• Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    They brought “exclusives” to PC gaming for the first time.

    Please stop with this horseshit. Valve and GOG had both done third-party exclusives before EGS was even a thing. Epic absolutely in no way "brought [them] to PC gaming for the first time.

    Yes, they did make them a pillar in their strategy to try to enter a marketplace that was dominated by an 800-pound gorilla - which is a perfectly legitimate approach to take - which neither of the other two did, but they 100% categorically did NOT bring the practice to PC first.

    they refused to spend any money on actually improving their fucking game store.

    Wow, you’re just full of misinformation on this post. They have constantly been updating their store since day one. No, it’s not on parity with Steam (and it likely never will be), but to just flat out say that they haven’t spent anything on improving it when there has been a steady stream of improvements over the years is ignorant at best and actively disingenuous at worst.

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      For real, Steam literally took off because they made HL2 exclusive to it. It doesn’t matter that it’s a first party game, the effect and intent was identical. They could’ve made it generally available but chose not to. They forced people to use their proprietary product to install a game.

      It’s crazy how many people shill for valve on Reddit and lemmy when they’ve already done most of the shit Epic gets accused of.

        • Caught_You_Looking_Moron@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          How was it exclusive if it was available to purchase in two separate places? Maybe if your comment had a qualifier like “digital download version exclusive” it could be considered correct

          • cottonmon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            Based on the other poster above, it was the Darwinia devs who reached out to Steam. So Darwinia isn’t a particularly good example either.

            • Rose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              What’s your point though? Every one of Epic’s exclusivity deals is done with the consent of the game publisher. Does it matter who makes the offer? Do we even know that there aren’t cases of publishers reaching out to Epic?

              • cottonmon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Does anyone know how to permalink a post on Lemmy? Anyway, here’s what Snot said:

                Also, to be clear on the differences, Valve didn’t reach out offering to pay for a massively popular upcoming game, which is what Epic does as a business model. They had a company that was about to fail reach out to them, and they made an exclusivity deal with them, but Valve did not pay them for this deal. If you really fail to see the difference between those two things, I don’t know what to tell you.

                • Rose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Gamers and developers benefit from the developers being paid rather than not being paid for the same thing.

        • Voyajer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Are we pretending publishers not bothering putting their games on every storefront is the same as paying publishers to not put those games on competing storefronts?

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Not to me. I just want to play games. Already have multiple launchers. Doesn’t make a difference.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The end result is the same for the consumer.

              It really isn’t.

              In one case a publisher is choosing to publish where the customers are. If consumers don’t like that service they are free to publish somewhere else

              In the other case a company is trying to force consumers to use their service, instead of providing a better service that they would want to use.

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Either way you install a client and play a game. Already have a few so it doesn’t really matter.

              • Rose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                Steam was literally forced on those who owned a physical copy of Half-Life and wanted to play it. The dominant position has nothing to do with the service offered by Steam. It was dominant when it barely had any features. GOG competing with it on features and in fact offering the bonus of DRM-free games hasn’t improved its market share of about 0.5%.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No one is upset about having to use EGS for Fortnite. Their own games that they develop themselves they can do what they want with.

                  The issue is when Epic approaches other developers, especially those that have already announced a Steam release, and try to get exclusivity out of them: https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7

                  Epic: We would love to have you on our service
                  Dev: I’m not interested in exclusivity
                  Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service

                  Having more options for their customers makes their service better, but Epic isn’t interested in being a better service.