Borderlands 3 will be exclusively on the Epic store for the first 6 months

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Can you stop citing competition when there isnt any? Locking games into one store is a far cry from any sort of competition.

Without some form of arrangement like this, there never will be a competiting platform to Steam. 

 

You have to be a fool to think that long term EGS will continue to get exclusive rights to games. Either they'll get too large a portion of sales for Steam to not try to win publishers back or they'll sell an irrelevant amount and publishers won't be willing to lose the sales. Not to mention the fact that the cut they take will likely increase as time goes on and features are added.

 

So yes, there is still competition as a handful of games is irrelevant; and not only that, without some similar tactic EGS would never be able to compete with Steam long term and we would continue to have just a single platform to choose from - Steam - with no actually no competition.

[Blademaster91]

38 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Without some form of arrangement like this, there never will be a competiting platform to Steam. 

 

You have to be a fool to think that long term EGS will continue to get exclusive rights to games. Either they'll get too large a portion of sales for Steam to not try to win publishers back or they'll sell an irrelevant amount and publishers won't be willing to lose the sales. Not to mention the fact that the cut they take will likely increase as time goes on and features are added.

 

So yes, there is still competition as a handful of games is irrelevant; and not only that, without some similar tactic EGS would never be able to compete with Steam long term and we would continue to have just a single platform to choose from - Steam - with no actually no competition.

There are plenty of competitors to Steam, people are acting as if Steam is the only thing to use when there are launchers like EA Origin,Uplay or GOG Galaxy.

It isn't competition when Epic is locking games into only their store at the expense of the consumer having any free choice where to buy a game except EGS. And tossing millions of dollars at publishers doesn't look like a good long term decision but they're still getting plenty of Fortnite money for now.

The cut doesn't seem sustainable either especially since there isn't regional pricing, EGS could be fair competition with no need to have game exclusivity or spyware in the launcher if Epic added the basic features that other game clients already have. As already mentioned most people using EGS don't even have Steam, Steam users aren't going to switch unless EGS is compelling enough to use, the anti-competitive and anti-consumer tactics aren't are a good way to have competition.

2 hours ago, DragonTamer1 said:

I was specifically referring to the fact that steam does not have a direct hand in developing the the majority of the titles released on their platform and that it's unheard of for any company to charge that much money for simply distributing a product.

 

Edit: Apple apparently charges 30% for products sold on the apple store but this is the only company I could find an example of.

It costs a larger platform like Steam more to manage a store and features the user gets to use for free, I don't think the 30% fee Apple charges is fair but Apple or Steam aren't forcing you to use only their store to get an app or game.

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

There are plenty of competitors to Steam, people are acting as if Steam is the only thing to use when there are launchers like EA Origin,Uplay or GOG Galaxy.

It isn't competition when Epic is locking games into only their store at the expense of the consumer having any free choice where to buy a game except EGS. And tossing millions of dollars at publishers doesn't look like a good long term decision but they're still getting plenty of Fortnite money for now. The cut doesn't seem sustainable either especially since there isn't regional pricing, EGS could be fair competition with no need to have game exclusivity or spyware in the launcher if Epic added the basic features that other game clients already have. As already mentioned most people using EGS don't even have Steam, Steam users aren't going to switch unless EGS is compelling enough to use, the anti-competitive and anti-consumer tactics aren't are a good way to have competition.

Even feature parity or a slightly compelling advantageous feature wouldn't get people to switch to EGS. It would need to be something massive. The best and really only way for EGS to be competitive with Steam is to gain marketshare quickly -- that requires either cutting an exclusivity deal with publishers or offering consumers an abnormally low price. The latter is likely to not go over too well with publishers who don't want their game devalued. So temporary exclusivity and low profit cuts are a great way to break into the market. 

 

It's obviously not something that's going to be sustainable long term for a variety of reasons, so again, it's just a matter of trying to get EGS onto a workable playing field with Steam. 

 

And while there are other launchers, they suffer from the same problem that EGS would have suffered with if they didn't cut some kind of arrangement -- namely, they are only really used for their first party content that can't be played anywhere else because people would rather stick with the old than try something new. The difference is that Epic wants to make EGS profitable and not just a platform for their own games -- just like Valve wanted with Steam. The other players clearly don't have the same priorities otherwise they would have come to some form of arangement to give them leverage over Steam in order to grow their userbase.

 

[D13H4RD]

I think Sterling summed it quite well here. 

 

Basically, hate the player but also hate the game for allowing the player to do said thing. 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Did the creators of Borderlands 3 get bribed or did they do it on their own free will? 

[xAcid9]

21 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

That's because they didn't have to. They were the only digital game store when Steam launched. That didn't change for literally years until Origin and uPlay and GoG came online.

They might start doing it now and then everyone else will follow that step and we as consumer won't get anything good from that. It's not like the game is discounted on release or anything.

[Daveeede]

3 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Did the creators of Borderlands 3 get bribed or did they do it on their own free will? 

Its publisher's decision, not the developers. They must've seen an opportunity to be more profitable on the EGS. 

[THraShArD]

I dunno, the graphics look super cheesy.   It looks like Colorforms.   People might be too young to know what that is.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, THraShArD said:

I dunno, the graphics look super cheesy.   It looks like Colorforms.   People might be too young to know what that is.

That's just the borderlands art style, which plenty of people, myself included, happen to enjoy.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 hours ago, Daveeede said:

Its publisher's decision, not the developers. They must've seen an opportunity to be more profitable on the EGS. 

The theory is they'll make more money on the PC port. We'll find out by 2020 whether that ended up being true.

[Jito463]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:51 PM, dalekphalm said:

Steam does indeed have paid exclusives:

HL2 (and said Episodes)

I know this was hashed out earlier in the thread, but I still wanted to point out that first party games being exclusive is not the issue (nor is it a surprise), it's third party exclusives that are the problem.

On 4/4/2019 at 10:41 AM, poochyena said:

Does McDonalds and Burger King not compete since they don't sell the same things?

Actually, they do both sell the same things.  They call them different names, and they modify them slightly to make them unique, but they're both still selling burgers, fries, etc.  Poor analogy.

On 4/4/2019 at 9:26 PM, DragonTamer1 said:

30% is actually a considerably large percentage of the profits being taken and I can't think of anywhere else that is taking such a large chunk either online or real world.

GoG, Microsoft, Apple, and that's just off the top of my head.  30% is actually fairly common.

On 4/5/2019 at 5:44 AM, Ross Siggers said:

I've not read through the previous 7 pages of this thread, but here's my take; I'm not against timed exclusives. It's a potentially good way of attracting attention to a new platform, and EGS seems like one that could genuinely be competetive with steam given time to mature.

 

BUT... Borderlands is not the game to do it with. It's a long running franchise, with an established fanbase.

Which is precisely why Epic wanted it for their store, because it has an established fan base.

On 4/5/2019 at 9:36 AM, dalekphalm said:

That's because they didn't have to. They were the only digital game store when Steam launched. That didn't change for literally years until Origin and uPlay and GoG came online.

Direct2Drive says hi.  They launched 6 months before HL2 came out, and were another viable option for digital distribution.  It's just that they sucked (I know firsthand how much) and Steam was a much better option.

[Andreas Lilja]

49 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Direct2Drive says hi.  They launched 6 months before HL2 came out, and were another viable option for digital distribution.  It's just that they sucked (I know firsthand how much) and Steam was a much better option.

HL2 needed Steam for netplay anyhow.

 

D2D was merely a download service. I remember that you could even backup the games / burn to a CD. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Raskolnikov said:

HL2 needed Steam for netplay anyhow.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  HL2 required Steam period.

2 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

D2D was merely a download service.

Uh....yeah, for digital distribution.....

I distinctly remember being able to buy games from there, such as the original Splinter Cell (which was an awful copy, part of my bad experience with them).

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

They call them different names, and they modify them slightly to make them unique, but they're both still selling burgers, fries, etc.  Poor analogy.

poor analogy? What you said is the point. They both sell nearly identical things, but they just aren't exactly the same. Epic and steam both sell lots of shooter games, just that some that are slightly different from each other.

[BabaGanuche]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

poor analogy? What you said is the point. They both sell nearly identical things, but they just aren't exactly the same. Epic and steam both sell lots of shooter games, just that some that are slightly different from each other.

By that logic I assume you would say that all books are the same? All cars are the same? Would say that CS:GO and Borderland are the same game because they are both shooters?

[poochyena]

57 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

By that logic I assume you would say that all books are the same? All cars are the same? Would say that CS:GO and Borderland are the same game because they are both shooters?

same no, similar, yes.

[Ross Siggers]

8 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Which is precisely why Epic wanted it for their store, because it has an established fan base.

A fanbase which is more prominently established on consoles, so people who choose it on PC over a console are likely more discerning(I hate the term, but pcmr somewhat applies here). I can't imagine many liking being tied into a distribution system which is barebones, and in it's infancy. What they see as a savvy marketing move, at the end of the day is just going to hurt the games sales(at launch at least) and piss off a portion of the playerbase. But they don't care, because the number of unique users on EGS will rise.

It's true that everyone has to start somewhere, Steam obviously had the market cornered to get itself going. It was new, it was enticing as the future of gaming. But IMHO, Epic hasn't developed their launcher enough before making it public and flooding it with users and 'exclusive' games. Look at the list above; you can't even view other users profiles, or take screenshots, which to me are pretty basic things. Maybe you can't view profiles because there'd be nothing to see there anyway  

I wonder how many will register to play that game, and then avoid the service in the future if it doesn't mature fast enough. God knows I've done that with some services, Origin and Uplay are garbage and I only go near them when absolutely necessary. And they're as basic as EGS is now. I'll have less of a problem with it when I see that they've ramped up development of the platform properly to accommodate the kind of gamers they're trying to attract

[laminutederire]

16 minutes ago, Ross Siggers said:

A fanbase which is more prominently established on consoles, so people who choose it on PC over a console are likely more discerning(I hate the term, but pcmr somewhat applies here). I can't imagine many liking being tied into a distribution system which is barebones, and in it's infancy. What they see as a savvy marketing move, at the end of the day is just going to hurt the games sales(at launch at least) and piss off a portion of the playerbase. But they don't care, because the number of unique users on EGS will rise.

It's true that everyone has to start somewhere, Steam obviously had the market cornered to get itself going. It was new, it was enticing as the future of gaming. But IMHO, Epic hasn't developed their launcher enough before making it public and flooding it with users and 'exclusive' games. Look at the list above; you can't even view other users profiles, or take screenshots, which to me are pretty basic things. Maybe you can't view profiles because there'd be nothing to see there anyway  

I wonder how many will register to play that game, and then avoid the service in the future if it doesn't mature fast enough. God knows I've done that with some services, Origin and Uplay are garbage and I only go near them when absolutely necessary. And they're as basic as EGS is now. I'll have less of a problem with it when I see that they've ramped up development of the platform properly to accommodate the kind of gamers they're trying to attract

Actually play and origins are not as great as steam but they still have more features as epic and yet everyone thinks those are garbage and you still have people defending epics score for some reason...

[Quadriplegic]

https://www.trainerstechs.com/2019/04/gearbox-software-will-think-over-releasing-borderlands3-on-steam.html?m=1

 

Kinda want this to happen

[Ross Siggers]

3 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Actually play and origins are not as great as steam but they still have more features as epic and yet everyone thinks those are garbage and you still have people defending epics score for some reason...

Yeah, they're better than EGS sure. But they're still nowhere near enjoyable to use

 

[jaggysnake57]

On 4/5/2019 at 10:25 PM, jagdtigger said:

Can you stop citing competition when there isnt any? Locking games into one store is a far cry from any sort of competition.

right market competition definitions

 

Quote

Competition is the rivalry between companies selling similar products and services with the goal of achieving revenue, profit, and market share growth.

 

Quote

In business, a company in the same industry or a similar industry which offers a similar product or service. The presence of one or more competitors can reduce the prices of goods and services as the companies attempt to gain a larger market share. Competition also requires companies to become more efficient in order to reduce costs. Fast-food restaurants McDonald's and Burger King are competitors, as are Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Wal-Mart and Target.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competitor.html

no explain to me how epic are not meeting these definitions, specifically,  you cant buy a big mac in burger king or a whopper in mcdonalds and yet they are in competition.

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, Quadriplegic said:

https://www.trainerstechs.com/2019/04/gearbox-software-will-think-over-releasing-borderlands3-on-steam.html?m=1

 

Kinda want this to happen

Borderlands 2 was the first case where Steam's review-bombing mitigation thing kicked in. 

 

Idk how to say this, but I feel that review bombing has existed for a long time. The problem lies in the lack of moderation. At the same time, you don't want that moderation to feel that the rights to review a product are being severely constrained. 

 

With all that said, I don't agree with review bombing older games (that are actually really good). However, Randy ought to be careful with his words. Because that could very well be interpreted in a similar way to Patrick Söderlund's response to the BFV controversy by the community. 

 

This is probably a situation that's not going to get any better before it gets worse. I've seen that usually being the case when game companies and communities fundamentally disagree with each other to the point where it gets personal. 

[jagdtigger]

8 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Borderlands 2 was the first case where Steam's review-bombing mitigation thing kicked in. 

 

Idk how to say this, but I feel that review bombing has existed for a long time. The problem lies in the lack of moderation. At the same time, you don't want that moderation to feel that the rights to review a product are being severely constrained. 

 

With all that said, I don't agree with review bombing older games (that are actually really good). However, Randy ought to be careful with his words. Because that could very well be interpreted in a similar way to Patrick Söderlund's response to the BFV controversy by the community. 

 

This is probably a situation that's not going to get any better before it gets worse. I've seen that usually being the case when game companies and communities fundamentally disagree with each other to the point where it gets personal. 

Just let the community to rate publishers/dev's directly and the review bombing wont happen....

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, Ross Siggers said:

A fanbase which is more prominently established on consoles, so people who choose it on PC over a console are likely more discerning(I hate the term, but pcmr somewhat applies here). I can't imagine many liking being tied into a distribution system which is barebones, and in it's infancy. What they see as a savvy marketing move, at the end of the day is just going to hurt the games sales(at launch at least) and piss off a portion of the playerbase.

None of which I disagree with.  I was simply acknowledging that it's why they wanted Borderlands 3 to be an exclusive on their store.  I can almost guarantee it's going to hurt sales.  To what extent we'll just have to wait and see.

[camjocotem]

On 4/3/2019 at 7:45 PM, Terryv said:

For everyone asking ng why the epic launcher is so bad. Here's a list of missing features as compared to steam.

 

 

 

Here's a link that discusses EGS privacy concerns: https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_game_store_spyware_tracking_and_you/

 

 

Here's one in regards to their security problems (may or may not be fixed): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/vba5nb/fornite-login-hack-epic-games-website&ved=2ahUKEwiA69Kuy7ThAhVHaq0KHdjoAuQQFjAEegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3ca1m65eGjWGdUWfgPeRGF&ampcf=1&cshid=1554317396981

Most of these I can live without but lacking cloud saves and no offline play is a big no-no to me.