I know they’re missing features. Steam didn’t always have all the features they have now either. We take that for granted now, but that wasn’t always the case. Steam has their market position because they were one of the first to market, and they invested their profits into making their product better. A newcomer is now met by consumers with the expectation that they’ll be equally as good, and when they inevitably aren’t they don’t use it. That’s how a monopoly works.
I agree it sucks, and that Steam is a nice piece of software, and the Valve has done good work supporting Linux. That doesn’t change whether or not they hold a monopolistic position in the market though. The barrier for new entries into the market is too high because Steam is good. It’s nothing against Steam, but it is a monopoly and that isn’t good for consumers —which includes game developers, not just end users.
That steam didn’t have features is like comparing steam from decades ago. I don’t feel like that is even a valid defense anymore when new smartphone companies are expected to come with a feature filled OS as opposed to pre smartphone expectations. Same for any other products be it televisions, monitors, etc.
Barriers can be brought up, but if someone is introducing the equivalent of a dumb phone to the market to compete against a smartphone and expecting to make money for just existing and only bothering to try to corner the market with removing products then no wonder things are playing out the way they are.
And Epic is a billion dollar company making stuff like unreal engine yet can’t scrap together a launcher that doesn’t feel like it is from decades ago. Or chooses not too. Can’t even put in Linux support despite community efforts like heroic launcher.
You can’t put out a shit product and then cry about why people aren’t buying it. It doesn’t work for any market. Can try to coerce people with monopolistic practices of trying to deny product availability, but that’ll only get you so far.
If anything if your argument is that it is hard then that just seems to bring to question of maybe a low cut actually isn’t realistic if a company wants to make a feature rich launcher and platform if even a billion dollar company is finding it hard to accomplish. But, it seems to me epic is only choosing or only knows the approach of trying to buy their way in and not want to “waste” resources improving anything else and banking on consumers not being able to resist not buying a product epic paid to only be available on their launcher.
You keep making good points. Unreal Engine has been around since 1998. They’ve had a long time developing the engine and it makes it hard for other engines to compete. There are a few, but not many. They’ve invested a lot of money into making their engine the premium option and making sure consumers avoid alternatives that aren’t as feature rich.
You can’t put out a shit product and then cry about why people aren’t buying it. It doesn’t work for any market. Can try to coerce people with monopolistic practices of trying to deny product availability, but that’ll only get you so far.
You clearly can coerce people with monopolistic practices. You’re defending Valve over Epic, which Epic has a much smaller market share. You can call it anti-consumer if you want, but monopolistic? Yeah right. When one store is the default, devs have to sacrafice to not be a part of it. Again, I agree it sucks, but it’s a monopoly by Valve, not Epic.
If anything if your argument is that it is hard then that just seems to bring to question of maybe a low cut actually isn’t realistic if a company wants to make a feature rich launcher and platform if even a billion dollar company is finding it hard to accomplish.
There are two consumers here. There’s consumers who purchase games, and consumers who utilize the product to sell their games. Epic gives a smaller cut to entice devs, because otherwise they have no reason to participate because all the game purchases happen through Steam.
It all sucks for the consumer, which is why monopolies are bad. We shouldn’t be defending some company who’s making tons of profit just because we are simping for their product. Steam is undoubtedly superior, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t monopolistic.
Point is that the alternative isn’t even trying to be a legitimate option. It’s like wanting better streaming options for videos and blockbuster popping up and removing videos from being available on other steaming options.
There’s nothing that can be done when other companies don’t even bother with the new competitor being a billion dollar publicly traded company taking a monopolistic strategy. They aren’t even trying except throw money around to remove options. For there to be competion that is good for consumers the competion has to actually try, but they think just talking about cuts that don’t matter to consumers and taking a monopolistic approach to games is going to bring people who actually spend money.
All these cuts talks are useless when the company hasn’t even proven to have an sustainable actual business model with it not turning a profit. And given trends of other businesses that promise low prices then raise them is one of the least reliable ones. I’m not sure why you are simping for epic and defending them when my point is they aren’t even a good option worth defending like you are. It’s like defending a Walmart that showed up in a town despite all their strategies being more red flags.
I get pushing for gog or itch. But some company just existing doesn’t merit defending if they aren’t bringing value. The defense of them hasn’t been earned. Their end goal seems more suspicious to me. An option just popping up doesn’t entitle it to being defended if they haven’t earned it.
Another good point about video. Go try to stream Battlestar Galactica right now. It’s one of the greatest sci-fi shows ever made, and it’s impossible to stream reasonably. There actually is competition in that space, yet stuff like that still happens due to licensing deals. It used to be available on Netflix when that was the only streaming option, but it left a long time ago.
There’s nothing that can be done when other companies don’t even bother with the new competitor being a billion dollar publicly traded company taking a monopolistic strategy. They aren’t even trying except throw money around to remove options. For there to be competion that is good for consumers the competion has to actually try, but they think just talking about cuts that don’t matter to consumers and taking a monopolistic approach to games is going to bring people who actually spend money.
There is something that can be done. We have a government for a reason. It has laws in place to handle when monopolies appear. That shouldn’t matter if you like them or not. Monopolies are bad. For example, look at GPU prices. They are as high as they are because Nvidia can set them that high. They could be better than they are currently too, but there’s no reason to do that when they’re in the front. They’d rather sit on it until they need to advance to stay a step ahead. It’s bad for consumers, even if you like Nvidia for some reason.
I know they’re missing features. Steam didn’t always have all the features they have now either. We take that for granted now, but that wasn’t always the case. Steam has their market position because they were one of the first to market, and they invested their profits into making their product better. A newcomer is now met by consumers with the expectation that they’ll be equally as good, and when they inevitably aren’t they don’t use it. That’s how a monopoly works.
I agree it sucks, and that Steam is a nice piece of software, and the Valve has done good work supporting Linux. That doesn’t change whether or not they hold a monopolistic position in the market though. The barrier for new entries into the market is too high because Steam is good. It’s nothing against Steam, but it is a monopoly and that isn’t good for consumers —which includes game developers, not just end users.
That steam didn’t have features is like comparing steam from decades ago. I don’t feel like that is even a valid defense anymore when new smartphone companies are expected to come with a feature filled OS as opposed to pre smartphone expectations. Same for any other products be it televisions, monitors, etc.
Barriers can be brought up, but if someone is introducing the equivalent of a dumb phone to the market to compete against a smartphone and expecting to make money for just existing and only bothering to try to corner the market with removing products then no wonder things are playing out the way they are.
That’s why all new smartphone companies use Android. It comes packaged feature rich. It is a good comparison.
And Epic is a billion dollar company making stuff like unreal engine yet can’t scrap together a launcher that doesn’t feel like it is from decades ago. Or chooses not too. Can’t even put in Linux support despite community efforts like heroic launcher.
You can’t put out a shit product and then cry about why people aren’t buying it. It doesn’t work for any market. Can try to coerce people with monopolistic practices of trying to deny product availability, but that’ll only get you so far.
If anything if your argument is that it is hard then that just seems to bring to question of maybe a low cut actually isn’t realistic if a company wants to make a feature rich launcher and platform if even a billion dollar company is finding it hard to accomplish. But, it seems to me epic is only choosing or only knows the approach of trying to buy their way in and not want to “waste” resources improving anything else and banking on consumers not being able to resist not buying a product epic paid to only be available on their launcher.
You keep making good points. Unreal Engine has been around since 1998. They’ve had a long time developing the engine and it makes it hard for other engines to compete. There are a few, but not many. They’ve invested a lot of money into making their engine the premium option and making sure consumers avoid alternatives that aren’t as feature rich.
You clearly can coerce people with monopolistic practices. You’re defending Valve over Epic, which Epic has a much smaller market share. You can call it anti-consumer if you want, but monopolistic? Yeah right. When one store is the default, devs have to sacrafice to not be a part of it. Again, I agree it sucks, but it’s a monopoly by Valve, not Epic.
There are two consumers here. There’s consumers who purchase games, and consumers who utilize the product to sell their games. Epic gives a smaller cut to entice devs, because otherwise they have no reason to participate because all the game purchases happen through Steam.
It all sucks for the consumer, which is why monopolies are bad. We shouldn’t be defending some company who’s making tons of profit just because we are simping for their product. Steam is undoubtedly superior, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t monopolistic.
Point is that the alternative isn’t even trying to be a legitimate option. It’s like wanting better streaming options for videos and blockbuster popping up and removing videos from being available on other steaming options.
There’s nothing that can be done when other companies don’t even bother with the new competitor being a billion dollar publicly traded company taking a monopolistic strategy. They aren’t even trying except throw money around to remove options. For there to be competion that is good for consumers the competion has to actually try, but they think just talking about cuts that don’t matter to consumers and taking a monopolistic approach to games is going to bring people who actually spend money.
All these cuts talks are useless when the company hasn’t even proven to have an sustainable actual business model with it not turning a profit. And given trends of other businesses that promise low prices then raise them is one of the least reliable ones. I’m not sure why you are simping for epic and defending them when my point is they aren’t even a good option worth defending like you are. It’s like defending a Walmart that showed up in a town despite all their strategies being more red flags.
I get pushing for gog or itch. But some company just existing doesn’t merit defending if they aren’t bringing value. The defense of them hasn’t been earned. Their end goal seems more suspicious to me. An option just popping up doesn’t entitle it to being defended if they haven’t earned it.
Another good point about video. Go try to stream Battlestar Galactica right now. It’s one of the greatest sci-fi shows ever made, and it’s impossible to stream reasonably. There actually is competition in that space, yet stuff like that still happens due to licensing deals. It used to be available on Netflix when that was the only streaming option, but it left a long time ago.
There is something that can be done. We have a government for a reason. It has laws in place to handle when monopolies appear. That shouldn’t matter if you like them or not. Monopolies are bad. For example, look at GPU prices. They are as high as they are because Nvidia can set them that high. They could be better than they are currently too, but there’s no reason to do that when they’re in the front. They’d rather sit on it until they need to advance to stay a step ahead. It’s bad for consumers, even if you like Nvidia for some reason.
Don’t simp for a corporation.