if you’re running a business (like epic), and you feel like you’re somehow just entitled to a certain percentage of the market share dominated by the king of the market (steam), while also giving consumers literally no reason to give you that money (in epic’s case, actually giving more reasons NOT to use them), then-- LOL get fucked. keep shitting on linux and refusing to unfuck your shit tier slopfest UI, while whining about everything. i find it amusing.
The best part to me is that this is a former “principal animation engineer,” and they still have no self-awareness about why Epic sucks.
It reminds me of an old saying that really good people hire really good people… but mediocre people often hire those that are worse than them to look better. That is, “A” people hire “A” people, but “B” people hire “C” people, and the team (or company) declines.
Essays like this make me wonder if Epic has hired many good people over the years.
It’s not a good sign that the cult of entitlement at Epic is so strong, even their most experienced former technical staff still write entitled essays after they leave. And they post them on X.
unfortunately, narcissists/psychos are often the ones that ruthlessly manipulate and bully and deceive their way to the top, shoving aside higher quality and more human people more deserving of those positions of authority. you see it in musk, bezos, the epic chode, etc… also in govt
I was gonna say, isn’t this just the “free market” at work? Consumers chose the superior product and the inferior products decided to whine and bitch rather than put time into making their product worth a consumer’s money, attention, and time.
He argues if a better launcher emerged it “would still be of no interest to Steam users”
What part of that sounds like “no reason” to give such a service money? If the guy in the article was talking about Epic I’d be inclined to agree with you, but he’s talking about a hypothetical service that’s better than Steam. I’m inclined to agree with him too, it would be very difficult to make a better service than Steam (he’s obviously wrong for thinking you could vibe code such a thing) but even if someone did at this point I have so much of my gaming life on Steam that it would be difficult to switch.
It reads to me like you’re arguing with Tim Sweeney more than the guy in the article you’re responding to.
He argues if a better launcher emerged it “would still be of no interest to Steam users” […]
I’m inclined to agree with him too, it would be very difficult to make a better service than Steam
Those arguments seem a bit contradictory.
Is the problem that a better launcher is too difficult to develop or that it wouldn’t be interesting?
Also:
What part of that sounds like “no reason” to give such a service money?
People don’t give Steam any money directly, they buy games in stores, preferably ones that don’t suck.
People also buy on GOG or itch and I’ve never heard either called a superior launcher.
And as for having all games in one library, there are tools for that like GOG galaxy.
Steam doesn’t block them so there is no real lock-in problem.
Steam doesn’t stop Epic from offering their users a good user experience, their failure is entirely their own.
It’s all hypothetical though because there is no alternative the matches steam’s features. If there were i have no doubt people would use it, i mean most people tolerate uplay and ea origin and all that, and they are also much worse than steam.
They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though? And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
In a hypothetical situation where someone develops a service better than Steam, why is it entitlement to think people should use that better service? In the article I read (the one in the post we’re on), the guy that used to work at Epic says that people wouldn’t use the better service because they are enamored with Steam. I think they wouldn’t because they’re likely very invested in Steam already. The comment I responded to is talking about shitting on Linux and other things that are not in the article, they appear to be responding to the company that the guy in the article no longer works at and the guy that owns the company that, again, the person in the articles does not work at. Why respond to those things here and not in a post about those things?
They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though?
I don’t think that’s true. When they open when a game runs through Steam, that’s when they are especially annoying and not tolerated. But there’s plenty of people just buying Assassin’s Creed on Uplay or Fifa or Need for Speed or whatever on Origin (maybe ea wasn’t a good example in current times).
And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
Well you claimed this would not happen. I’m saying that, if these shit ass tier stores can manage to have a userbase, I’m sure a better store with features comparable with Steam would get a bigger userbase.
To be fair, I think Steam’s actual launcher is the worst part of interacting with Steam, but it works well enough and everything else about the steam experience is smooth and all but like 30 of my games are there so I keep using them. My point being, even if someone made a better launcher that wouldn’t be enough in part because there launcher is only part of the experience.
ok. maybe the ex- epic guy still simping for epic is right: steam customers wouldn’t leave steam even if something better came along. and? so capitalism’s “broken” according to whoever tf this guy thinks he is, some ex-has-been from epic talking about economics like everyone should give a shit what he thinks. my point stands-- let him, and epic, and everyone else blaming everything but themselves for steam having a better service and product, keep crying about it
by the way, i’m not a steam fanboi-- if/when they enshittify i will absolutely start buying my games elsewhere
if you’re running a business (like epic), and you feel like you’re somehow just entitled to a certain percentage of the market share dominated by the king of the market (steam), while also giving consumers literally no reason to give you that money (in epic’s case, actually giving more reasons NOT to use them), then-- LOL get fucked. keep shitting on linux and refusing to unfuck your shit tier slopfest UI, while whining about everything. i find it amusing.
Seriously!!
The best part to me is that this is a former “principal animation engineer,” and they still have no self-awareness about why Epic sucks.
It reminds me of an old saying that really good people hire really good people… but mediocre people often hire those that are worse than them to look better. That is, “A” people hire “A” people, but “B” people hire “C” people, and the team (or company) declines.
Essays like this make me wonder if Epic has hired many good people over the years.
It’s not a good sign that the cult of entitlement at Epic is so strong, even their most experienced former technical staff still write entitled essays after they leave. And they post them on X.
unfortunately, narcissists/psychos are often the ones that ruthlessly manipulate and bully and deceive their way to the top, shoving aside higher quality and more human people more deserving of those positions of authority. you see it in musk, bezos, the epic chode, etc… also in govt
I was gonna say, isn’t this just the “free market” at work? Consumers chose the superior product and the inferior products decided to whine and bitch rather than put time into making their product worth a consumer’s money, attention, and time.
they bought a game I liked after it was released and now I can’t play it, because I don’t internet without VPN. I’m very upset with them about this.
because they own it now.
and they want my money.
He argues if a better launcher emerged it “would still be of no interest to Steam users”
What part of that sounds like “no reason” to give such a service money? If the guy in the article was talking about Epic I’d be inclined to agree with you, but he’s talking about a hypothetical service that’s better than Steam. I’m inclined to agree with him too, it would be very difficult to make a better service than Steam (he’s obviously wrong for thinking you could vibe code such a thing) but even if someone did at this point I have so much of my gaming life on Steam that it would be difficult to switch.
It reads to me like you’re arguing with Tim Sweeney more than the guy in the article you’re responding to.
Those arguments seem a bit contradictory.
Is the problem that a better launcher is too difficult to develop or that it wouldn’t be interesting?
Also:
People don’t give Steam any money directly, they buy games in stores, preferably ones that don’t suck.
People also buy on GOG or itch and I’ve never heard either called a superior launcher.
And as for having all games in one library, there are tools for that like GOG galaxy. Steam doesn’t block them so there is no real lock-in problem.
Steam doesn’t stop Epic from offering their users a good user experience, their failure is entirely their own.
It’s all hypothetical though because there is no alternative the matches steam’s features. If there were i have no doubt people would use it, i mean most people tolerate uplay and ea origin and all that, and they are also much worse than steam.
They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though? And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
In a hypothetical situation where someone develops a service better than Steam, why is it entitlement to think people should use that better service? In the article I read (the one in the post we’re on), the guy that used to work at Epic says that people wouldn’t use the better service because they are enamored with Steam. I think they wouldn’t because they’re likely very invested in Steam already. The comment I responded to is talking about shitting on Linux and other things that are not in the article, they appear to be responding to the company that the guy in the article no longer works at and the guy that owns the company that, again, the person in the articles does not work at. Why respond to those things here and not in a post about those things?
I don’t think that’s true. When they open when a game runs through Steam, that’s when they are especially annoying and not tolerated. But there’s plenty of people just buying Assassin’s Creed on Uplay or Fifa or Need for Speed or whatever on Origin (maybe ea wasn’t a good example in current times).
Well you claimed this would not happen. I’m saying that, if these shit ass tier stores can manage to have a userbase, I’m sure a better store with features comparable with Steam would get a bigger userbase.
To be fair, I think Steam’s actual launcher is the worst part of interacting with Steam, but it works well enough and everything else about the steam experience is smooth and all but like 30 of my games are there so I keep using them. My point being, even if someone made a better launcher that wouldn’t be enough in part because there launcher is only part of the experience.
ok. maybe the ex- epic guy still simping for epic is right: steam customers wouldn’t leave steam even if something better came along. and? so capitalism’s “broken” according to whoever tf this guy thinks he is, some ex-has-been from epic talking about economics like everyone should give a shit what he thinks. my point stands-- let him, and epic, and everyone else blaming everything but themselves for steam having a better service and product, keep crying about it
by the way, i’m not a steam fanboi-- if/when they enshittify i will absolutely start buying my games elsewhere