4 ms·

2015 me would be quite surprised to learn that 2020 me is rooting for an obnoxious gaming company to take down apple.

BoorishBears 6y ago
In what way has Epic ever been obnoxious? From spending millions on free developer resources, to retroactively making products free, to having an owner who's invested millions in conservation, it's so bizarre that it's popular to hate Epic. I think their biggest mistake in the public's perception was daring to challenge Steam's semi-monopoly on PC distribution
- sushid 6y ago
  Which, to me, is hilarious. How dare they undercut a de-factor monopoly with lower fees for game publishers?!
- boardwaalk 6y ago
  The way the gamer community vilified Epic regarding the Epic Game Store when it was only doing what Steam and existing publishers (re: exclusives) were already doing blew my mind. It was and is really quite silly.
  - esyir 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, there aren't any legally binding steam exclusives. The pc was the device with oo mandate exclusives, and epic brought that there. They deserve whatever hate they get for that.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      It's pretty much a distinction without a difference... Major publishers have had games to their stores, so there have been storefront-exclusives for years. Trying to slip in "mandated" is kind of redundant, it's self-mandated by the people publishing the game... But of course, Steam's monopoly on a full-featured game front is just so strong they usually kowtow eventually... For years EA games were Origin-exclusive, it wasn't until a few months ago they reversed course on that, and they still require Origin. Epic is doing it right, they're busting a monopolized industry and playing exactly the right amount of hardball to do it. - And as an aside, the statement "The pc was the device without mandate exclusives" seems to be implying PC was the gaming platform without platform exclusives... I mean yeah? And it still is? Epic was saying you could only use their store, they weren't saying you could only use PC... PC is very much last place for AAA attention, hence games coming out months later and in much worse shape, in no universe would a publisher ever go PC-only for a game because of Epic games or any other storefront trying to nudge them
      - esyir 6y ago
        First up, monopoly is a false argument here. Consumers have choice, and Steam doesn't prevent games from launching on other platforms. Compare this to Epic, which directly impacts consumers by limiting their choice of platform. Epic's work here is a reduction in consumer agency, not an increase. Furthermore, Epic has shown direct anti-consumer activity, with interference in games explicitly available for the Steam audience. As such, from their previous and current behavior, I can see the Epic store only as a long-term negative, with the worsening of user experience and the introduction of even more "store exclusives" into the ecosystem. Add in the permissionless acquisition of private user steam data files, and we now get security issues in the mix. I'm more amenable to origin. They make the games, they can have it on their own platform. They don't go out targeting games with multiple distribution platforms to buy exclusivity.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        You seem confused on the definition of a monopoly. In the real-world, it doesn't mean you actively break the knee caps of anyone who tries to do what you're doing. It means you have singular control over the industry though, and that's exactly what Steam had, to the point no one has been able to compete with them. EA wanted to have their own platform with Origin and Steam is so big and so immovable they were forced to come crawling back.. You're free to be upset that someone had the audacity to play hardball with them, but Steam's very existence is what reduces choice of game storefronts, not Epic, it's hilarious to pretend otherwise. Epic games has stated repeatedly said the moment Steam goes to 88% cut for devs, they will stop exclusives. It was the reason they've given from the start. Thats about as far from anti-consumer as you get
        esyir 6y ago
        You say monopoly over and over as though I made that argument. Rather I think it's fairly irrelevant here. Rather the actual consumer experience, and consumer agency is to me far more important. This has been explicitly degraded by Epic, unless exclusivity is now good for consumers. You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. As for their claims on we're just trying to help the devs get better cuts, I'll believe them when I see an explicit legally binding document. Right now, I trust Epic about as much as I trust tencent.
- Shared404 6y ago
  The only thing I can think of is "Fortnite bad" and most of Epic's money comes from loot boxes iirc, which seems sketchy to me.
  - antiterra 6y ago
    I don’t think Fortnite has much in the way of randomized loot boxes, but instead sells cosmetic dlc that can be partially earned through playtime. There’s something that feels a little sketch about how they use time pressure to encourage money spend, but I do know plenty of people who just don’t bother with skins.
- esyir 6y ago
  They didn't just "challenge the monopoly". They made consumer experience worse by introducing exclusives to an ecosystem that was previously largely free of them. Then they bought over exclusives that were announced for other platforms. That's pretty damn obnoxious to me.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I replied to your other comment explaining this, games were already de-facto Steam exclusives with very few exceptions. Epic games became a new choice, and in an attempt to break the status wui, offered incentives for devs to not join the de-facto PC gaming store in an attempt to force them to give developers more favorable revenue splits They've stated multiple times this is all about how Steam's revenue split should be moved to 88/12. - Steam no longer provides the level of service to these developers as they did when the splits were established anyways. Once upon a time Steam was highly curated and publishing to Steam could conceivably replace a "normal" publishing push just by virtue of how many eyeballs each game got. Now thiusands of games are announced a day, it's become a cesspool of crud not worth even looking at, and at this point it's just a fancy frontend for Steamworks, a download page, and payment processing (none of which is worth 30% of revenue)
    - esyir 6y ago
      >Now thiusands of games are announced a day, it's become a cesspool of crud not worth even looking at, and at this point it's just a fancy frontend for Steamworks, a download page, and payment processing (none of which is worth 30% of revenue) Regarding this. Have you even looked at the steam frontpage recently? None of the games featured there are crud by most measures. Mine has Satisfactory, Darksiders Genesis, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Among US. Some of these might not be to my taste, but garbage not worth looking at is a tad harsh. If you're referring to all games released however, refer to the next line? I actually like the way that they've managed to segment game distribution from recommendation/featuring, and believe that for game distribution platforms, combining a more liberal admission policy, but a more selective recommendation policy seems to be a good approach.
- danmur 6y ago
  Microtransactions are a pretty obnoxious business model.
- BTCOG 6y ago
  Epic jacks people over daily for choosing different colors of characters and clothing, aka "buying skins." This makes Epic Games BOOKU bucks, and then they want to sidestep paying a 30% fee to be on a device that will capture them untold millions more in in-game purchases. The way I see it, Epic could go ahead and make their own mobile devices, spend years on creating their OWN appstore, and capture the market that way. Instead, they want to use someone else's platform and avoid paying them fees to do so.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    This feels like the kind of comment I'd find on Reddit > The way I see it, Epic could go ahead and make their own mobile devices, spend years on creating their OWN appstore, and capture the market that way. I mean this is in such bad faith how do you even argue against it. Their whole point is Apple has locked people out of running the software they want to run on their phones unless you use their app store. They're leveraging this to extract money from devs. Epic would gladly make their own app store if people could run the software they want to on the iPhone, they did it on PC to the same end. - Also complaining about different colors of characters and clothing being sold as "jacking people over" Is that a joke? Once upon a time monetization that "jacked people over" was skinner boxes wrapped up in time crystals paid for with special gems that came up 99 bucks a pop. The battle pass system is an excellent example of fair monetization. It doesn't affect ability to use the game, it doesn't unduly wrap rewards in some kind of RNG lottery, it's literally as tame as monetization gets. It turns out people would rather spend $20 on optional stuff when they feel like it than paying $20 for every expansion to a game. Kinda crazy huh?

In what way has Epic ever been obnoxious? From spending millions on free developer resources, to retroactively making products free, to having an owner who's invested millions in conservation, it's so bizarre that it's popular to hate Epic. I think their biggest mistake in the public's perception was daring to challenge Steam's semi-monopoly on PC distribution

sushid 6y ago
Which, to me, is hilarious. How dare they undercut a de-factor monopoly with lower fees for game publishers?!
boardwaalk 6y ago
The way the gamer community vilified Epic regarding the Epic Game Store when it was only doing what Steam and existing publishers (re: exclusives) were already doing blew my mind. It was and is really quite silly.
- esyir 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, there aren't any legally binding steam exclusives. The pc was the device with oo mandate exclusives, and epic brought that there. They deserve whatever hate they get for that.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    It's pretty much a distinction without a difference... Major publishers have had games to their stores, so there have been storefront-exclusives for years. Trying to slip in "mandated" is kind of redundant, it's self-mandated by the people publishing the game... But of course, Steam's monopoly on a full-featured game front is just so strong they usually kowtow eventually... For years EA games were Origin-exclusive, it wasn't until a few months ago they reversed course on that, and they still require Origin. Epic is doing it right, they're busting a monopolized industry and playing exactly the right amount of hardball to do it. - And as an aside, the statement "The pc was the device without mandate exclusives" seems to be implying PC was the gaming platform without platform exclusives... I mean yeah? And it still is? Epic was saying you could only use their store, they weren't saying you could only use PC... PC is very much last place for AAA attention, hence games coming out months later and in much worse shape, in no universe would a publisher ever go PC-only for a game because of Epic games or any other storefront trying to nudge them
    - esyir 6y ago
      First up, monopoly is a false argument here. Consumers have choice, and Steam doesn't prevent games from launching on other platforms. Compare this to Epic, which directly impacts consumers by limiting their choice of platform. Epic's work here is a reduction in consumer agency, not an increase. Furthermore, Epic has shown direct anti-consumer activity, with interference in games explicitly available for the Steam audience. As such, from their previous and current behavior, I can see the Epic store only as a long-term negative, with the worsening of user experience and the introduction of even more "store exclusives" into the ecosystem. Add in the permissionless acquisition of private user steam data files, and we now get security issues in the mix. I'm more amenable to origin. They make the games, they can have it on their own platform. They don't go out targeting games with multiple distribution platforms to buy exclusivity.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        You seem confused on the definition of a monopoly. In the real-world, it doesn't mean you actively break the knee caps of anyone who tries to do what you're doing. It means you have singular control over the industry though, and that's exactly what Steam had, to the point no one has been able to compete with them. EA wanted to have their own platform with Origin and Steam is so big and so immovable they were forced to come crawling back.. You're free to be upset that someone had the audacity to play hardball with them, but Steam's very existence is what reduces choice of game storefronts, not Epic, it's hilarious to pretend otherwise. Epic games has stated repeatedly said the moment Steam goes to 88% cut for devs, they will stop exclusives. It was the reason they've given from the start. Thats about as far from anti-consumer as you get
        esyir 6y ago
        You say monopoly over and over as though I made that argument. Rather I think it's fairly irrelevant here. Rather the actual consumer experience, and consumer agency is to me far more important. This has been explicitly degraded by Epic, unless exclusivity is now good for consumers. You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. As for their claims on we're just trying to help the devs get better cuts, I'll believe them when I see an explicit legally binding document. Right now, I trust Epic about as much as I trust tencent.
Shared404 6y ago
The only thing I can think of is "Fortnite bad" and most of Epic's money comes from loot boxes iirc, which seems sketchy to me.
- antiterra 6y ago
  I don’t think Fortnite has much in the way of randomized loot boxes, but instead sells cosmetic dlc that can be partially earned through playtime. There’s something that feels a little sketch about how they use time pressure to encourage money spend, but I do know plenty of people who just don’t bother with skins.
esyir 6y ago
They didn't just "challenge the monopoly". They made consumer experience worse by introducing exclusives to an ecosystem that was previously largely free of them. Then they bought over exclusives that were announced for other platforms. That's pretty damn obnoxious to me.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I replied to your other comment explaining this, games were already de-facto Steam exclusives with very few exceptions. Epic games became a new choice, and in an attempt to break the status wui, offered incentives for devs to not join the de-facto PC gaming store in an attempt to force them to give developers more favorable revenue splits They've stated multiple times this is all about how Steam's revenue split should be moved to 88/12. - Steam no longer provides the level of service to these developers as they did when the splits were established anyways. Once upon a time Steam was highly curated and publishing to Steam could conceivably replace a "normal" publishing push just by virtue of how many eyeballs each game got. Now thiusands of games are announced a day, it's become a cesspool of crud not worth even looking at, and at this point it's just a fancy frontend for Steamworks, a download page, and payment processing (none of which is worth 30% of revenue)
  - esyir 6y ago
    >Now thiusands of games are announced a day, it's become a cesspool of crud not worth even looking at, and at this point it's just a fancy frontend for Steamworks, a download page, and payment processing (none of which is worth 30% of revenue) Regarding this. Have you even looked at the steam frontpage recently? None of the games featured there are crud by most measures. Mine has Satisfactory, Darksiders Genesis, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Among US. Some of these might not be to my taste, but garbage not worth looking at is a tad harsh. If you're referring to all games released however, refer to the next line? I actually like the way that they've managed to segment game distribution from recommendation/featuring, and believe that for game distribution platforms, combining a more liberal admission policy, but a more selective recommendation policy seems to be a good approach.
danmur 6y ago
Microtransactions are a pretty obnoxious business model.
BTCOG 6y ago
Epic jacks people over daily for choosing different colors of characters and clothing, aka "buying skins." This makes Epic Games BOOKU bucks, and then they want to sidestep paying a 30% fee to be on a device that will capture them untold millions more in in-game purchases. The way I see it, Epic could go ahead and make their own mobile devices, spend years on creating their OWN appstore, and capture the market that way. Instead, they want to use someone else's platform and avoid paying them fees to do so.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  This feels like the kind of comment I'd find on Reddit > The way I see it, Epic could go ahead and make their own mobile devices, spend years on creating their OWN appstore, and capture the market that way. I mean this is in such bad faith how do you even argue against it. Their whole point is Apple has locked people out of running the software they want to run on their phones unless you use their app store. They're leveraging this to extract money from devs. Epic would gladly make their own app store if people could run the software they want to on the iPhone, they did it on PC to the same end. - Also complaining about different colors of characters and clothing being sold as "jacking people over" Is that a joke? Once upon a time monetization that "jacked people over" was skinner boxes wrapped up in time crystals paid for with special gems that came up 99 bucks a pop. The battle pass system is an excellent example of fair monetization. It doesn't affect ability to use the game, it doesn't unduly wrap rewards in some kind of RNG lottery, it's literally as tame as monetization gets. It turns out people would rather spend $20 on optional stuff when they feel like it than paying $20 for every expansion to a game. Kinda crazy huh?