MDMAisGOOD

oh and say what you want, the upper Obsidian Management did know from the beginning. and devs becoming also a bigger cut in all of this EPIG 12% whatever BS? hrhrhrhrhrhr sorry, rant is over now.

nothing that much"news" but.... funny things and such :/ https://indiannoob.in/obsidian-entertainment-was-adding-steam-achievements-to-the-outer-worlds-hours-prior-to-making-the-move-to-epic/

I did include the feature comparison between Steam and Epic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing on Steam here. But there IS a belief out there that Steam has not innovated as much as they could/should because they have not had to. One example for me personally is in customer support. They lack any sort of phone number for people to call to get customer support. Admittedly that could get expensive, but it sure would have helped with a recent situation I had. (Long story. I'll spare the details.) But for a company that made an estimated $4.3 billion dollars in revenue in 2017, the ability to speak to a live person if necessary seems like something that could be invested in as an improvement to their service. hehehe, i thought as much and i didn't get you wrong. we have a discussion here in this thread, and that was just my broken english. sorry if it looked like an attack, it wasn't my intention. yeah, i guess they should even in this day and age(or especially?), but i'm lucky enough to never had the need for such a customer service. so i would not know how good or bad they are in that department :/

Ideally, competition should benefit the end customer. Epic Games IS competing against Steam, but in a way that makes things worse off for individual gamers. Restricting the choice of platform that a game can be purchased on to a platform that lacks a multitude of features that Steam has is objectively bad for individual gamers. It may be a form of competition, and certainly the fact that many people have a huge number of games already on Steam and are in no hurry to fracture/split their libraries with another launcher is a large roadbloack to Epic to try and compete on a level playing field, but the way to solve that roadblock should be to make the Epic Launcher objectively better to use than Steam. In other words, to make gamers WANT to switch over by offering better pricing, a better user experience, etc. rather than FORCING them to by holding a metaphorical gun to their heads. "Use our launcher or don't get to play (fill in the blank) game." Simply buying up exclusives is the easier route to go, certainly, but it's not the way to win friends and influence people among ordinary gamers IMHO. With Steam having a monopsony, mostly being the sole provider, on PC games Epic is trying to gain a foothold through exclusivity. They already have a better product in that you actually own the games you purchase, no DRM, and offering free games; they just lack the user base. Steam forces DRM and you are basically "renting" every single game you've bought, and Steam also has exclusives (Total War, previously Bethesda, the Civilization series, etc). If the end result changes any of Steams anti-consumer policy then this is great, if it doesn't then hopefully EGS will take over. The Steam monopoly doesn't exactly hurt the end customer though. If people were actually that upset about Steam's current service, then you'd likely see a lot more support for other platforms. But for the most part, people tend to like Steam and GOG and range from indifferent to hostile to competitors like Origin, Uplay, Battlenet and so on. There is a sense out there I think that Steam has gotten complacent and not improved as much on their shortcomings as they should, but it still remains a pretty superior platform relative to, say, Epic, as a feature comparison shows. Most notable example: mod support. The Outer Worlds is EXACTLY the sort of game that benefits the most from mod support and it's now going to be exclusive to a platform that does not have that feature. people who say something like that, have absolutely now clue at all what it takes to have/get/let something like Steam(even with all it's problems) run and work all the time. that's why most lauchers/stores do not even come close to Steam(even with all it's problems)... it is very expensive. the only ones really complacent after all the years, are the Customers, who know nothing of keeping a site like steam running, and even Devs/Publishers who could have, all together, pressured Steam to lower it's cut of 30%.... they did not... just my 2 cents.

Ideally, competition should benefit the end customer. Epic Games IS competing against Steam, but in a way that makes things worse off for individual gamers. Restricting the choice of platform that a game can be purchased on to a platform that lacks a multitude of features that Steam has is objectively bad for individual gamers. It may be a form of competition, and certainly the fact that many people have a huge number of games already on Steam and are in no hurry to fracture/split their libraries with another launcher is a large roadbloack to Epic to try and compete on a level playing field, but the way to solve that roadblock should be to make the Epic Launcher objectively better to use than Steam. In other words, to make gamers WANT to switch over by offering better pricing, a better user experience, etc. rather than FORCING them to by holding a metaphorical gun to their heads. "Use our launcher or don't get to play (fill in the blank) game." Simply buying up exclusives is the easier route to go, certainly, but it's not the way to win friends and influence people among ordinary gamers IMHO. Ideally, competition should benefit all, not just consumers or the "Industry"

who knows, and i don't thing so. if we're lucky it will be a bit cheaper(10-20%) and only for the first week after that it will be full price again. that's just my two cents when it come to games, coming back to Steam after that one year.

yeah, that's a thing i say for a while now more or less. the likes of Steam, EPIG, GOG and whatever else will start wanting money, monthly or annual or whatever to use their Store. all like them Netfilx and ... others, with the difference that you have to pay extra for the games, and you will get, if you'r nice, a free game they provide once in a blue moon.

How does getting exclusivity deals have nothing to do with competition ? Seems like nakedly being so. You don't seem to understand what the word competition means. Competition would mean Epic, Microsoft, Steam, GOG, etc a sell the game and the customers decide which store/launcher is best. Purchasing exclusivity rights is the opposite of competition. exactly. i still don't get, why there are people who do not understand something so easy like the word "Competition"

for me it's because of this Tim Sweeney *the man without a clue*, and them(EPIG) throwing around money to buy exclusivity deals. what they do has nothing to do with competition. oh and Steam does not and never had a Monopoly, whoever thinks they have/had is pretty clueless.

for me it's because of the cancer in the business that is Tim Sweeney *the man without a clue*, and them(EPIG) throwing money around to buy exclusivity deals. what they do has nothing to do with competition. oh and Steam does not and never had a Monopoly, whoever thinks they have/had is pretty braindead.

i'm all for that, would make a lot of things way way easier.... i guess :/ anyways, i hope you got something from that EPIG money, because i won't buy this game.

you obviously have no clue at all how company's work, every thing will get swallowed, especially things like "Talent" and will be drowned by corporate bull****. the bigger the company, the more "Talent" get/is and will be limited. the same with Humanity, the more we are, the dumber we'll get.

you realy have no clue about real games then.

it would be a goodbye to PC gaming. CRPGs is what Obsidian does right and good, but on XBOX? no way! and it's microsoft, so it will be Windows10 only(no linux and no mac) :/ oh and don't forget the awfull **** that is the Microsoft (games) Store(no Steam or GOG) :/