I can’t seem to find that one comment explaining the issue with them…

But for the sake of promoting conversation on Lemmy, what’s the issue with Epic, and why should I go for Steam or GoG?

Note: Piracy is not an answer. I understand why, and do agree to a certain extent… But sometimes, the happiness gained by playing something from a legitimate source is far greater 🥹… coming from someone who could never ever afford to purchase games, nor could my parents… Hence I’ve always played bootleg, or pirated games.

TL;DR

What’s wrong?

  • Their launcher has a terrible UI AND UX.
  • They make exclusive deals with studios to prevent other platforms from getting games. (Someone mentioned that Steam did the same thing in their infancy. Also, I have another question; why is it ok for Sony and Microsoft to make exclusive games for their consoles but not ok for these PC platforms to do so?)
  • They have been invested in by a Chinese company, Tencent. (Someone mentioned that it isn’t that big of a deal, but idk.)
  • They are actively anti-linux for some reason.
  • Ganbat@lemmyonline.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Well, I have four big ones:

    • System scanning: EGS is known to automatically scan your system and send your data back to them. While this seems to be the same type of analytics Steam does occasionally, in Steam’s case, it’s opt-in, and done with full, informed consent.

    • Paid exclusives: Epic has been known to pay publishers to make their games artificially exclusive to their own store. They regularly claim this money is to support the development of the games in question, but this is easily disproven, as they’ve been seen buying games known to be complete more than once. Additionally, this has resulted in bait-and-switch-like situations, where users would prepurchase Steam copies of games, only to be informed that they wouldn’t be getting them.

    • Publisher-centric behavior: Another user here claimed that EGS is pro-developer and anti-consumer, but this is only half true. This only rings true in the case of self-published games. There have been cases of developers getting unwarranted backlash after aforementioned bait-and-switches, when they were just as surprised to learn about all the “development support” they received as anyone.

    • Tim Sweeney: Tim Weeney, the CEO of Epic, is an asshole. A giant, narcissistic, hateful shitbag. Just look at his Twitter, the dudes a giant POS.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Additionally, this has resulted in bait-and-switch-like situations, where users would prepurchase Steam copies of games, only to be informed that they wouldn’t be getting them.

      I didn’t know about this.

      It happened to Metro Exodus (great game btw) but iirc all pre orders were honoured and the game was just delisted.

      Has it happened after that?

  • cottonmon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I posted about this in another thread, but Epic also bought exclusivity for games that were crowd-funded then had the option to have the game on Steam removed or you’d get the Steam key after the exclusivity period expired. This pissed off a lot of people.

      • cottonmon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yeah, this caused A LOT of controversy back then. As far as I know, Epic has stopped doing this and has pivoted a bit more into funding game development (i.e. Alan Wake 2.) That being said, that gave Epic a terrible reputation when they initially launched EGS.

      • cottonmon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t actually know all the games that did this, but the most famous examples are Phoenix Point and Shenmue 3. I already read that Outer Wilds was another one that took the exclusivity deal.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      They bought the game and changed out the graphics API to kill the Linux native builds, then after the community got it working via Wine, they added anticheat. Epic went further than incompetence on that one.

  • Veritrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I personally don’t like Epic for paying developers for exclusivity deals, keeping games off other PC platforms for a year or more. Artificial scarcity is bad for consumers.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even worse is that they do this while trying to paint themselves as the underdog against the Steam monopoly. It’s not only hypocritical, but also deceitful. A new monopoly is not a solution to an existing monopoly, but a solution to investments paying off.

      • Killer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Don’t forget them being hypocritical again for suing google/apple for being monopolistic because they don’t want to have to go through them for payment.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I do know what it is, and I don’t actually think Steam is one. They have a considerable market share, but they are by no means the only way to get games on PC, nor do they exercise their dominance in a way that stifles competition.

            I’m pretty sure Tim Sweeny knows this as well, but he still calls it a “monopoly” whenever he has the chance.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              They were sued in the EU for violating anti trust laws, lost and decided not to cooperate.

              They’re currently getting sued for forcing devs to not sell their games at a lower price on other platforms.

              Their marketshare is more than enough to consider them a monopoly, you don’t need 100% of the market to be one, you just need to be so implanted that you become the default solution. Google doesn’t have 100% of the market, it still is considered a monopoly for search engines

    • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Definitely a terrible idea.

      Using money to jump ahead in the line is a terrible mindset. Provide good features, you’ll get your recognition.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Which they don’t do. Their platform has very few features, and doesn’t even have a cart. (Well last time I booted EGS like a year ago).

        They have almost no features and of the features they do provide, none of them are great. Their only “feature” is operating at a loss, subsidized by megacorps, for many years like Amazon to gain a bunch of market share.

        Luckily for gamers, steam already existed so they couldn’t corner the market and enshittify the entire industry like amazon did.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No it won’t - people are lazy

        Even CDProjekt sold many more copies on steam than GOG when you

        1. Actually own the ge there instead of renting a licence for it.
        2. Know that 100% of your money go to the game developers.
        3. Get many additional goodies for free

        Don’t tell me people are choosing the better deal when it’s all just steam having the might of “I have most of my games there already” on their side…

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      It doesn’t really bother me since it’s still on pc anyway, it doesn’t matter massively where you get a game from (unless you specifically want drm free copies).

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why not say fuck the developers instead? They’re the ones accepting guaranteed income in exchange for exclusivity, maybe you should be mad at then for not taking a chance at the “influencer making your game popular enough that you recoup your cost” lottery.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Por que no dos?

        If I’m not buying anything on Epic then I’m also not buying from developers that agree to Epic’s exclusivity. Two birds, one stone.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          They got paid for the exclusivity, after that if they don’t sell as much then so be it, but just releasing on Steam is like choosing to play the lottery as a retirement plan and signing an exclusivity deal is like having a job, one might pay tens of millions or nothing, the other you’re sure will let you buy food for the next couple of years.

          There’s tons of games on Steam that the devs have put everything they had in it only to never see any success and then you’ve got games like Vampire Survivors where nothing happened for months until suddenly a YouTuber started playing it and it became a major success. And I mean, good for Luca (and eventually for his team), but for every successful small dev there’s tens of unsuccessful ones…

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      While this is a concern I generally share, I doubt the overwhelming majority of players even give it a single thought. Most don‘t care about things like human rights when the product is nice. Only once did I hear someone bring up Tencent owning 30% of Larian (Baldur‘s Gate 3) for example. The masses really don‘t even want to hear it.

  • rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Pretty much every single decision you can see from their history since the inception of EGS is either stupid or blatantly destructive to gaming industry. Just some examples: better revenue shares for developers? Sure but this translates into worse platform. Money bonuses for exclusivity is great for developers? Sure but the game is then stuck at the platform that gives no means for users to interact and let developers know how they could improve their product. Cross platform multiplayer platform that works? Sure but then we have to deal with stupid requirements like having an account on additional platforms we may not want to use, even to play single player modes sometimes.

    You can also check Tim’s Twitter and see how ignorant and hypocritical he is. I wouldn’t mind it but his decisions seem to actually affect the whole platform and therefore the industry so… too bad.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Don’t forget how he abandoned PC gaming when Unreal Tournament 3 bombed after they released shitty mid tools and the modding community they built up over UT 2k3 and 2k4 dissolved.

    • resketreke@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      better revenue shares for developers?
      Money bonuses for exclusivity is great for developers?

      It actually goes to publishers, so the only way devs see that extra cut is by self-publishing. So I guess for smaller indie devs it can be a good deal.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It can. Doesn’t save those games from being forgotten faster than they release elsewhere though. Only a few managed to overcome this effect somewhat.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Epic is the worst of the 3 platforms for a user. It is a drm like steam, but with less games on it, and even less optimized (so even more wasted resources and time loading useless advertising).

    Steam has it that is makes game run on Linux smoothly, and the biggest library of games. Gog is drm free. Epic has absolutely nothing a user may want, except for free games so that you are now captive of their shitty platform.

      • Chriswild@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Epic doesn’t have to be as good as Steam; it has to be better than Steam. People don’t up and leave platforms they like for new platforms for no reason. Epic can take a smaller cut on games but if that doesn’t carry to the end user why should I care.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          At this point, I don’t know if Epic can get better than Steam in the ways that matter simply because they are clearly trying very hard to gain a dominant market position in ways that make it seem like they would abuse such a position, while Valve has had that dominant position for decades without abusing it. Valve is one of the few companies I trust these days. That trust is Valve’s to lose, not any other competitor’s to gain, though I am open to other adjacent providers (like I’ve got an xbox game pass sub, a ps5, and switch).

          • Pendulum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Valve is one of the few companies I trust these days. That trust is Valve’s to lose, not any other competitor’s to gain

            So much this!

    • deafboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I have zero experience with epic or gog, but steam got incredibly bad lately. It’s not uncomon for it to consume 2 entire CPU cores just by animating some store page background.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Steam has always been rather bad on performances, but epic somehow managed to do worse.

  • darganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The multi-billionaire owner with the backing of the Chinese government is claiming that he’s the underdog against a popular company/piece of software/GabeN. He’s made some poor choices interacting with the community.

    Yes, it’s probably nice for a publisher to have a guaranteed income, which is why they sell exclusivity. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth, so I choose not to support it.

    The rest about the launcher being bad sounds unhinged to me, but some people are really into that.

    They bought Rocket League and actively made it worse.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t disagree with everything you said here but come on, Steam is basically a privately owned PC games store monopoly that has now been going on for 25 years. Since it’s not public we can’t really know for sure but there’s a very real possibility that Epic is the underdog here

      • darganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think steam has any anti-competitive behavior that I’m aware of.

        Fortnite has roughly 100 million more monthly active users than steam, to say nothing of every piece of software running Unreal Engine, Epic is huge.

        • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Steam somehow prevents publishers from selling games at a cheaper price in competitors’ stores, even if their cut from the store is lower. That is extremely anti-competitive and has to be illegal.

          • asret@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            If you sign up to use Steam to distribute your game then one of the things you agree to is to make it available on Steam at the same price you offer anywhere else. This protects Steam’s business and ensures that Steam customers aren’t disadvantaged.

            However, it also applies even if the alternative channels don’t make use of Steam directly (e.g selling on Epic). This is where the Wolfire Games lawsuit comes in. Will be interesting to see how it goes.

          • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            True. I forgot about that in my comment actually. I think they calmed down on that because it was basically illegal in a lot of countries though.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Epic doesn’t make nearly as much money from Fortnite’s players as Steam makes from their users though. Same for UE royalties. I don’t think there’s a single UE license that has a 30% rev share (which is what you get on steam if you don’t have big AAA sales). Hell, I don’t even think there’s one at 10%.

          Steam doesn’t have anti competitive behavior yet. Gabe has made some bad decisions in the past (may I remind you that he greenlit Bethesda’s paid mods idea ?) but he does seem to generally put the users first. But what happens after him ? Imo the company will go public at some point, and it’s pretty much downhill from here

          Edit: gotta love getting downvoted into the negatives with nobody pointing out anything wrong with my comment, all because I dared criticizing the sacrosanct Steam. I actually quite like Steam but gamers are downright irrational when it comes to this platform.

            • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Horse armor was a dlc, not a mod (well, there were also joke mods), and it was for Oblivion. They tested the paid mods on Skyrim back in 2015. Officially implemented on the Steam workshop and all, and obviously Valve was supposed to get a cut out of every sale which is probably why they were A-OK with it. (Bethesda is apparently having another try right now, although it looks like Valve is out of the picture this time)

    • Rose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      9 months ago

      The multi-billionaire owner with the backing of the Chinese government

      Who cares about the backing if it has no effect on anything? I’m more concerned about Valve having a separate Steam client for China, censoring their games specifically for China and even reportedly banning for bringing up Winnie the Pooh.

      • test113@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        lol XD, let me tell you, if someone is financing something like that, they sure as heck expect something in exchange someday.

        So, you believe a government powerful enough to make unaffiliated companies bow to their liking won’t leverage their investment?

        Why do you think they invested? Just for fun?

        You invest to gain influence, not to have less influence.

        • Rose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Most investments aren’t to gain influence but to profit. At this time, there is no sign of Epic doing anything that could be explained by the alleged influence of the Chinese government, and as the majority owner, Tim Sweeney has the final say anyway.

          • test113@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            I never said it was not for profit. I said you invest to gain influence, which is true by fact, not an opinion. If I buy a significant number of shares in a company, I do so because I want more than money; I want influence on decision-making. I do not think the Chinese government is only interested in monetary gains; do you think that’s their only goal?

            And again, do you believe a country/government able to indoctrinate any business that wants a share of their market, like the Steam example, is only invested for monetary gains and nothing else?

            Tim Sweeney can do and decide many things, but opposing the Chinese government is certainly not one. And I don’t know how you imagine influence, but having 40% of a company is something I call influence, wouldn’t you? Even if they can’t tell him how to run the business, he sure as hell will do nothing that could worsen the relationship between him and his biggest investor, aka Tencent. And who is behind Tencent? The Chinese government.

            • Rose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s all in the realm of “what if”. Sure, it could attempt this or that, but it hasn’t, nor is there any guarantee that it would fly. That just brings me back to the original point of when a company that is not partially owned by the Chinese actively works to please the Chinese government to further their business interest but I don’t see much of that with Epic. If you look at some of the other companies in which Tencent has a large stake, like Dontnod, there’s absolutely no sign of the Chinese agenda in the games either.

              • test113@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yes, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not change the facts. No, the influence is not “what if it is there” – it is there, plain and simple. That’s not up for discussion. It’s public knowledge that Tencent owns 40%, and Tencent is a government-controlled entity. It does not matter if they “abuse/use” it actively or not. It sounds like, in your mind, influence is only relevant when you use it actively, which is not true.

                • Cybersteel@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  They’re also just plain unethical. There’s never been a government as insidious as the CCP in exploiting vulnerable foreign nations like South Africa or South East Asia thru incentives that are basically just a debt trap.

      • darganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Who cares about the backing if it has no effect on anything?

        It’s more illustrating that Epic isn’t underfunded. I don’t know anything about steam in China.

        • Rose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Epic not being underfunded is stating the obvious. Just look at the scope of their Fortnite collaborations.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    No support for Linux - steam has it built in and the DRM free nature of gog games means that they’re not too tough to get running via wine.

    • Pirky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think Tim Sweeney is actually anti-linux for the consumer. Since the Deck runs on Linux, he has basically negative incentive for any of their games to run on it.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          9 months ago

          Also, they killed off the UT franchise so that it wouldn’t compete with Fortnite, even though the games were at best adjacent.

          Epic represents the worst parts of capitalism intersecting with games. Well, a set of them, EA represents another set, and Activision-Blizzard yet another set (though there is some overlap). And Microsoft might be the worst of them all but they are still posturing and doing a much better job than Epic at taking market share (which means they know to hold back on the anti-consumer stuff after learning lessons about overplaying their hand too soon several times over).

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    In short, Epic is anti-consumer. They claim better support for developers, but in reality consumers are the one paying for that. Normally this wouldn’t be a problem, but you the consumer have no choice in it. You are forced through exclusives and other limitations to use inferior service for the same price. Even free games they give are there to drag you into their ecosystem and abuse.

    This is why Valve doesn’t feel threatened, I assume, and is not likely to feel the pressure from Epic anytime soon. For that to happen, Epic would have to get on par with features and customer benefits equal or better than Steam and that’s not happening anytime soon. Epic would rather throw hundreds of millions on exclusive deal with some developer and force you the consumer to buy the game on EGS than actually improve the service.

  • Battle Masker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    aside from what everyone else said, they killed the beloved Unreal Tournament series, which is a huge sour spot for older gamers who fondly remember those. Then there’s the excessive microtransaction demand inside Fortnite, a game with a large playerbase under the age of 18. That alone led to two major lawsuits that they both lost

  • Mini_Moonpie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Epic doesn’t see gamers as their customer - they see developers as their customer and shape the customer experience around that. For example, Epic said that if/when they add reviews, developers could choose to opt their games out of reviews. That’s very pro-developer, but very anti-consumer, whatever you might think of the value of reviews. Informed customers can rattle off a long list of reasons they don’t like Epic and why they’re bad, but they are a small minority of PC gamers. The “silent majority” doesn’t keep up with this kind of stuff or really care about it, so they are literally judging stores on their merits and Epic is a bare bones platform that doesn’t offer customers a good reason to spend money in their store because they don’t think they need to.

  • HonorIsDead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Instead of offering anything to be a better platform they are burning money on the platform in hopes they can pay their way to dominance by paid exclusivivity and giving away games. One of those isn’t bad for users. Now consider what Epic offers beyond being able to buy and download a game. Nothing. Epic is only a storefront and they’ve had years to work on this at this point. Steam has gained dominance and maintains it in no small part due to all the additional features available to everyone. Do you use the steam workshop for any of your games? Have you used the steam community forums to troubleshoot a problem? Do you use big picture mode for a more console like experience? Do you customize your controller settings with the pretty expansive controller support built into steam? The overlay? How about the custom profiles and badges and trading cards? Epic is only a storefront. That’s it. That’s all that’s on offer. So they supplement it with bribing devs to be exclusive to their store and giving away games to try and attract users.

    • Aussiemandeus @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I love the steam chat, as someone who doesn’t use discord very often at all. Having the chat is an easy to too flick a message off to someone while i play

    • silentknyght@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      These are true criticisms, but I’m not sure if they’re fair. To the best of my recollection, Steam had none of those things in 2008, either, about the time they were the age of the EGS, now.

      You could say they should (be able to) compete on the merits alone, without free games or paid exclusivity, but that argument wouldn’t reflect reality: you need a hefty carrot to lure people away from their comfort zone.

      • Strepto@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Steam had none of those things in 2008

        Yes, true. But it’s not 2008 anymore. It makes no sense for companies to compete based on features and functionality equivalent to their age.

        If someone starts a company today offering only old 1960 color TVs, I’m not going to say “Well they’re new, and that’s what TV manufacturers would have had at the time”. That makes zero sense.

        If Epic wants to compete with steam they need to actually compete. They offer nothing of value presently. They have the money and the technical talent to make a good launcher. They just appear to choose not to.

        • HonorIsDead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          They have the money and the technical talent to make a good launcher. They just appear to choose not to.

          This is completely the case. You can’t tell me the makers of Unreal Engine couldn’t figure out how to replicate at least some of the more commonly used features of Steam. Of course they can do it. Someone somewhere in the corporate ladder decided they don’t need the extra features to compete with steam. Maybe burning money on the exclusivity contracts and game giveaways will work out in the long run, but I doubt that when they flat out said they’re spending more money than they earn in their 800+ person layoff just a few months ago.

  • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m pretty pragmatic. While I appreciate what Valve has done for PC gaming, I like the idea of them having some legit competition in the space. So when the Epic store started, I bought a bunch of games there to give it a shot. Outer Worlds, Control… And of course I grabbed up a bunch of free games, too!

    …and then, over time, I’ve repurchased all of the games I liked on steam anyway.

    Make of that what you will.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Epic is not a competition to Valve. They are long ways from that position. If Steam ever was afraid of competitor it was from Windows Marker Place or whatever the name of built-in windows crap is.

      • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Ha ha - I mean, you’re not wrong!

        Edit: for the downvoters - as OP, I officially congratulate Kecessa on their sick burn. It made me lol. So… If you were feeling conflicted here, go with the upvote.