Fable Legends Windows 10 Store Exclusive

[othertomperson]

I never argued with you about that. Our argument was about what a competitor is.

 

But your explanation as to why you hate exclusivity is at its heart the reason why it is not competition. It forces you, the end user, to buy from people you don't want to buy from, to use platforms you don't want to because the alternatives do not exist or have been deliberately restricted from. Competition is all about choice, about allowing the market to decide what survives and what doesn't. It is not competitive to use artificial restrictions such as this to make an unpopular and bad system appear profitable.

 

And I use the word "appear" deliberately. Would anyone use Uplay if they weren't forced to? Have you even heard a good word about it, ever? Uplay isn't profitable, but the games that require it are.

 

 

As much as I dislike the fragmented multiple DRM client situation on Windows. How exactly can we fault one company over another for doing it.

 

VALVE GAMES ARE ONLY AVAILABLE ON STEAM.

 

And EA games are only available on Origin, and Ubisoft games require use of Uplay. We've been through this, it's shit and already argued about. This topic is a reaction to yet another company jumping on the exclusivity bandwagon on PC.

 

We're "faulting one company over another" because one of these companies is news. Just because people aren't talking about something right this second doesn't mean they don't care.

[cesrai]

Then what do they do if not gaming reviews?

I just told you one thing they do but here is a link https://youtu.be/B8KHClEGGM8 check them out they are great.

[Trik'Stari]

I just told you one thing they do but here is a link -snip check them out they are great.

You knew precisely what video to link to me in order to get me interested.

 

you know too much about me damnit.

[Camul]

 

But your explanation as to why you hate exclusivity is at its heart the reason why it is not competition. It forces you, the end user, to buy from people you don't want to buy from, to use platforms you don't want to because the alternatives do not exist or have been deliberately restricted from. Competition is all about choice, about allowing the market to decide what survives and what doesn't. It is not competitive to use artificial restrictions such as this to make an unpopular and bad system appear profitable.

 

And I use the word "appear" deliberately. Would anyone use Uplay if they weren't forced to? Have you even heard a good word about it, ever? Uplay isn't profitable, but the games that require it are.

 

 

 

And EA games are only available on Origin, and Ubisoft games require use of Uplay. We've been through this, it's shit and already argued about. This topic is a reaction to yet another company jumping on the exclusivity bandwagon on PC.

 

We're "faulting one company over another" because one of these companies is news. Just because people aren't talking about something right this second doesn't mean they don't care.

 

 

That's what competitors do though. It's not always about trying to be the best, it's just about giving them an advantage anyway they can. It's shitty, and can be unfair, but it is what it is.

[Humbug]

As much as I dislike the fragmented multiple DRM client situation on Windows.

I love the fragmented situation. Open competition is what defines PC. It's been a continuing source of innovation. Anybody can open a store. If not for that Steam would never have come along and saved pc gaming.

[DEDRICK]

 

 

 

You need to use them to run games from Ubisoft, EA and Valve respectively. I don't get a choice about that, I can't choose to buy EA games from Uplay. Although I can buy Ubisoft games from Steam, I then have to mess around with overlays because the default system of running them over eachother tends to stop games from running and is more of a pain in the arse than it needs to be. As shit as Uplay is, this makes it less egregious than Origin.

 

 

You don't download the Windows Store, you don't run the Windows Store to run the game...you can even launch the game from Steam if your heart so desires

[Murdoch]

 

And EA games are only available on Origin, and Ubisoft games require use of Uplay. We've been through this, it's shit and already argued about. This topic is a reaction to yet another company jumping on the exclusivity bandwagon on PC.

 

We're "faulting one company over another" because one of these companies is news. Just because people aren't talking about something right this second doesn't mean they don't care.

 

Well in fairness, it's not news when Valve releases a game, and it's a steam exclusive. There's a double standard for sure.

[Murdoch]

I love the fragmented situation. Open competition is what defines PC. It's been a continuing source of innovation. Anybody can open a store. If not for that Steam would never have come along and saved pc gaming.

 

This is a good point. It's been especially good for pricing of games. Think about how locked down the prices are on Console compared to PC. That being said, I meant that from an "ease of use" perspective, it is frustrating having multiple clients.

[othertomperson]

 

Well in fairness, it's not news when Valve releases a game, and it's a steam exclusive. There's a double standard for sure.

 

It's not a double standard. It's not news because Valve have always done that. It's news that Microsoft have started after years of explicitly denying any intention of competing with Steam, including a very public declaration only a couple of weeks ago. That's why it's news. See the news article posted only 3 hours ago linked in the OP.

 

 

You don't download the Windows Store, you don't run the Windows Store to run the game...you can even launch the game from Steam if your heart so desires

 

But I don't get a choice of who I can buy it from. Do you really think my main problem with Origin is the client? It's the lack of choice and the whole concept of exclusivity that I've spent 3 pages ranting about so far.

 

I love the fragmented situation. Open competition is what defines PC. It's been a continuing source of innovation. Anybody can open a store. If not for that Steam would never have come along and saved pc gaming.

 

This has been exhaustively refuted several times, though. It's not competition if it's exclusive. If you could choose every game whether you wanted to buy it from Origin or Steam or Windows Store, that is competition. Forcing you to use all of them since games are only on one or the other is not competition. Uplay is competing with Steam, since their games are also on Steam (even if it does force you to still use the client), and so is GOG. The Windows Store and Origin are not competing with Steam.

 

That's what competitors do though. It's not always about trying to be the best, it's just about giving them an advantage anyway they can. It's shitty, and can be unfair, but it is what it is.

 

Well no, they're doing well by removing themselves from the competition. It's the same bullshit argument the American ISPs pull when they claim that there's more than one of them therefore they are competing. Can you openly choose one or the other? Well no. So it isn't competition.

[Misanthrope]

Oh no, I was dying to play another stupid fucking Fable game, with even more on rails bullshit please! Oh I cannot get this game on Windows 7 woe is me now!

[othertomperson]

 

This is a good point. It's been especially good for pricing of games. Think about how locked down the prices are on Console compared to PC. That being said, I meant that from an "ease of use" perspective, it is frustrating having multiple clients.

 

 

In what universe? EA games have gotten exponentially more expensive since they are now exempt from Steam's predictable sales. If their games were available on both platforms concurrently then they would actually be forced into a price war with eachother which genuinely would be good for the consumer.

 

Again, for what feels like the thousandth time. I'm not against multiple stores besides Steam existing, I am against games being exclusive to any one of these stores. Key word in the title lots of you are missing: EXCLUSIVE.

[BloodySinner]

Well in fairness, it's not news when Valve releases a game, and it's a steam exclusive. There's a double standard for sure.

 

As far as the PC platform is concerned, Valve has a much better track record than the other companies mentioned. After Microsoft shut down Games for Windows, I lost access to my copy of Gears of War and other games purchased.

[Shakaza]

.........I feel like someone running Microsoft is just taking WAY too many bath salts.

Or he's gone delusional from the idea of getting more money...

[Misanthrope]

And EA games are only available on Origin, and Ubisoft games require use of Uplay. We've been through this, it's shit and already argued about. This topic is a reaction to yet another company jumping on the exclusivity bandwagon on PC.

 

We're "faulting one company over another" because one of these companies is news. Just because people aren't talking about something right this second doesn't mean they don't care.

 

 

Yes and no. At face value, you're right. On the other hand a point I would consider irrelevant but is not and why: Windows also creates the OS, that changes things for a couple of reasons. It basically opens the door for OS exclusivity since Valve can now easily and arguably justifiably turn around and say "New dota updates, new CS game, hell Half life 3 coming exclusively on Steam OS/Linux" and suddenly we now have a fragmented platform since you can bet your ass EA, Ubisoft and Blizzard will all turn around and either make a deal with Microsoft or Valve for exclusivity or crappy OS to try to corner the now divided, console-like PC market.

 

Not only that but it is also extremely relevant that along with DX12, this exclusivity deal is a push to just get everyone to upgrade to Windows 10 and for Microsoft to collect more and more data without full disclosure on what might they do with it (hint: it will involve some sort of profit for them they aren't doing it just cause) So now you have people who (for some inexplicable reason) want to play a Fable game upgrading to Win10

[Humbug]

This has been exhaustively refuted several times, though. It's not competition if it's exclusive. If you could choose every game whether you wanted to buy it from Origin or Steam or Windows Store, that is competition. Forcing you to use all of them since games are only on one or the other is not competition. Uplay is competing with Steam, since their games are also on Steam (even if it does force you to still use the client), and so is GOG. The Windows Store and Origin are not competing with Steam.

'Competing' doesn't only mean competing for the attention of gamers. For stores like Steam / Origin / gog it means competing for the attention of 3rd party developers. When a game developer especially a non-aligned one wants to sell his game on PC he can choose one of these stores. So they are vying for attention of game developers in order to make their store more attractive. They compete with each other to woo game devs. Fortunately for us so far they have done so in an ethical manner with no exclusivity clauses. e.g. steam / origin will not ask you to take your game off gog and vice versa. First party games are normally sold on their platform only which is ok. But 3rd party devs have the choice of stores. If they want to put it on every store they can, like CD Projekt Red did. The fact that not all devs choose to do is ok because it's their personal choice, not based on some exclusivity clause.

[Camul]

Well no, they're doing well by removing themselves from the competition. It's the same bullshit argument the American ISPs pull when they claim that there's more than one of them therefore they are competing. Can you openly choose one or the other? Well no. So it isn't competition.

 

That's different because as far as I know, in the US ISPs tend to not tread on each other's territory (correct me if I'm wrong there). That would be more like two similar shops not being in competition because they're physically so far away from each other that their targeted group wouldn't really overlap.

[DEDRICK]

-snip-

 

Yes, buy your Free 2 play game which is exclusive to a SINGLE VERSION of Windows.  What point is there to have a game that only runs on 1 version of Windows on Steam? 

[othertomperson]

 

'Competing' doesn't only mean competing for the attention of gamers. For stores like Steam / Origin / gog it means competing for the attention of 3rd party developers. When a game developer especially a non-aligned one wants to sell his game on PC he can choose one of these stores. So they are vying for attention of game developers in order to make their store more attractive. They compete with each other to woo game devs. Fortunately for us so far they have done so in an ethical manner with no exclusivity clauses. e.g. steam / origin will not ask you to take your game off gog and vice versa. Devs have the choice of stores. If they want to put it on every store they can, like CD Projekt Red did. The fact that not all devs choose to do is ok because it's their personal choice, not based on some exclusivity clause.

 

Pretending that Lionhead have nothing to do with Microsoft and so have a completely free reign on any and all stores at their discretion. Assuming that Valve and EA also did not manipulate their own positions both as developers, publishers and stores. In a humorous reversal, Ubisoft is the most consumer friendly of these companies now. Just a shame their client actually sucks donkey balls. Origin doesn't, I actually quite like the Origin client. I hate the exclusivity that comes with it.

 

That's different because as far as I know, in the US ISPs tend to not tread on each other's territory (correct me if I'm wrong there). That would be more like two similar shops not being in competition because they're physically so far away from each other that their targeted group wouldn't really overlap.

 

So one uses physical geography, the other uses game selection. The end result is the same -- companies whose services do not overlap and so do not directly compete.

 

 

Yes, buy your Free 2 play game which is exclusive to a SINGLE VERSION of Windows.  What point is there to have a game that only runs on 1 version of Windows on Steam? 

 

Not the first time this has happened. Directx 10 was Vista exclusive. Also, as people were quick to mention, the probability of this ending at Fable is low.

[Sneaky]

i don't see any problems with this, competition for steam is Good for us.

 

not everyone wants to pay 30% of their profits to valve.

 

So instead everyone should pay 30% to Microsoft?

[Murdoch]

In what universe? EA games have gotten exponentially more expensive since they are now exempt from Steam's predictable sales. If their games were available on both platforms concurrently then they would actually be forced into a price war with eachother which genuinely would be good for the consumer.

 

Again, for what feels like the thousandth time. I'm not against multiple stores besides Steam existing, I am against games being exclusive to any one of these stores. Key word in the title lots of you are missing: EXCLUSIVE.

 

You miss an important point in your "price war", It's still EA that sets the price for their games on Steam. So I'm not sure in what universe that creates a price war.

 

Besides their pricing hasn't gotten "exponentially" more expensive, for newly released games it's been flat for years, rising at maybe around the level of inflation. Origin also has pretty good "steam like" sales from what I can see, not that I pay much attention to many EA games.

 

If you're getting tired of pointing something out for the "thousandth time", maybe stop pointing it out? I never thought your stance was anything different. My only point was, if Steam don't make their games available for competing Stores and give away their margins, why would other publishers, or games devs?

[PlayStation 2]

linux gets praised for its stores (the ubuntu thing for example) over and over again.

 

why does windows immediately get shunned if they want to make a central platform for applications on their desktop OS, and a dev wants to experiment by putting stuff on there.

Think of Ubuntu Web Store (iirc thats what it's called) like Steam. Except they don't get anything out of it.

[Camul]

So one uses physical geography, the other uses game selection. The end result is the same -- companies whose services do not overlap and so do not directly compete.

That's not the same thing though. Two stores that are soo far apart can't compete. Two stores that are close, even selling exclusive products can. For example, I would have never tried Origin if it wasn't for Battlefield 3 being exclusive. Now that I have I actually use it to buy other games.

[othertomperson]

 

That's not the same thing though. Two stores that are soo far apart can't compete. Two stores that are close, even selling exclusive products can. For example, I would have never tried Origin if it wasn't for Battlefield 3 being exclusive. Now that I have I actually use it to buy other games.

 

We're going around in circles. You claim to hate exclusivity and cite reasons that basically boil down to it removing competition and then spend the next two pages arguing semantics. I'm done with this. I'm done with people defending business practices that only hurt the consumer.

 

You miss an important point in your "price war", It's still EA that sets the price for their games on Steam. So I'm not sure in what universe that creates a price war.

 

Besides their pricing hasn't gotten "exponentially" more expensive, for newly released games it's been flat for years, rising at maybe around the level of inflation. Origin also has pretty good "steam like" sales from what I can see, not that I pay much attention to many EA games.

 

If you're getting tired of pointing something out for the "thousandth time", maybe stop pointing it out? I never thought your stance was anything different. My only point was, if Steam don't make their games available for competing Stores and give away their margins, why would other publishers, or games devs?

 

Steam has sales. Origin was created because EA didn't like the sales. Dragon Age Inquisition costs £50 on Origin. Such good prices. Exclusivity so good for consumer.

 

Again with the false equivalence. I say exclusive games on Origin and Windows Stores are bad, apparently people hear "Exclusive games on Steam are fantastic!" How about arguing with the words I do say rather than the ones I don't?

[Murdoch]

Steam has sales. Origin was created because EA didn't like the sales. Dragon Age Inquisition costs £50 on Origin. Such good prices. Exclusivity so good for consumer.

 

Again with the false equivalence. I say exclusive games on Origin and Windows Stores are bad, apparently people hear "Exclusive games on Steam are fantastic!" How about arguing with the words I do say rather than the ones I don't?

 

 

The words you do say, don't carry much weight. You say Dragon age is 50 quid on origin. I go take a look and it's 33 quid.

 

Also, you do realise you responded to an accusation of "false equivalence, with a false equivalence. Haha. Besides I'm not actually arguing with you, I'm a realist, the things you want, aren't going to happen with the market as it is, and even if they did, they would come with Dual DRM, which is way worse than having to buy from another store.

 

I agree it would be lovely if everything was just available for cheap on Steam (or any other favourable client), but there is absolutely no incentive for people like Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard, Riot or indeed Valve to do that.

[Camul]

We're going around in circles. You claim to hate exclusivity and cite reasons that basically boil down to it removing competition and then spend the next two pages arguing semantics. I'm done with this. I'm done with people defending business practices that only hurt the consumer.

 

I'm not defending it.