You'd think if the game is 10 dollars cheaper on the Epic store, they wouldn't need exclusivity. They'd let competition play out and consumers make up their own minds.
Well, that's a shame;, I'll be boycotting Metro Exodus because of this. I don't expect anyone else to join me, but I will ask anyway. Was looking forward to it, too :(
@ghosts4ever: ...
...
...
well i do prefer games on steam but if they are on different launcher it doesnot make them bad. Doom Eternal will be bethesda net exclusive so will Rage 2.
reason i mentioned battlefield is no one complain when EA donot release games on steam. I even have origins only for Titanfall 2 even though i prefer if it was on steam.
I don't necessarily like publishers maintaining exclusivity over their own property, but I can understand it and; it's their content, they can do with it what they please.
But paying for exclusivity to property you yourself had no part in seems pretty corrupt, unfair, and dishonest to me.
The fact that this product was available on Steam at one point and was essentially stolen away from an open marketplace makes it even worse.
I like this. How people think competition isn't a good thing, just go to show how blind gamers are and hypocritcle. Epic is offering devs a bigger cut, hence the devs are winning here.
Steam is greedy because up to now, no one has been able to compete against them. Epic is finally as it appears given them a first run for their money, which will make steam have to improve their business practices. I predict they will increase sales costs, give devs a bigger slice of the pie and finally start making some fu$3## games.
We'll see in a year or two, but Epic is starting to make the big moves.
You mean Valve should start paying the Publishers for exclusivity too? Yeah that's great competition
Isn't that was console makers, streaming services and pretty much any business leader does with products?
Yes, and no.
Console makers contract out to developers to make something for them. They say "Hey we need a game like ______ and will pay you to make it, but you can only make it for us". They have a hand in developing this product, so they can take sole ownership of it.
Streaming services generally maintain exclusivity over their own features. But for third-party shows and movies, you can generally watch them in a lot of places.
Business leaders, as you said, also like to maintain exclusivity, but for a lot of products that only lasts so long due to patents (or is it trademarks? or both? I can't remember...). Thankfully, those expire and competition takes over when other people can start making the product as well.
This is different. They're not necessarily paying for rights to solely produce something or have something made just for them;no, they're paying for rights to exclusively sell something.
In short, they're paying so others can't have it. Which is fucking childish and petty and about as a-capitalist as you can get imo.
Log in to comment