Itch.io barely breaks even each month. You're right, it's proof enough.
Exactly? Obviously, itch.io would love to grow but the entire point is to sustain and allow for those on its platform to as well.
Itch.io barely breaks even each month. You're right, it's proof enough.
Being spied on will always suck.
I mean, I agree with this take and I've shared it since the beginning. While it sucks for consumers in the short term, I'm confident that in a future long term where Steam and EGS have similair market shares, the competition between them will only be a positive for the consumer.
I also know people will disagree here and it's fine. Just felt I needed to add my differing opinion since most people here are mocking GameInformer. (Also prepared it might happen to me too but eh, I can take it.)
Exactly? Obviously, itch.io would love to grow but the entire point is to sustain and allow for those on its platform to as well.
I mean, I agree with this take and I've shared it since the beginning. While it sucks for consumers in the short term, I'm confident that in a future long term where Steam and EGS have similair market shares, the competition between them will only be a positive for the consumer.
I also know people will disagree here and it's fine. Just felt I needed to add my differing opinion since most people here are mocking GameInformer. (Also prepared it might happen to me too but eh, I can take it.)
I'm not expecting the paying for exclusives strategy is something longterm, just a way to kickstart the store while they keep adding features and catching up in market share. At some point they can start competing with features instead and maybe partner up for exclusive content by actively paying into development rather than "stealing" content from Steam.It is not good for the industry or the consumers if 3rd party games are locked to one store. It is not good when stores are paying developers to release their games to that store. That is not how PC market worked since 50 years ago.
Explain in this hypothetical future where storefronts are securing exclusives, how is it beneficial to customers?
Being owned by GameStop this was always the case.Also from now on, GameInformer should be renamed to the more fitting GamePromoter.
Exactly? Obviously, itch.io would love to grow but the entire point is to sustain and allow for those on its platform to as well.
Fortnite/Chinese money isn't enough?
Explain in this hypothetical future where storefronts are securing exclusives, how is it beneficial to customers?
As a purely console gamer can someone explain to me what's wrong with the EGS?
On the surface to me it looks like Epic are offering a better cut to devs to be on their platform and if that means Valve respond then isn't that competition a good thing for consumers rather than have one company basically own the PC gaming market?
Epic's explanation makes sense for the time being. Basically, it's using exclusives to establish itself in the marketplace and then in about a year it will slow or stop given that it has established a foothold by which games will come to the platform naturally. As big as Fortnite's community is, it's not necessarily enough to create the rapid expansion for the platform such that would Epic be able to create something that could compete on an even level with Steam and be sustainable this fast otherwise.
It doesn't explain why the Epic Store had to launch as a featureless mess, but it does give some perspective on the store's goals with regards to exclusives and heavy curation.
So, let me ask again - how is securing exclusives beneficial to customers?
Epic been caught spying on the competition through their users' computers. That is the biggest red flag of them all.As a purely console gamer can someone explain to me what's wrong with the EGS?
On the surface to me it looks like Epic are offering a better cut to devs to be on their platform and if that means Valve respond then isn't that competition a good thing for consumers rather than have one company basically own the PC gaming market?
Valve don't own the PC market at all, that's a lie that's spread about for some reason. There's a vast range of alternative storefronts available. There are so many different places to buy games, it's one of the best things about PC gaming.As a purely console gamer can someone explain to me what's wrong with the EGS?
On the surface to me it looks like Epic are offering a better cut to devs to be on their platform and if that means Valve respond then isn't that competition a good thing for consumers rather than have one company basically own the PC gaming market?
But you just said yourself they were sustaining... uhhhhhhhhhhhh
Most gamers are like "Gabe's gotta get his 30%"
PC, the apparently open platform haha.
No Epic is paying publishers and developers to release game only on Epic Store. In case of Ubisoft on UPlay too. They are paying them to remove their games from all other stores like GMG or Voidu.
Epic been caught spying on the competition through their users' computers. That is the biggest red flag of them all.
Valve don't own the PC market at all, that's a lie that's spread about for some reason. There's a vast range of alternative storefronts available. There are so many different places to buy games, it's one of the best things about PC gaming.
Except when Epic buys a game. Then you can only buy your game at one single place. And it's a place that spy's on your computers and also doesn't let certain countries access it. Also I hope you don't use Linux.
Valves only response to counter what Epic are doing are to purchase their own exclusives, which is not good for consumers at all. Valve already offer a phenomally better storefront than Epic, they vastly outpace them in terms of features. The idea that they could counter Epic by adding more features is just ludicrous.
As a purely console gamer can someone explain to me what's wrong with the EGS?
So, let me ask again - how is securing exclusives beneficial to customers?
Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.
Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.
Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.
(ex: "This outlet is clearly paid off because I don't agree with their coverage")
Lol, get real, the developers aren't going to see more money, it will all go to the publisher who will gladly pocket the extra money. Do you think Reaganomics/Republican trickle down economics actually works?Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.
Official Staff CommunicationAddendum: It's fine and often healthy to be critical of media coverage (ex: "I don't think this article is good and here's why"), but please avoid going down any rabbit holes with excessive vitriol and conspiracy theories (ex: "This outlet is clearly paid off because I don't agree with their coverage"). We've long had a general policy against hyperbolical vilification of the media and that rule has not been suspended.
Some outlets are publishing content sponsored by Epic Games and of course they will defend Epic Games practices.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/fortnite/fortnite-netcode-guide
Haha and that's why i can't take any of those people other than schreier serious.Some outlets are publishing content sponsored by Epic Games and of course they will defend Epic Games practices.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/fortnite/fortnite-netcode-guide
Official Staff Communication
Given the volatility in recent Epic Game Store related threads we have decided that some clearer guidelines are required to cultivate healthier discussion.
Addendum: It's fine and often healthy to be critical of media coverage (ex: "I don't think this article is good and here's why"), but please avoid going down any rabbit holes with excessive vitriol and conspiracy theories (ex: "This outlet is clearly paid off because I don't agree with their coverage"). We've long had a general policy against hyperbolical vilification of the media and that rule has not been suspended.
- Do not enter these threads in bad faith. If we conclude that your goal is to misrepresent the concerns of other users or rile people up, you will be moderated. Intent matters here. Honest questions or commentary about the differences and similarities between the Epic Games Store and other storefronts are fine. Deliberately and dismissively attempting to troll concerned members on those topics is not okay. These discussions must be held in good faith and in a civil manner.
- As a reminder, antagonizing or engaging in personal attacks on other members is still against the rules. We have a large community with a wide range of preferences and personal priorities. Not everyone will feel the same way as you do on any given topic. If you feel a post is breaking a rule please report it and do not respond with hostility. If you choose to engage do so politely. We always check to see which users have a history of trouble in this area.
- It is perfectly acceptable to want to wait for a game to be released on the storefront of your preference (ex: "I'll just wait for the Steam release.") It is not acceptable to troll threads because of storefront exclusivity timed or otherwise (ex: "So the real PC release is going to be a year later.") The latter is needlessly inflammatory and distracts from discussion. We will be scrutinizing these posts more closely going forward.
- Do not advocate, defend, or admit to piracy under any circumstances. This is explicitly against our Terms of Service. There are no justifications that will make this acceptable.
Trickle down economics doesn't work. All that's going to happen is that publishers will be making more money, I doubt any devs are seeing it, they're just getting their salary.Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.
Longterm means more money for game developers via the revenue share. Means less studios going under. Less layoffs. More games. If Epic was being honest, the exclusives thing is only going to be for around a year. If they're being honest the storefront will be vastly improved in a year, too. Just a personal view, but I'm willing to deal with a shitty launcher and exclusives for around a year if it means more money for developers.