-
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.
[PCWorld] A year in, the Epic Games Store's fight against Steam has made PC gaming better for everyone.
- Thread starter AshenOne
- Start date
Sure but at what point does that translate to "every storefront other than steam is garbage"? I guess I just feel like people are making a more political argument than what they're really thinking: "you're taking away my toy". The toy being a game they want to play on steam because all other storefronts are useless and garbage.
I guess my point is that if you're truly open to multiple storefronts and an open pc space, you have to also be open to varying levels of quality as well. And it doesn't seem like that's the case here.
They could have invested some of the cash from moneyhatting into improving their store though. The countless millions they have spent there could have given them a very large jumpstart. You have competitors which are much less cash flush than Epic out-developing them on the platform level.
Currently installed on my PC:
Steam, Battle.net, Origin, Uplay, EGS, GoG, Xbox for Windows.
I shouldn't need 7 different apps (each with their own background services, user account, friend list, etc) to play games. Only one of these gaming portals is good, and that is Steam. I want my entire PC library to be on Steam.
Inconvenience is the only real argument against it and even then... It's not that hard to just launch the thing you want to play the game you want.
Steam didn't get to where they are today overnight as they started in a very rough state back in 2004, it's been a long process with ups and downs. A great service today, yes, but playing on PC has always been about having options rather than being locked into one platform (like Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox are). Do the other storefronts/game launchers need to improve and add features? Absolutely.
Developers/publishers are allowed to do whatever they wish, if that's to create their own store app to sell their product (and others as well) and their own game launcher then so be it.
Last edited:
The best part of all of this is that the article / option piece / actual disinformation- ignores everything Valve has done year on year.
They may not communicate it well, but Valve's consistent delivery and output moving its products is pretty undeniable, and their output remains largely the same, unchanged by competitors.
Why exactly do I have to accept lower standards? And for what gain?
The problem isn't how "hard" it is. It's a question of is it needed and what impact this has on the industry as a whole. Creating barriers helps no one.
You need to buy the game on EGS so no - you dont just download EGS - I dont want to invest on a store ran by a company that half asses stuff and dont consider the PC community as a major market but a Pirate threshold.
They also dont host sales as often nor do the third party sites have sales for exclusive to EGS games as often.
Steam on the other hand, the prices are much better, availability from third party sources is far more better (i.e. bundles, etc) and on top of that there are features such as Achievements that are on Steam but not on EGS - and yes achievements may not matter for you, but its one of the main reasons why I never buy third party games on Nintendo platforms and prefer buying them on both PC and Playstation instead.
The fact that you dont understand that people dont like EGS is proof that people will never accept other people for what they believe in, stand for, etc. Not everyone is gonna be a robot following or liking the same thing as you.
Last edited:
No one has to accept lower standards. People aren't decrying Epic because it exists, understand that then use it as the starting point to understand other arguments made here.
Accept is the wrong word. Obviously don't use it if you don't want to. I just mean that some services will inherently be worse than others. Maybe "understand" is the better word
Barely anyone even attempts to compete with Steam. Selling exclusively first party titles is the absolute minimum in terms of competition but that just means at best you will use it along with another storefront to fill the rest of your needs. So I view GOG, Windows Store and Epic the only real competitors trying to build what Steam does. I can't say they all put the same effort into it.
Most people are positive with GOG as they developed their niche of DRM-free games and now GOG Galaxy 2.0 (hey look, some kind of unique feature!) but their resources are limited. Microsoft has a popular subscription service and some connected Xbox features but their Store continues to feel neglected. Epic just throws money at developers. It's pretty barren. This boils down to the lack of investment by companies for years and I don't think it's changing all that much.
The thing is competition is supposed to make all services better. So far, the only services which competition has made better are Steam and GoG, the other have decided to stay in their usual shit self. "Competition is good for the market" is true... if services actually try to compete between themselves. Right now, only Steam and GoG continue improving themselves why most other services have decided to let themselves estagnate.
I wouldnt say Windows Store is even trying to compete with Steam, as they have done nothing since Gamepass PC, despite it still being tied to the broken stuff that is the Windows Store. Similar to Origin with EA Access (but Origin is not broken like Windows Store).
The below cant be stressed enough for the 1000 time
And that's all most people genuinely discussing the issue proclaim.
Just as with other woefully poor untrusted services - I and many others are content to entirely miss games locking them selves to such a singular option, in favour of competing excellent games - of which there are a ridiculous amount.
Eg, I got Fallen Order in place of RDR2. If I am to get RDR2 in future, it's simply not a priority anymore, and thus seems better to wait for a discount. This is actual competition at work, rather than the forced non-competitive approach exclusivity brings
But you are locking yourself to one platform in all actuality. You're locking yourself to steam. Because it's better. And that's fine. That's why the "open pc gaming marketplace" argument doesn't have weight In my opinion
No, you're wrong. Having a game on steam means that I can use the steam app on my apple tv to play it in another room. Having it on steam means that I can use ps4 and switch controllers without issues. I have stick drift on my 150 dollar elite controller. Using steam input I can set a larger dead zone (basically eliminates the issue) that applies for all steam games.
Not using steam means less choice of where and when I can play games and it means less choice of what controllers I can use. More than an inconvenience if you ask me.
I'd disagree, in that Steam is constantly being tested by users to determine if it is worthy of investing in as an ecosystem. Choice is absolutely still on the customer, including whether or not PC as a whole is worth investing in over a console and it's versions. In terms of price, there are lots of third party stores with legitimate keys at far more competitive pricing than Steam itself, so there is no need to stick with a singular marketplace either.
Services like GOG continue to prove a great option for the titles getting released, and it can be wise to wait for that if your so inclined
Gamepass is also pretty huge at it's current price. Guaranteed to jump in price once xcloud drops, but without doubt lots of Steam users have seen the value in it despite UWP
Last edited:
Well yeah. Epic's only interested in games that can drive microtransaction sales. That's why they acquired Rocket League.
The open PC marketplace exists even inside Steam as a platform, where Valve makes no money from Steam games sold outside their store. There is also the option to create your own service and for you to market itself and compete with Steam as PC allows you to do it. What people hate is then to be forced to use services that have no net benefit for the customer (because it brings back bad memories of shitty services, as well as being an increased annoyance) for no apparent reason (for instance, 1st party titles is Ok, although can be a bit annoying if they come with Bethesda-launcher tier services).
The problem of new stores in an open marketplace, is that users will want to have the best experience, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT COMPETITION DOES. In PC, that means Steam is the one that ends up being the predominant service. So that leaves you either to compete in Steam in function or try and found your niche / core concept that is different than Steam:
- Gog and DRM-free
- Microsoft Store and Gamepass.
- Charity foundations on Humble Store.
To make the customer chose a service that is notably worse than the market leader you need to offer something new and unique, or a spin on the current service.
To end all of this, I just want to say something about competition. Competition is supposed to make all services better, but in all the "competition" articles posted, all the burden is put onto Steam, which already has a sizeable lead on services (and that continues getting bigger and bigger) while the new competitors get a "well they will get better soon (tm)", without putting the emphasis on competition on them. And it is annoying. Origin came and at launch was a worthy competitor for Steam, offering new things and being in a similar level to Steam, and then they immediately stopped competing and have stagnated ever since.
Epic themselves have said that the current state of stores is good enough for customers and would not improve much on it, and yet they are supposed to bring "competition" in services to Steam. I just want people to also push those shitty services into being decent, and maybe then, Steam will have a real competition.
No your not getting it and your pretending that it's only because it's an extra launcher. It's an issue because they are buying exclusives that shouldn't be exclusive including multiple kickstarters. They don't provide a benefit of using their launcher either.
I get it just fine thanks. If a game is exclusive to a launcher I'll just play the game through that launcher. It's not like I need to buy another system to play it, I just need to download a launcher.
Quoting myself from multiple other thread :
This obviously only cover the pricing issue ( which get even worst if like me you use family share ). Then come everything surrounding the platform, streaming, trophy, controler support, chat, community feature, etc..
It's not about having 1 more shortcut on my screen, and never was.
Your actively supporting something that is making pc gaming worst.
It's not making PC gaming worse for me. I don't even have the launcher so you can put your pitchfork down cowboy.
I hope you never argue against Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo moneyhatting exclusives, because that's all EGS is doing. They're keeping people from buying the game on the platform they want (whether that be GOG, Steam, UPlay, etc) and forcing them to purchase on their own. You can argue "it's just another launcher" but Steam is a platform, not just a launcher, and they have tons of unique features that I use routinely that no other store has. I have no problem with first-party exclusives on Origin, UPlay, etc (and I occasionally buy games on those storefronts that are also on Steam instead of on Steam if there's a good deal) but I definitely have a problem with money-hatting games just to keep them off Steam for a year.
The fundamental difference here is the consumer needs to shell out hundreds of dollars to get exclusives on other consoles.
Yes it does, at the choice of the developers
lmao
Calling this journalism is a laugh, bloggers can write better articles than this trash. The only thing that annoys me about this piece is that someone got paid to write it.
Man, it's almost like there is an entire thread dedicated to discussing this. You got trouble reading?
By not having the game available on Steam I'm losing the utility of over $1000 worth of purchased equipment (Apple TV 4K streaming, PS4/Steam Controllers, 2x iPad streaming, etc). Sure, I don't have to buy a console but I do lose features that I use that required expensive hardware purchases.
Interesting to see people who have no engagement in PC topics popping in to tell us how insightful and interesting this article is.
User Banned (5 Days): Trolling across Multiple Posts
Sorry I haven't been keeping up with the intense history and nuance behind the great launcher war of 2019. I guess this is what I get for wading in without having every single PDF and historical document available to me.
If you think lacking the most basic elements and / or understanding for a discussion on a topic is no biggie then... well, enjoy getting quoted more often I guess.
Weird that you feel the need to express your opinion so strongly on a topic you don't give enough of a shit about to know what's being discussed.
I really don't think I'm expressing my opinion very strongly lol. As I said I don't even have the EGS on my PC. I guess I'm just not as bothered by this stuff as others and that's totally fine.
I've actually come around on it and can appreciate it now. These dudes are out here giving me self esteem for free because dropping $200 to play Switch exclusives is a flex now.
Excuse my while I Scrooge McDuck-it and bring my kiddie swimming pool filled with pennies to the coinstar.