Epic Games Storefront - A Good Incentive for Piracy

goishen

Macho Ma'am
3,567
14,612
It's millennial angst. That's about all I can attribute this to. Or pure stupidity.

Oh, wait.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
Also: View attachment 192715

More than half of those are just from places like Humble/GMG. But clearly I'm a Steam fanboy with over a thousand games and only arguing from a point of defending them, and not what I personally take issue with. Nevermind the fact that I started the thread and was enthusiastic about another player in the market for competition until the exclusivity shit started.

As a side note, are you sad Bob Ross wasn't a Canadian?
 

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
Words don't stop having meaning just because it doesn't fit your narrative.



This entire argument started because you said stores weren't a product. The store and its features is the service.


right here.

Your quote :

Cool? Let's just get forced into a shittier product and be happy about it. Just lol.

I'm all for competition, but compete because you are good, not because you can wave some capital around and buy steam games out from under them. The current backlash is to be expected. No need to white knight.

If he said: "Cool? Let's just get forced into a shittier service and be happy about it. Just lol."
I wouldn't have even replied.
 

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
Valderen Valderen it's Monday - we are bored again.

I want one person to name a competing product coming into their market to disrupt said market, where the market had been mostly dominated by one force over the last 15 years and change, that had feature parity with said competitor in that same market, and didn't use these same tactics to get off the ground.

Across ANY market segment, across any industry.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

Kiki

Log Wizard
2,241
1,796
Your quote :
If he said: "Cool? Let's just get forced into a shittier service and be happy about it. Just lol."
I wouldn't have even replied.

We just proved by BOTH definitions YOU provided that a service is a product. You've entirely missed the point and are arguing gibberish now.
 

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
Irrelevant as I'm sad he's gone. Also, we've pretty much always had access to PBS, so he was still a staple while growing up. He transcended borders.

True. I once tried to paint happy trees when I was a kid watching his show. Little did I know I needed oil paints and not acrylics. My happy tree in the mountain side looked like the Swamp Thing took a vacation to Mars. That was the last time I ever tried to paint again. I was 9. I never recovered emotionally.
 
  • 3Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 3 users

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
We just proved by BOTH definitions YOU provided that a service is a product. You've entirely missed the point and are arguing gibberish now.
Service CAN be a product, not that in your example it is.

Products are sold to consumers.
Are you buying the Steam or Epic games stores?
No.
They aren't products, they are just game distribution services - as you already stated.

Services are the intangibles: Customer service, billing, etc etc.
 

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
Here is a good analogy.


Right now, Epic just got their oil painting set. They are at 4:43 in this video. Valve has had their oil painting set for a very long time, and they are at 24:02 in the video.

Bob Ross is cloned in this example.

Make sense?
 

Kiki

Log Wizard
2,241
1,796
Service CAN be a product, not that in your example it is.

Products are sold to consumers.
Are you buying the Steam or Epic games stores?
No.
They aren't products, they are just game distribution services - as you already stated.

Services are the intangibles: Customer service, billing, etc etc.

You realize you that just because something is free to you, doesn't mean it's not a product? You seem to be hung up on a price tag here.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
You realize you that just because something is free to you, doesn't mean it's not a product? You seem to be hung up on a price tag here.
You realize there are 2 different words for a reason, right? Just cause a Service can be a product doesn't mean all services are products. Context matters.
 

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
6,963
19,089
Valderen Valderen it's Monday - we are bored again.

I want one person to name a competing product coming into their market to disrupt said market, where the market had been mostly dominated by one force over the last 15 years and change, that had feature parity with said competitor in that same market, and didn't use these same tactics to get off the ground.

Across ANY market segment, across any industry.

CarMax
Tesla

The problem with feature parity is that tons of companies change their industry cannot have feature parity because the cost is too high. Dom is just stating that the competitive advantage that Epic is offering, lower development fees, is bad for consumers right now. It may not feel that way in 10 years if they have consumer beneficial features.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

a_skeleton_05

<Banned>
13,843
34,508
CarMax
Tesla

The problem with feature parity is that tons of companies change their industry cannot have feature parity because the cost is too high. Dom is just stating that the competitive advantage that Epic is offering, lower development fees, is bad for consumers right now. It may not feel that way in 10 years if they have consumer beneficial features.

To clarify, I don't think the lower fees are bad for us. I think that throwing money in the form of payoffs in return for exclusivity is bad for us. Lower fees encourages devs to be on their store but doesn't mean that it can't also be on other stores. This means more options for the consumer. The payoffs mean that it can only be on their store which means fewer options for the consumer.

I'm perfectly fine with Epic taking a smaller cut and offering fewer features as a result, just as I'm fine with Steam offering more features but taking a bigger cut. The reason why I'm OK with this is because choice still factors in for both the consumer and the developer. I'm also fine with a developer wanting to not be on Steam "just because". I won't buy their product, but I'm fine with it. I am not fine however with being told that throwing money around and limiting options as a result is "pro consumer"

Now, might the lower fees result in a race to the bottom and a reduction of services offered to the consumer? Sure. But that's not something that can be known for sure and isn't worth focusing on. The specific problems that are happening now are.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
To clarify, I don't think the lower fees are bad for us. I think that throwing money in the form of payoffs in return for exclusivity is bad for us. Lower fees encourages devs to be on their store but doesn't mean that it can't also be on other stores. This means more options for the consumer. The payoffs mean that it can only be on their store which means fewer options for the consumer.

I'm perfectly fine with Epic taking a smaller cut and offering fewer features as a result, just as I'm fine with Steam offering more features but taking a bigger cut. The reason why I'm OK with this is because choice still factors in for both the consumer and the developer. I'm also fine with a developer wanting to not be on Steam "just because". I won't buy their product, but I'm fine with it. I am not fine however with being told that throwing money around and limiting options as a result is "pro consumer"

Now, might the lower fees result in a race to the bottom and a reduction of services offered to the consumer? Sure. But that's not something that can be known for sure and isn't worth focusing on. The specific problems that are happening now are.

I agree with you here, but I feel the bigger fight shouldn't be in distribution, but rather licencing rights. EA shouldn't be able to put a hold on the NFL and no one else can make NFL football games as a result. Publishers, whoever they are, should be able to pay whatever the normal licensing rate is and develop games for that if they see fit. Same goes for Star Wars. I cannot imagine the amount of good Star Wars games we would have right now had EA not been granted an exclusive license. Same for NFL (2k Sports destroyed Madden).

3rd Party IP's should never be able to be exclusive across the board.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
40,918
102,668
To clarify, I don't think the lower fees are bad for us. I think that throwing money in the form of payoffs in return for exclusivity is bad for us. Lower fees encourages devs to be on their store but doesn't mean that it can't also be on other stores. This means more options for the consumer. The payoffs mean that it can only be on their store which means fewer options for the consumer.

I'm perfectly fine with Epic taking a smaller cut and offering fewer features as a result, just as I'm fine with Steam offering more features but taking a bigger cut. The reason why I'm OK with this is because choice still factors in for both the consumer and the developer. I'm also fine with a developer wanting to not be on Steam "just because". I won't buy their product, but I'm fine with it. I am not fine however with being told that throwing money around and limiting options as a result is "pro consumer"

Now, might the lower fees result in a race to the bottom and a reduction of services offered to the consumer? Sure. But that's not something that can be known for sure and isn't worth focusing on. The specific problems that are happening now are.

I distinctly remember everyone I knew in EQ and Counterstrike bitching about steam being a pile of shit when it hit the market in 2003 also. Mainly because it took out Gamespy overnight. So pretty par the course here with people bitching about a new comer.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

a_skeleton_05

<Banned>
13,843
34,508
I distinctly remember everyone I knew in EQ and Counterstrike bitching about steam being a pile of shit when it hit the market in 2003 also. Mainly because it took out Gamespy overnight. So pretty par the course here with people bitching about a new comer.

From what I recall, Gamespy was the inferior service available in many regards even before Steam came along. I can't remember the name of it, but there was at least one superior server browser for Quake et al. Eye something? I think the one and only time I ever had reason to give them money was as a way into WoW's first stress test. They had one of those silly premium services that was barely worth a fraction of what it cost. I can't say I'm surprised that they didn't last in the face of something like Steam.
 

Utnayan

I Love Utnayan he’s awesome
<Gold Donor>
16,290
12,054
From what I recall, Gamespy was the inferior service available in many regards even before Steam came along. I can't remember the name of it, but there was at least one superior server browser for Quake et al. Eye something?

You might be thinking of Kali.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user