-
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.
Randy Pitchford explains his support for EGS. (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter Detail
- Start date
It's clear from the fact they all keep saying that such a cut will trickle down to the consumer yet only one instant of that has been seen so far with Metro. Where's this effect? Where are the consumer savings because the devs is making more money per dollar on EGS?
You can't claim the cut is great for consumers then asterisks it with *in the potential future when developers and publishers feel it necessary to pass on the savings they are now experiencing to customers.
I'm not against EGS as much as others are but to expect me to support a store that's missing 90% of features that Steam has is silly.
As of right now EGS offers NOTHING for gamers beside the drama when a game is removed from Steam. Lower prices will not happen. Publishers will keep the lower store cut for themselves.
As of right now EGS offers NOTHING for gamers beside the drama when a game is removed from Steam. Lower prices will not happen. Publishers will keep the lower store cut for themselves.
Competition isn't in itself good for gamers.
It's options and features.
Options:
this one is easy to understand. Having your game on many stores means those stores compete with each other to sell your game.
Putting it on one store gives that store the monopoly on your game and they can sell it for whatever price they want for as long as they want.
Features:
Another one that's easy to understand. The more features/services you provide the better experience your users will have.
Right now the epic store is failing at both of the above.
It's options and features.
Options:
this one is easy to understand. Having your game on many stores means those stores compete with each other to sell your game.
Putting it on one store gives that store the monopoly on your game and they can sell it for whatever price they want for as long as they want.
Features:
Another one that's easy to understand. The more features/services you provide the better experience your users will have.
Right now the epic store is failing at both of the above.
So Randy got paid and now he's a shill. Nothing to see here.
Would like to know what Randy, and the people that agree with him, thinks a monopoly is, or what competition means. How about where consumers benefit in all of this? Because right now it's just Epic throwing millions to enrich publisher executives and force people onto their store that offers less than any of the competition.
Your definition of "quickly" must be pretty different from mine.
Would like to know what Randy, and the people that agree with him, thinks a monopoly is, or what competition means. How about where consumers benefit in all of this? Because right now it's just Epic throwing millions to enrich publisher executives and force people onto their store that offers less than any of the competition.
Your definition of "quickly" must be pretty different from mine.
OP
OP
It was unbiased? I literally quoted him directly and linked the post of all his tweets.
Give me one reason, other than some hypothetical trickle-down bullshit, why the EGS is good for me as a gamer? As far as I can tell the EGS costs more, has less features, and is creating unrest and fighting within the community. Why should I support the EGS? It seems like kind of a big deal but maybe I'm just an idiot for caring about gaming.
Your arguments for are flawed though when you ignore genuine issues raised in favour of pushing the premise that it is "just another launcher" and claiming competition is good despite no competition being had. How is taking a game off all other stores allowing for competition? How is that even classified as competition when it's a one person race?
- "it's just a launcher"
- "Competition"
- "Valve has dropped the ball"
- "Floodgates to bullshit"
A handy google doc refuting every one of these factually incorrect arguments.
If you need more to understand the actual market position of Steam, what Valve has been doing while supposedly dropping the ball and a chilling comparison to what Epic is factually doing.
I as a consumer, shouldn't have to support a company that deliberately says they are not going to cater to consumers and still wants my business.
So, during the Berlin TwitchCon last weekend Epic threw a nice party for all Influencers and Business people.
They did spend big bucks on their party and it was objectively pretty epic. And awesome.
On the other hand they spend 0 bucks on the customers because a) they were not allowed to the party and b) Epic didn't even have a booth at the showfloor of the convention for customers and wasn't officially attending.
Those priorities kinda felt like an analogy to their store.
They did spend big bucks on their party and it was objectively pretty epic. And awesome.
On the other hand they spend 0 bucks on the customers because a) they were not allowed to the party and b) Epic didn't even have a booth at the showfloor of the convention for customers and wasn't officially attending.
Those priorities kinda felt like an analogy to their store.
Do you mean the 70% (iirc) they take on user/artist-generated MTX content on games such as Dota 2? If so, I'm with you and it was a central point of the paid mods debacle.
Last edited:
Well, here in America, we had tens of millions of people vote for an awful human being and terrible businessman named Donald Trump, and for many of them, it was because they thought it would be a good idea if he ran the country like one of his businesses.
As quickly as possible does not mean quick. The fact that their min-viable is so lacking should tell you how much they actually care about those features.
It's all down to Epic and developers/publishers trying to make as much cash as possible. By making games hold their valve I.e Nintendo.
PC gamers such as myself are used to mega cheap games, unless a pick up a game within a few days of release I am going to wait till it's say at least 60% offf or it
included in a bundle.
The EGS store is crap and barebones (I have no problems using it), unless a game has good feedback from other sources l can't see me using it much at the moment.
PC gamers such as myself are used to mega cheap games, unless a pick up a game within a few days of release I am going to wait till it's say at least 60% offf or it
included in a bundle.
The EGS store is crap and barebones (I have no problems using it), unless a game has good feedback from other sources l can't see me using it much at the moment.
Sounds about right. Epic is using money to go after the companies and developers themselves in order to facilitate the removal of consumer choice rather than actually try to build something that consumers will actively prefer.
It's actually funny how similar the EGS defense and alt-right rhetoric is at times. This thread actually has the good ol' "BUT I BET THE MODS ARE GOING TO BAN ME FOR MY OPINION" lmao.
Why not just say a variation of what he said in his first tweet...that Epic is giving them a bigger cut and has tools to allow crossplay. The fact that this game is coming to Steam 6 months later really invalidates his whole post.
It's one 2K game...this isn't like UbiSoft which is actually removing all its games from Steam and not looking back. These comments from him are extremely over-defensive.
It's one 2K game...this isn't like UbiSoft which is actually removing all its games from Steam and not looking back. These comments from him are extremely over-defensive.
I would argue that he is wrong on exactly all of them. Every single argument he makes is wrong.
Yeah I agree completely. If there's a cut I've always found obscene, it's this one. I can get behind Newell's idea of a user-driven economy based on a game/engine, but they've fallen way behind both in pricing and implementation. I'm not sure what the business model of Unity's asset store is but I'm pretty sure it's superior both in how the backend works and how fairly it is priced.
Well Ubisoft is consolitating their games on their own launcher.
Basically they are being paid by Epic to pull an EA and go self launcher.
The Epic store is just a free paycheck and a free excuse.
This is probably the worst part of the whole thing, and the one that will resonate more with people to agree with him on ERA.
I wish someone could make a better timeline of Steam's Curation problem, but here's mine anyway:
1. Steam Pre-Greenlight was on the rise. There are some notable indie darling that gain success there so of course more developers trying to enter the store with even more varied type of games. Valve limited manpower and insight of what kind of games that would and could really sell on their platform halts those games releases into a crawl.
2. Valve introduces Steam Greenlight as a way to solve both of those problem: they rely on the community itself to know what kind of games that had demand on Steam. Indie devs quickly criticized the system as it boils down game release into popularity contest. New game releases still slows because Valve still needs to audit them individually.
3. Valve finally decides to ditch Steam Greenlight and opt for entrant fee instead. The planned fee was $1000 to avoid troll games, but again indie devs rightfully criticizes the fee as being too steep as it'll make smaller devs difficult to pay such big amount of money upfront. So $100 was decided instead.
4. Steam basically opens the (flood)gates. Everyone free to enter the market as long as they pay entrant fee of $100. Indie devs happy with this initially and we see them booming for a short while. Then the number of game releases increases exponentially even now as more people than ever from across the world release their games on Steam.
5. Now Steam is filled to the brim with games as old catalogs remain while new titles keep being released. Curation (or lack of it according to common belief) become the new problem despite the history that leads up this is basically trying to ease the entrance for devs, especially indies to enter Steam storefront.
We already have Assault Android Cactus being rejected from EGS because 'it is not what they want' and people could still said that what EGS doing is the solution to Steam problem while they are essentially repeating the exact same problem from years ago?
1. Steam Pre-Greenlight was on the rise. There are some notable indie darling that gain success there so of course more developers trying to enter the store with even more varied type of games. Valve limited manpower and insight of what kind of games that would and could really sell on their platform halts those games releases into a crawl.
2. Valve introduces Steam Greenlight as a way to solve both of those problem: they rely on the community itself to know what kind of games that had demand on Steam. Indie devs quickly criticized the system as it boils down game release into popularity contest. New game releases still slows because Valve still needs to audit them individually.
3. Valve finally decides to ditch Steam Greenlight and opt for entrant fee instead. The planned fee was $1000 to avoid troll games, but again indie devs rightfully criticizes the fee as being too steep as it'll make smaller devs difficult to pay such big amount of money upfront. So $100 was decided instead.
4. Steam basically opens the (flood)gates. Everyone free to enter the market as long as they pay entrant fee of $100. Indie devs happy with this initially and we see them booming for a short while. Then the number of game releases increases exponentially even now as more people than ever from across the world release their games on Steam.
5. Now Steam is filled to the brim with games as old catalogs remain while new titles keep being released. Curation (or lack of it according to common belief) become the new problem despite the history that leads up this is basically trying to ease the entrance for devs, especially indies to enter Steam storefront.
We already have Assault Android Cactus being rejected from EGS because 'it is not what they want' and people could still said that what EGS doing is the solution to Steam problem while they are essentially repeating the exact same problem from years ago?
Saying that consumers would benefit from breaking steams supposed monopoly is weird because consumers are the ones that have chosen steam over inferior products and services.
Developers and publishers that never considered putting their games on PC before now consider the platform essential to their business because of steam. Because Valve made their service good enough for even people who pirated games to start being paying customers. Valve being successful has benefited both consumers and developers.
The only parties who benefit from the situation with the Epic store is Epic themselves and the pubs who got the money hats at least short term because it can hurt pubs and devs in the long run if piracy makes a comeback because of Epic Store issues like not being available in china, not supporting many payment methods, being more expensive (lack of store competition for their exclusives, smaller margins to offer better prices for stores) and ofcourse worse service for consumers.
Developers and publishers that never considered putting their games on PC before now consider the platform essential to their business because of steam. Because Valve made their service good enough for even people who pirated games to start being paying customers. Valve being successful has benefited both consumers and developers.
The only parties who benefit from the situation with the Epic store is Epic themselves and the pubs who got the money hats at least short term because it can hurt pubs and devs in the long run if piracy makes a comeback because of Epic Store issues like not being available in china, not supporting many payment methods, being more expensive (lack of store competition for their exclusives, smaller margins to offer better prices for stores) and ofcourse worse service for consumers.
Post History on Gaming forum mostly Nintendo threads and console threads.
Maybe ask the people actually playing on PC. Or the people where regional pricing was gone (mostly SEA). Or people who want achievements. Or people noticing that all their saves are gone because they dont support cloud saves. Or people who bought keys from outside the store (like around half of DMC5 reviews on Steam showed they got the game outside of Steam). Or or or or.
Since I preordered Metro Exodus on Steam I literally have the better version than the one that is on EGS. I have achievments. I have cloud saves. I can use a Switch Pro controller. I could earn pocket change with the game.
Last edited:
It's more local currency for us since there's a regional pricing for SEA. But paying in USD means that we are that mercy of exchange rate and it is especially bad when recession or some shit happened.
Yeah. EGS supports countries that Steam did not support, but also vice versa. Not to mention the whole "Chinese cant play these 3rd party exclusives at all unless they wait".
Even after Borderlands 3 lands on Steam, I refuse to buy it. Pitchford doesn't deserve my money.
I actually think he mostly makes valid points. But the points also completely circle around the real reason most people are upset with Epic- its not the fact there IS a competing store, but the fact that they are using money-hat strategy to actively keep games away from other storefronts (Steam), which is pretty much the opposite of competition (for the consumer)- although from the publisher/developer perspective it IS another option for THEM.
So I don't really blame Randy's point of view at all, the presence of the Epic still IS good for Gearbox and other publishers/devsbut he (and others in his position) should be careful to publically put Epic on a pedestal like this, as it isn't a good look for their consumers, and any way you put it, they will have to eat whatever sales are lost due to not being on other platforms. (so hopefully Epic is paying them well enough to make up for potential lost sales, the PR hit, etc)
So I don't really blame Randy's point of view at all, the presence of the Epic still IS good for Gearbox and other publishers/devsbut he (and others in his position) should be careful to publically put Epic on a pedestal like this, as it isn't a good look for their consumers, and any way you put it, they will have to eat whatever sales are lost due to not being on other platforms. (so hopefully Epic is paying them well enough to make up for potential lost sales, the PR hit, etc)
Yeah, the problem with the store is that their whole sales pitch is, "For the Dev's" which means nothing for consumers. The whole cost ratio thing is between store and dev, its not for me to be concerned about. I dont give a shit about promises of how something will be one day, maybe. As a consumer, the benefit for me should be a high quality and service rich store where i want to invest my money and time in. They dont offer that, and all this crap that they keep saying turns me off of ever wanting to be part of it. Stop talking and show me why i should be using Epic.
They're basing their whole platform around having pitty for developers. They have somehow turned this into some ideological movement and its not. its business. They're exploiting the fact that they know millions of gamers are compulsive consumers who wont wait to buy their games so they can take a bigger chunk. I dont blame them for wanting more money. Consumers need to be more aware and responsible who they choose to do business with. If we did that, none of this would be an issue. Actually compete with steam with services and offer better cuts for devs and consumers. Then your store will be worthwhile for everyone.
Yeah, that's what I mean, 2K isn't doing that. He is acting like they are changing the world with a 6 months exclusive window. No dude you will still be on Steam and 5 years from now most of your sales will likely be on Steam, because they actually have price cuts and a UI that isn't slightly above Bethesda's terrible launcher.
And that's the issue, the only launcher that is worse than the Epic launcher is the Bethesda one. THE BETHESDA LAUNCHER...LOL
Also their marketing is mostly a lie about being for developers.
Some of their major exclusives were all from games with big and well known publishers, some of which made deals without the developer of the game finding out until the same day.
http://epic.pcgamingera.com/Epic.pdf
In short:
-No basic functions (achievments, cloud saves)
-Games only available on the store and some on Humble Bundle
-Games got more expensive in some regions
-In some regions customers have to pay processment fees
-Chinese cant play exclusive games there now. Epic literally blocks chinese IPs to access the store/website.
-Not available for Linux/Mac
-Epic rejects games like Android Assault Cactus so you have curation back (could be seen as good or bad)
-No easy way to play the games on a TV if you play games on TV
-Does not support standard controllers like DS4/Switch Pro that competitors do (like Steam or uPlay)
As a storefront itself its also lacking with currently no wishlistes, Developers or Publisher pages, Genres, tags etc.
etc.