Will you start buying games on places other than steam?
and neither of those stores offered better prices or refund policies to their customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rage 2 kinda looks fun. I wonder if that game flops on PC, if they will go back to Steam or double down with Doom 2.
Starfield might change some people's minds whenever we see that. But Elder Scrolls 6 will for sure interest people but that is a long times away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just Cause 4 is quite a disaster, so 50/50 Rage2 will be another one - mostly depends who will do beta/quality-testing, Doom-team or Fallout76 team :D
Comment has been collapsed.
In the past 2 years Bethesda's got Prey, Doom, the Evil Within 2, Dishonored: DotO, and Wolfenstein 2. Regardless of my own personal opinion, I'd still call all of them pretty good games, although I don't usually think "Bethesda put that out" when I think of any of them really. Still, they'd likely be published exclusively on Bethesda's launcher if they were to release in the future.
EA's pretty much only got Titanfall 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, and A Way Out within a more generous 5 years since they lean way too hard into their annual franchises. Titanfall 2 and Mass Effect 3 remain the only reasons I have Origin.
Comment has been collapsed.
A Way Out was a really, really, really great Co-Op experience. We enjoyed that game tremendously
Comment has been collapsed.
Prices on steam tend to be higher than other places so I tend to buy from other stores already. Nothing new for me. More competition hopefully will drive prices down for quality titles. I suspect at some stage later, the games will end up on steam due to numbers of people on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think prices will change sadly. Would love that to be the case but I doubt it.
But maybe they could start doing some reward programs or 5% back or something to make us want to buy there.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're probably right about the price but the more places you can get games from, the more harder steam will have to work to keep its customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except they seem more interested in getting you to the store by getting exclusives not by actually making a better store or a better client or anything that would benefit you as a customer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Prices are set by the Publishers not Valve. The publishers will ultimately get the customers wherever they choose to sell the game. It'd the publishers not the customers that Valve needs to try and keep.
Comment has been collapsed.
Though there is that revenue split equation to take in consideration...Steam does keep...what was it...30% of revenue from sale? 20% for all sales past the first 50 millions?
Whereas Epic's mentioned they keep 12% of the revenue from sales...Definitely an argument for publishers and developers...
Sure, Steam is enticing us with bigger deals more often than not, and has been the leader in VirtualStore since...its birth?...but yeah...strange market places to be....
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, Steam keeping 30% while retail stores keep up-to-70% didn't really made publisher sell games on Steam for 40% less than in Gamestops...
Comment has been collapsed.
If I calculated it right, provided that publisher would want to keep their cut the same, Steam sale would be not -40% but -57%.
Calculation: let's say publisher cut is X. If store gets 30% and publsher gets 70% - full price is 100/70=1.42x. If store gets 70% and publisher 30%, full price is 100/30=3.33x. (3.33-1.42)/3.33=0.57.
Jeez I hope I got it right, I am not very good at math. Oh, and sorry for being a nerd with unrequested corrections.
Comment has been collapsed.
No worries, it's not like I really done any real math - especially since I think my point was
everyone sells game for $60 and gets $20 from Gamestop and $40 from Steam, nobody sells them for $60 in store and $35 on Steam while still getting more than from retail (sales excluded, but then as we can see, those -40% and -50% sales is where we're getting to the point where publisher is only selling it for same amount of profit as in retail...).
Comment has been collapsed.
30%, yes, but with lot of features/tools for publishers/devs.
Like free key generation, newsfeed, groups, forums, steamworks, community market combined with cards (extra revenue), achievement system...
Epic is 12% for... nothing ?
And 30% is the usual rate. Appstore and Playstore, for example, are keeping 30% too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think prices will go down, but I think quality might go up. Valve won't be able to leave rather serious bugs unfixed for years when they've got serious competition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe finally steam will get its act together and we'll have a number of platforms that will actually compete with each other to our benefit. :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's not up to Valve to fix others games. I doubt developers will suddenly start caring more about fixing their games when they didn't before. Unless you're talking about store bugs, but that also won't improve the quality of games just of the store.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking about bugs & issues with the store, client & community related things. Like why does steam need to load older & unused things into memory (that can be accessed when you find some glitch)? The last chat interface is for an example loaded into memory alongside the new one, causing it to take up more memory than it should. In fact, it seems like elements for the even older interface (from back when steam was green) gets loaded into memory, but not shown, as there are ways to get steam to display them. This kind of bloat is unacceptable at the best of times, but when you're also expected to run something system demanding, like a game, alongside it....
I do think Valve should not release games that are broken beyond belief, and I do think Valve should not sell them. But that was not what I was referring to, I was referring to how poorly made a lot of things with Steam seems to be. It's like they're just building things on top of each other, never removing old things.
How long did it take for Valve to fix the issue with steam eating messages you send to someone who's offline?
Comment has been collapsed.
"I do think Valve should not release games that are broken beyond belief, and I do think Valve should not sell them."
Unfortunate Valve doesn't get to choose when a title will get released that is the game's Publishers/Developers choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's Valve's platform, so they can chose to deny games that are too broken, or at least force developers to not release broken games in the future by forcing future games to be checked before they are allowed on the storefront, if one of their games end up being too buggy. Also, Valve did in the past regularly deny games that did not meet their quality standards, which were actually quite strict.
That was not the main point of my post though, the main point is that Valve just leaves serious bugs unfixed for years, because due to a lack of competition, they've really not had to spend resources on fixing these things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic Games Store won't allow keys and won't be featuring regular discounts, prices aren't going down, they're going up.
In Epics words, they'll be replacing discounts with exposure, which I take as rotating full priced games in front page.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or that competition will cause Valve to make necessary changes. Such as Epic Games gives developers a higher % cut of the sales than Steam does, so it wouldn't hurt Valve to personally take a cut on how much money they get from sales if they want to keep their business. Taking 80% and only leaving 20% to the developers is ridiculous. I'd also love Steam to lose the DRM but unfortunately I think that's just a pipe dream.
Comment has been collapsed.
80%?! No, that seems wrong. I thought they only keep like 30%
Comment has been collapsed.
Difference is, as a dev you can sell Steam keys anywhere you want.
Epic (at least so far) doesn't generate keys, if you're Epic exclusive then you're in real monopoly (which, somehow, I'm sure devs love).
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer everything on steam, already have a lot of games there, don-t like having multiple launchers just to play some games
Comment has been collapsed.
I completely agree with this. If I could, I'd rather just have everything on one client and for it to be a hub for my games. It gets annoying to have to open each client to launch a different game.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can just use this: https://playnite.link/
It combines all your gaming libraries in one place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't that still launch the clients for the games that require it? So you'd still need to have multiple launchers and multiple accounts.
Comment has been collapsed.
At this point that's a bit of a crap argument as you're gonna need multiple accounts regardless as even games that don't have another client often use various accounts (Stardock games, Shift for Borderlands). The point of this software isn't to negate the need for the clients but to allow you to see your entire library within a single client.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ofc. Even games solely on steam now require you to login in. This is only about reducing the amount of clicks you need to launch a game, since it's the main complain nowadays. People have become too lazy to click more than 3 times to start a game, so it does that in a single click.
Comment has been collapsed.
not gonna add another program to launch games, sorry
Comment has been collapsed.
This is what I need without knowing I needed it. It includes Emulators!!! All my games in one place.
Thank you very much.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me it’s really just a mild annoyance not having a game on Steam. And that’s less on Steam and more “I like having everything in one place.” If it’s a game I’m interested in playing, it doesn’t terribly matter where I buy it from, I still want to play it. I just tend not to leave other launchers pen in the background, so once a month or so I need to go and update all my launchers/ less frequently played games.
What concerns me is crossplay. I think having the same games on multiple stores is great (if potentially tedious to keep track of) but if there’s no way to play with people on other platforms, that can be annoying too. I suppose that’s more with the developer than the platform? But I could see it being an issue where Steam players can’t lobby up with Epic or something and that could really limit adoption.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, as far as I know there is really no problem with making servers available on all platforms. Steam has that feature that shows server list for a game and which server your friend is playing, but as far as I heard (i may be wrong) developers can manipulate it any way they want. And even if they don't, it's not mandatory to use that system. So it's purely developer choice if servers are split.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think Bethesda releasing FO76 on their own client is to prevent the negative steam reviews xD Destiny 2 wasnt that big either and COD BO4 would only be worth it if you are going for Blackout but thats by far not worth 60 dollars so i dont care that these games arent on steam. Then again, i might have bought them on sale if they were on steam. I do think that steam has noticed this though since they are going to take less of the profits for big sellers. Kitguru recently had an article on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although I don't like having a bunch of accounts and launchers, competition is good overall. I don't know how good sales are on those other platforms though
Comment has been collapsed.
Only Valve supports Linux. Linux users will be with steam at any case.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, Epic plans to add support for 'Android and other open platforms' next year. Hopefully linux will be one of those platforms...
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. Origin, Battlenet, etc, don't exist for me because they don't support Linux.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. All 0.8% of them. It is a wonder why other platforms aren't putting resources into catering this gigantic potential user base. Like when many of them dropped Mac support/ports and their sales went down by absolutely nothing, despite those people having four times the numbers as Linux gamers. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The 0.8% of 15 millions isnt exactly a small number..
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, 120000. A mid-ranged indie game's numbers. AAA studios expect usually 400-1000k sales on PC for a game, if not more, in the long run. (Unless they are delusional idiots and think everything will be a new Doom 4 and sells over 2 million on PC alone. Granted, delusional idiots are rather commonplace in video game middle to upper management.)
And that 120 thousand users would have to share the exact same taste for that to work. I somehow doubt all Linux users equally enjoy a mindless shooter or a turn-based strategy, along with 3D platformers or open-world fuckaroundery games.
Oh, and they would have to buy every single Linux port still to even make publishers believe they are an actual user base.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the market is really limited at the moment as only gog and steam supports linux. If you also add the fact that AAA games are selling more than indies and gog lacks them, if origin or ubi or epic supports linux the only competitor will be steam. Steam is losing a lot of AAA games nowadays so the company that will support linux will have the upper hand on that market.
I am pretty sure epic will support linux pretty soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
The market is limited because the audience is beyond niché. Less than 1% is the kind of audience only luxury products cater for in real life, but Linux is anything but luxury (literally the opposite). Indies support them, because for them it is less of a deal to make a Linux executable, especially since quite a few of them use Linux to code the thing in the first place.
However, when AAA games are aiming for multiplatform for consoles and one of the largest ones is already Windows 10 based, then compiling for Linux suddenly turns into an endeavour that may not even bring back the money it cost to compile the game.
No, this is a situation Linux has to solve, not the gaming companies. Valve seems to have a few good ideas with their new implementation. But as long as the drivers are so great that only a few Source games can say they are not losing 20-50% of the performance, I think they have to sort that out first.
Simply put, the Linux kernel was not made to play games. Neither was OS X/macOS (which was a bastardised Unix in the first place anyway). It is made to be stable as fuck and ensure that your work software works. This is why it is pretty much the only choice for industrial applications. But Microsoft has always been the company who worked the most to make their operating systems gaming-friendly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic Games Store also is being very competitive and it is starting to a lot of exclusive games on it's service.
That isn't competitive. That's exclusivity bullshit.
If they want me, they should offer a substantially better service than Steam. Otherwise, fuck them.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was really smart of them from a business perspective (JOURNEY??? WHAT??).
I would love to avoid Epic Game launcher as much as possible, but there may come a day when all of our games are on that.
Also, this also means Steam has to step their game up a bit. We will probably see Steam releasing more exclusive products as well here soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
We will probably see Steam releasing more exclusive products as well here soon.
I doubt it. Valve seems to be against exclusives. They offer developers free Steam keys for games sold on other platforms. They also didn't get into exclusives with Vive.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it is somewhat competitive when it comes to attracting developers, seeing as their cut is significantly less than Steam's. As far as attracting customers, I guess only time will tell.
Comment has been collapsed.
That lower cut won't help them much, if they sell significantly less than they would on Steam.
If they sell ~80% of what they would on Steam, then the profits would be the same, but I doubt they would be able to reach that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic Games Store also is being very competitive and it is starting to a lot of exclusive games on it's service.
The competitiveness and exclusivity are two independent statements.
Comment has been collapsed.
The golden days of PC gaming are over:
- very high hardware prices
- almost every publisher using their own shitty clone of steam
- thousands of shitty indie games that wouldn't even pass as free flash games
- hundreds of unfinished early access games
- lots of promising games ending up being very buggy and/or mediocre
- season passes, cut out content, preorder only content
the only reason I'm not buying a console is that I would need to buy a decent 4k televison too and those are at least 3-4 times more expensive than the console itself
Comment has been collapsed.
totally agree, but overall like there is more good games than before even with all this shit
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see what season passes has to do with pc gaming in specific. It's a general problem, you won't get away from it for switching to console. Same thing for promising games. I guess pc has more because of banked indies but the same happens on the console(like the recent fallout games).
I wouldn't say pc gaming is over, it needs change definitely but it won't get away any time soon.
Also, almost every publisher? That's quite an exaggeration. Only the big titles :p
Comment has been collapsed.
This accurately represents the mid to early 80s, the early 90s, and the mid-2000s as well, if we substitute "clients" with "anti-piracy/DRM solutions".
Heck, want to know something better? In the late 70s to early 80s, it wasn't clients that popped up everywhere but dedicated hardware. How does it sound to get another 300-dollar gadget to play a specific game, when there are over a dozen of them on the market?
The only difference between those ares and now is that Steam puts the shit more up to the forefront and gaming is much more of a large business and acts closer to megacorp levels instead of mid-size ones.
But people are either too young to actually know that the gaming scene barely ever changed since the 70s or just don't care to know about history.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont think that the hardware prices are high, actually i think they are at the lowest of all time. A six core cpu for 160 bucks and mid-range gpus for around 200 bucks would sound like a joke a few years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
gonna get all my games on steam, i don't like the idea of installing extra clients for each publisher/developer/game. the only exception is blizzard, because of diablo 3.
i got tired of supporting these greedy companies moving to their own places because they don't want to give valve a cut, then making excuses like "this platform is more customer friendly! we made this client for you!! now you can play in a very nice and pleasant way ^^!!!".
nah, stop lying. some us of aren't complete fools.
the thing is, games will cost the same for us. they won't drop the $60 price tag on new releases because they didn't plan on lowering numbers, they only want to maximize profits while treating us like idiots that need to install multiple clients to play their games.
and they will do all this without even offering 10% of what steam is. chat, groups, inventory, forums, features (like deleting licenses), events, freebies, store catalog size, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
what if, in a year, you find another diablo 3, not on steam?
edit: such a lovely avatar, also
Comment has been collapsed.
Not wanting to give Valve up to a third of their profits is greed?
I get liking Steam over other choices, and doubt I'd touch most of those clients (more likely to get the console versions over dealing with UPlay for example), but I won't blame other companies for choosing to keep that money for themselves. That isn't a small amount of cash they would be losing to Valve, and a working client can cost a whole lot less.
Comment has been collapsed.
they call valve greedy for taking a 10-30% cut, i call devs greedy for moving to their platform and keep the same prices while earning much more.
good for developers to make more money, while people will pay the same.
i see no incentive to "support" them.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way I see it is if a game is going to make hundreds of millions of dollars, I'd rather spend thousands on a client than tens of millions on Valve.
It is fine to prefer Steam and refuse to use other clients. But doesn't mean all companies will just keep giving millions to Valve for their own work. That money might potentially be put to better use on new games rather than whatever Valve now spends money on. It is understandable companies are looking at developing their own clients.
Comment has been collapsed.
like i said, they don't give me any incentive to use their platform. i don't care how valve or devs spend their money.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. If the extra money made is going to get reinvested and more games made/produced then I am all for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That money might potentially be put to better use on new games
Like Diablo Immortal?
Comment has been collapsed.
I did say might. Something like that one, wouldn't be surprised if they were being paid for the license to it instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if it was about indie developers who in general don't make much money at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect that developers choose other platforms because their terms are not entirely transparent and without bias. Because companies which own platforms have exclusive control, sales can be easily manipulated and any product can be adjusted to become bestseller/worstseller even when it is not. I have personally witnessed that many platforms duplicate your products which you put on digital sale and underreport or don't report sales to indie creators of digital content.
So developers are not greedy, they are just looking out for options. It is established from the fact that most developers which are capable of making their own platforms will not be hesitant in giving away their products for free like Epic Games is doing right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
You would think Valve makes enough money off the constant user trades of fake items to lower the cut they take to be more competitive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure whether this is as sarcastic as always (and I love it!) or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
chat, groups, inventory, forums, features
Don't care much about that.
games will cost the same for us
And this is only reason why I bought Witcher 3 on GOG - it was a lot cheaper than on steam maybe even 30% but I don't remember:) They also got freebies :)
Not to mention lack of annoying drm's.
For now I have new games on steam only because steamgifts and bundles and profitz ofc
the only exception is blizzard, because of diablo 3
And Origin for dragons age inquisition, me3
And U-play for don't really know what.. anyway - we are witnessing the start of a new chapter in "exclusives" era.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand people from "regional pricing areas", but I'm in Southeastern Europe, and we have EUR prices (more often than not =USD, while EUR is stronger so we pay more) on both Steam and HumbleBundle so... when someone tells me I'll be paying in USD then adds a huge discount I feel like steam added a new region for me :P
So yeah, bought games from developers directly before I started using "anything", then Steam, D2D, Gamergate, HiB, Indieroayale, Indiegala, GOG, Groupees, Greenmangaming, Blizzard, Origin, Ubisoft, and even some smaller outlets I don't remember anymore like Gamivo, Voidu, and so on. Honestly, I don't mind haveing Epic account and installing the launcher if needed.
It's interesting that Activision and Bethesda were always two largest 3rd party publishers who evangelized Steam (both Skyrim and Civilization V required users to have a Steam acc) and now first to leave.
Is it smart? Maybe if they calculated the costs well. If they made a mistake... well...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, its strange that Activision released their games on their service that existed before Steam
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the trend all over with broadcast companies moving away from Netflix and such to make their own subscription services. The consumers are left with the inconvenience of either multiple streaming subscriptions so they don't lose their desired programming and shows, or having to use multiple PC platforms and DRM and launchers.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a great comparison. I never thought about it like that. :o
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam's main advantage is "just about everything in one place" and the one thing that is closest to rivaling it is GOG; most company-ran things rarely work as they like Ubi either cave and come back to steam or like say EA fail to bring many players over.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't forget humble bundles as one of steam's advantage.
Make your library huge for really cheap, which in turn make it difficult to leave the platform since you are so invested in it already
Comment has been collapsed.
I think competition is good, but it's getting out of hand with every publisher now wanting their own store and launcher. I will never again buy a game from a publisher's own store. Publishers will always be looking out for themselves and their profits. Independent stores not owned by publishers will be looking out for the customers.
Epic could be an alternative competitor to Steam. Like Steam it is founded by a developer, not a publisher. However, so far they seem to be focusing on attract game developers to their platform. They've published their cut of sales like "look at us, we're better than Steam because our cut is less." That's good for publishers and developers, but what are they doing for me, the consumer?
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that this is quite absurd. Just think of food producers getting the same idea... and they lose far, far more than 30% in the process. Me as a consumer will always prefer my nearby, familiar store to buy all the groceries instead of hunting down every producer's private outlet to buy my favourite products. If they pull them from "my" store, I will just have to develop a taste for whatever alternatives are available there, simple as that.
I agree with some of the opinions that it's driven by greed more than anything else. I'm all for making shitload of money, but just take a look at game retailing: a boxed, physical game costs $30 (and sometimes less) and that same game delivered on-line costs $30. With Valve taking 30% cut they at least had some excuse, but what's the excuse for selling that very same game for $30 at their own store or at epic store? It all boils down to a green-eyed monster not wanting to give Valve the cut for creating and maintaining a very successful store. Nothing about the consumer experience, at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
My general interest in gaming lies more towards indie games. I have significant doubts that games that I played and enjoyed would get to a store if they had some kind of handpicking process maintained by a small group of people. As such as long as other stores don't get close to the more open system of Steam there are slim chances I will install additional clients. I can live very well without AAA games. I think the one AAA developer I have most often in my library is Capcom.
There is a lot of stuff on Steam I'm not interested in and also stuff I don't think should be there. I also wish they would put some more effort in the achivement system (like penalizing SAM user by sending them a ball-kicking unicorn or forcing developers to look after their broken achievements). But I prefer having some things I don't like if it means I further get interesting games in the store.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah this pretty much sums up how I feel about it. I love a lot of strange little indie games, and I just don't think I would have discovered them if it weren't for steam (and bundles). And any rival to steam is going to have to match or exceed the ease and freedom with which a developer can add a game and distribute it if they want to make a serious dent. The other game launchers so far are just for a few exclusives and 'bigger' third party indies. Much like you my favourite publishers are still on steam, being square enix and warner bros, so I have yet to find an urgent need to look at anything on the other launchers or buy into them.
And as much as I wish steam would pay more attention to their achievement system, at this point they are the only ones with an achievement API and the ability to log progress outside of their platform. I love sites like completionist and BLAEO and they just don't work on the other systems.
If Epic had a more open platform, they might be the first to actually rival steam, but they'll have a long way to go to rival the volume of games available or other features.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely. Some of my favorite Steam games, like One Way Heroics, Copy Kitty, and, y'know, Undertale would almost certainly have been denied access to a curated storefront. As much as I feel for developers who get undeservedly overlooked and hope for a continued push to highlight interesting underdogs and increase discoverability (go check out Herald!), the problem isn't that there's too many bad games, there's too many good ones. I don't think being gated off exclusively in yet another client will help that.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only other store/client I use is Blizzard/Battle.net. Any other game I can probably do without, considering my backlog.
That being said if it ever became really necessary, like all Dragon Quest / Final Fantasy games were suddenly only on a SqEnix store, I'd probably do it. There just aren't any other must-haves for me on other stores as of yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll probably buy the games I want if they're only imprisoned elsewhere, but the only store I'm willing to pay double digit $ is GOG. Or, hell, even high single digit $. Large library and patience make it easy to wait till the next big blockbuster is $5.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish they would make it optional for people. If they want retail and third party key sites to sell for their client only, fine. But, still have a Steam version, and not the Ubi way, where it forces both launchers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like the majority, I too prefer to stick to Steam. Unless there's really something I desparately want to play and it's not available on Steam.
Never stop a running system, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
i must they have been doing a piss poor job of enticing me to try their services, freebies of old games are really no that interesting.
Epic seems to have catch up with that, they already have a former console exclusive to show off. But then again, its an oldie.
Really the main reason i buy steam games and steam keys its because they have their prices catered to my region, i can buy a 10-20$ game no problem every now and then, but a 60$ its half my rent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Activision should stop selling games if they hate the word "sale", so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Satisfactory was just delisted from Steam. It's now an Epic Games Store exclusive. I believe a decent amount of indies, especially those using UE, will migrate to epic store. The only thing missing is regional pricing, if they really wanna compete with Steam.
Honestly, I couldn't care less. Is steam better than the rest? yes. Am I a steam fanboy? No. Therefore, if it's cheap somewhere else, I'm gonna buy it there.
I honestly don't know why people hate so much to have an extra shortcut on their desktop. When did we become so lazy that we would rather skip a game just because of 3 extra clicks? Most stores aren't that bad. Except for rockstar social club, may it burn in hell.
I'd also love for SG to add an option to giveaway games from other stores, here, on epicgifts.com™ or something similar.
Comment has been collapsed.
also about Satisfactory
https://twitter.com/SatisfactoryAF/status/1071028618803990529
Comment has been collapsed.
More competition is good.
Maybe gets Valve moving into fixing their shit again.
Me ? i don't have too much trouble with having multiple launchers or games that don't use a launcher.
But we'll see how things play out. Epic did manage to secure a bunch of exclusives that I'm actually interested in, so I'll probably end up buying from them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, we'll see the competition when Epic start to actually compete with Steam, not offer exclusives which means they are two completely different stores with different products.
Somehow I think they prices will be same as on Steam, but with devs begging "buy from Epic so we can keep more money".
Just like they already do with "you can get Steam Key from my site, but I'll keep 100% instead of 70%, while you get 0 discount anyway".
Comment has been collapsed.
Every company get ur own launcher, we need 40 clients :)
Comment has been collapsed.
They'll then realise DRM-Free was a good thing, and it will be too late.
Comment has been collapsed.
Insert show of support for GOG here. They are the last glimmer of hope.
Comment has been collapsed.
GOG still haven't setup proper regional pricing, Steam is still one of the few places that do.
I also like having a client and achievements, and many of the other clients are just crap.
I like what Steam did, but not how they've devolved.
Still think DRMfree is the best, and It would be cool to rein all those games in to one consolidated library with a universal achievement system that doesn't rely on any "specific company owned" client, but provides all the basics and amalgamated chat system.
At least, thats how i wish digital gaming had evolved. But we cant go back.
Comment has been collapsed.
More clients, more vulnerabilities, more free games. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Long ago EA stopped releasing their games on Steam, people feared that this meant other big companies would do the same. Nothing really came out of it until the last year or so.
Activation released Destiny 2 and COD BO4 on Battlenet. Bethesda has FO76 on their launcher, and Rage 2 will not be coming to steam, which means all future Bethesda games most likely won't either. Epic Games Store also is being very competitive and it is starting to a lot of exclusive games on it's service. Ubisoft feels like the last big publisher that hasn't gone exclusive to their launcher yet. (Which wouldn't surprise me if/when they finally do so)
So I'm curious. How do SG users feel about all this?
Comment has been collapsed.