this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
116 points (75.7% liked)

Games

32480 readers
923 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The end result is the same for the consumer.

It really isn't.

In one case a publisher is choosing to publish where the customers are. If consumers don't like that service they are free to publish somewhere else

In the other case a company is trying to force consumers to use their service, instead of providing a better service that they would want to use.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev -3 points 10 months ago

Either way you install a client and play a game. Already have a few so it doesn't really matter.

[–] Rose@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Steam was literally forced on those who owned a physical copy of Half-Life and wanted to play it. The dominant position has nothing to do with the service offered by Steam. It was dominant when it barely had any features. GOG competing with it on features and in fact offering the bonus of DRM-free games hasn't improved its market share of about 0.5%.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No one is upset about having to use EGS for Fortnite. Their own games that they develop themselves they can do what they want with.

The issue is when Epic approaches other developers, especially those that have already announced a Steam release, and try to get exclusivity out of them: https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7

Epic: We would love to have you on our service
Dev: I'm not interested in exclusivity
Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service

Having more options for their customers makes their service better, but Epic isn't interested in being a better service.

[–] Rose@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dev: I’m not interested in exclusivity

Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service

If anything, the example you brought up proves the opposite. Darq is on Epic and its developer even took money from Epic to make it free, so there is no grudge even past the dev's publicity stunt.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Their attempt to strong arm an exclusivity deal failed and at some point they relented and put the game on their store.

If they had just hosted in on their service at the same time in launched on Steam it would have been better for their customers and more profitable for Epic. But they are more concerned about trying to force exclusives than do what is better for their customers, even if it loses them money.