Hmmm, I wonder if there was something unnecessary created to limit their market? They wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot and cost themselves huge revenue like that though, would they?

But... but... Epic funded the game, this means they physically cannot put it on Steam! Nevermind the dozens of games on Steam published by owners of competing platforms, such as UbiSoft, Activision, Sony, CDPR, EA...

So, ok. 1. They introduced exclusivity requiring people to use their storefront. So some would argue that Steam did that first… though only with games they made. This in of itself may not normally be that big a deal… if they didn’t rug pull customers of a few anticipated games into thinking they were getting steam keys because they were advertised as being on steam. 2. The EGS is still not feature complete. This goes hand in hand with problem one. The exclusivity bars the “”free market”” from making a choice as to which platform is better. And the ceo blatantly said that he did not care about trying to make a god store front, he could just force people into a worse system with exclusivity. 3. The EGS was against the very idea of a refund policy. Its owners were very very loud about it. As a matter of fact the ceo himself has caused a lot of the hate for the EGS though they have since given up and i think they match steam now. 4. The actual user interface and customer service are terrible. In contrast steam has been outstanding in its implementation 5. EGS did not initially allow user reviews, and wile i hear that there is some form of it now, they take a much less open approach to silencing dissent. As opposed to stream who still keeps dissent, but will give context to the scoring. The EHS has given up on most of its open disdain for the consumer, but it apparently is going to take a lot more than a few years and free games to win over the crowd. And i personally REFUSE to have competing launchers on my system, and stream has the best good will with me by such a long shot, i don’t see how it would be remotely possible to get me to consider adding EGS.

They funded a lot and take 50% of the profits.

Epic was the publisher and funded the game.

I would have bought it but there was no physical release until later when Limited Run games did a limited run of the game at their premium price point. And by the time I knew Limited Run was doing a release, it was too late to get one. Until I can do the following: -- legally resell a digital copy of a game I bought, -- be able to easily and legally backup and restore the digital games I've bought, -- have legal guarantees that the digital games I bought won't be taken away from me, my reasons for wanting physical copies are more than valid.

> you’re saying monopolies are terrible *Where?* What negative effect have I suggested? Be specific. Look for it, clearly. People get so fucking weird about this. You're having an entire other conversation, inside your heads.

Gee, I wonder if trying to force people to use Epic had anything to do with it...

Epic is the publisher. Of course they want to use their own platform to publish their own games.

Yup, but fuck Epic and their shitty launcher. I'll never use it even for free games, never mind exclusives.

Sure, but that's entirely their choice to make. It's not comparable to when they bought exclusively.

Thanks for explaining

Sure I guess, but that's entirely my choice to make too.