224

What's up with Epic Games? (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

343 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I can't seem to find that one comment explaining the issue with them...

But for the sake of promoting conversation on Lemmy, what's the issue with Epic, and why should I go for Steam or GoG?

Note: Piracy is not an answer. I understand why, and do agree to a certain extent... But sometimes, the happiness gained by playing something from a legitimate source is far greater 🥹... coming from someone who could never ever afford to purchase games, nor could my parents... Hence I've always played bootleg, or pirated games.

TL;DR

What's wrong?

Their launcher has a terrible UI AND UX.
They make exclusive deals with studios to prevent other platforms from getting games. (Someone mentioned that Steam did the same thing in their infancy. Also, I have another question; why is it ok for Sony and Microsoft to make exclusive games for their consoles but not ok for these PC platforms to do so?)
They have been invested in by a Chinese company, Tencent. (Someone mentioned that it isn't that big of a deal, but idk.)
They are actively anti-linux for some reason.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 31 points 11 months ago

I don't like when huge, rich corporations pretend that they are an underdog.

On top of that, I don't like when a platform bribes developers to limit their game to one platform.

[-] MudMan@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Yeah, man, screw Nintendo.

Brand perception is a universal mystery.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

Generally the only games that are de facto exclusive to Nintendo are the ones they make themselves or those that choose to stay on Nintendo (I haven't heard of exclusivity deals, but I won't discount the possibility).

A better comparison might be Sony with Playstation (and maybe Microsoft with Xbox, though I haven't heard of as much from them on that) paying for exclusivity for a limited time.

Epic, on the other hand decided, at least at the start, to buy out almost finished games (some of which even had pre-orders on other storefronts) to have on their platform for at least a year. Then decided to try and play the victim, claiming that they had to do it to gain market share. Then claimed they were morally superior because they didn't charge as much to publishers for putting games on their storefront. While also charging just as much for the games to the consumers.

[-] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Microsoft don't pay for timed exclusivity. Instead they buy the companies and get exclusivity from them now being first party.

[-] MudMan@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago

Sony have very, very few straight exclusivity deals these days, they have a super robust first party network. Nintendo and them are very comparable, in fact. Especially in that Nintendo works with more third parties or partially owned "second parties" than you'd think, since people presume anything using their IP is their game, even when it's not.

In any case, they're both as not-comparable, in that Epic games run on the same hardware and platform as Steam games, Linux compatibility aside. You don't have to pay any extra money to switch back and forth.

Epic legitimately hasn't done anything Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft haven't done on the regular. In fact, the current "boo, we hate non-Steam PC launchers" trend overlaps with the old "boo, we're pissed that former console exclusive X is going multiplatform", which was a surreal few years there.

Also, hell yeah, it's morally superior to give more of the money to the dev while charging the same up front to consumers. 100%. Every time. Epic is not doing it because they're nice, they're doing it to attract talent to their platform, which is exactly why you want competition between multiple storefronts instead of a monopoly. But that doesn't take it away from them, that's the better answer.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 11 months ago

Fuck Nintendo to death, after listening to the abominations they committed in the Team Xecuter episode of Darknet Diaries I’m never giving them another cent.

Luckily, Yuzu runs games infinitely better than my switch anyway, so that’s awesome.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Fuck Nintendo, but fuck Xecuter more.

Anyone that follows the homebrew and CFW scene knows that Xecuter repeatedly and unapologetically ripped off the GPL-licensed components in Atmosphere and its various bootloader stages. On top of violating the licenses of and stealing from the homebrew community, they also added console-bricking DRM to their CFW. They're not heroes supporting the ideological cause of piracy; just shitbags trying to profit off of it.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago

ABSOLUTELY. But the guy whose life they fucked over had almost nothing to do with development. He was like a news site… guy.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Oh yeah, he was totally the fall guy and had his life ruined over it. He was made an example out of, while the rest and worst of them made bank and got away with it.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

Absolute bullshit. But you’re totally right, Xecutor was mostly corrupt and shitty. I forgot about the switch bricking thing, what fuckery to do to people.

[-] MudMan@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Oh, there's a ton to say about why Disney get a reputation for being a litigious nightmare but Nintendo gets more of a connection to beloved franchises in a lot of the gaming community, but that's precisely why they're a good counterexample to Steam when you're talking about branding associations.