>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
So you're against Epic buying exclusives, but how else are they supposed to compete with a practical monopoly...
William Ward
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!