This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they’ve done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.
There needs to be a strike and a boycott of video games. I believe everyone is absolutely sick of being beta testers for unfinished AAA game releases.
I have been a Diablo fan for years but my last straw was Diablo IV. Not only is the game incomplete, Blizzard is going to charge for yearly expansions. If there was actual content in D4 to start, I would have gladly bought an expansion later. If future seasons anything like Season 1, Blizzard can fuck right the hell off.
What is sad is that Blizzard threw so many employees under the bus by having them lie about the game as well. That is seriously fucked.
I don't think a strike really has anything to do with that. It has to do with treating the workers better.
Now if that also came with extending the time for releases (yes, even the really long AAA development cycles) that could probably improve the quality of said games.
Proof of exactly how important unions are. I never got into gamedev because of its well-earned reputation of being a meatgrinder full of underpaid, overworked devs who never get credit and are the first to be laid off.
It’s for voice actors’ IP rights for AI and non-existent residuals, according to the article. It’s basically about the same issues as the writers/actors strikes.
Though it’s interesting because games have a legitimate use for AI voiceovers. I hope they can negotiate for per-title AI training and residuals, and not just eliminating AI altogether. The potential situational and reactive voiceover seems amazing for games - or even just having an NPC speak your unique name.
IMO the devs could stand to unionize and strike too. God knows gamers all have a backlog and many would hopefully support them for the long haul.
"Eliminating AI" would probably just mean that game studios would stop using SAG actors entirely in the future. There's limits to the power of unions like these.
Unfortunately, that has been proven false many many times. Even if by some miracle online communities manage to organize to that extent, and they manage by some miracle to actually follow through with it... it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the casual market that doesn't care at all.
I think 180k people disagree with you each day playing starfield.
Tho I myself agree that lots of recent AAA games don’t value their 60$ price or whatever. The low effort and quality put into them at launch is just not worth the money.
Maybe sometimes in the future when they are fixed and on discount they could be better value.
Tho hogwarrs legacy for example did not see any update since 4-5 months. And it’s still cursed with bugs. Maybe it’s what we could see with other recent releases too.
I think 180k people disagree with you each day playing starfield.
As a developer myself, I consider Starfield to be a fairly finished product in terms of quality. The outstanding bugs I’ve seen are uncommon and the type I would expect to end up in a production product.
My complaints about Starfield are fairly specific. I don’t like how they built the bounty and forgiveness process, as it’s a bit unpredictable and simultaneously gamable. I can pirate a ship and rack up a $650 bounty, or get a $30000+ bounty pirating the same ship. The way stealth works is comical (if not buggy) in that it’s stealthier to be seen throwing a grenade into a room and running than to shoot someone from hiding. But those (presumably) aren’t bugs or incompleteness, they’re side-effects of the designed systems working as intended.
I’m not a developer, for the record, but I was also pretty impressed with Starfield’s lack of bugs. It’s still got some, but it’s definitely at the ‘normal and acceptable’ level. Not how Bethesda usually releases games.
It’s not about the bugs. I have no idea what bugs are in the game.
The game was advertised as “next gen” priced as a high quality AAA, then it’s just not next gen, it’s last/previous gen with s* optimisation, and bad physics on many parts. And not delivering well on the rest either.
NikTek did some videos on starfield. The channel is mostly news as meme or similar things : youtube.com/
It’s a bit extreme, but we can see the care put into the character, weapon and static object physics and interaction is nothing. It’s year 2000 type of quality, even then there was maybe better character physics.
They didn’t even bother to add a brightness control in the game. No hdr (even if I can’t run it, is a f 60+$ game !). And the start screen could have just been a style, to be “empty”. But with all of this, it’s more likely they just didn’t bother.
And there is plenty more complaints on the game quality.
The game was advertised as “next gen” priced as a high quality AAA
I mean, they were very clear that it was Creation Engine 2, a new iteration on the Creation Engine. What were you or anyone expecting except another iteration on the Creation Engine?
it’s last/previous gen with s* optimisation, and bad physics on many parts
This is a surprise or a disappointment? Nobody plays a Bethesda game for the physics.
And not delivering well on the rest either.
What “the rest” did they not deliver well on? Consensus seems to be that if you like Bethesda games, you love Starfield. If you don’t, you don’t. I mean, I don’t buy the fancy new Madden Football. You know why? I don’t like Madden Football. When Madden 2077 comes out with a new “throw the ball” engine, I’m not getting all amped up that this is finally the Madden Football I’ll want to play. They promised us Skyrim in Space. They gave us Skyrim in Space. The only let-down is that it didn’t have nearly as many “signature bugs” as I would expect from Skyrim in Space.
It’s a bit extreme
Extreme is an understatement. I love CP2077, but they made terrible design decisions and most gamers would have been happier if we got a little less “physics realism” and a lot more game at release. Call me old school, but I feel like “Realistic Physics Simulation” is something that doesn’t belong in most games, and it’s often the cause of bugs and detracts from the game itself.
but we can see the care put into the character, weapon and static object physics and interaction is nothing
You probably want to separate all those other things from interaction. You kinda shoehorned that in at the end of the rant about physics. Even that Nik guy focuses on physics mostly (and drugged out people dancing).
It’s year 2000 type of quality, even then there was maybe better character physics.
I’m thinking you’re a fairly young gamer. You clearly don’t remember year 2000 quality. Morrowind came out in 2002 and Vampire Bloodlines cames out in 2004… Starfield definitely feels like a game 20 years newer than those.
They didn’t even bother to add a brightness control in the game
…full tilt, here? Sounds like you’re looking for a year 2000 game. More and more games leave out brightness control the last decade because you can do it at system level on tv or computer. When I see one of those brightness control gauges, I think “early-mid 2000s”. Bioshock 1 comes to mind.
No hdr (even if I can’t run it, is a f 60+$ game !).
That’s a very cherry-picked feature. HDR is not “the big buzzword of the future of gaming” or some shit, it’s just a color range technology. Big deal? The lack of native RTX/DLSS (otoh) is a bit disappointing, but not exactly unique to Starfield. Most new games don’t have it, and it generally has to do with vendor/API lock-in (something I can respect)
And the start screen could have just been a style, to be “empty”. But with all of this, it’s more likely they just didn’t bother.
Or it was just a style to be “empty” since that was a signature of Skyrim and they were trying to give us Skyrim in Space.
And there is plenty more complaints on the game quality.
Go on. None of your complaints have had to do with game quality so far. They were that it isn’t a Physics Simulator, and that it doesn’t have certain vendor-lock video features you admitted you can’t even run on your system.
I don’t call such a game “finished”.
I think you need to look up what “finished” means. None of your complaints are about an incomplete nature to the game, but for decisions not to include things that were unnecessary to the game’s vision. This isn’t “they left out major questlines halfway through to save money” or “they were 6 months short on QA time”. This was “I want a physics simulator with my cheesy poofs!”
EDIT: Just to add a bit more. I find it interesting everyone wants Bethesda to be a physics simulation. Nobody expects that of a Diablo, or a Baldur’s Gate, or even a GTA. A few FPS games added it. So what? Truth is, people are falling into this “FPS rut” where every game is expected to have (and lack) the features the a few FPS franchises spearheaded. I literally spent my entire life avoiding FPS games because I hate them, and everyone bitches at the good and original games for every time an FPS has a feature they don’t.
You know what else doesn’t have a physics simulator built in? Microsoft Excel.
Sounds like you’re looking for a year 2000 game. More and more games leave out brightness control the last decade because you can do it at system level on tv or computer.
I’m sorry, but not everyone has a high brightness display. Adding a brightness gauge can be very useful for those people.
The rest is just nonsense and Bethesda fanatism. Like
if you like Bethesda games, you love Starfield
Is one of the worst take possible to save your wallet.
Like if they come out with a broken game at 150$ you are going to buy it because you like Bethesda? I cannot agree with this, and lots of steam comments neither. People are complaining about issues with the characters, broken launch mission launch bugs and bad quest variety.
And maybe you need to take a new look at what “finished” means in a dictionary. Because quest breaking bugs and missing features don’t seem to mean “finished”.
I’m sorry, but not everyone has a high brightness display. Adding a brightness gauge can be very useful for those people.
Sure… but that’s not an indicator if a game is complete or if it’s “like a circa 2000 game”. I don’t fault you for wanting a feature that’s not present. But that’s not an objective measure of the game.
The rest is just nonsense and Bethesda fanatism. Like
You know how you can tell someone is approaching toxicity? They fault people for liking things. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a stupid fan who would accept anything.
if you like Bethesda games, you love Starfield Is one of the worst take possible to save your wallet.
Not sure what you mean here. Bethesda flagships are equational games. You expect “X”, so if you want “X”, you give them money for “X”. I dunno about you, but I used to “demo pirate” games because you never knew what you were getting and nothing sucks like blowing $50+ hoping for “X” and getting “Y”.
<span style="color:#323232;">ME: "I want Skyrim in Space"
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Them: "Here you go, Skyrim in Space"
</span>
I call that a breath of fresh air. You’re actually holding that against them and me. Why? Have you never bought a game that surprised you unpleasantly?
Like if they come out with a broken game at 150$ you are going to buy it because you like Bethesda?
That’s the opposite of what I said.
Let’s put it this way. I don’t like McDonalds. But I know people who do. When they order a Big Mac, it is exactly the same every single time. So if you’re craving a Big Mac, you will never be disappointed when you buy a Big Mac. I’m not saying a McDonalds fan should drop $150 on a flaming bag of crap. I’m saying that you don’t get a “flaming bag of crap” when you order a Big Mac. You get a Big Mac.
Bethesda didn’t come out with a broken game at $150. They came out with Skyrim in Space. If you don’t like McDonalds, don’t buy McDonalds. But stop treating people who happen to like McDonalds like there’s something wrong with them, or like they’re zealous superfans.
People are complaining about issues with the characters, broken launch mission launch bugs and bad quest variety.
Do you know what moving the goalposts is? It starts with the line “It’s not about the bugs. I have no idea what bugs are in the game.”. Make up your mind, because we’ve had a fairly heated discussion where you chose to make no meaningful statements about bugs. You don’t get to just drop that line, now. And you were smart to do so, because overall consensus seems to be that Starfield is overall less buggy than the new Gold Standard AAA (BG3). I’ve been playing it since release, and have found exactly ONE frustrating bug (related to outpost building), significantly lower than my gaming expectation of ANY game over the last 20+ years.
And maybe you need to take a new look at what “finished” means in a dictionary. Because quest breaking bugs
Let me reiterate your words: “It’s not about the bugs. I have no idea what bugs are in the game.”
…and missing features don’t seem to mean “finished”.
As a developer, someone whining to me that my product isn’t “finished” because it doesn’t have this silly feature they want that was never on our roadmap is annoying as hell. Can you imagine that? Is your house “finished”? I don’t see an indoor pool or sauna, so it can’t be.
First, you can disagree with my opinion and it’s totally fine.
Not sure what you mean here.
Sencond stop commenting every line out of the context of my answer. It makes your answer extremely long to say nothing.
I was saying that the arguments didn’t make sense other than “buy it and ignore the issues” mentality, now maybe I understand better your point.
For my my point? It’s on the Niktek channel.
Whatever the game is. It could cost 60$ whatever I don’t care if it’s bad or not, it’s just a game. What I care about is if the game is worth that amount of money. And in my opinion it isn’t, or maybe if you just want to play a sandbox with loading screens.
If you want game faults it’s mostly on the technical, immersion + developer implication in story telling.
Just look at the latest video on that channel (don’t if you don’t want to get spoiled) : It presents a part of the game where you get chased. You are supposed to get fast to your ship with your crew. The crew does run, but it stops at tables, people… Like everyone is chill jogging. And there is just some cries just for “ambiance”. The run is interrupted by 4 loading screens. When in the ship it’s like nothing happened outside and everyone is chill around the chaser. And keep in mind it’s a f story mission!
I myself cannot call such thing exciting (for a chase part) or something good quality.
Nvidia issues were present on “lower” spec cards with plenty enough vram. Not even sure if they fixed anything. (youtu.be/lGL3fczSXaI?si=C2bAg_k77CAkhfcN) Nvidia could also have been at fault (nvidia deivers aren’t always perfect).
Starfield is overall less buggy than the new Gold Standard AAA
Call finished whatever you want, but a game slightly better than others recent releases isn’t “finished” just because it’s better. It’s a company experimenting at what extent they can screw you before they get hurt. And companies have been doing this for a lot of time, each time, screwing up people’s preorders and hopes.
Now if starfield has everything you need, it’s fine. But if it doesn’t have everything someone else needs to play it at a good quality, the it isn’t fine by my standards of quality.
I’m sorry to feel that way. Looks like sticking to the topic isn’t working. Cheers.
One point, though. You punctuate your point with a statement that sounds like you think no game is to your “standards of quality” if there exists a gamer somewhere in the world who doesn’t get what they want out of it. Seems a weird type of measurement. I usually consider “mostly positive” on Steam a fairly decent bar for quality. But you can consider whatever you like, of course.
Indeed, who are they even going to piss off, it’s not like there’s a ton of people playing in Ukrainian who’ll be offended by the localization choices. (Although maybe in 20 years or something, references to the warship and such might be harder, but I imagine the crimes one will make even more sense)
Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales Marvel’s Spider-Man: Remastered God of War: Ragnarok Horizon Forbidden West Ghost of Tsushima: Director’s Cut Rachet & Clank: Rift Apart Demon’s Souls The Last of Us: Part 1 Sackboy: A Big Adventure Returnal Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection Death Stranding: Director’s Cut
"1. Buy and Activate Your New PS5 Console: First, you’ll need to purchase and activate your brand-new PS5 console. See the console at Amazon here for $499.
Navigate to the PlayStation Store: Once your PS5 console is activated, head to the PlayStation Store directly from your console.
Look for the Banner: Keep an eye out for a banner showcasing this promotion. Click on the banner, which will take you to the Games Page, featuring eligible titles.
Select Your Free Game: From the list of eligible games, choose one that piques your interest.
Download Your Game: Click the ‘Download’ button to initiate the downloading process.
To secure your free PS5 game, be sure to purchase and activate your new PS5 console by October 20, 2023. Additionally, the digital title must be redeemed on your activated PS5 console no later than the same date. "
Hypothetically I don’t see a problem with things like a new entry in Elder Scrolls. The problem (to me) seems more like constantly remaking Skyrim into new editions and for each new console.
That’s pretty much Starfield in a nutshell, Skyrim in space. Don’t get me wrong it’s a fun game but it’s basically reskinned Skyrim with a few new systems bolted on. I’m also noticing some reused assets from Fallout, pretty sure the noise the scanner makes when opening is the same as opening the PipBoy.
“These AAA publishers have, mostly, used this production scale to keep their top franchises in the top selling games each year.”
I never quite understood, why it’s not more popular among big publishers to create smaller games throughout the year. You can have risky AAA titles in development and compete in the AA market at the same time.
It's just easier to advertise a single big game rather than several smaller ones. Even if you are interested in games it's impossible to keep track of everything that's being released. More casual players are aware of even fewer games. That's why AAA games still sell so well because they are the only games a lot of people are even aware of.
If the companies have to split their marketing budget between multiple titles, they would reach a much smaller audience. And even if one of the smaller titles would be a hit, it probably sells fewer copies for a lower price.
Half the cost of the game is marketing. And marketing is an effort that builds upon itself
The more smaller games you have, the more you have to market to niches from scratch. And niches are generally more inclined to be informed users. And it takes a developer with vision to make a satisfying niche hit. Well it always takes vision but…
Meanwhile one big bombastic game will get a bunch of mainstream folks hyped over qualifiers of scope instead of quality. Yes, I am saying hype culture is primarily an idiot’s hobby, but idiots still got cash.
Plus, plus, most studios don’t really see their junior devs as something worth fostering. Better off burning them out and replacing them.
Because the first job of anybody who is responsible for green lighting game development at these huge publishers is to not get fired. Making a game that only just breaks even or even worse makes a loss puts you at risk of getting fired. Even a relatively small game from a large publisher costs a ton to develop and market and has increased risk that nobody will actually buy and play it, at least in the most profitable first few months.
Franchises are so popular with this crowd is because they do not have to worry about name recognition. Hardest thing about getting a brand new title out is just getting people to know it exists and then to be excited about it. Franchises you hardly have to to do any work for that, you know you are going to get press and gamer interest, they sell themselves right up until they release and people get the chance to see if its a house of cards or not.
Its that front loading of sales that they are after, the shops having to buy in stock, idiots who pre order or buy before its clear if the game is broken in someway. Its the most profitable time as the game is at its most expensive, and it enables rapid repayment of the development costs. Games that start slow and have a very long tail of sales do not interest them anywhere near as much as they have already moved onto the next project and already been judged on the initial (under) performance of the game.
I personally get most of my games from GOG and itch.io these days. And I’ve never bought anything from the Epic store whatsoever.
I will say though that I find it kind of weird how much hate Epic gets for their store. Like, I understand that someone prefers Steam, or doesn’t want to buy stuff from Epic etc. - but what we see goes way beyond that. Epic has people actively campaigning against it, as if its mere existence is insulting. I don’t really get why.
As for the 30% cut… Developers will try to price their games competitively, and within customer expectations. So with or without Steam’s 30% cut, you can expect games to be similarly priced. The large 30% cut from Steam is basically coming out of the developer’s revenue rather than from your pocket. (I’m under the impression that GOG also has a similar 30% fee. Epic has a lower fee. And on itch.io the seller gets to choose how money goes to itch.io anywhere from 0% to 100%. So itch.io is the best deal for developers in terms of fees.)
The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don’t give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players. At some point their client contained literal spyware, they tried to brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts, their software doesn’t have one tenth of the features Steam has, their CEO is a piece of shit, etc.
The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don’t give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players.
What do you mean by that? For developers, they take a much smaller fee than Steam or GOG, and for players they’re constantly giving away free games.
At some point their client contained literal spyware.
That sounds like a decent reason to campaign against them. I haven’t heard anything about that before. What was the story behind that? (As in, when / why / how / what? Perhaps you have a link or something.)
brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts
I’ve heard people talk a lot about exclusivity contracts… but can you name even a single game that has such a contract? When people have discussed this the past, the relevant developers basically said “there is no contract”. But maybe there is some different case I don’t know about. In any case, that personally doesn’t bother me anyway. If some developer wants to take money to be on one store rather than another, they can do that at their own peril. As for customers, we’re only talking about a store. It’s not like anyone is in danger of not being able to buy / play their favourite games. So it seems like a bit of a nothing-burger to me. Like, is there actually something bad happening here? Or are people just speculating that something bad might one-day happen if Epic got bigger?
their software doesn’t have one tenth of the features Steam has,
Steam has more features, yeah. Steam is very good. But Steam has been around for some 20 years. It’s hard to catch up with that so quickly. In any case, although missing features is a good reason to prefer Steam, it certainly isn’t a reason to campaign against Epic.
… So from your list, I’ll keep the spyware thing and the CEO complaint. I don’t know enough about either of those to say much though. I don’t recall who the CEO of Epic is right now, so I won’t say whether or not I think that’s a good reason. And the spyware… I take that kind of stuff seriously. Right now I’m posting this from Linux - because I’m fed-up with Windows spyware. But as I said, I’ve not heard any details about any Epic spyware thing.
Incidentally, I’ve found that Steam is very good for Linux gaming. … But obviously that doesn’t mean that I’m going to start making posts trash-talking Epic. I don’t find it weird that people prefer Steam. I just find it weird that people put so much energy into attacking Epic.
As for the games that were Epic exclusive for a year: Borderlands 3, Satisfactory, Darksiders 3, Hitman 3, Dead Island 2, Borderlands TTW to name a few. They have a year exclusivity deal with Epic - we know how annoying exclusivity deals are on consoles.
About the features, it’s quite tricky. Epic rather spends thousands on exclusivity deals rather than invest into a launcher to have a working basket.
It’s super obvious where Epic’s priorities are, and it’s not the gamers. How are they able to dedicate so much work on Unreal, but now on a launcher? They try to substitute a half-assed launcher with exclusivity deals, because they know nobody would use it willingly.
It takes quite a lot of time to repeat all the wrong doings of Epic and it’s CEO Tim.
Thus, I can only relay to the collected information of bad old Reddit, if you want to (I’m intentionally not linking, you can search it up easily). r/fuckepic has a lot of collected information on their side page.
In short, biggest issue for me exclusivity contracts with games advertised on Steam, then as a bait and switch removed from the store page and their physical copies getting a sticker on top of the Steam logo, so a last minute deal, for Metro Exodus. And then they continued their exclusivity hunt for games, they didn’t even helped to develop. Nothing against self-made or published games to be limited time exclusive in my perspective, but not second hand bought (out).
The other about their CEO, r/timcritizisestim He’s… a douche. Using kids with the free games to bait them to his store, using them against Apple’s store rules like a little army… he is a bad person with too much money and luck to have build the Epic engine with Fortnite…
Also adding to other people, they “poached” games from other platforms.
eg they wanted Rocket League, which I have on Steam and am happy to continue using there, to be completely removed from my account and available through the epic launcher some 3(?) years after I first bought it. Eventually they backpedaled, only due to community backlash, people that owned it on steam can still play it there.
Are you saying that Rocket League was removed from the Steam accounts of the people who already owned it? That sounds like a big deal, and surely must be illegal. But I didn’t see mention of that in the link you posted. Most of the things in the list seemed to be just saying that they didn’t think the Epic store is high quality. (eg. prices too high, not enough features, difficult to use return policy, etc.) Those are all fair complaints, and good reasons to not use the store - but again, they are only good reasons to not use the store. They aren’t really good reasons to crusade against it. There are heaps of crap online stores, and generally people just ignore them.
The Rocket League thing you mentioned would be a good reason to get upset at Epic beyond just not wanting to buy from them. So I’m kind of surprised to see it missing from such a comprehensive list of grievances.
Others have mentioned spyware, and like I said, I care about that. That’s a big red flag. But I looked at the links in the post you gave, and as far as I could tell they were all speculation. Things like Tencent owns 40% of Epic, and Tencent is bad - so Epic is probably bad. … Which is quite possibly true! I certainly wouldn’t want to trust Epic with my personal info. But it’s still a big step away from them having spyware built in.
I personally think that many gamers put up with too much privacy invasion and ‘telemetry’ in the form of online accounts and especially ‘anti-cheat’ software. The “anti cheat” software that some games require explicitly demand access to see every program you have installed, every program you have running, and in some cases even read RAM outside of what the game is allocated. That’s an enormous security risk and privacy breach… but people install that crap all the time with barely a whisper - but then complain about the risk the Epic will share its telemetry data with Tencent. I’m certain that some of Epic’s online games have software like that, but that wasn’t mentioned in thread you linked to.
Maybe I just don’t care about the same things that other people care about. Like, if Epic has a crap store… I just don’t care. It makes no difference to me how crap it is. It makes to difference if they say it is going to be great, and it falls short of what they said. I’m not going to go around telling people how crap it is, because I don’t think it matters. I don’t intend to use the store anyway; and if other people like the store for some reason, then fine. I don’t think it matters. They can like it, and I won’t try to convince them otherwise. But if they are somehow removing games you’ve already bought elsewhere - then that’s a big deal. That would be worth telling people about. I hope you can see what I mean.
Anno 1800 was available for purchase on Steam prior to release but at some point they made a deal with Epic to sell it there for a year. Then it was removed from Steam. If you already bought it you could use it on Steam but everyone else had to wait. You could also directly buy it from Ubisoft’s own store Uplay so in the most strict sense it was not an exclusive contract but pretty damn close. Also it wasn’t a secret. The company talked about it. They had to, because it was literally available for pre purchase on Steam and then suddenly wasn’t.
For developers, they take a much smaller fee than Steam or GOG, and for players they’re constantly giving away free games.
“Free stuff, pl0x” isn’t an indicator of supporting the industry or players. That’s a business tactic for clawing market share away from their competitors by attracting people without the means to buy games and devs desperate for funding. Also, if parity is your worry, many games on Steam go free or effectively free (<1 USD) all the time.
That sounds like a decent reason to campaign against them. I haven’t heard anything about that before. What was the story behind that? (As in, when / why / how / what? Perhaps you have a link or something.)
With Reddit going tits up and a coverup operation by Epic throwing a bunch of garbage info around, it’s been difficult to find the exact sources (why I’ve been taking so long to reply). If I find the actual articles/posts I’ll link them, but in summary:
EGS bypassed many APIs, such as Steam’s API, to data mine your usage statistics of their competitors, including friends and games played - they didn’t ask for your consent nor Steam’s.
Some major red flags with memory manipulation and internet traffic obfuscation.
They “apologized” about it, citing some bullshit reasons for that behavior. Suspiciously, behavior changed.
I’ve heard people talk a lot about exclusivity contracts… but can you name even a single game that has such a contract? […] Like, is there actually something bad happening here? Or are people just speculating that something bad might one-day happen if Epic got bigger?
There are loads of games in my “do not buy unless heavily discounted” list precisely for taking exclusivity deals. Hitman 3, Darkest Dungeon 2, Hades, Satisfactory, among others. The danger, beyond rewarding shitty behavior, shutting out large portions of the community, and limiting consumers’ options, is the same as always - you’re effectively telling companies that whoever has the biggest pocket gets to dictate what the entire industry has to do.
But Steam has been around for some 20 years. It’s hard to catch up with that so quickly. In any case, although missing features is a good reason to prefer Steam, it certainly isn’t a reason to campaign against Epic.
It wouldn’t be if Epic had shown any intention of eventually having parity. It’s been however many years since they released, with the immense advantage of seeing what works for Steam so they could copy it, and yet their client remains just as bad. It clearly shows that their focus in on getting market share to exploit gamers and devs, not on making the best platform possible.
Steam can also leverage their insanely huge userbase. Even with the 30% cut, a company will probably see more profits if they use steam and give up 30% than trying to launch it outside.
At this point. The 30% is just the cost of doing business
Eh, more competition is good. This opinion is pretty basic.
From memory Epic has improved rates for developers/publishers - why the fuck wouldn’t you want that/just be ok with a base 30% cut because of some shitty ideal?
Epic also tried to datamine their users with literal spyware, their store is shit with no features, they gained market share via exclusivity deals (I shouldn’t need to explain why this is bad, yeah?), their CEO is a POS with horrible takes, Tencent has a large stake in the company… If anything, your opinion is shallow.
Ahh, so you can only have good competitors? It’s either a monopoly (which is only as good as the CEO in charge, and with time will go to shit), or competitors which do the same stuff and play nice?
This is reality. And you get good competition, you get bad, but in general it’s good for the consumer to have options. Fuck it, I’m actually completely happy using Valve for most things and then getting free games from Epic.
The view that a monopoly is better is just extremely short-sighted and naive. Similar to a “We should just have a dictator! This one guy is really good now, what could go wrong in the future?” type thinking.
Hurr durr, a monopoly is bad because the person in charge could become bad, so I’ll actively help this KNOWN bad actor to get a foothold in the market. I am very smart
That a new person to Valve would be equal to Epic, as opposed to massively running Steam into the ground in a significantly worse way. It’d be easy for some dumbass to suggest a subscription service is needed for Steam for example, you need to may $10 a month to support it. Whelp, Steam is now shit.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
There’s no hypocrisy there - it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Perhaps I should turn the argument around - why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
I’m not assuming jack shit. I’m factually stating Valve/Steam are currently great for the gaming industry and Epic is toxic refuse.
This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they’ve done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.
Are my exact words from this very thread.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
Did you think Epic’s financial department had an extended vacation or something? They don’t give a shit that you downloaded the game they made available for free, that was the whole point of their stunt and they were prepared to use money in order to claw some market share.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
And I boycott devs who sell their souls for a quick buck. Darkest Dungeon is one of my favorite games of all time - I still haven’t bought DD2, even though it was made available on Steam after the period of exclusivity elapsed.
it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Except it isn’t. It’s only good to have good faith competition of well behaved market players - Epic does not qualify.
why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
Again a horrible question. Something doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be markedly better than something else. Steam is, right now, no questions asked, infinitely better than Epic. Why support a shitty company that would happily bring everything crumbling down if it meant a quick buck?
Valve is good now so it doesn’t need a competitor? And only when it goes bad should another company exist as competitor? This makes no sense… It’s just not how the world works. Once you have a monopoly it typically stays a monopoly. Look at any of the current monopolies - many are going to shit like Google but there’s no real competition regardless.
You’re also discounting the fact the opposite fact - Epic might be terrible now, but change leadership and its now amazing.
You’re buying way into a very specific case of looking at where things are at now and making a judgement VS. Thinking of longer term ideas like competition is good.
Also, is steam infinitely better than Epic? That’s very debatable, I have no issues with either. To be honest, they’re much of a muchness. You may just be too heavily emotionally invested in these companies. Realistically, they are both just trying to make as much money out of you as they can. For instance, Steams use of their market and giving out digital cards to collect and level up is very predatory.
What spyware? The CEO has been a big advocate for lowering store prices (including Google and Apple stores) to help smaller developers. Their exclusive deals have also helped a lot of developers get their games made. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a game developed these days. Xbox, Sony, Nintendo all have exclusives.
As an indie gamedev, yes, I DO know how hard it is to make a game – I also don’t think getting funding is worth selling your soul for.
They don’t want to lower percentages and prices to “help smaller developers”, but to gain market share. Your brainless whataboutism on consoles is also irrelevant – it’s bad there too. The only acceptable exclusivity is when the company behind the market also happens to develop (not fund) the game.
Look up the concept of loss leading. Do you think Epic are really just doing this for the benefit of developers or are they after something more insidious?
But that’s ok - this is why competition is good. Devs make some more money, consumers get some free games.
Even if Epic ends up only matching Steam then this is a net win for people.
Asking for a monopoly is just short-sighted. Gabe leaves and then the next person in line is some $-hungry mofo who makes terrible decisions and you end up with a shit system. You need competition to keep things in check.
Tbf there are only 4 (plus expansion) of those, there has been a cod per year for like 15 years now and a fifa every year for 20+. Those are the egregious offenders, I’m fine with a game franchise getting a new game every 7 years or so as long as it’s clear the studio has actually put work into that game.
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.