Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2
Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2
Remedy and Annapurna announce a strategic cooperation agreement on Control 2 and bringing Control and Alan Wake to film and television
Great to see that Epic didn't snatch that one up.
I love Remedy and their games but their publisher choice is always atrocious.
Remedy and Epic agreement was for 2 releases, so I guess Alan Wake Remastered and 2 fit the quota and now they're free.
Agreed with their bad publisher choices though
While I dislike Epic as much as the next guy, lets put taste and emotion aside: they went with Epic because Epic offered them a truckload of money. Presumably, enough money to offset any sales lost due to being limited to EGL temporarily, as well as gamers who boycotted the game for the time it was an exclusive, and presumably, no other publisher was offering them as much, or if they were, there were probably even more downsides.
If there was a more financially sensible choice for Remedy, I guarantee you, they would have made it. People have to remember that video games aren't just passion projects meant exlcusively to please fans, they're gigantic, expensive undertakings, surrounded by a massive industry that functions with as much bureaucracy and red tape as any other indistry.
It makes me wonder how it would feel as a game dev getting this deal taken to the extreme.
“Hello, human. I’ve come from the pits of Tartarus to offer a deal. You’ve just finished making a video game. My request is: Do not release it anywhere for 2 years. In exchange, I will give you 5 million dollars.”
We would never had an Alan Wake Remaster without Epic paying for it.
Dear PC gamers, please stop bitching about installing a second games launcher. If you wanted all games to only come out on a single launcher then you should have bought a console. Us console players are getting real sick of the endless bitching about Epic just because they tried to break Steam's monopoly.
Noone is a fan of exclusives but Epic's behaviour was explicitly to try and break Steam's entrenched monopoly and they legitimately offer far more favourable terms for developers. They've also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to break other monopolies like Apple and Google's. They are by no means the evil villains that PC Gamers make them out to be. The tactics they took with EGS were misguided but they've genuinely fought to level the playing field at the legislative level, they're a full tier better than an EA or Ubisoft who only ever try and squeeze as much profit as possible at every turn.
They should have spent those millions to fund development of a store that can actually compete with the competition and studios that produce games, which they then can sell on their own platform.
Instead they snatched up every new release on the way to Steam while still not being able to provide the basic necessities of a modern PC store front.
So why should I bother purchasing something from them? They have nothing to offer and actively make it harder for me to play games through their store with their anti-Steam Deck stance.
I'm not saying you should, I'm saying it doesn't make them villains or a bad company.
They made a mistake in their approach to the EGS, which they've pretty candidly talked about and admitted. But the end goal of EGS wasn't just to make them more money, they offer every developer more money when they publish there. The underlying motivation for creating EGS in the first place was the recognition that Valve does not need to be taking a 30% cut of every game sale to provide the services they provide.
I'm happy that Remedy can afford to self publish and that Anna Purna is willing to finance the project without publishing it, but I don't think Epic is a particularly bad publishing partner.
I'm not saying you should, I'm saying it doesn't make them villains or a bad company.
But it does, paying third parties to not publish on your competitors platform is the oldest anti-competitive behaviour in the book.
It would have been completely fine if they started out with actually funding development of new games and only releasing them on their store.
I would have even given them some slack for their bad launcher since they were new to this.
Instead we are here, almost 6 years later. Their launcher is still trash, their exclusive deals were a complete money sink, EGS is still not profitable, they burned all bridges to Valve and are not one step closer to their claim that 30% is too much and they can do it with 8% 12%.
But it does, paying third parties to not publish on your competitors platform is the oldest anti-competitive behaviour in the book.
It would have been completely fine if they started out with actually funding development of new games and only releasing them on their store.
I would argue that even restricting sales to your own store is anti-competitive tying. You're avoiding competing on the merits of a store using exclusive licensing of a creative work.
Again, not a fan of the tactic, but they are trying to break an entrenched monopoly with a ton of network effects which is near impossible.
Instead we are here, almost 6 years later. Their launcher is still trash,
Their launcher is perfectly fine.
their exclusive deals were a complete money sink,
Not really. They weren't as effective as they wanted them to be but they did ultimately gain a significant chunk of market share.
EGS is still not profitable,
No, they needed to gain more market share to break even.
they burned all bridges to Valve and are not one step closer to their claim that 30% is too much and they can do it with 8% 12%.
But they are. They're not losing that much money, even with a tiny portion of market share. Valve having far more market share means they should be able to do it for an even smaller percentage than what epic is using, especially since Valve has 21 years of infrastructure to lean on.
I would argue that even restricting sales to your own store is anti-competitive tying. You’re avoiding competing on the merits of a store using exclusive licensing of a creative work.
A creative work which you made yourself, which you can sell wherever you want.
Should you sell it everywhere so as many people can play it as possible? Sure. Do you have to? No.
Again, not a fan of the tactic, but they are trying to break an entrenched monopoly with a ton of network effects which is near impossible.
Let's reverse the roles for a second: EGS is the big player and Steam is just getting started. EGS suddenly starts paying all publishers to only publish on their platform. Does that sound like competition to you? You don't break a monopoly by using tools used by monopolies.
Their launcher is perfectly fine.
Fine? Yes. It does the bare minimum of being able to buy a game and start it. Does it do everything I expect a modern game launcher to do after existing for almost 6 years? Nope.
But they are. They’re not losing that much money, even with a tiny portion of market share. Valve having far more market share means they should be able to do it for an even smaller percentage than what epic is using, especially since Valve has 21 years of infrastructure to lean on.
They are "not losing much money" while providing a fraction of the services Steam does. They say 30% is too much, we can do it in 12% and yet they severely lack in social features, have no modding support, no VR support, no in-home streaming, no Remote Play Together, no Big Picture, no Family Sharing, a barely functioning Steamworks alternative, no Steam Deck support, no Linux support and absolutely zero open source contributions. That's just the obvious stuff I can think of right now, every single menu you open in Steam you find a barebones menu in the EGS.
They don't even need 21 years of infrastructure for most of these, they just need to fund development of it. Which they seem to be unwilling to do so.
Let's reverse the roles for a second: EGS is the big player and Steam is just getting started. EGS suddenly starts paying all publishers to only publish on their platform. Does that sound like competition to you? You don't break a monopoly by using tools used by monopolies.
You're so close to figuring it out yet you pass right by it...
Also, Steam can have all the extras you mentioned while also making Gaben a billionaire so they do in fact get a huge surplus by charging 30% and found absolutely afford to give you all those extras with a smaller cut
A creative work which you made yourself, which you can sell wherever you want.
Should you sell it everywhere so as many people can play it as possible? Sure. Do you have to? No.
We're not talking about what you currently have to do, we're talking about anti- competitive behaviour and what you should do.
If you set up your own shop to avoid paying a middle man for something you can do yourself fine. If you set up your own shop and then use your exclusive games to grow your shop into something bigger, then that's anti-competitive tying. Your shop is not competing on its merits as a shop.
Let's reverse the roles for a second: EGS is the big player and Steam is just getting started. EGS suddenly starts paying all publishers to only publish on their platform. Does that sound like competition to you? You don't break a monopoly by using tools used by monopolies.
There is a fundamental difference between using anti-competitive behaviour to break a monopoly, and using it to entrench a monopoly. That's like arguing that a bully using violence and someone standing up to a bully using violence is the same thing.
They don't even need 21 years of infrastructure for most of these, they just need to fund development of it. Which they seem to be unwilling to do so.
Where do you think the funding for Valve's system came from? 21 years of taking 30% of virtually every single PC game sale.
There is a fundamental difference between using anti-competitive behaviour to break a monopoly, and using it to entrench a monopoly.
Yes, and as we all know, a company that gets to the top using scummy tactics will definitely change them once they're on top. /s
How fucking naive are you? There's no difference between the two because the later turns into the former every time. You're just defending your favored party using shit tactics, which is why you can't defend the opposite.
That's like arguing that a bully using violence and someone standing up to a bully using violence is the same thing.
If you have to use violence constantly to survive and thrive, violence is your only tool. Once the bully is defeated, the victim will begin bullying, continuing the cycle of violence. This is no different.
How fucking naive are you? There's no difference between the two because the later turns into the former every time. You're just defending your favored party using shit tactics, which is why you can't defend the opposite.
Lol no. It's called competition. It's the literal entire basis of how our economic system is supposed to work and remain balanced, and having two competitors inherently creates more competition than just one where their inherently is no competition.
If you have to use violence constantly to survive and thrive, violence is your only tool. Once the bully is defeated, the victim will begin bullying, continuing the cycle of violence. This is no different.
Now who's naiive, you really think that every time someone has stood up for themselves that they've gone on to become a bully?
Yet consumers get more value from Steam as a platform where that 30% cut has helped fund a powerful gaming platform, remote game streaming, driven developers to release builds for macOS and Linux and license users for all platforms with a single purchase, an open source handheld gaming device, an input library that enables practically any input device to be used and for controls to be remapped even if the game doesn’t support it, the best VR headsets and room-scale VR, popularising VR and making it mainstream, contributing to upstream to further gaming on Linux, enabling DirectX games to execute natively on Linux, several of the most popular multiplayer games on the internet, enticed PlayStation to release games on PC, putting indie developers on a level playing field with the biggest studios, enabling developers to release games mid development to help them self fund the game’s development, support the modding scene, and so much more.
Epic may charge developers less but that doesn’t offer me, a consumer, any extra value.
Instead their platform and its lack of investment and innovation make the purchases I have made in their store feel less valuable and cumbersome as their competition increase the value of their offerings.
I’m not saying they’re the bad guys but the argument that developers get more money doesn’t really matter if that 30% cut is felt justified to consumers.
And with the upcoming untethered VR offering from Valve on the horizon, which will no doubt be powered by open source with their improvements upstreamed, that 30% cut feels even more justified when Linux becomes fully capable of VR thanks to my purchases.
What extra value do you actually need? Hell, I use a third party launcher so I don't have to deal with the other ones and their bloat and can just launch my games.
Also, that 30% bought Gaben six yachts so let's stop pretending that they need 30% in order to develop the extras you talked about...
I mean, I'll give full Kudos to Valve for investing in Linux gaming, it wasn't exactly a selfless maneuver, but it is still valuable and makes the world a better place.
And I'll give them Kudos for contributing to VR, but they neither popularized it, nor make the best headsets, both of those titles go to Oculus. They do have the hands down best VR game ever made, but even that is not what popularized VR, Beat Saber is.
Ultimately, Valve has made billions and billions in profits on top of all that investment, and on top of paying all their employees $300k+ salaries + stock. I like a lot of what Steam offers, but it's also objectively unquestionable that they could have offered all of what they offer for far less money, but their de facto monopoly means that everyone will buy from them no matter what.
Because, let's be real, gamers aren'tt hating Epic for having to download mods through a third party mod site, they're hating them for having to use a second launcher / store.
They could have gone Unix and not contributed upstream like PlayStation did.
Oculus was a device. Valve built SteamVR literally for the Rift (I had the original developer model and using Steam was pretty much essential). Valve also ensured that SteamVR supported other devices too when they came to market, levelling the playing field and enabling consumers to pick and choose hardware without having to buy games across multiple different marketplaces.
Valve pay their employees what they’re worth and share their success with them rather than devaluing them and extracting value from them. That’s pretty good going. And given how much they do with so few, it says a lot about their culture and ethic.
I don’t know about other gamers but I dislike EGS because it’s simply an inferior product and I vote with my wallet. If they offer me more value than a competitor, I’ll gladly use them. I use GOG, itch.io, and Xbox GamePass so it’s not like I’m averse to other platforms. I just don’t see why, if a game is on EGS and Steam (and not on GamePass), what value is there to me as a consumer with going with EGS?
Valve pay their employees what they’re worth and share their success with them rather than devaluing them and extracting value from them. That’s pretty good going. And given how much they do with so few, it says a lot about their culture and ethic.
Gabe Newell is a literal billionaire. Valve executive are not taking a hit to pay them fairly, Steam just prints so much money that they can pay them more than they have to. Rather than lowering prices for the rest of consumers they decided to pay their staff exorbitant salaries in addition to themselves. It's better than just paying themselves, but it's not noble or good on a broad scale, it's them taking more societal resources than they need to provide a service.
I don’t know about other gamers but I dislike EGS because it’s simply an inferior product and I vote with my wallet. If they offer me more value than a competitor, I’ll gladly use them. I use GOG, itch.io, and Xbox GamePass so it’s not like I’m averse to other platforms. I just don’t see why, if a game is on EGS and Steam (and not on GamePass), what value is there to me as a consumer with going with EGS?
Again, not saying anyone should prefer EGS, but this thread started off because someone said Epic was a bad publisher, which is just based of their hate for EGS, not based on anything to do with their merits as a publishing partner.
400 people with higher wages than average for their field VS millions of customers keeping more money in their pockets...
Surprisingly most lemmings would choose the former 🤷
I honestly cannot fathom how gamers don't see how much Valve has fleeced them. Like you said, it's literally just 400 tech workers who would have had $150-200k salaries get to win the lottery and get $300k-500k salaries, at the expense of every single other gamer who just wanted to play a game at the end of their shift.
I’m not saying you should, I’m saying it doesn’t make them villains or a bad company.
I think it does. Instead of competing they chose to try and force customers to use their platform by buying exclusivity that specifically targets Steam. From the perspective of the customer they took the worst possible approach and, along with how Sweeney has talked about people like us, treated customers like a cattle to be herded, as if we couldn't think for ourselves and would throw ourselves into EGS if our games went there.
But the end goal of EGS wasn’t just to make them more money, they offer every developer more money when they publish there.
That is the PR they sold that the money goes into the hands of the developer. That is true only if the developer is also self publishing. Actually that extra money goes into the hands of the publisher and then it's up to the publisher to decide if the developers get any more money. And once again, from the customers perspective, we barely get anything out of that goal. Games don't get cheaper for us, we don't really get more games because of it. The publishers simply get more money per sale. They don't even get more money (except for the exclusivity money that Epic threw their way) because you sell significantly more copies on Steam because unlike Epic Steam doesn't treat its customers like cattle.
The underlying motivation for creating EGS in the first place was the recognition that Valve does not need to be taking a 30% cut of every game sale to provide the services they provide.
So to prove that Valve doesn't need to take a higher cut they make a store where they take fraction of the cut Steam would take but also offer a fraction of the services Steam offers? I think that would be an argument if they offered at least half of what Steam offers but they don't even do that. They made a barebones store for a barebones cut, that doesn't show anything.
The store taking a smaller cut of the pie either means that developers get more money to spend on the game or consumers spend less for games. Full stop.
Publishers have revenue sharing percentages with the developers, if a game sells more and makes more money per sale the developer gets more money.
There is no way that Valve is the good guy or even neutral for taking more of the pie then they need to.
buying exclusivity that specifically targets Steam
That specifically target Steam or Steam ends up being the only target because the other stores are either specialized or publisher specific?
I'm not sure what you're asking so I'll just expand on what Epic did. Epic made a deal with Ubisoft where Ubisoft releases their game on their store and on EGS but not on Steam despite all previous Ubisoft titles being on Steam. I remember there being another smaller publisher who made a deal with EGS and released their game on other storefronts (I think it was EGS and GOG but it also could've been the MS store) but not on Steam. I would consider that exclusivity targeting specifically Steam.
You are not arguing in good faith here - the other user is being very clear about their question and you are pretending not to understand. You invented a sourceless situation to answer the question while saying you didn't understand it.
His question was not clear to me which is why I stated I didn't understand what he was asking. And then expanded what I meant by exclusivity to see if that answered his question. And while I didn't have time to go find the sources especially since finding the source for the other publisher IMO isn't worth the effort (mainly because searching the web for anything very has become next to impossible unless you know exactly what you're looking for). The Ubisoft one however is really simple, anyone with basic googling skills could find it.
If anyone is here in bad faith it's you. You instantly assumed I'm being disingenuous and come attacking me without even doing a basic check to see if you have anything to attack.
You cherry picked a single example you couldn't recall until pressed. It's really obvious you're only here to trash a storefront you don't use for no reason. If you recall, the division 2 was only on uPlay, requiring you to install the game through it even if you purchased it elsewhere - and that's a substantially worse data collection vector than EGS (multiple breaches) and it is actually missing features like linking of DLC to the store page. What's your point?
Yeah, I'm not continuing this discussion with you. You won't even check if you're talking out of your ass. The division 2 released simultaneously on Uplay and EGS
It makes their product shit
Naive to think epic is offering a lower cut for altruistic reasons as opposed to it being the only method they could think of to try to convince devs to sell there. And that they wouldn't jack up the rate once they corned the market given how their how strategy has been more reminiscent of Walmart approach of pricing lowering to gain market share. Biggest sign is that the store isn't even profitable much like how lot of services these days aren't profitable and burn money then jack up prices and offer less once they corner the market. Hell even Microsoft Store has offered low rates of 12% because few want to use it. Going to argue Microsoft is nice too now? Not falling for it Tim.
Anyways existing doesn't entitle you to money. Make something people actually want to use and don't piss off your potential consumer base from the get go.
Naive to think epic is offering a lower cut for altruistic reasons as opposed to it being the only method they could think of to try to convince devs to sell there.
This is literal the entire basis of our economy. A company being able to offer a service more efficiently charges less and gets more customers to come to them. It is the literal only mechanism in capitalist that keeps it running at all efficiently.
And that they wouldn't jack up the rate once they corned the market given how their how strategy has been more reminiscent of Walmart approach of pricing lowering to gain market share. Biggest sign is that the store isn't even profitable much like how lot of services these days aren't profitable and burn money then jack up prices and offer less once they corner the market. Hell even Microsoft Store has offered low rates of 12% because few want to use it. Going to argue Microsoft is nice too now? Not falling for it Tim.
How would they corner the market? Steam still exists. As you pointed out, the Microsoft store still exists. If they ever jack up their prices devs can go elsewhere.
No one is accusing Epic or Microsoft of altruism, they offer 12% because that's closer to what it actually costs them to run the store. Steam charges 30% because gamers refuse to buy games from anywhere else so they can just tack on an extra 18% more money that they'll take.
You still haven't given a reason why to actually use epic despite your attempts to paint a billion dollar company as though it is some altruistic startup. If product isn't good why should I go out of my way to pay for a worse one from another billionaire. If it is all billionaires I'm going to just pick the better product.
Because I've never once tried to argue that anyone should use it.
Sorry I don't remember usernames. All these comments just got mixed up with the rest playing up that angle.
Dear PC gamers, please stop bitching about installing a second games launcher
No.
Don't force me to install a garbage dump that runs like shit and isn't even close to feature complete to play a game.
Or do and I won't pay, either way works lol.
Edit:
Noone is a fan of exclusives but Epic's behaviour was explicitly to try and break Steam's entrenched monopoly and they legitimately offer far more favourable terms for developers.
What a surprise, an epic defender that thinks that monopoly means store do good. There are plenty of competition against steams store, they just don't get market share because they're not feature complete or they just suck.
Or both in epic's case.
because they're not feature complete or they just suck.
Or serve a different kind of user base.
E.g. GOG, itch, publisher specific
That's like saying that Walmart doesn't have a monopoly in your little town because there's this one other store that stays open even though most clients don't go anymore.
Hell, the first sign that a monopoly exist is that independents that said they wouldn't deal with the company with the monopoly start to do it because they realise that their sales aren't up to par because customers won't buy from them unless their product is available in the bigger store.
https://www.polygon.com/23799285/blizzard-pc-games-steam-overwatch-2-release-date
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/21/23471589/ubisoft-return-steam-2022-assassins-creed-valhalla
It's not that people didn't want to play their games (otherwise they wouldn't sell on Steam either), it's that people didn't want to play them unless they were available on a specific launcher and that means Steam is in a monopolistic position.
Lol, your two examples are from companies that have their own shitty launchers that customers hated using because they aren't very good. That's a service issue entirely on them, steams MoNoPoLy is a lazy excuse to paper over that glaring fact.
Again, store do good isn't a monopoly. Steam isn't a monopoly just because every other competitor doesn't know what customers want or don't care because it's expensive. And you're kinda proving my point. There are tons of competing stores out there to use, but people don't use them nearly as much because they suck or they're not feature complete. Both Blizzard and Ubisoft have their own competing stores, but neither can get market share because they refuse to offer features that customers want. Epic has the same problem.
Steam's MoNoPolY is 100% a lack of services and features from the competition, and that's what keeps people coming back to the environment. This isn't Walmart undercutting sales to drive competitors out of the market, this is smaller hobby stores mad they can't slap their customers and be entitled to the business the big player has.
What features? I have seen a lot of complaining about performance of the storefront here, which leads me to believe a lot of the complainers have not actually used EGS in actual years. I haven't seen anyone mention an actual specific feature of Steam that EGS is missing. Multiple running versions for beta testing, DLC linking with the main game page, sale frequency, everything except the social features of steam (which are notorious for being garbage communities) are on par in EGS these days, so this thread is confusing for me since you guys haven't actually explained a single missing feature.
I would give them remote play otherwise most other things are better off on Independent platforms or are just bloat (who the fuck cares about cards???)
The fact that the launcher isn't as good isn't the point.
If you grow tomatoes and sell them in a small grocery but barely manage to sell any because they don't have that many clients because there's a Walmart across the street and you decide to start selling your tomatoes at Walmart as well, is it because the grocery sucks or because Walmart is in a monopolistic position?
Once a distributor gets big enough that they become the default solution for clients and selling through an alternative distributor means forgoing profit simply because clients won't bother buying from the alternative no matter how good it is, you're in a monopolistic system.
Let's be clear here, no matter how good EGS gets or no matter how good a new alternative made their launcher, the vast majority of people won't do the switch for the simple reason that their library is centralized in a single place and that place is Steam.
What's funny is that I'm sure most people who don't care about how big Steam gets must be pissed whenever there's centralization in other markets. Hell, what platform are we on and why did it suddenly become popular? Because the giant that had cornered the market decided to turn to shit. Well, why wait until that happens with Valve instead of taking preventive measures and helping the competition? "Competition is good, it forces innovation!" Well that doesn't happen if even the customers are automatically turning against the competitors and never giving them a chance to improve.
The fact that the launcher isn't as good isn't the point.
It absolutely is the point, because the store and launcher being shit is why they have no market share. You're basically saying that it's not their fault that customers don't want to use their product.
The whole rest of your argument about physical distribution is a non-sequitor which doesn't map to digital distribution. And again, you keep alleging monopolistic tactics that don't exist in the real world. Epic being shit and not even remotely close to the same usable product does not make steam a monopoly.
Let's be clear here, no matter how good EGS gets or no matter how good a new alternative made their launcher, the vast majority of people won't do the switch for the simple reason that their library is centralized in a single place and that place is Steam.
You have no evidence of this, because no one has tried to offer a competitive service. And in fact, there is evidence against you with people choosing other stores like GoG and itch.io for games they want from those platforms even with the lower feature set. I use both platforms frequently for indie games or stuff I want DRM free, even though my main library is steam.
But again, those platforms aren't nearly as popular because they don't offer the same feature set. It's not steam forcing out competition, it's no one being willing to make a product to actually compete. Again, this is a service issue, not a tactics issue.
Also, L.O.L. at comparing a free service chasing cash to something you have to pay for.
But I'm done with this argument, have a good day.
Or just... Don't make a launcher?
Yeah lol, people forget that GoG exists god dammit.
We don't need a launcher to install games on PC, every launcher purpose is to collect data.
Dear PC gamers, please stop bitching about installing a second games launcher.
I'm neither bitching nor installing that shit. I take every freebie, but never install anything other than through Steam, just let 'em pile up. I'm actually not bothered by exclusivity at all, I only exceedingly rarely pay for games before they're 75% off a few years down the line. Stuff like Synthetik 2 or Shapez 2, where I know what I'm getting and it's a small team with an uncompromising vision.
Epic’s behaviour was explicitly to try and break Steam’s entrenched monopoly
Steam doesn't have monopoly on anything, they just have superior service that people prefer, but there's quite a few stores / launchers. I like Epic's engine, but their launcher is still crap five years down the line.
Steam doesn't have monopoly on anything, they just have superior service that people prefer
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
You can have a monopoly without abusing it, you're still in a monopolistic position and in a position where you can start abusing it and people are left without an alternative.
All your games are on Steam and stuck there, tomorrow they decide to start charging users a monthly fee for online services, what then? You purchased multiplayer games telling yourself the purchase price was all you would need to pay but now you need to pay every month to play those games all because Valve can do whatever they want since they don't have any real competition.
So yes, monopolies are a problem because they open the door to abuse even if it doesn't happen at the moment.
All your games are on Steam and stuck there
No, that's the point, I have tons of ubishit and hundreds of Sweeney's freebies, some on gog, origin or whatever they're calling it these days, all over the place. What monopoly? I mean they sold me a linux pc in a gamepad that's fully fledged arch only Valve is maintaining it for me, drivers work with no fiddling or deep lore research. But I can do whatever with it, it's a personal computer. They didn't try locking it in any way. Remarkably monopolistic
Again, what do you do about your multiplayer games that your purchased on Steam if they decide to start charging money for the online services? They actually are stuck there, you can't take them with you to another platform, you are dependent on their goodwill to be able to download them and there's tons of people who got banned from Steam and that don't have access to the games that they paid for anymore.
monopolies are abusive by nature
Yup, gamers just like that specific monopoly because they feel like they're getting something good in return but they don't take into consideration the door that it leaves open.
yawn
If it's not on Steam or GoG I pirate. Console children should go touch grass or go to school so they understand something other than defending multi-billion dollar megacorps.
Not to rain on your parade but Gabe Newell collects yachts so if you're against multi billion dollar mega corps then your option is itch.io and buying from indie devs directly and that's pretty much it.
Lmao, says the guy defending a multi billion dollar megacorp's monopoly.
I prefer competition in all markets, if you prefer monopolies that take 18% more of every single sale, I have bad news for you about your level of grown up ness.
Says the one defending Steam lmao grow up
Quick google says epic has 13000+ employee while Valve has only 300+, and yet they can't build a legitimate competitor and have to resort to exclusivity deal to force people onto their platform which is totally anti consumer.
Also for the record console players whine endlessly about Xbox/PS exclusive games, so don't act like this is some weird thing that PC gamers do.
Why do you bring up console players? What does that have to do with Steam?
Also, what's the cutoff for the number of employees a company can have before it's weird to stan for them? Because I've never liked Steam, and Valve was one of the first companies to promote lootboxes and literal gambling to children, but Epic is the devil for some reason?? Lol gtfo
The point is that Epic complaining about being unable to compete with Steam, and therefore needing to employee anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices rings a little hollow given that they have significantly more resources available.
I'm not here to stan for either company, I think if Epic wants to compete they need to create a better product, not fling monopoly accusation while actively pursuing monopolistic strategies.
I can agree that challenging Steam is probably a good thing, but right now Steam just gives so much more value to Devs and publishers. Steam provides:
and that's just what I can think of, not including the player specific stuff like library sharing.
Devs and publishers pay more, but get a community and ecosystem in return instead of just a platform.
Reviews > Also available from websites that don't have a financial incentive to show good reviews
Remote play > Good example
Workshop > Also available elsewhere
Forums > Also available elsewhere on platforms that don't have a financial incentive to censor criticism
Cards and points stores > Bloat
Yeah but no one do all of that with the same tool, in the same place for every game.
Yeah, but think about how much money Valve has taken, 30% of virtually every single PC game sale over the past 21 years.
I do understand that there's more value provided, but that's the thing with monopolies, they can still provide more value than upstarts because an upstart has to build everything they did, while having none of the market share that they had to do it with.
Dear PC gamers, please stop bitching about installing a second game launcher.
No, and fuck you.
There is no purpose in a second game launcher and it only causes things to be cumbersome. Hell, games don't technically need any launcher.
I prefer EA and Ubisoft.
You shouldn't.
