-
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.
Tim Sweeney: “If Valve commits to a permanent 88% revenue share, we’ll stop making new exclusive deals” (Read Staff Post)
- Thread starter Carlius
- Start date
That's not capitalism, that's anti-competitive practices, Epic and Tim Sweeney are not interested in free market capitalism, they are interested (imo) in a long term monopoly based on their current business model.
The tech industry in general is getting away with what is essentially killing capitalism and the free market, that's been the issue for years now.
In a truly free market under capitalism it causes a constant churning wheel where no company can become complacent, I don't believe Valve have become complacent, slow yes, they are slow at updating things but they have always been that way as a company, even when they made games, hence the term "valve time" that's not a result of their success, just more they way they operate as a company.
Valve haven't ever tried to gain a monopoly, they could have completely limited the PC market with the power they have had for all these years, they could have prevented other stores from existing and they could have created a console ecosystem on PC.
They however, haven't done so, as a matter of fact they have welcomed competition, the only problem is, the competition hasn't been good enough or in the case of GOG, developers and pubs haven't been supportive enough of DRM free titles.
So no, that's not what you always get under capitalism.
Although, sadly a product of capitalism is greed and we have a company in Epic that is seemingly hell bent on doing whatever they can, irrespective of the consumers, to barge their way through the doors and limit consumer choice to them and them alone (for the time being.)
Last edited:
Yes definitely, completely agree with you.
Ah, no.
that IS the free market of capitalism.
Trying to kill competition through whatever legal means is absolutely the point.
That Valve wasn't the wort actor out there doesn't mean that what Epic is doing is unethical under Capitalism.
By acting on Steam's supply chain instead of just acting on the what they can offer they're doing what any other company would do to compete.
The end point of competition under capitalism is monopoly not necessarily something better for customers.
Another way of competing would be just outright buying Steam and letting it die on the vine while the more controlling competition thrive.
Another way would be using legal means to stifle the competition through patents to make the cost of business prohibitive for Valve.
What they're doing might be shitty but it's exactly what usually happens when a rich newcomer arrives in a mature market and shake things up.
It's because the 'platform war' dynamic here is a huge challenge to manage. especially in the transparent and consistent way that the staff here is aiming for. (Back in the day people got bounce on a know-it-when-you-see-it basis ) It's not easy to run a forum like this, and some of the policies can get messy.
For instance, if we are talking about Microsoft in regards to their responsibility with their operating system and the pc world, we can go in really hard on them. I mean, criticisms can come thick and mean. But if we're talking about Microsoft in the context of Xbox, there's a lower tolerance for aggressive, trolling, or bad faith posting. Xbox is recognized as a platform, and get some protection because it's going to be inflammatory with the ancient PlayStation vs XBox war still raging.
But what happens as Xbox start dissolving into the greater Microsoft subscription-based business, which will soon include streaming games. Is xcloud going to enjoy the same kind of protection here? Are we going to extend that to a platform no longer associated with a particular hardware purchase? Are we going to do that so that so the community is not harassed and worn down?
In the near future, when the hardware platforms take on an optional position within the superset of the platform ecosystem: Is this when steam will be recognized as a platform and enjoy the same protection thanks to potentially perceived as a direct threat to the more protected camps?
This is not a bias on the part of anybody. This is an incidental result of trying to manage a community with dynamics that cannot be contained by the most thorough terms of service.
We can always work on it, as a community along with the staff. I would rather sooner than later, as some of our best PC people are being driven away because they are feeling harassed and neglected.
No, it really isn't.
I don't have the time to reply at length right now (Sorry not trying to be rude) but pretty much everything I would say will be covered under this wiki article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
I will reply at length after I eat with my family but essentially the gist of what I am trying to say is that, true free market capitalism is not anti-competitive, hence why so many countries have competitive law in place for that very reason.
Unfortunately, irrespective of the system that is implemented, greed will always exist as it's a human component of business.
No problem, life do gets in the way.
You'll notice there's usually gaps in my posting habits for similar reason.
Enjoy your meal.
No offense taken.
What you're arguing for is regulated capitalism which is why we have all the laws making sure we don't end up with few monopolies controlling all aspects of the market (and we're not even that good at avoiding that).
What you are pushing is absolutely not what is advocated in the US (and that's probably the problem).
Under the current administration, the only regulations that are deemed 'acceptable' are health risks (if even that).
The anti-competitive enforcement kind of sailed in the late 90s when the US dropped its case against MSFT.
Thank god for the EU for trying to keep some sanity going though.
Fair enough.
I have nearly 1600 games on Steam, so chances are pretty high that I've played something of theirs.
I don't know the details of any of the agreements, but it feels like the main difference is that Epic is buying up games that are done, or nearly done (eg. satisfactory or phoenix point). Whereas other exclusive deals in the past have provided funds much earlier in the development process, which would be a lot more important in getting the projects off the ground.
OP
OP
been listening to this guy for a while...i like him. he talks about this tweet here. good watch.
Eh, he can make good points but his politics can be very obnoxious (anyone that uses SJW unironically makes my eyes roll out of my head) for me personally and they would probably be anathema to a large population of ERA. I much prefer Belluar for my news and discussion, he's an old school WoW youtuber and a developer himself. I don't always agree with him but I can almost always see his PoV.
OP
OP
yes, upper echelon can be an ass and hes usually grumpy, but i usually agree with him. But yes, you have a point.
User Banned (5 Days) - Ignoring Staff Post; Generalizing and Dismissing Concerns
This whole thing with Epic Games is just Steam fanboys boohooing that they have to download another launcher. Oh what a shame. I need to spend 7 minutes downloading an app and making an account. Wahh Wahh!
Quite frankly 30 percent is ridiculous for a lazy company that has done nothing but sit on its ass all day long for years just counting money.
Quite frankly 30 percent is ridiculous for a lazy company that has done nothing but sit on its ass all day long for years just counting money.
I am no longer capable of distinguishing the genuine posts from the parody posts
He registered yesterday and that's the first post. So pretty definitely a troll account.
No. I have no idea how you could disconnect this kind of tactic from free market capitalism. It would take a heavily regulated form of capitalism to prevent the basic idea of a company throwing around capital to muscle out competition rather than competing directly. This is absolutely closer to the natural state of fully unregulated capitalism.
What do you think capitalism is, if not this? Some ideal, totally fair, "everybody competes with their product/service and no other tactics" kind of utopia? There's no way to do that without cutting out the "free market" part. Because on the free market, you can do things like buy up a smaller competitor that provides a better service than you, only to shut them down entirely and not bother to improve your own service. Or you can take major losses to secure a de facto monopoly, then raise costs on your crappy product.
There's nothing inherent to free market capitalism that guarantees you the best possible product/service.
I'd be curious to know who's the courageous ERA user who created this account to say things they dont dare to say with their main account.
Would be nice if they at least slowed down on exclusive deals and focused on features a bit, like better account security. There has been roughly 10 attempts to log into my Epic account in the last half year, and within the last week I got an email about the 2 step verification code because apparently someone got the password even tho I hardly use the account and don't click any dodgy links. Glad I had 2 step on, or else I could have lost anything I might have bought (fortunately nothing in my case). Don't think I've ever had any attempts on profiles for any other launchers in roughly 8 years.
I don't see Valve changing anything about the cut any time soon since they've already adjusted it recently and to avoid it being seen as another reactionary move. Pubs will just wait it out to see if it'll go down further, right. Maybe in a few years or some program that will benefit new/small studios only.
Xx_STEAMspy69_xX
Xx_STEAMspy69_xX
Guys, report and move on. And not give it attention.
Emphasis on report though, so mods are made aware and can act on it.
Emphasis on report though, so mods are made aware and can act on it.
OP
OP
and you still come in here saying this....talking about this whole steam vs ewgs argument, yet you have leanred absolutely nothing...you look at one side without even knowing wtf you are saying. Talk about ignorance, jesus.
The amount of publicity shot forward by those incharge of the Epic Game Store appears to rather high, I'd still wait for the 6 months of road map to be completed and the state of the devs/publishers after having their game on the platform for one year for their postmoterm about the exclusivity.
Currently I am looking at Ashen, which I believe was among the first of the titles and we should wait until December 2019 for feedback from the devs/publishers.
Only then should Valve even acknowledge the dismissal challenge (black mail?) from Tim Sweeney for content exclusivity.
Currently I am looking at Ashen, which I believe was among the first of the titles and we should wait until December 2019 for feedback from the devs/publishers.
Only then should Valve even acknowledge the dismissal challenge (black mail?) from Tim Sweeney for content exclusivity.
Sorry to bring it up, but it's been bothering me since you said it. This really isn't a good expression to throw around. Let's think about low key ableism and generally casting aspersions and try to be better than this.
Aside from general PR and doing announcements at events like GDC and whatnot, the reason EGS exclusives are generating buzz on a basic level is because they are unusual. Games flowing to Steam and only to Steam are seen as the default unless it a special case or an unexpected acquisition like Dwarf Fortress or Halo MCC. A further example, nobody battted an eye when Octopath Traveler was announced for Steam . I suppose the novelty of it all will wear off in due time.