452
Epic Games Store is offering developers 100% of revenue for six months of exclusivity
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
452 points (94.8% liked)
PCGaming
6538 readers
145 users here now
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not fully sure the steam comparison works only because that was a different time.
With that said I still think epic has staying power if for no other reason than anyone mildly interested has a massive epic library sitting there. I don't spend a ton of time thinking about epic, but I do want to keep my account because of all those games.
Steam literally forced me to install it when I bought Portal on CD back in the day.
The only thing that was on that CD was a Steam installer and a code.
This is kind of like complaining that you have to own a Switch to play Nintendo 1st party games.
Portal is a Valve game. Steam is the PC launcher for Valve games.
FWIW, Portal was available on other platforms without Steam. I had my copy of the Orange Box for the Xbox 360 and that didn't require Steam or a Steam account to play.
Civ 5 for me. I stuck with physical because "all my games in one place" was my CD binder.
Steam suuuuuuuuucked back then I avoided it just as much as the "Fuck Epic" people do to that. Hated everything it stood for. The idea of a launcher for a game was madness.
I got over it.
Making it seem like Steam's problems for the first ten years were some software bugs inherent to all software.
It required you login every 48 hrs to two weeks to play most games for DRM purposes, they had no return policy, app's buttons barely worked, overlay made games run considerably worse, it frequently took up a shitton of resources. The 48 hr thing meant that if you were offline for a bit and Steam was down or slowed (any time a bit sale happened or a big game was launched) most games were unplayable.
Steam came out in 2003 and tons of people complained about Steam DRM hearkening the end of actually owning videogames until at least 2012. GoG came out in 2008, didn't require a launcher at all, sidestepped everything wrong with Steam.
There's been non-buggy, not anti-consumer software as long as there's been computers, Steam prior to like 2016 was not that. There's been an alternative, buying physical games (until they all started using Steam DRM or worse) and GoG.
Yeah Epic Launcher is barebones. Both Steam and Epic are anti-consumer because of DRM, and making users beholden to any buggy software update to play software they purchase. At least Epic pays devs.
Yeah I mean I hope my comment doesn't seem like it's blindly defending Steam or anything. I think steam today is a good platform. Not talking about their 30% cut, I just mean from the perspective of gamers.
But its launch was anything but smooth. I HATED steam when it launched as a requirement for HL2. I had dialup and the experience was utter shit. I recall being so upset at what a pain it was.
Nothing about epic has ever been as frustrating as the early life of steam.
When a new product like a TV from a new manufacturer shows up people judge it by standards from 10 years ago as opposed to current ones? Same from software?
Half Life 2 launched in 2004. Which will be 20 years next year. I'm not sure why state of a product from over a decade ago matters for judging products now. I'm not exactly time traveling and being forced to use 2004 steam.
Why couldn't that happen a second time?
Maybe because steam is already extremely popular and has improved more in the last few years than Epic has.
I don't know how popular stardock was but it couldn't have been anywhere close to how popular steam is now.
Epic hasn't really done anything to improve.
It's an incredibly poor look having to even resort to comparing epic to the era of 2004. That's like someone referring back to the days of flip phones for why a new current day phone release should get a pass. Even having to do that is a poor reflection.
Having to rely on hypotheticals over the actual offering of epic isn't a good look. It's not our job or your job to convince us why epic is worth spending money in. That's epic's job.
What was the alternative for the first ten years? Nothing better for sure.
The alternative back then was to buy physical games or to pirate them.
As bad as the Steam experience was at the time, it was still convenient. Nowhere else could you reliably download games at those speeds, and you could legally purchase games without leaving the house, not to mention the prices.