Sinophobia. There are valid complaints about the platform, to be clear (and I personally don’t like or use it!), but the reason is recieves so much dislike is Sinophobia. We even got a dweeb saying “Chinese spyware” in this very thread.
The hate comes from gated software exclusives and a dogshit service platform. Does China have something to do with Epic? Whatever it is, they’re not making Epic any better.
I already said there are valid complaints (and again, I dislike it and don’t use it), I simply believe that the hate being so emphatic is because of sinophobia, though a lot of people wouldn’t say it openly (though the “crazies” do, as you say, and there are a lot of “crazies” on Steam and Reddit").
There are more chinese companies that gamers could go with the “chinese spyware” bullshit like mihoyo or Riot games(with that bullshit anticheat), some people accuse of “chinese spyware” of course(the reptilian brain of gamers can’t go without some racism) but the majority play their games. But Epic? I bet that if they did anything positive the “chinese spyware” against them would almost disappeared from the internet.
I wish they had an official Linux client since while heroic launcher works for downloading syncing saves can be buggy and it would be nice to get achievements.
I like GoG for the idea of getting games DRM free. I buy from them when I can.
But there’s some key features of Steam GoG just can’t compete with:
multiplayer infrastructure
gifts and other interactions with friends
I bought BG3 on Steam instead of GoG solely to make it easier to play multiplayer with my friends.
And these features of Steam you can take advantage of even if you buy from GoG (but where would we be without Steam?)
VR support
controller support
linux support (proton)
Also there’s a much better selection on Steam. But sometimes that’s a bad sign. If a game is present on GoG and Steam, that’s a good sign there isn’t a dedication to shitty DRM, even in the Steam version. If a game is present on Steam only, you have to watch out because that game might be DRM-ridden.
The feature parity with Steam’s social functionality is bad. There’s no Messaging, no Friends list with the ability to join their games, No chat, no stats page, no achievements, no screenshots, no streaming, no trading cards, nothing to make the experience interesting outside of buying games.
The IAP experience is not there, and if it is, they are not holding vendors to it. When I played Zenless Zone Zero, I was quickly funneled to Hoyoverse’s launcher for all of that. Its incredible Epic is letting the 1-2% they could make here slip from them, and it means Hoyo needs my Paypal or whatever (i’m not comfortable with this).
Developer API support is not there, which means that any additional EGS integration is, well, half baked. See Satisfactory for an example
Steam offers better game discovery, family sharing, matchmaking, and so forth. EGS provides none outside of what it plans campaigns for.
Steam provides a better API for game controllers, EGS assumes the game will use XInput which works on a per-game basis. Its nothing compared to how with Steam, I can remap controllers easily, especially on KBM only games like Factorio.
Epic Games acquisitions of exclusives means they have little financial runway, and projects that I liked (Alan Wake 2, World of Goo 2) will probably never see the light of day outside EGS. This means the developers took a constantly shrinking advance over genuine sales and WOM, many are still not profitable. Its already unsustainable for Remedy: They’ve killed the deal with Epic and are now going to a shaky Annapurna. Gearbox didn’t profit off Borderlands 3 off its advance, and they aren’t getting any further profits from the shrinking advances.
Most importantly: EGS is supported by Fortnite money from parents who don’t know any better. If Fortnite collapses (which can happen easily if regulators hold Epic to task), EGS will keel over.
In regards to community features, I know what you’re thinking: Epic could buy Discord! Alas, it would take years to tie the software together, and any acquisition of Discord would significantly fracture the community. I can see a quarter to a third of Discord’s userbase leaving for Matrix.
Epic is anti-consumer and also anti-Linux, they don’t make any effort to support other platforms, the app is shit.
Meanwhile, Steam is
Actively working with the FOSS community to help preserve old games
Kernel improvements for better graphics performance
Lots of VR and HDR work
Many contributions to the open-source AMD drivers
Has been supporting Linux gaming for a decade with no signs of backing down
They have a portable Linux gaming console experience, and it’s intentionally left wide open for users to mess with
They’ve taken several community features and built them into the OS
Their DRM is weak and unintrusive
Their anticheat is ununtrusive
The sales are pretty good
They have tons of features for users:
Family sharing
Remote Play Together
Remote Play
Streaming
Community forums for every game
Mod workshop
Matchmaking
Steam Chat / Voice Chat / Streaming
The only appealing thing for EGS is, EGS takes a lower cut from the developers who just pockets it and doesn’t even result in lower prices for users. As a Linux user, praise our Lord GabeN for all the good Valve has done for gamers. Even for the developers, most are quite happy with the services they get back from that 30% cut.
I’d say the dislike is mainly that for the users, EGS doesn’t bring in anything new or interesting or useful that Steam didn’t already do well, and goes directly against a lot of the good Steam has been doing. It’s just a store that makes big developers slightly more happy.
I completely agree with what you said. It’s been years since I bought any games and yet my experience just gets better and better on Steam, especially as a Linux user.
most are quite happy with the services they get back from that 30% cut.
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
As long as Gaben is alive steam will be the good guy. Even if they charge 30%, and I thinm it’s why things are actually pretty neat on steam on the consumer end, because they can either choose to bill the consumer or the developer, and I’m personally always pro-consumer first - albeit for small indie publishers they should (if they already don’t have); a means to launch a company with their game and not give 30% to Valve and be kept from much needed resources to grow their business, much like Valve would benefit from such deals long-term if the developers do a good job and bring in a lot of buyers with their next title in the future. AAA companies is a whole different matter, no passion, no soul, just money-milking-bullshit, should charge them 50% to 70%! they get off easy with a measly 30%.
But yeah, as for the overall topic itself, I do not understand why anyone would want another netflix situation. I don’t want 300 game libraries and accounts installed on my computer, eating up resources, time, and email space - if I could have just one, super convenient and nice place where all is collected and no foreseeable concern that it will suddenly go bankrupt and die and take my investments with it (like some of the game libraries already have). If that ever becomes the case (e.g. when Gaben dies one day), I’ll be the first to sail the high seas out of spite and convenience. I’m fine with monopolies as long as they benefit the end-user first, like Valve.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay for the service separately. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.
They can sell it for whatever price they want on other platforms.
What they can’t do is sell the freely generated Steam keys on other stores for less than the cost of selling them on Steam.
So they cannot put a game on Steam, then generate 100 free keys and put them on Greenman Games for 30% less than Steam. They can definitely put it on Epic for 30% less and let Epic pay the hosting and distribution.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
The CD Projekt-owned PC gaming storefront GOG just released a “facts and figures” breakdown of 2022 in an official blog post. The upshot? GOG experienced steady growth in its user base and library while also turning a tidy $1.2 million profit. It’s a heartening turnaround to see as the service actually lost money—$1.15 million to be exact—the previous year.
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
As the size and number of games increase, so does the demand for Cloud Storage. These limits ensure that all players have access to sufficient and manageable space for their game progress, and that we keep the associated costs under control. By optimizing our storage allocation, we aim to continue providing a reliable and user-friendly platform for everyone.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
steam came at the exact right moment to prevent region locking regulations for online gaming. granted companies and special interests still want to de-globalize gaming for licensing cash, but that’s never going to happen as long as steam is a monopoly. any company taking a cheap shot at steam such as epic or discord or EA can go suck it.
Epic is anti-consumer and also anti-Linux, they don’t make any effort to support other platforms, the app is shit.
Also to add context, Tencent (Chinese tech conglomerate) owns 35% of Epic and helped them pivot to GaaS and aggressively push into the game store market.
Wow, and I consider steam to be utter trash. It uses more resources than the games I want to play. A web browsing engine, in the software that’s the only way to launch the game you paid for, just to show bargain bin shit. But I’m not interested in that, I just want to have a place to shop, and then the ability to use the things I bought. I don’t want to drive to Walmart to play the music I bought, I don’t want my computer to load Walmart just so I can play a game. It’s crazy how bad Steam has become.
This is a bad take in general, if your computer can’t handle running steam it probably can’t handle many games to begin with. It’s the least intrusive option presented so far in terms of DRM, and steam has done more for the Linux gaming market with Proton than any other company afaik. You have to launch steam to avoid games wanting to do things like denuvo or kernel level anti-cheat which is WAY worse, and those of us on Linux need steam running while we game for additional reasons. This complaint about not wanting to look at a storefront is just petty, especially when I’m pretty sure there are settings to open it directly to your library.
I bought Rocket League because it had a Linux version, and Linux games were scarce before proton. Epic bought the developers of rocket League, and made it Epic exclusive. People who bought the steam version got to keep it, except for Linux users because Epic cancelled Linux support.
Epic loves to act like they’re anti monopoly, but they only care about that when they’re competing for market share. They’re extremely pro Microsoft and anti Linux.
Also one of the biggest concerns about Valve having a monopoly in the PC gaming space is that they could use their marketshare and money to block rival stores from getting popular games, making it hard to compete and removing user choice. In reality, Valve hasn’t done this, but Epic is leveraging their big pile of fortnite money to do this. It makes people think that if Epic ever gets into a dominate market position, that they’ll absolutely be an abusive monopoly that makes the market space worse for everyone else.
Just in case you (or anyone else) weren’t aware, Rocket League can still be played perfectly on Linux via Steam by just force enabling Proton - however nonetheless I 100% agree.
All of the ethical reasons listed by the top post are true, but the real answer is that the epic game launcher is severely lacking in its featureset compared to steam, and people don’t want to be forced to buy games through a different storefront from where the rest of their library lives.
Also he tweeted this, which technically isn’t wrong as long as you accept that the US govt is also owned by private corporation and interests.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy “anti-woke” energy, you probably shouldn’t be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
Sinophobia. There are valid complaints about the platform, to be clear (and I personally don’t like or use it!), but the reason is recieves so much dislike is Sinophobia. We even got a dweeb saying “Chinese spyware” in this very thread.
The hate comes from gated software exclusives and a dogshit service platform. Does China have something to do with Epic? Whatever it is, they’re not making Epic any better.
I think it’s that a Chinese company owns significant stake in them. I agree that they certainly aren’t improving the platform
Nah they give plenty of reasons to be disliked only the crazies go to “Chinese spyware” conspiracy bullshit.
I already said there are valid complaints (and again, I dislike it and don’t use it), I simply believe that the hate being so emphatic is because of sinophobia, though a lot of people wouldn’t say it openly (though the “crazies” do, as you say, and there are a lot of “crazies” on Steam and Reddit").
There are more chinese companies that gamers could go with the “chinese spyware” bullshit like mihoyo or Riot games(with that bullshit anticheat), some people accuse of “chinese spyware” of course(the reptilian brain of gamers can’t go without some racism) but the majority play their games. But Epic? I bet that if they did anything positive the “chinese spyware” against them would almost disappeared from the internet.
Because it’s a web browser that doesn’t even run natively on my platform
Exclusives are anti consumer
Beyond how its a inferior product in every way? Exclusives.
Anyone want to talk about GoG?
I wish they had an official Linux client since while heroic launcher works for downloading syncing saves can be buggy and it would be nice to get achievements.
That was what surprised me the most. The storefront that claims to buy games that won’t ever break due to DRM doesn’t have a Linux launcher.
They promised one years ago, but never delivered. My main reason for supporting Steam even over GOG.
I like GoG for the idea of getting games DRM free. I buy from them when I can.
But there’s some key features of Steam GoG just can’t compete with:
I bought BG3 on Steam instead of GoG solely to make it easier to play multiplayer with my friends.
And these features of Steam you can take advantage of even if you buy from GoG (but where would we be without Steam?)
Also there’s a much better selection on Steam. But sometimes that’s a bad sign. If a game is present on GoG and Steam, that’s a good sign there isn’t a dedication to shitty DRM, even in the Steam version. If a game is present on Steam only, you have to watch out because that game might be DRM-ridden.
It’s hard to shake the taint … of Chinese spyware.
My reasons are as follows:
Most importantly: EGS is supported by Fortnite money from parents who don’t know any better. If Fortnite collapses (which can happen easily if regulators hold Epic to task), EGS will keel over.
In regards to community features, I know what you’re thinking: Epic could buy Discord! Alas, it would take years to tie the software together, and any acquisition of Discord would significantly fracture the community. I can see a quarter to a third of Discord’s userbase leaving for Matrix.
Epic is anti-consumer and also anti-Linux, they don’t make any effort to support other platforms, the app is shit.
Meanwhile, Steam is
The only appealing thing for EGS is, EGS takes a lower cut from the developers who just pockets it and doesn’t even result in lower prices for users. As a Linux user, praise our Lord GabeN for all the good Valve has done for gamers. Even for the developers, most are quite happy with the services they get back from that 30% cut.
I’d say the dislike is mainly that for the users, EGS doesn’t bring in anything new or interesting or useful that Steam didn’t already do well, and goes directly against a lot of the good Steam has been doing. It’s just a store that makes big developers slightly more happy.
I completely agree with what you said. It’s been years since I bought any games and yet my experience just gets better and better on Steam, especially as a Linux user.
On top of all this, what really irritates me about epic is they talk like they give a fuck about consumers, but never act like it.
This! That falsehood is so disgusting. And erodes all goodwill they may have accidentaly aquired
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
As long as Gaben is alive steam will be the good guy. Even if they charge 30%, and I thinm it’s why things are actually pretty neat on steam on the consumer end, because they can either choose to bill the consumer or the developer, and I’m personally always pro-consumer first - albeit for small indie publishers they should (if they already don’t have); a means to launch a company with their game and not give 30% to Valve and be kept from much needed resources to grow their business, much like Valve would benefit from such deals long-term if the developers do a good job and bring in a lot of buyers with their next title in the future. AAA companies is a whole different matter, no passion, no soul, just money-milking-bullshit, should charge them 50% to 70%! they get off easy with a measly 30%.
But yeah, as for the overall topic itself, I do not understand why anyone would want another netflix situation. I don’t want 300 game libraries and accounts installed on my computer, eating up resources, time, and email space - if I could have just one, super convenient and nice place where all is collected and no foreseeable concern that it will suddenly go bankrupt and die and take my investments with it (like some of the game libraries already have). If that ever becomes the case (e.g. when Gaben dies one day), I’ll be the first to sail the high seas out of spite and convenience. I’m fine with monopolies as long as they benefit the end-user first, like Valve.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay for the service separately. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
edit: had a hrd time finding the video i knew i had seen this on : https://v.redd.it/xnl8xyki4h5d1/DASH_1080.mp4
This is only true for steam keys sold on other platforms.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.
This is factually incorrect.
They can sell it for whatever price they want on other platforms.
What they can’t do is sell the freely generated Steam keys on other stores for less than the cost of selling them on Steam.
So they cannot put a game on Steam, then generate 100 free keys and put them on Greenman Games for 30% less than Steam. They can definitely put it on Epic for 30% less and let Epic pay the hosting and distribution.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
https://kotaku.com/epic-games-store-pc-profitable-google-court-case-apple-1850996972
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/18730340487709-Review-your-Cloud-Saves-to-avoid-loss-of-files?product=gog
You’re right. Hosting files is more difficult than creating art for the game. Steam deserves a bigger cut than artists.
Tim Sweeney himself has said his 12% cut on EGS isn’t sustainable on its own
It certainly isn’t when you’re spending more than that just to get exclusives.
To be fair, 30% cut probably wouldn’t be sustainable. They were hemeraging money last I checked thanks to exclusives and “free” games.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
steam came at the exact right moment to prevent region locking regulations for online gaming. granted companies and special interests still want to de-globalize gaming for licensing cash, but that’s never going to happen as long as steam is a monopoly. any company taking a cheap shot at steam such as epic or discord or EA can go suck it.
Also to add context, Tencent (Chinese tech conglomerate) owns 35% of Epic and helped them pivot to GaaS and aggressively push into the game store market.
Because it’s dogshit software that’s only worth using because you get free shit
Wow, and I consider steam to be utter trash. It uses more resources than the games I want to play. A web browsing engine, in the software that’s the only way to launch the game you paid for, just to show bargain bin shit. But I’m not interested in that, I just want to have a place to shop, and then the ability to use the things I bought. I don’t want to drive to Walmart to play the music I bought, I don’t want my computer to load Walmart just so I can play a game. It’s crazy how bad Steam has become.
This is a bad take in general, if your computer can’t handle running steam it probably can’t handle many games to begin with. It’s the least intrusive option presented so far in terms of DRM, and steam has done more for the Linux gaming market with Proton than any other company afaik. You have to launch steam to avoid games wanting to do things like denuvo or kernel level anti-cheat which is WAY worse, and those of us on Linux need steam running while we game for additional reasons. This complaint about not wanting to look at a storefront is just petty, especially when I’m pretty sure there are settings to open it directly to your library.
What on earth games are you trying to play that are less resource intensive than the Steam Client?
I have old laptops that can run it without seeing any impact.
If you are using Steam, you likely have the resources for its overhead + Chromium.
Believe it or not, Steam used to take longer to start, due to pre-loading shaders for Source games, but its been phased out.
GoG Galaxy is pretty decent for that
Are we using the same software?? Are you sure your not using uplay, ea or epic games store?
The UI sucks
I bought Rocket League because it had a Linux version, and Linux games were scarce before proton. Epic bought the developers of rocket League, and made it Epic exclusive. People who bought the steam version got to keep it, except for Linux users because Epic cancelled Linux support.
Epic loves to act like they’re anti monopoly, but they only care about that when they’re competing for market share. They’re extremely pro Microsoft and anti Linux.
Also one of the biggest concerns about Valve having a monopoly in the PC gaming space is that they could use their marketshare and money to block rival stores from getting popular games, making it hard to compete and removing user choice. In reality, Valve hasn’t done this, but Epic is leveraging their big pile of fortnite money to do this. It makes people think that if Epic ever gets into a dominate market position, that they’ll absolutely be an abusive monopoly that makes the market space worse for everyone else.
It doesnt make us think, it shows they will.
Just in case you (or anyone else) weren’t aware, Rocket League can still be played perfectly on Linux via Steam by just force enabling Proton - however nonetheless I 100% agree.
Yeah, but when this happened proton wasn’t a thing yet, and running windows games through wine was very hit or miss.
Ah gotcha, fair enough!
Steam doesn’t kick me out of my single player games when my internet connection drops for a split second. I quite like that
Their stated goal is to monopolize games so you can’t buy them from GoG, Steam, or the Windows store.
It is very slow
All of the ethical reasons listed by the top post are true, but the real answer is that the epic game launcher is severely lacking in its featureset compared to steam, and people don’t want to be forced to buy games through a different storefront from where the rest of their library lives.
Also he tweeted this, which technically isn’t wrong as long as you accept that the US govt is also owned by private corporation and interests.
It is just a store. People want to buy games from a social platform for some reason.