- 0 Posts
- 11 Comments
That’s exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn’t buy alan wake because it wasn’t on steam, to a degree that’s true, i’m saying that i think a larger proportion didn’t buy it specifically because it was on EGS.
If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i’d agree with you. It’d certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.
My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS
Think in terms of food, you’re basically saying the it’s the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want’s to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.
Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.
If you were using something like GOG as an example, i’d fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for “free” games.
It’s not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.
That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by
Historically there’s been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that’s not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.
even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?
You aren’t even wrong about this but “People don’t buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are …better at PR?” isn’t a convincing argument.
Everyone should be better at this, but they aren’t.
I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn’t the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.
Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.
It’s like being upset that a fancy new car hasn’t recouped costs when it’s only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.
Sure, that is certainly a choice but it’s a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.
Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn’t anything better.
There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it’s been the best option for a very long time.
If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn’t such a shitshow the platform would be fine.
It’s doesn’t and they aren’t so it’s not.
It can’t compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn’t worked out for them.
Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.
Name a comparable, viable alternative?
Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch
Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.
Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it’s essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.
Let’s try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
a sequel is in the works : https://www.remedygames.com/games/control-2