• Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I wouldn’t say “enormous choice”.

    Realistically it’s either Steam, or Epic.

    Sure, GOG technically exists, but that’s a very niche audience. It’s amazing for what it is, but when new AAA games come out, you won’t see them on GOG. It’s great for retro games, and it’s basically a monopoly on getting DRM free exe files, but I wouldn’t say GOG is even trying to compete with Steam.

    Epic IS trying to compete with Steam, but…they’re just SO bad at it. I’ve heard that Epic’s free games do little more than act as a consequence free way to be demos for people who later buy the game full price on Steam.

    So, Epic is another option to Steam…but, is that it? That’s like saying Coke has plenty of competing colas, except Pepsi doesn’t exist, and RC Cola is technically competition that nobody chooses. That’s Epic. The RC Cola of gaming.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      That’s Epic. The RC Cola of gaming

      brutal.

      (pretty accurate, but brutal)

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Yeah, but he’s got a point. The GOG new game library is much smaller than on Steam.

        • There is something to be said by the lack of what comes out on it may have to do with GOG’s adherence to providing DRM-free, offline installers. The same publishers and devs not putting stuff on GOG but release it everywhere else are often the ones most paranoid of piracy, going so far as to not even announce if they use Denuvu or some other wildly disliked, aggressive DRM until release day or the day before.

          This is not against GOG, btw, but the developers and publishers that don’t release there, specifically, while releasing to most other platforms.

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Epic could be a better competitor if instead of giving out free games they would invest that money in actually getting their client and store up to speed with the competition. They still don’t have reviews on their store.

    • chrash0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      i dunno if “realism” is an argument here. you’re talking about a specific market segment targeting a specific hardware configuration and distribution medium. developers still have the choice to target Nintendo or Sony hardware, to sell physical copies or codes through Walmart, Amazon, Target, Gamestop, your local game store, etc, to sell via mobile platforms like iOS or Android, etc etc.

      honestly, if i sat here and listed them all out it would be an enormous comment.

      i do see how Valve has a hegemony over a big part of the market, but they haven’t been anticompetitive or tried to push anyone out or buy up competition. at least that’s not what’s being claimed, as far as i can tell. Epic’s lawsuits against Apple and Google don’t even apply cuz you can install friggin Windows on their hardware if you had some sort of mental illness.

    • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Xbox/Windows? EA? Ubisoft? Hell, Blizzard? A lot of publishers run their own launchers/stores. I agree they’re largely irrelevant, but they’re all still active so they must bring in some revenue.

        • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          17 hours ago

          So downvote and move on, instead of being an ass and cluttering up the discussion with shit that doesn’t matter.