Serious The Epic Games Store is good for gaming, change my mind

Angel

she/her/they nonbinary transfem
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
9,940
Nebulae
8,984
Some people posting as if epic was holding a gun to their head and screaming all their steam games are gone.
No one is forcing you to use epic... it's almost as if people don't understand how the market works

Game is exclusive on Epic and you think Epic is shit? Good, don't buy the game. If enough people agree with you, they won't release more exclusives on Epic.

It really is that simple.
 
Reactions: List

Aether

Molecule
GTA RP Playtester
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,706
Nebulae
4,461
Apologies for the delay, I had to get the house ready for the boyfriend coming over for the weekend.

If Epic's plan was to have a barebones store and just yoink games from a bunch of publishers and leave it at that, I would agree with you. That is not the case here, work is being put into the platform constantly. It's looking pretty good for a product that's only a couple months old.
So why are they making moves to try and beat out an older, better and more experienced competitor like Steam when they're obviously not ready for it? That's what annoys me the most. They're obviously still in development, but paying publishers to get people to use their platform which in essence forces us to use what might as well be referred to as an early access platform.

I don't really understand the rhetoric that Epic is only trying to harm the consumer, is it because it's lacking "user-oriented features" at the moment? Of course it is. They need to make sure the core stuff is in place to make it attractive enough for publishers/developers to actually want to utilize the store at all. Once again, it's not like they're going to avoid putting these features into the store. Check out their roadmap, it lists a lot of things that people are whining about: cloud saves, user reviews, social improvements, etc.
Again, I don't want to use a store that's in alpha. Instead of focusing on making the platform attractive to publishers/developers first, they should have focused on making the store attractive to players first then focused on making the platform attractive to publishers/developers.

Epic is paying publishers to bring more choice to the consumer - it doesn't seem like it now but remember that these games are not full exclusives. Nobody uses Origin because it's for EA-published games only. Nobody uses Uplay because they're for Ubisoft-published games only, and it comes bundled when you buy games on Steam anyway. Nobody uses Windows Store because you can probably find the same games on Steam (outside of something like Sea of Thieves which is also an exclusive, but Microsoft gets no flak for that one (?)).
Sure, they're bringing more choice to the consumer but so are supermarkets that stock malformed fruit and vegetables. They're giving us more choice but everyone is almost always going to go for the fully formed, better looking fruit and vegetables despite the fact they taste the exactly the same. As for your other points, no one is yelling at platforms stocking only what their publisher has made - such as SoT on the Microsoft Store because Microsoft made it - and I don't expect any publisher to go out of their way to stock their game on a platform they don't own. I don't expect Epic to put Fortnite on Steam, likewise I don't expect to see Valve put Half-Life 2 on the Windows Store. If it happens, such as Microsoft putting the MCC on Steam, it's a surprise and to be frank and while yes, I understand it's not on Epic either but that isn't down to Valve because Valve didn't extend a deal to Microsoft to pay for a timed exclusive like Epic did.

Epic can't start with feature parity out of the gate, that takes a LOT of time and money with no guarantee that anyone uses it because they can just get their games on Steam instead. Their tactic is to get an established user base and funding to gauge whether or not it can stand on its own and not stagnate like literally every other PC gaming platform.
I get they can't compare with features out of the gate, but that's my fucking point they shouldn't be trying to compete right out of the gate. They should establish themselves, use the absurd amount of money Epic makes out of their multitude of products and games to build up their platform to begin with and then try to compete in terms of games. I honestly would not give a fuck about the exclusives if their platform was better than Steam, which is why I'd prefer them to have built up then did this, rather then do this then build up. If they expect to get a user base from the exclusives, then they should have done it after having a better platform. It's not like Epic is an indie company, they've been around longer than most and have created products that my University use to teach me with - so It's sure a shit not like they're short of cash, especially with Fortnite hitting GOTY.

I think this is a major exaggeration and not really many people to struggle to use those UI's especially since Steam's new library design is also close to Origin/UPlay's
libraryoverviewgdc-1553197094960.png
While the libraries may be similar, I for one fucking abhor the Uplay profile management, where more often than not, it just doesn't work.

but it did launch didn't it you fucking mug
Which is my point you idiot, it fucking launched. It's literally the most basic fucking feature. If it DIDN'T, I wouldn't bother calling it a platform, but the fact it DID means I can at least call it a launcher. That doesn't make it a good one.
 
Reactions: List

alex

I do things.
Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
7,243
Nebulae
24,169
So why are they making moves to try and beat out an older, better and more experienced competitor like Steam when they're obviously not ready for it? That's what annoys me the most. They're obviously still in development, but paying publishers to get people to use their platform which in essence forces us to use what might as well be referred to as an early access platform.

Seems perfectly fine. You can buy a game, download and play the game; Those are the only completely necessary things for a game store to function so it seems pretty ready for it's primary function.

Again, I don't want to use a store that's in alpha. Instead of focusing on making the platform attractive to publishers/developers first, they should have focused on making the store attractive to players first then focused on making the platform attractive to publishers/developers.

A store that has activate development does not equate to a platform in alpha. Focusing on attracting actual products for your platform should not be the focus? Players primary need is having games they want available to them on the platform as without those games you will not attract players, you're thinking of this entirely backwards.

Sure, they're bringing more choice to the consumer but so are supermarkets that stock malformed fruit and vegetables. They're giving us more choice but everyone is almost always going to go for the fully formed, better looking fruit and vegetables despite the fact they taste the exactly the same. As for your other points, no one is yelling at platforms stocking only what their publisher has made - such as SoT on the Microsoft Store because Microsoft made it - and I don't expect any publisher to go out of their way to stock their game on a platform they don't own. I don't expect Epic to put Fortnite on Steam, likewise I don't expect to see Valve put Half-Life 2 on the Windows Store. If it happens, such as Microsoft putting the MCC on Steam, it's a surprise and to be frank and while yes, I understand it's not on Epic either but that isn't down to Valve because Valve didn't extend a deal to Microsoft to pay for a timed exclusive like Epic did.

Not sure where the comparison of malformed fruit and vegetables comes from; The games you receive are not somehow different from the game you'd have gotten from another store. But the end result for MCC is the same, I'd much prefer to buy a game on Epic Store and it's not available so I'd be 'forced' to use a platform I consider to be worse but for some reason it's okay because it's done through Steam.

I get they can't compare with features out of the gate, but that's my fucking point they shouldn't be trying to compete right out of the gate. They should establish themselves, use the absurd amount of money Epic makes out of their multitude of products and games to build up their platform to begin with and then try to compete in terms of games. I honestly would not give a fuck about the exclusives if their platform was better than Steam, which is why I'd prefer them to have built up then did this, rather then do this then build up. If they expect to get a user base from the exclusives, then they should have done it after having a better platform. It's not like Epic is an indie company, they've been around longer than most and have created products that my University use to teach me with - so It's sure a shit not like they're short of cash, especially with Fortnite hitting GOTY.

Why bother trying at all and trying to grow your platform ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They are establishing themselves, Epic Games have been around for a very long time and they are competing in games because the platform is ready for customers. They don't just expect, they are getting a user base from exclusives.

This seems like an odd point to push that the platform (the launcher) somehow makes a massive difference to the real usage of the platform which is buying, downloading and playing games. Epic are doing more to invest in gaming than Valve have done in a long time and they're taking massive flak because that investment involves a deal to use their store which involves no effort to open the launcher. Sure it'll be great when Epic has a larger feature set but in reality those things are making very little difference to the primary purpose.

There are plenty of half baked things in Steam but that doesn't somehow make it "in alpha".
 
Reactions: List

alex

I do things.
Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
7,243
Nebulae
24,169
Competition will give us cheaper games...


... Maybe.
Almost definitely as Metro was cheaper and with the creators getting a larger cut they don't have to make up for such a huge percentage being paid to the platform provider.
 
Reactions: List

Señor Jaggles

Local Spaniard
Moderator
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
11,455
Nebulae
18,343
Almost definitely as Metro was cheaper and with the creators getting a larger cut they don't have to make up for such a huge percentage being paid to the platform provider.

EA moving all their games off Origin and to Epic just because they heard the words "getting a larger cut"
 

Aether

Molecule
GTA RP Playtester
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,706
Nebulae
4,461
Seems perfectly fine. You can buy a game, download and play the game; Those are the only completely necessary things for a game store to function so it seems pretty ready for it's primary function.
But things doing the bare minimum aren't going to beat something that's doing everything and more for its users.

A store that has activate development does not equate to a platform in alpha. Focusing on attracting actual products for your platform should not be the focus? Players primary need is having games they want available to them on the platform as without those games you will not attract players, you're thinking of this entirely backwards.
You're correct, a store that has active development does not equate it to being a platform in alpha. The fact it has barely any features and the fact they're having to add a fuck ton to make it worth using equates it to being a platform in alpha. Focusing on attracting users will attract products, not the other way around. You do the other way around just pisses off the users as seen here. People would rather pirate games than use a shit platform, it's that severe. Epic has Fortnite, Unreal Tournament, hell they could probably produce even more games and use them to launch their store, as Valve did.

Not sure where the comparison of malformed fruit and vegetables comes from; The games you receive are not somehow different from the game you'd have gotten from another store. But the end result for MCC is the same, I'd much prefer to buy a game on Epic Store and it's not available so I'd be 'forced' to use a platform I consider to be worse but for some reason it's okay because it's done through Steam.
The comparison comes from the fruit and vegetables being the store and the taste being the game. Both stores (fruits/veg) sell the same games (give the same tastes) but people will always choose the one that functions (or looks) better. Sure there's variety in getting to choose between an ugly ass apple and a good looking apple, but I'll still pick the apple that looks good despite them both tasting the same. It's pretty basic.

As for the MCC, I get that you want to buy the game on the Epic store and I understand it's not there, but whilst that does force you to use steam, it isn't the platforms fault for the the publisher picking steam because steam didn't go "here microsoft here's a fuck load of money if you sell here and only here for a year". And as you've repeatedly said, Epic offer more money per sale for the publisher, yet microsoft picked Steam and without Steam bribing them to sell there, it means only one fucking thing: microsoft went there because the users are there

If Steam had bribed Microsoft for a timed exclusive, I'd call them out all the fucking same, so for the love of god stop harping on as if it's a bias problem. It isn't. My problem is Epic's store is too underdeveloped currently and because they're paying publishers to use their underdeveloped platform for a limited amount of time, actually forcing players to use it for the period of aforementioned time. If Steam was going out of its way to pay publishers for timed exclusives, I'd be angry at them because I don't like exclusives, period. Exclusives are - and always will be - fucking hostage games. If Epic was better in terms of UI or functionality, I'd probably move over to that and start playing games there, and if games appeared there because THEY NATURALLY OFFER MORE MONEY FOR PUBLISHERS PER SALE then I'd buy those games. But because it looks and functions like shit and the fact they're bribing publishers is the reason I'm pissed, not because muh steam bias ololo, I couldn't give a fuck about steam, except for the fact it works well and looks good and it has fucking sales. That's it.

Why bother trying at all and trying to grow your platform ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They are establishing themselves, Epic Games have been around for a very long time and they are competing in games because the platform is ready for customers. They don't just expect, they are getting a user base from exclusives.

This seems like an odd point to push that the platform (the launcher) somehow makes a massive difference to the real usage of the platform which is buying, downloading and playing games. Epic are doing more to invest in gaming than Valve have done in a long time and they're taking massive flak because that investment involves a deal to use their store which involves no effort to open the launcher. Sure it'll be great when Epic has a larger feature set but in reality those things are making very little difference to the primary purpose.

There are plenty of half baked things in Steam but that doesn't somehow make it "in alpha".
Grow your platform organically, not by bribing publishers. You've said it yourself. Epic offers more money per purchase for the publisher. If that alone isn't enough to persuade publishers to use your store, then it's inherently because there's a lack of users, which is where Epic should look to and why they have a lack of users - such as the fact people dislike the platform because it looks bad or functions poorly or lacks functionality which is what they should do first, then re-evaluate the situation and then if they have equal to, or more functionality than Steam, THEN do exclusives to pull people.

The 'primary purpose' isn't why I use a store. I don't use Steam just because it's a store, if I was a fucking automaton that was only interested in a stores primary purpose, being able to buy and play games, then I'd not have a problem with any fucking platform because it's the literal fucking requirement for a platform/store. I use Steam for the community, for the workshop and the greenlight where I can find indie games.

I'm aware there's plenty of half baked parts of Steam, but the reason I don't count that as in alpha is because I don't know what else I could physically ask for, outside maybe a better call system. If their call/group system was better, I'd probably even stop using Discord tbh.

I'm also going to sleep now as it's 3:30am but I'll be back to continue this tomorrow.
 
Reactions: List

alex

I do things.
Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
7,243
Nebulae
24,169
The fact it has barely any features and the fact they're having to add a fuck ton to make it worth using equates it to being a platform in alpha.
Nope, doesn't

Focusing on attracting users will attract products, not the other way around. You do the other way around just pisses off the users as seen here. People would rather pirate games than use a shit platform, it's that severe. Epic has Fortnite, Unreal Tournament, hell they could probably produce even more games and use them to launch their store, as Valve did.
Also nope, having products people want attracts users. It's only pissing users off who are so woven into a monopoly because they want their library in one place.

it isn't the platforms fault for the the publisher picking steam
Ah okay, got it! Fine when it's on Steam but not Epic but big bad Epic for investing in a game and it only being on their platform.

yet microsoft picked Steam and without Steam bribing them to sell there
It's a business deal, not a bribe. You don't need to be so intentionally ignorant to the fact it's a business deal between two companies and not some backroom handing over of money.

This is pretty much all I'm gonna bother respond to because you can't even refer to a deal correctly without trying to misrepresent it.

I hope Epic continue this path of fantastic exclusives and I hope they manage to have deals with even bigger games, enjoy not playing games because you don't want to double click a different icon.
 
Reactions: List

'77 East

`impulse-approved
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
11,470
Nebulae
27,057
Also nope, having products people want attracts users. It's only pissing users off who are so woven into a monopoly because they want their library in one place.

I hope Epic continue this path of fantastic exclusives and I hope they manage to have deals with even bigger games.

the problem with two-front deals is that even the Ubisoft titles are cheaper on their store compared to Epic's offering

having exclusivity for an entire year and pricing your games as you want + specific regional pricing means someone like me ends up fucked on the conversion rate, whereas with steam I can buy things in my own currency plus snag things during specific sales. just a small notice.
 
Reactions: List

alex

I do things.
Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
7,243
Nebulae
24,169
the problem with two-front deals is that even the Ubisoft titles are cheaper on their store compared to Epic's offering

having exclusivity for an entire year and pricing your games as you want + specific regional pricing means someone like me ends up fucked on the conversion rate, whereas with steam I can buy things in my own currency plus snag things during specific sales. just a small notice.
Tweet this guy if you're having issues with regional pricing: https://twitter.com/galyonkin

Pretty sure he leads that side of the store and is working to improve the situation with regional pricing.
 

Tinbe

Molecule
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
4,384
Nebulae
10,253
This whole thing is a massive mess, and it's nigh-impossible for me to take any real stance on this. It's a constant back-and-forth between "People are just fearmongering the spyware" and "Dude, look at this shit, why are they doing this and this with their program?"
Like, look at this for example. It's not worded in exactly polite manner, but it seeks to make points about the data-snooping stuff.
(There's the n-word mentioned once in small print on this picture, so if I should link this instead, let me know @mods)
195a91f48671519882a5f76258f52838365cd01db766894fa146b5413ad3b7df.png
 

Aether

Molecule
GTA RP Playtester
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,706
Nebulae
4,461
Also nope, having products people want attracts users. It's only pissing users off who are so woven into a monopoly because they want their library in one place.
I could not give two fucks about having my library in one place. I play Sea of Thieves regularly, meaning I have to use the Xbox App too, not just steam. I even used to play Fortnite when it first came out so I used to use the Epic launcher too. What is pissing me off is that I have to use platforms that lack features that I like to use or I have to use UI that could be better just to play a game I want to play. I go out of my way to avoid launchers that aren't steam because almost every single one I've used has gotten in the way or been tedious one way or another.

Ah okay, got it! Fine when it's on Steam but not Epic but big bad Epic for investing in a game and it only being on their platform.
Yes, because Steam hasn't went out of their way to pull in publishers or forced anything to be an exclusive to their platform. Nowhere has Steam went to a publisher and went "your game must stay here for a year", like Epic has.

It's a business deal, not a bribe. You don't need to be so intentionally ignorant to the fact it's a business deal between two companies and not some backroom handing over of money.

This is pretty much all I'm gonna bother respond to because you can't even refer to a deal correctly without trying to misrepresent it.

I hope Epic continue this path of fantastic exclusives and I hope they manage to have deals with even bigger games, enjoy not playing games because you don't want to double click a different icon.
I'm aware it's not a backroom handing over of money, but when it boils down to it, a business deal where one side gives the other an extremely high bonus in return for something preferential, it is - in essence - a bribe.

Also, misrepresenting deals? More like you're being purposely dense to the nature of the deal. A bribe is a deal, and a deal can be a bribe. The two are not completely separate and to insinuate that is nothing short of ignorance.
 
Reactions: List

alex

I do things.
Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
7,243
Nebulae
24,169
This whole thing is a massive mess, and it's nigh-impossible for me to take any real stance on this. It's a constant back-and-forth between "People are just fearmongering the spyware" and "Dude, look at this shit, why are they doing this and this with their program?"
Like, look at this for example. It's not worded in exactly polite manner, but it seeks to make points about the data-snooping stuff.
(There's the n-word mentioned once in small print on this picture, so if I should link this instead, let me know @mods)
195a91f48671519882a5f76258f52838365cd01db766894fa146b5413ad3b7df.png

8N5JUqz.png


I took this screenshot when that image was circulating, don’t see anyone getting mad about it.
 

aperson

Molecule
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
5,392
Nebulae
7,315
funny how a lot of people that are usually against piracy (not primarily nebulous but other sites) are suddenly pro-piracy when they have to buy a game on another FREE platform
like just pirate the game instead of making it about some crusade against epic games and "anti-consumerism"
i mean for fuck sake its still coming out on steam you just have to wait a year
 

Rabid

Rictal-Approved
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
39,263
Nebulae
109,649
I'd like to say I'm fairly sure the guys at Epic said the launcher shouldn't have been monitoring that shit and Steam got on their ass about it, it was something that happened due to them rushing out the door.
 

Mancom37

Atom
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
2,450
Nebulae
1,859
Funding from a Chinese investment firm does not equal funding from the Chinese government.
The launcher was never a piece of spyware.

Without turning this thread into some hate machine against the Chinese Government I will have to state that much of the "private" market in China has strong connections with the Chinese Government, you need only to look at the troubles that Huawei has been having and the direct help that the PRC has been giving during events like the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. You also have various governments forbidding the use of Huawei equipment in state-level jobs due to the fears of international spying.

But going back to the funding, the money might actually come from the indirectly Chinese Government, they are more than happy to know that they hold foreign capital and stakes in growing companies around the world. A 40% share is a lot for a growing and popular company like Epic Games, the companies you linked had sold about <20% of their shares to Tencent which allows for a bigger diversity in the company's portfolio.
 

`impulse

Head Staff
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,429
Nebulae
5,950
This whole thing is a massive mess, and it's nigh-impossible for me to take any real stance on this. It's a constant back-and-forth between "People are just fearmongering the spyware" and "Dude, look at this shit, why are they doing this and this with their program?"
Like, look at this for example. It's not worded in exactly polite manner, but it seeks to make points about the data-snooping stuff.
(There's the n-word mentioned once in small print on this picture, so if I should link this instead, let me know @mods)
195a91f48671519882a5f76258f52838365cd01db766894fa146b5413ad3b7df.png
I'm not on a windows computer right now so I can't look into it myself, but my guess is that it's looking through registry entries looking for something specific, i.e where some programs are installed, user preferences, etc. However if it's the case that they're collecting this data, then that is pretty shitty. I'm going to give Epic my benefit of doubt since software analytics are very common nowadays. If you're concerned about that, just look into how much data windows 10 sends to microsoft about your computer to get an idea of extremely invasive tracking.

Steam does similar software analytics:
But again, I can't really look into exactly how much they're doing.

The location tracking thing is a moot point because that registry entry doesn't actually contain location information, just your preferences on location awareness.

EGS uses a tracking pixel which is, again, used on almost every website you visit in one form or another. This is just simple analytics - how much traffic is going to certain pages of the store, etc. I highly doubt that the data sent via their site tracking has much info about your computer outside of the simple software analytics that I mentioned previously. We use similar analytics on the forums to see what the popular pages are, where our userbase is coming from, what devices are the most popular, etc. This is very standard stuff.

Again, the scanning of Steam's info is on par with Steam since they also do the same to Epic's launcher.

This entire image is just someone pushing the "Chinese spyware" rhetoric and people are buying into it because Epic have a "connection with the Chinese government". Tencent just bought shares of a company as an investment. Epic makes fat stacks from Fortnite and the value of the shares go up - resulting in money for Tencent. That's how investment works.

I could not give two fucks about having my library in one place. I play Sea of Thieves regularly, meaning I have to use the Xbox App too, not just steam. I even used to play Fortnite when it first came out so I used to use the Epic launcher too. What is pissing me off is that I have to use platforms that lack features that I like to use or I have to use UI that could be better just to play a game I want to play. I go out of my way to avoid launchers that aren't steam because almost every single one I've used has gotten in the way or been tedious one way or another.


Yes, because Steam hasn't went out of their way to pull in publishers or forced anything to be an exclusive to their platform. Nowhere has Steam went to a publisher and went "your game must stay here for a year", like Epic has.


I'm aware it's not a backroom handing over of money, but when it boils down to it, a business deal where one side gives the other an extremely high bonus in return for something preferential, it is - in essence - a bribe.

Also, misrepresenting deals? More like you're being purposely dense to the nature of the deal. A bribe is a deal, and a deal can be a bribe. The two are not completely separate and to insinuate that is nothing short of ignorance.
A lot (if not all?) of the exclusives that Epic has are single-player experiences, and I feel that this was done intentionally because Epic knows that they don't have their infrastructure in place for mass consumption just yet (i.e matchmaking, lobbies/voice chat, inventory, etc). This means there's really no platform features that you need to get the full experience of the exclusives you're playing. If they paid for CS:GO to be an exclusive and all of a sudden you can't access your crates because there's no functionality there, then it would be understandable. However, this isn't the case.

UI is a pretty subjective point and adapts to the needs of the platform over time. Let's take the "they only just added search to the store" criticism. Only until like a month ago, the store had a handful of games. Let's say 15 - 20. Putting in a search for so few entries doesn't make much sense while they can focus their efforts on something more important at hand. Getting the other more important features that people want - like regional pricing, maybe? Now that EGS announced a good amount of games (and along with other developers/publishers putting their games on the platform anyway), having a search makes sense because it takes more than one flick of the scroll wheel to browse the entire catalog.

Valve didn't have to pay anyone for exclusives because a large majority of the games were already exclusive to their platform anyway, or they were a joint release between Steam and literally any other platform. They didn't have to care about Origin's exclusives because they already have an unmatched iron grip on the PC gaming market that any "lost income" from not having the game on their store is peanuts compared to the revenue coming in from the other games they sell. I don't know if Valve would do the same if the roles were reversed between them and Epic, but if they didn't, I'm sure they would have a hell of a difficult time getting their foot in the door at all.

You can call it a "bribe" if you want, but it happens between corporations on the daily. Here's Netflix's $100 million "bribe" for AT&T to keep exclusive streaming rights the Friends TV series. You can disagree with those business tactics, but this is how capitalism works, and it's done quite a bit.

I'd like to say I'm fairly sure the guys at Epic said the launcher shouldn't have been monitoring that shit and Steam got on their ass about it, it was something that happened due to them rushing out the door.
Again, they do listen to criticisms about their platform believe it or not. I'm sure they have or will change the way their tracking works. They've already said that they aren't going to do any more exclusives after the one-year terms have expired. They've adjusted the way their Steam friends import works so that it doesn't access that data if it doesn't need to.

I believe Epic is a company that legitimately wants to do good for the PC gaming market, and they're doing what they need to so they can actually gain a decent marketshare. I'm in support because we need to break up the PC gaming monopoly - or any monopoly in general. I like some of Chrome's features but I use Firefox because they want to open up the web with open standards and make the market fair. Epic is doing stuff in the same vein; Tim Sweeney has stated multiple times that his goal is to provide an alternative platform and push for open standards/interopability so people actually get a choice.

Epic was behind the push for cross-platform gameplay with Fortnite so you could play on any device you wanted with your friends and not worry about being on the same platform or having to buy a console to play the same game with your pals. They even got Sony to open up to the idea which is fucking wild since they have had a strict stance against any cross-platform play for quite some time.

Without turning this thread into some hate machine against the Chinese Government I will have to state that much of the "private" market in China has strong connections with the Chinese Government, you need only to look at the troubles that Huawei has been having and the direct help that the PRC has been giving during events like the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. You also have various governments forbidding the use of Huawei equipment in state-level jobs due to the fears of international spying.

But going back to the funding, the money might actually come from the indirectly Chinese Government, they are more than happy to know that they hold foreign capital and stakes in growing companies around the world. A 40% share is a lot for a growing and popular company like Epic Games, the companies you linked had sold about <20% of their shares to Tencent which allows for a bigger diversity in the company's portfolio.
Afaik you need to have some connections or something with the Chinese government in order to actually have a successful business. If you want to have a product in China, you'll need to have a presence within China (i.e a company) and comply with their own data protection laws which requires all Chinese user data to be held within China itself (i.e using servers in China). This is notoriously difficult to do, and Tencent specializes in connecting a non-Chinese game to a Chinese audience, a market of at least a few hundred million players(!!!). They've done the exact same with PUBG, League of Legends, etc.

I don't know if comparing Tencent to Huawei is really a fair comparison, they're in completely different markets and the issues are quite different as well.

The amount of the company doesn't matter as much as whether or not they own a majority. They have the same power as someone who owns 1% of the company, which is very little at all anyway. Tim Sweeney is still the majority shareholder and still calls the shots. Epic is still owns and is in control of all their data.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not enthusiastic about Epic's involvement with Tencent, but I think it's being blown way out of proportion.
 
Reactions: List

PandaCG

Hates Combine for Kill Family
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
166
Nebulae
211
who's actually going to be fucked to read all of this shit anymore

just admit you have some form of functioning autism for being compelled to post a ten page long essay on why free game software bad then go on about your day fam

no one cares anymore