His company has virtually zero market share in China too.
His company is China's inroad to the Western games distribution industry. China is totally cool with Epic allowing anti-China statements as long as it brings the users into China arms.
Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
101–110 of 115 posts
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't they be mad at Steam for cutting access to a game they bought? Why aren't they mad at the company that bait and switched them?
It wasn’t cut by steam. It was cut by epic. Steam updated its terms to prevent removal in the future.
To be clear, a game was on Steam, Steam took people's money, Steam let the game be removed from people that bought it, Steam didn't give people their money back, and people blame Epic?
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn’t cut by steam. It was cut by epic. Steam updated its terms to prevent removal in the future.
To be clear, a game was on Steam, Steam took people's money, Steam let the game be removed from people that bought it, Steam didn't give people their money back, and people blame Epic?
To be clear. The people who bought it on steam got to keep it. But it didn’t change the fact it’s a shitty move on epics part. People on Kickstarter never got what they funded as they paid for steam and the game never arrived to steam because of epic. So so trying to defend epics shitty tactics.
We need competition but not how epic is going about it.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, a game was on Steam, Steam took people's money, Steam let the game be removed from people that bought it, Steam didn't give people their money back, and people blame Epic?
To be clear. The people who bought it on steam got to keep it. But it didn’t change the fact it’s a shitty move on epics part. People on Kickstarter never got what they funded as they paid for steam and the game never arrived to steam because of epic. So so trying to defend epics shitty tactics. We need competition but not how epic is going about it.
If people got their game on Steam and got to keep it, how did Epic cut it and how did people get screwed over?
For the Kickstarter, did people pay to buy the game and not get it while not being refunded? We're they promised a copy of the game while not receiving it?
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
On top of this, as I recall everyone hated steam when it came, that you had to have it running to launch Counter-Strike through steam. I know I found it very annoying. Now Steam is home to most people and they are angry over the next change. Like the guy in the sibling comment defending 30% cut for a digital service like Steam, it is Stockholm syndrome, or just human nature :)
Indeed, I was one of those who hated the idea of Steam when it came out. However they won me over by just not being anywhere near the evil I predicted they would be. In the process, they basically saved PC gaming from almost certain doom, helped create the indie explosion, and made buying games so easy and cheap that many people have not even played a third or more of their library. Then they went and made Linux a vi…
I like Valve too, its a really smart company in a world of stupid, but the Steam client is a really lazy thing, it has not improved much in many years, it is not worth a 30% cut to me.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I was one of those who hated the idea of Steam when it came out. However they won me over by just not being anywhere near the evil I predicted they would be. In the process, they basically saved PC gaming from almost certain doom, helped create the indie explosion, and made buying games so easy and cheap that many people have not even played a third or more of their library. Then they went and made Linux a vi…
I like Valve too, its a really smart company in a world of stupid, but the Steam client is a really lazy thing, it has not improved much in many years, it is not worth a 30% cut to me.
The 30% pays for the infrastructure, more than the client. Besides, the client has added controller support (even for games that don't support controllers), big picture mode, family sharing, streaming, and just recently online emulation of local co-op.
To put that in perspective: Epic still does not have a shopping cart.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
The short version is pretty simple. Epic has been paying developers a whole shit-ton of money for an exclusive release on their storefront and launcher, and a lot of PC gamers do not like exclusive releases or having additional launchers. That's not such a big deal though, the real problem is that they did this with games that were in development for years with Kickstarter-style backing that had up until that point e…
I personally couldn't give two shits about which installer I'd have to use in order to play the game I supported on kickstarter and I don't get why other people care. If the developer gets more money from Epic, that means that they now have more resources to make a decent game, which actually benefits me as a consumer. Also, if the game is good, I'd prefer more money to make its way to the developer rather than store…
> I don't get why other people care
Because other people are not you and have different things they want. I know that must be difficult to accept, but it is true.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a real risk for just saying something at this point. Thus lip-service like this is itself more than "just lip service".
I'm a total cynic, and do not care about video games or sports, but this does seem like he's taking on a legitimate financial risk in lieu of all the articles bubbling up about the situation
Personally he’s not. Probably has plenty stashed away.
It may put Epic in a spot, but these CEOs will be fine.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valve advertises games on a platform that sells games and only does it when you start Steam. 30% is standard. They're a de-facto monopoly because they basically invented the market and no one has managed to do better, they have not engaged in anti-competitive practices and in fact allow people to sell Steam keys for their game on other storefronts without paying Valve at all .
Valve has gotten lazy and incompetent from their rent seeking on the Steam monopoly. I will try to list some of the reasons. The service goes down for 15-30 minutes every single Tuesday during peak hours. Can you imagine if your internet, TV, or cellphone did this? There is also an absurd amount of unplanned downtime as well https://twitter.com/steamstatus there's a major outage every 2 months on average where you ca…
Valve is so lazy and incompetent they invented a service to enable internet multiplay of local coop only games.
Epic is doing what? Handing out sacks of cash to buy a catalog? Which is going to end the first mover advantage and make your game buried at the bottom of a big App Store list.
After making Fortnite, a clone of different game, popular with LOL’s business model?
How inventive.
30% to a company doing things for you? Or Epic who is charging you less but building a catalog of competitors for you as well, and backtracking constantly on promises.
Oh and Epic is partially owned by a Chinese company. Since everyone is suddenly patriotic about that shit.
Re: Epic CEO says it won't ban Fortnite players for taking a stance on human rights
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that is true, they are at least on the record now with a position and I do feel like that is important. I would hope to see other game companies make these statements as well.
Statements mean and accomplish nothing. I thought after decades of being fucked over and lied to by corporations, maybe the public would become a bit more suspicious of people like this, but I guess not.
> Statements mean and accomplish nothing.
Yet a statements is what started all this in the video game world. Blitzchung was banned from making a statement. Tim Sweeney did a statement right now, in support to what Blitzchung did. This statement will have repercussion. You may not believe that the content of the statement is truthful, but it doesn't change that Tim Sweeney accepted the repercussion caused by that statement, which is already quite important.