Comment by u10 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by u10 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take

They are literally handing out free games, Total War: Troy, a brand new game, its free today

>they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)

Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.

>they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.

Seems to be a pretty simple calculus to me. Epic is willing to pay developers and publishers to have exclusive access to their games. Steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes 12%. I would take that deal in a heartbeat.

>btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?

plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam

>Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.

Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon, they are very generous with providing access to their Unreal Engine software, even cutting the cost of using it until they the developers are actually generating revenue.

> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.

The fact that there are only X% of gamers on Linux/Mac OS may be justification for you, but why would I go near a store that doesn't support my platform of choice? As I said, they're not offering ME a better deal.

> plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam

When have you last bought a game on GoG then? They have quite a few new titles. Everything I backed on kickstarter lately came with a GoG key, for example. Except Phoenix Point - they took the Epic bribe so I won't get to play it.

> Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon.

I can't afford free to play games. Even if the IAPs are all cosmetic, you can't say the design wasn't affected by their presence. For example, by making cosmetic items unobtainable or very hard to obtain through normal game play. If i wanted to grind more I'd keep up my WoW subscription thank you.

Hint: all the money coming from Tencent were made via predatory free to play mobile games, mostly in the Asia region where it's even worse than in the west.

> WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam.

I don't buy games on launch, even if i'm in a hurry i wait for a couple reviews. Also I suppose I have more money than time so I buy my games in batches on sales, since I know I won't get to play 90% of them. Yes, I need a shopping cart.

Anyway, this is all nitpicking. The main thing is that by supporting their bribing you encourage them, and their pay to win attitude will be very very bad for you as a consumer if they manage to kill their competition.

First, you shouldn't take this so personal. Should I be calling Epic game store or Steam bad platforms if they don't support Windows 95? Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows.

I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?

Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.

> Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy.

... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :)

> I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe.

No, the exclusives are paid money upfront on a certain amount of estimated sales, which they don't have to return no matter what the actual sales are. They're not going exclusive just for the lower commission.

Ref: https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-exclusive-deal/

The juicy bit: When doing the math, looking at Fig's stake (50%) and the 85% dividend rate (how much Fig gives to investors), this means that Epic Games will have had to have given Snapshot Games approximately $2,247,058 for the Phoenix Point exclusivity rights.

> Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.

I'm sure the society would have been better without IAPs. Not all the marks something leaves are desirable.

Also, it's "affected". Random ref: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected

I don't believe you are willing to discuss anything in good faith if you are unwilling to read or begin to understand what I wrote.

1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing,

2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy to look at the evidence. Publishers and developers do not owe you anything, and I would rather they take the extra cut and either pay their employees/shareholders, or develop better games.

30% is unconscionable, and I cannot wait until the App Store is forced to be spun off or forced to lower their margin, and Steam is being out competed by Epic.

> Publishers and developers do not owe you anything

Right? I'm not a potential paying customer? They owe me everything.

I don't understand this publisher worship going on.

> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.

Before EGS rolled around, Linux momentum on getting games support was amazing. Steam lets you run the vast majority of games on Linux now.

Sure, but that's not first class support. It requires a compatibility layer called Proton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(software)).

Most developers will not spend time on supporting Linux natively. It's a shame, but that's the economic of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com