you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (19 children)

EDIT: RE: Valve and Darwinia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introversion_Software#Financial_history_and_independence

Darwinia was eventually released in March 2005, but despite a strong opening weekend, sales soon slipped too low to sustain the company. Within six months, the developers were back on UK government benefits until November, when they contacted Valve "on a whim"[10] to try to set up a digital distribution deal on their Steam platform. Valve responded enthusiastically and, following a 14 December 2005 online launch, digital sales, which exposed the game to a new, global audience, kept the company going through to the release of their third game, DEFCON.

Valve didn't reach out to Introversion to make demands, they actually saved the company. For a game basically no one had ever heard of and abysmal sales for were about to make the company go bankrupt. Valve didn't pay for this exclusivity. It is however true that 18 years ago, they had an exclusive game.

This is a big difference compared to Epic paying 2K for exclusive access to Borderlands 3 so they can secure the profits of a huge franchise. Epic pays big companies big money to secure early profits to exclusive titles. Valve may have technically had an exclusive game, but Epic's business model is literally paying for exclusive access to the biggest games they can get, so they can get the biggest cut of the sales at the highest price point, before discounts.

Only one of these two companies is trying to "Pay 2 Win."


There really isn't. This is personal opinion.

Some of us just have issues with Epic Games. Some others have issues with Valve.

No private company is really "good."

But the argument with Epic is things like:

  • They brought "exclusives" to PC gaming for the first time. Previously, a PC game was a PC game, and it didn't matter what storefront you bought it from, because it was available at all storefronts. Epic chose to pay companies to restrict their titles just to Epic, in an attempt to move the market towards them.

  • In a similar vein, trying to fight Valve's dominance, they started giving away free games. They have been firing people left and right because their financials are in the toilet, and yet they're still pissing away money on free games and exclusives to their store.

  • People who care about access to music and paying artists hate them because they have effectively put a death warrant on Bandcamp, buying them for two years, doing nothing with the product, and then selling it to Hedge Fund fuckies who already shitcanned half the staff and the site is officially on life support. They basically killed the last place you could buy music and make sure all the proceeds went to the artist and not a middle man (Bandcamp Fridays).

  • During all of this, they refused to spend any money on actually improving their fucking game store. Things that have been staples of Steam for a decade now are still on a waiting list of features to be added. The User Experience for Epic Games Store is just bad, bad, bad, bad. There's no excuse for it, especially when they chose to piss money away on exclusives and free games instead of paying people to produce a better product than Valve has. They refused to even try to release a better product, believing they could buy their way to dominance.

Do you really want to support a company that doesn't give a flying fuck about your user experience as a customer and has such bad business plans that they're letting go tons of staff? It's bad enough that they had a bad business plan, but it also seems like they're not very good to their employees, either. Compared to Valve's "flat" management where there are no managers, or where Newell famously paid the writer for Portal to "be sick" for two years while he had a serious disease. "Your job here at Valve is to get better." This was before he wrote Portal, no less.

One company clearly cares about the user experience that their users experience, and one clearly cares about using every tool at their disposal to be the top of the market, everything from paying for exclusives and free games to suing in court to try to carve out a niche for yourself where you don't have to pay vendor fees.

Of course, I also encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Valve offers a better product, better user experience, and treats their employees with more respect, but it doesn't mean Valve hasn't made their own share of anti-consumer decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Which games did valve pay to be exclusive to steam?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Darwinia.

    And before you even go there, yes, it was a long time ago, no, they haven't really done it since then. But the discussion here is about whether or not Epic did it first, which they did not. By about a decade and a half.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    A large chunk of steam games can't be brought elsewhere.

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

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The end result is the same for the consumer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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%.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Dev: I’m not interested in exclusivity

    Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service

    If anything, the example you brought up proves the opposite. Darq is on Epic and its developer even took money from Epic to make it free, so there is no grudge even past the dev's publicity stunt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Their attempt to strong arm an exclusivity deal failed and at some point they relented and put the game on their store.

    If they had just hosted in on their service at the same time in launched on Steam it would have been better for their customers and more profitable for Epic. But they are more concerned about trying to force exclusives than do what is better for their customers, even if it loses them money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (17 replies)