Uh, YES ???!!!
It took 10 years for Youtube to arrive where they are.
Should we be fine if a new service launched without HD video support, livestreaming and such ?
Should we be fine when a 1st part hardware maker has a online service so bad there's no vocal chat of party ? Should we say "It took 15 years for Xbox Live to be like this !"
I swear the gaming industry is the most blind one. Either you're saying that because you have an agenda or because you're so used to publishers stomping and taking a dump on consumers that it sounds okay for you. I dont what's the worst between these two, honestly.
It was free (not that charging for it now is worth it).
It is shit, it is also cheaper (still utterly unjustified)
Which is why it's a good idea to point out the shortcomings, so they can hopefully address them.PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, Nintendo Online does not match either service. I mean it's a little disengenuous to think everyone should be just as experienced or will put in the same amount of resources at first. Valve has had many years of making huge profits from its service throughout the years, other companies are not going to simply match that out of the gate.
PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, Nintendo Online does not match either service. I mean it's a little disengenuous to think everyone should be just as experienced or will put in the same amount of resources at first. Valve has had many years of making huge profits from its service throughout the years, other companies are not going to simply match that out of the gate.
And people were upset of these differences in term of service.
And you know what ? They're not even on the same platform !
Yet, people rightfully complained.
It's not disingenous, it's what competition should be. Not even trying to match but to SURPASS. Yet we have people telling us here "It's okay to be worse, give them time because in 2004 Steam was bad."
It's 2018 for everyone though, not for Valve only.
Which is why it's a good idea to point out the shortcomings, so they can hopefully address them.
PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, but at the same time it was free, which made its shortcomings less important. Same goes for Nintendo until recently.PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, Nintendo Online does not match either service. I mean it's a little disengenuous to think everyone should be just as experienced or will put in the same amount of resources at first. Valve has had many years of making huge profits from its service throughout the years, other companies are not going to simply match that out of the gate.
This, as someone who is working on my own small UE4 project, the Epic Store option is extremely alluring, specially since the usual 5% Epic takes is included in the 12% if sold through their store.
Devs come before your search function and the fact you'll have to install another client.
I'm the one who gives them money so no they don't. They're trying to earn my money not the other way around.
Well, guess what, this time someone else gave them more money so they went with their option. So, how do you come before them, again?
lmaoI hope they smash steam
Steam rakes in incredible amounts of money for basically no improvements on their long languishing storefront
Epic is incredibly hungry and their new store already looks great
selling goods and labor for profit is...bribery?They'll find out like most others who take bribes at the expense of their customers. It won't turn out well for most of them.
PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, but at the same time it was free, which made its shortcomings less important. Same goes for Nintendo until recently.
What does Epic got going on for their service to make up for it? A handful of game giveaways that other services also do and timed exclusivity on a handful of other games? That's shit I can get in much better services.
fucking lmaoThey'll find out like most others who take bribes at the expense of their customers. It won't turn out well for most of them.
If only pc games came on disc any more outside of ridiculous special editions...What is it with P.C. gamers and their game launcher? It's like being attached to a disc drive or something.
Convenience? Not everything is about money.What was that deal, again? And what was the "expense" to customers?
Oh, God! Those poor consumers!
What was that deal, again? And what was the "expense" to customers?
Uh, yeah. I could have sworn that I was a consumer? Why would I put them above my wants?
This is like half a step away from "gamers rise up."They'll find out like most others who take bribes at the expense of their customers. It won't turn out well for most of them.
But it...is still coming to Play Anywhere? So what's the problem?
If it had been out-and-out canceled for Play Anywhere, sure, I could see how that would be disappointing, although talking about it in terms of "bribery" and ethics would still be deeply misinformed. But you're complaining that other people get to play it before you. That is...not a real problem!
But we do have that information now, at the time at which this conversation is actually occurring.We didn't have that information before, hence the thread.
And we also don't have an ETA. Could take months for all we know. I still paid for my subscription for december.
Look, the $10 isn't a problem for me, I'll get over it. It just doesn't feel right. It hurts my trust in Microsoft and Annapurna.
But we do have that information now, at the time at which this conversation is actually occurring.
you ain't getting more original concepts and new ideas with a curated store as Epic wants it. It's no good for devs and it only benefits the ones that get through it. Pretty shitty.Devs come before your search function and the fact you'll have to install another client.
You want more good games, original concepts, new ideas? This site is right to be obsessed with devs, because they are the ones making games - only natural. It's funny how some "consumers" want devs to earn as little money as possible - they hate IAP, they hate preorders, and now they'r against a store offering a smaller cut? Insane.
Especially for smaller devs, gamedev is a really tough gig and the stores are not exactly fair. 30% cut on top of tax? Devs go where the money is, and Epic store is great news. More competition is good for devs, for players, for the industry.
I'm sorry you'll have to install a whole new client on your PC, I know it's painful but I hope you get through.
What's the second point? The money you paid for your subscription was for a service. It was not for Ashen. As far as I can tell, absolutely no one in this situation paid money for Ashen that was not immediately able to play it. Again, I can understand being disappointed that a game didn't come to a service at x time, but this game was surprise-launched—I don't understand how you can argue in good faith that you were not given something that you expected, let alone that the company has in any way reneged on an obligation (even an implicit one!) that they had to consumers.
So you subscribed for a whole year just to eventually play one game before the release date was announced? This makes zero sense
If you pay for a subscription for a game that does not have a release date and has not been announced as launching on that subscription service...maybe you should not be too hasty to blame others for betraying your extremely normal and well-founded expectations.
If you pay for a subscription for a game that does not have a release date and has not been announced as launching on that subscription service...maybe you should not be too hasty to blame others for betraying your extremely normal and well-founded expectations.
And...it is on Gamepass.The developer themselves said it will be on Gamepass, with the latest information reinforcing it just 3 months ago.
Which they have confirmed is still happening...
I read the OP, it all looks fine. Then I see the responses about it being "disgusting". Ummm, what? As the dev says, it's a timed exclusive for a store, and it's available on every platform they promised. If you really must have it on a specific storefront, just wait. Epic has been very supportive of them since day one, and then Epic offered a better financial deal and more promotion for their game. They have every right to choose what they think is best for their game. It's funny to see all the pro-competition people suddenly against competition. If Steam wanted to compete they could guarantee significant promotion for the game in their Store, and they could offer a less gouging royalty rate, but they don't.
They never communicated it would.They never communicated it wouldn't happen at launch. That's the whole problem.
A product being available through a given market/context is not something being "included." It is deeply deluded to think of a good's availability in a given market as being comparable to it shipping sans features that people thought would be included.Rofl. Do they have to say for every aspect of a game if its coming for launch now?
Sorry for assuming something that had been announced was included.
More promotion for the game means more people will hear about it. For instance, this topic is the first time I had heard of this game. More money going to the dev means more future investment in games and dlc. Again, if Steam wants to compete for game promotion and royalties, they absolutely can. Why do they get a free pass for not competing? Most importantly, anyone who wanted this on PC can still get it on PC easily.Competition is meant to be good for the consumer. This only seems good for a dev (depending on how much of a money hat that they capitulated to) and digital store owning publisher hoping to bring more people to their significantly lacking store. I can't see a bright side for consumers, can you enlighten me?
They'll find out like most others who take bribes at the expense of their customers. It won't turn out well for most of them.
Exactly.