Pretty sure the only thing oysters will say to you is “fuck off”.

Trying to win an argument online

Well there’s your problem…

May I recommend investing in a “I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy” bumper sticker?

If every Tesla on the road called Elon crazy or a fascist that would also be very effective.

They want to be accepted worshipped

Ftfy

If you’re going to make fun of someone’s grammar, first make sure that it is not you making the mistake.

Alternatively: you could just not be a prick about it.

“If someone dropped their wallet would you tell them?”

Perfectly normal and already understood.

Damn. If only you had access to the Internet, then you could look them up.

If you had self restraint you wouldn’t have a 3 year backlog.

(Please don’t look at my backlog)

You just asked them a question…

edit: Please keep using your impotent downvotes that don’t federate to my instance

“Your downvotes don’t mean anything. That’s why I made an edit just to say I don’t care about downvotes!”

You aren’t even arguing about exclusivity to a platform, you are arguing about the layer of download management software that installs the same files to the same computer.

Exactly. You are arguing about “exclusivity to a platform is bad because monopolies” but somehow exclusivity to the download management software, something that there is no good reason for, is good?

It’s the stupidest fanboyism I have encountered in all my years of paying attention to videogames for fun and profit.

“I don’t like this specific company because of these things that they do” is the opposite of fanboyism. The only fanboyism is you ranting for post after post trying to argue that EGS’s anti-consumer practices are “good actually because everyone chooses to use Steam so that makes Steam bad.”

No, you’re imagining that games are like fuel. Games are not, in fact, like fuel. It’s not like you’re picturing it.

You are saying that a product (games) not being compatible with every hardware (system) is the exact same thing as the product only allowed to be sold from 1 business.

I substituted a different product (fuel) and hardware (engine) to highlight how absurd that is because you still seem to think they are the same thing.

It doesn’t matter how theoretically profitable a port to another system might be, it still takes time and resources to produce. Time and resources that a company might believe can be more profitable spent elsewhere.

It does not take time or resources to make a PC game that is on the EGS compatible with the PC on Steam. I don’t know how to explain this to you more simply.

It’s… really not how you’re picturing it

How do you think I am picturing it? I’m responding to your absurd claims that not being able to use gasoline in a diesel engine is the same thing as Esso being the only business allowed to sell gasoline.

The third option is you don’t understand how games are made

Right, the devs just need to change the code from “If_On_PC_Do_Not_Run” from TRUE to FALSE and it will work just fine. And I’m the one that doesn’t understand how games are made.

Looks like option #2 was the correct one.

Believe the original Metroid gave you a completion % after defeating Mother Brain.

Why weren’t you mad when Ratchet & Clank could only be purchased an played on a PlayStation or Final Fantasy was only on a SNES?

Why aren’t people angry that you can’t put diesel in a gasoline engine? Why aren’t you mad that a DVD can’t be played in a VHS? Why aren’t you mad that you can’t plug a computer hard drive into a switch and play Civilization?

Do you understand that there is a difference between “This is only compatible with certain hardware” and “You can only purchase this at one specific business”? Because you are once again arguing as if they are the same thing and I’ve already pointed this out to you, which means you are either completely disingenuous or an idiot. Either way this is a waste of time.

If there’s a third option I’m missing please let me know.

And I can’t stress enough how exclusivity deals are signed with both first and third parties all the time. I’m old enough to remember when gamers were rioting at the concept that Metal Gear or Final Fantasy would show up on Xbox. Insomniac only got purchased by Sony in 2020, they had made Playstation exclusives for twenty years by that point. From the end user perspective there isn’t, and has never been, any difference between a game being made by a first party or being signed as an exclusive from a third party.

Do you not see how you’re talking about something completely different here? You’re talking about “Mario is only available on Nintendo systems” not “If you have a Nintendo you can only buy Mario at Walmart”.

The first is not a monopoly: “You can purchase this product anywhere you want, it is only compatible on this system”.

The second is a monopoly: “you can only purchase this product from US!”

For someone so much against monopolies and arguing for the need for competition and consumer choice, you are spending a lot of effort arguing FOR a behaviour that restricts competition and consumer choice.

And as for your last point… so don’t frickin use Epic, who gives a crap. You have so many ways around this entire non-issue. Go play Fortnite on the Switch, or Alan Wake on a PlayStation. Or don’t play them. Or play them on Epic and quit the launcher after. I can’t describe the subatomic size of the violin I’m playing on behalf of your ordeal, my friend. Nobody should care about this.

So we both agree that your argument that “Steam might be bad one day” is pointless and a non-issue. Good. You can stop bringing it up then.

it’s one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.

You’re the one wildly misrepresenting what a monopoly is:

1
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2
exclusive possession or control
3 a commodity controlled by one party

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

By definition Steam is not a monopoly because it does have exclusive control.
Notice how the word “exclusive” keeps showing up in the definition. An “exclusivity deal” is literally a monopoly on that specific product. Seeing as we agree that monopolies are bad why are you supporting Epics monopoly on all sales of [game]?

That’s why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios

I have no issue with Epic having the games they created exclusive to their platform. Fortnight doesn’t have to be on Steam. The developer can decide “I only want to sell in this/these stores” and I have no problem with that. My issue is with things like what happened with darq where Epic waited until the game was finished and announced on Steam, then approached them for an exclusivity deal. When the dev wanted to maintain their promise to fans and backers to have the game available on Steam suddenly EGS went from “would love to have your game” to “no interest”.
The dev would have been fully willing to release on both, and if EGS cared about their users they could have easily had the game as well, (more games available to users of your service is a good thing). But Epic did not care about having more options available to their users, or having actual competition in the market place, they were only interested if they had a monopoly on all sales of the game and if customers did not have a choice and had to purchase from EGS if they wanted the game.

The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don’t have a reason to give you a better deal.

I agree. EGS makes itself “the only game in town” for every title they purchase an exclusivity deal with, and that is why I refuse to use it.

And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn’t, he’d just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he’s not going to be around forever and you don’t want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?

Of course, but I’m not going to use a service that is shit now over one that might be shit later. If Steam becomes shitty I will stop using it, I can always pirate my collection if I need to. I fully agree with you that competition is important, which is why I refuse to support Epic’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer behaviour.

So a Monopoly (you can only purchase from one service) is bad, but exclusivity deals (you can only purchase from one service) aren’t bad. But I’m the one with the circular logic.

general also keeps complaining when other first parties don’t have enough exclusives,

1. they’re idiots.

2. A stance someone else may or may not have is irrelevant to this discussion or the arguments I am making.

3. consoles are diffrent from store fronts. No one is complaining that a PC game store doesn’t have enough exclusives.

It’s a weirdly circular argument that you’re okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren’t profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you.

The end result is not the same. That’s like saying “it’s weird that you’re not okay with slave labour to work on farms, when the end result is the same to you.” How it gets there is relevant, as well as the long term effects of supporting it. Epic has made it clear by their actions that they do not care about the end user, and if they end up “winning” against Steam they would actively make things worse.

Oh sure, I do want Epic to win that fight for sure. I just also want EGS to fail.