This thread closed? Wasn’t aware of that.
Based on my experiences exploring capitalism and meditating on its structure, I’m currently of the opinion that the sorts of dynamics @kreamer1 is discussing, even at the very top level, is not a conscious effort to form a conspiracy. In effect, both @kreamer1 and @Psychichazard are correct. The things are happening, but it isn’t a conspiracy.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
The dynamics are systemic, so the actors don’t need to be aware that they are playing the role to do so. The way things have worked out (no, I do not think it was designed per se, this gives the Capital class entirely too much credit), profit is often antithetical to good sense.
The inconvenient fact that the way to make more profit so often screws the buyer or the worker is endemic to the way the system is arranged. I don’t think it was orchestrated thus, as I said this would give the beneficiaries too much credit, rather it sort of snowballed into this. There may be inherent problems with the concept of a market itself that leads to this end. I seem to recall some Plato or Aristotle comments about this. To make a profit on a transaction, you must either overcharge the customer, or underpay the laborer (or both, if you’re clever). There’s literally no other way, you can’t sell at-cost as a merchant, or you yourself would starve. We need to think long and hard about what that says about mercantilism.
Money is a medium for exchange. The Capital class, functionally, is a middle man between the producer and the consumer. They don’t labor to make the thing you’re buying, but they controlled the capital necessary to fund it…
We too often conflate the producer with the investor… See @Gorbles point about developer (producer) and publisher (investor).
We should get it free on Steam when it comes out on Steam!
No. If you want it on steam, exercise some self control and wait, or buy it twice.
I’m old enough to remember PC gaming before Steam.
You bought a game disc, you installed the game, you played the game.
The whole Steam et.al. phenomenon looks ridiculous to me. All the “competing” launchers, Epic included, are just trying to take over Steam’s totally undeserved monopoly (actually, this is the goal of all competition in markets). None of them need to exist in the first place.
You should be asking for bl3 (and all games, console included) to be platformless, if anything.
I feel like many people are afraid to admit that Steam having a monopoly here might not be the worst case scenario.
Steam essentially pioneered digital distribution on PC. You can’t really fault Valve for others waiting as long as they did to attempt breaking into the digital storefront. The transition really was easier for PC because the physical media many cases wasn’t needed after install and they already had product keys. It took consoles much longer to bridge past no longer running directly off the physical media the game was stored on. As such console gamers could return or trade games back however stores treated PC software sales as final.
The other issue now is either developers/publishers are primarily working with first party titles and the other option. Epic is going with a model currently to appease the developer/publisher and mostly ignore the consumer. Some of the console ports that Epic grabbed actually end up downgraded from the console version because of Epic’s lack of basic online features.
Ultimately aside from purchased exclusivity a lack of distribution on other platforms was usually done by the developer or publisher as each storefront would essentially be a separate agreement and each storefront could have its own conditions.
really this has nothing to do with the 88/12 split epic gives them. It’s about the bribe money. Dicord gives developers and publishers a 90/10 split and none of these developers and publishers are talking about that. I know that Borderlands 3 is using unreal so the fee is waived, but gearbox has never once mentioned Discord.
You answered your 90/10 vs 88/12 question already. In effect with Discord it would be an 85/10/5 split. And why would Gearbox mention Discord? 2K is the distributor for Borderlands, and or the games released by Gearbox publishing side have been released on all platforms.
On to the ‘bribe’ money, I’m not too comfortable with it myself, but at least developers and publishers are being upfront about it, so its not exactly under the table stuff. And like it or not, this has been beneficial for developers, helping them break even before sales. Epic has been great for developers, its just their practices have been less than consumer-friendly. I’m not a fan of exclusivity as well, but unfortunately I do think its one of the few ways they can actually compete with steam. And such competition can only be good for the industry.
I don’t blindly assume that competition or monopoly are inherently good things, I’ve studied history and economics too long. I encourage everyone else here to do the same.
Also, purchased exclusivity is the opposite of competition, it’s a virtual monopoly (for that one product) in both form and function. Even if competitiveness of the platform is supposedly the long-term goal, the longer-term goal, of course, is becoming the monopoly platform yourself.
Who said I fault Valve? They did precisely what the economic system they operate in encouraged them to do. The same is true for Epic, in fact.
So competition is inherently a good thing, but this just isn’t competition? I can’t fathom in my mind a reason why competition (real, healthy competition. Not competition that is essentially a lobbyist war by another name) wouldn’t be beneficial. I’d also say that monopoly is far from inherently good, and in most cases is unwelcome due to simple human greed. However, when given the choice between the way Epic seems to be operating in creating their “competition,” and just letting Steam be the biggest? I’d rather it just be Steam. They’ve never wronged me. Plus, Steam isn’t actually a monopoly like some people seem to insinuate, either. Uplay, Battlenet, Origin, etc. are all active competitors, albeit for usually exclusive games.
So to you everything goes? Clearly there are aniti competitive patterns, I’m not sure what is your point.
edit: Honestly I’m little bit baffled. In short, people are outlining certain points as anti competitive practices, yet you debunk them with argument that any form of competition is beneficial, like what? Sure, for someone, somewhere. Someone is getting his pockets full from this EpicStore exclusivity, but it certainly isn’t us that reaps any benefits.
Honestly I’m baffled by what you’re trying to say here.
If you read what I’d typed, you’d see that quite clearly not everything goes. I made it evident that I support “real, healthy competition,” which I do not believe to be taking place between Steam and Epic; Therefore, if there isn’t going to be healthy competition, I’d just rather have Steam take the Monopoly, considering that Steam is leagues more user friendly.
I see. I think it’s because I’m seeing similiar point over and over that I eventually got numb to it and interpreted it in way to look for brand new angles to approach it. I mean I’m not quite connecting with your view in this specific way you articulated it. Can you rephrase in which way does it benefits us customers?
Steam is not an actual monopoly, it’s just in dominant market position. Epic Store exclusives are cases of actual monopoly. How is it healthy competition when Epic Store is beating Steam not through any improvements nor examplar ideas, but by becoming bad caricature of it?
Here’s how I see this benefiting us as customers:
Healthy competition (which, keep in mind, I do not think is what is going on between Epic and Steam) would mean that the consumer gets to choose which launcher to use based on which is better updated, maintained, etc., which would mean that the better launcher is more supported, and due to competition, both companies strive to make a better launcher. For the consumer, this means getting a better launcher in the end, and the companies involved don’t get lazy.
A Steam dominated platform is, in my opinion, the best thing for a consumer right now given that Steam does not have any worthy competition. Say that Epic used some actual, competition-influencing business practices to compete with Steam? I’d be all for it. But since Epic is making no effort to better themselves and is instead just buying exclusives with Fortnight money, I’d rather Steam just be in control until another launcher that actually cares for its users comes along.
Should I clarify anything further?
Steam’s perceived monopoly is a result of lack of initiative by other parties.
Epic claims to want to compete with Steam but is doing so by essentially not competing with Steam. In the process they’re forcing gamers into a downgraded experience when compared to what someone could get from another service.
They posted a “roadmap” and some of that roadmap IMO are features that should have been developed and implemented before they had considered launching their platform to begin with. One thing I feel people are also not taking into consideration every time this store revenue split is mentioned is that due to all the services Steam provides customers their operating costs are going to be much higher than Epic as it stands currently. Something I feel is worth mentioning because the impression I get most of the time when people bring that up is that they assume that difference goes straight into some hidden coffer. In a sense the larger cut Epic is offering to Devs and publishers could be called part of an anti consumer practice as well.
Well, yes… but: I also remember gaming before Steam, in fact sometime I experience it when trying play an old game.
Lets put it that way: Patching a game in the pre-Steam days was an adventure if you tried it anytime after the developer moved onto the next thing.
Forums might vanish, links might point to defunct serves or sites. And just forget about just reinstalling your game on a new PC (sometimes forget about installing your game at all) because the authorisation servers are long dead or only allow one activation (or three). Or your CD is chipped and won’t work.
With Steam all these joys went away. So a launcher and a service like Steam has very good reasons to exist for consumer and developers.
The EGS I gather is much better for developers (more cash) but so far is very much hot garbarge as far as things beneficial for consumers go.
If Epic got their core issues dealt with (this is strictly hypothetical as they will never convince skeptics that their security issues are fixed), would people (and by which I mean all of you) consider it as a viable alternative?
A barebones platform which has improved support and has a structure which benefits developers. It might even be smaller and lighter which would be great considering Steam’s resource requirements. Sounds reasonable.
I’d start using it if it was good. Still wouldn’t buy BL3 on it however, because I want to keep all BL games on same platform.