Support NeoGAF

[ScHlAuChi]

I just know Tencent/Epic will not stop if they should win. My bet is that they will target and impact the console industry down the line, which will undoubtedly cripple it, and you can then kiss those high budget AAA games investments goodbye as well as high powered consoles for low consumer buy-in as we see it today. Gaming in general will be impacted.

That fear is unwarranted, becasue there is a major difference between a console and a phone.
At least under EU law phones are "general purpose" computing devices, which basically means said devices can be used for anything - webbrowsing, online shopping, banking, tax apps - you name it.
Consoles on the other hand are not general purpose, therefore those laws do not apply and Epic could not demand sideloading for those.
I have no idea if that differentiation is the same in the US.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That fear is unwarranted, becasue there is a major difference between a console and a phone.
At least under EU law phones are "general purpose" computing devices, which basically means said devices can be used for anything - webbrowsing, online shopping, banking, tax apps - you name it.
Consoles on the other hand are not general purpose, therefore those laws do not apply and Epic could not demand sideloading for those.
I have no idea if that differentiation is the same in the US.

No, it's not. Slippery slopes are real and not a fallacy.

The needle always stays moving.

 

[AJUMP23]

If I own the arena you have to pay me to use it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

You are the one complaining that Epic is being anti competitive, while they are the text book example of a company that challenges the current quasi monopolists.

They are the textbook example of hypocrites. They’re preaching openness and competition, while paying to block games from competing storefronts on PC - thus eliminating consumer choice and keeping prices high.

You think it’s just me that hates them? You’ve been living under a rock.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They are the textbook example of hypocrites. They’re preaching openness and competition, while paying to block games from competing storefronts on PC - thus eliminating consumer choice and keeping prices high.

You think it’s just me that hates them? You’ve been living under a rock.

This right here is what got me to stop sticking up for them, that, and Tencent having 49% of them and know damned well they are being used as a Trojan horse in the west in attempts to establish case law.

 

[hlm666]

The comparisons with an open smartphone OS are completely logical, when former CEO at Apple made so much noise about destroying Android.

If Android is the competition and it is a general purpose computing device built on the backs of general purpose computing initiatives like kernel.org, Java and all ISO standards technologies written up in RFCs, any suggestion that Apple (is different to the whole world of computing) didn't freeload that development work too for their general purpose use smartphone/tablet OS is nonsense, and should be held to the exact same standard for open access as the "computer" OS competition, namely Android, Windows and Linux.

Here we go, we sure this isn't directx's fault again for being a monopoly in graphics apis, if microsoft ported dx to android maybe it would end apples dominance before metal takes over and kills directx aswell. Apple was closed from the start and even the bitches at epic were happy to suck on apples tits when infinity blade was all the rage.

 

[Elder Legend]

Many many third parties sell lightning cables.

Durability wise lighting cables are way more durable than usb-c.

Jobs saved the dying company.

Why are you wrong at every statement you make ?

I do not like 3rd party products. I prefer to have everything made by a first party company, because it removes the risk of some sort of failure and potential bricking. I also never buy used products either. You never what fucking piglet bought it and how they treated. Electronics are important to me and I need to make sure I'll have as little problems as possible. Cause I actually care about my stuff you know?

And where did i say Steve Jobs was a bad individual? If you actually read what I said I said Apple.is not same anymore without Steve. Company went to shit without him.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

They are the textbook example of hypocrites. They’re preaching openness and competition, while paying to block games from competing storefronts on PC - thus eliminating consumer choice and keeping prices high.
You think it’s just me that hates them? You’ve been living under a rock.

This is the part you do not get. The platform is PC! If a game only releases on EGS, you can still buy the game on the PC platform!
Epic is not blocking you from buying it or eliminating your comsumer choice - YOU just chose not to buy it, eventho it is available for your platform - that is not Epic´s fault nor is it anti competitive!

The high prices argument makes no sense if you understand why Epic has to do exclusive releases to begin with, and the reason is Valve´s Most Favored Nation clause!
Valve´s MFN clause says that you cannot sell your game for a lower price anywhere else. This clause is most likely illegal and is currently on trial in the Wolffire Games vs Valve antitrust case.
At EGS you pay 12%, at Steam you pay 30%, so even if a developer wanted to sell their game on Steam and a lower price at EGS at the same time, they cant do that right now!
So if anyone is responsible for keeping the prices higher, its Valve, and the only option for devs is to go EGS first and Steam afterwards.

 

[A.Romero]

Imagine you build a mall and use a business model based on comission. The mall owner spends money developing it, building roads and parking lots so customers can come in and promoting it and basically building a brand out if it. Businesses start coming in and some of them have huge success. A few years later one of those business decides the comission is too high and proceeds to build another mall next to the first one but it doesn't have AC nor bathrooms. In exchange, businesses have to pay less comission to them. However, the lack of facilities are not attractive to customers so they keep going to the first mall. Also, the owner of the second mall is kind of a dick.

Oh, by the way, before the mall was built there only was a fucking patch of land.

Now the owner of the crappier mall decides it's time to sue the first one so they can build their own small mall within the first mall so they don't have to pay comission to the owner. How is that fair?

Build your own state of the art mall and pay 0 comission. If it's good enough and what you sell is attractive, customers will come. If not, then they won't. We are past the times people didn't want to have extra launchers. We were forced to have them or enticed to have them through competitive pricing.

You don't even need to like the first mall or the owner to understand why it's an stupid claim. If it sticks what would be the incentive to build a new mall or even maintain the first one?

If it's so crappy and value lacking, it should be super easy to beat. I mean, the second owner has deep pockets and understands the market well enough to know the other guys are doing a bad job. It's a no brainer. However, for some mysterious reason, they can't build a mall that is worth for shit.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Imagine you build a mall and use a business model based on comission. The mall owner spends money developing it, building roads and parking lots so customers can come in and promoting it and basically building a brand out if it. Businesses start coming in and some of them have huge success. A few years later one of those business decides the comission is too high and proceeds to build another mall next to the first one but it doesn't have AC nor bathrooms. In exchange, businesses have to pay less comission to them. However, the lack of facilities are not attractive to customers so they keep going to the first mall. Also, the owner of the second mall is kind of a dick.

Oh, by the way, before the mall was built there only was a fucking patch of land.

Now the owner of the crappier mall decides it's time to sue the first one so they can build their own small mall within the first mall so they don't have to pay comission to the owner. How is that fair?

Build your own state of the art mall and pay 0 comission. If it's good enough and what you sell is attractive, customers will come. If not, then they won't. We are past the times people didn't want to have extra launchers. We were forced to have them or enticed to have them through competitive pricing.

You don't even need to like the first mall or the owner to understand why it's an stupid claim. If it sticks what would be the incentive to build a new mall or even maintain the first one?

If it's so crappy and value lacking, it should be super easy to beat. I mean, the second owner has deep pockets and understands the market well enough to know the other guys are doing a bad job. It's a no brainer. However, for some mysterious reason, they can't build a mall that is worth for shit.

Or, a store owners wants to move in, use all the benefits of your malls commerce, utilities, etc., but not pay rent at all. They keep 100% of their profits to themselves, on the back of your creation and building.

 

[SmokedMeat]

This is the part you do not get. The platform is PC! If a game only releases on EGS, you can still buy the game on the PC platform!
Epic is not blocking you from buying it or eliminating your comsumer choice - YOU just chose not to buy it, eventho it is available for your platform - that is not Epic´s fault nor is it anti competitive!

The high prices argument makes no sense if you understand why Epic has to do exclusive releases to begin with, and the reason is Valve´s Most Favored Nation clause!
Valve´s MFN clause says that you cannot sell your game for a lower price anywhere else. This clause is most likely illegal and is currently on trial in the Wolffire Games vs Valve antitrust case.
At EGS you pay 12%, at Steam you pay 30%, so even if a developer wanted to sell their game on Steam and a lower price at EGS at the same time, they cant do that right now!
So if anyone is responsible for keeping the prices higher, its Valve, and the only option for devs is to go EGS first and Steam afterwards.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021...lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/

Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms.

Valve collects 0% from Steam keys sold from official keysellers sites. Epic can’t even offer gift cards because their 12% cut prevents it.

What you also don’t understand is that while PC is a platform - it’s not controlled by a single entity. It’s a solar system of different launchers and stores competing for your business by offering competitive deals on games.
Epic tries to treat PC like a console in paying to block third party games from competing launchers. Thus they’ve succeeded in keeping prices high, and stopping players from playing on the launcher of their choice.

Valve does no such thing. They’re guilty of being the best in the business, which makes them the villain among the few Epic sympathizers. Those sympathizers I’ve noticed either don’t play on PC, or just collect the free games and don’t buy anything. Their store’s shitty sales verify it.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

If Apple loses, there is a good chance this has ramifications in the console space as well.

Part of me thinks this is Tencent influenced.

Which is good. Who wouldn't like to be able to use different online stores instead of playstation store on ps5, nintendo store on switch etc?
Unless someone is a braindead fanboy of his console, having more options is always good for consumers.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Which is good. Who wouldn't like to be able to use different online stores instead of playstation store on ps5, nintendo store on switch etc?
Unless someone is a braindead fanboy of his console, having more options is always good for consumers.

Has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It will cripple the higher end-spec console market where the console makers will not invest so much into R&D. Prepare to all play on Switch specs if this happens, or even worse, this would cripple Nintendo since they're 100% reliant on their gaming brand.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It will cripple the higher end-spec console market where the console makers will not invest so much into R&D. Prepare to all play on Switch specs if this happens, or even worse, this would cripple Nintendo since they're 100% reliant on their gaming brand.

I didn't call you a fanboy though, you misunderstood.
Also, it wouldn't cripple anything. Portable consoles like Steam Deck exist. They invest in R&D even if they don't profit from software. Nvidia and AMD also profit from R&D even if they don't sell software on pcs.
I don't get why wouldn't sony sell ps4s even if it was forced to sell Ratchet and Clank on 5 more online ps5 stores that didn't belong to it.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Steam can, when they make their own phone. Simple. Just like they now have their own handheld.

Why should they be allowed to install their store, bypassing any revenue or profit sharing, on a device they never R&D'ed or had a hand in on building?

Steam doesn't have a hand in on building pcs as well. Wtf is this argument?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I didn't call you a fanboy though, you misunderstood.
Also, it wouldn't cripple anything. Portable consoles like Steam Deck exist. They invest in R&D even if they don't profit from software. Nvidia and AMD also profit from R&D even if they don't sell software on pcs.
I don't get why wouldn't sony sell ps4s even if it was forced to sell Ratchet and Clank on 5 more online ps5 stores that didn't belong to it.

AAA gaming as you know it and the consoles will be severely impacted. That will trickle down to every other platform that relies on that as well.

Steam doesn't have a hand in on building pcs as well. Wtf is this argument?

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

AAA gaming as you know it and the consoles will be severely impacted. That will trickle down to every other platform that relies on that as well.

Any source about this claim? Cause as far as I remember, last time I checked Steam, it is full of publishers releasing AAA games on an open ecosystem (PCs) and they don't seem to care about the fact that PCs are not closed ecosystems like consoles are.
So, provide a reputable source that agrees with your claim.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Any source about this claim? Cause as far as I remember, last time I checked Steam, it is full of publishers releasing AAA games on an open ecosystem (PCs) and they don't seem to care about the fact that PCs are not closed ecosystems like consoles are.
So, provide a reputable source that agrees with your claim.

Yes.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt wouldn't exist 'as it is' today without consoles - GameZone

CD Projekt RED's co-founder Marcin Iwinski stepped forward to apologize for the disparity in graphics between The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt's initial reveal in 2013 and the game that released. While PC players have been targeting consoles as the reason for The Witcher 3's graphical "downgrade"...

www.gamezone.com

And this is coming from a developer that has their own great PC store that rivals Steam.

You would not get massive AAA investments (like you see today) on the PC only, if they did not have consoles to make back most of their revenue.

Days of Crysis are long gone. You now get exclusive MOBA and other forms of GAAS.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

How about Tim just creates his own “fortniite” device that allows you to make phone calls and download apps.
There Timmy boy problem solved.

Going forward, I hope nothing works out for this guy. Dude should’ve cashed in 15 years ago and just enjoy the rest of his life in luxury.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Yes.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt wouldn't exist 'as it is' today without consoles - GameZone

CD Projekt RED's co-founder Marcin Iwinski stepped forward to apologize for the disparity in graphics between The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt's initial reveal in 2013 and the game that released. While PC players have been targeting consoles as the reason for The Witcher 3's graphical "downgrade"...

www.gamezone.com

And this is coming from a developer that has their own great PC store that rivals Steam.

You would not get massive AAA investments (like you see today) on the PC only, if they did not have consoles to make back most of their revenue.

Days of Crysis are long gone. You now get exclusive MOBA and other forms of GAAS.

This doesn't say what you claimed though. Nobody here said consoles shouldn't exist. We said they should be forced to allow more stores in them. Did the witcher 3 developer say that they wouldn't exist if playstation 4 allowed more stores in its ecosystem to exist? I don't think so.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This doesn't say what you said though. Nobody said consoles shouldn't exist. We said they should be forced to allow more stores in them. Did the witcher 3 developer say that they wouldn't exist if playstation 4 allowed more stores in its ecosystem to exist? I don't think so.

Ok.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021...lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/

Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms.

If that was the case, why is the antitrust case with Wolffire Games still going on then?
Sounds like Valve could simply tell that to the court to end the antitrust case - and yet here we are!
But hey maybe you know more than the court
But ask yourself - why even does Valve have it in the contract to begin with if they dont want to enforce it?

Valve collects 0% from Steam keys sold from official keysellers sites. Epic can’t even offer gift cards because their 12% cut prevents it.
What you also don’t understand is that while PC is a platform - it’s not controlled by a single entity. It’s a solar system of different launchers and stores competing for your business by offering competitive deals on games.

Yes it is a solar system of different launchers, but Valve is the black hole in the center, and all the other launchers simply dont matter. Epic is the first company to challenge that.

Epic tries to treat PC like a console in paying to block third party games from competing launchers. Thus they’ve succeeded in keeping prices high, and stopping players from playing on the launcher of their choice.

No they arent treating PC like a console, they dont force you to buy a different platform!
Epic is also not blocking third party games from launching at the same time elsewhere. Developers choose to do so to not run the risk of breaking Valve´s contract.
Valve can claim they wont enforce that rule, but as long as you do not have that in writing in the contract, no one is willing to risk it!

Valve does no such thing. They’re guilty of being the best in the business, which makes them the villain among the few Epic sympathizers. Those sympathizers I’ve noticed either don’t play on PC, or just collect the free games and don’t buy anything. Their store’s shitty sales verify it.

One does not have to be an Epic sympathizer to be pro competition. I dont give a fuck if its Epic or someone else who challenges the Status Q.
But your world view is so skewed towards your own ego that it is not even funny.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Ok.

so you don't have a source. Thanks. So the whole AAA industry dying due to not investing in R&D was a catastrophizing you imagined.

 

[DeepEnigma]

so you don't have a source. Thanks. So the whole AAA industry dying due to not investing in R&D was a catastrophizing you imagined.

Why are you putting words into my mouth. Stop projecting.

Console makers have no incentive to put so much into their machines and selling them at an initial loss if they aren't recouping their sunk costs. If every publisher can have their own store on someone else's labor, that is not going to last long as a hardware manufacturer. At all. Either the hardware becomes far more expensive or you get less for more.

PCs benefit due to the console industry being what it is today. AAA investments won't nearly be as big as they are.

I don't need a source for a fucking opinion.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Why are you putting words into my mouth. Stop projecting.

Console makers have no incentive to put so much into their machines and selling them at an initial loss if they aren't recouping their sunk costs. If every publisher can have their own store on someone else's labor, that is not going to last long as a hardware manufacturer. At all. Either the hardware becomes far more expensive or you get less for more.

PCs benefit due to the console industry being what it is today. AAA investments won't nearly be as big as they are.

I don't need a source for a fucking opinion.

Ok thanks for your input.

Due to the more stores in consoles, I believe the orbit of the planet Venus may undergo changes, potentially resulting in heightened rainfall across northwest Asia. I don't have a source either, it appears there are now two of us in this predicament.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ok thanks for your input.

Due to the more stores in consoles, I believe the orbit of the planet Venus may undergo changes, potentially resulting in heightened rainfall across northwest Asia. I don't have a source either, it appears there are now two of us in this predicament.

Ok.

 

[Mattyp]

But nobody would force you to. It would be your choice.

You see what you’re saying don’t you? No one’s forcing you to use an iPhone, there’s hundreds of other phones you can use and load whatever you wish onto it.

 

[Bojanglez]

You see what you’re saying don’t you? No one’s forcing you to use an iPhone, there’s hundreds of other phones you can use and load whatever you wish onto it.

Yes, hence I do use an Android phone. I really like Apple hardware and if I could use an iPhone like I can my Macbooks then I'd probably get one. All I'm saying is that if they are forced by regulators to open it up, you can still continue to live in the walled garden by choice. Why not have the choice, how would it negatively effect you if others could install what they want?

The main argument I can see against it is that some content might go exclusive to other stores because developers can get more favourable payment terms, and that might be mildly annoying for some users in that case. But the upside is that if creates competition which could result in cheaper prices for users, better experiences for users (due to less arbitrary publishing rules) and better payment terms for devs.

In the trial there was research noted that said once someone was in a phone ecosystem, they were unlikely to change due to soft lock-in tactics by the likes of Apple. The argument is that this makes iOS a significant market in its own right which Apple has a monopoly on (for better or worse). That and the fact that many people now use their phone for more necessity services than PCs has caused the extra scrutiny.

 

[SmokedMeat]

No they arent treating PC like a console, they dont force you to buy a different platform!
Epic is also not blocking third party games from launching at the same time elsewhere. Developers choose to do so to not run the risk of breaking Valve´s contract.

Epic struck a deal with Deep Silver to remove the game from Steam and make it Epic exclusive. Something the developers didn’t even know was going to happen.

Since then Epic has blocked numerous games from appearing elsewhere via timed exclusivity. Instead of competing on prices and services which are nonexistent they chose to play the console tactic of locking games to their store.

They’re paying the price for doing so, because the PC gaming community isn’t tolerating their bullshit.

That’s as far as I’m going to with this. You’re must not play on PC or barely use the platform if you’re that oblivious to what’s been happening. Wolffire game’s lawsuit is a joke and was already dismissed once. It will go nowhere. They’re a no name developer who’s made nothing of note trying to get free Steam keys to sell on their own website without giving Valve a cut - yet they want to use Steam’s services and features.
If Steam’s so bad then put your games on other launchers. Sell your game via your own website. Sell the game on Epic!! No one wants their garbage games.

 

[SmokedMeat]

This doesn't say what you claimed though. Nobody here said consoles shouldn't exist. We said they should be forced to allow more stores in them.

How does more stores work on a closed platform under control of a single entity?

Let’s say hypothetically PlayStation is opened up. What’s Sony’s cut of the sales from third party stores? Zero? We’re bypassing the sole hardware maker who uses those royalties to fund new games and hardware?

I don’t see how this doesn’t negatively affect the console business, in the long run.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How does more stores work on a closed platform under control of a single entity?

Let’s say hypothetically PlayStation is opened up. What’s Sony’s cut of the sales from third party stores? Zero? We’re bypassing the sole hardware maker who uses those royalties to fund new games and hardware?

I don’t see how this doesn’t negatively affect the console business, in the long run.

It's like moving into a mall you didn't build (platform), setting up your store while not paying rent or utilities (network infrastructure usage) and selling your goods keeping 100% of the revenue and profits. The mall would be shut down in less than a year.

PC analogy doesn't work, because each vendor gets their cut on the product wether by you building yourself, or buying prebuilt. PCs are afforded the laurels of the AAA console business, it would also impact PC gaming if consoles suffer.

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

Why not have the choice, how would it negatively effect you if others could install what they want?

nO I wAnT OtHeRs noT BeinG AbLe tO InsTaLL AnYtHiNg!!!!1111!!!

 

[ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT]

How does more stores work on a closed platform under control of a single entity?

Let’s say hypothetically PlayStation is opened up. What’s Sony’s cut of the sales from third party stores? Zero? We’re bypassing the sole hardware maker who uses those royalties to fund new games and hardware?

I don’t see how this doesn’t negatively affect the console business, in the long run.

The same way Microsoft isn't negatively impacted by opening windows to Steam, Epic, Uplay, GOG etc.

BuT nViDiA pAyS foR R&D oN Pc, WhY iS StEaM aLlOwEd tO exIsT tHeN, ThIs WilL eLimInAtE AAA GaMeS anD VeNuS WiLL CoLliDe WiTh ThE SuN, I dO NoT nEeD a FukinG saUse fOr DiS!11!.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I think Apple's case is reasonable. It's their store, if you don't like it, don't sell there. 30% cut is legit.

 

[SportsFan581]

IDK, look at MS's shift.

They are not included in this case, but that's not to say it won't open up a floodgate if said case law is established with "device maker making their own storefront walled garden."

That's what I think people forget about these things, give them an inch and they'll push for another one.

 

[SportsFan581]

Imagine you build a mall and use a business model based on comission. The mall owner spends money developing it, building roads and parking lots so customers can come in and promoting it and basically building a brand out if it. Businesses start coming in and some of them have huge success. A few years later one of those business decides the comission is too high and proceeds to build another mall next to the first one but it doesn't have AC nor bathrooms. In exchange, businesses have to pay less comission to them. However, the lack of facilities are not attractive to customers so they keep going to the first mall. Also, the owner of the second mall is kind of a dick.

Almost seems like it would be more a case of building the new mall right inside the old one. I don't really have anything against Epic or the owners or unreal or any of that, but the way they have tried to make themselves seem altruistic in this endeavor always makes me laugh. They want access the customers but don't want to pay the fees, when they themselves operate a store that charges developers a fee for utilizing the infrastructure they provide.

 

[Pelta88]

IDK, look at MS's shift.

They are not included in this case, but that's not to say it won't open up a floodgate if said case law is established with "device maker making their own storefront walled garden."

They have almost as many documents submitted during the course of the trail as EPIC. Microsoft were heavily invested, GP stood to gain more than EPIC if they could subvert Apple's fees.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They have almost as many documents submitted during the course of the trail as EPIC. Microsoft were heavily invested, GP stood to gain more than EPIC if they could subvert Apple's fees.

I meant consoles aren't included, but it will open up the floodgates, yes. MS wants their service on everything, even better for them with no walled gardens. The long game.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Epic struck a deal with Deep Silver to remove the game from Steam and make it Epic exclusive. Something the developers didn’t even know was going to happen.

Yes for ONE game, which they later said was a mistake!

Since then Epic has blocked numerous games from appearing elsewhere via timed exclusivity. Instead of competing on prices and services which are nonexistent they chose to play the console tactic of locking games to their store.

Are you really THAT blinded by your own egoistical view that you ignore basic economics and market functions?

1. Developer/Publisher has a product to sell.
2. They offer said product to different shops.
3. Shop A offers them $1 Million, Shop B offers them $2 Million.
4. Dev/Pub sells product to Shop B!

2 shops competed, the highest bidder won - that is exactly how competion works!
Why should a Dev/Pub act against their own interest by selling for less? Just so YOU can play the game on your favorite launcher? Are you really that insane?
What exactly stopped Valve with their infinite resources from offering the Dev/Pub the same or more money than Epic does?

They’re paying the price for doing so, because the PC gaming community isn’t tolerating their bullshit
That’s as far as I’m going to with this. You’re must not play on PC or barely use the platform if you’re that oblivious to what’s been happening.

The "PC Gaming Community" isnt just one community with the cultish groupthink mentality that you display - its many different ones.
Not everyone is giving a fuck about your crusade against Epic, some just want to play games and I have been playing PC games since the time when you were still shitting the diaper.
I didnt need Steam, EGS or any other launcher to enjoy my games back then. And when I have the choice I buy at GOG!

Wolffire game’s lawsuit is a joke and was already dismissed once. It will go nowhere. They’re a no name developer who’s made nothing of note trying to get free Steam keys to sell on their own website without giving Valve a cut - yet they want to use Steam’s services and features.

Oh? Well, you better go tell the court then that they are wrong and It is all a joke! Cause Mr. SmokedMeat Judge and Jury in one said so!

If Steam’s so bad then put your games on other launchers. Sell your game via your own website. Sell the game on Epic!! No one wants their garbage games.

I sell my games on Steam becasue I have no other choice - ignoring market realities is a surefire way to go bankrupt.
If Epic offers us some insane amount of money we cant say no to then we go with them - it is as simple as that.
Unlike you Devs/Pubs cannot afford some insane dogamtic view on reality.

If no one wants Epic´s garbage games, how do you explain that:

Player spending on Epic Games Store reached $820m in 2022

Epic Games has released updated facts and figures from its growing PC marketplace, and given some insight into what dev…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Yeah I know, those arent REAL PC gamers, cause REAL PC gamers only buy on Steam!

 

[Barakov]

This is like Dr. Doom vs Thanos. The hope is they beat each black and blue and they still in their own lane for a while.

 

[Kdad]

Any source about this claim? Cause as far as I remember, last time I checked Steam, it is full of publishers releasing AAA games on an open ecosystem (PCs) and they don't seem to care about the fact that PCs are not closed ecosystems like consoles are.
So, provide a reputable source that agrees with your claim.

AAA on PC is supported by AAA on console

 

[SmokedMeat]

The same way Microsoft isn't negatively impacted by opening windows to Steam, Epic, Uplay, GOG etc.

You’re comparing an open platform to a closed platform. You don’t understand the difference?

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yes for ONE game, which they later said was a mistake!

I’m just going to stop right here, because this is a lie.

 

[Hudo]

This doesn't say what you claimed though. Nobody here said consoles shouldn't exist. We said they should be forced to allow more stores in them. Did the witcher 3 developer say that they wouldn't exist if playstation 4 allowed more stores in its ecosystem to exist? I don't think so.

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose a Steam key for Memories of a Vagabond as your name? I feel a connection.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

I’m just going to stop right here, because this is a lie.

Yeah of course you´re stopping, because you cant name another game that was for preorder on Steam that Epic took off!
Instead you will name all the games that released on EGS first and Steam later as examples where Epic blocked games for you because you had to wait a year!

But the reality is: They did NOT block you from buying and playing those games on your PC on release day!
It was YOU who decided that YOU didnt want to buy those games on Epic´s store - so YOU blocked yourself!
But instead of accepting the choice YOU made for yourself, you stomp your feet and blame Epic!

To me that sounds like a mental disorder! Your cognitive dissonance is so strong that no facts will convince you that it is yourself to blame here!
Admitting that would hurt your ego - so just continue having fun fighting a holy war against Epic

 

[Vox Machina]

Only a matter of time until DMA/DMCC comes for the console walled gardens.

If I own the arena you have to pay me to use it.

Poll Tax hell yeah

 

[Vox Machina]

How does more stores work on a closed platform under control of a single entity?

Let’s say hypothetically PlayStation is opened up. What’s Sony’s cut of the sales from third party stores? Zero? We’re bypassing the sole hardware maker who uses those royalties to fund new games and hardware?

I don’t see how this doesn’t negatively affect the console business, in the long run.

Protecting corporate profit margins at the expense of the consumer interest generally isn't the "in" thing to do with regulators nowadays (unless you're the FTC). If the console walled gardens are opened up then the will adapt the same way other open digital markets have.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Protecting corporate profit margins at the expense of the consumer interest generally isn't the "in" thing to do with regulators nowadays (unless you're the FTC). If the console walled gardens are opened up then the will adapt the same way other open digital markets have.

The consumer always loses. It’d just be opening up consoles for the benefit of other corporations.

 

[Vox Machina]

The consumer always loses. It’d just be opening up consoles for the benefit of other corporations.

Wrong. I happily buy games from multiple storefronts on Windows. If Windows was a closed platform I wouldn't have any choice in storefront and games would cost more and/or I'd have less access to them.

Moreover, I find the position of "We must protect Sony/Xbox/Nintendo's profit margins because the traditional console model MUST be protected" to be a very odd take. Not only do we know there is a viable alternative (PC) that gives the consumer more choice, but it's also not impossible to run a console business with an open platform either. First parties would just have to adapt and transition revenue streams from platform-owner store taxes to services. If they can't do that then someone will take their place that can. Such is the nature of capitalism.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Wrong. I happily buy games from multiple storefronts on Windows. If Windows was a closed platform I wouldn't have any choice in storefront and games would cost more and/or I'd have less access to them.

Moreover, I find the position of "We must protect Sony/Xbox/Nintendo's profit margins because the traditional console model MUST be protected" to be a very odd take. Not only do we know there is a viable alternative (PC) that gives the consumer more choice, but it's also not impossible to run a console business with an open platform either. First parties would just have to adapt and transition revenue streams from platform-owner store taxes to services. If they can't do that then someone will take their place that can. Such is the nature of capitalism.

Windows is an operating system - not a platform. Microsoft doesn’t own PC. Nobody owns it. Android is also a completely different model than consoles.

I’m not concerned with the profits from the console makers. But that lost money need to be made up somehow, and it’s always the consumer that gets it in the end.

Like, explain the bolded. What services are you referring to? Because I just don’t see a reality where Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo lose their 70% cut due to being open, and don’t take it out on the consumer.

Unless it’s a 3DO situation and they license out the hardware to other companies to make their own versions of the consoles.