Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 29 Jan 2019.
Snatched until Feb 14 2020 - I can wait.
While I don't personally want to invest in Epics new store, I can appreciate Valve finally getting some real competition. I just hope it won't affect the success of the game.
I did plan on getting the new Metro, but I also know I am too much of a cheapskate to buy it at full price, so 2020 is properly around the time I would get it anyway.
I welcome competition, but this will inevitably result in additional buggeration for the consumer.
This will continue with exclusive releases of AAA titles forcing anyone wanting to play a particular title to purchase it through Steam, Epic or Origin etc.. The better option would be to open up the market and let them compete on value instead of exclusivity.
Oh no? Unless it does something silly like forcing a launcher to load prior to the game (which is an annoyance anywhere anyway) then it doesn't matter where it was purchased from: double-click shortcut, game launches. Otherwise justy treat it like Steam: the store stays dead unless I want to check for updates, then gets killed again when finished.
That only works if the model of publisher-sets-price/store-takes-percentage is abandoned entirely in order to move to a fixed 'unit' price inventory system (publisher 'sells' virtual copies to a store for a fixed value, store then sells each unit for a profit or loss).
The ideal method would be for thedistribution system (i.e the 'updater' and initial download) to be a service that publishers can purchase (in the same way they buy web hosting or server hosting) and for the concept of a centralised store to be abandoned. With Steam now just a "just dump whatever crap you want, we'll take anything" unnavigable melange, and the Steam Store just a web browser in a box anyway, it makes sense to abandon all pretence and just use the web itself as the universal 'store platform' in the first place. Of course, this is unpalatable for Steam as it would mean losing all their extra revenue from Virtual Hat Trading (and all the associated nonsense like 'trading cards' and the like) - i.e. microtransaction gambling that has yet to be regulated - and minimise the opportunity for API lock-in through Steam-based matchmaking services.
So this was £50 on Steam and now it'll be £50 on Epic?
So Deep Silver will be taking 88% from Epic rather than 70% from Steam, which is great for them, but the UK customer doesn't benefit? At least in the US Exodus will be $10 cheaper on Epic than it was on Steam, shame we're not getting the benefit here.
Does "competition" really matter? Prices are still the same, just the overall shopping experience is worse - current epic store page is pretty much the prime example of what I hate about "modern" site design.
Exodus, for me, went from "buy couple weeks after release" (as I did with both previous instances) to "maybe buy then its under 10Eur".
Damn. Would've bought it on Steam if I'd known this was going to happen.
Just like the "good old days" of physical games... publisher sells copy and once that transaction is done the publisher can go f*** themselves and the stores selling it have to compete against each other on merit.
Steam does need competition and that can't be from someone blatantly evil like EA. I don't mind it being EPIC. However how competition should really work is making the game was available on Steam and on EPIC and I can choose which to use. Obviously if Steam charges more then I have no problem with that being passed onto me and it costing more on Steam. Perhaps Steam has better features and maybe it's worth the extra? Whatever I get to choose.
To us? Probably not.
To publishers, yeah it does.
If it matters to publishers, it is going to affect developers, and then it will affect players. Of course it is important!
Unfortunately a positive impact on the developers bank account does not necessarily translate into a positive impact on gamers...
Take the AAA publishers for example who squander the millions they scammed through microtransactions on paying pointless celebrity voice actors instead of QA for their next game.
I totally don't care. I was looking into getting The Division 2 depending on how it's received, now its locked to the Epic store for the same money and card charges on top, I will just ignore it.
Epic might have numbers, but it's mainly pre teens with limited money, so i'll be interested in how this play for AAA title exclusives works out for them.
Ah, looks like steam get it back after a year: https://steamcommunity.com/games/412020/announcements/detail/1691566844144954098
Timed exclusive that I guess EPIC paid for.
As per the lede:
Aye, I think you'll also find I put the date in the first reply to the thread...
I stand corrected
D'you know, I've had comments in the past complaining that information from the lede is repeated in the next paragraph or two - but this just proves that, for some reason, putting a paragraph in bold at the top makes people skip over it. Counter-intuitive, but true!
I’m happy to pay extra for my games to keep them all on Steam.
Put your games on all the different launchers. Maximise your coverage. None of us will blame you for that. But let me buy my games on Steam - charge me more. I don’t want the other launchers. It’s messy and frustrating to boot up 5+ launchers to see what each individual launcher is up to.
Separate names with a comma.