The Outer Worlds information overload

[FDO]

What pattern did Steam set in the games industry? What I know is that they certainly fought tooth and nail to gain a foothold in the industry through PC gaming, when everyone else abandoned the ship thinking it's sinking and that console gaming is the future, including EPIC. After years of effort, time, and money invested Steam is now as big as it is because they are (or rather, were) fucking good at what they do. They're kind of not doing good at the moment because of stuff like Artifact, and the big boys like Bethesda not publishing Fallout 76 on Steam, but they're still a thousand miles ahead of whatever Epic is doing.
And if Epic's truly following the pattern of Steam, why don't they include all the pluses offered by Steam since Day 1? Why are they adding them now, why are they solely focused on enticing developers at first, instead of doing things to lure in consumers properly?

Now, I'm actually indifferent to the whole spyware debacle confirmed for Epic Store. I have nothing to say about it because I know jack shit, but the fact that you're using spyware arguments against Steam, when Epic's pretty much confirmed to be a literal spyware, not even long after their first launch, while at the same time we (or rather, I) heard no news of Steam being a literal spyware, 'cause otherwise ALL of people like you would've shout about it 24/7, is pretty damn amusing.

What pattern did Steam set in the games industry? Is this a rethorical question? You know, the CLIENT, online DRM, spyware, or steamwork if that is the name of this abomination. Yes, it is a spyware in my book from everything I have read about it. It's a programm that litteraly NEED internet and will force you to let it connect sooner or later, even after installing the game, or won't even let you launch the game without checking you are the so called 'owner' of your game copy.
Excuse them all you want but steam did NOTHING to stop devs and publishers from using their steamwork as a online DRM spyware, and if you dare saying they tried or it's not their fault again, here is my answer in advance:
They LIED.
Of course they were very happy about their little online program becoming devs and publishers favorite new DRM, this ensured them a form of exclusivity, if only because even a physical sell was forcing customers to create steam accounts just to INSTALL the game, and the spyware with it. And generating a appeal to just buy games directly on steam since they were forcing themself on your computer anyway.
Doesn't this epic store also have it's own spyware, oh sorry, I mean 'client'? And them buying or otherwise getting a exclusivity from publishers is only a natural way of trying to concurence steam, because otherwise the butterflies will mostly buy on steam.

And since we apparently have a communication problem to understand each other, no I am not defending this epic store, if I am not buying on steam I obviously won't buy on a other online DRM store. I say they are only following the pattern of steam, said pattern being forcing their store one way or the other.
But I am always glad to amuse at least.

Also, it's funny that you say you laugh at the irony that Steam fans are being upset about this. Do you know if there are any buyers from other stores and sites who also felt they were stabbed in the back, and not just Steam fans? I'm gonna let you answer that question by yourself, and if your answer is actually none and you actually think the games being strong armed are going to only be absent on Steam (aside from a couple few confirmed to come out on big publisher's stores as well, but fuck that shit), then you're a fucking retard and I'm going to call you out on it.

Is your question, do I believe a exclusivity will be sold on other stores than the one having the said exclusivity? Is this also a rethorical question? Do I really need to answer that?

There are multiple niche, genres, and kinds of players across the market, and Steam existed to accommodate practically all of them. As you can see from the features of Steamworks, it was mainly used to accommodate multiplayer system with features such as matchmaking and anti-cheat tech. You might condemn them anyway because it leads to you getting shafted by devs who included it into their singleplayer games, but don't you think you're still rather ignorant for doing so? Once again, Valve have literally zero fault for Steamworks being integrated into singleplayer games, it was the devs/publishers fault alone for using Steamworks for a purpose it wasn't meant to be.

I can't see the features of steamwork since I never used it, and I don't want to see them even from a telescope, let alone near my computer. And it's a shared responsability, but do you know who have the most of it at the end of the day? You are right, it's not steam and the publishers, though they still deserve their share. It is the butterflies who spreaded their wings for it. You do understand this image?
Just in case:
Someone want to sell something. They sell it in a package, and half of this package is a scam with, I am sure, all the best convincing excuses in the world. But the other half is something that look good, smell good.
Do you know what happen if potential customers (the butterflies) have actual fortitude, or at least enough of them do, and don't spread their wings? The scam just, disappear from the package...
Hell a specific scam can work once and butterflies still have a good excuse.
'You fooled me one...' and all that.

But when a scam worked so well that it became a regular and accepted business practice, that most people don't even realize the problem, and some others believe in it to the point it has come, and then become indignated at a similar scam only wearing a different robe, then there is no more of 'You fooled me once...' and all that.
All that's left for them is a different saying:

You made your bed, now lay in it.

And those who knew better get to laugh at least, since it's all there is left to do unless the butterflies suddently and massively wake up, but that is like believing in miracles. It never happen.

You deliberately ignore the definition of exclusivity and you attack Steam from the wrong angle, and because of it I think your opinion is purely fueled by hatred. You should educate yourself properly on this matter, instead of outright giving in to your hatred, because it saddens me to see people being like that.
Now, I might not make it clear, but I don't 100% condone Steam's business practice. For starters, the fact that they don't sell actual games, and instead selling 'the right' to play the games, is the number one reason to condemn their business practice. This is almost, I repeat, ALMOST canceled out by the fact that they regionally price the games and frequently went on sale, so you can get games from there practically for free (or at least worth of a peanut), and then just buy the game full price on GOG if you really like the game and want to support the developers. Now, the fact that Epic's policy on DRM is exactly the same as Steam, could imply they ALSO didn't sell the actual games, and this is coupled by the fact they didn't regionally price the games initially, means they're instantly the inferior system, and not even lower %cut could be used to justify using their store at all, except for fucktards, that is.

I don't ignore a definition, I apply it in the right, practical context. It's true that I never did well in theoritical academic education or in semantic though. Nothing cancel or almost cancel steam and steam-like scams, not even prices.

Oh, I was going to forget:

This is still purely ignorance

No it isn't.

PS: Damn, I almost don't want to post this since it will serve no more end than it would posting it directly on steam forum... But well, I just wrote it.

PS2: (no not the console) Damn this really look like hate even if it's only true. Well it's a reasoned hate, nothing personaly targeted. (But can we even agree on what nothing personaly targeted mean...) I sure hope so, though it's obvious we won't agree on the rest so better to stop there if you ask me.

 

[Octavian]

Epic store drama outside, what do you guys think of the gameplay. I can't really form a coherent opinion from what I've seen.

 

[Alphons]

Epic store drama outside, what do you guys think of the gameplay. I can't really form a coherent opinion from what I've seen.

Looks smoother than NV, but I would have to play to form an opinion.

 

[SquidWard]

Definitely looks smoother than NV, which makes sense because they're on a better engine

But yeah, playing it is the only way to really know how well it handles seeing as it is a shooter. I wonder if any stats will influence combat outside of damage dealt with weapon types such as weapon sway, reload speeds, and accuracy.

 

[Black Angel]

Local coffee shops do not exist where I live. The closest one is an hour taxi ride away, and has worse connection speeds than my apartment.

Yeah, that sucks. Hopefully there can be improvement in the future for you.

I have no particular interest in Epic, but it seems to me that exclusives are already a fairly common occurrence across the board. I don't really know why I should be up-in-arms about it. Maybe I just don't know enough about what makes this malicious. My posts here have been mostly concentrated on the reasons I don't like using Steam, rather than comparing them to Epic.

The last thing we want is console exclusivity in PC community. Do you know Bloodborne? A game from the creators of Dark Souls? If you love Dark Souls, you'll probably heard of Bloodborne, and you'll know what I mean in an instant. But since you seemed like you only know about games being exclusives on certain platform but has rather neutral opinion about it, I'll assume you don't play Dark Souls, and thus you don't play/know Bloodborne.

Imagine you're a fan of certain developers design philosophy for the games they've released, and then you heard they're making the next good stuff. The news comes rolling in, it seemed like it will be even better than their previous games you've played and finished. Then suddenly.... it was announced to be a [insert console platform here]'s exclusive. So now you won't be getting it forever because you're (say) strictly PC gamer.

Now that I think about it, it will be even worst if exclusivity become a thing on PC. Because PC isn't a 'console' or 'platform' per se.... in the sense that XBOX ONE and PS4 are different console/platform. What PC has are varied range of specifications, and yet based on the games it can be played on multiple specification, and thanks to mods games can be literally played in ALL specifications. And so, PC games becoming exclusives to certain stores is both retarded AND malicious at the same time. They're basically strong arming products that can be easily played on someone's PC, but they're unable to get it on their store/site of choice because it can be only be bought on ONE store... and that's not to mention that store offers little to no incentive for consumers. You might argue that it's only going to be exclusive for one year, but there's a concern of spoilers (which is pretty much already a concern in these days of internet).

I'm not telling you to actually be up in arms against this, because it seems like you're rather inadequately informed on grander scheme of gaming industry's practice. But the very fact that you're even considering to go buy something there at all worries me, even though I've already pointed out that Epic's policy on DRM is the exact same as Steam (which mean you'll likely have to launch a game from their launcher anyway), and because exclusivity is a bullshit practice. For now, Epic's showing that they're selling these games exclusively for one year only, but next time? What's stopping them from extending the duration? Or even go all the way? Not to mention if the other players in industry begin to retaliate... No, they aren't going to retaliate to Epic's shenanigans by improving their services, fixing their shit, and offer better %cut to devs. It's a nice dream, but a pipe dream, especially since Epic's not showing that they're a true competition by virtue of good service and excellent consumer practice, but by dropping big bucks on devs/publishers lap so that they agree to release their product in Epic Store exclusively for one year.

What pattern did Steam set in the games industry? Is this a rethorical question? You know, the CLIENT, online DRM, spyware, or steamwork if that is the name of this abomination. Yes, it is a spyware in my book from everything I have read about it. It's a programm that litteraly NEED internet and will force you to let it connect sooner or later, even after installing the game, or won't even let you launch the game without checking you are the so called 'owner' of your game copy.

Spoiler

I don't know where you live, but where I live I have relatively meager access to video games. I literally knew next to nothing about Fallout 1&2, and all these cool games that released in the 90s and early 2000. If not for Steam, I wouldn't be aware of their existence, nor would I be able to buy them easily.
From what I know, distributing physical copies of games were expensive back then, to the point of sales revenue received by developers was easily cut by 40-50%, so Steam's flat 30% are a godsend especially considering Steam also handles the marketing. Not to mention indie developers wouldn't easily find audience if they go physical, which is already nigh impossible considering the cost to sell physical copies of games.
Through Steam, developers and gamers are easily connected. This might not be entirely true these days considering lack of proper curation which leads to the store being flooded by mediocre and shitty products, but at least for people like me who have difficult access to physical copies of video games and for indie devs whose products wouldn't even see the light of day if they don't know how to market their games by themselves, this is a good pattern that Steam set upon the games industry.
Oh yeah, speaking of cool old games, there's GOG. I wonder if CD Projekt will ever think, "Hey, there's these good old games from the 90s and older that many people nowadays don't know about. Let's pursue the rights to distribute them digitally and offer them to people worldwide!" if Steam doesn't exist. I have to thank GOG for giving me easy access to these cool old stuff called the Gold Box Series, and in turn I also have to thank Steam to make the guys at CD Projekt to even consider distributing those cool old stuff digitally.

Also, "won't even let you launch the game without checking you are the so called 'owner' of your game copy." isn't entirely true. There are DRM-free games on Steam that you could simply launch by accessing the games folder and double-click on the .exe, without having to launch Steam all the time, like the aforementioned Underrail, Age of Decadence, Tales of Maj'Eyal, and all the games in the list I shared.

Excuse them all you want but steam did NOTHING to stop devs and publishers from using their steamwork as a online DRM spyware, and if you dare saying they tried or it's not their fault again, here is my answer in advance:
They LIED.

Why would Steam do ANYTHING to stop devs and publishers from using their Steamworks? Again, Steamworks main purpose is to let developers easily implement multiplayer aspects of their games. I know this is also true in Steam's intention considering the games they've made with Steamworks in mind were multiplayer or have a big multiplayer feature like Team Fortress 2, Counter Strikes, and Portal.
Once again, Steamworks are an ENTIRELY optional features that devs CAN choose whether they WANT to implement them or NOT. If Steamworks are mandatory or the fact they existed in some games aren't by devs choice and because it's Valve forcing their hands, then explain to me how games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, and Tales of Maj'Eyal ALL can be launched straight from their .exe without launching Steam at all.

Of course they were very happy about their little online program becoming devs and publishers favorite new DRM, this ensured them a form of exclusivity, if only because even a physical sell was forcing customers to create steam accounts just to INSTALL the game, and the spyware with it. And generating a appeal to just buy games directly on steam since they were forcing themself on your computer anyway.

Mate, have you ever consider that devs and publishers alike CAN, in fact, let physical copies install a game without the need to do it from Steam? Crazy, I know, right? So let me put a tinfoil on my head like you did by putting the blame solely on Steam. I think that devs and publishers.... didn't put ALL the data in the disks, and are relying on Steam to install the rest of the data! *gasps* I KNOW! Crazier, right?!
Now, if you think the case I presented isn't true, let me tell you that even physical copies of PS4 games STILL requires me to download the rest of the data needed to play the game, when they could've let me play a game straight with the disk on the console without the need to do so. This is just the case of the devs and publishers not putting every single bytes of the game's data into the disks, either because they're too lazy, or a disk isn't enough to carry the bloat that's a modern video game, or whatever reason a guy in tinfoil hat could think of. Games literally unplayable straight from the disks has been a problem since.... I assume since digital distribution became big, but I wouldn't attribute this fact to Valve and Steam.

Doesn't this epic store also have it's own spyware, oh sorry, I mean 'client'? And them buying or otherwise getting a exclusivity from publishers is only a natural way of trying to concurence steam, because otherwise the butterflies will mostly buy on steam.

Haha, if you think this is okay for them, let me extrapolate the inevitable future where every single developers and publishers sells their games exclusively on their own launcher that's caused by Epic's shenanigans: physical distribution of gaming will fucking die. Why would anybody wants to pay a dime for manufacturing physical copies and pay a single %cut to sell it on some stores? Give every single cent to me!
Hell, it seems like game retailers are already dying:
http://news.gamestop.com/news-relea...amestop-concludes-process-pursue-sale-company

GameStop Concludes Process to Pursue Sale of Company

GRAPEVINE, Texas, Jan. 29, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GameStop Corp. (NYSE: GME) today announced that its Board of Directors has concluded its previously announced efforts to pursue a sale of the company in conjunction with its broader review of strategic and financial alternatives.

In June 2018, GameStop’s Board, together with outside financial and legal advisors, commenced a review of a wide range of alternatives to enhance shareholder value. The Board undertook a comprehensive review process, including discussions with third parties regarding a potential sale of the company. GameStop’s Board has now terminated efforts to pursue a sale of the company due to the lack of available financing on terms that would be commercially acceptable to a prospective acquiror.

As part of the Board’s review process, as previously announced, the company sold its Spring Mobile business. This transaction was completed on January 16, 2019 and generated approximately $735 million in immediate cash proceeds. The Board continues to evaluate the optimal use of these proceeds, which could include reducing the company’s outstanding debt, funding share repurchases, reinvesting in core video game and collectibles businesses to drive growth, or a combination of these options.

Furthermore, the Board is continuing its search process to appoint a highly qualified, permanent CEO and is working with a leading executive search firm.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...rd-terminates-plans-to-sell-2019-1-1027906143

GameStop crashes to 14-year low after board terminates plans to sell the company (GME)

• GameStop's board of directors on Tuesday said the company was no longer for sale.
• Shares crashed more than 27% following the announcement.
• Watch GameStop trade live.

GameStop was down more than 27% Tuesday after its board of directors pulled the plug on a sale of the company. Selling pushed shares to a low of $11.16 apiece, a level last seen in April 2005.

"In June 2018, GameStop’s Board, together with outside financial and legal advisors, commenced a review of a wide range of alternatives to enhance shareholder value," a press release out Tuesday said.

"The Board undertook a comprehensive review process, including discussions with third parties regarding a potential sale of the company. GameStop’s Board has now terminated efforts to pursue a sale of the company due to the lack of available financing on terms that would be commercially acceptable to a prospective acquiror."

The board also said it is continuing its search for a full-time CEO. Shane Kim, was appointed to the role of interim CEO in May. He has been on the company's board of directors since July 2011.

GameStop shares were down 11%, this year including Tuesday's losses.

The video-game retailer is set to report its fourth-quarter results on March 27.

Now, this seems like it has nothing to do with Epic vs. PC Gaming. But if it's already like this, I think it's not far-fetched to imagine how devs and publishers will look at how Epic's shenanigans is working, and then proceed to think, "Why should I spend a dime to accommodate manufacture of physical copies and give even a single %cut to game retailers? Fuck 'em! Let me take all the money through a digital store of mine!"

And it's still amusing how you conveniently forgot that GOG and gaming sites such as Green Man Gaming exist, and proclaim how most people will buy on Steam.

And since we apparently have a communication problem to understand each other, no I am not defending this epic store, if I am not buying on steam I obviously won't buy on a other online DRM store. I say they are only following the pattern of steam, said pattern being forcing their store one way or the other.
But I am always glad to amuse at least.

I'm not implying that you're defending Epic Store, merely pointing out that you were attacking Steam from the wrong angle all this time. There are a lot of problems with Steam, devs and publishers deliberately using one of their features as a form of DRM isn't one of them nor Steam's fault.
I'm also going to make it clear, once again, since you clarified that you're not defending Epic Store (even though it was immediately obvious to me that you just hate Steam with your guts), I'm not condoning some of the practice by Steam. Like I said, I have a problem with Steam selling us the rights to play the games, instead of the ACTUAL games, but this is a mere child's play in the light of Epic's shenanigans .
Imagine a game you're looking forward to gets announced to be Epic exclusive. Eh, I think I don't have to tell you that because you hate Steam with your guts and would just say, "Suck on it, Steam!" even though that game you're looking forward to is also planned to have a GOG release.

Is your question, do I believe a exclusivity will be sold on other stores than the one having the said exclusivity? Is this also a rethorical question? Do I really need to answer that?

The question I made:

Also, it's funny that you say you laugh at the irony that Steam fans are being upset about this. Do you know if there are any buyers from other stores and sites who also felt they were stabbed in the back, and not just Steam fans?

Is the response to this part of your post:

Now I am here to laugh at the irony, steamers indignated at being strong armed. A situation they have more than their share at creating.

Since you didn't immediately catch what I was saying, I'm going to explain just how dumb your statement were. You were implying only Steam-fans who were upset with these who Epic exclusive debacles, when there are many people out there who were also GOG-fans or people who solely relies on sites such as Green Man Gaming who're likely just as upset. No, I'm not implying you believe exclusivity means a game will be sold on other stores than the one having the said exclusivity, even though you deliberately ignored the definition of exclusivity just to prove that devs and publishers using Steamworks as a form of DRM is 'exclusivity'. Just that you're using this whole situation as if it's Epic vs. Steam, when in fact it's Epic vs. PC Gaming.

I can't see the features of steamwork since I never used it, and I don't want to see them even from a telescope, let alone near my computer. And it's a shared responsability, but do you know who have the most of it at the end of the day? You are right, it's not steam and the publishers, though they still deserve their share. It is the butterflies who spreaded their wings for it. You do understand this image?

In response to this I'm just going to repeat that, once again, Steam worked for certain groups of people across the world like me, and for indie devs who can't afford distributing physical copies of their games nor able to market their games properly by themselves. There's nothing wrong with this, and in fact Steam's spearheading the practice is what makes it possible for better services like GOG to be possible in the first place.

Just in case:
Someone want to sell something. They sell it in a package, and half of this package is a scam with, I am sure, all the best convincing excuses in the world. But the other half is something that look good, smell good.
Do you know what happen if potential customers (the butterflies) have actual fortitude, or at least enough of them do, and don't spread their wings? The scam just, disappear from the package...
Hell a specific scam can work once and butterflies still have a good excuse.
'You fooled me one...' and all that.

But when a scam worked so well that it became a regular and accepted business practice, that most people don't even realize the problem, and some others believe in it to the point it has come, and then become indignated at a similar scam only wearing a different robe, then there is no more of 'You fooled me once...' and all that.
All that's left for them is a different saying:

You made your bed, now lay in it.

And those who knew better get to laugh at least, since it's all there is left to do unless the butterflies suddently and massively wake up, but that is like believing in miracles. It never happen.

You're implying half of the stuff Steam offered are scams. It's factually wrong, because it's more likely that you couldn't care less for half of the stuff Steam offered, simply because they don't interest your gaming taste or works against your particular circumstances. Once again, the biggest and most important problem with Steam is how they sell you the rights to play the games, instead of the actual games.
But it's even worst that you actually consider Epic's shenanigans as being anywhere near the degree of what's wrong with Steam. It's not, I repeat it's FUCKING not. Think about it, Steam become the way it is because Valve invested money and effort into it for years, but has the flaw of not selling the actual games to people. Despite of this, it paved way to GOG, who saw how Steam works, and then proceed to create a store with an offering of old games AND being completely DRM-free at that.
If you think Epic's shenanigans is anywhere near close to what Steam did, then I have to say I can't imagine anything like GOG coming out of all these debacles. Instead, a grim future where every single developers and publishers who saw Epic and say to themselves, "Why should I pay these guys a single %cut when I could just get every single cent for myself?" and then proceed to launch their own stores. And worst, every major publishers out there will see how Epic lure developers to sell their games exclusively on their stores, and if it ACTUALLY worked and the money starts rolling in, more and more of this exclusivity bullshit will occur as developers left and right, big and small, gets bribed by major publishers to sell their games exclusively on their own stores.

The last thing we need is yet ANOTHER launcher and exclusivity bullshit that has been a plague on console gaming until now.

I don't ignore a definition, I apply it in the right, practical context. It's true that I never did well in theoritical academic education or in semantic though. Nothing cancel or almost cancel steam and steam-like scams, not even prices.

I don't see how saying devs and publishers alike deliberately using Steamworks as a form of DRM, by THEIR own CHOICE, as 'exclusivity' when exclusivity means you can't BUY the game anywhere else, as applying the definition in the right, 'practical' context whatever the fuck that means.

Also, if above and:

I can't see the features of steamwork since I never used it, and I don't want to see them even from a telescope, let alone near my computer.

without even wanting to at least understand WHAT are they, and then proceed to blame Steam for devs and publishers alike for using them in a way not exactly intended by Valve isn't ignorance, then I don't know what is.

PS2: (no not the console) Damn this really look like hate even if it's only true. Well it's a reasoned hate, nothing personaly targeted. (But can we even agree on what nothing personaly targeted mean...) I sure hope so, though it's obvious we won't agree on the rest so better to stop there if you ask me.

I don't see how it's a reasonable hate, because so far you have been attacking Steam from the wrong angle, plus bringing up spyware argument in the light of Epic Store ACTUALLY confirmed to be a literal spyware makes your argument weak and your hate unjustified.

I'm just going to put all my response to you in the spoiler above, because not only it's taking up spaces, it's also clear to me that you hate Steam through and through, and will gladly cheer on stuff that affect it even though it's clear those stuff affect NOT ONLY Steam. I'm also going to put my most important point here: it seems to me that you live in certain circumstances that leads to you being unable to enjoy all the features offered by Steam, or that the way Steam operates works against you, like literally derping because you have mediocre quality internet connection like Jabberwok and Risewild does. It's unfortunate circumstances, but I don't see how that's justification to blindly hate on Steam, or even as a reason to cheer on Epic's shenanigans.

 

[Jabberwok]

Yeah, that sucks. Hopefully there can be improvement in the future for you.


The last thing we want is console exclusivity in PC community. Do you know Bloodborne? A game from the creators of Dark Souls? If you love Dark Souls, you'll probably heard of Bloodborne, and you'll know what I mean in an instant. But since you seemed like you only know about games being exclusives on certain platform but has rather neutral opinion about it, I'll assume you don't play Dark Souls, and thus you don't play/know Bloodborne.

Imagine you're a fan of certain developers design philosophy for the games they've released, and then you heard they're making the next good stuff. The news comes rolling in, it seemed like it will be even better than their previous games you've played and finished. Then suddenly.... it was announced to be a [insert console platform here]'s exclusive. So now you won't be getting it forever because you're (say) strictly PC gamer.

Now that I think about it, it will be even worst if exclusivity become a thing on PC. Because PC isn't a 'console' or 'platform' per se.... in the sense that XBOX ONE and PS4 are different console/platform. What PC has are varied range of specifications, and yet based on the games it can be played on multiple specification, and thanks to mods games can be literally played in ALL specifications. And so, PC games becoming exclusives to certain stores is both retarded AND malicious at the same time. They're basically strong arming products that can be easily played on someone's PC, but they're unable to get it on their store/site of choice because it can be only be bought on ONE store... and that's not to mention that store offers little to no incentive for consumers. You might argue that it's only going to be exclusive for one year, but there's a concern of spoilers (which is pretty much already a concern in these days of internet).

I'm not telling you to actually be up in arms against this, because it seems like you're rather inadequately informed on grander scheme of gaming industry's practice. But the very fact that you're even considering to go buy something there at all worries me, even though I've already pointed out that Epic's policy on DRM is the exact same as Steam (which mean you'll likely have to launch a game from their launcher anyway), and because exclusivity is a bullshit practice. For now, Epic's showing that they're selling these games exclusively for one year only, but next time? What's stopping them from extending the duration? Or even go all the way? Not to mention if the other players in industry begin to retaliate... No, they aren't going to retaliate to Epic's shenanigans by improving their services, fixing their shit, and offer better %cut to devs. It's a nice dream, but a pipe dream, especially since Epic's not showing that they're a true competition by virtue of good service and excellent consumer practice, but by dropping big bucks on devs/publishers lap so that they agree to release their product in Epic Store exclusively for one year.

Spoiler

I don't know where you live, but where I live I have relatively meager access to video games. I literally knew next to nothing about Fallout 1&2, and all these cool games that released in the 90s and early 2000. If not for Steam, I wouldn't be aware of their existence, nor would I be able to buy them easily.
From what I know, distributing physical copies of games were expensive back then, to the point of sales revenue received by developers was easily cut by 40-50%, so Steam's flat 30% are a godsend especially considering Steam also handles the marketing. Not to mention indie developers wouldn't easily find audience if they go physical, which is already nigh impossible considering the cost to sell physical copies of games.
Through Steam, developers and gamers are easily connected. This might not be entirely true these days considering lack of proper curation which leads to the store being flooded by mediocre and shitty products, but at least for people like me who have difficult access to physical copies of video games and for indie devs whose products wouldn't even see the light of day if they don't know how to market their games by themselves, this is a good pattern that Steam set upon the games industry.
Oh yeah, speaking of cool old games, there's GOG. I wonder if CD Projekt will ever think, "Hey, there's these good old games from the 90s and older that many people nowadays don't know about. Let's pursue the rights to distribute them digitally and offer them to people worldwide!" if Steam doesn't exist. I have to thank GOG for giving me easy access to these cool old stuff called the Gold Box Series, and in turn I also have to thank Steam to make the guys at CD Projekt to even consider distributing those cool old stuff digitally.

Also, "won't even let you launch the game without checking you are the so called 'owner' of your game copy." isn't entirely true. There are DRM-free games on Steam that you could simply launch by accessing the games folder and double-click on the .exe, without having to launch Steam all the time, like the aforementioned Underrail, Age of Decadence, Tales of Maj'Eyal, and all the games in the list I shared.


Why would Steam do ANYTHING to stop devs and publishers from using their Steamworks? Again, Steamworks main purpose is to let developers easily implement multiplayer aspects of their games. I know this is also true in Steam's intention considering the games they've made with Steamworks in mind were multiplayer or have a big multiplayer feature like Team Fortress 2, Counter Strikes, and Portal.
Once again, Steamworks are an ENTIRELY optional features that devs CAN choose whether they WANT to implement them or NOT. If Steamworks are mandatory or the fact they existed in some games aren't by devs choice and because it's Valve forcing their hands, then explain to me how games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, and Tales of Maj'Eyal ALL can be launched straight from their .exe without launching Steam at all.


Mate, have you ever consider that devs and publishers alike CAN, in fact, let physical copies install a game without the need to do it from Steam? Crazy, I know, right? So let me put a tinfoil on my head like you did by putting the blame solely on Steam. I think that devs and publishers.... didn't put ALL the data in the disks, and are relying on Steam to install the rest of the data! *gasps* I KNOW! Crazier, right?!
Now, if you think the case I presented isn't true, let me tell you that even physical copies of PS4 games STILL requires me to download the rest of the data needed to play the game, when they could've let me play a game straight with the disk on the console without the need to do so. This is just the case of the devs and publishers not putting every single bytes of the game's data into the disks, either because they're too lazy, or a disk isn't enough to carry the bloat that's a modern video game, or whatever reason a guy in tinfoil hat could think of. Games literally unplayable straight from the disks has been a problem since.... I assume since digital distribution became big, but I wouldn't attribute this fact to Valve and Steam.


Haha, if you think this is okay for them, let me extrapolate the inevitable future where every single developers and publishers sells their games exclusively on their own launcher that's caused by Epic's shenanigans: physical distribution of gaming will fucking die. Why would anybody wants to pay a dime for manufacturing physical copies and pay a single %cut to sell it on some stores? Give every single cent to me!
Hell, it seems like game retailers are already dying:
http://news.gamestop.com/news-relea...amestop-concludes-process-pursue-sale-company

https://markets.businessinsider.com...rd-terminates-plans-to-sell-2019-1-1027906143

Now, this seems like it has nothing to do with Epic vs. PC Gaming. But if it's already like this, I think it's not far-fetched to imagine how devs and publishers will look at how Epic's shenanigans is working, and then proceed to think, "Why should I spend a dime to accommodate manufacture of physical copies and give even a single %cut to game retailers? Fuck 'em! Let me take all the money through a digital store of mine!"

And it's still amusing how you conveniently forgot that GOG and gaming sites such as Green Man Gaming exist, and proclaim how most people will buy on Steam.


I'm not implying that you're defending Epic Store, merely pointing out that you were attacking Steam from the wrong angle all this time. There are a lot of problems with Steam, devs and publishers deliberately using one of their features as a form of DRM isn't one of them nor Steam's fault.
I'm also going to make it clear, once again, since you clarified that you're not defending Epic Store (even though it was immediately obvious to me that you just hate Steam with your guts), I'm not condoning some of the practice by Steam. Like I said, I have a problem with Steam selling us the rights to play the games, instead of the ACTUAL games, but this is a mere child's play in the light of Epic's shenanigans .
Imagine a game you're looking forward to gets announced to be Epic exclusive. Eh, I think I don't have to tell you that because you hate Steam with your guts and would just say, "Suck on it, Steam!" even though that game you're looking forward to is also planned to have a GOG release.


The question I made:
Is the response to this part of your post:

Since you didn't immediately catch what I was saying, I'm going to explain just how dumb your statement were. You were implying only Steam-fans who were upset with these who Epic exclusive debacles, when there are many people out there who were also GOG-fans or people who solely relies on sites such as Green Man Gaming who're likely just as upset. No, I'm not implying you believe exclusivity means a game will be sold on other stores than the one having the said exclusivity, even though you deliberately ignored the definition of exclusivity just to prove that devs and publishers using Steamworks as a form of DRM is 'exclusivity'. Just that you're using this whole situation as if it's Epic vs. Steam, when in fact it's Epic vs. PC Gaming.


In response to this I'm just going to repeat that, once again, Steam worked for certain groups of people across the world like me, and for indie devs who can't afford distributing physical copies of their games nor able to market their games properly by themselves. There's nothing wrong with this, and in fact Steam's spearheading the practice is what makes it possible for better services like GOG to be possible in the first place.


You're implying half of the stuff Steam offered are scams. It's factually wrong, because it's more likely that you couldn't care less for half of the stuff Steam offered, simply because they don't interest your gaming taste or works against your particular circumstances. Once again, the biggest and most important problem with Steam is how they sell you the rights to play the games, instead of the actual games.
But it's even worst that you actually consider Epic's shenanigans as being anywhere near the degree of what's wrong with Steam. It's not, I repeat it's FUCKING not. Think about it, Steam become the way it is because Valve invested money and effort into it for years, but has the flaw of not selling the actual games to people. Despite of this, it paved way to GOG, who saw how Steam works, and then proceed to create a store with an offering of old games AND being completely DRM-free at that.
If you think Epic's shenanigans is anywhere near close to what Steam did, then I have to say I can't imagine anything like GOG coming out of all these debacles. Instead, a grim future where every single developers and publishers who saw Epic and say to themselves, "Why should I pay these guys a single %cut when I could just get every single cent for myself?" and then proceed to launch their own stores. And worst, every major publishers out there will see how Epic lure developers to sell their games exclusively on their stores, and if it ACTUALLY worked and the money starts rolling in, more and more of this exclusivity bullshit will occur as developers left and right, big and small, gets bribed by major publishers to sell their games exclusively on their own stores.

The last thing we need is yet ANOTHER launcher and exclusivity bullshit that has been a plague on console gaming until now.


I don't see how saying devs and publishers alike deliberately using Steamworks as a form of DRM, by THEIR own CHOICE, as 'exclusivity' when exclusivity means you can't BUY the game anywhere else, as applying the definition in the right, 'practical' context whatever the fuck that means.

Also, if above and:

without even wanting to at least understand WHAT are they, and then proceed to blame Steam for devs and publishers alike for using them in a way not exactly intended by Valve isn't ignorance, then I don't know what is.


I don't see how it's a reasonable hate, because so far you have been attacking Steam from the wrong angle, plus bringing up spyware argument in the light of Epic Store ACTUALLY confirmed to be a literal spyware makes your argument weak and your hate unjustified.

I'm just going to put all my response to you in the spoiler above, because not only it's taking up spaces, it's also clear to me that you hate Steam through and through, and will gladly cheer on stuff that affect it even though it's clear those stuff affect NOT ONLY Steam. I'm also going to put my most important point here: it seems to me that you live in certain circumstances that leads to you being unable to enjoy all the features offered by Steam, or that the way Steam operates works against you, like literally derping because you have mediocre quality internet connection like Jabberwok and Risewild does. It's unfortunate circumstances, but I don't see how that's justification to blindly hate on Steam, or even as a reason to cheer on Epic's shenanigans.

If you buy games on Steam, you are already condoning exclusivity because of the DRM. I don't see how that's different from Epic. Even if Epic said, "Yes, we'll have DRM, but every title we release will be available on Steam as well," it doesn't matter. It's still the same issue. Anyone who doesn't want to use Steam is out of luck.

Steam is not a piece of hardware like a console. Your computer is the gaming machine. Then Steam makes you install their virtual console to play their games. Now Epic is asking you to install a different virtual console to play different games. So what makes Epic's DRM 'exclusive' and Steam's okay?

If anything, this is much less of an issue than on console, because you don't have to buy new hardware to play games that got roped onto a different console. I played games on a Mac back when Halo was supposed to be a Mac/Windows tactics game, then Microsoft shanghaied it for their new console. So yes, I'm familiar with the problem...

 

[R.Graves]

So now you won't be getting it forever because you're (say) strictly PC gamer.

Solution: literally just buy a console.

There are literally hundreds of great games that are PC exclusive or play better on PC and so what I did was I just bought a PC.

This is nothing new guys.

 

[SquidWard]

Solution: literally just buy a console.

If you're willing to pay then no problem.

If you buy games on Steam, you are already condoning exclusivity because of the DRM.

I agree that Steam has been the go to with no competition for too long and deserves some strong competition (albeit not the way Epic is doing it, because that's just strong arming customers not competing). I don't think that the DRM is what makes it exclusive. With or without DRM, Steam is still making money off the purchase. Same with GOG. If you buy on GOG, you get your updates from GOG and if you lose your files, you get them from GOG again. If GOG traded places with Steam, then we'd still argue about GOG having been the big holder of games all these years despite lacking DRM. Competition is good, DRM is not, strong arming customers to buy new games on your store is not.

The DRM isn't the entirety of the issue. I'd say it's a different issue. Games had DRM before Steam anyway, just in a different form. Now you have Steam which offers (it does not require) DRM and takes a 30% cut from sales. Epic is doing the same thing but with a 12% cut from sales and strong arming customers to buy from them by paying the publishers/developers to put the game on their store for a year exclusively.

Some games that are DRM-free on Steam can apparently be launched after just copying and pasting the files elsewhere, some DRM-free games check for a Steam dll file and can be deleted to make it work without Steam. I'm not 100% sure of this because I haven't tried it and most of my games are now on GOG if I can help it. I can definitely try it later on this week and post back results with Tyranny. But you should be able to buy from Steam, download it once, and never have to have Steam on the same machine again assuming the game you bought is truly DRM-free.

 

[R.Graves]

If you're willing to pay then no problem.

If you're not then
A) you don't wanna play the game that bad
And
B) you're complaining about a problem that's your fault.

 

[SquidWard]

I mean I bought a PS4 and a Switch to play the games I wanted on it, because I could comfortably afford to do so. I don't expect anyone to just drop $300 to play a $60 game or two. That's wild. Well let's see, BestBuy has Xbox One at 220 for refurbished and 250 for lowest new. It has lowest prices for new Switch and PS4 at 300. Walmart has about 210-225 for a new Xbox One, 270 for PS4, and 300 for the Switch. So my estimate is about right unless we're talking the Xbox, which has little exclusives and even less so with a MCC coming to Steam.

 

[R.Graves]

don't expect anyone to just drop $300 to play a $60 game or two

Then buy more games? Seriously the entire purpose of console exclusives is to sell consoles. And once you have a console there's no reason not to occasionally buy some games for it. You're not limited to only buying exclusives.

 

[FDO]

Spoiler

I don't know where you live, but where I live I have relatively meager access to video games. I literally knew next to nothing about Fallout 1&2, and all these cool games that released in the 90s and early 2000. If not for Steam, I wouldn't be aware of their existence, nor would I be able to buy them easily.
From what I know, distributing physical copies of games were expensive back then, to the point of sales revenue received by developers was easily cut by 40-50%, so Steam's flat 30% are a godsend especially considering Steam also handles the marketing. Not to mention indie developers wouldn't easily find audience if they go physical, which is already nigh impossible considering the cost to sell physical copies of games.
Through Steam, developers and gamers are easily connected. This might not be entirely true these days considering lack of proper curation which leads to the store being flooded by mediocre and shitty products, but at least for people like me who have difficult access to physical copies of video games and for indie devs whose products wouldn't even see the light of day if they don't know how to market their games by themselves, this is a good pattern that Steam set upon the games industry.
Oh yeah, speaking of cool old games, there's GOG. I wonder if CD Projekt will ever think, "Hey, there's these good old games from the 90s and older that many people nowadays don't know about. Let's pursue the rights to distribute them digitally and offer them to people worldwide!" if Steam doesn't exist. I have to thank GOG for giving me easy access to these cool old stuff called the Gold Box Series, and in turn I also have to thank Steam to make the guys at CD Projekt to even consider distributing those cool old stuff digitally.

Also, "won't even let you launch the game without checking you are the so called 'owner' of your game copy." isn't entirely true. There are DRM-free games on Steam that you could simply launch by accessing the games folder and double-click on the .exe, without having to launch Steam all the time, like the aforementioned Underrail, Age of Decadence, Tales of Maj'Eyal, and all the games in the list I shared.


Why would Steam do ANYTHING to stop devs and publishers from using their Steamworks? Again, Steamworks main purpose is to let developers easily implement multiplayer aspects of their games. I know this is also true in Steam's intention considering the games they've made with Steamworks in mind were multiplayer or have a big multiplayer feature like Team Fortress 2, Counter Strikes, and Portal.
Once again, Steamworks are an ENTIRELY optional features that devs CAN choose whether they WANT to implement them or NOT. If Steamworks are mandatory or the fact they existed in some games aren't by devs choice and because it's Valve forcing their hands, then explain to me how games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, and Tales of Maj'Eyal ALL can be launched straight from their .exe without launching Steam at all.


Mate, have you ever consider that devs and publishers alike CAN, in fact, let physical copies install a game without the need to do it from Steam? Crazy, I know, right? So let me put a tinfoil on my head like you did by putting the blame solely on Steam. I think that devs and publishers.... didn't put ALL the data in the disks, and are relying on Steam to install the rest of the data! *gasps* I KNOW! Crazier, right?!
Now, if you think the case I presented isn't true, let me tell you that even physical copies of PS4 games STILL requires me to download the rest of the data needed to play the game, when they could've let me play a game straight with the disk on the console without the need to do so. This is just the case of the devs and publishers not putting every single bytes of the game's data into the disks, either because they're too lazy, or a disk isn't enough to carry the bloat that's a modern video game, or whatever reason a guy in tinfoil hat could think of. Games literally unplayable straight from the disks has been a problem since.... I assume since digital distribution became big, but I wouldn't attribute this fact to Valve and Steam.


Haha, if you think this is okay for them, let me extrapolate the inevitable future where every single developers and publishers sells their games exclusively on their own launcher that's caused by Epic's shenanigans: physical distribution of gaming will fucking die. Why would anybody wants to pay a dime for manufacturing physical copies and pay a single %cut to sell it on some stores? Give every single cent to me!
Hell, it seems like game retailers are already dying:
http://news.gamestop.com/news-relea...amestop-concludes-process-pursue-sale-company

https://markets.businessinsider.com...rd-terminates-plans-to-sell-2019-1-1027906143

Now, this seems like it has nothing to do with Epic vs. PC Gaming. But if it's already like this, I think it's not far-fetched to imagine how devs and publishers will look at how Epic's shenanigans is working, and then proceed to think, "Why should I spend a dime to accommodate manufacture of physical copies and give even a single %cut to game retailers? Fuck 'em! Let me take all the money through a digital store of mine!"

And it's still amusing how you conveniently forgot that GOG and gaming sites such as Green Man Gaming exist, and proclaim how most people will buy on Steam.


I'm not implying that you're defending Epic Store, merely pointing out that you were attacking Steam from the wrong angle all this time. There are a lot of problems with Steam, devs and publishers deliberately using one of their features as a form of DRM isn't one of them nor Steam's fault.
I'm also going to make it clear, once again, since you clarified that you're not defending Epic Store (even though it was immediately obvious to me that you just hate Steam with your guts), I'm not condoning some of the practice by Steam. Like I said, I have a problem with Steam selling us the rights to play the games, instead of the ACTUAL games, but this is a mere child's play in the light of Epic's shenanigans .
Imagine a game you're looking forward to gets announced to be Epic exclusive. Eh, I think I don't have to tell you that because you hate Steam with your guts and would just say, "Suck on it, Steam!" even though that game you're looking forward to is also planned to have a GOG release.


The question I made:
Is the response to this part of your post:

Since you didn't immediately catch what I was saying, I'm going to explain just how dumb your statement were. You were implying only Steam-fans who were upset with these who Epic exclusive debacles, when there are many people out there who were also GOG-fans or people who solely relies on sites such as Green Man Gaming who're likely just as upset. No, I'm not implying you believe exclusivity means a game will be sold on other stores than the one having the said exclusivity, even though you deliberately ignored the definition of exclusivity just to prove that devs and publishers using Steamworks as a form of DRM is 'exclusivity'. Just that you're using this whole situation as if it's Epic vs. Steam, when in fact it's Epic vs. PC Gaming.


In response to this I'm just going to repeat that, once again, Steam worked for certain groups of people across the world like me, and for indie devs who can't afford distributing physical copies of their games nor able to market their games properly by themselves. There's nothing wrong with this, and in fact Steam's spearheading the practice is what makes it possible for better services like GOG to be possible in the first place.


You're implying half of the stuff Steam offered are scams. It's factually wrong, because it's more likely that you couldn't care less for half of the stuff Steam offered, simply because they don't interest your gaming taste or works against your particular circumstances. Once again, the biggest and most important problem with Steam is how they sell you the rights to play the games, instead of the actual games.
But it's even worst that you actually consider Epic's shenanigans as being anywhere near the degree of what's wrong with Steam. It's not, I repeat it's FUCKING not. Think about it, Steam become the way it is because Valve invested money and effort into it for years, but has the flaw of not selling the actual games to people. Despite of this, it paved way to GOG, who saw how Steam works, and then proceed to create a store with an offering of old games AND being completely DRM-free at that.
If you think Epic's shenanigans is anywhere near close to what Steam did, then I have to say I can't imagine anything like GOG coming out of all these debacles. Instead, a grim future where every single developers and publishers who saw Epic and say to themselves, "Why should I pay these guys a single %cut when I could just get every single cent for myself?" and then proceed to launch their own stores. And worst, every major publishers out there will see how Epic lure developers to sell their games exclusively on their stores, and if it ACTUALLY worked and the money starts rolling in, more and more of this exclusivity bullshit will occur as developers left and right, big and small, gets bribed by major publishers to sell their games exclusively on their own stores.

The last thing we need is yet ANOTHER launcher and exclusivity bullshit that has been a plague on console gaming until now.


I don't see how saying devs and publishers alike deliberately using Steamworks as a form of DRM, by THEIR own CHOICE, as 'exclusivity' when exclusivity means you can't BUY the game anywhere else, as applying the definition in the right, 'practical' context whatever the fuck that means.

Also, if above and:

without even wanting to at least understand WHAT are they, and then proceed to blame Steam for devs and publishers alike for using them in a way not exactly intended by Valve isn't ignorance, then I don't know what is.


I don't see how it's a reasonable hate, because so far you have been attacking Steam from the wrong angle, plus bringing up spyware argument in the light of Epic Store ACTUALLY confirmed to be a literal spyware makes your argument weak and your hate unjustified.

I'm just going to put all my response to you in the spoiler above, because not only it's taking up spaces, it's also clear to me that you hate Steam through and through, and will gladly cheer on stuff that affect it even though it's clear those stuff affect NOT ONLY Steam. I'm also going to put my most important point here: it seems to me that you live in certain circumstances that leads to you being unable to enjoy all the features offered by Steam, or that the way Steam operates works against you, like literally derping because you have mediocre quality internet connection like Jabberwok and Risewild does. It's unfortunate circumstances, but I don't see how that's justification to blindly hate on Steam, or even as a reason to cheer on Epic's shenanigans.

I am tired of all these quotes and huge debate (which we know won't make any of us have a change of mind) so let me try to clarify a few things without getting lost in quotes.

A bit of personal gaming history in spoiler as it isn't exactly breath taking or relevant in a global way.

Spoiler

You are right and I made no secret of it, I hate steam with all my guts. That you simply see it as blind is what bother me, and though the why of it has been said by others with maybe less hate, you going on saying that steam is sort of ok nontheless bother me too.
I get it and I am sorry your place of living didn't or doesn't have a wide access to video games. Mine did, though if you want to get into personal history with gaming then you are also right on the fact that we don't seem to be the same gamer type. It's not because my place of living had a wide access to games that I did. I was still a kid in the 90's and was playing whatever my father was playing, and he only liked adventure games. If one of his pals didn't show him Fallout in 97, which he didn't like but I did, I likely woudn't have known it existed until much later. My parents weren't the most wealthy or permissive people either, and my allowed time to play games was extremely limited compared to all the time kids seem to have for it these days.

All that to say it was only when I turned 18 and was able to get my own place that I could handle my free time at will. Beside I had a three or so years laps where I wasn't even interested in video games anymore, so many games I knew from the 90's I only finished them in the early 2000.
To resumate this little history and where it got me as a gamer, I currently own 60 games on GOG, including most of the re-bought 90's treasures that got me into gaming, the few later games I liked after that, plus a few impulsive mistakes I don't even like. I would never buy a dozen of games at once in other words, not because of money because that I now have, but well, short of a clearer expression, because I need my guts to make a special dance in order to buy a game. And my guts are rarely wrong in my experience, on any subject. Like they screamed it the few times I didn't listen.
I will conclude on that by clearing the fact, if it isn't clear, that I don't follow games's news, I don't even use internet that much except for specific periods when I feel like it, like now.

So you see, you are right, I have my particulars and so far, the only game I really wanted who was a steam only until recent times, happened to be NV. So I am still lucky compared to others, but it doesn't make me wrong on the huge problem that is steam's way of doing business, and in that I include the devs/publishers who choose to use it as a online DRM.
Again, why do they do that? Because people don't have any fortitude, and will just open their wallets even if they don't like it, or if they don't see the consequences.

That grim future you described? Steam started it, not by being a digital store, which would be just fine by itself if they were having full offline installers for EVERY games that aren't pure multiplayers, and making their steamworks optional for those who enjoy their convenient features, whatever they are.
What GOG later did with their galaxy, which would better stay optional forever.
One thing I don't do is blaming steam for the sad state of physical retailers, this is a more vast issue that don't only affect games and I am not here to discuss something else.

Steam became so big and 'normal' that people just accept it, and they don't have real concurence. Yes there is GOG, but plenty of steamers don't even know it exist, and when they do they are still fine with steam, because it's 'more convenient and they have a bigger catalog, and buy 20 games at once, and it's all in the same place, ect, ect...'
So once again I don't like what this epic store is doing, but I can understand it in this context, which I repeat were created by steam pattern of online DRM, and people who just accepted it, and who even defend it to this day.

Remember, 'You made your bed, now lay in it'.

GOG can't compete with steam because of it, which explain their smaller selection and maybe even highter prices or regional pricing not well implemented to accomodate the entire world.
And frankly, each stores or publishers having their own stores and their own exclusivity woudn't be such a problem if they were all GOG-like with full offline installers and solely optional spywares, sorry, 'clients', for those who can't live without it.

Oh, yes, almost forgot, I don't say GOG is perfect, they even made some shady moves on occasions with their optional galaxy spyware, hinting of possible darker times where they might enforce it 'a la steam-like', which is why I always backup my games.

Oh, and I take your word on steam having a few games not requiring their steamworks, but don't you still need it to install them or do they provide full offline installers? And even more importantly, aren't these games exceptions because their devs or publishers allowed it? The day these exceptions become the norm, I may register a steam account to try a few of these games I don't especially want but made me a little curious when seiing them in physical store over the years. Those with the tag written in small characters, 'require steam to install and play'. I will never forget the hilariously sad day I stumbled in the first of these, and then the seller looking at me like if I just landed from a space ship in the middle of his store when I asked about it.

 

[Jabberwok]

If you're willing to pay then no problem.


I agree that Steam has been the go to with no competition for too long and deserves some strong competition (albeit not the way Epic is doing it, because that's just strong arming customers not competing). I don't think that the DRM is what makes it exclusive. With or without DRM, Steam is still making money off the purchase. Same with GOG. If you buy on GOG, you get your updates from GOG and if you lose your files, you get them from GOG again. If GOG traded places with Steam, then we'd still argue about GOG having been the big holder of games all these years despite lacking DRM. Competition is good, DRM is not, strong arming customers to buy new games on your store is not.

The DRM isn't the entirety of the issue. I'd say it's a different issue. Games had DRM before Steam anyway, just in a different form. Now you have Steam which offers (it does not require) DRM and takes a 30% cut from sales. Epic is doing the same thing but with a 12% cut from sales and strong arming customers to buy from them by paying the publishers/developers to put the game on their store for a year exclusively.

Some games that are DRM-free on Steam can apparently be launched after just copying and pasting the files elsewhere, some DRM-free games check for a Steam dll file and can be deleted to make it work without Steam. I'm not 100% sure of this because I haven't tried it and most of my games are now on GOG if I can help it. I can definitely try it later on this week and post back results with Tyranny. But you should be able to buy from Steam, download it once, and never have to have Steam on the same machine again assuming the game you bought is truly DRM-free.

Yeah, I mean, I agree that the DRM is not the sole source of 'exclusivity'. But it is really the only thing that makes these clients comparable to a console war. Otherwise, we're just talking about different storefronts, not platforms. Although it's still not THAT comparable, because most of the reasons to not use another client involve either laziness or stubborn (and undeserved) loyalty; while buying a new console or computer may actually be impossible for some people.

And I also agree that more competition for Steam is a good thing (certainly better for developers). And honestly, Epic probably knows that the only way they can break into such a one-sided market is by having games that people can't get elsewhere when they launch. If a new storefront can't provide anything unique to customers, they aren't going to gain any, and that would result in a slow death at best.

Also, we've been talking about this like the PC market is a separate industry, but that hasn't been the case for years. Console exclusivity already infects the PC market, with plenty of major titles arriving on console first if they ever make it to PC at all. Even then Microsoft, Ubisoft, and plenty of other major publishers like to keep their games off of any storefront except their own. Exclusivity on PC is not a new thing: it's been a problem since long before Epic.

 

[SquidWard]

Yeah, I mean, I agree that the DRM is not the sole source of 'exclusivity'. But it is really the only thing that makes these clients comparable to a console war. Otherwise, we're just talking about different storefronts, not platforms. Although it's still not THAT comparable, because most of the reasons to not use another client involve either laziness or stubborn (and undeserved) loyalty; while buying a new console or computer may actually be impossible for some people.

My issue is that I've already got tons of games on Steam because I didn't know about things like GOG and some games I wanted just didn't show up anywhere better anyway. Steam also has the best service as far as DRM goes. Sure, it's not preferable because it's still DRM and I don't want that anyway. But if I can't get a game on GOG or itch.io, I look at Steam next.

When you look at the features Steam has, what other non-GOG client seems appealing? Do they have community forums, family sharing, offline mode, opt-in betas, community mods hosted on the service with easy install and saving, cloud saves, wishlists, a search bar, a friends list with nicknames and categories, customization for profiles, a good overlay, streaming services, screenshots that are easy to use and find, news sections, and so on? Because if I'm gonna have to have DRM shit on my PC, then I'm gonna take the one with the features that makes it a bit better. Blizzard App, Origin, Uplay, Epic, Bethesda Launcher only offer so little of any of those. Sure some of those features aren't even necessary but for those that want them, they're there. Do you need to customize your profile? No, but they let you. Do you absolutely need to nickname your friends? No, but do you know how nice it is when someone changes their name that you still know who it is? Or if they have a different name than you know them by elsewhere, hey just put that name down and you won't forget.

But yes, if games weren't DRM bound it wouldn't matter as much as where we bought them. The DRM makes them platforms because you have to keep the client on your computer(s) to run the shit (usually). I wish it were just storefronts, I think the entire ecosystem of digital purchases of games on PC would be different if that was the case though.

 

[Black Angel]

If you buy games on Steam, you are already condoning exclusivity because of the DRM. I don't see how that's different from Epic. Even if Epic said, "Yes, we'll have DRM, but every title we release will be available on Steam as well," it doesn't matter. It's still the same issue. Anyone who doesn't want to use Steam is out of luck.

Spoiler

Except there are DRM-free games on Steam. You can launch these games straight from the .exe without ever having to launch Steam at all, and thus don't have to worry about the inability to play because the game needs to update. You might argue that the mandatory launcher to even download and install the game is a form of DRM, but saying it's a form of exclusivity is dumb. If the games you bought from a retailer/local store requires you to use Steam or whatever launcher anyway to install the games, don't blame Steam but blame the developers/publishers for not including every single bytes of data into the disks.

Also, "Anyone who doesn't want to use Steam is out of luck."? Did you ALSO just conveniently forgot that GOG exists just to justify your hate-boner for Steam? Now, you might be referring to games which got Steam release but not GOG release, like Vigilantes. This isn't Steam's fault, however, but GOG's for having vague method of curating content.

Steam is not a piece of hardware like a console. Your computer is the gaming machine. Then Steam makes you install their virtual console to play their games. Now Epic is asking you to install a different virtual console to play different games. So what makes Epic's DRM 'exclusive' and Steam's okay?

First you (correctly) stated that Steam isn't a piece of hardware like a console, but then you proceed to call Steam a 'virtual' console. How does that even supposed to mean? Again, there are DRM-free games on Steam. There's also offline mode, but you don't care about that because for some reason it didn't work for you like it worked (most of the time) for me.

And once again, DRM =/= exclusivity. They are completely different and separate issues altogether with completely different context and different ways of how it works. Exclusivity is products being available only one of place. In case of consoles, games are only available on [insert console here], but now it seems Epic set a precedent for products being available only on one site/storefront. Steam only did this kind of exclusivity to products THEY FUNDED/DEVELOPED/PAID FOR, but NEVER sign up exclusivity deals with other developers/publishers like Epic's doing now. You can say there are games that were 'exclusive' on Steam, like New Vegas, because it requires Steam to install and launch, but that's (a form of) DRM, NOT exclusivity. New Vegas, no matter where it's acquired, requiring Steam to install and launch, and can only be bought on Steam until 2017 is NOT Valve's fault, it's Bethsoft's. Because:

1. Steamworks/Steam DRM is COMPLETELY optional. It's 100% up to the devs/publishers to decide whether they want to integrate Steamworks/DRM into their games, of which I'm pretty sure you can't deny what Bethsoft would do, don't you? Or maybe you'll deny it anyway, because you got hate-boner for Steam. I can't understand why this simple fact is hard to accept/understood by you guys, and I can't understand why Valve should, for whatever reason, stop devs/publishers from including Steamworks into their game. But if you still think this is exclusivity just because it can only be bought on Steam (even though it can be bought in a local store, and also other sites),
2. GOG existed since 2008. It was called Good Old Games back then, but from 2012 and onward began to sell more recent titles coming out at the time, so why New Vegas didn't come to the store until 5 years later? I'll tell you why: Bethesda.

Now, if you think this means I'm defending Steam's DRM, again, I'm not. I'm only buying on Steam because the games are reasonably adjusted through their regional pricing so I don't have to pay the amount directly converted from USD to my local currency. And when I get the chance, I buy the games I REALLY love on GOG, which (sadly) not regionally priced but I guess this is a good thing because it means the devs gets every single cent to continue their future endeavor.

If anything, this is much less of an issue than on console, because you don't have to buy new hardware to play games that got roped onto a different console. I played games on a Mac back when Halo was supposed to be a Mac/Windows tactics game, then Microsoft shanghaied it for their new console. So yes, I'm familiar with the problem...

Except you have to buy new console every time they launch it, and inevitably dropped support for the previous gen of consoles. Because of this, there's the issue of previous console generation multiplayer community literally die, like what happened with Demon's Souls when Sony pulled the plug on PS3, but perhaps you don't care in this regard because you got mediocre internet. And then there's the issue of the only way to play old games is to buy them again after they got remastered unless the current gen console has backward compatibility (of which it's the one thing XBONE has over PS4, or at least that's what I heard).
PC literally needs/has none of this. You can literally enjoy myriad of old and new games through an entire decade with just a single specification of a PC. Not to mention all the mods, too.
And you're wrong about exclusivity being much less of an issue on PC than on console. At least the games Sony and Microsoft put exclusively on their console are, as far as I know, FUNDED by them. Meanwhile, Epic literally dropped a pile of bucks on developers/publishers lap when they have literally ZERO involvement with those games when they were being made.

Solution: literally just buy a console.

There are literally hundreds of great games that are PC exclusive or play better on PC and so what I did was I just bought a PC.

This is nothing new guys.

Can you tell me a great PC exclusives coming from developers bigger than the 'biggest' indie team or a AA team? Or at least any games like Divinity: Original Sin/Wasteland 2/Pillars of Eternity which are exclusive on PC, with known zero plans of ever coming out on console.

I can definitely try it later on this week and post back results with Tyranny. But you should be able to buy from Steam, download it once, and never have to have Steam on the same machine again assuming the game you bought is truly DRM-free.

Just check out this list https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games apparently Tyranny is only known to be DRM-free on Linux. Still, the list seems like it's incomplete. Games like Underrail, which is proven to be DRM-free, aren't on the list.

If you're not then
A) you don't wanna play the game that bad
And
B) you're complaining about a problem that's your fault.

A) is mostly right. Every informed consumer who don't just blindly shell out 400+ bucks just to play that one game, and/or aware they can just comfortably play other games wouldn't be willing to pay. But how is B) even something you would assume, anyway? How could games being exclusive on console is a consumer's fault? Is it their fault for not wanting to buy the console because they prefer to play on PC, or for not having the money to buy it?

Then buy more games? Seriously the entire purpose of console exclusives is to sell consoles. And once you have a console there's no reason not to occasionally buy some games for it. You're not limited to only buying exclusives.

Why should we buy more games on console when we can buy the non-exclusive games on PC? Also, from my personal experience (at least) even though Sony regionally price the games on their store (and thus allowing me to see a game's true value in the local currency after converted from USD), they didn't adjust it within reasonable price range based on the region like Steam does, and I assume neither does Microsoft, and thus buying games on console in my country is bloody twice as expensive as Steam.

Spoiler

You are right and I made no secret of it, I hate steam with all my guts. That you simply see it as blind is what bother me, and though the why of it has been said by others with maybe less hate, you going on saying that steam is sort of ok nontheless bother me too.

Spoiler

Spoiler

I'm saying you're blindly hating on Steam because you deliberately ignored the definition of 'exclusivity' because you insist that games having Steamworks integrated into them is 'exclusivity', and thus it's Valve's fault. You're wrong on both accounts, because games needing Steam to install (and launch in case of games with DRM in it) isn't 'exclusivity' no matter how you twist and turn your arguments, and it's not Valve's fault because Steamworks and DRM are COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, and thus the blame is solely on the developers/publishers. You can argue that Valve should stop them all you want, but I don't see WHY Valve should stop them, not to mention devs could simply slap another form of DRM on the games anyway like Ubisoft did with their games that can be bought on Steam but still needs UPlay.

And in case you haven't noticed, I'm saying Steam is sort of ok COMPARED TO Epic's shenanigans. Seriously, Steam is the much lesser evil compared to Epic. If not for Steam, CD Projekt wouldn't even think of launching GOG. Without Steam, many people in some corner of the world wouldn't be aware of products they'll likely enjoy, and without Steam more of those products developed by smaller teams wouldn't even be possible in the first place. THIS IS WHAT I CONDONE, doesn't mean I'm okay with many of Valve's practice like selling you the rights to play the games, instead of the actual games.

Spoiler

I get it and I am sorry your place of living didn't or doesn't have a wide access to video games. Mine did, though if you want to get into personal history with gaming then you are also right on the fact that we don't seem to be the same gamer type. It's not because my place of living had a wide access to games that I did. I was still a kid in the 90's and was playing whatever my father was playing, and he only liked adventure games. If one of his pals didn't show him Fallout in 97, which he didn't like but I did, I likely woudn't have known it existed until much later. My parents weren't the most wealthy or permissive people either, and my allowed time to play games was extremely limited compared to all the time kids seem to have for it these days.

All that to say it was only when I turned 18 and was able to get my own place that I could handle my free time at will. Beside I had a three or so years laps where I wasn't even interested in video games anymore, so many games I knew from the 90's I only finished them in the early 2000.
To resumate this little history and where it got me as a gamer, I currently own 60 games on GOG, including most of the re-bought 90's treasures that got me into gaming, the few later games I liked after that, plus a few impulsive mistakes I don't even like. I would never buy a dozen of games at once in other words, not because of money because that I now have, but well, short of a clearer expression, because I need my guts to make a special dance in order to buy a game. And my guts are rarely wrong in my experience, on any subject. Like they screamed it the few times I didn't listen.
I will conclude on that by clearing the fact, if it isn't clear, that I don't follow games's news, I don't even use internet that much except for specific periods when I feel like it, like now.

Spoiler

Well, I guess that's where the problem lies. You most probably aren't aware of all these cool games coming out in recent times, and most of all you aren't aware that these cool games are made by significantly smaller teams compared to other big releases, some are even made literally by one guy in their basement over a period of time that can even be a decade or two. And you most probably aren't aware that these games wouldn't be known by the community at large, nor easily accessible by them, if NOT for Steam. Yes, you can get those games on GOG nowadays, but once again, GOG wouldn't even be thought of by CD Projekt if not for Steam spearheading the digital distribution of video games.

So you see, you are right, I have my particulars and so far, the only game I really wanted who was a steam only until recent times, happened to be NV. So I am still lucky compared to others, but it doesn't make me wrong on the huge problem that is steam's way of doing business, and in that I include the devs/publishers who choose to use it as a online DRM.
Again, why do they do that? Because people don't have any fortitude, and will just open their wallets even if they don't like it, or if they don't see the consequences.

*sigh* oh well, I guess I should be more lenient on you considering you aren't following the news at all. Are you, by chance, aware of who made the deal to publish the game and for it to be developed by Obsidian? I'm sure you've heard of them.

No, don't fucking give me of that blanket statement that they're all the same. There are shades of grey, looking at them like they're black makes you look blind and deaf, with only your mouth running non-stop. It hurts to see you unable to see the point or listen to what others has to say properly, but it hurts even more to listen to you screaming at maximum volume simply because you can't adjust it since you're being deaf.

That grim future you described? Steam started it, not by being a digital store, which would be just fine by itself if they were having full offline installers for EVERY games that aren't pure multiplayers, and making their steamworks optional for those who enjoy their convenient features, whatever they are.
What GOG later did with their galaxy, which would better stay optional forever.
One thing I don't do is blaming steam for the sad state of physical retailers, this is a more vast issue that don't only affect games and I am not here to discuss something else.

Motherfucker, Steamworks are COMPLETELY OPTIONAL! How many times should I mention this and hammer it into that thick skull of yours, again and again until you understood the concept of 'OPTIONAL'? If you think Valve makes it mandatory for devs/publishers to include them into their game, explain to me how games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, and Tales of Maj'Eyal being DRM-free and can be launched straight from its .exe without ever needing to launch Steam.

Steam became so big and 'normal' that people just accept it, and they don't have real concurence. Yes there is GOG, but plenty of steamers don't even know it exist, and when they do they are still fine with steam, because it's 'more convenient and they have a bigger catalog, and buy 20 games at once, and it's all in the same place, ect, ect...'
So once again I don't like what this epic store is doing, but I can understand it in this context, which I repeat were created by steam pattern of online DRM, and people who just accepted it, and who even defend it to this day.

Goddammit. Okay, let me tell you one simple fact that you're likely missed https://www.gog.com/news/news_gog_galaxy_home_to_over_half_of_the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_pc_gamers. Basically, The Witcher 3, made by the studio related to the company who owns GOG, sold nearly 700k by way of GOG Galaxy in the first two weeks of the game's launch. This is allegedly more than Steam and other sites and stores combined, and that's not counting all the number of people who downloaded the installers from the website and play it without ever launching GOG Galaxy. Now, I'm sure you've heard of just how popular The Witcher 3 is, right? So going by this fact alone, you're absolutely wrong that 'plenty of Steam-fans don't even know it exist'. They're much aware of GOG, and in fact I'd assume these days there are nearly as much GOG-only fans as Steam-only fans.
And you're underestimating all those convenience people cited to justify for staying with Steam, most probably because you don't care about those, doesn't mean they doesn't matter at all or it still means Steam is literally going out after you. And most of all, it's likely on many parts of the world like mine that there's no legit way of paying for games on GOG except through credit cards, but not everyone is willing to establish a credit card of their own, nor are they willing to pay in flat USD currency which would results in their months salary when converted to their local currency. And thus Steam exists to accommodate for these people! I don't get why you can't at least understand that this is legitimately good consumer practice.

Remember, 'You made your bed, now lay in it'.

Say this line only when Epic's shenanigan succeed, and every single developers and publishers out there launched their own storefronts, simply because they don't want to pay a single %cut to Steam/GOG/itch.io/Discord, or spend a dime to manufacture physical copies and selling it to retailers. Steam is the much lesser evil compared to Epic, period.

GOG can't compete with steam because of it, which explain their smaller selection and maybe even highter prices or regional pricing not well implemented to accomodate the entire world.

This is such fucking bullshit, I don't even know where to begin. GOG 'can't' compete with Steam? Okay, okay, you don't follow the news at all. You're right that GOG has smaller selection than Steam, except most of Steam's selection are literal shit or just plain scam where there's not even a .exe, and this is the problem with Steam that people should've focused on, not on their DRM policy, which is ENTIRELY FUCKING OPTIONAL. By virtue of having smaller selection, GOG competed with Steam fair and square because not only they don't have literal shit and plain scam which plagued Steam, they also sells Good Old Games not even Steam offers.

And frankly, each stores or publishers having their own stores and their own exclusivity woudn't be such a problem if they were all GOG-like with full offline installers and solely optional spywares, sorry, 'clients', for those who can't live without it.

LOL, AS IF, you fabulously optimistic fuck. Do you really think devs and publishers who got money eyes from seeing other devs/publishers getting more revenue from Epic's shenanigans would even risks getting their games pirated because some fucker who literally just backed up an installer and then install copies of the games then distribute it through the entire virtual space of the internet?

Oh, and I take your word on steam having a few games not requiring their steamworks, but don't you still need it to install them or do they provide full offline installers? And even more importantly, aren't these games exceptions because their devs or publishers allowed it? The day these exceptions become the norm, I may register a steam account to try a few of these games I don't especially want but made me a little curious when seiing them in physical store over the years. Those with the tag written in small characters, 'require steam to install and play'. I will never forget the hilariously sad day I stumbled in the first of these, and then the seller looking at me like if I just landed from a space ship in the middle of his store when I asked about it.

Just check the link I shared to Squadcar above. And like I said, every time my internet is down or when I just want to play the games without having anything else launched at the moment, I just launch the DRM-free games straight from the .exe in the folder.
Unfortunately, you still need to install Steam and register an account to install these games before you can play them. This will be a big problem if you don't have decent or at least stable internet connection, so don't even bother. However, since you're a GOG-only, you also need internet connection to download those installer anyway, so it's a moot point if you at the very least got stable internet connection.
And once again, these games are DRM-free not just because the devs/publishers decided they want it to be DRM-free, but ALSO because Steamworks/Steam DRM are COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. I really don't know from where did you got the impression that Steamworks/Steam DRM are mandatory, especially considering you admitted as much that you rarely go on to surf the web nor closely following all these news.

But it is really the only thing that makes these clients comparable to a console war. Otherwise, we're just talking about different storefronts, not platforms. Although it's still not THAT comparable, because most of the reasons to not use another client involve either laziness or stubborn (and undeserved) loyalty; while buying a new console or computer may actually be impossible for some people.

Spoiler

It's not that comparable, it's not even A TINY WEENY BIT comparable. Before Epic's shenanigans, there were Steam and GOG, both healthily compete by virtue of what they has to offer. GOG by their offerings of really old games and all of the games they offer being completely DRM-free, while Steam mostly through their reasonably adjusted regional pricing, which (as far as I know) reaches far and wide across the globe. Other than that, Steam also offers easy multiplayer system, to accommodate better experience for the consumers AND better implementation of this particular aspect through Steamworks. You might not care about multiplayer at all considering your mediocre internet, but the audience for this circle exists and perhaps much bigger than singleplayer audience. Not to mention, if not for Steam, all these good games like Age of Decadence and Underrail won't likely be made, because the devs won't be able to afford physical manufacture like bigger developers and publishers can, nor would they be able to easily find audience across the globe.

And you're saying as if there's a brand loyalty to Steam/GOG. There aren't, what is there is different groups of fans for different niches, and because GOG offers a selection of old games and smaller selection than Steam people who preferred GOG are most likely jaded geezers who can't into modern games and preferred to replay the classics, and/or people who are well aware of how DRM works and that Steam isn't selling the actual games but rather merely the rights to play the games. Meanwhile, people who preferred Steam might've been lazy because they got +100 games on their library, but they (from my impression) got it dirt-cheap thanks to a combination of the games being reasonably adjusted regional pricing AND being frequently going on sale (Midweek Madness, Weekend Sale, Spring Sale, Summer Sale, Autumn Sale, Winter Sale, etc etc). At the very least GOG lets people download the games they bought as an installer through their website, instead of having yet another launcher (which is completely optional in case of GOG Galaxy), so the last thing we need is yet another launcher like Epic, which is likely mandatory because so far they haven't bragged about it being optional.

And I also agree that more competition for Steam is a good thing (certainly better for developers). And honestly, Epic probably knows that the only way they can break into such a one-sided market is by having games that people can't get elsewhere when they launch. If a new storefront can't provide anything unique to customers, they aren't going to gain any, and that would result in a slow death at best.

But there's already a solid competition to Steam. Again, you just conveniently forgot that GOG exists, and think what Epic's doing is 'competition'. It's not, it's fucking not, I tell you. It's not better for developers because Steam/GOG is at least guaranteed to give exposure to bajillion potential paying customers, while Epic can't even guarantee that they can provide a percentage of that exposure so now they rely on bribing devs/publishers left and right with sales guarantee bucks upfront to give 'reasons' for customers to even glance at the sorry excuse of their store. They could've provide something unique to customers, like copying GOG method of being completely DRM-free AND offer lower %cut to devs/publishers to attract BOTH consumers and devs/publishers. They could even offer to sell the games cheaper than Steam to get the most out of those lower %cut in regards to, again, both consumers and devs/publishers interest. Fucking hell, instead of bribing devs/publishers to sell their games exclusively on their store, they could've approached skilled but out-of-luck developers who don't have enough funding to continue/begin their project, help them make their games with those Fortnite money, and then sell their storefronts as "the only place to get these games that wouldn't even be possible if not for us!", and then they can talk.

Also, we've been talking about this like the PC market is a separate industry, but that hasn't been the case for years. Console exclusivity already infects the PC market, with plenty of major titles arriving on console first if they ever make it to PC at all. Even then Microsoft, Ubisoft, and plenty of other major publishers like to keep their games off of any storefront except their own. Exclusivity on PC is not a new thing: it's been a problem since long before Epic.

Except these games being exclusive on a major publisher's storefronts are literally funded and even developed by these company! It's in no way the same with Epic's shenanigans. Now tell me, what is Epic's role in, say, The Outer Worlds development and funding? Literally fucking zero. It's not the fucking same. You can say what you want, shut your eyes and close your ears while screaming how it's all the fucking same, but it's fucking not.
There's even Phoenix Point, the game which literally wouldn't be possible if not for the community help crowdfunding it through Fig. And yet, the devs stabbed the community in the back by approaching Epic to make it Epic's exclusive because they just want money. While this is hugely the devs fault, they wouldn't even think of making the game exclusive to one store if not for Epic's shenanigan. No, the game isn't going to be Steam-only, it's also planned to be going out on GOG.

When you look at the features Steam has, what other non-GOG client seems appealing? Do they have community forums, family sharing, offline mode, opt-in betas, community mods hosted on the service with easy install and saving, cloud saves, wishlists, a search bar, a friends list with nicknames and categories, customization for profiles, a good overlay, streaming services, screenshots that are easy to use and find, news sections, and so on? Because if I'm gonna have to have DRM shit on my PC, then I'm gonna take the one with the features that makes it a bit better. Blizzard App, Origin, Uplay, Epic, Bethesda Launcher only offer so little of any of those. Sure some of those features aren't even necessary but for those that want them, they're there. Do you need to customize your profile? No, but they let you. Do you absolutely need to nickname your friends? No, but do you know how nice it is when someone changes their name that you still know who it is? Or if they have a different name than you know them by elsewhere, hey just put that name down and you won't forget.

My man, Jabberwok already stated he literally couldn't care less for all these features. Not to mention he fabulously being optimistic that Epic's going to be better than Steam in any regard, when they haven't even prove that they're better than one thing at the very least. That lower %cut is a farce, because the devs and publishers knew that 70% from at least 1000 copies is better than 88% of, what, 50? 100 copy? And so Epic began to drop big bucks on some devs/publishers pocket, and then couple more like Phoenix Point devs took the bait.

Lastly, Jabberwok, just to clarify, unlike R.Graves, I wouldn't call your predicament as your own fault. It's unfortunate that your mediocre internet quality means nearly every single features Steam has is actually working against you, but will you blame Valve for going after the majority of their consumer base? Besides, a much better alternative for people with your predicament already existed since 2008: the good ol' Good Old Games, aka GOG.

 

[R.Graves]

Divinity: Original Sin/Wasteland 2/Pillars of Eternity which are exclusive on PC, with known zero plans of ever coming out on console.

Those are all already on consoles tho.

even something you would assume, anyway? How could games being exclusive on console is a consumer's fault?

Sticking to a PCs only reeeee attitude is definitely your fault. Especially since you don't even really own what you buy on PC.

 

[Black Angel]

Those are all already on consoles tho.

You're saying that there are plenty of 'great' exclusives on PC. The thing is, most of these great exclusives are either indie or way too complex for console control schematic.

The fact that all the games I mentioned are also on consoles despite the fact that they're first and foremost computer-RPGs, means any developers of the so-called 'great' exclusives on PC would jump on console bandwagon provided they can afford to fit their games into console control schematics and/or apply design decisions that would appeal to console audience at large.

Sticking to a PCs only reeeee attitude is definitely your fault. Especially since you don't even really own what you buy on PC.

Every single games I bought on GOG are 100% MINE. Those games aren't called DRM-free for no reason, you know? Sure, you can argue that digital copies could be lost because of technical failures or whatever, but so long as one properly backup the installer safely and maintain their machine so as not to let it experience technical failure, every single purchase you made off of GOG are 100% legit yours and yours alone, with no strings attached like it does on Steam.

Also, you must be really filthy rich or just plain spoiled by your parents to think anybody could throw 400+ bucks around just because they want to play that one exclusive game. Trying to keep up with the latest and most recent console gaming is very, very expensive because not only you'll have to change console generation in 5 years or so, the games themselves are vastly more expensive compared to what PC offers in terms of pricing, at least that's what I experience with games on PS4 literally twice as expensive as a copy I could purchase off of Steam for full price. And that's not taking discounts into consideration, of which at least in PS4 are uncommon and the discounts aren't as generous. It's not helping that even if I wishlist some games on PS4 store, it never notifies me when it's on sale, like Steam and GOG always do whenever a game I wishlisted there goes on sale.

 

[Alphons]

Sticking to a PCs only reeeee attitude is definitely your fault. Especially since you don't even really own what you buy on PC.

Speaking from personal experience- in some parts of the world consoles and console games aren't easily affordable (like here in Poland). Consoles are investments worth couple thousands PLN, while the console games are significantly pricier than their PC versions- for example PC version of FIFA 19 costs 69,99 PLN, while the PS4 version 99,99 and XBOX ONE 94,99 PLN.

Playing on PC is just cheaper in some countries.

Also as Polish- most people here primarily use GoG as it better supports PLN. It's definitely cheaper when compared to Steam (even 20- something PLN).

 

[Jabberwok]

Lastly, Jabberwok, just to clarify, unlike R.Graves, I wouldn't call your predicament as your own fault. It's unfortunate that your mediocre internet quality means nearly every single features Steam has is actually working against you, but will you blame Valve for going after the majority of their consumer base? Besides, a much better alternative for people with your predicament already existed since 2008: the good ol' Good Old Games, aka GOG.

I don't really have time to read all of this right now, and my interest in some sort of ideological clash is waning quickly, but just to address the last bit: Whether I wish to blame Valve is entirely irrelevant. This is only about what is easier or more convenient for me. If I use Steam (which I do all the time), it has nothing to do with whether I blame them or not for the problems they create. The fact that they have a reason for screwing me over does not make me wish to use their service any more if that service doesn't work well for me. I have no loyalty to any of these entities.

That said, yes I absolutely will blame them. As much as I will blame any corporation for being only interested in serving money while much of the world languishes in the gutter. Just like I will blame Microsoft for taking away control and transparency of Windows updates from the user, causing anyone who has to use a portable modem to be charged ridiculously high data fees for no visible reason. Just like I will blame Apple for being tyrannical about their software and charging absurd amounts for designer products marketed exclusively to the rich and trendy. To be clear, none of this is their fault. They are corporations, and this is what corporations do. But fuck 'em, all the same.

As to the GOG thing, most of my comments prior to this were about GOG vs. Steam. I have no real opinion on Epic yet, as I've never used it.

 

[Black Angel]

I don't really have time to read all of this right now, and my interest in some sort of ideological clash is waning quickly, but just to address the last bit: Whether I wish to blame Valve is entirely irrelevant. This is only about what is easier or more convenient for me. If I use Steam (which I do all the time), it has nothing to do with whether I blame them or not for the problems they create. The fact that they have a reason for screwing me over does not make me wish to use their service any more if that service doesn't work well for me. I have no loyalty to any of these entities.

That said, yes I absolutely will blame them. As much as I will blame any corporation for being only interested in serving money while much of the world languishes in the gutter. Just like I will blame Microsoft for taking away control and transparency of Windows updates from the user, causing anyone who has to use a portable modem to be charged ridiculously high data fees for no visible reason. Just like I will blame Apple for being tyrannical about their software and charging absurd amounts for designer products marketed exclusively to the rich and trendy. To be clear, none of this is their fault. They are corporations, and this is what corporations do. But fuck 'em, all the same.

As to the GOG thing, most of my comments prior to this were about GOG vs. Steam. I have no real opinion on Epic yet, as I've never used it.

I can understand megacorps actively trying to screw over consumer for profits because it's pretty much what's happening up until now, but I don't think Valve is literally out there trying to get to you in this regard like you just implied. It's kind of the same as developers not really making more proper hardcore RPGs because it's not profitable. Does this means developers actively trying to screw their fans by NOT making hardcore RPGs? I'm sure the answer is no.
From my experience, Valve would occasionally send out surveys to ask what is a user's current quality of internet speed. Now, people can think that this is a spyware tactic all they want even though I'm not sure how corporations are going to use this particular information to gain access to someone's personal information and breach their privacy, but my guess is Valve send out this survey to see at how many people possess certain quality of internet connection periodically since they are hugely multiplayer-game based company. Again, this is unfortunate that Valve's interest doesn't take your personal circumstances into consideration, but is that still a reason to even slightly consider giving Epic some bucks? When even Epic is a multiplayer-game based company who atm relied on Fortnite?
Now, you may think I'm defending Steam or whatever, but once again I'm not. The Outer Worlds could've come to GOG as well, but sadly these fuckers preferred instant money instead of exposing the game to as much PC audience as they can.