If they killed competition they did a terrible job as there is more now then ever.
Microsoft popularised micro transactions, however they were never used, but DLC which they also popularised along with Sega and Sony adopted that name. Microtranactions were renting software where every time you opened the software or used a specific feature you would be charged a part of a cent, i.e. microtransactions
Loot boxes came from MMOs. The gambling thing Valve has certainly been a leader in.
Sell now fix later, EA and Ubisoft.
Anything with DRM can stop older titles, Steam included. However this is normally after decades of use. This is why many people buy Single player games on GOG.
but the first shot at them on the Western side of things was Valve’s Team Fortress 2. In June 2011, Valve transitioned the game to a free-to-play business model after the launch of the Mann-conomy update in 2010, which introduced crates and item trading. MMOs that fell on hard times, like Star Trek Online and Lords of the Rings Online, switched to the model when they went free-to-play as well.
I’ll add they only offer refunds because the EU forced them and that at the time even EA offered better refunds, I don’t know now because I am detached from gaming these days.
It’s not even the worst. If Epic goes down, you have lost everything. If Steam goes down you have lost everything. If Gog goes down you have lost nothing (because you have a backup I hope).
Which one killed competition with anti consumer practices in the 2000’s?
Epic has even more anti-consumer practices.
Which one popularised micro transactions?
Does Epic ban micro transactions?
Which one popularised loot boxes and gambling?
None of this available on EGS either?
Which one popularised the current “Sell now, fix later” model
“The service that was around first did these things that the service that came later is also doing, that makes the service that came later better for some reason!”
Imagine being so full of yourself that you think saying nothing has any value.
Fun fact: the term “Stockholm syndrome” originates from a hostage situation in which the authorities did not seem to care about the safety of the hostages at all, they regularly put the hostages in danger and the hostage takers were frequently trying to protect the hostages from the actions of the authorities.
In light of that, the hostages having more empathy towards their captors makes perfect sense. However ignorant people who did not understand the details of the event coined the term “Stockholm syndrome” instead of actually listening to the hostages or trying to understand a different point of view.
No, you were literally saying Epic was better than Steam because Epic is doing the same scummy things but just wasn’t around when Steam started doing it.
I never made any claims as to whether I felt those practices are problematic or not, I just pointed out that they both do it so it’s irrelevant in the comparison.
Epic is worse than Steam because of its aggressively anti-consumer practices like paid exclusives.
Which one killed competition with anti consumer practices in the 2000’s?
Which one popularised micro transactions?
Which one popularised loot boxes and gambling?
Which one popularised the current “Sell now, fix later” model
Which one bricks older titles because of it’s DRM requirements
(The answer is Steam btw, I know I’ll need to spell it out for G*mers)
If they killed competition they did a terrible job as there is more now then ever.
Microsoft popularised micro transactions, however they were never used, but DLC which they also popularised along with Sega and Sony adopted that name. Microtranactions were renting software where every time you opened the software or used a specific feature you would be charged a part of a cent, i.e. microtransactions
Loot boxes came from MMOs. The gambling thing Valve has certainly been a leader in.
Sell now fix later, EA and Ubisoft.
Anything with DRM can stop older titles, Steam included. However this is normally after decades of use. This is why many people buy Single player games on GOG.
There were so many more platforms, now lost to time from G*mer who never knew any different and think 4 is a lot. IGN even had one.
https://www.vg247.com/the-harsh-history-of-gaming-microtransactions-from-horse-armor-to-loot-boxes
Steam early access, and greenlight.
I’ll add they only offer refunds because the EU forced them and that at the time even EA offered better refunds, I don’t know now because I am detached from gaming these days.
It’s not even the worst. If Epic goes down, you have lost everything. If Steam goes down you have lost everything. If Gog goes down you have lost nothing (because you have a backup I hope).
If Steam goes down I have no problems torrenting games I’ve already paid for
If steam goes down they aren’t going to mass delete everyone’s libraries. I’ll still have terabytes of games that just need a crack now.
That’s the thing: You paid for it, you should not be forced to illegally download anything.
Epic has even more anti-consumer practices.
Does Epic ban micro transactions?
None of this available on EGS either?
“The service that was around first did these things that the service that came later is also doing, that makes the service that came later better for some reason!”
Imagine being so Stockholmed that you miss the point that bad.
Imagine being so full of yourself that you think saying nothing has any value.
Fun fact: the term “Stockholm syndrome” originates from a hostage situation in which the authorities did not seem to care about the safety of the hostages at all, they regularly put the hostages in danger and the hostage takers were frequently trying to protect the hostages from the actions of the authorities.
In light of that, the hostages having more empathy towards their captors makes perfect sense. However ignorant people who did not understand the details of the event coined the term “Stockholm syndrome” instead of actually listening to the hostages or trying to understand a different point of view.
Your use of the term feels very appropriate.
You are literally saying that the Epic store doing the same scummy things as Steam, makes it worse than Steam.
This is why gaming is in the shape it’s in.
No, you were literally saying Epic was better than Steam because Epic is doing the same scummy things but just wasn’t around when Steam started doing it.
I never made any claims as to whether I felt those practices are problematic or not, I just pointed out that they both do it so it’s irrelevant in the comparison.
Epic is worse than Steam because of its aggressively anti-consumer practices like paid exclusives.