743
Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly (twitter.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/games@sh.itjust.works
506 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you seriously not see your own hypocrisy?

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So you're making some false assumptions here:

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't understand.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I get it, you're a concern troll shilling for EGS. How much are you being paid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

    I would say your take is a bit, shallow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    How much are you being paid to shill?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent