• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

E3 PC Gaming Show 2019 is being sponsored by Epic (See EGS Guidelines)

SweetNicole

The Old Guard
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,019
All of this is bullshit if you don't at least suspect PC Gamer having some sort of positive bias towards Epic Games.

You can't convince me that PC Gamer is unbiased towards Epic Games, especially with this recent announcement.

Also, whether or not you think PC Gamer didn't violate any 'code of ethics,' their brand of journalism fucking sucks and I won't support it.
There's a post where this has already been addressed, by me, in this thread, but you keep doing you.

I want to say that this is a rational and logical point of view that, yes, makes sense. I would absolutely agree with you that media outlets can be influenced by not wanting to lose out on future contracts with an important sponsor. We've seen similar things in that past around media reporting such as Bethesda not sending review copies or responding to Kotaku after their negative coverage or even historically when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot. Advertisements are the lifeblood of many journalism websites, and negative coverage has been know to lead to threats of pulling ads, restricted access, etc.

I think that what your previous post indicated that there was some form of cash payment or money being exchanged under the table when you said they were "bought by Epic," which is where my concern stemmed from because that would be a conspiracy theory. I do think it is rational to think that they may have not gone after Epic Games Store negatively out of financial concerns, but, like you said, I don't think there was any sort of implicit or explicit deal between PC Gamer and Epic. Thanks for clearing up your perspective on your original post; I don't have any qualms with your point of view here.
 
Aug 23, 2018
1,283
Valve sponsors stuff that actually helps (some) gamers. Valve seemingly doesn't care about traditional press at all.
They make a shitload of money from their dominant position in PC gaming. Sponsoring an event designed to celebrate and promote PC gaming on the big stage, an event that helps to market the efforts of small and big developers...that's absolutely something Valve should be doing.
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,995
There's a post where this has already been addressed, by me, in this thread, but you keep doing you.
I was not implying that PC Gamer took cash from Epic Games but that their positive slant leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Epic Games isn't doing anything positive for me as a consumer in the PC gaming space so I'm inclined not to give PC gamer any of my clicks for the foreseeable future.
 
Oct 26, 2017
951
Not really. Its ambitious. saying it goes further than that is fanfiction in the absence of hard evidence.
To go back to the original point, I don't think Epic would be relying so heavily on exclusives, free games and now store credit if they were "growing the pie" i.e. getting their pre-existing Fortnite audience to buy games from EGS. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,195
Epic games is everywhere now. Steam really needs to do something before this gets out of hand..
Valve are going to continue doing their own thing, I believe. With their libertarian approach to Steam, there is always a good chance the next big thing on PC will happen there and they will reap the benefits. I do wish they would refocus on game development though, but they might have lost their touch given what happened to Artifact.
 
Dec 9, 2017
928
I'm glad to see Epic take PC gaming and begin to push it at these events. The bigger the PC Gaming Show is the better. Presumably there will be some notable announcements made, and not just "oh and it's coming to PC too".. like E3 usually is. PC gamers will have lots to look forward to.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
The fun is figuring out which game will be the big one. I am going to have some fun and claim that they personally hate me and found a way to make Cyberpunk exclusivish, EGS or GoG, or paid Paradox enough for them to do a heel turn on Bloodlines 2.

Or maybe they are really insidious and decided to announce Darklands 2 as an EGS exclusive. Okay, on second thought on that one I would thank them and be their new best friend because no one else is bringing back Darklands.

You must be the first one to utter the words darklands 2 in the last decade.
 
Mar 14, 2019
568
The fun is figuring out which game will be the big one. I am going to have some fun and claim that they personally hate me and found a way to make Cyberpunk exclusivish, EGS or GoG, or paid Paradox enough for them to do a heel turn on Bloodlines 2.

Or maybe they are really insidious and decided to announce Darklands 2 as an EGS exclusive. Okay, on second thought on that one I would thank them and be their new best friend because no one else is bringing back Darklands.
Are you me? Because all you need to do is replace "Darklands 2" with a "new Legacy of Kain" in your post and you get my take on this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
953
Tel Aviv
Yes it is a dream that will never happen. The worse things about Bloodlines 2 is it has given me false hope that anything is possible and maybe one day it will.
It might not be Darklands 2, but weren't there murmurs of Josh Sawyer (Obsidian) working on an historical RPG inspired by/spiritual successor to Darklands?
But considering Obsidian is owned by MS now, I don't think they'll have more EGS exclusives.

EDIT: NVM, just found out Josh has denied this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,022
It might not be Darklands 2, but weren't there murmurs of Josh Sawyer (Obsidian) working on an historical RPG inspired by/spiritual successor to Darklands?
But considering Obsidian is owned by MS now, I don't think they'll have more EGS exclusives.

EDIT: NVM, just found out Josh has denied this.
Yeah was about to say that i heard he wanted to do a historical RPG but that was about it. Though your link made me sad because I was under the impression that he was going for something Darklands-ish but he denied it there.

Dammit, I am getting close to being a CS and History graduate maybe I should be the change I want to see.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,966
To go back to the original point, I don't think Epic would be relying so heavily on exclusives, free games and now store credit if they were "growing the pie" i.e. getting their pre-existing Fortnite audience to buy games from EGS. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
That's really not what I was saying on the difference between segmentation and overall marketplace growth. If the emergence of subscription services and digital have had anything to say about the effects of new marketplaces in the console space, is that it's not a zero-sum game.

One of the most common sentiments lobbed around in these threads is that EGS's aggressive strategies are toxic to the overall health of the PC gaming market, something oft-parroted without real evidence. I agree that EGS's ultimate goal is to become the biggest player in the market, but don't agree that it necessarily comes at the expense of the health (read: number of titles released in a year, sum gross revenue, etc) of the market. Maybe 'segmentation' was too imprecise a term. Clearly the market will segment between storefronts that don't publish to each other. But that doesn't mean I buy only from one store and never buy or play awesome games on other storefronts. PC gaming enthusiasts are historically very willing to throw money after games like they're a collection and not something actively engaged with or even installed. This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly.
 
May 13, 2019
82
All of this is bullshit if you don't at least suspect PC Gamer having some sort of positive bias towards Epic Games.

You can't convince me that PC Gamer is unbiased towards Epic Games, especially with this recent announcement.

Also, whether or not you think PC Gamer didn't violate any 'code of ethics,' their brand of journalism fucking sucks and I won't support it.
I mean, if you operate in such a way where you believe a publication itself (which does not have opinions and views, people have those, and publications with integrity generally do not require their employees hold specific views) has bias (which tends to be misused as a way of saying 'has an opinion', which is not inherently a bad thing) as opposed to people having bias, you're kinda in a bad place mentally. The other people that believe that kind of thing read The Gateway Pundit and InfoWars.

Most people view branded PR events as separate from the actual publication. Lots of outlets (NYT! ReCode/Vox! WSJ!) do things far more iffy with branded events and no one complains about it.

The actual 'this looks gross' stuff is an outlet that ostensibly traffics in critical analysis of a certain type of work (PC games) hosting a branded event where they do PR for that work. But most people are able to separate that kind of thing in their mind. That is far harder than dealing with PC Gamer allowing their branded PR event to be used by an entity that sells games - it's not as if the launcher itself is expected to take center stage, just content that is being sold on the launcher, so the appearance of impropriety is minimal at best.

I don't think anyone believes that an Epic Store logo at the end of a trailer damages PC Gamer's ability to write about the Epic Launcher, and if your concern is that Epic's payment (is that how this show works? I don't really know, I'm just guessing) to PC Gamer for stage time damages PC Gamer's ability to criticize the Epic Launcher, you gotta believe that for every single game that appears on the PC Gamer stage for every year that PC Gamer has been hosting this show. Thinking that kind of way is bad, IMO. Unless there is actual evidence of PC Gamer making editorial decisions to please Epic, there isn't a lot to discuss other than conspiratorial stuff.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2, 2018
1,127
These are the examples you asked for

Childish noises, unconstructive tantruming







Conspiracy theories



Crypto-racist dogwhistling about a Chinese company


Needless suspicion and interrogation cast on an official rep of Rebellion Developments who literally just said their game is still coming to Steam.




I am not brushing aside legitimate concerns with business practices by Epic external to this sponsorship. I am talking about very obviously childish noisemaking that happens in every EGS thread to date. I have also voiced a ton of concern about the signal to noise ratio on gaming side over the course of the last year and by the largest visible margins the worst offender of that is the EGS discussion. I wish it were a better discussion. I wish it would actually be about interesting conversations on the widening horizons of PC marketplaces and whether or not this grows the pie or just segments it. But it's not. It's a lot of people saying 'NO I DON'T LIKE IT' and bleating like wounded animals whenever their appalling behavior is called out for what it is.
Wow! This post was well done sir! I commend you for backing up your argument!
 
Oct 26, 2017
951
That's really not what I was saying on the difference between segmentation and overall marketplace growth. If the emergence of subscription services and digital have had anything to say about the effects of new marketplaces in the console space, is that it's not a zero-sum game.

One of the most common sentiments lobbed around in these threads is that EGS's aggressive strategies are toxic to the overall health of the PC gaming market, something oft-parroted without real evidence. I agree that EGS's ultimate goal is to become the biggest player in the market, but don't agree that it necessarily comes at the expense of the health (read: number of titles released in a year, sum gross revenue, etc) of the market. Maybe 'segmentation' was too imprecise a term. Clearly the market will segment between storefronts that don't publish to each other. But that doesn't mean I buy only from one store and never buy or play awesome games on other storefronts. PC gaming enthusiasts are historically very willing to throw money after games like they're a collection and not something actively engaged with or even installed. This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly.
I think your logic is faulty. PC games, and Steam games in particular, have always been cheap. With the advent of store sales and bundle sites, you can quite easily get several indie games for a couple of dollars. With EGS, so far everything (bar a couple of Ubisoft titles) have been either near-as-dammit full price or free. And sure, there's a bunch of people who would claim the free games because they're free, but I don't think there's going to be many people who buy full priced games and then immediately throw them in the backlog.

I do think anyone who buys EGS exclusives are the people who were going to buy the game anyway, come hell or high water. I've seen zero evidence that EGS has introduced (for want of a better phrase) "new" money, I do think everything so far has been cannibalised from Steam's market share.

One metric that we can measure, that I think everyone agrees is a potential indication of toxicity in the PC gaming marketplace, is Bittorrent piracy figures. I haven't sat down and reviewed every piracy tracker for every game, but one thing that I have consistently heard is that Metro Exodus has been unusually popular amongst pirates. I'm kinda hoping TorrentFreak does the leg-work and reports whether EGS has affected PC piracy rates.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
I mean, if you operate in such a way where you believe a publication itself (which does not have opinions and views, people have those, and publications with integrity generally do not require their employees hold specific views) has bias (which tends to be misused as a way of saying 'has an opinion', which is not inherently a bad thing) as opposed to people having bias, you're kinda in a bad place mentally. The other people that believe that kind of thing read The Gateway Pundit and InfoWars.

Most people view branded PR events as separate from the actual publication. Lots of outlets (NYT! ReCode/Vox! WSJ!) do things far more iffy with branded events and no one complains about it.

The actual 'this looks gross' stuff is an outlet that ostensibly traffics in critical analysis of a certain type of work (PC games) hosting a branded event where they do PR for that work. But most people are able to separate that kind of thing in their mind. That is far harder than dealing with PC Gamer allowing their branded PR event to be used by an entity that sells games - it's not as if the launcher itself is expected to take center stage, just content that is being sold on the launcher, so the appearance of impropriety is minimal at best.

I don't think anyone believes that an Epic Store logo at the end of a trailer damages PC Gamer's ability to write about the Epic Launcher, and if your concern is that Epic's payment (is that how this show works? I don't really know, I'm just guessing) to PC Gamer for stage time damages PC Gamer's ability to criticize the Epic Launcher, you gotta believe that for every single game that appears on the PC Gamer stage for every year that PC Gamer has been hosting this show. Thinking that kind of way is bad, IMO. Unless there is actual evidence of PC Gamer making editorial decisions to please Epic, there isn't a lot to discuss other than conspiratorial stuff.
It appears self-evident, to me. they write good things about epic, and epic treats them well in return, and they have a good relationship. I would feel naive to give them both the benefit of the doubt given what i see.
 
May 13, 2019
82
I think your logic is faulty. PC games, and Steam games in particular, have always been cheap. With the advent of store sales and bundle sites, you can quite easily get several indie games for a couple of dollars. With EGS, so far everything (bar a couple of Ubisoft titles) have been either near-as-dammit full price or free. And sure, there's a bunch of people who would claim the free games because they're free, but I don't think there's going to be many people who buy full priced games and then immediately throw them in the backlog.

I do think anyone who buys EGS exclusives are the people who were going to buy the game anyway. I've seen zero evidence that EGS has introduced (for want of a better phrase) "new" money, I do think everything so far has been cannibalised from Steam's market share.
Not every consumer is price sensitive. Price sensitivity also does not mean that a consumer prefers one store over another - generally, the price sensitive consumer will go where ever the game is cheapest. That is almost never EGS, but it is not infrequently uPlay, for instance.

I don't believe that there is a substantial amount of 'new money' with EGS, but I will say that there do exist children that game on PC, game on PC a lot, have EGS installed and have never used Steam. I know one, one is my cousin, and I can't - for the life of me - get him to look at games that are outside of the Fortnite Store. EGS does push the Fortnite Only Gamer fairly strongly to look at the EGS. Notifications that X game is free, claim it now as well as (silent) video trailers for new releases at the home page of the Fortnite Launcher does wonders.

So, said person has bought two games on the Fortnite store and claimed some free stuff. This strategy only works for so long, though; sooner or later Fortnite Gamers graduate to other titles, but there is an affect where someone just branching beyond the biggest game in the world for the first time will not perceive there to be a default PC game store. Some stuff is on Epic, some stuff is on Origin, some stuff is on Windows Store, some stuff is on Steam. They'll use all of the above.

But the real value ad (for devs/pubs) with EGS is the revenue split anyway. New money isn't really required.
 
Last edited:

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
317
That's really not what I was saying on the difference between segmentation and overall marketplace growth. If the emergence of subscription services and digital have had anything to say about the effects of new marketplaces in the console space, is that it's not a zero-sum game.

One of the most common sentiments lobbed around in these threads is that EGS's aggressive strategies are toxic to the overall health of the PC gaming market, something oft-parroted without real evidence. I agree that EGS's ultimate goal is to become the biggest player in the market, but don't agree that it necessarily comes at the expense of the health (read: number of titles released in a year, sum gross revenue, etc) of the market. Maybe 'segmentation' was too imprecise a term. Clearly the market will segment between storefronts that don't publish to each other. But that doesn't mean I buy only from one store and never buy or play awesome games on other storefronts. PC gaming enthusiasts are historically very willing to throw money after games like they're a collection and not something actively engaged with or even installed. This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly.
Are you kidding? Who is deciding if the existing (!) evidence of EGS plans are toxic to the pc gaming market. You?

We had so many threads with so many users that were explaining everything in detail, yet we have people claiming that there is "no real evidence".
Not beeing able to purchase a game? I guess that's no real evidence.
Further Segmentation and toxicity? No real evidence.
Re-rise of piracy for EGS exclusives? No real evidence.
3rd party stores, SLA1, SLA2, SLA3 companies getting excluded from the market? Pah. No evidence.
Rise of prices for many people that are therefore not buying the games? Nah. No evidence.
Epic only supporting 0,1% of the selected devs and hurting all others? Who cares. No evidence.
Steam is a monopoly? NOW THAT'S EVIDENCE!

You are literally calling evidence non-existing (for some reason) but suggest that Steam is a monopoly.
 
May 13, 2019
82
It appears self-evident, to me. they write good things about epic, and epic treats them well in return, and they have a good relationship. I would feel naive to give them both the benefit of the doubt given what i see.
That's a toxic way of looking at the world that is not supported by actual evidence. Lots of outlets write positive things about Epic. Lots of outlets write negative things. If Epic were looking for the outlet that has written the kindest things about them to funnel money to, they would be sending money to Polygon. The only thing gained by Epic sending money is a PR nightmare. People are going to write what they are going to write.

No, there is a simpler answer that is all but certainly the correct one - Epic wanted a stage at E3 for announcing EGS exclusive (and possibly PC only?) titles, and 'The PC Gaming Show' quickly became the place for that. That PC Gamer's name is on the show is largely irrelevant. It's a stage that, at the very least, does not cost as much as hosting your own event. The event is quasi professional. That's probably all Epic wanted.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
That's a toxic way of looking at the world that is not supported by actual evidence. Lots of outlets write positive things about Epic. Lots of outlets write negative things. If Epic were looking for the outlet that has written the kindest things about them to funnel money to, they would be sending money to Polygon. The only thing gained by Epic sending money is a PR nightmare. People are going to write what they are going to write.

No, there is a simpler answer that is all but certainly the correct one - Epic wanted a stage at E3 for announcing EGS exclusive (and possibly PC only?) titles, and 'The PC Gaming Show' quickly became the place for that. That PC Gamer's name is on the show is largely irrelevant. It's a stage that, at the very least, does not cost as much as hosting your own event. The event is quasi professional. That's probably all Epic wanted.
Would you kindly explain what exactly I toxify by putting two and two together?
 
May 13, 2019
82
Would you kindly explain what exactly I toxify by putting two and two together?
It requires you to assume that both entities operate with absolutely zero integrity while there is a much simpler and more logical explanation that fits the facts much more cleanly.

To assume that an outlet is corrupt is inherently toxic, unless there is an actual evidentiary case for it. at which point it would no longer be an assumption.
 
Mar 14, 2019
568
That's really not what I was saying on the difference between segmentation and overall marketplace growth. If the emergence of subscription services and digital have had anything to say about the effects of new marketplaces in the console space, is that it's not a zero-sum game.

One of the most common sentiments lobbed around in these threads is that EGS's aggressive strategies are toxic to the overall health of the PC gaming market, something oft-parroted without real evidence. I agree that EGS's ultimate goal is to become the biggest player in the market, but don't agree that it necessarily comes at the expense of the health (read: number of titles released in a year, sum gross revenue, etc) of the market. Maybe 'segmentation' was too imprecise a term. Clearly the market will segment between storefronts that don't publish to each other. But that doesn't mean I buy only from one store and never buy or play awesome games on other storefronts. PC gaming enthusiasts are historically very willing to throw money after games like they're a collection and not something actively engaged with or even installed. This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly.
The problem with your argument is that the expansion of PC market and ludicrous PC backlogs are due to games being cheaper than ever due to the abundance of key reseller stores competing with each other and driving the prices down. When more games are in the "impulse buy" price range, consumers will buy more, even if net total they pay is higher- People are more likely to buy 7 games discounted to 20 each without putting extra thought into it, when compared with 2 full-price 60 dollar titles.

EGS exclusivity specifically undermines this. Aside from missing features on the storefront, you're likely to see a decrease in sales because consumers are already used to cheaper prices .

I mean, Resident Evil 2 has been out for 3 months, and its almost half off at Fanatical right now. And I can use a coupon I got from another purchase to get extra 15% off on the game that's already discounted over 40% for their May Madness sale.

It's a buyer's market right now. Epic wants to turn it into seller's market. We will see how the consumers react to it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
It requires you to assume that both entities operate with absolutely zero integrity while there is a much simpler and more logical explanation that fits the facts much more cleanly.
I have not assumed zero integrity nor does my assessment require that. You may either want to retract or try another angle at this point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
307
WA
Pcgamer is 100% getting cash from Epic... just follow them on facebook... most articles are about EGS and how this or that game isnt comimg to steam and how amazing fortnite is or any other game on the EGS... this news for that reason isn't surprising to me.
 
May 13, 2019
82
I have not assumed zero integrity nor does my assessment require that. You may either want to retract or try another angle at this point.
I disagree. Your flow of events requires that Epic go to PC Gamer, to funnel to money to, on account of PC Gamer's coverage of Epic. That would be a morally corrupt act that, unless there is evidence for, is a toxic way of looking at the world that does not help one get to the truth.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
I disagree. Your flow of events requires that Epic go to PC Gamer, to funnel to money to, on account of PC Gamer's coverage of Epic. That would be a morally corrupt act that, unless there is evidence for, is a toxic way of looking at the world that does not help one get to the truth.
Seriously tho. All I said was that they were cozy.
 
May 13, 2019
82
Seriously tho. All I said was that they were cozy.
Yeah, I mean, you aren't explicitly saying that Epic is paying PC Gamer off, but it is nasty to assume that because individual writers have opinions about Epic and write about those opinions and because PC Gamer publishes that work, PC Gamer (the entity, not the individual writers, though that would also be a not-great take to have) is cozy with Epic. There is no evidence of that.

There is no straight line from 'writer writes a piece supporting something Epic did' to 'Outlet that published the piece is buddy-buddy with Epic'.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
Yeah, I mean, you aren't explicitly saying that Epic is paying PC Gamer off, but it is nasty to assume that because individual writers have opinions about Epic and write about those opinions and because PC Gamer publishes that work, PC Gamer (the entity, not the individual writers, though that would also be a not-great take to have) is cozy with Epic. There is no evidence of that.

There is no straight line from 'writer writes a piece supporting something Epic did' to 'Outlet that published the piece is buddy-buddy with Epic'.
I make no assumption. I said they have a good relationship. I do not assume but infer quite sensibly that they're very kind treatment of rich and influential epic has something to do with this relationship.

Such a mild observation. Oh but it does open the door to doubt, doesn't it? Do you make any room for a little doubt? If you think that would weaken your position, I assure you it will not.
 
Oct 27, 2017
215
Well regardless of how i feel about epic, anything that shines the spotlight on pc gaming is good imho. Its so.ething i wish Valve would do.
While I certainly wish Valve were more open and proactive, I feel as if all they do is shine a light on PC gaming, to the point it makes fans, myself included, resentful for not being more immediately productive (read: gratifying).
 
May 13, 2019
82
I make no assumption. I said they have a good relationship. I do not assume but infer quite sensibly that they're very kind treatment of rich and influential epic has something to do with this relationship.

Such a mild observation. Oh but it does open the door to doubt, doesn't it? Do you make any room for a little doubt? If you think that would weaken your position, I assure you it will not.
Saying that they have a good relationship is an assumption, because there is no actual evidence of that. What PC Gamer has done is published some pieces that are supportive of some things Epic has done recently.

To infer 'closeness' from PC Gamer's actions is to make a big mistake and would in no way be sensible. What PC Gamer did does not relate to having a cozy relationship with Epic. There is no relation at all - any outlet can publish whatever they want. Pro Epic, Anti Epic, whatever. To cross the line from publishing stuff to getting all buddy-buddy with a major player in the industry that PC Gamer covers on account of the nature (largely pro Epic) of that coverage would be a fairly enormous breach of ethics, and I do not assume/infer/whatever the language that the people at PC Gamer would do that kind of thing, and there is absolutely zero evidence that they have done so here.

I don't really look for doubt so much so much as I look for things that are reasonable to infer, I look for evidence, I do not assume that people are operating maliciously.

To say that an outlet is engaging in a quasi legal*, morally bankrupt scheme to accept money from a store front on account of the outlets coverage of said store front, that is a big thing. It''s a serious attack on the character of the people involved. It requires evidence, even to raise it as a serious possibility. Decent people do not speak of others in this way when there is no actual factual basis for the accusation.

*Future would be required to disclose this scheme to shareholders on account of the scheme having a material risk to the company in that it involves a Future asset shedding itself of basic journalistic integrity, which in turn - if it were to be exposed - would materially impact the value of that asset.
 
Last edited:

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
317
Thank you for taking your time to state a serious and well-thought question.

I am refering to your "This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly." part which suggest that Steam in its current form is a monopoly.
 
At this point I really wish we had a dedicated EGS meltdown thread. I am legitimately excited to see what is shown but this thread is a glut of the same people posting almost the exact same posts as every thread that mentions EGS.

I am really pumped about Chucklefish’s lineup!
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,966
Thank you for taking your time to state a serious and well-thought question.

I am refering to your "This behavior is what I'm predicting will drive an expansion of the consumer market as EGS makes its big-boy plays, and not a contraction or stagnation of the space as would happen in the face of a true monopoly." part which suggest that Steam in its current form is a monopoly.
It doesn't suggest that.
I don't state that Steam is a monopoly.
I don't say that Steam is contributing to a contraction or stagnation in the market.
What are you even remotely talking about.
 
Oct 27, 2017
764
They make a shitload of money from their dominant position in PC gaming. Sponsoring an event designed to celebrate and promote PC gaming on the big stage, an event that helps to market the efforts of small and big developers...that's absolutely something Valve should be doing.
You know who charges 30% of all transactions on their digital platforms? Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Valve.

And every single one of them, except Valve, spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting that platform. Meanwhile, Valve never stops looking for new ways to do less work maintaining their store.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,586
You know who charges 30% of all transactions on their digital platforms? Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Valve.

And every single one of them, except Valve, spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting that platform. Meanwhile, Valve never stops looking for new ways to do less work maintaining their store.
Am I supposed to resent valve for not doing gobs (really not much at all to be more precise) of marketing and self promotion?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,795
Valve sponsors stuff that actually helps (some) gamers. Valve seemingly doesn't care about traditional press at all.
They do not. Valve prefers to communicate through its actions, and directly with its users/customers, without engaging the press whenever possible. I have some cool anecdotes about my time there in this regard I probably can't share, but I assure you their philosophy is to communicate directly with who they serve and not use the press as middlemen whenever possible.

My time there actually majorly changed my views and opinions on the gaming press and its dynamic with the companies it covers.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,253
I'm curious if egs has even put a dent in steam. If a game gets taken away there always seems like there is another to take its place. In a similar time frame when epic announced 250k for world war z we have seen risk of rain 2 sell over one million on steam and Mordhau go over 500k. I think Mordhau is well on its way to one million too since it's near the top still.

This is the gamble going egs exclusive. If you get hot on Steam you hit it big. Way bigger than you could on egs.

With how much PC gamers seem to hate the EGS, I foresee waves of boos anytime they announce any kind of EGS exclusive, timed or otherwise. It's gonna be a good show.
I want to watch the show for the lulz too but reading comments from PC gamer employees they know. So I'm expecting a hand picked audience.

I don't think there is a big issue with companies selling games on egs. Making them egs exclusive is where the anger comes from.
 
Last edited: