Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jorge1o1 | Hacker News Reader

Exactly, it’s the Netflix problem all over again. Rather than competing on the quality of the platform, they’re just divvying up monopolies and fracturing the customer experience.

A different streaming platform for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Universal, HBO, Amazon

A different gaming platform for Steam, Epic, Origin, UPlay

The real loser is the consumer

View on HN

Not quite the same though, since Epic and Steam don’t require paid subscriptions to access their content. The only difference now is that you’re buying some of your games from Epic instead of Steam.

As that necessitates trusting Epic after years of shadiness and recently outright lies, it mostly means a bunch of games aren't going to get bought. For me anyway.

Pushes me to console releases. Can’t justify the PC ecosystem with all the nonsense going on.

Same problem there though, they've just been at it longer. Which console do you pick, or do you get all of them?

Console makers would like you to repurchase your game every 5 years for the new console, if they deem the game fit for re-release.

Whereas I've basically been copying the same DooM 2 install from computer to computer for 20 years.

cries in registry issues

I think this is going away. I can play (some, and it's growing over time) Xbox and Xbox 360 games on the Xbox One, and if I bought them digitally or still have the original disc, I don't have to pay anything more.

Backward compatibility used to be way more normal. Then it was killed, now it is slowly coming back and we are supposed to be thankful for it. A more cynical mind could be tempted to think of this as a strategy.

> years of shadiness and recently outright lies

Citation needed.

probably the security flaws and lying about stopping exclusives. Tim Sweeney has caused a lot of outrage with his recent statements on press, which pretty much were lies. Can't link since don't have time, sorry

> after years of shadiness and recently outright lies

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. By my account, Epic has been among the better game developers for consumers. I wish Fortnite et al didn't use microtransactions—as far as I'm concerned, they always make games worse by building a purchase incentive into the design of the game—but it is free to play, so there's a limit to how much I can complain.

Using microtransactions (and the normal vehicles to facilitate those, like random loot boxes) is in itself a shady move. Their target demographic with Fortnite certainly doesn't help them there in my eyes.

The fact that it's "free but if you want you can gamble here and look we made it fun!" actually makes that worse, not better. First it draws you in, then when you're hooked you have more trouble stepping out.

I have only played Fortnite Battle Royale (like most Epic users I guess), but there are no loot boxes involved, and it feels very different from freemium mobile games. You pay for skins, or you pay for challenges that make the game more interesting, and for which more skins are the reward. That's it. And you can't wear more than one skin at any time, so it doesn't really encourage binge spending.

It's so harmless that even the non-monetary "engagement hacking" by other services feels like a burden in comparison (e.g. Steam's incessant notifications about new crappy stickers - stop stealing my precious time!).

Steam microtransactions are built into even meta nonsense like cards you get for playing games. It seems like the obvious worse platform for shady lootboxes and gambling with cs:go as well.

I wasn't talking about these issues as if one party or the other had them and another party did not. I was merely pointing out that the construct itself is shady.

Epic might be one of the only companies doing microtransactions correctly with Fortnite. Fortnite Battle Royale is free to play so it makes sense that they monetize somehow, but there is no randomness to purchases in the game. You buy items you want and you see exactly what you're getting. The paid for version of the game recently switched their lootbox mechanic so that you also see what's in the boxes before you buy them.

Changing loot boxes to try to get ahead of EU gambling legislation is truly an enlightened and pro-consumer action.

The transparent llamas certainly had nothing to do with events in Denmark and Belgium -_-.

I’m not familiar with the legislative landscape you’re referring to, but it doesn’t seem like most of the other major companies have gotten rid of their lootboxes, so Epic is doing something right...

But they are competing on the quality of the platform. What do they have a monopoly on? Being the only place to watch Star Wars or whatever is not a monopoly. They compete on both the quality of the content and the quality of the streaming experience.

If Disney doesn't make much content that I want to watch (and they don't), then I don't have to pay them a dime for anything. If HBO only makes one thing that I want to watch, then I can subscribe for a month and then pay them nothing after that. That's a significant improvement over the previous way of doing things.

Why would it be good for a single company to control distribution of all content?

The streaming wars have also effectively ushered in a golden age of TV, as they all compete for the best exclusive content. While annoying, you can switch between them each month instead of paying for all simultaneously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com