Comic for Monday 4/8 (Early)
I want to like the Epic Games Launcher.
I want to like it because I want developers to earn more money from their games, and Epic takes a significantly lower cut than Steam. I also think it would be healthy for Steam to have some real competition.
I want to like the Epic launcher for these reasons... but I don't like the way they're doing business otherwise.
Setting aside the rumors that the launcher is spyware (I've seen the evidence, it's concerning, but not conclusive in my opinion), or that Epic is secretly being controlled by a Chinese super-corporation (I've seen no evidence of this, but Tencent is obviously an investor), or that the software is a barebones mess (it is, perhaps I've been spoiled by Steam, and I'm sure eventually they'll get it all fixed, but right now it sucks). The buying of exclusive rights to games to force people to adopt their launcher rubs me the wrong way, though.
To be clear, I don't hate the idea of exclusives as a whole. They exist, they're a core part of the video game ecosystem, they're a great way to sell a platform, and in a lot of instances, it can lead to games that wouldn't otherwise exist (when a console bankrolls production of a game in return for exclusivity, for instance). It can be a healthy way to promote competition, and can lift up developers in the process.
In other cases, the exclusivity makes sense. I really dislike the Origin launcher, and I could take or leave Uplay, but I get that I have to use them to play an EA or Ubisoft game; those companies make the games and the launchers.
What I don't like is when a company shells out a ton of cash to an otherwise unaffiliated developer solely to prevent the customer from having options. I don't like when Microsoft does it with a game like Tomb Raider, and I don't like it here. I don't even play the Metro series, but the way the latest Metro game suddenly went exclusive to Epic two weeks before the game's launch felt a little sketchy. And now Borderlands is exclusive for the first six months. I understand the business appeal for the developer (likely a big bag of cash up front), but that doesn't mean I have to like it as a consumer.
And while I may not like it, I'll also be the first to admit that I'm probably not going to do shit about it. If it were a single player game, I might decide to vote with my wallet, and simply not play it until next April. But Borderlands is a co-op game, and if the other three friends in my group don't want to wait, I'm probably not prepared to miss out on a game (and time with friends) that I'm looking forward to, by standing on principle.
I think that irritates me more than being forced to use some clunky software that nobody likes.
Comments (13)
I'll stick with Steam. Not going to even install a launcher on my system that may be spyware.
Don't forget Battle.net... Not a bad launcher just updates all the time like Adobe just to do the same thing. Steam won back in the day for a reason.
Hmm, I will be waiting for it on Steam, because my friends list is not importable into Epic's launcher (I do use it to play Fortnite (not the Battle Royale mode), but it falls way short of what Steam can do), and I object to the way that the exclusive has been done. I get a ton of emails from Epic saying that my account has had multple login requests from all over the world, and this concerns me greatly, I have never had this issue with Steam. Also, when Watch Dogs launched, the Uplay launcher was launchable from Steam and I was able to play with my friends, and chat to them in the overlay.
equally i don't understand why you guys refuse to use to the store just because they are paying for exclusivity? its just one more program on your machine. computers nowadays can cope with lots. the developers will get a bit more cheese from it.
its one company that has made alot of moeny from a game and now they're spreading that money around the games industry to publishers and developers. thats not a bad thing. better than them just sitting on it
my query about the practice that Tim describes, is, how the money will get split. Epic say a larger percentage to the developer but will that actually go to the publisher. or is it a case of bag of money upfront to the publisher and then the develpoer get the percentage? what will happen when epic stop paying the bag of money upfront, will publishers JUST put it on steam as the easiest option and just not bother putting it anywhere else? its all well and good saying developers get more money but they don't choose the platform.
The comic itself needs some clarification what it is about. I get it after reading the post, but even now i don't see where this information is within the strip.
If you look at the plate he asks for, it has the Steam logo on it.
I really wanted to play the new Exodus, but now I'll just wait and see if it ever goes an another platform. Stupid Epic launcher... :( Not only is the Epic launcher a piece of crap, even if I installed it I would just be adding *ANOTHER* launcher to my system. I've already got Steam, Origin, uPlay and GOG Galaxy. I'm getting tired of all those launchers...
just stop them running at start up? don't you have -gross example- 100different programs on your computer like most people?
I dislike the exclusivity as well, so my standing response is that I *refuse* to even *consider* using it. If a game is exclusive to the EGS, that game doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.
I stopped PC gaming before EGS became a thing and I'm glad I did. I agree, competition is a good thing, but what they're doing isn't competition. GOG is competition. Buying exclusives is just poisoning the market for gamers.
I'm absolutely determined to never use EGS. Before the exclusivity deals, I could take it or leave it. Those deals were the death knell for that store, speaking personally. They won't see a single red cent of my money.