Support NeoGAF

[belteshazzar]

1. Dealership analogy doesn't work because they are not making the cars. For instance, I understand that Fortnite is exclusive to Epic Store because they made the game.
2. "Compare to how Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, HBO, and others fund unique content to provide reasons to use their services". This comparison is stupid for the same reason. They didn't make the movies/TV shows. It would be like saying that ONLY Amazon can stream Harry Potter movies from now on, forcing everyone that wants to stream them to get an Amazon Prime membership. Additionally, this only works if people actually subscribe to all services because of exclusivity. Most people don't put up with this shit, and choose only one or two services, and as more and more services are created (like the upcoming Disney Streaming and Apple TV+ services), more people will become annoyed with BS super specific TV/Movie services.
3. Steam doesn't care that games they didn't make are in other storefronts (GOG, uPlay, etc).

Basically, I don't like that they are trying to force people to use their crappy store with this exclusivity crap. He says that gamers are benefiting from this in the end, but where are these benefits? The only ones seeing benefits from this are Epic and the game developers, and they are just passing a burden to the gamers. He should just stop pretending that he is doing some great favor to the gaming industry. Ironically, the only benefit that would come from this is if they force Steam's hand to stop their 30% BS and they get games back to their storefront. Then both devs and gamers would be benefited, lol.

 

[A.Romero]

But of course Epic is making these developers some money in the back end.

Either by securing a value worth in copies as a retainer to sweeten the deal or by giving some other incentive, that's buying into the game's risk by adding to the project's budget.

Bringing any new product exclusively to your store by adding value for the producer of that new product is not anything new.

There's no way those publishers or devs didn't get something out of opting OUT of the largest PC retailer. You don't force people to do that.

Companies only make that decision when it's worth it for them... And if it's worth it for them, that's helping them keep their doors open and their lights on.

I'm not saying it's wrong or it's not a good idea for devs. If they are deciding to do it, there has to be some sort of advantage. What I said was that the car dealership analogy doesn't really work. Toyota cars are normally not sold on Ford dealerships but those are reference to brand/manufacturer exclusivity. So what I meant was that it's fine if Epic games are only available at the Epic launcher but it's not the same as car dealership exclusivities for third party publishers.

Just a clarification, I'm not against Epic having it's own launcher. I use Steam, UPlay and Origin regularly. However, I won't use Epic's until there is a game that I really want to play, prices are better than the current alternatives or at least there is feature parity.

 

[Allandor]

Do we have the right to purchase a windows game on steam?


... Sweeny is a really strange person.
Btw, I won't install/use the epic store. Already using steam, xbox store, psn, Nintendo store, origin, uplay, Gog, heck even windows store ... but really it is enough now.
I trust Sweeny less than I trust EA.

 

[tr1p1ex]

But the issue is the press is mostly negative, recently we're having talks about the store acting like Spyware etc and at the same time their only arguments that it is running great are statements like "2.5x more than on Steam" with no time periode, numbers or anything. Thats nothing a healthy store should have problems with disclosing. Also they are shelving money out left and right and hope that people will spend money on their store because of free games or a few exclusives. I would argue differently if their exclusives would be huge, widely known and popular AAA games, but besides metro, there is nothing on that store that is truly exclusive to them. Like I said with the Division 2, the only thing even remotely of quality there, most people will get that on Uplay. Many players won't have issues passing on early access games because of all the negative experience most people have with such games and streamers are adding to that problem for epic. Just recently watched Giant Waffle play Satisfactory and talk about how much he hates the epic store and wants to avoid it. That's a influencer with a few thousand subs watching openly saying how much he dislikes the store, and I bet he isn't the only one. I'm not saying that there is literally no one buying on it, I don't think so at all. They surely have a good number of costumers, but I just don't see them gain mainstream traction if for most popular games on the store, you can just use Uplay too. Because if we're honest, games like Satisfactory aren't really catered for the mainstream player.

Epic just started their store. It ain't going to be a juggernaut yesterday.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

 

[Iced Arcade]

I actually bought a Toyota from a Ford dealership in 2011. Lol

 

[sol_bad]

I guess he's cool with it as long as he's the one doing it.

Has anyone Tweeted this to him and has he responded?

 

[ConnorDuffy1977]

There is nothing wrong with competition.

 

[CuNi]

There is nothing wrong with competition.

Nobody argues against competition. We just don't like shady af companies barging in with a product like it's from 2006, buying games left and right that were about to release on another platform, pretend to be for the gamers while actually invading their privacy and scraping their files and locking down the market as well as apologize for buying games out that promoted a steam launch and then at the very instant another company is on the horizon go "yeah nah we thought about it again and we're still up for that" and buy out yet another game.

How can anyone call this competition when it's actually disruptive behavior and does everything except benefit gamers in any way. Tell me 1 thing that this does for gamers. One. Lower prices? Sorry nope, still 60 bucks. Better launcher? Yeah that's a hard nope too. Better games? Up until now all that's released on there are Re releases of games that were on Steam, early access titles or games snatched up that were promoted for and on Steam. So that's a no too. It has literally zero benefit for gamers and is all about that developer money. Nothing else. Everyone trying to turn this around and spin it like epic is a saviour and brings competition is just desperate and run out of other arguments, because if competition only began with epic, then you aren't interested in competition anyway as you seem to have missed all the other launchers and sites like gog and humble bundle as well as all the different sites you can buy your games from that all fight each other for the lowest price.

 

[hariseldon]

There is nothing wrong with competition.

Someone doesn't know how competition works.

 

[Roni]

Someone doesn't know how competition works.

Yeah, but it's not the person you quoted...

 

[hariseldon]

Yeah, but it's not the person you quoted...

Ah but it is. He's implying, in case you can't tell, that what Epic are doing is competition. It is not. In fact it's highly anti-competitive, as fewer stores are competing to sell you the game. Just one. Had they not moneyhatted, the game would have been on Steam, probably a number of key sellers like greenmangaming, humble, etc, and maybe even gog (which by the way is how you do competition - a unique selling point, excellent service, etc - gog are amazing).

 

[Roni]

Ah but it is. He's implying, in case you can't tell, that what Epic are doing is competition. It is not. In fact it's highly anti-competitive, as fewer stores are competing to sell you the game. Just one. Had they not moneyhatted, the game would have been on Steam, probably a number of key sellers like greenmangaming, humble, etc, and maybe even gog (which by the way is how you do competition - a unique selling point, excellent service, etc - gog are amazing).

Sure, you should go tell Sony to release The Last of Us 2 on Xbox, PC and the Switch. That way more stores will be competing to sell me the game.

 

[Kadayi]

Sure, you should go tell Sony to release The Last of Us 2 on Xbox, PC and the Switch. That way more stores will be competing to sell me the game.

Surely Netflix would be a better option?

 

[Roni]

Surely Netflix would be a better option?

Hey, if the goal is everything everywhere, why not?!

 

[Kadayi]

Hey, if the goal is everything everywhere, why not?!

Maybe Netflix can get the Order as well as part of the deal.

 

[Roni]

Maybe Netflix can get the Order as well as part of the deal.

That would probably be a good fit, that game is already more of a cinematic experience than an actual interactive one.

 

[Kadayi]

That would probably be a good fit, that game is already more of a cinematic experience than an actual interactive one.

But still there is a big difference between hardware related exclusives versus software related ones.

 

[Roni]

But still there is a big difference between hardware related exclusives versus software related ones.

The way I see it, any company can decide to spend money to make their platform more appealing. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo spend money making games for their own platforms to make them more appealing for you to buy it from them.

Epic is doing the same thing: they're spending money to buy into the risk of certain projects (ultimately contributing to those projects' budgets) to ensure it comes exclusively, or merely first, to their platform in an attempt to get you to buy it from them.

It's the same principle: spending money to make your platform more appealing. Be that hardware or software.

 

[hariseldon]

Sure, you should go tell Sony to release The Last of Us 2 on Xbox, PC and the Switch. That way more stores will be competing to sell me the game.

Straw man. A game built for Playstation is built using certain development tools and APIs. Porting to PC, Xbox and Switch is difficult and costs money, and in the case of the Switch may be impossible. A Windows PC game is a Windows PC game. It takes no additional effort to offer it on multiple stores.

 

[Shifty]

Did this thread really need to be bumped for that tweet? We have an entire other thread based on it that's already seen plenty of discussion

 

[Roni]

Straw man. A game built for Playstation is built using certain development tools and APIs. Porting to PC, Xbox and Switch is difficult and costs money, and in the case of the Switch may be impossible. A Windows PC game is a Windows PC game. It takes no additional effort to offer it on multiple stores.

It's not a straw man, you just don't really understand what you're talking about.

For example, porting a game from the PS4 to the Xbox and PC (or any other major platform) takes very little effort relative to the effort of creating the game itself. Most popular engines will do all of the heavy lifting.

The major reason something like Spider-Man isn't on Xbox is money, not technical reasons. Sony paid for Spider-Man, so it gets to decide what platforms it will be on.

Detroit, for example, was a PS4 exclusive because Sony paid for it. Now Epic is willing to pay for it to come to PC exclusively on their store, so it will now be on PC too. But why would they allow it to be on Steam?

 

[LuvOfThaGame]

Someone doesn't know how competition works.

It's clear that some don't. Let me help. They are a store competing with other stores by providing a product that others do not. Just because you do not approve of their methods does not mean you can change the definition of competition.

 

[hariseldon]

I have learned from this thread two things:
1. People love to shill for corporations.
2. There's no point trying to discuss stuff with the terminally stupid.

 

[LuvOfThaGame]

I have learned from this thread two things:
1. People love to shill for corporations.
2. There's no point trying to discuss stuff with the terminally stupid.

Everyone that disagrees with your opinion or your disingenuous methods of arguing terms must be stupid? You sure about that?

 

[Roni]

I have learned from this thread two things:
1. People love to shill for corporations.
2. There's no point trying to discuss stuff with the terminally stupid.

I love that sweet spot: just smart enough to be able to insult others, but just challenged enough to be unable to understand explanations that go against your preconceived notions.

 

[Iorv3th]

It's not a straw man, you just don't really understand what you're talking about.

For example, porting a game from the PS4 to the Xbox and PC (or any other major platform) takes very little effort relative to the effort of creating the game itself. Most popular engines will do all of the heavy lifting.

The major reason something like Spider-Man isn't on Xbox is money, not technical reasons. Sony paid for Spider-Man, so it gets to decide what platforms it will be on.

Detroit, for example, was a PS4 exclusive because Sony paid for it. Now Epic is willing to pay for it to come to PC exclusively on their store, so it will now be on PC too. But why would they allow it to be on Steam?

Detroit is a different story. It's when games that are advertised on steam and already being show as being on multiple marketplaces and storefronts is pulled at last minute to only be on the Epic store.

A lot of the games they are getting exclusives too they are just poaching from Steam.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Sure, you should go tell Sony to release The Last of Us 2 on Xbox, PC and the Switch. That way more stores will be competing to sell me the game.

Sony have hardware to sell so they fund games to make money on but mainly to shift hardware.

What you should be saying is "this is like Destiny and the exclusive content only available on PS" and just like that.. this is dog shit.

 

[Roni]

Detroit is a different story. It's when games that are advertised on steam and already being show as being on multiple marketplaces and storefronts is pulled at last minute to only be on the Epic store.

A lot of the games they are getting exclusives too they are just poaching from Steam.

That's unfortunate, but if Epic can help the developer keep their lights on by pitching in with some money, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I really wanted to get Control on Steam, but if Epic can help Remedy keep making these games by giving them money, more power to them.

Sony have hardware to sell so they fund games to make money on but mainly to shift hardware.

And Epic have a store to kick-off.

Sony spends money to make exclusive games and make the PlayStation more appealing. Which makes them more money.

Epic spends money to make games exclusive and make the Epic Store more appealing. Which makes them more money.

 

[NickFire]

I'm not the slightest bit annoyed by Epic signing up exclusives. But the car analogy is still dumb. Epic is not the manufacturer of the games being sold on Epic's platform.

 

[Shifty]

(...) make exclusive games (...)

(...) make games exclusive (...)

These are two very different things.

 

[Roni]

These are two very different things.

And yet they serve the same purpose in the end.

 

[Celcius]

The great thing about computers is choice.. choosing the hardware you want, the software, etc...

I’ll be glad when all this storefront warring is over so I can get back to choosing which store I want to play my games on without having to wait out timed exclusives.

 

[Jigsaah]

I have to to to Nike for the new $800 kicks though.

$800 kicks....$800 kicks....$8-frickin-hundred dollar kicks...

What is wrong with this world?

 

[Kadayi]

It's not a straw man, you just don't really understand what you're talking about.

You seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between a closed hardware platform (a console) owned by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo versus an open one like the PC where there is all manner of digital clients and some offer their users better features versus others., making them far more attractive to long term committed gamers.

The situation we have here is of say a popular film coming out and one Cinema chain basically wrapping up screening rights to the film, but the Cinema chain having the worst seating, etc. If you're used to silk as a consumer, why tolerate cotton?

 

[Roni]

You seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between a closed hardware platform (a console) owned by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo versus an open one like the PC where there is all manner of digital clients and some offer their users better features versus others., making them far more attractive to long term committed gamers.

The situation we have here is of say a popular film coming out and one Cinema chain basically wrapping up screening rights to the film, but the Cinema chain having the worst seating, etc. If you're used to silk as a consumer, why tolerate cotton?

Oh, I understand the difference, but it's irrelevant. Epic is a company that just entered the fray against the biggest digital store for PC games. They need reasons for you to open their store instead of Steam. Having exclusive games is a huge reason, so they're spending their money to make sure that happens.

It's really that simple.

You all may not like it, I don't like it myself, but it's far from a crime, or a bad move, or wrong. It's straight up competition.

 

[rivv3r]

I actually bought a Toyota from a Ford dealership in 2011. Lol

I was going to post something similar in nature. You generally can buy models (in this case, Toyota) that aren't of that store's official brand (in this case, Ford), both new and used.

 

[VincentMatts]

Youre a fucking hypocrite sweeney.

 

[Shifty]

And yet they serve the same purpose in the end.

And the ends do not always justify the means.

 

[Roni]

And the ends do not always justify the means.

They do in this case.

 

[tr1p1ex]

You seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between a closed hardware platform (a console) owned by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo versus an open one like the PC where there is all manner of digital clients and some offer their users better features versus others., making them far more attractive to long term committed gamers.

The situation we have here is of say a popular film coming out and one Cinema chain basically wrapping up screening rights to the film, but the Cinema chain having the worst seating, etc. If you're used to silk as a consumer, why tolerate cotton?

For the most part you buy the game and download it and then you click on the game. And the store doesn't affect the experience very much at all. I think most of the time for most people there would be no difference when playing the game. Sitting in old crappy seats would affect every minute of your movie experience.

And Epic isn't some well established crappy movie chain. IT's a brand new "chain" that is trying to become a bigger chain to compete with the entrenched big chain.

IF anything one should welcome the competition and help support the newcomer because you can only win in the end as a customer if you had a choice in stores other than Steam. Also seems like a win in the long run for the customer if the middleman is taking a smaller piece of the pie that flows from you to developers.

IT's not like Epic only wants you to use their store for exclusives either. That's not going to make them money. They very well might be taking a loss on those deals as a way to attract people to their store. And in order to get you to buy more games other than exclusives they will continue to build out the features of their store.

And last STeam is more like the closed nature of a console platform than the open nature of a pc platform. IT's the only game in town in many respects.

 

[Raven117]

It’s fine what Epiq is doing. You don’t want it? Don’t do it. The end. #capitalism

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Actually yeah, lots of used Toyotas in the used car section of my local Ford dealer. Unless he's talking about new, but he doesn't specify.

Also this is an old thread.

 

[Shifty]

They do in this case.

Do elaborate.

 

[Kadayi]

Oh, I understand the difference, but it's irrelevant. Epic is a company that just entered the fray against the biggest digital store for PC games. They need reasons for you to open their store instead of Steam. Having exclusive games is a huge reason, so they're spending their money to make sure that happens..

And yet here I am, a dedicated PC Gamer with countless games across all manner of stores, the kind of regular consumer Tim Sweeney wants not buying anything from EGS because beyond the timed exclusives, the store offers me no compelling reason to use it.

For the most part you buy the game and download it and then you click on the game. And the store doesn't affect the experience very much at all. I think most of the time for most people there would be no difference when playing the game. Sitting in old crappy seats would affect every minute of your movie experience..

Speak for yourself. I use Steams features pretty much every day when I'm gaming. I have zero interest in using another digital platform that isn't comparable in terms of feature set .

 

[VincentMatts]

Oh, I understand the difference, but it's irrelevant. Epic is a company that just entered the fray against the biggest digital store for PC games. They need reasons for you to open their store instead of Steam. Having exclusive games is a huge reason, so they're spending their money to make sure that happens.

It's really that simple.

You all may not like it, I don't like it myself, but it's far from a crime, or a bad move, or wrong. It's straight up competition.

Another way of doing that is, you know, making first party exclusive games other than fortnite. They just want the success quickly without any of the effort it requires.

When MS do this (exclusive tomb raider for a year), its real shit storm out there. Why should it be any different if someone else does it?

 

[Kadayi]

Another way of doing that is, you know, making first party exclusive games other than fortnite. They just want the success quickly without any of the effort it requires.

When MS do this (exclusive tomb raider for a year), its real shit storm out there. Why should it be any different if someone else does it?

Or make a client that isn't from 2005

 

[SkinnerSw33t]

I feel it is an app like Discord that weakens Steam's position.

Discord came along and did a lot of what Steam was trying to do, better.

Levels, trading cards, cheevos and all that have really never been a thing for me (well at least since way back with Xbox.)

 

[Roni]

Do elaborate.

They're not doing anything criminal and they're not hurting anyone.

And yet here I am, a dedicated PC Gamer with countless games across all manner of stores, the kind of regular consumer Tim Sweeney wants not buying anything from EGS because beyond the timed exclusives, the store offers me no compelling reason to use it.

So? You really think you're that special of a PC gamer that the Epic Store should absolutely drop their strategic roadmap and focus on making amends with you?

Another way of doing that is, you know, making first party exclusive games other than fortnite. They just want the success quickly without any of the effort it requires.

What? Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think a company gets as big as Epic by only taking shortcuts? They're hard working people who made it big and are now further diversifying their portfolio. That's what money is for: saving time.

 

[VincentMatts]

They're not doing anything criminal and they're not hurting anyone.

So? You really think you're that special of a PC gamer that the Epic Store should absolutely drop their strategic roadmap and focus on making amends with you?

What? Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think a company gets as big as Epic by only taking shortcuts? They're hard working people who made it big and are now further diversifying their portfolio. That's what money is for: saving time.

Ive used the epic store, its definitely a shortcut. That store is half assed.

They wanted to get something out ASAP so that people start investing and creating accounts there. Its the definition of a shortcut.