I don’t like the EGL because launchers are bloatware and slow my computer down. 
I don’t really have a problem with it existing though. In all fairness though you can’t blame devs for going to the EGS. They basically recoup all development costs before the game even starts selling, whereas steam is kind of hell to get money from.
yeah? that’s how you attract customers. you give them something that no one else has. that’s what Epic is doing. it’s how business works. the idea that this is selfish or shady is bizarre because even if it’s obviously bad it’s how things have worked Forever.
note that “it’s how things have always been” is not a reason to keep it that way, but the idea that it’s only now an issue because of Epic vs. Steam or something is mega bizarro
edit: also modern games should be like, $100+. $60 doesn’t cut it anymore - companies have kept the price the same ($40-$60) for decades but the level of work and effort that goes into them has increased by an order of magnitude.
that’s what DLC are generally for, if CEOs stopped hoarding money games could still maintain the price
1 Like
I… don’t know what to say here. like, inflation is a thing but game prices have remained the same. that’s not “what DLC is for.” that’s what the game’s base price should be.
DLC is an okay idea on paper but it’s as corrupt as anything else in effect. it’s as “seflish” as anything else we’ve been talking about.
DLC isn’t an issue if the game itself is a finished product, it can be a great way to support a game and its devs, but yeah for the past few years a lot of DLC are just ways to finish a visibly unfinished game
1 Like
yeah, IF the game is a finished product. but day 1 patches, day 1 DLCs, DLC in general, etc. has meant that developers have a bigger safety net than ever for releasing unfinished products onto the market.
essentially games could retain their prices (at least without going super high) if they didn’t do EVIL CAPITALIST BUSINESS PRACTICES
no, the prices have to change. like, $60 for a modern game isn’t fair because so much of that goes to the CEO, as you said earlier. A higher price point would allow more money to go to the actual workers, even if it also means more money for the CEO.
$50 in 2001 for your first copy of Halo: Combat Evolved probably wasn’t a fair price point even at the time, but it definitely isn’t fair now. workers put in far, far too much time for that pricing range nowadays.
we all want mindblowing graphics and orchestral soundtracks but we don’t want to pay $100 for the people who spend years creating those shaders and stuff.
im still in favor of kicking CEOs in the shins until they stop hoarding money but u make a fair point
but i feel like a lot of people can’t afford subsequent 100 dollar games including me ;-;
1 Like
Yeah obviously CEOs (of any sort) shouldn’t be raking in hundreds of millions of dollars right into their pockets, but that’s gonna be even harder to change.
but in general, raising the price point of games to $100+ means that the actual developers get more (not just the CEOs) and are incentivized to actually produce better titles.
the alternative–the situation we’re facing now–is that in order to make up the costs, companies have to churn out crappy DLC, underpay/abuse their workers, and make “shady” deals with platforms like Epic or Steam, who give them incentives to do so.
2 Likes
i probably couldn’t afford games anymore if they were 100$+
1 Like
Yeah, and that’s what everyone says. They can’t/won’t pay more than what they pay now, so these practices–mistreating employees, making deals with platforms, pushing out DLC–are the ways to make up for that.
it probably doesn’t help that Maya, the industry standard for 3D modeling/texturing/animation charges 1,500 dollars for just 1 year of use
it feels like they could just do BETTER practices to make that money instead of just.
being complete jerks at the top of the chain.
1 Like
well, mentioning stuff like that? Epic waives certain fees and such if you are using their engines. they give actual incentives (not just “buying exclusive rights”) to developers.
you’ve just circled back to the issue with capitalism in general. it’s cheaper to make an OK product and cut corners than it is to make an amazing product and go the whole distance. people will still eat up OK products and the company rakes in cash.
the devs of phoenix point said that they basically would recoup all costs even if no one bought the game from EGS. I don’t think any devs are at fault for cashing in on a deal like that.
they aren’t and even Epic’s not. Epic is literally just playing the same game everyone in the industry has been playing for 30~ years.
edit: and again, “the industry should change” is 100% valid. the issue is that so much flak is being squared specifically at Epic.
it hurts my soul
it hurts a lot
i’ve seen a lot of arguments in response to the EGS stuff that Steam needs to step up and start asking for a much smaller cut of profits and actually make SOME effort of moderating what gets put on their store
because seeing “Trap Shrine” in new and popular hurts every fiber of my being
yes. I have covered at length why Steam is bad and has been bad for a long, long time, but people have taken that as some kind of incredulous die-hard defense of Epic’s launcher, because you have to support one or the other exclusively I guess.