Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Please express yourself with words, not links to suspicious sites.
Title: “The Door’s Revenge”
Once upon a time, in a quirky little town called Exitville, doors had feelings. Yes, you heard that right—sentient doors with personalities, quirks, and a penchant for poetic justice.
Poetic justice, Valve being fined. Defenders being mad....
...And there you have it—a door’s sweet revenge served with a side of whimsy.
Steam points awards welcomed...
No points for you. Besides, if you don't care about Steam, why beg for Steam points? Hoping for a Jester award? Too bad I don't consider advertising Epic on a competitive platform funny.
"Too bad I don't consider advertising Epic on a competitive platform funny." This is the Chef's Kiss. So good.
This isn't true. Collecting means the information was going to Epic without user permission. What actually happened is a file was copied and put somewhere else on the users PC, without being transmitted to Epic prior to user permission. When user permission was given because the user wanted to do the friends list importing function, then only a hash of the friends list from that file was transmitted to Epic.
First link in this subreddit post talks about this
https://old.reddit.com/user/Cord_Cutter_VR/comments/15dbo89/egs_isnt_spyware/
It was hilarious how much of a deal people made out of no shopping cart, they literally talked about it like it was the "THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER", even to the point of saying that not having a shopping cart is exactly the same thing as having a car without an engine.
Wishlists were added to the store in March 2020, 1 year 9 months before the cart, not 1 year after the cart.
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/wishlists-are-here
He didn't say Steam was/is Evil. And yes, more competition is good for consumers. GIving higher revenue share is also good for developers that can very much result in something better for consumers too.
THe first sale had coupons, and what Epic was doing was showing the price from the developer chosen, and then also showing the price would be after applying the coupon. Its something that my local grocery store shows on the store shelves when a digital coupon is available, they show the price with digital coupon. Its a good idea, better inform the consumer. It made no sense why a couple of publishers didn't like it.
That didn't developers at all, far from it, it was actually a benefit for them, and I'll explain here soon.
That isn't true outside of extremely low amount of edge cases of consumers who tend to complain about anything anyways.
Reason why it didn't harm dev/pubs at all is because for well over a decade because of Valve starting the big sales events, consumers have already become accustomed to waiting for a big enough discount for the price they were willing to pay for the game, coupon is no different in that regard. But the coupon was a huge benefit for the developers because it allowed the effective discounted price to go to a point faster for the consumer that would buy the game at X amount of money, and the developer still got 88% of the price they chosen which is higher than the coupon price. For an example, I bought Robocop at 33% off shortly after it released, it was at it's full price of $50, I would not have bought Robocop when I did if it wasn't for that coupon, I would have waited for the developer to discount the game by 33% themselves before I bought it. So because of the coupon, the dev/pub of Robocop got 88% of the $50 for the game even though I only paid $34 for the game. If I had to wait until it was $34 discounted by the dev/pub, then they would have received 88% of the $34. The dev/pub made more money from the sale because of the coupon, that didn't harm them at all, that is a benefit for them.
Coupons have existed since that first sale back in 2019, and it always had the minimum of $14.99.
None of that is a good reason to be toxic towards EGS users. Steam users tend to be toxic towards people that bought a game from non Steam stores, even if a GOG user bought a game from GOG and has a problem with the game and talk about it on the Steam forums, Steam users are toxic towards them too.
By the way, Alan Wake 2 being exclusive to Epic Store is no different than Half Life 2 being exclusive to Steam. People have shown their hypocrisy after saying for years "first party exclusives are ok", and then when Epic gets first party exclusives like Alan Wake 2 they still attack Epic for having that game exclusive to their own store. They also attack them for Rocket League and Fall Guys despite those are first party games for Epic, and they didn't remove those games from Steam from current owners of those games. REally showing what these people really mean is "First party exclusives, as long as it is Valve, are ok"
Some of the stuff that Epic got into trouble for were things that Epic fixed themselves before the FTC even got involved, so they got into trouble for the time period prior to them fixing it themselves. One of them is getting verified parent permission for under 13 year olds to have an account. Prior to Epic doing that they were doing the same exact thing that Steam still does now, just say you have to be over 13 years old and click this box if you are over 13. Eventually in 2019 they changed that so they got verified parental permission for under 13 year olds to have an account. FTC states Epic should have known earlier and made the change earlier.
Another thing they got into trouble for is allowing 17 years old and under to have access to text/voice chat without parent permission, something even Steam still does.
Since them Epic has gone above what the FTC even wanted them to do like do ESRB/PEGI ratings on all of Epic's and user made content in Fortnite, which is done through the iarc system. Epic also offers the iarc system, for free, to get games esrb/pegi rated on the Epic Store, to better inform consumers about the games.
Unintended purchases made by kids using their parents credit card?
I've seen that argument brought under so many names it's not even funny anymore. And it's never worked that way.
The difference is the fruit producer isn't dictating the price of the tomatoes on your grocery store.
Note not even Amazon changes the product price when a discount code can be applied to a product (it only shows during checkout. Never on the product page) It was a newbie mistake (or an attempt to see how far the rope could give without snapping)
Notice people aren't really that much anger at Alan Wake 2 being an Epic Exclusive, people have already goten used to. It was released as an Epic exclusive. What people got an issue with was games being pulled off the Steam Store because after being announced and even sold on the Steam Store they became Epic exclusives.
The publisher took a product from sale on one place to sell it on another. It's normal for some people to be angry with them and the new place. It's exactly what people took issue with Origin and Battlefield 3.
"Sorry I stole that car before but now I reformed" Isn't going to fly that far in front of a judge.
Again, I'm just warning some of you are stepping over the same stones that got you mad at Valve and Steam. Epic can cause you as much of a case of brand betrayal than Valve.
All corporations are inherently equal at the core. And while they can be nice to you, they're not obligued to.
Yes, it worked: as already mentioned, their coupons can be applied on top of discounts. If a game already is 50% off, you can still use a coupon and get a bigger discount. This results in prices that you wouldn't find on Steam. But more importantly, devs getting a bigger cut makes it easier for them to produce new games... and we all want sequels for good games, right?
So absolutely no developer has ever made a better game, compared to previous game, due to having a higher budget, in the entire history of gaming?
That really doesn't make a difference. Also doesn't change the fact that the customer is better informed. It should be appreciated by the consumers and talked about as a good thing, instead of trying to use it against Epic pretending it's a bad thing. Should be going against those couple of publishers who didn't like the pro-consumer policy.
Nope, people are attacking Epic for keeping Alan Wake 2/remastered/PC Building Simulator 2 exclusive to Epic despite those are first party games. There is very much hypocrisy going on.
You missed the point. The point was that Epic fixed several things on their own before the FTC even got involved, they didn't need to be legally compelled to make any changes.
If a greater revenue share resulted by itself in higher budget for their products, why aren't all devs massively migrating to the platforms offering better revenue share?
Maybe you're overplaying what that 'increased budget' amounts to, or where that added revenue is really going.
Steam has had a near monopoly for nearly 2 decades, it's very hard to get that stickiness away.
You didn't even answer the question, answer it directly.
So absolutely no developer has ever made a better game, compared to previous game, due to having a higher budget, in the entire history of gaming?
And do you believe that 100% of developers, including indies, would never ever reinvest at least a portion of extra money coming from higher revenue share into their future projects?
Now they're reinvesting at least just a portion of that revenue sharing. Now your're getting closer and closer to how things work in reality.
Well, because they don't have to migrate. It's perfectly possible to sell your game in multiple platforms, and that's what various devs/pubs have been doing.
Now you may ask:
Why not sell your game ONLY on the platform that provides a greater revenue share?
We all know the answer... "rELEaSe oN STeaM oR I'M nOt bUYing uR GAmE!!!"