• verysoft@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      True, Epic could have provided good competition, but instead of gaining the trust of potential users and building a feature rich store - they immediately went down the most anti-consumer route they could with exclusive deals and free game bait, all while pretending they are the good buys and Valve are an evil-mega corp. The pot calling the kettle black. So yeah, fuck Epic Games.

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The free games system isnt anti consumer. And the exclusives are an industry standard, that steam also is involved in.

        You have a laundry list of actual hostile practices, why did you pick the two that arent?

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If you think me giving you things you want that cost you money elsewhere for free is anti-you, you shouldnt be having this conversation. Full stop. Video games arent meth.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No, steam isn’t “also involved” in paying publishers to take their games off of other platforms.

          Steam “exclusives” exist because every other platform is too dogshit to bother making a business relationship with.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Exclusives are not paying publishers to remove games from platforms. Those are two completely different things.

            If you do not understand that simple fact, you probably shouldnt be wading into this discussion.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yes, they are. That’s what exclusive means.

              Only being on one platform because no other platform makes business sense is not an exclusive. An exclusive means an exclusivity contract.

              But even if you lie and pretend your version is an “exclusive”, it absolutely is not “steam playing the exclusive game”, because that unconditionally would require steam actively incentivizing staying off of other platforms.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It was to the point where people were flat-out cheering for Epic Games joining the scene

      Windows users maybe, Linux users liked that Steam Machines resulted in a bunch of native Linux ports of high-profile games such as Borderlands 2 or X-Com.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, yes, there will always be a minority (often quite vocal) who will cheer on the failure of any platform. No matter how good or bad it is.

      They weren’t by any stretch, an effective representation of the userbase. Most either stuck with Steam or installed the Epic launcher as well to get some free games.