-
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.
Randy Pitchford explains his support for EGS. (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter Detail
- Start date
That's not really what "support" means. They don't support Linux. You can't contact customer support with Linux questions and expect help. Lutris is a work-around solution when software doesn't support Linux. Even then, there's no guarantee that the games are going to work due to DRM and the like.
what epic shouldve done with their infinity money:
build a decent launcher FIRST, then -and only then- moneyhat exclusives.
build a decent launcher FIRST, then -and only then- moneyhat exclusives.
And they got payed for it (afterwards). In other words: Good guy Epic.
"OK".
I'm pretty sure that's going to come and be integrated into EGS. Better then no support at all, wouldn't you say?
The lack of exclusives is what makes it easy for you to say you won't use them. If Valve suddenly ended did the same thing, nearly all of us would find it a lot harder to stop using Steam.
Oh come on, having a basic social media presence isn't gaslighting. In fact, the do have Twitter accounts for all of their individual games, just not one that advertises Steam client updates. Expecting laypeople to read Github release notes is fucking absurd.
Saying shit like Steam is a monopoly (blatant lie), bad for consumers (blatant lie), never do anything with their money (blatant lie), repeated until dumb asses start repeating it like gospel (it's just another store), calling people crazy for "nothing". What would you call lying about a business competitor in a way that makes you look like the savior? They're pitting us consumers against each other, telling us we "just don't get it" in regards to how they're better for us. What the hell else is it other than gas lighting? Maybe they don't hit all the signs, but enough.
Edit: I forgot about, their actions not matching their words. With their trickle down customer savings with their split. Where's that now?
For reference. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...verywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
Last edited:
Well, first it isn't, and second, it's almost a basic feature to have Linux support today. Seriously, EGS would be a bare bones not having modern day features if it launched 10 years ago. The fact that anyone can defend this shit is amazing.
Why does the appraisal for EGS fall short of their amazingly "competitive" prices? Why is this point always ignored when it comes time to discuss what EGS is as a market for gaming on PC yet Steam is absolutely blasted from every single corner despite clear evidence of why it is most preferred. But above all, why are those who sign up to be on EGS taken seriously in their opinion when the factor of being on that platform is a pure cheque helping their bottom line?
No one bar Metro (and that was US only) has actively taken it upon themselves to lower the traditional cost of video games no matter the developer rating classification despite the constant bombardment from developers that Epic's cut will allow them to do just that while also still being profitable. Just looking purely at the 88/12 and 70/30 (I know Steam isn't as dry cut either but apparently media and detractors ignore that), an EGS developer would make $52.80 on a traditional $60USD title. Compare that to $42USD for Steam and it is certainly clear that the cut from EGS is most definitely better, yet with a $10.80 profit we are still paying traditional title costs.
Worse yet, for those like myself in Australia, we are paying up to $100AUD for games. 100 fucking dollarydoos. I no longer have access to decently discounted third party key resellers if Epic becomes the norm, I have no access to my Steam Link and Steam Controller, I don't even have access to bloody mods. Mods people, one of the key defining differences between PC and console. How the flying fuck is this defence that Epic is great for the industry "but right now they aren't great but they'll get better trust me!" even flying in gaming circles let alone the god damn gaming "press" if such a thing they are to be called.
I want competition. Real competition. Not a company coming in dick swinging trying to push their practices of swaying devs over with bags of cash while not even a half baked but half prepared storefront is put to the market that is actively HURTING the PC gaming space. This is all while the gaming medium is getting giant boners over hating Steam because "reasons" that have no actual reasons. This is pure idiocracy at its best yet we have people in here genuinely defending such practices yet asked why a storefront is charging more despite better cuts can't even answer the actual question.
Competition is giving me, the consumer, choice. Saying that game X is available on Y and Z storefront but also if you are privy enough it can be had on a third party key reseller if you so choose is far and above a better "competitive" field then what we are currently being given. That games are competitive in storefronts on their price but also the store's actual service delivery system and accessibility options screams to me as competitive. Not the whimpering reason that Epic is the best we can get because "one day" it will get better. One day isn't today, where I am being impacted on what I can play without being ripped off because I live in fucking Australia and the game was not available on another storefront for competitive pricing.
No one bar Metro (and that was US only) has actively taken it upon themselves to lower the traditional cost of video games no matter the developer rating classification despite the constant bombardment from developers that Epic's cut will allow them to do just that while also still being profitable. Just looking purely at the 88/12 and 70/30 (I know Steam isn't as dry cut either but apparently media and detractors ignore that), an EGS developer would make $52.80 on a traditional $60USD title. Compare that to $42USD for Steam and it is certainly clear that the cut from EGS is most definitely better, yet with a $10.80 profit we are still paying traditional title costs.
Worse yet, for those like myself in Australia, we are paying up to $100AUD for games. 100 fucking dollarydoos. I no longer have access to decently discounted third party key resellers if Epic becomes the norm, I have no access to my Steam Link and Steam Controller, I don't even have access to bloody mods. Mods people, one of the key defining differences between PC and console. How the flying fuck is this defence that Epic is great for the industry "but right now they aren't great but they'll get better trust me!" even flying in gaming circles let alone the god damn gaming "press" if such a thing they are to be called.
I want competition. Real competition. Not a company coming in dick swinging trying to push their practices of swaying devs over with bags of cash while not even a half baked but half prepared storefront is put to the market that is actively HURTING the PC gaming space. This is all while the gaming medium is getting giant boners over hating Steam because "reasons" that have no actual reasons. This is pure idiocracy at its best yet we have people in here genuinely defending such practices yet asked why a storefront is charging more despite better cuts can't even answer the actual question.
Competition is giving me, the consumer, choice. Saying that game X is available on Y and Z storefront but also if you are privy enough it can be had on a third party key reseller if you so choose is far and above a better "competitive" field then what we are currently being given. That games are competitive in storefronts on their price but also the store's actual service delivery system and accessibility options screams to me as competitive. Not the whimpering reason that Epic is the best we can get because "one day" it will get better. One day isn't today, where I am being impacted on what I can play without being ripped off because I live in fucking Australia and the game was not available on another storefront for competitive pricing.
You replied to a post asking for Valve to do better PR. It's entirely possible for Doug Lombardi or anyone else from Valve to hop on Twitter and promote their work without turning in Randy Pitchford.
In other world : better than nothing. Which I guess when it comes to EGS count as a win apparently ? I do guess the line is that low given the rest.
Next up, good guy Nintendo for having PC support with Dolphin, Citra and Cemu.
Do you think they should?
I think dignifying the tripe that comes out of Tim Sweeny and Randy Pitchford's mouth by replying to it is to be avoided. They shouldn't lower themselves to their level.
I still haven't seen a single thing that the Epic store is doing for ME as the customer.
Worse service.
No saving on prices even though the developers are saving money.
No choice to buy keys or get deals and better prices.
What are they doing for ME?
Worse service.
No saving on prices even though the developers are saving money.
No choice to buy keys or get deals and better prices.
What are they doing for ME?
I don't think they should reply to any of this bullshit, but I do think it would help their customers and overall perception of "complacency" if they promoted notable new client features.
No one will respond to this because frankly there's nothing at the moment improving customers' lives. The closest I've heard is that more money for developers equals more games for consumers but even that is faulty logic.
Yup, because this isn't more money for devs. This is potentially more money for publishers, assuming the money they get from this deal outweighs the money they lose by releasing on a lesser platform.
They do, though. The latest in recent memory was the new UI. That, and everything they showed at GDC.
I get what you're saying but on the other hand I get the feeling that the perception of complacency toward Steam is less than genuine.
Well, the new chat UI was so huge everyone would've noticed it anyway. I'm talking more about stuff like controller support, Big Picture changes, etc. The only Steam Twitter account just tweets game deals.
GDC is for, well, developers. While us forum nerds are fine getting information from whereever, the average person who installed Steam for PUBG isn't gonna sit through hour long lectures.
Re: complacency there's definitely a lot of bad faith arguments, but I also suspect there's a lot of people who don't log into Steam that often or don't interact with it very much.
Last edited:
While I do not agree with him at all, I do feel like it is worth pointing out (IDK if anyone else brought this up this thread is long) that Randy has been on a long sour note with Valve for ages now because Gabe Newell screwed him and his team and almost made Gearbox go bankrupt because of it over Counter-Strike: Condition Zero. He talked about this recently in a documentary and admitted that at least on his end the wounds haven't healed (and tbh I don't particularly blame him in that respect).
You can see his explanation on that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLEW1c-69c&t=32m49s
It lasts until 39m20s of the vid.
You can see his explanation on that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLEW1c-69c&t=32m49s
It lasts until 39m20s of the vid.
I agree, I can't say much more. On one hand, people who use steam know about at least half of its features. On the other hand, those who don't have no idea about how good it is since Valve doesn't really drum up press releases for what they release.
I don't want to get too negative about the situation we find ourselves in. Players are one thing, professionals are another. I regret that we've come to the point where we need Valve to drum up PR just for people in this industry not to lie openly, let alone drop the spin.
Amen
The fact that he's still salty after 15 years is more reason not to trust him here.
Good post.
I will use this to reiterate a point.
If Epic Games Store did not moneyhat third party exclusives and focussed their outreach and their generous cut (88%/12%) to specifically small to mid sized independent developers, I would be 1000% on their side and might be inclined to pick up larger games with them over Steam. I would accept a barebones launcher. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had a smaller cut with large publisher backed games to cover the cost of transaction fees and regional taxes for all games on their storefront, that is fine. I am pretty sure companies like Activision will be alright taking 75% to 80%. I would see them as a company that got big trying to grow the PC gaming industry. I would see them as healthy pro consumer competition.
And before I hear, "well how would they hook people without third party exclusives..." I will kindly remind you they currently have one of the most popular games ever as a first party exclusive.
Last edited:
*shrugs* I agree with him on a lot of that. The love affair some people have with Valve is truely bizarre. They need true competition, and I'm glad they are getting it. And no, I have no issue with buying "exclusives", as it's still all on the PC and these store fronts/launchers are free. No one would be able to make headway against valve without substantial investment.
OP
OP
I appreciate the lengthy and well thought out response.
I disagree that big picture is inconsistent with the general interface, yes it is different obviously but that's because it is created for a console like experience, most PC gamers sit at a desk therefore would likely never use big picture.
Hell, I have my PC hooked up to my TV and even I don't use big picture because I personally think it's clunky to use (so I have my own issues with it) but it's better than anything out there that's for sure, you can even customise controller inputs and download user created profiles for non steam games which I think is pretty damn good.
When you say many simple actions require too many clicks what are you referring to? Can you give an example?
I agree with you on achievement sorting but again, in terms of interfaces steam is way ahead of the competition in this area.
In terms of the options again, can you give an example? I am confused by what exactly you mean.
The friends interface has improved drastically but I do agree it has had issues and still continues to do so, however I will say again, it's better than the competitors offer.
It'd be one thing if it was a neutral person coming out to say some of these things (it is interesting he mentions stuff about Valve being a private company and how the finances and success of the company go to a select few). But Randy ain't neutral. He's also a liar. So nah.
OP
OP
OP
OP
People don't have a "love affair" with valve, this is another example of a drive by post that completely ignores consumers concerns, there are a multitude of reasons people don't like EGS that has absolutely nothing to do with Steam.
That's a console war mentality and the PC space isn't like that, people are more than happy to have more competition and "true" competition to Steam but Epic aren't giving true competition, what they are giving is a store front lacking in features, with higher prices and less consumer choice and trying to force consumers on to their platform using money to limit their options, not to mention they are limiting indie games with their ridiculously subjective curation policy.
A company could compete with Valve by offering better prices and a better launcher experience with more features, they don't have to do what Epic are doing to succeed, that is a myth.
The reason Steam is as popular as it is isn't because people are forced to use it, it's because people know it gives them the best experience, the marketing department at Epic want people to believe that Steam is some sort of monopoly that users have been forced into which is ridiculous.
I suspect you probably know this already though.
Well said.
And as has been continously stated, those preferring other stores on PC and actively refusing to purchase from Epic, are not doing so because they don't want competition or have some sort of loyalty. Justifiably people are not supportive of them since Epic offers next to nothing for customers, acts untrustworthy towards them,and ultimately isn't producing competition that's beneficial to customers.
Epic and some developers' continuous misleading sentiment regarding why customers who state these points are not supportive of them, the ecosystem and Epic, has been utterly contemptuous.
I'll continue to "vote with my wallet" and remain supportive of the ecosystems that are actively competitive and supportive towards me as a customer
No. He said that they don't support Linux, which they apparently do. It isn't the best support but it's there now. I don't even know why you guys try to diminish this. EGS is slowly getting better, getting games. Would you rather they sit still and do nothing?
Yeah, prices weren't really going to be lower for the consumer. It was never about them. It was about publisher cut. You see publishers would love to raise prices on games, but $60 has become the sticking point so the alternative to raising prices is to have storefront owners lower their cut of the profits. That's what this is all about.
OP
OP
And if publishers can get their games sold on a single storefront they can then charge whatever they wish for them because the consumer has no choice over where to purchase and they still have the 12% cut in place.
This will never benefit the consumer and it isn't being done for the consumer, it is being done for profit and profit alone.
Because "fuck you, got mine" as seen again and again on ERA.
The Epic store running on Linux thanks to a 3rd party is not even close to Steam's making sure any game on it runs on Linux.
You just can't see it, but Sweeney understands that you can't. But in the future, just you wait, the industry is going to be so much better for their efforts!
No they don't.
They may have rewarded, after the fact, a third party for making it possible to use it on Linux with the current version of EGS.
But supporting Linux mean having an official linux version, wich they keep updated as the store get's updated, and where there is official customer support of said version.
Rewarding that third party was better than not doing anything for sure. But that's still setting the bar really low.
The idea that more competition is a good thing is something I strongly agree with. But the rest of the post is just... odd.
I'm not sure why Valve won't be able to outmanuver Epic. He hasn't exactly made a compelling case. And he also hasn't really made a good connection between the Store and the Unreal Engine, even though it seems like that what he's trying to do.
Do we even know if the same developers or branch of the company who worked on the Engine are working on the Store? They seem like incredibly different ventures that require different skill sets and different business considerations. The whole post comes off as a little disingenuous.
I'm not sure why Valve won't be able to outmanuver Epic. He hasn't exactly made a compelling case. And he also hasn't really made a good connection between the Store and the Unreal Engine, even though it seems like that what he's trying to do.
Do we even know if the same developers or branch of the company who worked on the Engine are working on the Store? They seem like incredibly different ventures that require different skill sets and different business considerations. The whole post comes off as a little disingenuous.
It's an important point. So far, there's no evidence that this is better for consumers with regard to final price.
I do, however, think that lowering the cost of goods sold for developers will have a net benefit of making the industry a healthier and less toxic place for employees. And I think his post could have had a much more effective message if he focused on that aspect.
Ok, here's what I think about your points.
-Big Picture Mode is supposed to be a different interface. What does it matter?
-Such as? Which clients do a better job?
-Again: Such as? Which clients are offering those features?
-Which options are split? Which barely used options are on the main interface?
-Absolutely correct about the new chat.
Please do go on if you have the time. I'd be very interested in hearing which clients you think are doing a good job addressing your complaints.
I disagree. Build a decent launcher, offer customer-focused features and spend money on original first-party games
Great post.
Nothing. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to talk you into using their shitty service with trickle-down bullshit.
I mean... in BPM I need three clicks to launch a game. Three. And if your library is big, you have to scroll like the damned to find games. At least in desktop mode you can type the name of the game on game grid or quickly double click its name on list - and one click equals launch.
On BPM, I can't check a list of all game guides like I can with the standard overlay, just the three more popular or something. Instead I have to manually go to the browser and open the game community page.
I can't check all my achievements for a game without first going into that game's community page or launching it. Unless it's a "recent" game, then I can go to my profile first. No way to check progress vs friends, only global stats.
If I have even one single cent on my Wallet and try to buy a game, Steam automatically assumes I'm going to use the Wallet and will pay the rest through CC/PayPal. Except I use local payment methods that don't allow the payment to be split between them and the Wallet, so every time I buy something, I gotta confirm the cart purchase, confirm it's for myself, and then hit back on the progress to cancel the use of the Wallet. And there's 0 communication that's needed - I had to help multiple people to "solve" the issue of not being able to pay because of Wallet funds.
Groups are basically useless because there's no activity feed for them, so you have to manually go into each one to participate.
For some weirdass reason, I can't open a game news on my Activity feed and copy its link to share the news. The "copy url" option always defaults to the Activity feed url instead.
The client randomly changes game grid view to list view when being opened/after updates. I can't set any of them as "default", it's always list.
Those are just small things I could quickly remember, there's loads more.
The Steam client UI is a mess (not to even get into its aesthetics), I don't see how anyone can say otherwise, but maybe I'm biased because of my involvement with graphic design.
OP
OP
Now these are issues I actually agree with and have annoyed even myself, well thought out and reasonable post giving accurate and concise reasons behind why Steam needs improvement in some areas.
I'm also convinced that the only reason Deep Silver did this was to mitigate some of the damage since they were the first to jump ship, like, right before launch.
An interesting post, I like discussions on this topic so I'd like to comment on the issues you pointed out.
-BPM clicks: Well you can launch in two if the game is on your recently played list. Each game has a game hub and the first click takes you to that hub. A quick launch button would be useful (say, by holding down X) but three quick clicks doesn't seem like a major issue. Since you're into design, how would you solve this?
-BPM guides: I agree that the guides should be integrated and not a simple web page. Do you know of a service that does this in a better way? I only play on PC. How do consoles handle game guides?
-achievements: I believe achievements are accessible directly from a game's page on BPM?
-Wallet: I understand the problem, but the default option of using wallet funds is probably there for convenience since most people do want and can spend Steam bucks before real ones. The choice should be available though.
I have no opinion on the rest since it either hasn't happened to me or I haven't tried it.
I disagree that the UI is a mess. It could use a refresh (which is coming) because Valve has added a ton of functionality over the years but both the desktop client and Big Picture Mode are perfectly usable for the most common and many not so common tasks. The only genuinely bad thing right now is the use of the new chat in BPM, it's borderline unusable.
How do you need 3 clicks to launch a game ? There's one click on the game to open it and one click to play.
How do you need to scroll ? You can search games on BPM. Triggers also search for letters.
You can check all your achievements for a game by just looking at the game in your library and clicking the success list.
You can compare your progress with friends too. In 2 clicks.
Yeah, holding down the confirm button or having Start be a insta launch. It's a no-brainer. It may not seen much, but it's dumb that you need to go through another menu entirely to launch the game. Most of the time I get to a game banner to play it, not configure options. Desktop mode gets it right: one click and we're on. Other stuff? Left click. No reason why I can't launch game with X and access the "game menu" with Triangle or whatever. Browsing issues will need a full redesign of the interface, and that is coming eventually, so we gotta see.
Just allow me to open the full guide page like in the desktop overlay. I have no idea why that is different for BPM. Dunno about consoles, the closest I can compare it to is game notes on 3DS lol
BPM only. Not in desktop mode. Again, why?
Sure, it being the default option makes sense. The thing is that in my case, it looks like that hitting back will either cancel the payment proccess or just make you go back to confirming that it's a gift/for myself purchase. There is no way of knowing that hitting back will bring you to another payment selection page and not the previous page you were just in (aka how "back" buttons work everywhere). That is a huge UX oversight.
Teach me how? I either need to click Library->Game banner->Play or Game banner->Your game->Play.
Didn't know about the triggers! Will try later.
?
