Believe it or not, business deals can actually be really shitty for everyone who isn't one particular party involved! But I don't think you're here to argue honestly, so I'll leave it at that.
Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market
- Thread starter GhostTrick
- Start date
Believe it or not, business deals can actually be really shitty for everyone who isn't one particular party involved! But I don't think you're here to argue honestly, so I'll leave it at that.
I've yet to see anything pointing to the cut being the reason for the games being exclusive. It's quite clear that the cash Epic paid is keeping the games on their store. Other stores offering lower cuts like Itch and Discord have tried to "exploit" the cut to no success.
Help clarify this for me please. If you pre-ordered it, don't you still get the key for the price you paid?
How am I not here to argue honestly? If you want to engage with me, then engage however don't try to fit me to be something you want me to be that's false just so you can dismiss what I'm saying simply because you disagree with it. That's you not here to argue honestly.
In at least one case, keys have since been changed to be EGL keys and not Steam keys.
You've already shown your ignorance and just try to push yourself very aggressively as though that makes you in the right. I just wanted to counter said ignorance and don't have any particular desire to discuss with you because you aren't actually here to discuss. Bye!
I see. I've read a lot of people's negative takes and I guess I just can't see it as bad as some are making it. I can understand being frustrated by having to use another program just for one game though.
What ignorance? You haven't pointed anything out except make false claims of ignorance and me not being here to argue honestly and not being actually here to discuss anything when I have.
I don't know how you can read through any part of this thread and come away with people just don't want to use another launcher.
Well, it's not hurting the Market or consumers since the game is still available in some form. Epic did not make this decision, it was made by the publisher. Keys for the game are still on CDkeys, for the publishers platform of choice.
This is your takeaway? Have you actually read the thread at all?
- If a publisher is considering two retailers, one who gives them a larger cut than the other, that publisher might prefer to sell through whichever gives them a better deal. That also gives the publisher a wider range of MSRP options on those products. That has potential value to buyers and the seller alike, even when short-term volume differences might seemingly obscure the difference.
- An entrenched retailer can have a variety of membership benefits that some consumers may not actually engage with. Those benefits can have concrete benefits in theory, but still be superfluous for many buyers. A publisher may not consider those exclusive retailer benefits key to their sales, especially if the overhead demanded from the retailer is dramatic compared to alternatives.
- A new retailer which demonstrably has a large, younger, and effectively exclusive market for their user-base compared to other retailers would find it easy to appeal to a publisher for timed exclusivity on a product if they're given good terms. The product as it pertains to end-users, in every way which the publisher can control, is the same whether sold at the newer retailer or any other.
- An entrenched retailer which has existed long enough to have a heavily competative selling space and less maleable policies/terms for publishers might be justification enough for some publishers to experiment with exclusivity in emerging retailers.
I'll still center my purchasing on Steam, but the suggestion (as in the OP/thread title) that there's no broader value to be had from a competitor like the Epic Store because they use exclusivity agreements is being myopic.
I came away with more than that. The part I understand is having the inconvenience of having to use another launcher. The other stuff I feel is over blown from my understanding of it. I'm willing to hear people out and what they think about the situation. I was just genuinely surprised the negative reaction.
Yup, and I humbly support the situation. Steam has serious competition for the first time, and it is interesting watching people defend it in such a backwards way.
I can't possibly think of how you could describe anything about this as "humble", perhaps you were looking for "bumble"?
EDIT: Ah, your edit. So you're just regurgitating spun points and not actually reading into anything on your own. None of this is 'Serious competition', and the fact that you think people's arguments are 'backwards' speaks volumes about you and your dishonest engagement with the topic. Onto the ignore list you go!
I often think we too carelessly throw around terms like "anti-consumer" here and elsewhere but boy, I'm having a hard time figuring how this isn't just that.
If there is one thing about this Metro deal is that they have shown a possible way to compete without exclusives. Deep Silver dropped the price to $50 (at least in the US) based on part it seems on the higher percentage that they receive from Epic. If they were still on Steam as well consumers would then choose between the cheaper price on Epic or pay more on Steam and use whatever features on there that they like (I am conveniently ignoring the resellers who were offering the game for $50 with a Steam key so you could get the best of both worlds).
There is a decent subset of people who just want the best price and don't care about the extra features as much. Epic could help developers lower their prices so that for price conscious consumers Epic would be their first choice outside of major sales. Build your user base that way while adding in the features that Steam offers over time and then you have your competition on the consumer and developer fronts.
This is a reasonable take. I'm personally not seeing a serious threat from epic starting off with weak shit like tying up some games. Buuuut I'm am sure there are those that are. Some considered opposition maybe mixed up with some knee jerk response.
Sure, that could work. Then again it might not. Epic is doing what they think could build a decent sized audience the fastest way they can in the short term. Their approach might work or it might not. It's one of those things we're going to gradually see unfold as the create ways to build and maintain their audience in the long term.
Not sure what people expected when Epic got involved, Epic wants to do anything they can to get more market share. "Competition is good for everyone" is capitalist propaganda, the fact of the matter is that those with capital will use their capital to their advantage, as we're seeing with Epic.
A lot of us use GOG, Battle.net, Uplay, and so-forth without anything like the outrage in this and adjacent threads today. The problem is that Epic Games is throwing money at developers for exclusivity deals that destroys competition by removing my choice in platform and seller. This isn't just Blizzard keeping their first-party games to Battle.net, but actively trying to screw over customers by taking games away from others, some as close as two weeks before launch. Additionally, their client lacks even the most basic of features, which when compared with Steam, makes the experience they're forcing these games into, a vastly inferior one. These practices simply have no place on an open-platform, and players should send a clear message to Epic, publishers, and developers.
What a stupid analogy to make.
Publishing a game a legal action is not the same as committing assault which is not legal. Geez talk about being so out of touch with reality.
The problem is the market basically handed Valve a monopoly on PC game sales. While I agree that exclusivity deals are shitty for consumers I feel like it's a necessary evil for the time being to get the market back to where it needs to be.
Natural Monopoly means high cost to entry in an industry.
Multiple new storefronts reducing their revenue share (in comparison to Steam) indicates the opposite.
And by multiple I mean not just Epic...
But Discord is also a good example.
Something like Comcast would be a much better example of a natural monopoly than Steam (or almost any other software company except maybe Google).
Or it could just lead to Steam bribing developers for exclusivity, just like Epic is doing.
This is utter nonsense. There have been plenty of alternative platforms on PC. Uplay, Origin, GOG, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, Itch.io, Discord, Desura, etc. However, Steam remains dominant because it has the best selection and best feature set. It is objectively the best platform. If another platform wants a bigger piece of the pie, they need to provide a competitive service. Timed exclusives don't make Epic a better service than Steam. Not even close. In fact, the Epic Store is the second worst platform on PC, behind Bethesda.net. That's why people are pissed off.
Thank you. If it wasn't by this post, I wouldn't know that assaulting someone isn't the same thing as publishing a game. I also learned that assault is illegal, which, too, is news to me. Again, thanks for this valuable information. Really appreciate it. It will help me get slightly less out of touch with reality.
Valve worked for a long time to get their substantial part of the market. 'Handed a monopoly' is a wild swing.
They had little to no competition and the consumers didn't care. From the sounds of it they didn't have to work too hard. They have a good product now, but it took them quite a while to get there.
Really all we hope is for you to stop making terrible analogies. :-)
I'm not sure how you can claim this. There are loads of well established online stores who sell games in a fair market alongside steam. Many have had a lot of success taking lower cuts and offering cheaper games to consumers. Valve never made deals to shut them out. That's competion.
What epic is doing is offering a carrot on a stick to publishers to deny the competition before it has a chance to compete, thus gaining 100 percent control of the market fir this product. If this becomes standard in pc gaming, we all lose.
It's the first analogy I make regarding this topic, so you seem to have less patience than the Epic store has features lol
They worked incredibly hard in a market most developers and publishers, including Epic, declared dead for years. This is just nonsense on your part.
What are you arguing exactly? You need Steam to play Civ5 in 2009. the game would be a a useless paperweight if I don't also install steam after buying it off Best Buy.
The end result is installing Steam to play a game, which is what Epic is trying to do with their recent actions even if the chain of events isn't exactly the same, because you know, its been ten years and digital distribution is much more viable now. The focus is more about digital storefront exclusivity rather than focing people who purchased a physical copy to install a launcher and tie them into one PC eceosystem. But the end result is still the same.
It's nice to see one other person on here who understands the mechanics of the situation.
The problem with people like you on this forum is that you move from talking about steam, the technology, and steam, the store, as though they were the same thing, with absolutely no nuance, which makes you make reductive, really dumb, anti-consumer arguments.
When you say you need to install steam to use civ V -- you know that Steam is an API, right? As in, "programming" that is included in the product. When you speak about needing "to install steam to run civ V," you are talking about the part of steam that is akin to DirectX or Unreal Engine 4. Bitching about needing to install "steam" to run civ V is like bitching that you need to install "the windows store" and confusing it with DirectX, or bitching that you need to install "the epic store" and confusing it with UE4. When devs made Civ V, they used parts of Steam, the programming tool, to make it, which is why you need to install Steam, the technology, to run the game. You never, ever, ever need to use Steam, the store, or give Valve a fucking dime to run Civ V.
This is important because as consumers, who gives even half a shit which technology I need to install to play a game. Do you bitch about the "windows monopoly" because you can't play Civ V without Direct X? Do you bitch about the "Epic monopoly" because you can't play metro last light without UE4? No, the only part of the equation we care about is giving money to an entity and getting a game in return. As customers, that's literally the only part of the equation that concerns us.
The games you are calling "steam exclusive" are never exclusive to Steam, the store. I can pick and choose from a variety of sellers, who will vye for my service by offering discounts and sales, and as a consumer I win because if one entity has a sale I don't like, I can go to another. Civ V works like this. Steam works like this. I can buy "steam games" anywhere, from a bunch of sellers, from amazon.com, to walmart, etc. Epic's store is the exact fucking opposite of this. They are paying to prevent other stores from being able to offer you the game at a cheaper price.
I honestly feel embarrassed for so many people on this board that this needs to be explained like they are 5. The epic store winds up costing you, the consumer, more money and strips you of your choice as a consumer.
Here's the point, made hyper bold for you:
CIV V IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THE (STEAM) STORE. WE KNOW THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR EXCLUSIVITY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE. HERE IS YOUR PROOF: https://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-V-PC/dp/B0038TT8QM?th=1
THAT PROOF ALSO DEMONSTRATES THE BENEFIT. CIV V IS $12.99 ON AMAZON. IT'S $29.99 ON THE STEAM STORE RIGHT NOW. IF I WANT CIV V, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE TO A SINGLE STORE, I CAN BUY IT FOR LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE. IF THIS WAS THE EPIC STORE INSTEAD OF STEAM STORE, AND CIV V HAD BEEN A PURCHASED EXCLUSIVE LIKE EVERYONE IS DISCUSSING, I WOULD BE FORCED TO BUY IT AT $29.99, BECAUSE AMAZON.COM WOULDN'T BE OFFERING ME THE GAME CHEAPER, BECAUSE EPIC WOULD HAVE PAID FOR EXCLUSIVITY.
GET IT?
Last edited:
It's the bare face cheek that gets me, after all the moaning about windows trying to have walled gardens it's precisely what Epic are trying to do now.
I could get behind the storefront if it was just their games that were exclusive, that makes sense but to pay for exclusivity to make sure it has to be bought from your store grinds my fucking gears.
I could get behind the storefront if it was just their games that were exclusive, that makes sense but to pay for exclusivity to make sure it has to be bought from your store grinds my fucking gears.
This is a really aggressive move that does nothing but undermine consumer trust for a little bit of extra money in my opinion.
The epic store is $10 more than the lowest competing store was selling the game at.
Being exclusive to the epic store literally raised the cheapest available price of the game.
Epic provides a vastly inferior service to customers, especially to smaller markets when it comes to currency etc. All this will do in increase the amount of people who pirate Metro who will then probably buy it on Steam when it is on sale a couple years later.
You should probably read the OP. The Epic version is more expensive than the Steam version was yesterday if you got it from a authorized key seller. (speaking US prices)
whoops I wasnt taking the reseller websites into consideration. That definitely hurts that market. I just bought the game straight from stream so I thought the epic one was a good deal for ppl
This has nothing to do with the cut, and everything to do with an upfront payment. That is bad for PC gaming.
This is still an example of capitalism and free market.
Devs have a choice on how to sell. You the consumer have the choice not to buy it. They then have the choice to open up new avenues of selling their game to the market.
This is the balance of a free market. Other store fronts can make it more appealing by being competitive and making it so devs won't do this. These are all partnership deals. Epic isn't holding devs hostage and nobody here has to support epic or the game.
