Epic Games Store



  • @mbun Noone knew anything, people kept coming up with stories and love coming up with a shit storm because Tencent is the big dog in this race.



  • @mbun Correction. Entitled crybabies whine about that shit.
    My fiancé and I aren't exactly flush with cash, but when we found out the new season of Veronica Mars was exclusive to Hulu (Crave in Leafistan) we made it works. Why? Because why the fuck would we complain, and what use would it do?
    If a company wants to put up the money to make a product exclusive to their platform, they are in their right to do so, regardless of how many nerds it may upset by adding another program to their toolbar.
    Thats capitalism for ya.



  • I feel like everyone calling dissenters "entitled crybabies" isn't the best way to facilitate good-faith discussion on the issue at hand.



  • @hanabi This is the first topic that's made me understand that other topic about people not wanting to use these forums.



  • I agree, no need to call people names. Let's try and have a civil argument.



  • The main problem with the epic game store is that its not better for consumers at all. they passed the savings (theoretically) onto the publishers/developers but the consumer is stuck having to use a inferior service because they are forcing you to use their launcher/community with no benefits for them.



  • I don't care too much about additional installers anymore, I've become numb to it. However, the fragmentation of tertiary benefits of using different services is kinda maddening.

    I like achievements. They're a fun, additional little thing that means nothing more than trophy points, cheevo numbers, etc, in most cases (although Ubi's system nets you some fun currency to spend on silly stuff, which I find fun). The fact that none of my achievements just "show up" all in one place is kind of a letdown, which is why I signed up for Raptr and XFire back in the day. Sadly, they both are defunct and that centralizing force is gone.

    I also like knowing that if I buy something in game, it's attached to something I can count on existing in the future. Fortunately, some companies have their own internal system for tracking your digital "stuff," but not all do. This is probably my biggest complaint about MCTs (is that the acronym we're using?) don't always follow you from system to system or service to service, unless less the dev and platform holder deign it so. Much worse, there are few judicial decisions or laws written to protect consumers from have to buy or license content multiple times.

    So, I can understand the anger, frustrations, etc, but some seem to be mad about the wrong thing, or mad about something that hasn't really happened. I'm fortunate enough to have not invested too much into certain games to the point of being effected by this, yet, but if I did lose the thousands of dollars in gaming investment I put into my Steam library because of strong-arming by another company, I'd be livid. Worse still, these companies can afford to take it all to court and potentially screw over consumers in a big way (I don't know, help me, someone, who is a lawyer).

    This is meandering, but let's try something: ignore the ridiculous reactions and knee-jerk commentary. Don't be unreasonable, and don't respond to the ridiculous crybabies (I know, they're there, but they're not thinking critically, but we are, right?) I want to know why YOU have a problem with this. Or, why you don't.

    Again, for me, I prefer a centralized place for the content I purchased so I know what I own, I don't want to purchase it more than once, and I want to be able to play with who I want to play with (I miss hosting private servers). Epic is isolating not only titles, but whole developers and that specific segmentation make me sad.



  • Didn't Valve announce they're making VR software that is going to be exclusive to their VR headset? Meaning if you have a Vive and Steam, you still get locked out due to exclusivity?

    As Ben says in the podcast, "You've gotta take the plunge and say, 'Nope, you can only get this here.' Everybody does this. If Sega were to come out with the Dreamcast 2 tomorrow, they'd be like, 'Hey, you can only get this here.' That's the rules we've been playing by from the beginning."

    Personally, I love Steam getting called out. If anyone has held a "monopoly" on the PC market, it's largely been them and they've become apathetic due to it. Any glance at the mountains and mountains of trash on their client will prove that. As a mostly console gamer, timed exclusives are something I got used to all the way back when Resident Evil 4 got announced on the Gamecube and not the PS2. In that scenario though, I would have had to shell out a few hundred extra dollars for new hardware. In Epic's case, I have to download a launcher I don't like as much or just wait a year to play the game. I would agree portions of the internet are blowing the issue out of proportion.



  • @SabotageTheTruth Valve needs some significant competition, that's for sure. I sometimes wonder why GoG or Humble haven't tried to keep their stores separated from Steam, rather than tied themselves directly to it in some way. But then I remember the value add of not having to maintain their own networks of user data as well as other housekeeping. Without competition, Valve can get away with being lazy. I hope this spurs them in a better direction for better curation.



  • @bigdude1 you are no more forced to use their launcher than you are to buy a PS4, Xbox One, Switch or you know install Steam for probably about 75% of PC games. If you want to play exclusives you go where the exclusives are. No game is an entire market in and of itself.



  • @binarymelon said:

    you are no more forced to use their launcher than you are to buy a PS4, Xbox One, Switch

    Exclusivity is normal in the console space, because it drives sales of the consoles, but PC has been traditionally more open in the past.

    or you know install Steam for probably about 75% of PC games

    But that has nothing to do with cutting exclusivity deals and everything to do with Steam's openness to host most games, even the ones people get pissed off at for clogging the store and saying Steam should crack down and curate the games they don't like more, even though Steam offers a wide range of tools to easily sort through the clutter and find what you're looking for.

    Also, I think you missed the point of what they were saying completely, which was valid criticism against Epic not offering as much through their storefront as Steam does. Some of that I wonder if will be fixed in time if they stick around, but Steam has been at this so long that it would probably take Epic quite awhile to catch up, even if they aspired to, which right now doesn't seem to be the case.



  • @mbun said in Epic Games Store:

    Exclusivity is normal in the console space, because it drives sales of the consoles, but PC has been traditionally more open in the past.

    or you know install Steam for probably about 75% of PC games

    But that has nothing to do with cutting exclusivity deals and everything to do with Steam's openness to host most games, even the ones people get pissed off at for clogging the store and saying Steam should crack down and curate the games they don't like more, even though Steam offers a wide range of tools to easily sort through the clutter and find what you're looking for.

    Also, I think you missed the point of what they were saying completely, which was valid criticism against Epic not offering as much through their storefront as Steam does. Some of that I wonder if will be fixed in time if they stick around, but Steam has been at this so long that it would probably take Epic quite awhile to catch up, even if they aspired to, which right now doesn't seem to be the case.

    How exclusivity is achieved is it not really of importance to the consumer. Whether it be cheques being cut or a virtual Monopoly that would be suicide for for indie devs and smaller pubs not to play along with (obviously the latter does have implications for the consumer, but somehow I get the idea you're ok with those). Also Epic is trying to play catch up and the roadmap they published is at least an idea of what they are trying to accomplish.

    https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap



  • I don't understand this need for fucking virtual storefronts to be these feature laden cluster fucks like Steam.

    Like, why is it so damn important for Epic to have forums, a rating system, trophies, trading cards, and other useless bullshit that doesn't really matter when all I want to do is buy and play a game? Sure it is nice that those things are included in the store's infrastructure, but if I really want to figure out if a game is worth buying I can spend about 3.5 seconds on Google and figure that out myself like a big boy.

    Nintendo seems to be doing fine without including any of that, and I don't see anyone trying to draw blood from them over thier comprehensive lack of features compared to competing platforms, at least not nearly as much as they have Epic.

    But hey whatever. GAMERS RISE UP, right?



  • @el-shmiablo You don't think Switch would be better With Achievements?



  • @iboshow I mean, it would be nice, but they aren't going to make Smash any more 10/10 than it already is.
    At this point, I've become very accustomed to Nintendo being several generations behind it's competition. Epic has literally just opened their store for business, so I have not yet had enough time to excpect that same level of disappointment from them.



  • @binarymelon said:

    a virtual Monopoly that would be suicide for for indie devs and smaller pubs not to play along with (obviously the latter does have implications for the consumer, but somehow I get the idea you're ok with those)

    You're not going to convince me that Steam being easy to get your game hosted on is suddenly a negative, no matter how you spin it. Steam isn't stopping the same devs from putting their games on Humble Bundle, GoG, etc. It has just been said by many devs that those services are harder to get their game put up on. Epic is stopping the people it cuts exclusivity deal from putting their game anywhere else, except Humble Bundle now that they partnered with them to offer Epic Keys buyable through Humble Bundle at the expense of no longer being able to get Steam Keys though Humble Bundle as you could until they partnered up like this.

    So it is very obvious what Epic is doing, and yes it should matter to the consumer why things are exclusive. People shouldn't be pissed if Nintendo funds Bayonetta 2 instead of letting the franchise die, but if Bayonetta 2 was already done and Nintendo just bought exclusivity rights to it, then yes that's something people would have every right to be annoyed with if they played the previous game on different hardware and now have to go buy new hardware for virtually no reason but schemes to sell more hardware. When this keeps happening and is obviously a ploy to force people towards the Epic Store, (yes, it is forcing people interested in the game as the only other option is not playing the game) then people have every right to push back against this and call it out for the bad business practices it is. People complained about the Windows Store having exclusives before too when that was going on, and we've seen over time most of those be opened up to other market places.

    I understand if you're primarily a console gamer who has been indoctrinated to think this is normal, because for the console space it is and makes complete sense to support the hardware side of consoles, but in the PC space hardware only differs in strength and the OS it is running, so there's no valid reason behind these market places walling off exclusive games behind them. You're not buying an Epic PC or a Steam PC (lol Steamboxes) or a GoG PC that's supported by exclusive software. They're just places to buy games, and the consumer should be the one with the choice of where to buy their games. If the Epic Store was so amazing, they wouldn't have to strongarm people into buying the games they want there with exclusivity deals. We'd all be flocking there naturally and happy if it was the best place to get them.

    @El-Shmiablo said:

    I don't understand this need for fucking virtual storefronts to be these feature laden cluster fucks like Steam.

    Because it is useful for discovering games, it is useful for finding out information about specific games when you need that, it provides a place to talk about games and show off fun screenshots and videos from them, etc. Basically, it is just very nice for the consumer having a top of the line experience playing games and wanting to purchase and play more of them. You aren't even forced to use any of them, so if you don't want to, you don't have to. But the features remain there for people who want to tap into them.

    why is it so damn important for Epic to have forums

    Good for players when they get stuck or the devs want to pass information to the community about upcoming updates or roadmaps or take feedback. I've seen Steam's forums used for alot, and I've searched them for answers to stuff that wasn't available anywhere else many times before.

    a rating system

    This is one of my favorite ways to quickly tell a game's basic strengths and weaknesses as well as if it is complete disaster zone or not. Steam makes it super easy with the general vibe around the game, then right under that a slew of user reviews for you to skim and crosscheck against one another for information relevant to your interests.

    trophies

    I don't give a shit about trophies, but some people do I guess. I guess ask Bosman why he does Platinum Rush streams or Brad why he wants achievements on Switch so bad or the entire EZA Community why Achieve It Yourself is even a thing? Even if we don't care, some people find enjoyment in gaming through this.

    trading cards

    So that's obviously a ploy for Steam to make more money, but developers also get a decent bonus cut from them, and for users who don't care about them they can simply sell off all the cards they get for free and earn enough essentially free money to buy extra games that is then more money in the pocket of developers. They're a bit of a gray area though, because they're honestly quasiscams to people who love collecting things and leveling up, but Steam does set hard limits in place of how much you can spend to somewhat protect people with no self control from overspending on all that. The associated emotes are too small to matter, but I do enjoy repping my favorite games on Steam on my profile with the backgrounds you can get for making card sets, and Steam allows users to sell all that junk, so you can skip the whole card aspect and just get the backgrounds you want or whatever.

    all I want to do is buy and play a game?

    Okay, but it isn't all about you. Let people have choices. Besides, you could still just buy and play a game on Steam. Type game into search engine. Purchase it. Download it. Disable Steam Overlay. Play it. Done.

    if I really want to figure out if a game is worth buying I can spend about 3.5 seconds on Google and figure that out myself like a big boy.

    Why does Google searching this suddenly make you a big boy versus being informed anywhere else? They're all doing research just the same. Going out of your way to type into Google doesn't make you special or better as you're implying. Let people research games where and how they'd like.

    Nintendo seems to be doing fine without including any of that, and I don't see anyone trying to draw blood from them over thier comprehensive lack of features compared to competing platforms, at least not nearly as much as they have Epic.

    I wish Nintendo had all the stuff Steam does. That would be awesome! Right now I just have to go out of my way for all that information. They used to have Miiverse sure, so you can argue they tried, but that was never functional in the same way because it just devolved into memes and 11 year olds trying to virtually date one another. It did function as intended for a select handful of games like Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Maker where it was integrated cleverly right into the games though. I'd love to have that back someday. Sadly, right now they're trying to sell that stupid mobile app. But you asked why nobody is trying to draw blood from Nintendo for not having all that. Because they aren't buying already finished games and making them exclusives. They're funding new games and making them exclusives and continuing to make their own in-house exclusive titles, but they're not trying to grab up random upcoming titles and cut exclusivity deals with them like you see occasionally from Sony and Xbox. But even they don't do it that often compared to how Epic has been.

    GAMERS RISE UP, right?

    I don't know why you've equated all this to that nonsense. Please keep that nonsense off these forums. I don't want to deal with either side of that pissing contest. Stop reminding me they exist and validating them through mention.

    @iboshow said:

    You don't think Switch would be better With Achievements?

    They kind of built Achievements into Super Mario Odyssey, and having to mash through receiving 50+ Moons (Stars) in a row was one of my least favorite parts of the game, so until they can learn to do achievements like Subset Games does Achievements I think people are better off it they don't.



  • @mbun said in Epic Games Store:

    @binarymelon said:

    a virtual Monopoly that would be suicide for for indie devs and smaller pubs not to play along with (obviously the latter does have implications for the consumer, but somehow I get the idea you're ok with those)

    You're not going to convince me that Steam being easy to get your game hosted on is suddenly a negative, no matter how you spin it. Steam isn't stopping the same devs from putting their games on Humble Bundle, GoG, etc. It has just been said by many devs that those services are harder to get their game put up on. Epic is stopping the people it cuts exclusivity deal from putting their game anywhere else, except Humble Bundle now that they partnered with them to offer Epic Keys buyable through Humble Bundle at the expense of no longer being able to get Steam Keys though Humble Bundle as you could until they partnered up like this.

    Not really sure how you got ease of publishing out of my point at all. It's pretty clear from your recent posts you're not really arguing in good faith. No point in continuing this.



  • @binarymelon said:

    Not really sure how you got ease of publishing out of my point at all.

    Responding to you trying to say Steam has a virtual monopoly, when that isn't remotely the case.

    It's pretty clear from your recent posts you're not really arguing in good faith.

    That's how I feel about you at this point since your only response now is to attack my integrity since you seem to have run out of rebuttals to pitch.

    Yall seriously defend Epic like you work for them. Do I want devs to get more money per sale of their game? Of course! Is Epic's current practices the right way to achieving this? Hell no.



  • I'm voting for Bernie next election because capitalism is ruining PC gaming.



  • @mbun Can you purchase In the Valley of the Gods on Gog or Humble Bundle.