Also: View attachment 192715
More than half of those are just from places like Humble/GMG. But clearly I'm a Steam fanboy with over a thousand games and only arguing from a point of defending them, and not what I personally take issue with. Nevermind the fact that I started the thread and was enthusiastic about another player in the market for competition until the exclusivity shit started.
Words don't stop having meaning just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
This entire argument started because you said stores weren't a product. The store and its features is the service.
right here.
Cool? Let's just get forced into a shittier product and be happy about it. Just lol.
I'm all for competition, but compete because you are good, not because you can wave some capital around and buy steam games out from under them. The current backlash is to be expected. No need to white knight.
As a side note, are you sad Bob Ross wasn't a Canadian?
Your quote :
If he said: "Cool? Let's just get forced into a shittier service and be happy about it. Just lol."
I wouldn't have even replied.
Irrelevant as I'm sad he's gone. Also, we've pretty much always had access to PBS, so he was still a staple while growing up. He transcended borders.
Service CAN be a product, not that in your example it is.We just proved by BOTH definitions YOU provided that a service is a product. You've entirely missed the point and are arguing gibberish now.
Service CAN be a product, not that in your example it is.
Products are sold to consumers.
Are you buying the Steam or Epic games stores?
No.
They aren't products, they are just game distribution services - as you already stated.
Services are the intangibles: Customer service, billing, etc etc.
Valderen it's Monday - we are bored again.
You realize there are 2 different words for a reason, right? Just cause a Service can be a product doesn't mean all services are products. Context matters.You realize you that just because something is free to you, doesn't mean it's not a product? You seem to be hung up on a price tag here.
Valderen it's Monday - we are bored again.
I want one person to name a competing product coming into their market to disrupt said market, where the market had been mostly dominated by one force over the last 15 years and change, that had feature parity with said competitor in that same market, and didn't use these same tactics to get off the ground.
Across ANY market segment, across any industry.
CarMax
Tesla
I think some of you guys should look for new exciting jobs, you're bored way too often. Although it does make for some entertaining reading.![]()
CarMax
Tesla
The problem with feature parity is that tons of companies change their industry cannot have feature parity because the cost is too high. Dom is just stating that the competitive advantage that Epic is offering, lower development fees, is bad for consumers right now. It may not feel that way in 10 years if they have consumer beneficial features.
To clarify, I don't think the lower fees are bad for us. I think that throwing money in the form of payoffs in return for exclusivity is bad for us. Lower fees encourages devs to be on their store but doesn't mean that it can't also be on other stores. This means more options for the consumer. The payoffs mean that it can only be on their store which means fewer options for the consumer.
I'm perfectly fine with Epic taking a smaller cut and offering fewer features as a result, just as I'm fine with Steam offering more features but taking a bigger cut. The reason why I'm OK with this is because choice still factors in for both the consumer and the developer. I'm also fine with a developer wanting to not be on Steam "just because". I won't buy their product, but I'm fine with it. I am not fine however with being told that throwing money around and limiting options as a result is "pro consumer"
Now, might the lower fees result in a race to the bottom and a reduction of services offered to the consumer? Sure. But that's not something that can be known for sure and isn't worth focusing on. The specific problems that are happening now are.
To clarify, I don't think the lower fees are bad for us. I think that throwing money in the form of payoffs in return for exclusivity is bad for us. Lower fees encourages devs to be on their store but doesn't mean that it can't also be on other stores. This means more options for the consumer. The payoffs mean that it can only be on their store which means fewer options for the consumer.
I'm perfectly fine with Epic taking a smaller cut and offering fewer features as a result, just as I'm fine with Steam offering more features but taking a bigger cut. The reason why I'm OK with this is because choice still factors in for both the consumer and the developer. I'm also fine with a developer wanting to not be on Steam "just because". I won't buy their product, but I'm fine with it. I am not fine however with being told that throwing money around and limiting options as a result is "pro consumer"
Now, might the lower fees result in a race to the bottom and a reduction of services offered to the consumer? Sure. But that's not something that can be known for sure and isn't worth focusing on. The specific problems that are happening now are.
I distinctly remember everyone I knew in EQ and Counterstrike bitching about steam being a pile of shit when it hit the market in 2003 also. Mainly because it took out Gamespy overnight. So pretty par the course here with people bitching about a new comer.
From what I recall, Gamespy was the inferior service available in many regards even before Steam came along. I can't remember the name of it, but there was at least one superior server browser for Quake et al. Eye something?