this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
276 points (96.6% liked)

196

1803 readers
2776 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
 

re: this article.

The title is a joke. "Free, but you have to make an EGS account" is a bit too rich for me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes? Because if the game isn't exclusive then it's on Steam.

That's what a monopoly gets ya. Especially if you have policies in place preventing competing storefronts from competing on price.

Exclusivity deals aren't a particularly bad thing. Nerddom in general also keeps complaining when other first parties don't have enough exclusives, often at the same time they make the opposite argument when it comes to Steam, which is part of the weirdness.

It's a weirdly circular argument that you're okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren't profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you. And it's definitely not what people here are arguing. That's a very forced, disingenuous stance.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So a Monopoly (you can only purchase from one service) is bad, but exclusivity deals (you can only purchase from one service) aren't bad. But I'm the one with the circular logic.

general also keeps complaining when other first parties don't have enough exclusives,

  1. they're idiots.

  2. A stance someone else may or may not have is irrelevant to this discussion or the arguments I am making.

  3. consoles are diffrent from store fronts. No one is complaining that a PC game store doesn't have enough exclusives.

It's a weirdly circular argument that you're okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren't profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you.

The end result is not the same. That's like saying "it's weird that you're not okay with slave labour to work on farms, when the end result is the same to you." How it gets there is relevant, as well as the long term effects of supporting it. Epic has made it clear by their actions that they do not care about the end user, and if they end up "winning" against Steam they would actively make things worse.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, that only works if you wildly misrepresent a monopoly. It's not about "you can only purchase from one service", it's one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.

Exclusives are a competitive proposition. That's why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios. Because... you know, they want exclusive games to their platforms. And Netflix, and every other TV station that has ever existed.

It's not as convernient, necessarily, but it does preserve competition in a way that having a single entity deciding the prices of all games does not.

Those are the long term effects of supporting them. There's no "winning" here. It's not a zero sum game. The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don't have a reason to give you a better deal.

And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn't, he'd just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he's not going to be around forever and you don't want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.

You're the one wildly misrepresenting what a monopoly is:

1
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2
exclusive possession or control
3 a commodity controlled by one party

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

By definition Steam is not a monopoly because it does have exclusive control.
Notice how the word "exclusive" keeps showing up in the definition. An "exclusivity deal" is literally a monopoly on that specific product. Seeing as we agree that monopolies are bad why are you supporting Epics monopoly on all sales of [game]?

That's why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios

I have no issue with Epic having the games they created exclusive to their platform. Fortnight doesn't have to be on Steam. The developer can decide "I only want to sell in this/these stores" and I have no problem with that. My issue is with things like what happened with darq where Epic waited until the game was finished and announced on Steam, then approached them for an exclusivity deal. When the dev wanted to maintain their promise to fans and backers to have the game available on Steam suddenly EGS went from "would love to have your game" to "no interest".
The dev would have been fully willing to release on both, and if EGS cared about their users they could have easily had the game as well, (more games available to users of your service is a good thing). But Epic did not care about having more options available to their users, or having actual competition in the market place, they were only interested if they had a monopoly on all sales of the game and if customers did not have a choice and had to purchase from EGS if they wanted the game.

The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don't have a reason to give you a better deal.

I agree. EGS makes itself "the only game in town" for every title they purchase an exclusivity deal with, and that is why I refuse to use it.

And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn't, he'd just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he's not going to be around forever and you don't want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?

Of course, but I'm not going to use a service that is shit now over one that might be shit later. If Steam becomes shitty I will stop using it, I can always pirate my collection if I need to. I fully agree with you that competition is important, which is why I refuse to support Epic's anti-competitive and anti-consumer behaviour.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are wrong about what a monpolistic position is, at least in a world in which people don't get pedantic and call it a "position of market dominance" because that's not how real people talk unless they are dicks.

So yeah, Steam does have a position of market dominance that they are using to force conditions and prices on providers and customers. Whether that is done to a degree that it infringes on US antitrust regulation is currently in the process of being determined in court, but for the purposes of our conversation it is bad and getting worse.

And I can't stress enough how exclusivity deals are signed with both first and third parties all the time. I'm old enough to remember when gamers were rioting at the concept that Metal Gear or Final Fantasy would show up on Xbox. Insomniac only got purchased by Sony in 2020, they had made Playstation exclusives for twenty years by that point. From the end user perspective there isn't, and has never been, any difference between a game being made by a first party or being signed as an exclusive from a third party.

This is not a reason to get mad in any sane reading of a marketplace, period. Didn't stop schoolchildren in the 90s from fighting over Sonic versus Mario, but I'm not a schoolchild now and I find it extremely tiresome.

And as for your last point... so don't frickin use Epic, who gives a crap. You have so many ways around this entire non-issue. Go play Fortnite on the Switch, or Alan Wake on a PlayStation. Or don't play them. Or play them on Epic and quit the launcher after. I can't describe the subatomic size of the violin I'm playing on behalf of your ordeal, my friend.

Nobody should care about this. Epic has decided to compete by giving away freebies and signing up exclusives, which is frankly, a lot more freebies than every other first party in the past thirty years. Mediocre as their software is I have very little to no patience for anybody genuinely complaining about this state of affairs.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And I can't stress enough how exclusivity deals are signed with both first and third parties all the time. I'm old enough to remember when gamers were rioting at the concept that Metal Gear or Final Fantasy would show up on Xbox. Insomniac only got purchased by Sony in 2020, they had made Playstation exclusives for twenty years by that point. From the end user perspective there isn't, and has never been, any difference between a game being made by a first party or being signed as an exclusive from a third party.

Do you not see how you're talking about something completely different here? You're talking about "Mario is only available on Nintendo systems" not "If you have a Nintendo you can only buy Mario at Walmart".

The first is not a monopoly: "You can purchase this product anywhere you want, it is only compatible on this system".

The second is a monopoly: "you can only purchase this product from US!"

For someone so much against monopolies and arguing for the need for competition and consumer choice, you are spending a lot of effort arguing FOR a behaviour that restricts competition and consumer choice.

And as for your last point... so don't frickin use Epic, who gives a crap. You have so many ways around this entire non-issue. Go play Fortnite on the Switch, or Alan Wake on a PlayStation. Or don't play them. Or play them on Epic and quit the launcher after. I can't describe the subatomic size of the violin I'm playing on behalf of your ordeal, my friend. Nobody should care about this.

So we both agree that your argument that "Steam might be bad one day" is pointless and a non-issue. Good. You can stop bringing it up then.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not even a little bit what a monopoly is.

Which is obvious. Nobody is out there arguing that signing an exclusivity deal between a first party and a developer is somehow a monopolistic situation. Nobody has argued that in forty years of gaming exclusives and nobody has argued it in a century of television or music recording labels.

So the question becomes why argue it now, right? Why weren't you mad when Ratchet & Clank could only be purchased an played on a PlayStation or Final Fantasy was only on a SNES? What overzealous, cult-like situation leads to a whole host of people going to bat for this ass-backwards concept on behalf of Steam? Who, I should add, have not argued this themselves or asked for this at all, although thanks to the power of lawsuits we do have a decent indication that they do approve of it.

One has to assume the cart is being put before the horse, given the timeline. People were bashing Ubisoft and EA's previous competitors for less defined, more ambiguous reasons, and often no reason at all beyond brand loyalty. The whole "exclusives are bad now" argument happens to be the narrative that stuck with Epic specifically because it's the one thing they're doing that the previous ones weren't.

So all of this has been a ton of typing to come back to the only statement this conversation ever needed:

Seeing the console wars play out on the basis of which DRM platform you want to put in your PC is wild.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why weren’t you mad when Ratchet & Clank could only be purchased an played on a PlayStation or Final Fantasy was only on a SNES?

Why aren't people angry that you can't put diesel in a gasoline engine? Why aren't you mad that a DVD can't be played in a VHS? Why aren't you mad that you can't plug a computer hard drive into a switch and play Civilization?

Do you understand that there is a difference between "This is only compatible with certain hardware" and "You can only purchase this at one specific business"? Because you are once again arguing as if they are the same thing and I've already pointed this out to you, which means you are either completely disingenuous or an idiot. Either way this is a waste of time.

If there's a third option I'm missing please let me know.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are the same thing on the business side, absolutely. I mean, games are developed on PC anyway, so those are the same thing today for sure. I promise you there is a PC version of Bloodborne in a FromSoft computer somewhere, even though it's stuck as a PS4 exclusive. Not because there is some mystery technical reason, but because somebody signed a deal to make it that way.

There has never been a technical reason a port of Ratchet & Clank or Uncharted couldn't work on a PC (or a GameCube, previously), even when there was more porting work to be done, the game would have sold more than enough to make it worth the porting costs. Those games were stuck on their platforms because Insomniac and Naughty Dog had a business relationship with Sony. And then Sony said it was fine for them to be on Epic, Steam and GoG. And then they decided they wanted to have online authentication DRM, so they were only on Epic and Steam after that point.

Hell, if you go backwards, there was an uproar among Nintendo fanboys when Resident Evil 4 stopped being a Gamecube exclusive and showed up on PS2 (and then on everything else). And that, again, was not a technical issue, but a deal that was in place until it wasn't. Because this conversation has been dumb both ways for a very long time.

The third option is you don't understand how games are made or exclusivity deals signed and you're only latching onto them as a backwards justification for your foregone conclusion because you want to root for Steam as a platform.

Which is the wild part.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The third option is you don't understand how games are made

Right, the devs just need to change the code from "If_On_PC_Do_Not_Run" from TRUE to FALSE and it will work just fine. And I'm the one that doesn't understand how games are made.

Looks like option #2 was the correct one.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Dude, no, you really don't. You're Dunning-Krugering the crap out of this one.

Look, you don't need to take my word for it, but I also don't need to give you my bona fides or give you a TED talk about how platform targets are chosen in most modern games. You can go look it up.

It's... really not how you're picturing it. And you're picturing it that way to justify your chosen platform as a home team. You should really stop doing that and just enjoy the games you want to enjoy wherever you want to enjoy them.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's... really not how you're picturing it

How do you think I am picturing it? I'm responding to your absurd claims that not being able to use gasoline in a diesel engine is the same thing as Esso being the only business allowed to sell gasoline.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

No, you're imagining that games are like fuel. Games are not, in fact, like fuel. It's not like you're picturing it.

I'm tempted to give you a different simile, but it's clearly pointless. Games are like games. You put them on platforms if it makes more money to sell them there than it costs to port them, and modern hardware is very similar across the board, so that's most of the time, unless you have something more profitable for your programmers to be doing OR somebody pays you to change that math.

There I am, giving you the TED talk. And you know what? You don't deserve it. You're confidently wrong on the Internet, it's kind of on you at this point. You can figure it out or not, but under no circumstanes will exclusivity deals, co-marketing or co-development deals be anticompetitive just because you want to shill for a random company online. It just doesn't track at all and it's weird that people keep parroting it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

No, you're imagining that games are like fuel. Games are not, in fact, like fuel. It's not like you're picturing it.

You are saying that a product (games) not being compatible with every hardware (system) is the exact same thing as the product only allowed to be sold from 1 business.

I substituted a different product (fuel) and hardware (engine) to highlight how absurd that is because you still seem to think they are the same thing.

It doesn't matter how theoretically profitable a port to another system might be, it still takes time and resources to produce. Time and resources that a company might believe can be more profitable spent elsewhere.

It does not take time or resources to make a PC game that is on the EGS compatible with the PC on Steam. I don't know how to explain this to you more simply.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That is irrelevant, and I realize that attempting to explain this to you is now reflecting poorly on me, but here we are.

Any first party submission is a first party submission. It has some cost and generates some profit. Believe or not, game publishers have these things called speadsheets. They can sum like nobody's business.

They can count how much money they can make by porting something and how much money they can make from, say, putting those same engineers to work on something else. And they will typically do the thing that yields the most money.

Not that it matters because these days most games are on middleware engines targeting effectively a few iterations of the same rebadged mid-spec PC, so a bunch of ports ARE in fact mostly pushing a button to make the game go. Hell, most of the work across the current-gen consoles comes down to sorting out all the APIs and metadata nonsense from all the first party services.

Of course it's cheaper to put a PC game in more than one storefront, but it's also irrelevant because, and I can't stress this enough, all storefronts are running on the same computers, so you're typically not blocked from any of your userbase. Next to zero cost, next to zero reward.

You aren't even arguing about exclusivity to a platform, you are arguing about the layer of download management software that installs the same files to the same computer. It's the stupidest fanboyism I have encountered in all my years of paying attention to videogames for fun and profit. It's baffling.

You can even boot your Epic games from inside the Steam interface and use all the Steam features on them. This is such a nonsense debate it doesn't even begin to justify all this back and forth you and I are having here, let alone however long it took to put together this meme. I swear, man, gamers are exhausting sometimes. I am done here.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

You aren't even arguing about exclusivity to a platform, you are arguing about the layer of download management software that installs the same files to the same computer.

Exactly. You are arguing about "exclusivity to a platform is bad because monopolies" but somehow exclusivity to the download management software, something that there is no good reason for, is good?

It's the stupidest fanboyism I have encountered in all my years of paying attention to videogames for fun and profit.

"I don't like this specific company because of these things that they do" is the opposite of fanboyism. The only fanboyism is you ranting for post after post trying to argue that EGS's anti-consumer practices are "good actually because everyone chooses to use Steam so that makes Steam bad."