[Polygon] Epic locks down more store exclusives, including Obsidian’s The Outer Worlds, Remedy’s Control - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[Polygon] Epic locks down more store exclusives, including Obsidian’s The Outer Worlds, Remedy’s Control

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 04:17 PM
Original 16-bit Genesis®
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: That gap between the couch cushion.
Posts: 1,649
Rep: 67 (Unique: 44)
Amazing that I want to play exactly zero of those titles. Good Job, Epic.
Omega X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 05:31 PM
mfw
 
ToTheSun!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Terra
Posts: 6,993
Rep: 392 (Unique: 204)
Quote: Originally Posted by UltraMega View Post
I get that you are saying it seems unwise for the epic store to be somewhat combatitve by locking down exclusives to force customers on their platform rather than lure them in but I would argue that Steam has such a strangle hold on the PC gaming market that a more subtle strategy would not work as PC gamers are especially snobby to anything that competes with Steam
That's the whole crux of the matter. You can't go "this is the issue exactly, but I'd say the end justifies the means".

Luring people in with better prices instead of paying publishers to keep their games exclusive is one simple way whereby they could have avoided the criticism. In fact, they'd probably have gotten a lot of public goodwill, not just adhesion from publishers and developers.

It's not like they can't do it - they've obviously been left to their own devices so far. But it's everything BUT "pro competition".

CPU
Intel 6700K
Motherboard
Asus Z170i
GPU
MSI 2080 Sea Hawk X
RAM
G.skill Trident Z 3200CL14 8+8
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 EVO 1TB
Hard Drive
Crucial M4 256GB
Power Supply
Corsair SF600
Cooling
Noctua NH C14S
Case
Fractal Design Core 500
Operating System
Windows 10 Education
Monitor
ViewSonic XG2703-GS
Keyboard
Ducky One 2 Mini
Mouse
Glorious Odin
Mousepad
Asus Scabbard
Audio
Fiio E17K v1.0 + Beyerdynamic DT 1990 PRO (B pads)
▲ hide details ▲
ToTheSun! is offline  
post #13 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
Graphics Junkie
 
UltraMega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 1,302
Rep: 31 (Unique: 27)
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
That's the whole crux of the matter. You can't go "this is the issue exactly, but I'd say the end justifies the means".

Luring people in with better prices instead of paying publishers to keep their games exclusive is one simple way whereby they could have avoided the criticism. In fact, they'd probably have gotten a lot of public goodwill, not just adhesion from publishers and developers.

It's not like they can't do it - they've obviously been left to their own devices so far. But it's everything BUT "pro competition".
It's very much a pro competition endeavour, but Epic is mostly competing for publishers/developers and not competing directly for customers, yet. I agree simply offering all the same games at lower prices would be a good step for the epic store, but clearly their intial strategy is more focused on attracting sellers rather than buyers. Time will tell if buyers follow.

i7 7700kK @4.2ghz
16GB DDR4 3200mhz
GeForce 1080 Ti
UltraMega is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 05:59 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Foxrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,733
Rep: 73 (Unique: 64)
Thankfully I can play dauntless directly through its own launch. Shame about the xcom clone phoenix; Id buy it if it was standalone just not through epic.

Foxrun is offline  
post #15 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 06:05 PM
Iconoclast
 
Blameless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 30,086
Rep: 3135 (Unique: 1869)
I hate mandatory distribution clients, or any thing else that prevents a game from being it's own standalone application(s). The other merits of a given platform are irrelevant if it's mandatory and I don't want it.

Anyway, the only way to sell a model like this is with exclusives. If it's available elsewhere, few people are going to want to use a storefront application. The one positive of all major publishers wanting their own incarnation of Steam is that more people might realize how absurd and anti-consumer the Steam model is.

Of course, I'm not really holding out for another video game crash, and don't expect publishers to give up their mandatory store client apps, nor most developers to give up their publishers, but I'll have no part of it. I'll wind up a luddite before I support such a model/ecosystem.

...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
Blameless is offline  
post #16 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 06:22 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
thegreatsquare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 4,299
Rep: 319 (Unique: 272)
Steam needs to crack down on studios and publishers dine and dashing for free advertising in their store. I really don't see the point of continued PC gaming in the currently fracturing environment. I think I will get a console or two first this time around and if the situation improves then it's a Ryzen 4000 8/10 core, 32GB DDR5 and whatever the adequate AMD GPU is. If it doesn't improve, then all I need in 2022 is a $600-800 budget gaming laptop for an aging game library with an absurd amount of backlog.

Can anyone explain to me why MSI needs our laptops back on top of the wholesale price they're already more or less recouping from us with their GT72(s)/GT80(s) trade in program? MSI isn't a company you can trust!
thegreatsquare is offline  
post #17 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 08:50 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Avonosac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 2,957
Rep: 158 (Unique: 114)
Quote: Originally Posted by UltraMega View Post
A bit wordy but..
Spoiler!
Yea.. it's somewhat wordy because there's a whole lot of subtle reasons why this is a very bad thing for consumer's. There is no reason to look for precedent in this niche to understand how the strategy of a platform company plays out in the myriad other platform economy precedent, games are no different than any other platform - full stop.

Creating walled gardens, which any platform exclusive title does by definition, is anti-competitive - full stop.

Steam doesn't really have unreasonably high fees, they just want better margins and out of complete ignorance of the actual complexity, difficulty, and cost of running this kind of platform. They also don't really bear much of the risk of trying, you do. While they learn how wrong they are, you suffer preventable and easily avoidable pain.

I really don't think you did get what I was saying, because the message you seemed to receive was they are going about it wrong from a platform perspective. I was pointing out exactly how all of the rhetoric is awful for you as a consumer regardless - so you shouldn't support this activity. Content creators being in charge of distribution always with plenty of precedent results in consumer abuse. Simply put, did you use Ubisoft's awful required store and downloader for the past 5 years?

Look, reread what I wrote. I tried to organize it somewhat in stages but its clear at this point you're also only seeing the top of the ice berg and dismissing the stuff I'm saying is below the surface. Fine, but digital distribution is a LOT harder of a problem than you think it is, I lived through the creation of steam and the years it took for them to grow the clients and architecture to at least a palatable solution, and now I know intricately how hard they are to build. A collection of walled gardens screws the customer, and will definitely lead to situations where the competing gardens are literally battling each other with your resources on the battlefield of your computer.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
Spoiler!
Yep, its not competitive - 100%.

Quote: Originally Posted by UltraMega View Post
Spoiler!
Yes they want developers, the way you do that is to bring a market developers want to address, or offer a solution to a problem developers have. They aren't doing either, they are trapping customers with exclusive titles to create the illusion of a market to attract developers. If they were competing it would be on prices and features, not back room deals - even if it's just with themselves.



Last edited by Avonosac; 03-21-2019 at 08:53 PM.
Avonosac is offline  
post #18 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 11:21 PM - Thread Starter
Graphics Junkie
 
UltraMega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 1,302
Rep: 31 (Unique: 27)
Quote: Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post
Yea.. it's somewhat wordy because there's a whole lot of subtle reasons why this is a very bad thing for consumer's. There is no reason to look for precedent in this niche to understand how the strategy of a platform company plays out in the myriad other platform economy precedent, games are no different than any other platform - full stop.

Creating walled gardens, which any platform exclusive title does by definition, is anti-competitive - full stop.

Steam doesn't really have unreasonably high fees, they just want better margins and out of complete ignorance of the actual complexity, difficulty, and cost of running this kind of platform. They also don't really bear much of the risk of trying, you do. While they learn how wrong they are, you suffer preventable and easily avoidable pain.

I really don't think you did get what I was saying, because the message you seemed to receive was they are going about it wrong from a platform perspective. I was pointing out exactly how all of the rhetoric is awful for you as a consumer regardless - so you shouldn't support this activity. Content creators being in charge of distribution always with plenty of precedent results in consumer abuse. Simply put, did you use Ubisoft's awful required store and downloader for the past 5 years?

Look, reread what I wrote. I tried to organize it somewhat in stages but its clear at this point you're also only seeing the top of the ice berg and dismissing the stuff I'm saying is below the surface. Fine, but digital distribution is a LOT harder of a problem than you think it is, I lived through the creation of steam and the years it took for them to grow the clients and architecture to at least a palatable solution, and now I know intricately how hard they are to build. A collection of walled gardens screws the customer, and will definitely lead to situations where the competing gardens are literally battling each other with your resources on the battlefield of your computer.



Yep, its not competitive - 100%.


Yes they want developers, the way you do that is to bring a market developers want to address, or offer a solution to a problem developers have. They aren't doing either, they are trapping customers with exclusive titles to create the illusion of a market to attract developers. If they were competing it would be on prices and features, not back room deals - even if it's just with themselves.
I actually like Uplay quite a bit. I am of the mindset that I like competition to Steam, so as long as it works well, I like it. Uplay works really well, its very simple. Seems lightweight compared to Steam. Origin is ok but it doesn't scale right in 4K yet for me, though Steam lagged on 4K scaling support for a really long time as well. I don't think I ever had any issues with Uplay at all.

"will definitely lead to situations where the competing gardens are literally battling each other with your resources on the battlefield of your computer" - I really don't think its nearly as dramatics as you've made it sound here. They will be competing in the same way two or more gas stations at the same intersection are. I'd hardly call that a "battlefield."

I do understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. You have some good points that are definitely well thought out and you may be right, but IMO Steam is as much a walled garden as anything in this market, it's just a very comfortable walled garden at this point. Valve doesn't put their games up anywhere else. They made Steam to get the same amount of direct to consumer access that other companies are now trying to get for themselves.

To me it seem like you are looking at the Epic store from a very nagative light and it's affected your objectivity on this, because while your thoughts are definitely very well thought out, they don't seem to take into acount any of the growing pains that Steam iteslf went through and that forces your argument to boil down to... Steam did it first and no one else is entitled to try, because if they have to go through any of the same kinds of growing pains it's just not acceptable now that Steam has already gotten so many things right. No one else is entitled to take a similar approach to what Valve did with Steam because Steam got their first.


I'm not trying to belittle your point, I know your saying a lot more than that, but without writting huge essays on the topic here, I don't think your looking at the whole picture. I do think there is a lot of upside to consumers that will manifest over time if the Epic store makes it out if the rocky beginning phase, which I have no doubt it will. Developers/publishers will want people to use the Epic store so they can make more money, and if developers feel less pinched for cash all the time they might start making some new IPs more often instead of playing it safe all the time with Call of Duty 15 coming out soon. A sinical person can say they will just pocket the cash and the consumer will never know the difference, but that's definitely not the case because this industry is far too competitive. Game developers put major effort into their games, and major money. If they can get more money to fule their future product, you can be damn sure they're going to use it to the best of their ability if they want to stay competitive.


I also don't really agree with your premise that the Epic store is doing anything significantly bad for consumers here. The only real issue is that some consumers might have to begrudgingly use the Epic store for certian games. You can analyze that deeply and I get that your job is to do exactly that but to the average consumer the equation is pretty simple. Steam is a lot more fleshed out but again, that's not a big deal to most people. The major issue here is just that people are bothered by having to install another program. I think this marks the end of the days where most major AAA titles release on Steam. With Uplay, Origin, and now this, gamers are just going to have to start buying games in more places if they want to play a variety of AAA titles.


I would argue that Orrgin is by far the worst of the major digital stores, and really it still works fine for buying and playing games. Even the worst of them suddenly is an after thought to most people as soon as a game they want to play is out, hence APEX.

I also do not agree with you when you say Steam's fee's are unreasonable. I think 30% is too high for a digital store. Yes they certainly have costs, but not nearly enough to justify 30% fees. Valve us just getting richer and richer and we all know it. Maybe if Valve was doing anything to reinvest their profits into something meaningful for PC gamers beyond a few small projects here and there it would be reasonable, but all they are really doing is maintaining and updating Steam. Thats not worth 30%. If the problem developers have is the 30% than as you suggested the Epic store should do, they have offered a solution.

i7 7700kK @4.2ghz
16GB DDR4 3200mhz
GeForce 1080 Ti

Last edited by UltraMega; 03-21-2019 at 11:39 PM.
UltraMega is offline  
post #19 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-21-2019, 11:42 PM
Overclocker
 
JackCY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,004
Rep: 339 (Unique: 240)
JackCY is offline  
post #20 of 157 (permalink) Old 03-22-2019, 12:03 AM - Thread Starter
Graphics Junkie
 
UltraMega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 1,302
Rep: 31 (Unique: 27)
Quote: Originally Posted by JackCY View Post
Exclusives are bad for customers.
I feel the word "exclusives" is being used pretty loosely here. All of these games are PC games, everyone has the same amount of access to them. It's not like this is Super Smash Bros and you can only get it on Nintendo.

But sure, exclusives that customers have equal access to and are the same price in both places are bad for customers...

Or are customers just being unreasonable by expecting to only ever have to shop at one store?

As the guy who made a long argument about this said when I pointed out that there really isn't any precedent for anything like this in this market, he said there was no reason to think of this market any differently. Fine, lets go with that.
Do you think it would be unreasonable if you could only buy milk from one grocery store and no other stores would sell milk? We shop for just about everything we buy from all kinds of store, and lots of stores try to get exclusivity deals with certain brands. The Epic store isn't doing anything that isn't done all the time all over the place all throughout our consumer lives.

Also, get this... if games being on only one digital store makes them an "exclusive", then Steam has about 99.5% of the PC "exclusives" in the whole PC market instantly making Steam by far the worst offender with your logic.

Steam has a monopoly because PC gamers want it to be that way because they're so insulted by the idea of having to use more than one store and that's why this shift has to be pushed onto people.

i7 7700kK @4.2ghz
16GB DDR4 3200mhz
GeForce 1080 Ti

Last edited by UltraMega; 03-22-2019 at 12:17 AM.
UltraMega is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off