6 ms·

Exactly, it’s the Netflix problem all over again. Rather than competing on the quality of the platform, they’re just divvying up monopolies and fracturing the c

Exactly, it’s the Netflix problem all over again. Rather than competing on the quality of the platform, they’re just divvying up monopolies and fracturing the customer experience. A different streaming platform for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Universal, HBO, Amazon A different gaming platform for Steam, Epic, Origin, UPlay The real loser is the consumer

nanokilo 7y ago
Not quite the same though, since Epic and Steam don’t require paid subscriptions to access their content. The only difference now is that you’re buying some of your games from Epic instead of Steam.
- parrellel 7y ago
  As that necessitates trusting Epic after years of shadiness and recently outright lies, it mostly means a bunch of games aren't going to get bought. For me anyway.
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    Pushes me to console releases. Can’t justify the PC ecosystem with all the nonsense going on.
    - ParkerHemingway 7y ago
      Same problem there though, they've just been at it longer. Which console do you pick, or do you get all of them?
    - elsonrodriguez 7y ago
      Console makers would like you to repurchase your game every 5 years for the new console, if they deem the game fit for re-release. Whereas I've basically been copying the same DooM 2 install from computer to computer for 20 years.
      - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
        cries in registry issues
      - cwyers 7y ago
        I think this is going away. I can play (some, and it's growing over time) Xbox and Xbox 360 games on the Xbox One, and if I bought them digitally or still have the original disc, I don't have to pay anything more.
        krageon 7y ago
        Backward compatibility used to be way more normal. Then it was killed, now it is slowly coming back and we are supposed to be thankful for it. A more cynical mind could be tempted to think of this as a strategy.
  - Jyaif 7y ago
    > years of shadiness and recently outright lies Citation needed.
    - throwawaywhynot 7y ago
      probably the security flaws and lying about stopping exclusives. Tim Sweeney has caused a lot of outrage with his recent statements on press, which pretty much were lies. Can't link since don't have time, sorry
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > after years of shadiness and recently outright lies I'm not sure what you're referring to here. By my account, Epic has been among the better game developers for consumers. I wish Fortnite et al didn't use microtransactions—as far as I'm concerned, they always make games worse by building a purchase incentive into the design of the game—but it is free to play, so there's a limit to how much I can complain.
    - krageon 7y ago
      Using microtransactions (and the normal vehicles to facilitate those, like random loot boxes) is in itself a shady move. Their target demographic with Fortnite certainly doesn't help them there in my eyes. The fact that it's "free but if you want you can gamble here and look we made it fun!" actually makes that worse, not better. First it draws you in, then when you're hooked you have more trouble stepping out.
      - gurkendoktor 7y ago
        I have only played Fortnite Battle Royale (like most Epic users I guess), but there are no loot boxes involved, and it feels very different from freemium mobile games. You pay for skins, or you pay for challenges that make the game more interesting, and for which more skins are the reward. That's it. And you can't wear more than one skin at any time, so it doesn't really encourage binge spending. It's so harmless that even the non-monetary "engagement hacking" by other services feels like a burden in comparison (e.g. Steam's incessant notifications about new crappy stickers - stop stealing my precious time!).
      - kazagistar 7y ago
        Steam microtransactions are built into even meta nonsense like cards you get for playing games. It seems like the obvious worse platform for shady lootboxes and gambling with cs:go as well.
        krageon 7y ago
        I wasn't talking about these issues as if one party or the other had them and another party did not. I was merely pointing out that the construct itself is shady.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
The streaming wars have also effectively ushered in a golden age of TV, as they all compete for the best exclusive content. While annoying, you can switch between them each month instead of paying for all simultaneously.
noelsusman 7y ago
But they are competing on the quality of the platform. What do they have a monopoly on? Being the only place to watch Star Wars or whatever is not a monopoly. They compete on both the quality of the content and the quality of the streaming experience. If Disney doesn't make much content that I want to watch (and they don't), then I don't have to pay them a dime for anything. If HBO only makes one thing that I want to watch, then I can subscribe for a month and then pay them nothing after that. That's a significant improvement over the previous way of doing things. Why would it be good for a single company to control distribution of all content?

nanokilo 7y ago

Not quite the same though, since Epic and Steam don’t require paid subscriptions to access their content. The only difference now is that you’re buying some of your games from Epic instead of Steam.

parrellel 7y ago
As that necessitates trusting Epic after years of shadiness and recently outright lies, it mostly means a bunch of games aren't going to get bought. For me anyway.
- godzillabrennus 7y ago
  Pushes me to console releases. Can’t justify the PC ecosystem with all the nonsense going on.
  - ParkerHemingway 7y ago
    Same problem there though, they've just been at it longer. Which console do you pick, or do you get all of them?
  - elsonrodriguez 7y ago
    Console makers would like you to repurchase your game every 5 years for the new console, if they deem the game fit for re-release. Whereas I've basically been copying the same DooM 2 install from computer to computer for 20 years.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
      cries in registry issues
    - cwyers 7y ago
      I think this is going away. I can play (some, and it's growing over time) Xbox and Xbox 360 games on the Xbox One, and if I bought them digitally or still have the original disc, I don't have to pay anything more.
      - krageon 7y ago
        Backward compatibility used to be way more normal. Then it was killed, now it is slowly coming back and we are supposed to be thankful for it. A more cynical mind could be tempted to think of this as a strategy.
- Jyaif 7y ago
  > years of shadiness and recently outright lies Citation needed.
  - throwawaywhynot 7y ago
    probably the security flaws and lying about stopping exclusives. Tim Sweeney has caused a lot of outrage with his recent statements on press, which pretty much were lies. Can't link since don't have time, sorry
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > after years of shadiness and recently outright lies I'm not sure what you're referring to here. By my account, Epic has been among the better game developers for consumers. I wish Fortnite et al didn't use microtransactions—as far as I'm concerned, they always make games worse by building a purchase incentive into the design of the game—but it is free to play, so there's a limit to how much I can complain.
  - krageon 7y ago
    Using microtransactions (and the normal vehicles to facilitate those, like random loot boxes) is in itself a shady move. Their target demographic with Fortnite certainly doesn't help them there in my eyes. The fact that it's "free but if you want you can gamble here and look we made it fun!" actually makes that worse, not better. First it draws you in, then when you're hooked you have more trouble stepping out.
    - gurkendoktor 7y ago
      I have only played Fortnite Battle Royale (like most Epic users I guess), but there are no loot boxes involved, and it feels very different from freemium mobile games. You pay for skins, or you pay for challenges that make the game more interesting, and for which more skins are the reward. That's it. And you can't wear more than one skin at any time, so it doesn't really encourage binge spending. It's so harmless that even the non-monetary "engagement hacking" by other services feels like a burden in comparison (e.g. Steam's incessant notifications about new crappy stickers - stop stealing my precious time!).
    - kazagistar 7y ago
      Steam microtransactions are built into even meta nonsense like cards you get for playing games. It seems like the obvious worse platform for shady lootboxes and gambling with cs:go as well.
      - krageon 7y ago
        I wasn't talking about these issues as if one party or the other had them and another party did not. I was merely pointing out that the construct itself is shady.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

The streaming wars have also effectively ushered in a golden age of TV, as they all compete for the best exclusive content. While annoying, you can switch between them each month instead of paying for all simultaneously.

noelsusman 7y ago

But they are competing on the quality of the platform. What do they have a monopoly on? Being the only place to watch Star Wars or whatever is not a monopoly. They compete on both the quality of the content and the quality of the streaming experience. If Disney doesn't make much content that I want to watch (and they don't), then I don't have to pay them a dime for anything. If HBO only makes one thing that I want to watch, then I can subscribe for a month and then pay them nothing after that. That's a significant improvement over the previous way of doing things. Why would it be good for a single company to control distribution of all content?