I think I got the latest tomb raider trilogy and death stranding, uh, last year or the year before? All free. My perception of time is getting fucky again tho so take that into account.
I got Bear and Breakfast a few weeks ago and that’s one I had on my Steam wishlist. Along with quite a few others.
I do feel the slightest bit of guilt whenever I get a have that I definitely would have bought otherwise, especially because I tend to like indie games, but from what I’ve heard they’re paid reasonably well to do it.
Yeah, I was about to buy my wife the tomb raider series (it’s one of her faves) for Christmas and then I had to think of a new present. No complaints with that.
gog doesn’t have regional pricing and their launcher at this point is worse than epic’s. as an old fuck I like having old games back but it’s not convenient at all.
Galaxy definitely sucks, but to say it’s worse than EGS seems pretty far out there. EGS has been caught snooping around files and taking system logs without notice on top of just being overly resource intensive, totally bare bones and easily broken.
I’m talking user experience. egs used to be the slowest app I’ve ever used but right now egs starts and works faster for me than gog. also its video player works faster than steam’s, by like a mile. I don’t know if it’s just me because I never hear anyone complain about steam’s video player but for me it’s so goddamn terrible in so many ways I want to punch a wall every time I’m curious about a game while browsing steam because the video just takes fucking ages to get going and the controls are horrendous. I end up just searching on YouTube.
Yeah because it’s still in development and not yet available. S&box is one of the “games” already using it in the background. When it releases to the public, it’ll be just as popular as Source was - especially with the pricing strategy of “the only thing you need to pay for it is the steam fee” which is what, $100 per game?
Is it? I last read about their pricing when greenlight was a thing and they said it’s for the shop / adverts / all the cool things you get for support of the game. Didn’t know they gave back the $100
I mean, they have Source 2, but to call it a rival before it’s even made it to third-party developers (Facepunch games is effectively second party) is a bit of a stretch.
For there to be competition, there have to be some features. Epic just uses exclusivity deals as an alternative to features.
I am not sure what that is, but there is no competition.
I have a backlog of great games to play so long that I’m seeing remasters of some games on the list come out before I’ve played them a first time. I have no problem waiting for games to come to a different platform and go on sale.
I know playstation has been pushing more to PC but like isn’t a game only for epic pretty much the same as a Playstation exclusive? Sure it’s annoying but brands have always had exclusives
Otherwise why would anyone use software they aren’t used to? Steam is really good, they’ve been putting massive resources into making it better for many years, and it has all the network effects.
So we’re using a bad mechanism (exclusivity deals) to make people use an inferior product (Epic vs Steam), but “It’s totally going to be better for you in the future bro, trust me!”.
I’m sorry, but can we make it sound any more like a scam? It’s not quite there yet. Can you add something with crypto or AI or an MLM?
Epic has a lot of money, they should find a way to offer a better service in some ways like Gog does.
Like people who would otherwise get banned from a platform for cheating in games. Tracking that down is so much more complicated/impossible with federation. In other words it makes ban evasion super easy. See also: email spam.
Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service. In that fashion it’d be no different than how stores host their own websites you can order from. In my mind, the federated protocol would simply be a means for a person to browse stores similar to how one can navigate a mall or market.
For games, the further benefit after would be that via a client of the protocol, you could then download your games from the various stores in a singular library page.
Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service.
Yeah but that would mean each server has to take custody of funds, have their own individual contractual agreements with game companies, handle refunds, bear all the legal and tax burdens of this, and get people to trust they won’t scam them. It’s just too much of a burden, these are all things that benefit heavily from centralization and economies of scale, due to the legalistic nature of payments. You would end up with one dominant instance and unused federation, if there was even anyone willing to deal with all that stuff to begin with.
I feel like you could solve this stuff pretty well with crypto, having payment go directly to the game devs, and a no refund policy or something to simplify things, but crypto is too hated so that wouldn’t work right now.
Markets were originally decentralized, and while that has its problems, a decentralized market is miles better than a monopolized market.
Like, are you thinking of Etsy or Amazon or something? Because those are all run by a single point-of-sales and logistics collectives.
What we’re talking about is basically building a means for getting all the websites around the web of small shops and such (or in this case all the various game store fronts like steam, itch.io, GOG, and EPIC GAMES) and giving you client which allows you to browse and order from them simultaneously. All that store’d have to do is add the protocol to their server and add themselves to a list.
Oh I thought you meant decentralized currency. What you’re this is just standardized apis though, the vendors don’t need to talk to each other (federate) for it. unless i’m missing something
funny you never hear about games being ONLY on steam. it has nice features but riding so hard for a gigantic monopoly is going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires. nothing lasts forever, and we don’t know who or what will replace the current structure at valve.
not to mention valve has had its share of anti consumer and predatory practices. most of the concessions have been in response to legal threats.
going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires.
Blizzard was a good company when they released StarCraft, so I purchased StarCraft. Blizzard is a shit company now so I do not purchase or play their games now.
If Steam becomes a shit company in the future I’ll stop using it. I don’t understand the argument of "you should purchase for a shitty company now instead of a good one, because if you purchase from the good one it might one day become a shitty one.
If Steam blocks my access to my legally purchased games or I refuse to run the Steam launcher there is no moral or ethical issue with me pirating my library.
GoG has been a competitor for as long as I can remember. It’s not exactly a fair comparison because they mostly carry older games. But you can buy a ton of games off GoG. Itch.io exists, however it’s a bit niche. Origin, humble bundle, Microsoft store. You can use all of these and get the majority of the games steam offers. Why don’t people? Because steam is just better. Steam has competition. It has a ton. People don’t feel that way cause EVERYONE who games on PC buys from steam. But it’s not because steam has a monopoly, it’s because steam offers more than their competitors, and does it better.
I don’t like monopolies. I agree with you. However, a monopoly existing because they are snuffing out the competition and forcing it to be the only option for consumers is different than a monopoly that exists because consumers choose it over and over again because of their pro consumer policies.
Now because this makes it seem like I’m saying “steam is the best”, there’s a good bit of stuff steam has done that I don’t like. But they understand what the gaming scene is and not just see the consumers as cash cows.
I edited that part out because as soon as I posted i did a quick fact check. Im just leaving this comment so people don’t think you’re crazy. You were just really fast to comment.
I am skeptical that this is the main reason (even though it’s true and is a reason). I think people don’t like the idea of having their games library split across multiple services, and don’t like using/learning software they aren’t familiar with, or that other people aren’t using.
That’s a possibility. You could also make a point that it’s cultural at this point to use steam if you PC game. The exact reason steam is used is split across many different points. However, I stand by my statement. If games like league, valorant, osrs, or anything from blizzard can exist strongly in the pc scene, I think it heavily refutes your points. For those people at least. These are all games that don’t use (or for some aren’t mainly used by) the steam client.
yeah but the thing is, Steam isn’t even trying to be a monopoly, all of Steam’s competitors just seem to have a hobby of shooting their own foot, repeatedly. Steam is trying to make the gaming experience easier and more fun, and excelling at it!
unlike some other platforms, Steam doesn’t do exclusive deals, literally the only Steam exclusives are Valve’s own games, everything else is up to be decided by devs
Steam itself seemingly isn’t trying to have a monopoly.
But damned if there isn’t a massive, very-loud Internet contingent that desperately wants them to have that monopoly.
If your immediate trigger reaction is seething anger when someone says, “I got a good deal on a game from Epic”… maybe that’s not healthy. The “Lord Gaben” meme isn’t meant to be taken 100% literally.
i don’t get angry at things that don’t affect me lol
i do worry for steam’s future, it’s only this good because “Lord Gaben” has made many great decisions, it may not be a democracy but a good “dictator” is often more effective than a democracy. But what happens if/when Steam goes to shit for whatever reason? the internet will implode
They’re in a class action lawsuit now over price fixing. They’re kicking games off Steam if their publishers offer games at lower prices on cheaper stores. They’re trying to be a monopoly.
That would seem to be price fixing by its very definition. (EDIT: Note that I’m not making any judgment on this class action. The reality of pricing on IsThereAnyDeal would suggest that there is no such rule that prices can’t be lower outside of Steam.)
manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common “retail” price; set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price below the agreed-to minimum price
And the question is irrelevant. Other companies can still benefit from external price fixing.
Price fixing is, as your highlighted bit says, a conspiracy to not compete on prices. Valve isn’t conspiring with their competition to fix prices, nor does valve even set the price.
The lawsuit alleges that it’s anticompetitive, not price fixing.
I personally don’t think it’s anticompetitive , given the number of popular games that don’t use steam. I just think that epic has a worse product, which isn’t valves fault.
They don’t offer lower prices on Epic because Valve bullies publishers into matching the price with Steam. Valve threatens to delist the game from Steam if a lower price is available elsewhere, using their market dominance to prevent smaller stores from competing the only way they realistically can – on price.
The lawsuit already has several public examples of communications between Valve and publishers where Valve is all “whoah whoah you can’t be selling that cheap on another store!”. Publishers want to offer lower prices. The economics make sense, passing on some of the savings to consumers will result in an increase in revenue, this is also what the expert economists in the lawsuit are going to be testifying.
If you’re big enough to not be using Steam, you’re what, Ubisoft or EA? (and even these are using Steam these days.)
Or blizzard, riot or epic. All of which are perfectly successful without using steam.
Communication between valve and publishers about TOS violations is only an issue if it’s an anticompetitive clause.
If publishers want to offer lower prices, they can use a different storefront like the others. If they can’t make sufficient revenue without valves advertisement and distribution network, then maybe the service is worth the price valve charges for it.
Valve has done nothing to stop consumers from using other stores, so I’m not particularly sympathetic when the stores are upset about consumer choice.
epic. All of which are perfectly successful without using steam.
This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive. If a few large players can still succeed without Steam, it’s not proof that Steam’s practices aren’t making the market worse for consumers.
If they can’t make sufficient revenue without valves advertisement and distribution network, then maybe the service is worth the price valve charges for it.
Listing your product on Steam isn’t advertising. They’re not promoting your game unless you pay them.
Let’s make an analogy. Is it reasonable for Nordstrom to go after a company selling the same product at Wal-Mart cheaper?
Valve has done nothing to stop consumers from using other stores
If we lived in a world where Epic was allowed to compete with Steam on the only way it can, with lower prices, we might have cheaper prices on Steam, and a more robust competitive market. This is why Valve is doing this price fixing. They know that consumers are price sensitive, and a $55 price tag on a new game going for $60 on Steam would be a disaster for them. They know their price fixing department would have to become a “watch for prices on other platforms and adjust our prices / cut to be competitive” department.
They literally present your product to people as recommendations and make it discoverable by the people likely to buy it. No, it’s not banner ads, but you use them because they get your game in front of consumers likely to buy it. That’s the entire reason the platform has appeal to developers.
This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive
Yes. Because it’s a worse store. People being upset that a thing they want has a hurdle they’re not willing to jump over doesn’t mean the preferable system is a problem.
Is it reasonable for Nordstrom to go after a company selling the same product at Wal-Mart cheaper?
If they signed a distribution agreement, then yes. It would almost be like a game signing an agreement to sell exclusively on the epic game store and then deciding to sell on steam anyway.
It’s a flawed analogy though, because Nordstrom’s and Walmart buy the product and then resell it, rather than facilitating a sale. Valve doesn’t buy 50k licenses from you for $20 each and then try to sell them while keeping all the revenue for themselves.
They know their price fixing department would have to become a “watch for prices on other platforms and adjust our prices / cut to be competitive” department.
🙄 That would make sense if valve set the prices or adjusted their cut in real time.
Epic is allowed to compete with steam on price. Games don’t have to be on steam to be successful. Valve has no way if stopping you from choosing to use a different store, and as you pointed out in the beginning: This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive. You can’t be mad epic isn’t “allowed” to compete when they’re actively competing.
🙄 That would make sense if valve set the prices or adjusted their cut in real time.
🙄 I’m well aware that they don’t do this, I’m asserting that the reason is at least partially because they don’t have to, because of their anti-competitive practices.
Games don’t have to be on steam to be successful.
Finding a few examples of successful games not on Steam doesn’t prove that Steam’s market dominance and price fixing aren’t hurting consumers.
You can’t be mad epic isn’t “allowed” to compete when they’re actively competing.
They’re competing so hard they’re not turning a profit after 5 years (Source IGN). They’re competing so hard that social media explodes in a circle jerk about Fortnite or lootboxes or some bullshit every time there’s an Epic exclusive. Epic is despised and not doing so well as a platform. A market without a massive anti competitive juggernaut dictating everyone else’s terms would make Epic’s store better, and it would make Steam better too.
And of course it’s not possible that they’re despised and not doing well because people don’t like their platform.
You still haven’t convinced me that they are price fixing, to say nothing of it hurting consumers. Full feature games on steam are still around the same price console games are, and that games have been for many years. If they’re price fixing to artificially inflate prices, they’re doing it in a way that hasn’t really kept up with inflation and has been in line with retailers on platforms they don’t even sell on.
You still haven’t convinced me that they are price fixing
I linked you a 200 page legal document with dozens of examples of them engaging in anti competitive bullying amounting to price fixing. Valve attempted to get the suit dismissed, and this failed, proving the court deems the suit to have merit. But lemmy user ricecake isn’t convinced. You sound a lot like Google bootlickers 10-15 years ago. This isn’t going to end well for you when Valve becomes as openly evil as Google.
Your attempted proof of your claim that publishers don’t want to offer lower prices using games like Alan Wake 2 was actually proof of my argument, which you still have failed to acknowledge, because they definitively offered their game at launch at a lower price on the lower cut storefront.
Full feature games on steam are still around the same price console games are
This alone is highly sus. Console manufacturers initially subsidize their consoles by selling hardware at a loss. Sony probably lost money to get your PS5 into your hands. Valve didn’t lose money to get your PC into your hands, and (theoretically) doesn’t run a monopoly store. Why should their prices be comparable to console monopoly stores?
So, a court document is an argument, not a smoking gun. The court didn’t dismiss the case because it has enough merit to be argued, which just means it isn’t plainly false at first glance. The court did dismiss earlier versions of their claim. Earlier versions being rejected and this one being allowed to move forward have little to do with anything.
Repeatedly asserting that it’s “anticompetitive bullying” doesn’t actually make it anticompetitive bullying.
This isn’t going to end well for you when Valve becomes as openly evil as Google.
Lol, what do you think is going to happen to me? I think maybe you’re taking this conversation too seriously.
Yes, Alan wake 2 was lower priced on epic than on consoles by about $10, after epic financed the game. it also has yet to turn a profit, with most revenue coming from titles that aren’t exclusive to epic. You also ignored the list of other games I mentioned, each of which launched for $60 to $70 and wasn’t on steam.
Half life 1 cost $60 on launch. Same for 2. Same for the original star craft. Same for basically every full featured game for years.
It’s not “sus” that most games sell for the typical price for a game. It’s a sign that valve isn’t driving up prices, since prices are roughly the same regardless of platform, vendor or time, including when steam didn’t exist yet.
I know you think you’re arguing against a mindless steam fanboy, hence you’re starting to break out some insulting language and condescension. I can assure you you’re not, just like I assume I’m not dealing with a dense contrarian more interested in punishing valve for success than actual critical thinking.
I don’t think that suing someone necessarily makes you right, and that a financially motivated lawsuit is an inherently slanted description of events, when the trial hasn’t happened and none of the claims have even been responded to.
Same for basically every full featured game for years.
Evidence please. In order for me to be correct that some publishers want to offer lower prices, I don’t need it to be the case that every game off Steam goes on sale for less than “full price” at the time. I just need it to be the case sometimes. If sometimes, a publisher wants to offer the game cheaper, but can’t because they’d lose all of their Steam sales, then Valve is harming consumers by leveraging their market dominance to dictate prices on other platforms.
You mentioned a handful of games without doing any research on them, and one of them accidentally proved my point. I guess I should say at least one of them, because it was the very first one I actually bothered to check.
it also has yet to turn a profit, with most revenue coming from titles that aren’t exclusive to epic
I’m not sure what your point is here. They set the $50 price tag to maximize revenue. Raising prices doesn’t always raise revenue, if it did, why not sell for $99 or $999?
Whether they were right or wrong that $50 was a better price, and whether they made a profit or a loss, is irrelevant from a consumer’s point of view. We got a AAA GoTY nominated game for $50. I guess we can be thankful that Sony and Microsoft’s 30% cut console stores apparently don’t have anti-competitive policies like Steam does.
Of course it’s not necessarily in consumer’s interest if they go out of business in the long run, but it looks like they at least broke even as of November, so it seems it’s a sustainable model: gameranx.com/…/alan-wake-2-is-not-profitable-yet-…
You mentioned a handful of games without doing any research on them, and one of them accidentally proved my point.
You asked for a list of games that fit my “steam hasn’t impacted pricing” statement, so I gave you games that had prices inline with what steam prices games at and industry standard. Like I explained in my previous comment. I know how much those games cost: between $50 and $70 dollars, which is what games have retailed at for decades.
Games on steam and off steam have had roughly the same price, and games not on steam have had perfectly reasonable times making sales. Except the one on epic.
They set the $50 price tag to maximize revenue
My point was that even with lowering the price to the low end of standard, they have had some difficulty getting enough revenue to cover the cost of the game.
If other retailers are able to compete just fine, and one isn’t despite lowering prices and paying for exclusives, and it’s the one that, as you mentioned, people complain about when they buy an exclusive, then maybe the issue is with that retailer.
If you want more discussion, you can Google “video game prices over time”.
Given that you’re starting to ignore large bits of replies and have been repeating yourself pretty consistently without expanding on the point, I’m not sure that there’s much value in continuing. You think it’s anticompetitive, I don’t think it’s so obvious. We’ll see what the courts say.
Have a nice day, and I hope you find the same passion for your next endeavor. :)
But steam isn’t trying to be monopoly. They don’t pay developers to only sell on their platform. Games that are only on steam are only on steam because steam is the only place that developer wants to sell the game.
I have a friend that uses epic games. I met him on steam. I’ve never played an epic game even though he keeps telling me about free games or whatever on epic games.
Yeah it’s not like valve or any of the other companies that sell games on steam too. They’ll all have your data and some what people think are so dastardly, (when in reality it’s just grown-ups playing with numbers).
Nah, pretty sure this isn’t about the data. They just want to encourage people to go through the effort of setting up an account and downloading their launcher in the hopes that they can then later entice you to buy something else while you’re there. Every time you run one of those free games they get to show you another offer, and since you’re already signed up, the hurdle to buying something is far lower than it otherwise would have been.
Correct, as an added bonus, they get to report X million monthly active users on top of that to their investors (that’s why they make you come back every week for a new game). Likely at relatively little cost to them since they don’t have to pay full price for those games.
It’s probably still expensive as hell but when you have a competitor as big as Steam in the market, you gotta be able to afford some ammunition, and the Unreal Engine likely still brings in tons of cashflow.
Actually it is (or at least was) surprisingly cheap for them. A while ago internal data leaked and they paid surprisingly little for the giveaways. Either the Devs are desperate or there was some kind of backdoor deal like no or very little fees (for engine and distribution) for the next game they develop or something like that. Look it up, the data is still out there; incredibly cheap.
Most of the free games are crap but they have on occasion given away absolute bangers (double- or even triple-A titles, although of course usually older titles or ones that didn’t sell well). I recently got The Outer Worlds: Spacer’s Choice for free (a game I wouldn’t otherwise have bought or even known about), and I ended up having a very solid ~55 hours of fun with it. I still do all my buying either on Steam or GOG because I don’t trust Epic and I hate their godforsaken launcher so I refuse to pay for anything that’ll be tethered to it, but getting a free game of that caliber certainly made up for the pain of installing it.
I got exactly one free epic game (subnautica) that I uninstalled and bought immediately the day I couldn’t play the game because I lost Internet and there was no goddamned offline mode.
Epic store is shovelware, and I can’t believe the amount of people who defend a 4th rate store comparing itself to the gold standard that can’t even offer basic functionality expected of a modern platform. But people always have liked trash, so meh.
Steam has made great strides in helping to make the gaming scene more consumer friendly. They constantly have sales, make refunds extremely easy (and in some cases have forced refunds), and are even now setting guidelines to battle passes and how you can’t just advertise it as a battle pass and instead have to list whats in it. Epic hates consumers and their main business strategy is to force business by paying publishers to only release on their store.
It doesn’t matter how good the game is, I’m not purchasing from a store that doesn’t have the customer in mind.
Nothing of this that you’ve described is related to the one specific game. I don’t really like Epic Store because it has a shitty UI, but I like Alan Wake 2 enough to want to buy it on release. I don’t want a personal crusade to stand in a way of me enjoying a great game. I don’t give a shit, honestly, I will get my favorite games wherever they are available as long as it’s on PC.
That’s because I wasn’t talking about my opinion of the game. I was talking about my opinions on the store. Crazy how I wouldn’t bring up the game when the conversation is about the store. And that’s okay. That’s your choice. I really don’t care. I was just offering some perspective that I thought was help and would benefit you and others. You know, how commenting typically works in platforms such as this.
Let me rephrase it for you. If the game i have the most hours in and I love the most suddenly became an epic exclusive I would never play it again.
And just to make you happy, I don’t like Alan Wake, not my cup of tea.
Also the “one specific game” isnt even mentioned in the post?? That wasn’t the point of the post??
Thank you for bringing me up to date on all the Epic Store hate opinions, not like I’ve read that a million times before. I’m glad you decided that the conversation was about the store when my original comment was about a game. Why are you changing the topic of discussion?
The “one specific game” wasn’t mentioned, yes. Just to me it’s pretty weird to make decisions on whether I like the game or not, based on the store and not the quality of the game itself. So I stated my opinion on that part specifically. You know, how commenting typically works in platforms such as this.
Well you brought up your opinion. Which is fine. It’s valid. I don’t agree with it, but that’s for you to keep, not me. But then I gave you my opinion. And now you seem upset and irate. You posted an epic store neutral opinion in a thread where nearly everyone is dogging on them. And you seemed clueless. So I gave my perspective on the epic game store. Maybe you just didn’t know, you did seem a little clueless. But then you just got angry. And now I’m wondering if you have brain worms. Because who in their sane mind, would walk into a tiki bar, and then start stomping on the toes of everyone wearing a Hawaiian shirt. And you can at least cure brain worms.
I didn’t get upset, irate or angry though. None of my questions were hostile. I was keeping a softer tone than you did in any of your responses. In fact, from my side, you seem pretty angry right about now. Maybe you are, maybe you are not. I don’t really care.
Regarding your “tiki bar” comment — last I checked, this is a Games community, not a Steam community. I stated my opinion, like you said. I know the opinion of the capital G Gamer on Epic Store perfectly well. The thing is that I enjoy poking people into their hypocrisies every now and then, in hopes that they will spot the contradictions in their argument and that will make them think for themselves a little bit. But I guess the capital G Gamers are not the best audience for these exercises.
lemmy.world
Najstarsze