or itch.io which we know barely keeps the lights on as it is
and also have a lower cut than egs
so maybe *gasp* it's not actually about the cut and devs getting more of it
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ooblets will be exclusive to Epic Games Store on PC
- Thread starter fieldafar
- Start date
and also have a lower cut than egs
so maybe *gasp* it's not actually about the cut and devs getting more of it
Welcome to capitalism I guess. Not all indie devs will manage to live out making games on their own.
Not all bands will live out of making music. Etc...
They are right to take the money, but then... What? To hope some mega billionare company keeps throwing money at you. If your game needed free money to break even, what make you think the second one will be a success? And even if you do made it, that just means other indie devs couldn't make it.
Giving free money doesn't resolve the problem, it may fix it temporarily or hide it, but don't make it go away.
Just because you can do those things doesn't mean a monopoly doesn't exist. There are plenty of barriers that make options other than Steam not feasible (costs and customer loyalty). A single game does not makeup a market. Exclusivity is not a monopoly.
Him cherry picking a toxic comment on Twitter is not helpful. It's like a guilt by association play. Come on Jason just agree to disagree and move on. There is a reason the only way to defend EGS is through strawman arguments like "steam has a monopoly," "giving players more choice" or the best one "what's the big deal with installing a launcher?" There isn't much else to stand on. The worst strategy though is when they point out the extreme toxic people and act like that is everyone.
If I applaud your comment a little more I'll break my wrists.
Bravo.
So, there's an ancient comic on the internet:
Yeah, it's crude and an obvious extreme, but it illustrates a fallacy that's felt really prevalent with EGS discussion. No matter how valid or well-reasoned the arguments against the EGS might be, all someone needs to do is point to someone acting hot-headed and crazy over it and you can pull the same bullshit PR reasons that have been debunked over and over again.
Tone policing.
Last edited:
1. You should talk about that to indie devs who struggled to eat food at the end of the month what they think about that
2. Kindda, but there are a lot of games who aren't on GOG, exclusivity or not.
3. Yes, that is true. But always buying game at the best deal is not good for the media either.
4. Yes, but the store is new. Do you rembered the state of Steam at launch ?
5. What is the barrier here ? GOG isn't spanish compatible for exemple.
6. Yes, see point 4.
7. THIS, is the real issue, 100% agree on that.
I honestly think we agree on most of the issue. Let's agree to disagree about the method and leave it at that.
I will absolutely discuss these issues with an indie dev, given the opportunity.
The point with that list is not that they invalidate the needs of a dev, but that there definitely are things worth discussing, about how it effects us as well as the devs, instead of our perspective being dismissed as a reflex. And that's something Jason Schreier seems completely incapable of understanding, despite him being a journalist.
Close your eyes and imagine that your $60 games were actually $100 due to some bullshit currency exchange nonsense. Is it hard to imagine that it might affect you negatively?
Phones and PCs are necessities for many people as well. Let's not pretend that people of all walks of life use these devices purely for entertainment.
You're arguing in bad faith.
I'd call that pedantic. People use the word consumer and customer interchangeably in most instances. I get his point, but it's also important to understand the reality of how language is used.
Exacly! I never was a big fan of him, but he's the only one left and I respect him for what's he's doing.
So he's just ridiculing someone based on his poor choice of wording that maybe due to lack of understanding of american culture and knowing negative connotations that word may include there but not in their native languages while complaining about toxic comments...
Nothing can make you think the second one will be a success, no matter what is the size of your studio.
It is not about beak even, it is about having a garantee that you will be able to repay your loan or your mortgage. It is an enormous amount of stress for a lot of indies.
This is insane. You're ignoring the definition of "monopoly" just so you can call something a monopoly when it is not.
Here's a good one from Google: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."
Steam is in no way that. Because they provide a better service than the competition that has attracted a huge audience does not make them a monopoly. They are not the only game in town. Hell, even Steam keys are regularly resold for a discount on other marketplaces. None of that money goes to Steam.
EGS isn't a monopoly, either, but preventing a good from being made available elsewhere is surely a lot closer to the definition than what Steam is.
I personally throw a temper tantrum when I see a copy of Consumer Reports at the dentist's office. And then I yell at everybody waiting about how all they do is CONSUME, MAAAAN.
It's unbelievable how people try to guilt others about having standards when it comes to purchasing and enjoying products. Even the press is getting in on it in the case of EGS. It's wild.
It's unbelievable how people try to guilt others about having standards when it comes to purchasing and enjoying products. Even the press is getting in on it in the case of EGS. It's wild.
For perspective I can see why Indies are taking the money when your look at the stats here. It is daunting how many small business fail over 5 to 10 years. Heck even 2 to 3 years in survival is hard.
But the epic deal is basically a band aid and it's interesting that 14 percent of the reason small business fail long term is not listening to their customers. Natural selection for winners and losers over time will still come into play.
But the epic deal is basically a band aid and it's interesting that 14 percent of the reason small business fail long term is not listening to their customers. Natural selection for winners and losers over time will still come into play.
You think the fact that most other retailers have to sell Steam Keys proves they're not a monopoly? Monopolies are not just about $ in sales. It's about market control.
Can someone explain to me how Steam is monopoly? I mean on the PC market before EGS we already have Steam, GOG, itch.io, uPlay, Origin, Battlenet. If he meant market leader is a monopoly then why doesn'y he say that Sony is monopoly?
He hates that a customer just "consume consume consume" but when the customer give a criticism he just make fun of the criticism?
And he doesn't even touch how condescending the devs are.
Quitting your day job to become a full-time indie developer with no guarantee of success while you have a mortgage and other debt does sound like it would be a very stressful thing. No one forced them to do that, though... That's very much a choice. Who are we even talking about, by the way? Are you saying this applies to all indies?
Yes, actually, it proves as such.
Because it means you can use their backend without giving them a single cent. Because it means competitors don't need Valve's official approval to exist.
As opposed to Epic who choose which 3rd party stores can sell EGS keys.
Oh OK, yes you are right, there are good reasons to not being happy about this. But riot, like a lot seems to handle this situation (I am not including crowfunding) ? I think Jason doesn't understand the high level of angrieness VS inconveniency.
How does other companies selling Steam keys at a discount compared to the price of the game on the actual Steam store and still making a profit mean Valve controls the market?
And other retailers do not have to sell Steam keys. The developer does not need to give out Steam keys. They could put their games on other storefronts or even host the game themselves and sell keys from those venues. They use Steam because of its convenient feature set and the fact that Valve will pay for their bandwidth. All they have to do is also offer it on the Steam store.
Valve providing the best service does not mean people are forced to use Steam.
Alright my mistake. Was going off resetera which was a mistake, but I guess it means things changed
It's probably because he's chuckling and nodding at their rants about "baby gamers" and similar garbage. Disdain for anyone who might disagree is something he very much likely shares.
Not only are you not giving them a single cent, you're making Valve pay bandwidth costs.
No, not while. But oftenly, dev time is longer than what you expected and you need to make a loan to the bank and, sometimes, it goes to mortgage because you have no garantee.
Do you think indies are always people who had a day job and quit it ?
Have you read stories or talk to indies about all the process of the project ?
Not at all.
You had people like George Carlin talk about this very thing and the distinction between them like 15 years ago.
The little details is what matters, why do you think the change happened in the first place if that detail was so unimportant?
That's not what I took from it. English isn't my native language either nor am I American.
I see no ridiculing, nor do I see poor choice of wording from the other person. Jason is merely talking about how we do not have any issues with being labeled as consumers as it's something we've accepted as being a consumer is not something we should be proud of. Granted the other person may not realise the difference because those two have become synonymous, but it brings up a discussion that I personally think is important.
I think that just about anyone who has a mortgage definitely had a day job or some other stable source of income in order to get that mortgage, yes.
If it was all about controlling the market, Valve would put a halt to that, therefore the third party stores will start disappearing leaving Steam the only store in town or one of the very few.
I don't really care about launchers, so I will happily buy this on day on one EGS because I want the Ooblet goodness in my life.
Language is constantly changing for a variety of reasons. Tell me what makes the little details important. Do you really think using this word over "customer" is subliminally brainwashing people into becoming mindless sheep or something?
Sigh, that "Steam is a monopoly" line. The way I remember it from company, a monopoly is a company that's so large, that has so many resources and is so dominant over an industry that they remove choice from consumers and make it impossible for competitors to, well, compete due to having that much control over the industry. Now that obviously describes neither given the fact that both exist to begin with and if Valve truly were a monopoly that would be impossible to begin with no matter what tactics they used so since EGS were able to pop in just fine and appear to be doing just fine now by all appearances, it's obviously no way accurate or helpful to call Steam a monopoly as that would not be the case if they were one or were ever close to being one is that's the point of a monopoly to begin with: that you can't do what EGS did no matter what tactics you use. So they were obviously nowhere close to being a monopoly and it's very disappointing to seeing a journalist like Jason throwing that word around so liberally and contributing it basically becoming meaningless outside of being a console/platform-war buzzword.
Noe, if I really wanted to be snarky, I could also add that while obviously neither Epic or Valve are anywhere close to being monopolies and it's silly to even attempt to do otherwise, that speaking of monopolies, the kind if things that make them so bad in the first place is that they tend to result in effects like reduced choice for consumers and also higher prices? Now, while that describes neither, which one does it more resemble? Because it seems to me that would be the one that's, say, literally removing choice from consumers by having stuff only be on their storefront and removed from their competitors which also, not so coincidentally, has been resulting in higher prices for many of these products when that happens, due to reduced competition while those deals last?
Because it's certainly not Valve/Steam making those deals (not yet anyway), despite them having every opportunity and indeed, if they wanted to brcine or were or truly wanted to act as if they were s monopoly, they had every incentive to do so. But yet they never did, and it's only a certain other company that's using those kind of tactics. Not Valve, despite indeed having every ability to do so and every reason to do so, if those were their ambitions and designs.
Yet somehow nonetheless it's Valve that's the monopoly anyway, despite being the one to NOT do stuff like that despite having every ability to do so at every step and even now giving no appearance they'll stoop to the same tactics. If I wanted to be snarky and play that game, If tetirt that it's curious in that case that it's EGS that's actually acting like a monopoly and I'd much closer to one in terms of behavior/effects on the consumer than Valve ever was and yet suddenly he doesn't care.
Of course, that would be completely stupid and nonsensical since neither are monopolies, nowhere close, that's not how any of this works and it's shameful to even see a journalist like Jason contributing towards "monopoly" becoming a platform-war buzzword and robbing it of any meaning by throwing it around so carelessly.
Its not. Its a stupid narrative being pushed to avoid talking about why Steam is a giant, which was it building up not only its library by being an attractive store front, but a history of useful APIs for dev and customer.
Actually in the industry i work for paying a supplier to work exclusively with you in terms of certain products is part of what constitutes a monopoly.Even more so if EGS is mssively successful because in that case they are actively limiting consumer options. As you pointed out there are many barriers which make steam not feasible but because steam isnt restricting indie migration from its store and limiting where it can be sold, it isnt a monopoly legally speaking but a market leader.
However these barriers do need to be addressed by steam though I agree.
Then it's weird because with how EGS operate, with paid exclusivity and directly attacking Steam, they are on the way to be a monopoly.
I'm fairly familiar with how all that works but the evolution does not happen on its own without an outside influence. It's not about brainwashing but rather about distancing the gap between the producer and the user.
In most cases that would be good as that gap would encourage some level of impartiality when consumers are deciding what product is best for them.
Steam the platform itself (not the store) was a monopoly by the virtue of it being a defacto monopoly.
True, but it should be an option and choice for the consumer as in if they want to be closer then they can be closer. As it stands it's more of a way for the producer to distance themselves and prevent the consumers from getting close, so that they don't have to care about them as much. But we're starting to go a bit into philosophy here now...lol
This is one point that I never understood.
Yes, Steam had a really shitty launch, but that was back in 2003. Whenever a new product rolls along, I don't expect it to have software from the 1st gen of its competitor.
Does that mean that we should be ok with EGS taking over 15 years to reach where Steam is now?
Fingers crossed we can see the once in a lifetime quadruple down.
Jim Sterling's video had a great example of this.
If someone made a console today and told people it only plays games in 480p people would lose their minds.
Times change. Things evolve.
Don't care about the exclusivity but the blog and discord posts ensures this game and dev gets ignored in future.
But this is how it works (1st gen of a 15 years is not great, for sure, but 2 gen, yes).
There are reasons it took a big amount of time for Steam to be in the state they are now.
This is also why the launch version of Stadia will be full of limitations and won't be the stadia they showed (and hoped it will be).