By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 28 May 2023
Edit Thread
Azzanation said:
Pemalite said:

That is a lie.
Epic Game Store is providing 100% free games regularly for customers. - That is competition, that is a massive benefit to consumers.

As for paid online... Microsoft's paid Xbox Live! service was competing with Nintendo's horrible free online service with the DS/3DS/Wii/WiiU and Sony's free Playstation 3 online service.

And Microsoft's paid service won. - It offered more bandwidth, lower latencies, more content and had better uptime as well as more support and services for online games leveraging it's comprehensive network. - Remember when the Playstation Network went offline for several weeks after following the hack? Yeah. More investment was needed.

Eventually Sony and Nintendo saw that the best way to compete with Microsoft's paid online service was to move to a paid model with larger investments into their online infrastructure... With regular "free" games thrown in as an incentive.

So again. You lied.

Lie? You understand that these are words actually exist.

---What is bad competition?---

Negative competition occurs when we compete with others so that we want to win at the expense of the other person or people involved. In other words, our success is predicated on their failure.

Competition is good when its balanced. EGS hasn't made Steam better, it's done the opposite by taking games that were meant to release on Steam and making them exclusive, forcing Steam customers to cross over to an inferior store front. If that's what you consider good competition than I heavily disagree with you. If Steam went out of line that I would agree with you but Steam hasn't. It's been the best value in gaming since its release. It didn't need competition 15 years ago and it doesn't need it now. 

True, I would say lie is a little to strong of a word but  I would say that your understanding of how the business works is where the issue is.  If you are looking at competition where it makes one company better than you are limiting the scope of what competition is.  ESG does not need to make Valve better, by existing EGS guarantee that if Valve does not maintain its competitive advantage, they could lose customers.  ESG provides developers with incentive for their games to be put on their platform, ESG provides free games for its customers and discounts on existing games.  It doesn't matter if Steam does not do the same, the fact that those incentives exist means Valve must always respect that they could lose customers if they do not keep ahead of the curve.  As someone who likes Steam and is happy with their service, you should always want stiff competition against Steam so you as the customer can always reap the rewards.  It really seems like you to focus on what you like more than understanding the business dynamics of a market.