So Steam is going to be "second hand" gaming shop?

[Legata Flavia]

Aka, almost everything is going to be 1yr epic exclusive, or Steam is doing something to prevent that?

[Legata Flavia]

So for wanting Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Saints Row: The Third Remastered, Watch Dogs: Legion and Anno 1800, with Snowrunner, while also some "Coming soon titles", like Saints Row 5, I should improve my taste... What a smart suggestion...

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

*cough*
https://www.wegame.com.cn/store/2000196/Fortnite

Eisberg unless you got proof that Steam/GoG/Etc need to depend on China to stay a float I suggest back it up.

Just because Tencent not the majority shareholder, doesn't mean can't form deals, nor hold discussion with the shareholder. Not saying Tencent runs them either.

I said that Fortnite isn't monetized in China, not that it isn't in China.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-five-fortnite-pros-vanish-gaming-organization-steals-100-000

I also didn't claim that Steam needed China to survive, no where did I say that. I also did not mention GOG/Ect.

Don't put words into my "mouth"

Read my post again. I only pointing that even Epic is playing with China.

You did state this yourself below.

"Valve has a ton to lose if they don't play with China, a ton they can lose and no feasible way to replace"

As if you're trying to suggest they depend on China.

I add the etc because they also take part in more than one market, when have option to do so, that what the etc for.

[J4MESOX4D]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖉𝖎𝖊:

So for wanting Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Saints Row: The Third Remastered, Watch Dogs: Legion and Anno 1800, with Snowrunner, while also some "Coming soon titles", like Saints Row 5, I should improve my taste... What a smart suggestion...

None of those Ubisoft uPlay titles are ever coming to Steam so they are not relevant. If Ubi want to milk money from Epic only for everyone else to use their platform anyway then good on them and it just shows how desperate Epic are acquire titles with payoffs rather than providing a service that entices people.

Ubisoft titles are no big loss anyway - it's literally the same game over and over with a new skin and a cosmetic shop again.

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย J4MESOX4D:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖉𝖎𝖊:

So for wanting Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Saints Row: The Third Remastered, Watch Dogs: Legion and Anno 1800, with Snowrunner, while also some "Coming soon titles", like Saints Row 5, I should improve my taste... What a smart suggestion...

None of those Ubisoft uPlay titles are ever coming to Steam so they are not relevant. If Ubi want to milk money from Epic only for everyone else to use their platform anyway then good on them and it just shows how desperate Epic are acquire titles rather than providing a service that entices people.

Ubisoft titles are no big loss anyway - it's literally the same game over and over with a new skin and a cosmetic shop again.

Yep, plus with them you know they are going to sell it with a cheaper collection and all the DLC, so I just wait and grab that instead of paying triple buying it piecemeal.

[Legata Flavia]

All of them are coming, but delayed. It was announced by Ubi, any other ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in your mouth?

[J4MESOX4D]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖉𝖎𝖊:

All of them are coming, but delayed. It was announced by Ubi, any other ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in your mouth?

No they are not just like The Division 2 and Watch Dogs Legion and Ghost Recon Breakpoint.

Do you research next time.

https://screenrant.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-release-steam-pc-uplay-ubisoft/

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

Not in any meaningful way, unlike Steam where Pro-hong kong games are banned/not allowed.

Just like Blizzard, Steam, or etc want to keep political things out, hence political. While Blizzard can be hypocritical sometimes.

I mean if you want to get into political fun points, I can bring up how Epic promoted BLM in their game, and offer option to throw stuff at BLM promotion video. But hey let go there because you want to bring political into this for some reason.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

That is on you, not on me. What I said does not imply "survive", having a lot to lose does not mean they need it to survive.

That why I said it as if, but thanks for clearing it up.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

You added ect after listing a few PC gaming stores, therefore ect does imply other stores.

Yes, that what etc means... What you thought only Steam, and Epic play with China or something???

[J4MESOX4D]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย J4MESOX4D:

None of those Ubisoft uPlay titles are ever coming to Steam so they are not relevant. If Ubi want to milk money from Epic only for everyone else to use their platform anyway then good on them and it just shows how desperate Epic are acquire titles with payoffs rather than providing a service that entices people.

Ubisoft titles are no big loss anyway - it's literally the same game over and over with a new skin and a cosmetic shop again.

That is assuming that Epic even has a deal with Ubisoft, and not Ubisoft deciding to support a new partner instead of Steam due to revenue share that Ubisoft stated is unrealistic.

https://www.windowscentral.com/steams-business-model-unrealistic-according-ubisoft-vp

Which means it is more likely that the move from Steam to Epic is Ubisoft still wanting to be on more than one store, but don't want to deal with Steam anymore due to the revenue share.

Ubisoft said ages ago they wanted to remain on their own platform only and then Epic came along with their fat wad of cash and stated plying them with money. Seeing that Ubi get's paid either way and people have to go through uPlay anyway, it's EZ money for them and pretty desperate from Epic because those games were never intended for Steam anyway. Can't see many buying those games on Epic when you can get 34% off uPlay keys from online stores such as GMG.

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย J4MESOX4D:

None of those Ubisoft uPlay titles are ever coming to Steam so they are not relevant. If Ubi want to milk money from Epic only for everyone else to use their platform anyway then good on them and it just shows how desperate Epic are acquire titles with payoffs rather than providing a service that entices people.

Ubisoft titles are no big loss anyway - it's literally the same game over and over with a new skin and a cosmetic shop again.

That is assuming that Epic even has a deal with Ubisoft, and not Ubisoft deciding to support a new partner instead of Steam due to revenue share that Ubisoft stated is unrealistic.

https://www.windowscentral.com/steams-business-model-unrealistic-according-ubisoft-vp

Which means it is more likely that the move from Steam to Epic is Ubisoft still wanting to be on more than one store, but don't want to deal with Steam anymore due to the revenue share.

No assumptions needed, its been well known for over a year and a half now - https://www.pcgamer.com/ubisoft-has-extended-its-partnership-with-the-epic-store/

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/ubisoft-snubs-steam-brings-the-division-2-to-epics-games-store/

Etc.

[Crazy Tiger]

OP, there comes a point that Epic can't sustain the exclusives model anymore, either because it does get too costly or because their market share is large enough for them. When that point comes, games will release on various PC stores at the same time again.

Valve is not a company to pay for titles, they promote openness and publishers choice in their Steamworks documents. So if you want Valve to do the same thing as Epic (pay for exclusives), you'll likely be disappointed.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖉𝖎𝖊:

So for wanting Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Saints Row: The Third Remastered, Watch Dogs: Legion and Anno 1800, with Snowrunner, while also some "Coming soon titles", like Saints Row 5, I should improve my taste... What a smart suggestion...

This is just me, doesn't reflect on anyone.

Not impressed with Assassin's creed TBH, but some point I get back into assassin's creed, which I stop after 2.

Saint row 3 remaster is not worth $40 IMHO, as I got original SR3 with all content for $5, I don't see myself getting remaster unless it actually have something I would want it, which they don't at all, I might get it if it goes for $5 but far I seen it hasn't gone $5 yet at all.

Watch dogs meh, but might get back into in the future, but not worth it price tag either IMO.

Anno 1800 looks interesting, but wasn't willing to spend near it full price tag at all, gonna be awhile before it far in price.

Snowrunner not my kind of game, everyone got their own kind of games they like, this one not for me.

I'm worry SR5 be a mess, or something, but I been waiting for them to patch, and fix, or even remaster SR2, since they said they got the long lost source code.

[Start_Running]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖉𝖎𝖊:

Aka, almost everything is going to be 1yr epic exclusive, or Steam is doing something to prevent that?

Translation. Gamesb you're interested in are coming out on Epic first. Nothing to be done. Steam's not going to get into a money fight with Epic.
The good news is. The majority of of games released are still being released on steam. And by the time the game comes to steam the game will be cheaper and have far fewer bugs.

So you basically just have to choose what's more important. Getting the superior version on STeam... or getting it launch day.

Personally I think of it as Epic getting the Early Access version, and Steam getting the vfull release. ;-)

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Just like Blizzard, Steam, or etc want to keep political things out, hence political. While Blizzard can be hypocritical sometimes.

I mean if you want to get into political fun points, I can bring up how Epic promoted BLM in their game, and offer option to throw stuff at BLM promotion video. But hey let go there because you want to bring political into this for some reason.


That why I said it as if, but thanks for clearing it up.


Yes, that what etc means... What you thought only Steam, and Epic play with China or something???

Steam allows political games on, except for Free Hong Kong games.

I didn't bring political stiff into this, the person I first responded to did.

Yes, Epic put up a good program about racism in the US, and they didn't stop anybody from disagreeing with it which some did by saying stuff in game or throwing stuff, Epic didn't censor speech.

You asked me to prove a claim about Steam/GOG/Ect, when I didn't even claim that not talk about GOG/Ect.

Yes, but not in their streaming event, they want to keep political matters out.

Epic didn't need to promote it in their game, nor add those tomatoes to throw at the video. Far as people were aware some people were just throwing it for the fun of it.

Reread my post before.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Yes, but not in their streaming event, they want to keep political matters out.

Epic didn't need to promote it in their game, nor add those tomatoes to throw at the video. Far as people were aware some people were just throwing it for the fun of it.

Reread my post before.

What does any of that have to do with the conversation that started with the person I responded to at first where he pretty much gave the conspiracy theory that China runs Epic? What does that have to do with Valve showing they are willing to censor stuff due to China where as Epic has stated they won't do that and they haven't?

Reread back to the top.

You bought up Hong Kong censorship all by yourself.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Eisberg:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Reread back to the top.

You bought up Hong Kong censorship all by yourself.

To show that if anything Valve is more controlled by China than Epic is.

Ok, so wanna back that up?