Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックはロックされています 
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
I do get it, you're playing the field as you said. I've just seen what Epic has to offer and am more than happy to wait for the better, more-polished and feature-packed version to arrive on Steam along with the better service.
I can't wait to play Dangerous Driving with actual leaderboard support on Steam (something the EGS version lacked).
But your argument hinges on being able to say "but there's no BK where I live". Problem for you is there IS an "Epic" where you live so it's a poor excuse. Thing is, you can also buy Coke from the same place.
Yup, Epics store is woeful. So I use the drive through. The mix in my scotch doesn't give a flying fig.
EDIT
looks like so thats explains the extra three pages I had to scroll and laugh through
It isn't about "no burger king where I live".
I don't mind a place having an exclusive item... I don't hate at McD's for being the only place to get a Big Mac... they created it... it is their product.
But epic did not make these games, they are just paying to remove them from other outlets. They are paying to remove competition to force people to go to them.... that is not a consumer friendly concept in the least. Actually it is a step worse than what stores like Lowes did to shut down the small hardware stores by price fixing.
He is still correct about that not being a competitive practice. It's in fact anti-competitive. Since you're new to this discussion, here's a few points you might have missed: a lot of people are not fine with Epic's acquisition of 3rd party content and locking it behind timed exclusivity. It is an attempt to achieve a defacto monopoly, which fortunately is still meeting mostly negative reception. Epic's business tactics are the tactics of someone who has no faith in the quality of their services (rightfully so, their services are abysmal). So instead of these anti-competitive practices, how about trying to attract customers into their store with at least decent service instead of trying to force people into using their store via timed exclusivity? If they don't trust their own services as providers, why should I as customer trust them? PC gaming was just fine before Epic poisoned the well.
Every game has to compete with others, it's YOUR impulsiveness that dictates when you buy and for how much (ED; and where). "Exclusivity" knows this.
You.do.not.have.to.buy and because of that the deal has to be attractive to not only the seller, it has to be attractive to the buyer. "Exclusivity" knows this too.
You're literally only arguing what dealership it is, or burger shop, or whatever excuse you chose and using these kinds of fluffy free market misrepresentations to back it.
Everything that happens - YOU decided. No ifs and no buts.
Seems to me that you have no idea what a free market is. So let me elaborate.
My town has four large supermarket chains. The distributed goods however are largely the same, save for the goods which are produced in establishments they own. Basically, they only have exclusive rights to brands they own and finance the production of. Nobody is securing exclusive rights to third-party-made goods.
Can't agree to that for Publishers are the ones making the cash from Epic, not so much Developers unless they self publish.
And that "made fat off the backs of others" is false too.
In reality owners of money are often taking a risk that may not pan out on something, and they hire others to help them, others who have more info, more experience, many other things that make it possible to do what is possible with the money available, to get done what is possible and hopefully more. People are hired to help make the goal happen. The hiring part is where they (both parties) negotiate the price of their help, and therefore an exchange happens, not slavery as your depiction suggests. Both get what they want and, lucky for the ones at Valve the person who had the vision decided it's everyone at Valve's vision, not just their own. While the one at Epic contends it's his way or the highway, demands everyone, even kids do what Epic says even without a judgement, https://torrentfreak.com/cheating-fortnite-kid-keeps-on-cheating-epic-games-tells-court-190901/.
Note the first line in the graphic in the article:
"Defendant did not stop his infringing behavior after being served with Epic's complaint and retaining legal counsel...."
That's Epic claiming someone has do carry on their life a certain way, not from a judgment of a court but from Epic filing a complaint that therefore the great dictator Epic demands that person change solely because of what Epic alleged them to be doing, what Epic says, and that's with Epic noting the kid retained counsel, got a lawyer. What part of retaining counsel does Epic and its lawyers not understand means the kid is fighting the case and not agreeing with what they've said and allege, not proven as a fact, and not ruled upon by a judge? But of course the Epic Arrogance demands compliance because Epic said so, just like demanding Steam cut what it's getting while spouting the, "it's for the Developers," lie, proven by Epic still charging 5% Unreal Engine royalties to all Developers who don't sell their product on Epic, while Epic's "curation" demands they sell exclusively on Epic or Epic doesn't want their product. Let that sink in.
So while you claim they're both the same they're not in how they think of customers, of Publishers, of Developers, essentially in how they think of people. I'll admit Epic pays their people too, though there has been some claims of what you said about fat cats may apply mostly to one fat cat, Epic, https://www.reddit.com/r/FortniteCompetitive/comments/bz34xj/epic_gamesfortnite_is_not_paying_their/.
So yeah principles are the point. The principle someone negotiates their value by applying for the job and then may even negotiate more if the company sees talent in them, and gain even more in opportunity if not direct position, and often gain more wealth of their own, to have a home, raise a family etc. All of that is the good that someone employing them does, and it may include stock options and more, and it may not. The point being is not to discount the generosity of having money for the person hired by the person who can afford to hire, that it is charity even if the one paying is making more than they're paying out, because they could easily have decided not to hire this person, pay someone else less, or just decide to declassify and not even hire anyone, and let their own dream and vision die too.
No one owes us anything for our existence, we earn it and our negotiation and the other party's need as well as generosity, patience and sometimes the opposite of these too is all in play, we have to make a judgment call on the fit. If you're not interviewing the company when they interview you you're doing it all wrong.
So while cynicism has its place, the idea it is good to round down and belittle workers on the raising up obnoxiously those who had some good luck, opportunity, timing, and some amount of will to carry on often in adversity and against all odds, and referring to the employers as "fat cats" to achieve demeaning the employed is pretty loathsome. Doesn't mean everyone is great and honest on either side of the relationship and its good we remember that employers aren't fat cats by default either, helps keep us from bias that blinds.
You've your reasons you buy from both and that's your prerogative of course, and ours is to carry on as we are too.
No isn't a choice when it's forced by Exclusivity.
No is a choice when you have multiple outlets and you decide that you just can't buy it at this time.
The exclusivity is what eliminates "no" from being a free choice. It's a dictated one and loses the entire charm of being anything else because the exclusivity demanded purchase from one place, for the price they say, in the currency they demand, etc. or they give it to you free and then the retailer pays for it and you don't have any actual rights in the product in the eyes of the Publisher or the Developer, the buyer of 200,000 keys to get those "guaranteed sales" done is the one they're designing their product, their support, their proposals to sell, not you, not me, not any actual end user customer, since we're getting it for free or we're only 20% of the total number of products sold, while Epic sells the keys or gives the game away free as it can to who will take it/buy it.
Just thought I'd give you an update Eisberg:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJolski/status/1168838034508275712
That's the 3rd successful report against Source Code's account so I think we can put this matter to bed now.
Ok stop passing false info. Stop fighting users. Stop fighting mods. Might want to find something better to do then this or trouble will follow.
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/1643167006291975207/?ctp=240#c1638669204745821544
I won't be discussing this further as it's getting off-topic and beating a dead horse at this point.
However Steam as such doesn't allow you to sell your game/keys at a lower price than what would also offer on Steam so it shouldn't be a thing. The bundles typically are sold at a lower price then again you could argue you'll eventually sell at that price on Steam too.