it's something some people want.

Basically, Valve has had ample time to be a super fucked up company with terrible practices and they could get away with it since, apparently, they're a "monopoly", but seemingly they haven't. That's just my opinion though and maybe I'm looking at it wrong.
 

Kalamour

Member
Oct 25, 2017
328
"but Valve's is charging 30%" is the "but her emails" of PC gaming. Each time Epic is called on their anti-consumer bullshit their hide behind Valve the boogeyman.
 

Raised in a Barn

Chicken Chaser
Member
Mar 26, 2019
224
Everyone talks about Epic needs exclusive, but I don't think they do.

For something like Metro which is a niche franchise they could have made a deal with THQ or Deep Silver and gotten the other Metro games as pre-order bonus if you ordered it on Epic.

Or with BL3, pre-order on EGS and get an exclusive Siren skin for female avatars and a psycho skin for male avatars in Fortnite, maybe add some unique voice clips and a claptrap bouncing around on the menu screen.

Thats how you leverage your huge Fortnite audience.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
Save the sarcastic shit for someone who wants to put up with it

They certainly do do that, but consoles generally don't recoup cost until 3-4 years in

Uh, this generation, none of the consoles have sold at a loss, due to no one wanting to repeat the ps3,360 era style of loss leading.

Combined with the fact that paid online is making the various companies hundreds of millions.

They have all profited out of the gate.

I don't think any of the big three (and Nintendo never did) will go back to a Loss-leading strategy again.
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
"but Valve's is charging 30%" is the "but her emails" of PC gaming. Each time Epic is called on their anti-consumer bullshit their hide behind Valve the boogeyman.

I asked earlier in the thread how are Epic benefiting consumers right now over Valve?

I have yet to have a response and I have probably asked this in every Epic thread so far and never seem to get a response about the benefits they bring to the PC market place.
 

ZugZug123

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,412
What a load of crap. If they have so much money to undercut everyone else, go all the way like Amazon did a few years ago. Low margin to the point of no profit for the sake of market share gain. I am no fan of how they became a behemoth but you have to hand it to Bezos, Amazon had very good prices when it was growing. He understood that low price and convenience was what the customers would want and sold the potential of volume to his suppliers.

For EGS, convenience does not count as is all digital, but I am not seeing any price advantages. They are just grandstanding from the point of view of the consumer.

One thing I'm pretty sure EGS will copy from Amazon is that now that Amazon is dominant they treat their suppliers like crap, specially the small ones. I would be wary of EGS being the main game in town in the future. Valve is not the best, but it's because they are too hands off. That does not seem to be the case with EGS.
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
Everyone talks about Epic needs exclusive, but I don't think they do.

For something like Metro which is a niche franchise they could have made a deal with THQ or Deep Silver and gotten the other Metro games as pre-order bonus if you ordered it on Epic.

Or with BL3, pre-order on EGS and get an exclusive Siren skin for female avatars and a psycho skin for male avatars in Fortnite, maybe add some unique voice clips and a claptrap bouncing around on the menu screen.

Thats how you leverage your huge Fortnite audience.

They don't want to be competition to Steam imo, that's why they haven't gone down the pro-consumer route of competitive business, instead they are trying to create a system where they get all the business and devs and pubs are the ones that benefit from it and consumers see no benefits whatsoever.
 
Oct 26, 2017
10,499
UK
What "worse shit"? Nobody is getting exploited at Valve. In fact, Valve is one of the most carefree place to work. It's literally the opposite of how most AAA game developpers work. You can literally work on any projects you want, whenever you want.
Meanwhile people are working 80hours/week at Epic and not getting paid overtime. How are these 2 situations even remotely comparable.

Most of the positive reports for working at Valve come from 2012 when their flat structure leaked a journalists gushed over it. Since then the majority of people who've departed from the company seem to have had a pretty terrible time there. It's ridiculous to claim nobody's been exploited by Valve when you can literally just google it and get answers.

Add to that the many issues stream has a community website and a storefront (from releasing games with rootkits to Nazi games to the publisher/developer cut) along with the fact the store used to offer consumers better deals than it did today.

Just because Epic's a terrible company doesn't suddenly make Valve a paragon of health consumer/developer led business practices.
 

Stone Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,582
Everyone talks about Epic needs exclusive, but I don't think they do.

For something like Metro which is a niche franchise they could have made a deal with THQ or Deep Silver and gotten the other Metro games as pre-order bonus if you ordered it on Epic.

Or with BL3, pre-order on EGS and get an exclusive Siren skin for female avatars and a psycho skin for male avatars in Fortnite, maybe add some unique voice clips and a claptrap bouncing around on the menu screen.

Thats how you leverage your huge Fortnite audience.
Yeah. If Epic's intention was to compete fairly, they could use the moneyhat money to make the games permanently cheaper on their service at day 1. Or to fund brand new, permanently exclusive games.

Epic needs exclusives because they want to do a hostile takeover of the market, not because they want to compete.
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
I asked earlier in the thread how are Epic benefiting consumers right now over Valve?

I have yet to have a response and I have probably asked this in every Epic thread so far and never seem to get a response about the benefits they bring to the PC market place.
They added regional pricing in the caribbean which is a huge deal for customers in the west indies.

That's the only thing I can think of, though.

Their one prior claim to fame (dropping the price of Metro Exodus to $50) only applied to the USA and ignores that fact that you could have bought the game for $45 on an authorized key seller store beforehand...so they actually raised the price by $5 for US customers and by much more for everyone else.