Detroit: Become Human arrives on PC on 12th December

[HEXUS]

Originally a PS4 exclusive this 4K version with new engine will arrive first on the EGS.

Read more.

[Ttaskmaster]

Yeah, you had me at 'Lance Henriksen'....

[Spud1]

Yet another good game that I was looking forward to the PC release of so I can finally play it.....and then Epic wade in with their exclusivity crap and ruin it.

rubbish At least there are plenty of other games to play not restricted to EvilCorp's store.

[Percy1983]

Yet another good game that I was looking forward to the PC release of so I can finally play it.....and then Epic wade in with their exclusivity crap and ruin it.

rubbish At least there are plenty of other games to play not restricted to EvilCorp's store.

I rather enjoyed Heavy Rain which was another epic exclusive, thank you to epic for giving a discount on it and giving me many free games since, but if they continue this evilness and giving developers a bigger cut I will be forced to uninstall... oh wait...

[Wrinkly]

Like many, I've gone back to piracy with the anti-consumer Epic store exclusives.

[Spud1]

However bad and anti consumer Epic are, piracy is not the answer, its worse.

Yes it is frustrating that Epic are buying up games and trying to encourage more exclusivity/less choice for everyonem but pirating does a lot more damage to the industry than even Epic. Dont steal games, you do directly hit jobs an peoples lives when you do that.

[cheesemp]

Epic can give away free games etc but I still won't forgive them for my throw away password of 25 years finally appearing on the list of known passwords once I signed up for Fortnight via switch. It first appeared on a fortnight pastebin too within about 24 hours so I know it was that - so no I won't buy EGS exclusives either. And yes password was definitely not known on haveibeenpwned before this point. Got to love haveIbeenPwned though so I knew (via email address warning) and could change the password where I cared.

[RonanH]

I don't get the Epic hate. For years the only option was steam and people never batted an eyelid. Steam did more harm to devs by taking huge cuts of sales. Competition is good for both consumers and game developers alike.

[Spud1]

I don't get the Epic hate. For years the only option was steam and people never batted an eyelid. Steam did more harm to devs by taking huge cuts of sales. Competition is good for both consumers and game developers alike.

Competition is indeed good, but Epic doesn't offer any at all. Competition relies on multiple vendors offering the same (or similar, in some cases) product and competing on something - e.g. price, features, security, reputation, whatever.

Buying up an exclusive does the exact opposite - less competition, less choice, higher prices and ultimately less money for publishers in the end.
Epic could have competed with Steam - use the extra 15% they have to cut prices on the store (offering competition!) or use the millions they made from Fortnite to build a store/ecosystem that could compete on features. They chose to do neither and instead spend their millions buying up exclusives and hurting the industry. Such a Richard move.

[Percy1983]

Competition is indeed good, but Epic doesn't offer any at all. Competition relies on multiple vendors offering the same (or similar, in some cases) product and competing on something - e.g. price, features, security, reputation, whatever.

Buying up an exclusive does the exact opposite - less competition, less choice, higher prices and ultimately less money for publishers in the end.
Epic could have competed with Steam - use the extra 15% they have to cut prices on the store (offering competition!) or use the millions they made from Fortnite to build a store/ecosystem that could compete on features. They chose to do neither and instead spend their millions buying up exclusives and hurting the industry. Such a Richard move.

But without exclusives how are they going to get people to install the epic store, even running a couple of quid cheaper here and there isn't enough to move people on a one off basis. ie as a steam user a new release is on £39.99, how much of a reduction would it take for you to install another software/store, 5%, 10%, 20%?

Of course epic pay for the exclusive and then pay a bigger cut to developers, if a developer sees this as a good deal.

It seems many people are getting emotionally involved with this whole issue like there is good and bad guys, the reality is you have one company with a monopoly and one business trying to break that monopoly. Now the company trying to break the monopoly is using aggressive tack ticks as that is the only way to make a dent (some see this as evil). Meanwhile the monopoly holder does nothing (some see this as good), if they do nothing they still get 98% of the game sales.

From a business point of view trying to break a monopoly, selling at the same price might get you 0.5% of sales, selling at 10% less might get you 1%, 20% less might get you 1.5%, buying an exclusive gets you 100% and many people installing your store. Which move would you make?

[Spud1]

I get the point - but I think the logic is flawed.

You don't get 100% of the people - you get less than that, as a big chunk won't buy the game through EGS. It's unknown what that number really is ofc, it's speculation. I also think that we are a fickle bunch as gamers and we will buy elsewhere to save £5 or £10. I do as do my mates, even if we are not wholly representative.

The millions they spent on bribing publishers could have been spent on developing their app and ecosystem instead, or simply offering loss leaders without the exclusivity that creates such a toxic atmosphere.

They had options to break into the market but sadly chose one of the most anti consumer and most toxic options.

I blame the publishers just as much btw, but not really the developers of the games - they typically get no choice in the matter and most have come out publicly to state as much.

[Percy1983]

I get the point - but I think the logic is flawed.

You don't get 100% of the people - you get less than that, as a big chunk won't buy the game through EGS. It's unknown what that number really is ofc, it's speculation. I also think that we are a fickle bunch as gamers and we will buy elsewhere to save £5 or £10. I do as do my mates, even if we are not wholly representative.

The millions they spent on bribing publishers could have been spent on developing their app and ecosystem instead, or simply offering loss leaders without the exclusivity that creates such a toxic atmosphere.

They had options to break into the market but sadly chose one of the most anti consumer and most toxic options.

I blame the publishers just as much btw, but not really the developers of the games - they typically get no choice in the matter and most have come out publicly to state as much.

As I say there is arguments for/against but in the end its business and one is only doing what the other would do. ie if epic does really start to gain traction it will only be a matter of time before steam started pulling similar tricks.

As can example you say you might jump for 5% cheaper, personally I would do for 1p cheaper now since they both installed.

It does amaze when people are saying they won't buy X game due to it being an epic exclusive due to them being evil, but in not buying you are (a, shooting yourself in the foot and potentially missing a game you wanted to play) supporting a monopoly and saying you won't buy it until its with said monopoly, to which by definition a monopoly is evil and anti consumer.

I will say it does seem you are one of the more open thinkers on the issue, it does worry me that many seem to have a blind loyalty to a monopoly and activity oppose anything which may shake that monoply.

Personally I want epic to grow big enough to be genuine competition as that will force the hands on both sides into a price war which would be very good for the consumer.

[Tabbykatze]

Percy, unfortunately you are a prime example of a enabling Epics predatory behaviour.

Steam don't force a monopoly and never have, people went with them because of many reasons.

I don't use Epic for the variety of security issues that keep popping up and I don't agree that you have to "break a monopoly by forcing a monopoly". That's just changing who owns the monopoly.

I am happy to sacrifice not playing a game I may want to play by standing by my principles, i have an exhaustive library of games I also want to play so I'm still happy.

Epic could be genuine competition right now but they are dumping more funds into exclusivity contracts than they are developing a healthy ecosystem.

[Ttaskmaster]

Competition relies on multiple vendors offering the same (or similar, in some cases) product and competing on something - e.g. price, features, security, reputation, whatever.

Who could possibly compete with Steam on any of that, though?

Price - Steam can afford to put £30 games out with up to a 95% discount. I know, because I bought some.

Features - Steam have the cash to dump into developing and maintaining all sorts of things, and I suspect there is a large percentage of the community who help them.

Security - Again, probably costs money, as well as there being other factors, but not that many people pay it enough attention.

Reputation - Pfft... are you kidding me? Why do you think Loot Crates kept working and why people kept buying them? There are crowds gathered round CGI and RSI offices with burning torches and pitchforks, but some people are still forcing their way through in order to drop several more hundreds of dollars into Star Citizen... and yes, I'm delighted to have another pop at Chris Roberts.

What could a new start platform possibly compete against Steam with, that hasn't already been tried by Uplay, Origin, etc etc...?

[Percy1983]

Percy, unfortunately you are a prime example of a enabling Epics predatory behaviour.

Steam don't force a monopoly and never have, people went with them because of many reasons.

I don't use Epic for the variety of security issues that keep popping up and I don't agree that you have to "break a monopoly by forcing a monopoly". That's just changing who owns the monopoly.

I am happy to sacrifice not playing a game I may want to play by standing by my principles, i have an exhaustive library of games I also want to play so I'm still happy.

Epic could be genuine competition right now but they are dumping more funds into exclusivity contracts than they are developing a healthy ecosystem.

I agree steam isn't forcing a monopoly, they have one due to several factors. Mostly being one of the first to the market and secondly adding it as a half life 2 trogon. This sound negative, steam is amazing and the product is amazing and its done masses for digital distribution on pc.

I agree replacing one monopoly with another will achieve nothing but having a second player with 30%+ of the digital distribution will make steam take notice, with better pricing and better cuts to developers.

The actions you are describing as predatory are I would refer to as necessary in the business world to disrupt a market, neither side is good/evil but I do support a second party trying to break a monopoly.

The money epic is spending on exclusives is building a healthy ecosystem, what this platform needs is users and exclusives is a good way to bring them, once you have them give them some good free games all the sudden you have a decent epic library and you do pay attention to what’s in their store.