Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by angelgraves13, Mar 21, 2019.
then why is fortnight on there?
Because it's the fortnight launcher....
I've played it a couple of times. It's really only fun if you play with friends. I wouldn't call it a game though.
Is the Epic Games CEO stupid or what? He claims to respect developers "creative freedom", but then goes on to say they don't accept "pornographic" or "shock" content?
And when you think things weren't dumb enough, he then goes on to say that PC is an open platform; while paying off publishers and locking games behind their client for a full year?
I'm struggling to get what the big deal with all the hate for EGS is, I remember when Steam first came around and CS got bolted on to it and everyone collectively lost their minds and went ballistic. Lets also not forget all the years people kept calling Steam spyware so I'm sat here thinking "this is just history repeating itself again".
Heck I remember when Skyrim launched, I told a mate from World of Warcraft to check it out, told him about the game and he sounded like he was getting quite pumped up about it so then he asks me how can he get it and I told him you buy it through Steam and he made a complete 180 with a stern "NO"... "I will never use Steam, it's spyware software!". I of course asked him if he was high.
If the game is decent, I'll play it regardless of the launcher/storefront because those storefront's are really just an extra click between me and the actual game. What I don't want to see is the games multiplayer components locked to a given storefront like what happened with one of the CoD's a few years back where people who bought it from the windows store and people who bought it on Steam couldn't play together.
As for any missing features that Steam has and EGS does not, well, I'm pretty sure those will be worked in over time.
Ok, I'll ask yet again. Since everybody keeps throwing the Steam percentage around, can they provide me with some explanation how exactly is the 30% "insane"? I would like to see a comparison with how much Microsoft asks for its Xbox, Sony for the Playstation, Nintendo for Switch, etc. Or how much EA asks for games to be published on Origin (since it does allow 3rd party games).
This is a genuine question. I keep seeing this "argument" over and over again, but everybody just says: "it's too much", without any sort of comparison.
I don't think there would be that much outrage, if at all.. if epic were only releasing it's own games on it's own "store"... but that's not the issue here is it, the issue is epic paying developers to not release games on Steam for 1 year, exclusivity being the choice word.... epic are paying for exclusivity because they cannot compete any other way.
Yeah I get your point but the way I see it is its just business at the end of the day and they are taking the aggressive approach to secure a foothold. Obviously the problem with exclusivity deals is that it kinda kills off competition and we're stuck paying the price EGS asks whereas if that exclusive game was available on multiple stores we might see money off deals.
I can easily avoid EGS, even up to date with their exlusive games. Might be lucky, but I don't support their practices, so I guess Epic and me, we agree to disagree. Good riddance.
Tim Sweeney is an arrogant, pompous jerk.
And a guy that is fully behind his own line of thought. I've heard people talk about how rude he is at conventions, talking down to people.
Kind of makes sense he's the type of guy behind this.
Steam will be fine, it will just no longer monopolize the PC digital distribution platform market and will face STIFF competition from EGS. I have no problem with this, as I am not a Steam loyalist. Although Steam is currently by far the best digital distribution client for PC games, it doesn't mean it will always be. And EGS will improve by leaps and bounds as time goes by, just like Steam, Origin, Uplay, Galaxy etcetera all have.
Ultimately, developers and publishers are going to place their products on the platform that works best for them, and there's nothing we can do about it other than boycotting them and choosing not to buy their products. But what does this solve exactly, and who benefits from this action? Certainly not gamers.
For example, if a heavily anticipated game like CDPR's Cyberpunk 2077 was announced to be exclusive to the GoG Galaxy platform, how many of you would boycott it then? Could you honestly blame the developer and publisher of the game (CDPR) to make it exclusive to their own platform where they can potentially reap 100% of the profit, rather than 70% if it were placed on Steam? I honestly could not. It's their product, and they should do what's best for them. Boycotting them would look silly in light of that.
And does Steam deserve your exclusive loyalty? You can rail about exclusivity not having a place on an open platform like the PC, but then you practice exclusivity when it comes to deciding where to buy your games. It's your right and your money, you can do whatever you like. But it is definitely ironic.
Personally, even though I still love PC gaming, I don't buy as many games as I used to. I'll be 40yrs old this year in August, and as I've gotten older and my kids are now in high school, I've had less free time to play. So I choose my games very carefully, and I only buy the ones that I really want to play. I also like to support my favorite developers and publishers as much as possible, because I want them to make MORE games. So downloading another launcher is a small price to pay to do that. In fact, on my PC right now I have GoG, Steam, Uplay and Origin all installed. All four of them have improved tremendously over the years since I've been using them, and so will EGS.
Wow, the same Strawmen every time, this isn't about Steam or developer splits.
I realise you probably haven't read the whole thread but all the points you bring up have nothing to do with why people are annoyed.
None of the launchers/Storefronts you include force you to shop on them outside of first party games and that is fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with EA selling Battlefield exclusively on their store (for example).
The problem, as has been repeated more times than the declaration of independence at this point, is the exclusivity for games that have nothing to do with Epic outside of the fact that they are paying the developers off, the poaching of games that have been advertised on other platforms for months, Epic disingenuously trying to take credit for sales that they had nothing to do with (by using months worth of other companies advertising to falsely inflate their sales data) and last, but by no means least, forcing consumers to use a subpar storefront/launcher.
And as Sweeney has already said that he doesn't really care about the customers or the Storefront, as apparently, that is not where 'the battle will be won', I'm not sure why we should be in any way confident that it will improve in any meaningful capacity.
Yeah, we're just cattle to be herded and milked to these creeps. I'm just going to treat this as a boss fight and not give anyone, big or small, taking exclusivity deals any cash since they're more interested in making money before a single copy is sold.
Yah, you know when guys like Strauss Zelnick are singing it's praises, it's not going to be good for consumers.
The guy is a grade A POS, just like Bitchford, Wilson, Kotick and all those other f*ckers who pay themselves tens of millions in bonus money while laying off 'the little people'.
The same 'little people' who make all the revenue a reality in the first place, because it's not like any of those tossers have an atom of creativity (or integrity) between them.
They're just going for the big names in AAA and indies, the "struggling" people Between that and executive abuse, everything's so plain and obvious that I can't help but chuckle at the people falling for the poor little devs bs People aren't "supporting the devs", they're contributing to bigger bonuses for people who are no different from Kottick and Wilson. Marks ...
But Steam has nothing to do with sales a game had either. Steam is a service for distribution.
I wont lie, there are some features I think Epic should have launched their store with but being subpar or bad is completely subjective. For me at least, it launches games and updates them no problem, doesn't seem to bother a number of users either. But features are being added, and these features take time to develop and test. No point in putting a out a launcher with broken features.
Yah, this has nothing to do with more money for devs, but they wouldn't be able to sell it if they were honest about the real reasons for doing it.
It's far more effective to play to people's emotions with all this 'poor developer' bollocks.
In our current climate of extremely over emotional behaviour and reaction, I will actually give them credit, it was a sound financial decision.
Epic swiped their vbucks card and bought the no ethics cheat ... sorry ... live service
Yah, Sweeney doesn't care about the launcher (or customers), that's not where 'the battle will be won'.
Straight from his own mouth.