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 de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Hmm I see what your saying, in the end the slow and steady wins the race. I think I have been swayed by your argument.
That wopuld be great. But sadly they have abandoned their core niche. They stopped really giving a dam,n aboyut older games and what not, and are trying to to be hip, new and current. They want all the flasshy attentionm of the big stores. WHich uis why they're pushing the GoG CLient (though every time they do it seems to fall flat because their client base basically prefers not having a launcher.).
Being small and niche is nice but it also makes you very vulnerable in a way to market disruptions. The EGS has probably done more to hurt GoG than it has Steam.
So you're saying that its bad for a publisher to have a choice in where they sell their product. See this is why that whole line of thought gets a little dangerous. Since its no different than saying you shouldn't have a say in where you work. Publishers should be as free to choose as buyers.
This literally happens all the time in the world. At Superarkets, at Toy COmpanies, at movie studios, at music studios, Restaurants, schools and universities. IT is literallly a standard practice across many industries, especially entertainment related industries.
There's no need for future supposeition here. This is literally a present day and historical practice in the gaming industry. Can't say its hurt u, and since this has been going on for the better part of 30 years I don't tink it can get more long run.
I admit that in the end, I don't care that much either. Or perhaps I'm just getting tired of all these rant threads.
I mean imagine a resteraunt that made crappy burgers, and instead of investing the money to improve their product and make better burgers, they made deals to prevent others in the area from selling burgers.
The customers suffer for it, and it doesn't help anyone in the long run as they are still serving garbage
It'd be more like if a restaurant had crappy food but made up for that by having some nice live band music. They then maade a point of signing all the performers in their area to a exclusive contract with a non-compete clause. Essentially paying bands to not play at other restaurants, or venues.
It's kind of a good point as it shows why exclusive goes against customer satisfaction, but we are talking about some pretty big titles here. In other words Epic isn't only serving up the crappy products. They have in effect kept me from some games I am quite interested in. My biggest fear is that it works for them and they overshadow Steam. Then I will miss out on most PC games as well as console.
Yeah its just an analogy, not a 1:1 example as there isn't any way to stop someone from selling a type of food product.
Well the good news is it sounds like they are in quite a bit of trouble now.
1. They tried to play chicken with Apple and got banned from Apple store, and the judge has sided with Apple when they tried to get a court order to force apple to let them back on
2. Fortnite revenue has been decreasing
3. The US government is now investigating them and their connections to China
Look, I know you are bored to death with your life and that's why you have to constantly be contrarian on these forums and argue just to argue.
But at least try to argue against something that has actually been said instead of making things up so obvious it hurts reading.
No you can't stop another restaurant from selling a hamburger. But you can stop them from selling a Big Mac, Whopper, Whamper, or Colonel's Choice.
No you can't stop another restaurant from selling pizza. Butt you can stop them from selling pizzas made by world reknowned god off all things pizza, Vincienzo Lupo De Lucca Giodarno III.
That latter is akin to what EPic is actually doing. SIgning a world famous cef so that you can only get that chef's meals from their restaurants, dfor a period of time. Its the same thing Movie studios and publishing houses do with actors and authors of note.
When actors get signed to iconic roles in series or movies, there is often a non-compete clause in there that prevents or greatly limits them from appearing in/publishing competing works. Happens a lot in the music industry too, it was legendarily why Prince changed his name to that 'squiggle' for a while.
As I mentioned. This sort of thing has been standard practice across many industries for decades and for the most part consumers have never given a rat's ass. Even in gaming.
Wow. First.
Whether or not I am contrarian is irrlevant. The point still stands. So give your jurassic ego a rest.
Second. If I misinterpreted your point, or your stance on it, you could have sinmply clarified. Which would have actually been conducive to discussion.
The analogy of movies and authors is more accurate, however the end result is that it ends up being worse for consumers, not better and hurts a business in the long run because they have to rely on paying for exclusivity versus having a product people actually want.
Misinterpreting and completely making something up are two different things. And it's not the first time you construct strawmen out of the blue just to argue something nobody ever claimed.
There has to be balance. . This is,, sadly, a 0-sum equation. WHat the consumer wants, what the talent wants, and what the publisher want are intrinsically in opposition to each other and any given side will find a way to say that what benefits them the most is best for everyone. Just like if you have 6 pizza slices and six people someone will make a case for why it's better for everyone that they get 2 slices.
And despite what fiction says, balance involves one side losing, as mocyh as the otehr side(s) gain. and sometimes you're on the side that loses.
Also. The product people are paying for isn't the storefront in many cases. Its just a venue. People are buying the games, not the storefront. NOw just as with a venue, people will gravitate to the venue that has the greatest convenience for them. but the convenience means nothing without the products that people want.
Hmm... I seem to have a few more Venues left over. Let me just get those out of the way.
venue, venue, venue, Venoir(pardon my Hyacinth)
No matter how close, and no matter how much easy parking a store has, or how friendly their staff is. If they don't have jeans in your size, you're not gonne be buying your jeans there. And no matter how far off the country road a store is and how surly the staff. If they are literally the only store that sells the car part you need...you'll go there and spend your money there.
Gamers go where the games are. and for the most part they have never complained. They didn't complain when Nintendo was doing it in the early 80's and 90's .. to the point where US gamers actually got the inferior versions of quite a few games dumped on them.
They didn't care when Nintendo and sega were doing it in the 90's. They didn't care. Because as long as they got their games. they didn't give a crap who got their money.
People buy consoles to play the games in them.
Lots of people spends hundreds of dollars in a piece of hardware in order to play games A, B and C. That fact should frame all the DRM/Exclusives/Whatever-game-politics-hot-topic into its proper persepctive.
I've been there. I've been young and idealistic, 'sticking it up to the man' and all that. Then I grew up and started trying to make the best of it.
I can be worried by DRM, Microtransactions and some of the topics of game-politics. But what I do is to stick it by myself and do what I think I should do. I don't wait or care for others to follow (Cue to MW2 boycott) I simply do it.
Of course sometimes that means not playing some games or not buying some console. But It's been a long time since I lost my FOMO and learnt I do not NEED to play every game out there or fight every battle.
Do what you think you have to do and make the best of it in the meantime.
TBH it's my impression too. That's why I mentioned their niche market is a dead weight to move forward. There's an old saying in Spanish that says "No puedes nadar y guardar la ropa" (You can't swim and look after your clothes) and I feel like GOG is trying to do that. And I feel they do it because right now -other than their DRM policy- they're just another store. And they need to drop their DRM policy if they want to really grow up.
It's like how some Linux Distros hinder themselves with maintaining a pure FOSS stance... It's OK, but it's not going to be enough for the average Joe who just wants to watch Netflix in his laptop.
IMO it's also why GOG is pushing their Galaxy client. It's their way of 'swimming and looking after their clothes' Their way of being relevant. To retain their DRM-Free status while still letting GOG users play 'DRM-Protected' games through their enviroment.
I don't think I ever had FOMO in my life when it came to gaming. Grew up not being able to get everything, never cared that much. I usually had and have "a" console, but never really looked at the others. Never had "all" the consoles of a generation, I don't see the point of that.
I've always done what I put on my profile, I game where I feel comfortable. I don't care that people look down on "playing on a tablet", I enjoy my card and board games on there, much better medium for many and much easier on the go.
I think it also helped that I mostly played the Championship Manager series in the 90s. Being an odd duck helps sometimes. ;)