Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by angelgraves13, Mar 21, 2019.
It's just PR management after their recent shitshow
I think that many people remember steam quite wrongly. Yes sure they were hated when they launched and everyone had to use it to play HL2, but it's Valve's game that was released on their platform. It's also important to remember, that at the time there was basically no other platform like that. Valve has build up the entire digital distribution business on PC. Steam didn't attract customers because they paid off developers to exclusively release on their platform, their platform attracted customers because it was easy and comfortable to use. Steam also offered regular sales that were extreme and attracted massive amount of people. They even went to Russia market, where everyone told them it would be a loss due to piracy, yet the comfort that their service provided ensured that they have succeeded and made a profit. Then when other storefronts emerged, Valve didn't force publishers to use steam exclusively, even though they absolutely could have.
I'd also like to note that steam isn't the only digital distribution service, beside all the publisher specific launchers, there is i.e. gog. Sure they started off mostly offering old games, but that quickly expanded to new games as well. Did they attract customers by making things exclusive ? No, gog provided services that customers valued and therefore used.
Now EGS, the problem here isn't with the launcher. There would be very few people who have a problem with an extra launcher that they use. I mean I have now 4 and another one wouldn't be an issue, they all run pretty autonomously, keep games updated and remember the login, so I don't have to bother typing it. Sure, EGS lacks features that they absolutely should have, because they have already so many examples of launchers to copy. However, that's besides the point, the problem is Epic itself and their practice of exclusives. It brings nothing to me as a customer, it's literally holding games as hostages in exchange of using their storefront. That's something I personally can't ever support, even though I wouldn't mind using their launcher otherwise. If EGS only takes 12% of then surely they can negotiate to provide better price and attract customers, or provide better service as i.e. better curated store which they advertise. Many people do not care about the launcher and I think that if the games there were cheaper, they would have definitely at least tried it.
Personally, I was looking forward to Metro and Outer Worlds and especially Outer Worlds would have been a day one buy for me, instead I would probably pick it up in some winter sale for 10 USD, If I will remember about it. After all if anything, there is always something to play on PC.
Epic clearly thought the 12% would not be enough to attract a better price and customers, and based on what i've read from they were correct in that assumption People are willing to pay more to get it on Steam, they are willing to wait a year etc...
Not all, but many just won't change unless you force them and some never will.
Consumer loyalty to Steam has forced exclusivity onto consumers, maybe years down the line when/if Steam has lower market/mindshare we would not need these sort of exclusive deals, but until then there is just no alternative.
force negates change, you force someone to do something via a threat, and not playing the game you want in the way you want is a form of threat, if they had not forced that change, they never would have gotten the degree of backlash they got, and they would have had a few more people willing to give them a go to save a few dollars.
Sure they still had the data, ownership, store quality, and security concerns, but they took the THREATS off the table. That is the fuel for the boycott not the other stuff, other stuff could be fixed given time or money,
No they wouldn't have, people will stick to what they like and are used to unless there is no other option. The backlash is just a very vocal minority like every other outcry of anger nowadays.
Sure you will definitely lose alot of people via force, but you will gain alot as well.
... umm, are you serious? No being able to play a game the way you want is a THREAT?!? Jeez louis - talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Making games exclusive to a particular store is not a "threat". Apple wasn't threatening phone users when they made the iPhone exclusive to AT&T, and Nintendo wasn't threatening console gamers when they signed exclusive handheld rights to Tetris. This kind of over-exaggerated hyperbole does not help your case.
What do you base your assumption on that people would not change from steam even if they had to pay more ? You have repeated it here several times, but I don't see any reference to how you came up with this. On the other hand, It is obvious that both sales and service brought customers to steam and i.e. gog. As I've said, especially steam started from nothing at the time where nothing like it existed, so they had to attract customers through service.
D3M1G0D, while dramatic i do think that can be considered a threat, but it's also a factual statement.If you don't buy it on our store, then you can't buy it full stop.
It's based on comments from Steam customers who think that higher prices are a better solution than exclusivity.
I've lost count of the amount of people who have claimed to be anti DRM and also CDPR fans, yet skipped the GOG version and went for the Steam version of their games.
Valve did start Steam from nothing, but that also meant no competition. This isn't just a anti Valve rant, i just think that competition is a good thing for PC gaming.
See the thing is though Epic prices are exactly the same as Steam prices for me. so besides the whole exclusivity,their store or nothing deal there's really no incentive outside of the proverbial carrot their dangling, why wouldn't I just stick with Steam and get the usual benefits. People complained about Steam and regional pricing and they did make adjustments but if Epic want my money then give me some kind of incentive to spend it. It's certainly not their "great service" or myriad of features so...
I'm kinda glad Outer Worlds will be available on Windows Store but there's a total caveat there too because Windows Store for me is the most expensive of anyone...
Definition of threat:
1. a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
2. a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
Does Epic intent to inflict pain, injury or damage if you don't use their store for the excluded games? Is the inability to play said excluded games injurious or damaging? The answer to both is clearly no.
I wouldn't exactly say that.
Plenty of people ditched Steam in favor of buying titles off of GoG so they could have titles without DRM.
People are loyal to Steam, as long as the service has been around... it's only natural. People are used to it, comfortable with it. And people like to stick with what they are comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that.
But, if something offers a truly better improvement... it will and can draw people away.
The problem is... and this, THIS, is my big issue with Epic... it's offered NOTHING better for a consumer. They are not trying to win users by offering a better platform, they are trying to force it with exclusives.
And it's not impossible to out do Steam.
They just have to put the work in. But, they are trying to cut corners instead.
I think many are going with "hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done"
Damien_Azreal, nowadays all the DD services are so similar that other than brand loyalty there isn't much to differentiate between them all. Exclusivity is the only way anyone new can be competitive.
Ask a question about which console you should buy, and exclusives will dominate the response. Not everyone will agree, but it's the reality.
Which.... kind of points out... do we need anyone new?
But, Epic made all the money with that horrible game (Fortnite), so now they think they need to be up along the ranks of Valve. So... here we are.
I mean, they sold Gears of War, and pissed off all their Unreal Tournament fans. So...
PC Gamers: *content*
Epic Games: hey looks at all these games we used fortnight money to bribe publishers to pull from other pc stores for 1 year so you can only purchase them on our fortnight launcher within the first year.
Yes we do, unless you work for Valve.
It's not about Epic, it's about a competitive market.
Do we need anything other than DirectX or Windows or Nvidia or Intel ,or PC games when we have consoles or cloud based gaming services...
Then offer a competitive product and service not on locking down games behind exclusivity...There's nothing competitive about what Epic is doing. They are putting games behind their wall in an attempt to get people to use their sub par service....Should put some of that money into their own product before buying up a bunch of games to put on it....
It is a FORM of threat, you HAVE TO BUY IT HERE OR YOU CANT PLAY IT. what the hell is that? all exclusives are a "threat" in a factual sense.
All you are debating is the semantics of calling it what it technically is.
Except what Epic are doing is not competition.
You can't "compete" when something is locked behind a wall, and only available in one place.
No, it is not - your usage is technically incorrect according to the definition. A shop saying "you have to buy it here to play it" is not threatening you in any way - in no way is your health or livelihood in jeopardy if you do not comply. The only thing you lose out on is the ability to play and enjoy the game, which is not injurious or damaging. To even conflate the two shows the sheer arrogance of gamers - "my gaming experience is so important that anyone putting limits on it is injuring me".
It's competition for developers / publishers, not gamers.
And gamers have to deal with the fallout or f em.
That is the issue hence gamers tend to take it personally duh.