So you're against Epic buying exclusives, but how else are they supposed to compete with a practical monopoly? Law protects the Steam in that they don't technically use unjust practices to maintain their stanglehold on PC gaming, but in practical terms it may as well be a monopoly in that it's so much more well established than any other platform can possibly be on equal terms. At least when it comes to consoles, each generation brings about the opportunity to reshuffle the deck which just can't happen on PC.
So you're against Epic buying exclusives, but how else are they supposed to compete with a practical monopoly...
Ayden Adams
Easton Torres
stop baiting you cuck
Hudson Morgan
have sex
Grayson Kelly
>how else are they supposed to compete with a practical monopoly?
Supporting the development of good games and having features and deals that entice people. Not that you actually care since you're obviously a shill.
Jeremiah Morris
The only bate I want is a debate.
Oliver Lee
What about lower prices? Or better store curation (assuming they do get to be as big as steam)? Or cashback on purchases?
How about funding/developing games instead of buying them once they are already finished?
Caleb Fisher
You don't need to directly clash pound for pound to run a business, just covering the right spots and carving your own niche like GOG or hell even Origin with it's subscription service is doing it more correctly than Epic.
Jeremiah Morales
just post the epic app datamining so there will be an end to the horror
Gavin Murphy
look chang we've explained this to you several times a day
it's quite easy
epic is already paying to guarantee launch sales
what they should have done is take that, then lower 20% of the cost of the game for the first month or something, and make up that 20% to the developer
1. they don't harbour ill will because the games will be on both stores
2. they make themselves look better, and show off one of the potential benefits of the lower sales cut
3. customers actually benefit because they pay less
tim swiney is a smoothbrain for doing what he's done
right now this deal benefits very little people, only publishers
Liam Scott
>Over 10 minutes later and the cuck hasn't made a single other reply.
William Ward
>pay for development of a game that might suck
Vs
>pay for exclusivity of a finished game you can play right now
I wonder why you’re a neet and not running the company that 90% of video games use their engine
Joshua Cruz
Bentley Collins
Drinks for every time you see a thread about Epic Games.
Jack Wilson
>pay for a developed game that will suck
>pay for a finished game that sucks
whats your point again?
Carson James
Alright, first off, Steam isn't a monopoly. Every retard is calling it one but doesn't know what it means. And to answer your question, they should have done multiple things before even releasing. They had ~16 years of Steam's lifespan to use as reference of what to and not to do. They should have seen what they were missing, like a fucking SEARCH BAR, or wishlists, or a community tab, but they didn't. Secondly, instead of outright buying exclusives that were already almost out the door, such as Metro: Exodus, or all of David Cage's games, they should have funded games that were earlier in development. The only good thing they have done is incentivizing their store to publishers. The main thing they should have done is something they would never do. And it's incentivizing CONSUMERS to come to their platform. Nobody wants their platform because everything EGS can do, Steam does better in every way. They should have either picked something and done it real well, or introduce something entirely new that no other store has. And do not tell me that these exclusives do that, because its a fucking pathetic attempt at it. They could have introduces some sort of second hand trading function, and that would have been an new function that some people would have jumped on really fast.
Stop sucking Epic's dick, you chink.
Carter Bennett
>how is epic supposed to compete without exclusivity?
They were already competing you fucking brainlet. The Epic store launched back in mid-2018 and had the reduced cut back at launch, and was competing fine. The exclusivity agreements are a very recent development, and are being made explicitly to hurt Valve's bottom line.
Also:
>muh practical monopoly
Epic is owned and financed by one of the largest and most predatory digital conglomerates in the world that is actively trying to buy or stomp out anyone and everyone who is a potential competitor. Trying to paint Epic as the little guy in this situation is a massive mis-characterization.
Jaxson Sanders
the solution is to just not compete, makes the whole thing more convenient for the rest of us
Ayden Thomas
>spend tens of millions buying exclusives
vs
>spend millions making a competitive product
thinkingfrog.jpg
Isaac Miller
Provided that you have good judgement, you'll net more profit financing development than you will by bribing developers after the game is done. Finished games do terribly all the time, it's not like it's far and away a safer option to buy them out afterward. It's also less likely that you'll have the financial incentive to fix a game that's broken on release because you weren't there to iron it out in development, it's just better to cut your losses at that point.
Austin Robinson
>The absolute state of PC*ck gaming
Hahahahaha!
Asher Martinez
Is that soulja boy? Fucking kek
Kevin Morris
>but how else are they supposed to compete with a practical monopoly?
They can take the tens of millions they're burning for publishers and instead use that money to make their games cheaper for customers. They've already established that they're willing to invest the money. It really is that simple.
Dominic Parker
Steam fanboys don't actually play games, they just like to buy them for their Steam list.
Kevin Lewis
What's the U in a circle?