-
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.
All these new clients will probably contribute to more piracy.
- Thread starter GameZone
- Start date
- Status
I have managed not to pirate a single show or watch it on some dodgy free stream since the advent of Hulu and Netflix - despite being frustrated several times by shows getting yanked back to live TV, going exclusive, or going to their website with forced ads. It sucks but I really don't want to lower myself to pirating when I can easily afford them in my preferred format, I am just too lazy to want to keep up subs to like five different services while still occasionally buying seasons on Amazon.
If PC gaming fractures like that, and it's looking like the process is finally starting in earnest, I'll just end up sticking to Steam. Origin and Act/Blizzard is already more than I care to juggle.
This is why we got Japanese games on PC, it's important Capcom, Square, Bamco etc stick to Steam i think, i don't want another Gen 7 situation where great Japanese games skip PC due to low sales & Japanese devs moving to Epic games or whatever launcher comes out next week, will be a bad move.
Huge games (like the next Elder Scrolls) might be able to get away with launching on their own service but everyone else, from smaller AAA like Rage to big and small indie devs, is going to see a reduction in sales. I think that some developers seem to underestimate the value that a Steam game has to customers over a regular version. Which is utterly bizarre to me because many of them experienced first hand the lack of consumer interest for non-Steam games before Valve opened the floodgates and let everyone in.
Worse than customers pirating their games, I think that developers will see people become indifferent to their products once again. They are jeopardizing the overall health of the platform for short-term gains from an exclusivity moneyhat.
While I don't necessarily disagree with OP, I also think that there's never been a better time for another storefront to make a serious push into taking over the market. If Epic are serious about making the Epic store a big player, and I think they are, then they've timed it perfectly. A lot of the biggest games in the world aren't on Steam right now. Steam doesn't have Fortnight or World of Warcraft or Call of Duty or Destiny or Fallout and there are more and more games coming (Rage 2 just announced this) that aren't coming to Steam. Millions and millions of people are already using the Epic launcher every day to play Fortnite. If they're gonna try and expand, this is the time to make a move.
Evidently, the OP, Epic, and Bethesda disagree. Or perhaps they would agree, but in an example of tragedy of the commons, will still take part in the degradation of the economic environment surrounding PC games. "There may not be room in the customer's heart for EVERY launcher, but we'll be damned if we don't do everything we can to make sure they use OUR launcher."
It's gamers. The answer to your last question is, sadly, always "yes".
They don't even realize that all advocating piracy due to storefront anger does is for companies to add more DRM and even more GAAS - can't pirate always-online lootboxes, after all. That, or publishers pushing to go for consoles over PC. That's already happening, and seems to be picking up pace.
I think smaller first party AAA like Rage 2 will be fine. Remember it's Bethesda published game and Bethesda selling it on their own launcher means they get all the money. Those smaller AAA don't sell as much and at least in Bethesda's case almost of their recent single player titles have suffered a loss in sales. So specifically in their case they actually might just be better off releasing it on their own platform.
But I agree with you for other 3rd party games.
This makes it sound less like it is about feature parity between different launches and Steam being such a market leader that it is borderline necessary to release there. If people feel as though the PC is incapable of handling more than one store (like most other platforms) then I think that should be the argument instead of bringing up features or regional pricing or other things that are seemingly irrelevant because of how dominant Steam is.
I don't even think this is necessarily a bad argument either. I know PC is meant to be a more open platform and there will always be multiple storefronts, but consoles and smartphones (mostly) provide at least some argument for a single major store. I guess trying to argue that would diminish some unique aspect of the PC compared to other platforms though so people might not want to argue this.
Gamers, especially on PC, have proven that they can make wise decisions on which company to support and which to reject.
Unfortunately epic have already stated that they don't plan on competing with features and sales.
Gamers, especially on PC; have proven over and over that they support what harms them, yeah. Companies like Activision Blizzard or EA or Ubisoft aren't doing as well as they are doing due to consoles. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It's a big shame, I'm not looking forward to having to switch to consoles for everything. Upgrading a PC would've been easier. But if that's where the indies will be, that's where I'll go. :)
Gamers didn't need Steam features to play Fortnite on the Epic launcher in their millions. They just needed an exclusive game.
Pirating sucks but this isnt the issue here. The problem is some publishers dont seem to understand why and how Steam made the PC market shift in the last 8-10 years.
Sales arent everything. The service and the convenience also matters. I'll be honest about it: When I was younger, I used to pirate games on PC. Last time I did was in 2011 or so. I stopped. Why ? Because piracy, on top of being illegal and morally wrong, was also a hassle. Then I started to buy more games on Steam. Why ? Because it made everything so easier. I would have a download that would never expire. I would have an always up to date version. No need to crack. I'd have access to features and communities. And on top of that, the game I bought had value in the fact it was a legit product inside a good service.
So yes, if it was only price related, people would still pirate since free is better than 1 dollar.
Maybe. But unfortunately their initial statements offer not such carrots to consumers. It doesn't create a good impression.
It seems like they're purely considering it a developer problem, with very little understanding of consumers on PC in particular. It is a a solution that very much reeks of the fact that they haven't learned anything in the intervening years since they screamed that PC gamers were all pirates and then took their ball to consoles.
I've stated this already, I'm totally fine with publishers using their own launchers exclusively to sell their own games (& that isn't really competition). This is why I don't mind Bethesda selling Rage 2 on their store and at least in their case they might even make more money since their single player games outside of Elders Scrolls, Fallout and Doom don't much. Not so much when 3rd party titles go exclusive.
Personally, I don't. I feel that the 500,000 or so sales of such games on Steam at launch are going to drop below 100,000 on publisher services.
It's both. A Steam game is more valuable because it offers more features to the buyer and it is available on the most popular service.
I don't know that there's just one correct argument, it comes down to each person's identification of what they value. Different people will be more or less loyal to a brand and more or less discerning on the basis of features. I have every faith in the honesty of posters when they discuss store choice based on customer featureset. Even with my recognition that my choices are largely based on misplaced loyalty to Steam though, I'm certainly aware of and appreciative of all the features that Steam offers, and can't honestly claim that the two things aren't related.
I was actually thinking about this yesterday. Yeah, I see piracy increasing as a result of this. Gaben was correct when he said a lot of the issue is with service and convenience. The now numerous launchers is obnoxious and serves only to inconvenience the consumer. Its a big reason I play Ubisoft games on console instead of pc. I don't want to deal with Uplay.
This is not to excuse piracy, dealing with it isn't exactly a big deal.
This is not to excuse piracy, dealing with it isn't exactly a big deal.
Well to the vast majority of the public, a public who are already using the Epic launcher because Fortnite, there is no 'third party' and 'first party'. There is just games. The politics of games and game stores isn't something they would consider. If my cousin who plays Fortnite every day on his PC sees some other hot new games on his Epic launcher then he might buy them. He might not even have Steam installed at this point.
I'm not trying to downplay the good that Steam has done in terms of regional pricing and accessibility etc. Steam are the daddies. I love my Steam account. But I also loved my iTunes library that had hundreds of albums in it. I use Spotify every day now. Times and people move on. I can't argue with devs if they think they'll get better exposure for their game on a store that has a massively smaller library of games for sale but millions and millions of people using it every day for the hottest game in the world. I'd put my game there. And if Epic wanted to support my studio with some marketing budget/game conference video space etc... I'd probably give them some exclusivity. I get it.
Well it's true that selling on their store may mean they only make money from people who really want to play it and as such buy it new.
But I still think 500,000 across a timeframe and with discounts vs 100,000 at full/near full price the latter still wins.
But ofc we are both making figures up here, but I really do think in Bethesda's case it's fine.
But.. you have most of the same convenience in other games stores. You don't have drive somewhere to buy a game. You click a pair of ties to buy a game, and you click a another time to play an installed game. As you say, no need of downloading it before, no need of updates or crack. Baam, convenience!
It doesn't sound like a hassle?
I will just stick with Steam. I dont really want to install too much on my laptop. I dont play most of the games that run with Uplay or other clients anyway.
I will just wait for console versions.
I will just wait for console versions.
Supporting Lootboxes; every time they start a hatemob to get a female dev fired or review bomb a game because it's too diverse. The forced lack of diversity is probably the biggest thing holding back PC gaming.
I'll start thinking highly of PC gamers when that shit stops. When one look at the steam forums shows me its sorry state, I know we're not there yet.
Sorry, but how are you attributing this to PC gamers?
And certainly personally, I don't think lootboxes are bad, and definitely not of equal standing as the harassment cases you mention.
Who are "they"? Do "they" represent the entire group of human beings who happen to play a game on a personal computer?
Don't be ridiculous. More launchers won't contribute to more piracy. People will still pirate no matter what launcher the game is on if there's a crack for it.
I don't understand this hatred for more launchers and storefronts on PC...at all. I know Steam is the best one, but having a Valve monopoly with Steam isn't good. The fact that you have multiple storefronts on PC is why an all digital system works on PC and not for consoles.
I don't understand this hatred for more launchers and storefronts on PC...at all. I know Steam is the best one, but having a Valve monopoly with Steam isn't good. The fact that you have multiple storefronts on PC is why an all digital system works on PC and not for consoles.
I'm seriously confused as to why you think these are PC-centric issues when it's plainly obvious that most other platforms have just as big or even bigger issues with exploitative monetization and bigotry. Do you have any data to support this outrageous claim?
Releasing a new digital platform/store for PC games isn't creating competition for Steam? If it succeeds Steam will be forced to make better offers to players and developers.
It's a claim made before by this user.
No data was ever supplied.
Players? What is this store making Steam offer to players, that it doesn't already?
But isn't it about 'Steam features and convenience' not price? My point is, if the Steam features and the convenience of having all of your games on Steam was a deal breaker then nobody would be using the Epic launcher. That's not true. They have one of the biggest games in the world on there and it's absolutely killing it. They have a user base already.
It isn't. Locking games behind one single store is monopoly. There's nothing Steam can do to get these games. If you want Microsoft's games, you probably have to use the most broken store out there. Have "competition" helped in that regard? It's as broken as ever. Use our shitty store or forget about our games. No matter how much Valve improve Steam, you won't see Blizzard, EA, Bethesda or Microsoft release their games there. So no, it's not competition.
Exactly.
And speaking of piracy,biggest games today,especially on PC,are GaaS,heavily multiplayer,always online or F2P like Fortnite and LoL and they can not be pirated.
The lack of regional pricing will absolutely lead to an increase in piracy in the affected countries. Beyond that, I'm not sure. The Epic launcher is a lot less convenient and feature rich compared to steam but its probably going to be easier/safer than pirating for most people in places like the US.
Are you really implying that it's somehow our fault that publishers which have stopped releasing games on Steam in favor of exclusivity to their own stores are seeing far fewer sales as a result?
That is entirely their own fault, and nothing is stopping them admitting defeat and returning to Steam.
You seem to be ignoring that Fortnite is free-to-play.
People are willing to put in a bit more effort or accept limitations when the price is $0.
I'm just going to paste my response from another topic, since people keep blindly repeating that "it's just another launcher":
Where is the "pirates don't intend on buying the game anyway" brigade?
Regional pricing is great, and Epic store actually have it, just not everywhere.
I have little doubts it will come to many other countries at later dates.
Regional pricing is great, and Epic store actually have it, just not everywhere.
I have little doubts it will come to many other countries at later dates.
If the store is shitty and makes those games sell poorly, it won't happen again and they'll go back to steam. That's how competition works.
Not when the competition is inferior but you're forced to use it.
I think it will most likely just reduce game sales more than it will increase piracy. I straight up don't buy some games anymore because they require Uplay.
A company using their own storefront to sell you their game on PC isn't a monopoly. Despite the fact there are multiple launchers of dubious quality in the end you still get to play the game on PC so the outrage here is unwarranted. With more launchers you have more options to acquire games digitally on PC unlike on console. You can gripe about the games you want to play not being on Steam all you want but in the end it's not that big of a deal.
- Status