This is not the same as Netflix and competitors. No one is stopping a steam user from buying from epic store since its an one off purchase , but to watch an amazon exclusive you need an additional subscription.

Except that the store itself is a deterrent, for a whole laundry list of reasons you can seek elsewhere.

For me, the deal breakers are:

1. No user reviews.

2. Refund system is allegedly horrible and unreliable.

3. No cloud saves.

4. No mod workshop.

5. No forums.

6. No store-provided, NAT-punching, low latency networking.

The last three have made for many of my best gaming experiences in recent years

For me, one issue is the forty-something percent stake tencent has. Both in that I don't trust their software and that I have serious ethical concerns about directly supporting china. I know it's essentially impossible to not buy anything from them, but I would say videogames are definitely something people can easily stop buying.

That's just a matter of competition catching up though. From a consumer perspective multiple stores should have a positive effect. On the other hand streaming services are not benefiting the consumer directly.

Those things cost money. It's where a good chunk of Valve's cut goes.

Store closes shop. Your "purchases" turn out to be for a game licence that only works if the shop servers are up.

I've been burnt by this, most commonly with multiplayer games that only work with bankrupt company's server.

You also can't buy a game for a friend.

The Epic Launcher was recently caught datamining everything from running processes to root certificates. I would never install it personally. It wouldn't make me pirate either, games are easy to boycott, I did the same with EA and Ubisoft when they went rotten, havent looked back, even convinced some friends not to buy from EA and Ubi :)

>The Epic Launcher was recently caught datamining everything from running processes to root certificates

seems to have originated from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

and is alarmist at best. see: https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

I really don't understand the sentiment since having 2-3 game launchers has been the norm for digital games for years now. I can't buy any new Blizzard/Activision games or EA games through Steam that I know of, and these are some of the largest game companies and largest releases in the world.

PC Gaming has really only accepted two major launchers: Steam and Blizzard. Blizzard's launcher is only majorly accepted in my group of friends as it's the only way for some of them to get their WoW fix.

Origin is actively avoided (to the point of avoiding EA's games completely), Ubisoft's Uplay will work with Steam, and Bethesda's launcher was immediately uninstalled after the debacle which was Fallout 76.

None of my friends (that will admit it, anyway) have the Epic launcher installed. They are all frustrated that games they're excited about ("The Outer Worlds" and "Borderlands 3") are timed exclusives on Epic's launcher.

Some of them are very hung up on the fact that Tencent owns a major stake in Epic Games (between 40%-50%). They have seen how China deals with games (WoW in China is the biggest one, game consoles not being legal in the county until recently) and the Internet (Great Firewall of China) and are in no way interested in allowing their software on the machine. Further, it has been observed that the Epic Launcher performs behaviors that behaviors they consider shady[1].

Personally, I won't play any games that are Epic Store exclusives. Not because I have any particular anger toward Epic (I've loved Unreal Tournament for a long time), but because I already have a large backlog of games on Steam, I'd like to keep everything in a single launcher, and by the time I have my backlog cleared, these games should be on Steam and a GOTY version will be out that has all of the DLC included, or if they're not, something else that I care about more will likely have come along.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

> Further, it has been observed that the Epic Launcher performs behaviors that behaviors they consider shady[1].

you mean behaviors entirely consistent with a browser process? https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

As we all know, everyone loves browser tracking and nobody ever uses that data in a shady way.

I'm all against tracking, but the whole post was framed as "epic launcher is doing [scary techno-sounding stuff]", when really it's "epic game launcher is using a webview".

There's no need for them to use a webview - launching a game, purchasing a game, and installing a game do not inherently need a webview. See the last thirty years of gaming history for examples that show this.

Yes, it's a webview. Yes, it's also making requests that are not transparent to the user. Yes, it's a bad thing and it is an issue no matter how many times apologists try to downplay it.

>There's no need for them to use a webview

alll the major ones use some sort of a webview. uplay and origin are essentially electron apps (js + chromium wrapper). steam uses a webview for its community/store page.

All that the rabblerousing gamer anger amounts to is that you and your friends have not yet had the new store successfully marketed to you. The companies involved have fixed their PR before, they'll do it again. Give it a few years.

I'm another person completely different than the OP the only two installers I'll allow on my machine are Steam and GOG. Why? Because Origin was garbage and EA is a terrible company to support. Ubisoft will not compel new to install a game. Rockstar and their stupid ass community requirements even in single player games have made be never want to play another Rockstar game and wishing I could get a refund on games that backported this to. Steam and GOG worked hard for user trust and built it over years, not by what games they have not but how they've constantly tried to listen to users. You can tell that the people running these companies are games themselves and probably use the same launchers. I can promise you there are people at EA who have never played a video game intentionally in their lives. It's a shame too as there are some really good games in their stables.

Blizzard and Origin are reasonably good stores and launchers, and their exclusives are that of the publisher who runs the store.

Epic Store is... Not a quality experience and its exclusives are not solely from the publisher that runs the store.

Origin was also “not a quality experience” when it first came out, and it was also universally hated by fans of Steam.

So why do you think Epic can’t do the same thing?

Steam itself was not very well received at first. Always online, resource hog, slow, buggy... They forced CS players to use it even though old versions worked without it. And then of course HL2 released and it was a Steam exclusive, which was a huge bummer for people like me who didn't have an internet connection at home at the time.

Gamers have a very short memory, although to be fair many are probably too young to remember Steam's launch. On the other hand they also seem to have very little impulse control so game and platform boycotts never seem to work. I expect that Epic's strategy is going to work perfectly.

Steam was building something new. Quite frankly it's harder to build a crappy platform since the space has already been pioneered. No one is hating on GOG Galaxy.

You have a fair point about many gamers having short memories. Many however do not have short memories. I suspect we're older though.

Epic isn't doing the same thing. Origin's exclusives were EA games. Epic's exclusives are not all Epic games.

Does that make a difference? The end result is the same. Games that that you want to play are locked behind a particular launcher.

Of course it makes a difference. Epic isn't attempting to make their store succeed on its own merits, or on the merit of their own games; they are buying exclusivity in order to succeed.

That upsets people, and rightly so. Epic is using their cash to complete, and are trying to replace something people love with something worse.

You seem to be very emotionally invested in this fight between two corporations. You make it sound that Steam succeed because of some heroic display of courage and selflessness while Epic would be a scheming thief set to destroy it out of spite. Poor Valve, let's start a GoFundMe to help them...

Steam popularized always-online DRM. They attempted to monetize mods. They wrote the book on in-game item trading with TF2 and CS:GO, even if it meant that a bunch of underage kids were effectively becoming gamblers. Steam is not your friend, Steam is a business selling videogames and offering online services.

Most importantly, Steam is more than perfectly capable of fighting back if they see EGS as a threat.

Steam is not our friend, correct. But they also had a quasi monopoly for a long time and didn't become outright evil. I give them a lot of credit for that. Hell they still allow Devs to sell on their own site but give steam keys (afaik for free). My biggest complaint against them is stagnation.

Epic's move worries me. They are spending a lot of cash for exclusives. How do you think they expect to earn it back? I doubt their plan will be in my interest.

That's a bizarre reading of my sentiments. Elsewhere in this thread I state that I prefer GoG.

If I'm going to suffer DRM, then at least the service should provide value adds that make it worthwhile to me. Reviews, cloud saves, good networking, mod management, et cetera.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19598465

When do you actually think that Steam introduced those features? Hint: not as long ago as you likely think.

And I’m not sure why you expect a new service to have all of Steam’s features from day one...

I'm an old man. I remember. I avoided Steam until cloud saves came along.

So it doesn't have Steam's features. I have no obligation to support a billion dollar corporation compete against another, at the expense of my own quality of experience.

> Epic is using their cash to complete, and are trying to replace something people love with something worse.

But this is the point: the fact that Epic is making "something worse" might be true now, but will change in the future. This is precisely what happened with Origin for example, at least in the perception of gamers.

So it's worse now. Why should I, as a consumer, silently accept that so a billion dollar corporation can get a foothold against another billion dollar corporation?

> or on the merit of their own games; they are buying exclusivity in order to succeed. [...] Epic is using their cash to complete, and are trying to replace something people love with something worse.

So? Guess how EA has so many "original" games to begin with? Sounds like people are disgusted because cash bribes sound icky.

It's true, many people have a dim view of those who accept bribes.

Origin is still not a quality experience.