Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #11  
Old 07-10-19, 08:48 PM
Greenback's Avatar
Greenback Greenback is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,161
I have a feeling at some point e will see origin, Blizzard and uplay start going down the exclusive route, and epic valve getting only indi games. It's not as if most people have origin and uplay anyway, and especially if governments start tightening what can be MTX that 30% means alot

__________________
CASE: NZXT H440 white
CPU: RYZEN7 3700x, H100i GTX
MB: Gigabyte x570
RAM: 2x 8GB CORSAIR VENGENCE LED
GPU: Gigabyte white 2070
OS: CRUCIAL MX100 250GB
PSU: Corsair Rm850x
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-10-19, 09:05 PM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,651
Customers do always have a choice, to buy a product or not. If a customer doesn't like the method of distribution for an entertainment product they can choose not to buy it. But claiming a customer should get to force a creators/publishers hand on the negotiations they're required to do to distribute the product is insane, and would absolutely destroy the industry and its profitability. If a company wants to sell their product in one supermarket and not another, whether because of fees, association, services, ect, they should always have that ability, and just as with any worker negotiating any contract exchanging labour for capital with those who operate their means of production, their right to withhold the fruits of their labour as a bargaining tool is critical to avoiding exploitation of said labour by these middle men who can use their position between the creators and the end customers to gain unworthy influence beyond that a truly free labour market would afford them.

The fact is, the PC gaming industry is broken, developers and publishers big and small are dropping likes flies to bankruptcy, and it's predominantly the "good" ones that are failing, while Steam's 30%+ cut is particularly devastating to many smaller & indie developers and has been for a long time, claiming that tackling Valve's "protection fee" for the PC gaming market is anti-consumer is very short sighted imo, having a healthy industry is better for everyone, good developers going bust all the time helps no one and pushes the industry further into the hands of fewer and fewer huge players who get to charge whatever they like to consumers. In this case it may be a AAA dev who decides they're not getting a fair cut but for the Epic stores's case it's predominantly smaller and indie developers they're sucking in, and for good reason, because publishers and developers have been claiming for years that with Valve's cut, PC simply isn't a viable priority economically anymore, hence why we had an era of the Wii U, PS Vita and PS4 being a haven for truly new indie games while developers put PC support in bargain bin mode.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-10-19, 10:26 PM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is offline
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: With the Asguardians of the Galaxy
Posts: 16,665
It's not anti-consumer for a company to decide where a product can be bought though. People have a choice no matter what. To buy or not to buy.

What is anti-consumer behavior is Valve having a monopoly on the gaming industry for PC and having such a vast amount of control and say, that they can charge 30% to Devs because Studios have little other choices. Studios having little choices means the players also do as well, which is what makes it anti-consumer.

Notice how only other billion-dollar companies are the ones making their own storefronts. Because they are the only ones who can. No Studio can afford that investment and therefore are reliant upon Steam and Steam takes a 30% cut. All this had lead to DLC and microtransactions. Smaller studios need to offset that cost somehow. People forget that not only does Valve take 30% cut, so does the government in taxes. Whether that be in the US with State and Federal taxes(which itself in some places can total over 40% or higher), or some other countries governmental taxes.

Epic making things exclusive and paying Studios is to give them another option. Nothing more nothing less. Sure studios may not sell as well but as more and more start selling on other platforms outside of Steam, it will eventually get easier for Studios and Valve will lose some control which only leads to more money into Studios pockets which means better games and therefore better choices to consumers.
__________________
I am Iron Man.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-10-19, 10:31 PM
ImprovizoR's Avatar
ImprovizoR ImprovizoR is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgrech View Post
Customers do always have a choice, to buy a product or not.
Yeah, you need to take a few economics classes if you want to engage in discussions of such nature. This is just asinine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
It's not anti-consumer for a company to decide where a product can be bought though. People have a choice no matter what. To buy or not to buy.
The same goes for you. But I'll also add, that it absolutely is anti-consumer.


This isn't rocket science, so it really boggles the mind that I have to keep explaining this crap and you still don't understand such a simple concept.


Epic's business model is by very design anti-consumer and pro-corporate. It's not something that's up for debate or even something that Epic would dare to deny. The whole point of what they've been doing revolves around providing publishers with a better deal and in the process robbing consumers of choice to buy the product that they want in other places. How on god's green Earth is that not anti-consumer? If I, as a consumer, wanted to buy a game on Steam, but suddenly that game disappeared and the developer announced that their game would be available exclusively on Epic, because Epic paid for exclusivity, how is that not pro-corporate and anti-consumer? It goes directly against my interest as a consumer, and directly in the interest of the corporation.


If Epic wanted to be pro-consumer they would instead incentivize gamers to buy from their store front by offering them more than the competition, not by eliminating competition. They wouldn't rob consumers of choice by bribing developers and publishers not to release on Steam and other stores. It doesn't get simpler than that.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-10-19, 11:10 PM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,651
The whole argument falls down on the fact that Epic isn't bribing anyone, they're offering a better deal to their product suppliers to get exclusive supply agreements, do you usually protest this in any other industry? It's not like they're not passing on the gains to the consumer either with weekly free games and often lower prices vs Steam. If Valve want more devs they can respond to the market forces and lower their cut to match Epic. It's that simple. To imply that Valve's unwillingness to listen to their key product suppliers requests over a significant period of time is in any ways Epic's fault just doesn't make sense, someone was going to come along and undercut Valve eventually when they're chopping such fat margins in an open platform.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-10-19, 11:11 PM
Dark NighT's Avatar
Dark NighT Dark NighT is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImprovizoR View Post
Yeah, you need to take a few economics classes if you want to engage in discussions of such nature. This is just asinine.



The same goes for you. But I'll also add, that it absolutely is anti-consumer.


This isn't rocket science, so it really boggles the mind that I have to keep explaining this crap and you still don't understand such a simple concept.


Epic's business model is by very design anti-consumer and pro-corporate. It's not something that's up for debate or even something that Epic would dare to deny. The whole point of what they've been doing revolves around providing publishers with a better deal and in the process robbing consumers of choice to buy the product that they want in other places. How on god's green Earth is that not anti-consumer? If I, as a consumer, wanted to buy a game on Steam, but suddenly that game disappeared and the developer announced that their game would be available exclusively on Epic, because Epic paid for exclusivity, how is that not pro-corporate and anti-consumer? It goes directly against my interest as a consumer, and directly in the interest of the corporation.


If Epic wanted to be pro-consumer they would instead incentivize gamers to buy from their store front by offering them more than the competition, not by eliminating competition. They wouldn't rob consumers of choice by bribing developers and publishers not to release on Steam and other stores. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Sadly even though i completely agree with you here, most people don't see it this way, i would welcome epic if it wasn't doing this exclusivity nonsense and still not working on their storefront, it still doesn't have a shopping cart, it had to rely on another studio to fix things in their own store while they to busy hanging big sacks of money in front of other studios, i mean yeah Valve makes dumb stupid mistakes as well and their greedy cuts are things that need to be looked at, but this behavior of epic is just not helping the industry, i get what they try to do, but how they do it, bad.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-10-19, 11:31 PM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is offline
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: With the Asguardians of the Galaxy
Posts: 16,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImprovizoR View Post
This isn't rocket science, so it really boggles the mind that I have to keep explaining this crap and you still don't understand such a simple concept.

Epic's business model is by very design anti-consumer and pro-corporate. It's not something that's up for debate or even something that Epic would dare to deny. The whole point of what they've been doing revolves around providing publishers with a better deal and in the process robbing consumers of choice to buy the product that they want in other places. How on god's green Earth is that not anti-consumer? If I, as a consumer, wanted to buy a game on Steam, but suddenly that game disappeared and the developer announced that their game would be available exclusively on Epic, because Epic paid for exclusivity, how is that not pro-corporate and anti-consumer? It goes directly against my interest as a consumer, and directly in the interest of the corporation.

First off maybe you're opinion is wrong and is the reason you are arguing so often on such a small thing? AFAIK this is the first time you and I are talking about this. Not sure why you are so upset.

Providing a company with a better deal for the same service is not bribery. It's literally just business. If you could save millions and still provide the exact same product, would you take that deal? Of course. Because that is logical business sense.
I don't think you understand what bribery means. It's not illegal or dishonest. It's announced for the world to know, they didn't silently make a deal and trick consumers.

The games that got removed from steam, are still available for steam and get updates. That's not anti-consumer. The promise made was kept. You just can no longer buy that product from that service. The people who bought it are not affected.

Same thing with Bungie. They were locked to Activision because they owned them. People didn't complain about that.
Same thing for Overwatch.
Same thing for COD.

What about the newer Battlefields? You didn't complain about that. EA only. The same goes for the Star Wars titles.

It's been around a long time and people didn't complain.

I just find it so interesting how people are so ironically attacking Epic when Valve has had a monopoly forever, which is quite possibly the most anti-consumer a company can be. Hence why they charge so much to Studios. Not to mention the other billion dollar companies doing the same thing.
__________________
I am Iron Man.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-19, 08:50 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,839
This debate is like watching two armies of bald guys fighting over a comb. Sadly there are too many blinded or infatuated with Steam that they can't see how much we needed Epic to force competition. Sadly Steam and their vast finances have managed to get some incredibly good lawyers/think tanks to come up with this disgusting policy.

And yet people still favour steam. The only thing I can say in Steams favour is that I don't recall them doing many exclusive deals if at all. Perhaps L4D2 and Portal 2, but they never needed to because of their domination on the market.

And given how much they bring in from doing almost nothing except acting as a host, it makes me laugh that they are up in arms because of the fact they may be banned from Geoblocking. Geoblock is in my eyes as anti consumer as you can get. How are users happy to accept this? its an actual breach of anti trust rules in EU... side tracking now..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-19, 08:56 AM
SPS SPS is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,277
If you like to play games and still want to see games being made you should be supporting the Epic games store and boycotting Steam, if they did 12% rather than 30% there wouldn't be an issue.

I also like how gamers won't use another launcher and would rather punish devs who work day and night on little pay...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-19, 08:59 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 5,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
If you like to play games and still want to see games being made you should be supporting the Epic games store and boycotting Steam, if they did 12% rather than 30% there wouldn't be an issue.

I also like how gamers won't use another launcher and would rather punish devs who work day and night on little pay...
Exactly.

And EPIC CEO has even admitted, If steam reduce their cut, Epic will stop doing exlusive deals, and further more will allow Epic games on steam.

Reading the crunch times going on at Rockstar and Netherrealms just to provide us with something too is atrocious. And yet here we sit whining when Steam don't get the titles we want.


How amazing would it be if the community got together and designed a platform almost non profit for Devs to utilise. I always liked Razer's motto even if I dislike the company "designed by Gamers for Gamers".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.