What grudges do you hold against tech/software companies and why?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

59 minutes ago, Kisai said:

...Netflix...

That is a company I will NEVER, EVER do business with! For years, the *&^%$#@! bastards "snuck" their blasted popup and, later, popunder ads onto my computers despite popup blockers. Every time I found a way to thwart them, they would find a way around it. They are one of the reasons I finally resorted to using ad blockers that block all ads.

[RonnieOP]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's the same problem with trying to compete with Netflix.

 

Netflix and Valve were not the first company to do what they did, but they were the first ones that were essentially open to anyone who wanted to follow some basic rules (as opposed to youtube where absolutely no vetting is done.) As we've learned with open source software, sometimes it's not the product that you need to sell, but the support.

 

So in Canada, we had Shomi and Crave that popped out of the either to offer the exact same stuff that was on Hulu in the US, and Shomi quickly vanished. Crave is still stumbling about since Hulu still isn't available in Canada. But what you're not realizing is that these apps actually resulted in the gutting of your existing VOD service, which in Canada, resulted in both Telus and Shaw stripping their VOD service down to nothing, since both Telus and Shaw do not own content. If you want it, you have to go to Crave. Or do without. 

 

So Netflix is basically better than Crave for the primary reason of it not being owned by Bell (which owns Crave.)

 

Valve does not compete with GoG, Valve competes with Origin and Ubisoft's in-house stores that nobody else gave a a care about. The only company that wasn't foolish enough to make their own app for this nonsense was SquareEnix. If you buy a game from their store, you download it from the store. With that said, it's also a huge pain in the ass to buy directly from SquareEnix.

 

That is why Steam has been successful, because dealing with every companies store is a pain in the ass. Sure competition is great, but it's only great when there are no exclusives and everyone is selling the EXACT same product. When the products are different and there are exclusives on one service that the other doesn't have, then you're just being forced to buy-in to multiple services, and for some people installing one bloated always-on sloppy app is enough, why would they want to install another?

 

Like as much as I pooh-pooh Stadia, it does technically solve the "many storefront" problem, but it's not a problem that needed solving THAT way. Xbox and Playstation have their own stores that operate exactly the same way Valve does. Microsoft and Apple have their own stores, and Microsoft kinda realized that they built the barn to house the horses after the horses have already run off and won championships for Valve, at least on the PC. Apple on the other hand is in a slightly better position since they don't permit third party stores on the iOS platforms, so there is incentive to use Apple's store, and once you have dev's using their store, it's not as much of a leap to compile the game for MacOS X native. However geting a PC/Console game on Mac is still basically not a thing.

 

The market can tolerate two options, but no more. The end result of there being a half dozen different "app" stores on the PC is that people will just not want to deal with one, and no exclusive game is going to change their mind.

But its free to use the epic launcher. Unlike streaming services with monthly fees.

 

If a games on the epic launcher you pay for the game. And if your not playing a game off epics launcher then dont have it open. Same with steam. So no launcher is using resources unless opened.

 

It literally hurts nobody to have these exclusives and it makes the devs more money. 

 

I have no idea where you get that the market can only tolerate two options. What evidence is there of that?

 

 

[DailyProcrastinator]

On 1/8/2020 at 9:05 PM, dizmo said:

1. MSI
   Went through 5 X370 motherboards. Multiple issues of different kinds, through 3 different SKUs. Currently have a Z270 motherboard that's Ethernet port is failing. Father has had multiple issues with MSI boards over the years as well. I will never buy or recommend another MSI motherboard again.

I think most X370 motherboards were shit TBH. My Asus CRH6 was nothing but problematic, my friend had issues with his Gigabyte X370 board as well. The Asus RMA process was painful and it took like 6 months for them to finally replace the motherboard, their incompetence was pretty bad. By the time they concluded that my motherboard was bricked X470 had launched and I had already decided to get the CRH7 which has been solid. And early Ryzen stability was bad just in general. But I was salty with Asus about the CRH6, don't really hold a grudge because I still pretty much only buy Asus motherboards but yeah I wasn't impressed. 

[RejZoR]

LENOVO

 

Bought their netbook (I think it was some S205 model). Had horrendous wifi issues where it would just lose signal for no reason or have poor transfers in exact same spot where all HP and ACER laptops had fine wifi reception). Sent it to service and they couldn't figure it out, it looked fine for them. While it was in service, display started flickering and eventually died while in service for some other issue. So they replaced the display, it still had same wifi issues and like 2 weeks later, HDD just died catastrophically so that it wouldn't even boot anymore. I don't think I'll ever buy any Lenovo. At least service center was nice so that they gave me a brand new originally packed one which I later sold to someone with minimal loss. I'm gonna stick with HP. Best experience with laptops.

[Archer20]

20 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Im confused why this issue only gets held against Epic.

 

Steam has had exclusive games for decades now as has Blizzard. Yet its only Epic that gets shit on for it.

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

Ive put 60 hours into borderlands 3 on the epic launcher and tbh i cannot tell that im using the epic launcher instead of steam.

 

 

To clarify, Steam "exclusives" are only exclusive because they are made by Valve. Blizzard again, makes their own games, and hosts their own servers for those games(keep in mind most of them are always online). It's not an apple's to apples comparison. Metro Exodus and BL3 were not made by Epic and therefore should not be exclusive to them. 

[RonnieOP]

35 minutes ago, Archer20 said:

To clarify, Steam "exclusives" are only exclusive because they are made by Valve. Blizzard again, makes their own games, and hosts their own servers for those games(keep in mind most of them are always online). It's not an apple's to apples comparison. Metro Exodus and BL3 were not made by Epic and therefore should not be exclusive to them. 

Valve hasnt made a game in years. Yet there are plenty of games that you have to buy and play on steam. So why is nobody upset about that? 

 

Destiny 2 is the main game i play right now. In order to play it i have to use steam. So its a steam exclusive. Yet nobody is bitching about that? Or the hundreds of other games like it.

[Archer20]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Valve hasnt made a game in years. Yet there are plenty of games that you have to buy and play on steam. So why is nobody upset about that? 

 

Destiny 2 is the main game i play right now. In order to play it i have to use steam. So its a steam exclusive. Yet nobody is bitching about that? Or the hundreds of other games like it.

The difference is that the devs choose to use steam to launch their game, especially indie titles(which EPIC doesn't allow in most cases). Most devs do want a form of DRM and Steam is the most obvious choice. Epic FORCES devs into contracts and FORCES exclusivity.

 

Destiny 2 is also available on Battlenet...... so not exclusive.

[RonnieOP]

2 minutes ago, Archer20 said:

The difference is that the devs choose to use steam to launch their game, especially indie titles(which EPIC doesn't allow in most cases). Most devs do want a form of DRM and Steam is the most obvious choice. Epic FORCES devs into contracts and FORCES exclusivity.

 

Destiny 2 is also available on Battlenet...... so not exclusive.

Destiny 2 is only available on steam since shadowkeeps release. You cant do anything with it on battlenet.

 

Your right dev choose to use steam....just like they choose to use epic. Literally no difference. 

 

Epic doesnt force anything. Thats asinine. If i make you an offer to sign a contract to work for me and you voluntarily agree and sign it. Have i forced you into a deal? No of course not. You elected to sign the contract.

 

So none of your points make any sense.

[Archer20]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Destiny 2 is only available on steam since shadowkeeps release. You cant do anything with it on battlenet.

 

Your right dev choose to use steam....just like they choose to use epic. Literally no difference. 

 

Epic doesnt force anything. Thats asinine. If i make you an offer to sign a contract to work for me and you voluntarily agree and sign it. Have i forced you into a deal? No of course not. You elected to sign the contract.

 

So none of your points make any sense.

While that's true, Destiny 2 was available on both Battlenet and Steam. Therefore was not exclusive. It was a dev decision if I recall to leave bnet.

Tim Sweeney is on record saying he will continue to force developers to sign exclusivity deals to be on his store. Steam does not make devs sign anything of the sort. The difference is, Valve will allow a title to exist on multiple launchers if the dev so chooses. EPIC forces devs into contracts to be able to sell on the store.

 

However, we clearly have a difference of opinion here and this seems to be going nowhere. You have a bias towards EPIC and I disagree with their business practices.

[BuckGup]

After working in industry for a bit Intel and Nvidia are extreme asshats

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, Archer20 said:

While that's true, Destiny 2 was available on both Battlenet and Steam. Therefore was not exclusive. It was a dev decision if I recall to leave bnet.

Tim Sweeney is on record saying he will continue to force developers to sign exclusivity deals to be on his store. Steam does not make devs sign anything of the sort. The difference is, Valve will allow a title to exist on multiple launchers if the dev so chooses. EPIC forces devs into contracts to be able to sell on the store.

 

However, we clearly have a difference of opinion here and this seems to be going nowhere. You have a bias towards EPIC and I disagree with their business practices.

Destiny 2 was never on both at the same time.. Its was on battlenet and then on steam. The second it went to steam it became a steam exclusive.  You cannot see anything about destiny on battlenet anymore.

 

Do you have a link to that quote?

 

Its literally impossible for him to force anyone to sign a contract.

 

And they have games on epic launcher that are also available on other launchers. 

 

The difference between the two is basically nothing. Devs can choose to be exclusive to steam, exclusive to epic, or neither. Its a dev decision that is not forced in any way.

 

If you wanna be mad about it. Be mad at steam for being greedy with the split.  Epics launcher wouldnt have any force behind it if they didnt offer devs a better financial deal. 

 

I have no bias for epic at all. Idc about any launcher tbh. They are all the same to me.

 

I just like calling out the hypocrisy from consumers. They dont care if steam does it. But they do if epic does. Makes no sense. They claim they care about the devs and their work loads. Yet when a launcher comes around that offers them alot more money they complain.

[Archer20]

18 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Destiny 2 was never on both at the same time.. Its was on battlenet and then on steam. The second it went to steam it became a steam exclusive.  You cannot see anything about destiny on battlenet anymore.

 

Do you have a link to that quote?

 

Its literally impossible for him to force anyone to sign a contract.

 

And they have games on epic launcher that are also available on other launchers. 

 

The difference between the two is basically nothing. Devs can choose to be exclusive to steam, exclusive to epic, or neither. Its a dev decision that is not forced in any way.

 

If you wanna be mad about it. Be mad at steam for being greedy with the split.  Epics launcher wouldnt have any force behind it if they didnt offer devs a better financial deal. 

 

I have no bias for epic at all. Idc about any launcher tbh. They are all the same to me.

 

I just like calling out the hypocrisy from consumers. They dont care if steam does it. But they do if epic does. Makes no sense. They claim they care about the devs and their work loads. Yet when a launcher comes around that offers them alot more money they complain.

Force is the wrong word. Perhaps I should say, he is pushing devs to consider exclusivity deals. All last year he was saying how that would continue. It't not hard to find references making those statements.

I think you are missing the point though. Tim is making contracts that time gate devs and lock their games to the Epic launcher. Valve does not do that.

 

But I digress.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, JM21 said:

I think most X370 motherboards were shit TBH. My Asus CRH6 was nothing but problematic, my friend had issues with his Gigabyte X370 board as well. The Asus RMA process was painful and it took like 6 months for them to finally replace the motherboard, their incompetence was pretty bad. By the time they concluded that my motherboard was bricked X470 had launched and I had already decided to get the CRH7 which has been solid. And early Ryzen stability was bad just in general. But I was salty with Asus about the CRH6, don't really hold a grudge because I still pretty much only buy Asus motherboards but yeah I wasn't impressed. 

Yeah, that's why I ditched Ryzen entirely and moved back to Intel; RAM compability. I can throw whatever RAM I want into an Intel system, and it just works. Ryzen is (was?) picky. It shouldn't be. The fact that it was recommended you search for specific sticks, and of those specific sticks you had to get ones with specific brands of memory chips? Simply unacceptable. The warranty process with MSI was also annoying, so they lost marks there as well.

[NovaNightmare]

On 1/8/2020 at 6:58 PM, Anomnomnomaly said:

"I was one of the Windows 7 holdouts... only got 10 12 months ago when I built my new system. Didn't pay full price for it off course, just bought a license for 20... I wanted Pro not the crappy version you can still get for free."

 

 

What is the crappy version you can get for free? The free upgrade is Pro to Pro, or Home to Home. Even though it ended, I was able to do it for someones computer this past week from their download tool. Easy as pie.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

But its free to use the epic launcher. Unlike streaming services with monthly fees.

 

If a games on the epic launcher you pay for the game. And if your not playing a game off epics launcher then dont have it open. Same with steam. So no launcher is using resources unless opened.

 

It literally hurts nobody to have these exclusives and it makes the devs more money. 

 

I have no idea where you get that the market can only tolerate two options. What evidence is there of that?

 

 

The market will only tolerate two options.

 

Coke and Pepsi

McDonalds and (regional favorite)

Mac and PC

iPhone and Android

 and so forth.

 

Companies either merge until there's only two options with all others denied logistics ability to grow, or companies fail until there are only two options left. See AT&T vs Verizon. When I last worked for AT&T Wireless, there were at least 6 options (AT&T Wireless, Cingular (The current AT&T), Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Nextel) and some regional options like US Cellular and GCI. How many options do you have in Alaska? two. One of those is GCI. The other is currently AT&T (which at the time was AT&T wireless had, and then traded to another carrier.) 

 

All the losing mobile carriers have been folded into Sprint. At present the US is really only down to three options, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, and you can bet that AT&T will make another attempt at acquiring T-mobile in the future. In Canada, we have only two carriers in each market. Telus and Rogers in BC, and Bell and Rogers in Ontario. There has never been an effective third wireless carrier in all markets, and they all end up merging with someone as an exit strategy. Likewise for internet access, your options are either Shaw or Telus in BC, or Bell or Rogers in Ontario. There is no third option unless you live in a new condo tower that was pre-wired with fiber.

 

So to go back to the problem with Valve/Steam and the Epic store. Valve is just a store. There's no requirements, and many older software packages on Steam simply have a "Steam launcher" to get it into the store, and the rest of the files in the package are identical to versions sold on GOG. Epic is tying to grow by forcing developers to leave money on the table. "We will pay you for exclusivity" but neglect to state that their store is rubbish, and they had to force even their Unreal Engine developers to use it. 

 

These game launchers are all chromium-based rubbish and take up hundreds of MB's of memory and need an always-connected internet connection on what could have easily been a streamlined experience. Blame Apple for this because that's exactly how iTunes operates (embedded Safari) and everyone copied that behavior. Even Microsoft.

 

People do not like their purchases being spread accross multiple services. Either everything is available, or it's rubbish, and not worth dealing with. This is why Origin, UPlay, and Battle.net are rubbish. The Epic Game store is ultimately going to end up being the same as Origin, a bloated launcher and what exclusives they are able to get now, will not be enough to get people to "switch" to it. If Epic want's to do things differently they have to actually do things differently, and that means letting people transfer their licenses between Steam and GoG.

 

So the two markets are Steam and GoG. Epic is the third wheel. Everyone else already tried and failed.

[bigmug]

Apple.

Mainly because they focus so much on appearance and disregard function. That in itself wouldn't be a problem for me, if it weren't for the fact that other manufacturers copy Apple's stupid ideas. I fear that when it's time to buy my next Android phone, there will be no reasonable model available with a 3.5 mm headphone jack. Wireless headphones suck, and I really hate the dongle approach - it's stupid beyond belief!

I used to work for Apple, and the fruit was rotten on the inside already then, some 17 years ago. I wonder when people will wake up and see beneath the polished surface...

It's not a company, it's a cult. A sect. "Think different"? Not a chance, if you work for Apple, or if you use an Apple product. No, it's the Apple way or no way.

[Archer20]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

So to go back to the problem with Valve/Steam and the Epic store. Valve is just a store. There's no requirements, and many older software packages on Steam simply have a "Steam launcher" to get it into the store, and the rest of the files in the package are identical to versions sold on GOG. Epic is tying to grow by forcing developers to leave money on the table. "We will pay you for exclusivity" but neglect to state that their store is rubbish, and they had to force even their Unreal Engine developers to use it. 

 

These game launchers are all chromium-based rubbish and take up hundreds of MB's of memory and need an always-connected internet connection on what could have easily been a streamlined experience. Blame Apple for this because that's exactly how iTunes operates (embedded Safari) and everyone copied that behavior. Even Microsoft.

 

People do not like their purchases being spread accross multiple services. Either everything is available, or it's rubbish, and not worth dealing with. This is why Origin, UPlay, and Battle.net are rubbish. The Epic Game store is ultimately going to end up being the same as Origin, a bloated launcher and what exclusives they are able to get now, will not be enough to get people to "switch" to it. If Epic want's to do things differently they have to actually do things differently, and that means letting people transfer their licenses between Steam and GoG.

 

So the two markets are Steam and GoG. Epic is the third wheel. Everyone else already tried and failed.

 

 

 

Someone actually understands what I'm getting at. Epicss requirements are horrid, and the launcher itself lacks tons of options and features Steam provides(reference the chart I posted earlier in this thread). I have no problem with the Battlenet launcher as a World of Warcraft player. Because Blizzard is the benefactor of the game and service. But i like all my other games in one place, my place of choice. And it's nice Steam allows indie devs and a free market. Unlike Epic. 

[RonnieOP]

35 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The market will only tolerate two options.

 

Coke and Pepsi

McDonalds and (regional favorite)

Mac and PC

iPhone and Android

 and so forth.

 

 

 

Almost all your examples are horrible.

 

Coke and pepsi...really? Theres a shit load of other sodas that sell really well. RC Cola, Dr Pepper, etc. If anything the market wouldnt tolerate having just two soda options.

 

Mcdonalds and x. What about taco nell, hardees, dunkin, sonic, in and out, burger king, arbys, kfc, etc.

 

None of your examples prove anything related to the statement that a market can only handle two options.

 

And Epic is only giving an option to devs. Nothing more.

 

You could say epic is forcing them to leave money on the table. You could also say that steam is forcing them to accept the offer because they dont offer any incentives to not take it. 

 

Steam is huge. Has been for years. Theres no reason they cant offer the same deals as epic. 

 

Point is if steam offered gearbox the same exact offer and gearbox took it...nobody would be complaining.

 

Its not a case where you have to have only one. You can have both. It costs nothing to have them installed and they use no resources when not in use. 

 

I will agree that epic stores seems to be missing some of steams features (tbh i couldnt tell you what features those are as i dont use them and dont notice them not being there. I buy the game and play it. Thats literally all i need from a launcher). But it is a fairly new launcher. I wouldnt expect them to get ot perfect out the gate.

 

They are also offering alot better deals then steam has in a while. Ive gotten a number of good free games from eoic the past few months as well as 2 $10 off coupons that gave me really good games for $5-10. I cant remember the last good sale steam has had tbh.

 

Steam has become complacent. They had a dominate market share and they just stopped caring. Epic wouldnt be able to do this if steam wasnt so lazu and lackluster. Even with Epic taking some of their thunder they havent really done anything different to combat it. They are just hoping their history alone keeps them going. I dont understand how anyone could be happy about that kind of business model.

 

Its basically a win win for everyone. Competition is always good for consumers. And it literally costs the consumers nothing. Literally $0. It takes up a few megabytes of space.on your hard drive and thats it.

 

 

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 

Almost all your examples are horrible.

 

Coke and pepsi...really? Theres a shit load of other sodas that sell really well. RC Cola, Dr Pepper, etc. If anything the market wouldnt tolerate having just two soda options.

 

 

Read more than one sentence please. Pick 4 stores anywhere in the US or Canada, and try to find the same product in them.

 

Coke and Pepsi will always be found. You will not find anything else because Coke or Pepsi are the only bottlers in those markets. Seriously, go look at Dr.Pepper. In Canada, Dr.Pepper is bottled by Pepsi. In the US it's bottled by Coke. RC Cola? Doesn't exist here. 

 

My point is that the market never allows for there to be a third option. People pick their poison, and then rarely deviate from it. If I bought everything on Steam, I'm not going to buy anything on Epic, Origin, Uplay, Microsoft, Battle.net unless that is the only way to play that companies games, and even then, why bother. Can I live without playing Ubisoft and EA games, yes. I can also live without playing Epic's games. 

 

How many games have I bought on the Epic game store? two. How many do I own on Gog and Steam? triple digits. How many do I own on Origin? Mass Effect and The Sims. And somehow EA screwed that up and it's split between two Origin accounts. 

 

So for those who still do not understand the problem.

 

The market forces will always result in a maximum of two viable options.

 

Here's some more examples

Twitter and Facebook. 

Amazon and eBay

 

And sometimes there's only one viable option:

Paypal (Payments)

Youtube (VOD)

Twitch (Streaming)

 

You can also see this problem with many of the gaming peripherals. Razer, Logitech, Corsair, etc. Only one or two brands will have all the shelf space (in this case Corsair and Razer) and all the other stuff you might only be able to order online. Yet, all the RGB features of late require their own memory-hogging Chromium-based cloud utilities for some damn reason. They have yet to have folded into just two options.

 

You know what was the last time the gaming hardware decided on a standard? MSI Afterburner (RivaTunerStatisticsServer). All the GPU vendors before AMD and nVidia decided to make hardware capture possible in their own driver sets, were using RivaTunerStatisticsServer. Before that, it was Fraps.

 

Unless the Epic Game store is going to give me a Steam key, I'm not going to use Epic game store to buy anything that is available on Steam. I make the same decision when I buy something on Humble Bundle, or kickstarted games. Steam keys first. 

 

There's another problem I didn't want to get into, but I may as well mention it.

 

I also do not want to have to re-purchase the same (game, film, music) twice. 

 

This is already a problem with GOG and Steam. There needs to be a way to sync licenses and "save games" between the game stores before anyone will consider moving from one to the other. It's hard enough to get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to play nice with each other, what makes you think that two separate PC "game stores" will? It's simply not going to happen. 

 

So let's say the worst happens, and this has happened with movie stores online already a few times. Ultraviolet shut down and your purchases were sold to Flixster. Then Flixster shutdown and your purchases were sold to Google. What if I don't want to use Google? What if I don't own any Android devices? Well SOL. This is why I intentionally redeemed everything with iTunes unless that option was not available. Those other options didn't look like they were going to stick around, and the "company-owned" ones certainly were not.

 

That's what I see happening again with all the streaming services, and I see that happening with the game stores. The only reason any of those game stores exist, at all, is that the company running it has their own games on it, and at least one of those games makes enough money to keep the store operating in perpetuity. What will happen when Overwatch and WoW stop making money? What will happen if people move on to something other than Fortnite? Let's say something happens and Epic decides to shut down? Where do your purchases go? 

 

This is a repeated problem that we keep seeing online. You buy something, but the logistics companies in the middle keep shutting down or making boneheaded decisions. See Patreon and Kickstarter. For now they exist, but I would not expect them to exist in the near future because the people in charge think they're going to be the next facebook and make unpopular decisions with their community. 

 

Remember Myspace? Remember Tumblr? Remember what happened when a cold faceless company bought them and promptly destroyed them? 

 

Do I see Epic imploding in the future? Likely when Tencent implodes.

[Sir0Tek]

HP, Dell, others with their modified and/or locked hardware. spartanic bios, you name it. Oh, and Apple, remember their sway to OS X, PowerPC, then Intel Xeon, while quickly pulling any support for older systems and kicking the owners of damn expensive hardware quickly down the stairs? Some of these systems had a life-to-death ratio of 2 years or less, unless the users were able to trick the newer OS into working with the not-so-old hardware.

And don't mention Microsoft as if I ever could forget DRDOS. Or could you forgive them on the introduction of Windows ME? Or Vista?

[RonnieOP]

50 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Read more than one sentence please. Pick 4 stores anywhere in the US or Canada, and try to find the same product in them.

 

Coke and Pepsi will always be found. You will not find anything else because Coke or Pepsi are the only bottlers in those markets. Seriously, go look at Dr.Pepper. In Canada, Dr.Pepper is bottled by Pepsi. In the US it's bottled by Coke. RC Cola? Doesn't exist here. 

 

My point is that the market never allows for there to be a third option. People pick their poison, and then rarely deviate from it. If I bought everything on Steam, I'm not going to buy anything on Epic, Origin, Uplay, Microsoft, Battle.net unless that is the only way to play that companies games, and even then, why bother. Can I live without playing Ubisoft and EA games, yes. I can also live without playing Epic's games. 

 

How many games have I bought on the Epic game store? two. How many do I own on Gog and Steam? triple digits. How many do I own on Origin? Mass Effect and The Sims. And somehow EA screwed that up and it's split between two Origin accounts. 

 

So for those who still do not understand the problem.

 

The market forces will always result in a maximum of two viable options.

 

Here's some more examples

Twitter and Facebook. 

Amazon and eBay

 

And sometimes there's only one viable option:

Paypal (Payments)

Youtube (VOD)

Twitch (Streaming)

 

You can also see this problem with many of the gaming peripherals. Razer, Logitech, Corsair, etc. Only one or two brands will have all the shelf space (in this case Corsair and Razer) and all the other stuff you might only be able to order online. Yet, all the RGB features of late require their own memory-hogging Chromium-based cloud utilities for some damn reason. They have yet to have folded into just two options.

 

You know what was the last time the gaming hardware decided on a standard? MSI Afterburner (RivaTunerStatisticsServer). All the GPU vendors before AMD and nVidia decided to make hardware capture possible in their own driver sets, were using RivaTunerStatisticsServer. Before that, it was Fraps.

 

Unless the Epic Game store is going to give me a Steam key, I'm not going to use Epic game store to buy anything that is available on Steam. I make the same decision when I buy something on Humble Bundle, or kickstarted games. Steam keys first. 

 

There's another problem I didn't want to get into, but I may as well mention it.

 

I also do not want to have to re-purchase the same (game, film, music) twice. 

 

This is already a problem with GOG and Steam. There needs to be a way to sync licenses and "save games" between the game stores before anyone will consider moving from one to the other. It's hard enough to get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to play nice with each other, what makes you think that two separate PC "game stores" will? It's simply not going to happen. 

 

So let's say the worst happens, and this has happened with movie stores online already a few times. Ultraviolet shut down and your purchases were sold to Flixster. Then Flixster shutdown and your purchases were sold to Google. What if I don't want to use Google? What if I don't own any Android devices? Well SOL. This is why I intentionally redeemed everything with iTunes unless that option was not available. Those other options didn't look like they were going to stick around, and the "company-owned" ones certainly were not.

 

That's what I see happening again with all the streaming services, and I see that happening with the game stores. The only reason any of those game stores exist, at all, is that the company running it has their own games on it, and at least one of those games makes enough money to keep the store operating in perpetuity. What will happen when Overwatch and WoW stop making money? What will happen if people move on to something other than Fortnite? Let's say something happens and Epic decides to shut down? Where do your purchases go? 

 

This is a repeated problem that we keep seeing online. You buy something, but the logistics companies in the middle keep shutting down or making boneheaded decisions. See Patreon and Kickstarter. For now they exist, but I would not expect them to exist in the near future because the people in charge think they're going to be the next facebook and make unpopular decisions with their community. 

 

Remember Myspace? Remember Tumblr? Remember what happened when a cold faceless company bought them and promptly destroyed them? 

 

Do I see Epic imploding in the future? Likely when Tencent implodes.

You still have not provided literally any substantial evidence of the market only allowing two options. 

 

So because your area only allows 2 options that applies to all areas?

 

In the US (which is a huge market force) you have a crap load of options for banks. Theres about 6 big ones i can name off the top of my head in my area alone. Beer? In the gas station closr to my home theres literally 20 different options from 20 different breweries. The options get even larger if you go to costco, walmart, target etc.

 

Oh and multiple stores i can buy the same product? Walmart, target, costco, best buy. Off the top of my head theres 4 options that the market allows.

 

Cell providers. You have verizon, att, sprint, tmobile, us cell. And thats not even counting the 20+ different prepaid providers that i can walk into any of the four stores i just mentioned and buy a sim for.

 

At every best buy ive been to they have corsair, logitech, razer, hyperx, and steel series keyboards and mouse. 

 

I dont think whatever market uou are in is a good comparison to the market as a whole..it just seems like your area has crap selections.

 

Now your argument about having all them have some sort of sync feature does make sense. And if thats your argument that makes sense. But its not going to ever happen. Ever. 

 

Are you worried that epic is going to fizzle out and all the games you own on their library are going to go away forever? What in the world gives you that idea? Theres no reason to believe that as a fact. Epic is huge. As a company as a whole its just as big as blizzard and steam. Tenscent is huge and isnt going away anytime soon either. You have the same risks with steam as you do with epic in those regards.

 

What happens when fortnite stops making money? Do you really think epic is not capable of continuing as a business without fortnite? You realize they were around before valve even existed right? They will be fine. They make money via the launcher, their engine, the games they make, etc.

[Anomnomnomaly]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Are you worried that epic is going to fizzle out and all the games you own on their library are going to go away forever? What in the world gives you that idea? Theres no reason to believe that as a fact. Epic is huge. As a company as a whole its just as big as blizzard and steam. Tenscent is huge and isnt going away anytime soon either. You have the same risks with steam as you do with epic in those regards.

 

 

There isn't a company on this planet that isn't a few steps away from going out of business... all it takes are some shitty decisions, some shitty products... kill of your userbase, fail to adapt to a changing market... and you'll just be another statistic with your IP bought out and stripped for the profit making parts whilst the consumers are thrown away and screwed over again and again. There isn't a company that has ever existed that is too big to fail... so your misguided belief that it wouldn't happen is... well... misguided at best.

 

It's interesting that you bring up 20 different beers from 20 different breweries... do you actually know 'who owns' all of those breweries?  The probability of it being one or two companies is high... very, very high. Stores have deals and agreements in place to stock from certain suppliers, the bigger the franchise the bigger the deal and the more likely it is to consolidate it's buying into fewer places.

 

This is an example... it's know as 'the illusion of choice'  this is just a basic example regarding food... you could easily create one for games publishers that own 90% of all game studios... the same applies to movie studios... Disney owns Marvel, Pixar, Fox, Lucasfilm, ESPN. ABC.. and subsidiaries of some of those companies are Sky, Hulu, Star, Touchstone, Hyperion... the list goes on and on.

 

 

 

I'll tell you what... go back to that store take pics of those 20 beers from 20 different companies and we'll see how valid that argument is. 

[Tedstonegenious]

Well, I just bought a wifi card for my laptop. But before the thing arrived I learned that my laptop manufaturer (lenovo) puts white lists on their bios. Meaning I'm gonna have to either return the chip (its from china so not really a option), let it collect dust, or mod the firmware on the wireless card to make the laptop thing its a whitelisted in bios. Something i'm not really looking forward to and i'm pissed. 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

 

In the US (which is a huge market force) you have a crap load of options for banks. Theres about 6 big ones i can name off the top of my head in my area alone. Beer? In the gas station closr to my home theres literally 20 different options from 20 different breweries. The options get even larger if you go to costco, walmart, target etc.

 

There's only three beer companies in the US. Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors and Pabst. Anything else you see on the shelf is either produced by them or is a craft brew that likely only exists in your city or state. I don't drink beer so I have no idea, and don't really care what's popular or not. 

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-11-brewers-make-over-90-of-all-us-beer-2015-07-27?page=2

 

Quote

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Brands: Budweiser, Bud Light, Bud Ice, Bud Light Lime, Busch, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Bass, Boddington’s Stella Artois, Beck’s, Hoegaarden, Leffe, Kirin, Landshark Lager, Goose Island, 10 Barrel, Blue Point, Elysian, Redbridge, Natural Light, Shock Top, Wild Blue, Johnny Appleseed Hard Cider, Oculto, various malt liquors and flavored malt beverages.

Quote

MillerCoors

Brands: Coors Banquet, Coors Light, Coors Light Citrus Radler, Extra Gold Lager, Hamm’s, Herny Weinhard’s, Icehouse, Keystone, Killian’s Irish Red, Magnum, Mickey’s, Miller Genuine Draft, Miller High Life, Miller Lite, Miller 64, Milwaukee’s Best, Olde English, Red Dog, Steel Reserve, Aguila, Cristal, Cusqueña, Grolsch, Lech, Peroni, Pilsner Urquell, Batch 19, Blue Moon, Leinenkugel’s, Foster’s, Molson, Redd’s Apple Ale, Crispin, Smith & Forge, Sparks, Third Shift.

 

Quote

Pabst

Brands: Pabst Blue Ribbon, Schlitz, Ballantine IPA, Old Milwaukee, Lone Star, Rainier, Olympia, National Bohemian, Old Style, Primo, Stroh’s, Stag, Schaefer, Schmidt’s, Pearl, Blatz, McSorley’s, St. Ides, Champale, Colt 45.

Its beers are brewed in either MillerCoors facilities or by contract brewers in places like Cold Spring, Minn. 

 

Not convincing me the market supports more than two beer manufacturers. There may be 11 according to that news article, but Anheuser-Busch InBev is 45% of the beer market.

 

Quote

 

5 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Oh and multiple stores i can buy the same product? Walmart, target, costco, best buy. Off the top of my head theres 4 options that the market allows.

 

Cell providers. You have verizon, att, sprint, tmobile, us cell. And thats not even counting the 20+ different prepaid providers that i can walk into any of the four stores i just mentioned and buy a sim for.

 

 

Sorry, you have no idea what you're even talking about. VMNO's are not separate carriers. There is Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile. That's it. Chances are only two of those even serve the same market. For example US Cellular owns practically nothing but the empty-middle of the US. That's why you can't get US Cellular service everywhere. Alaska is GCI and AT&T. Verizon acts as VMNO in Alaska. VMNO's allow carriers to operate in each other's market's which would previously be "roaming" back in 2003 when there were more than 5 carriers. Nextel and the former AT&T Wireless no longer exist, and Sprint will no longer exist once that merger with T-mobile goes through. All those prepaid VMNO's buy minutes/data wholesale from T-Mobile or Sprint. That means if Sprint has crappy coverage in your area, then all VMNO's that use Sprint will.

 

As I've said the market supports only two options. The logistics of existing as the third option is expensive.  

 

These are local, but just to prove the point again:

If you go down the beverage Aisle in Walmart, everything is owned by Coke, Pepsi or Nestle, and Nestle does not sell carbonated beverages, it sells only water, but so does Coke and Pepsi. That's the only thing in the beverage Aisle that has a third option. Coke or Pepsi own the bottling companies. The occasional regional brand like Jones Cola (Seattle) or New York Seltzer (California) only exist on the shelf for a short period of time and then they disappear for months. That's because the store doesn't see any reason to purchase these products because they don't move huge volumes, and they get no marketing incentives to even carry them. Even talking to the stores that carry them, they often say that they carry them all at the same time because of the distributor made it available. Coke for example right now has a bunch of "craft soda"'s which consist of Barq's Rootbeer, BC Raspberry, Mexicoke, and Georgia Peach. These have been available for the last 6 months, but the stores that carry them have not restocked them once. I'm pretty sure 7-11 and London Drugs goes through the same distributor because they carry these other soda's (like Jones and NY Seltzer) at the same time, and they also disappear at the same time, which tells me that they're probably going through Coca-Cola's logistics channel.

 

The problem with comparing food with software is that food has an expiry. So stores are not going to carry 6000 different beverages and packaged foods from around the world if people locally aren't buying them, because they will incur a loss.

 

With digital software, there is no marketing, there is no duplication costs, all it costs to digitally distribute a DVD sized game is 5GB of data and an insignificant amount of energy. The cost per GB of data realistically is only about 1 cent. Especially in high volumes. So It costs Valve or Epic about 5 cents to sell a game in data, and costs them about 3% of the retail price to the card processor. So games that cost less than $1, are likely a loss, but not a significant loss.

 

If you're a game developer and you want to sell your game, you're not going to setup your own logistics. For you, it makes the most sense to put your game on every market (eg GOG, Itch.io, Steam, Epic) but if you have to make it exclusive, you're leaving that money from those other markets on the table, and everyone who can not be arsed to download Epic's launcher will just pirate the game anyway. They're not going to wait for the exclusivity to end.

 

[Marbo]

Vodafone UK. 

 

Great service on my mobile, but customer service is full of either liars or people who don't know what they're doing. Could be a mixture of both. 

 

Every time I called I got different answers. Lots of different ways to be fobbed off. Including offers made that weren't followed through. Next agent would then tell me they were not authorised to make those offers. 

 

Soon as my contract is up I'm gone.