Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BigD145]

Do you own *any* game consoles?

^

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, many do, but many also own a computer, which has no justification for console style exclusivity whatsoever.  Epic are jackasses.

[milo christiansen]

So you are a hypocrite. Got it.

Owning any console is supporting exclusives. Saying you won't buy stuff from Epic because they have exclusives while owning any console is the height of hypocrisy.

[NullForceOmega]

So you are a hypocrite. Got it.

Owning any console is supporting exclusives. Saying you won't buy stuff from Epic because they have exclusives while owning any console is the height of hypocrisy.

And you're being offensive for no reason.

I haven't purchased a new console in a decade.  And equating console exclusivity to what Epic is doing is false equivalence.

You should certainly be aware that console are a specific set of hardware, often proprietary in part or in whole, that require publishers to adhere to specific guidelines due to the fact that they are manufactured by a specific entity.  In return for a portion of the profits from sales of those games they grant those publishers the right to release software for their system, which typically has lockout features that prevent unlicensed software from operating, in no way is that the same as what Epic is doing right now.

There is no hardware whatsoever that Epic manufactured or programmed in my system, and there never will be.  I built this device from components I chose, not that were pre-packaged in a relatively inexpensive box by someone like Nintendo or Microsoft.

Because of that I can see absolutely no reason to let Epic decide that games that could otherwise operate normally on my system are their exclusive domain.

And supporting Epic is far more hypocritical from my point of view, as they are the ones who decided to drag a very old problem with consoles into the PC space.

But if your whole defense is going to be "Well you buy consoles and console games, so you're just as bad."  Then I have no doubt that this explanation of my position is meaningless.

And before you even begin the "Steam, Origin, and Uplay" argument, I can typically at least purchase titles from those publishers on other sites, hell Steam accounts for a not insubstantial number of sales for those publishers.  I am still required to use their shitty DRM, but keys for the games can be picked up in many places.

[n9103]

Let us be one with the chill, folks.

[forsaken1111]

Do you own *any* game consoles?

I own a switch, yes. I'm not sure how that relates to me not wanting paid exclusives on PC. I buy a console with the expectation that only games made for that console can be used with it. You can't play switch games on a playstation for somewhat obvious reasons, they're developed for different hardware. In some cases games are ported from one to another. Games developed for PC are not (usually) hardware locked so there is no real reason for exclusivity. This is a large part of why I haven't bought any of the new consoles aside from the switch, which I got mostly for my wife.

[Arbinire]

So you are a hypocrite. Got it.

Owning any console is supporting exclusives. Saying you won't buy stuff from Epic because they have exclusives while owning any console is the height of hypocrisy.

We get it, you vape.

I mean seriously dude, you're defending exclusivity.  I don't own any consoles and haven't since the Dreamcast, but at least consoles have the excuse that their exclusives are in-house.  Nintendo exclusives are developed by Nintendo for instance.  It is NOT the same thing, or even comparable, when popular game engines that hold the lion's share of the market when it comes to games made with their engine decides to do it. 

[BigD145]

For an entirely digital product, DRM makes for exclusivity no matter what the hardware is. You're stuck to particular digital stores that carry the product, much like consoles. If nobody ports it to another store then you're stuck. If nobody makes it for Mac or Linux, you're stuck. If it's DRM-free, you're less stuck but still limited to a particular OS, completely independent of hardware. We can go into how some software only works on x64 or x86 chipsets if you like, but let's not. I'm not defending exclusivity, just pointing out that it is exclusive in much the same way as consoles.

Carry on.

[milo christiansen]

There is a massive difference between a multi-hundred dollar paywall between you and an exclusive, and a few hundred megabyte free download. The two are not even close to the same thing, yet many people defend the paywall one and bash the simple download.

[Arbinire]

There is a massive difference between a multi-hundred dollar paywall between you and an exclusive, and a few hundred megabyte free download. The two are not even close to the same thing, yet many people defend the paywall one and bash the simple download.

As much as I hate to use the slippery slope argument, it's pretty justified in this case considering the company that's doing it.  Software security issues aside(which is a very valid argument against the Epic store, with or without the exclusivity argument), how long before they start making changes to their software license agreement?  If it proves successful you can bet dollars to donuts they'll change the license on their developer tools that those who develop must dedicate a certain amount of months to their store as an exclusive, including holding back console releases.  They're already triple dipping from cash shops(Fortnite), Developer Royalties, AND taking a sizeable cut from their asset store.

[forsaken1111]

There is a massive difference between a multi-hundred dollar paywall between you and an exclusive, and a few hundred megabyte free download. The two are not even close to the same thing, yet many people defend the paywall one and bash the simple download.

Again, this isn't about installing yet another app. It's about what EGS is trying to do. They actively seek out studios who intend to release on steam and pay them not to. It's scummy and underhanded, and I will not support it. Amusingly, me not buying this new Rebel Galaxy game doesn't hurt the devs because they already got their money from EGS. Poor sales will only hurt EGS, which I'm ok with. (It won't hurt them much, I know. Maybe not at all. I'm just one vote in thousands but I cast it anyway)

Tycho said it better than I can here: https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2019/08/26/here-comes-a-new-challenger

The devs behind Darq announced they'd be releasing to steam and were immediately contacted by EGS and offered money not to. They were also told that if they did not agree to exclusivity, they would never be able to sell the game on EGS. Ever.

I have a ton of launchers installed. Origin, Uplay, Steam, even EGS. I don't care or mind about 'a few hundred megabytes free download'. I don't like people throwing money around with the sole aim of sabotaging a competitor while also attempting to claim they're somehow doing the games industry a favor.

[Folly]

They actively seek out studios who intend to release on steam and pay them not to. It's scummy and underhanded, and I will not support it.

Another way of looking at it, they actively seek out studios who are being ripped off by Steam, and offer them much more reasonable rates. It's noble and supports game developers, and I wholeheartedly endorse it.

[forsaken1111]

Another way of looking at it, they actively seek out studios who are being ripped off by Steam, and offer them much more reasonable rates. It's noble and supports game developers, and I wholeheartedly endorse it.

I'd buy that if they allowed non-exclusive games to be on their store as well. There are already plenty of alternatives to steam which give a better revshare. It does support game developers but it's hardly noble or good behavior.