Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramy_d | Hacker News Reader

how are they forcing anyone?

There have been multiple instances of games being anounced to release on Steam/others and then some time later Epic signed an exclusive contract with them. This even happens with crowdfunded indie games [1] or games that had already started pre-orders. Even though moves like that are unpopular, Epic said they will remain a core part of their strategy [2].

(True the developers themselves agree to that exclusive contract, so they share some of the blame of disappointing people, but if you're an indie developer it is hard to say no to that much money)

[1] https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-07-03-epic-games-wil...

[2] https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-games-boss-defends-exclusivity-...

I own Rocket League on Steam. They bought the game, took it off the Steam store and eventually my operating system entirely, to push their launcher. Not chuffed.

with exclusives, including making games exclusive which were previously available on other platforms.

Epic can't do that alone... it requires cooperation from and agreement with the game publisher.

Don't blame Epic for spending money to bring customers to their product. Epic aren't using shady tactics to do this, and Valve is free to do everything Epic is doing.

Also, as a game buyer, you DEFINITELY want a multi-source purchasing ecosystem; you definitely want to avoid a monopoly if the price you pay for games is important to you.

Exclusives are explicitly not multi-source. I want to be able to buy the games I want to play on the platform I want to play them on. This isn't always feasible, and that's OK, but it really grates when it's deliberately pushed in that direction.

they are trying by buying out publishers to only release it on epic or only release it on epic for the first year.

their client is super garbage. like battlenet if you leave it open it hogs your cpu. the fact that a game can turn the store color into a white client is insane to me.

they're free to pay for exclusives, just like Valve is free to pay for exclusives.

But Valve doesn't pay for exclusives. They just compete on their overall service. Epic is not making something that is actually better for customers.

AFAIK Fortnite is not available on Steam (or elsewhere).

Team Fortress 2 isn't available on the Epic Games Store (or elsewhere).

Epic aren't doing anything shady, here.

You're not making the counter-argument you think.

GGGP:

> I think the big difference between is how Epic treats its customers and how Valve treats its customers. Epic could've gone the GOG Galaxy route ("use it, or not, your choice"), but they decided to force people into their watered down launcher before it was ready. Even Xbox is being more open lately.

> You can't just match your competition, you have to exceed it in some special way before people will switch.

GGP:

> how are they forcing anyone?

I answered that question. That Steam is also doing it is whataboutism, but also entirely besides the point. Steam however is a much more full-featured client, which also factored into GGGP's argument.

But a more pointed answer to GGP would've been that Epic has paid external developers for (timed) exclusives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com