Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy… and then it’s only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can’t it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It’s so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic… which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.

  • JDTIV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Honestly we should probably have more places to buy games not just steam. Because remember when gabe newell dies there’s no guarantee that steam will still be “good” they are still a corporation. So if epic needs exclusives to keep going we should support that. Competition between corporations is a good thing.

  • Mini_Moonpie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    If the list on PCGamingWiki is up to date, there aren’t many Epic exclusives anymore (only 26 currently): https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_exclusive_to_Epic_Games_Store

    And, earlier this year, Tim Sweeney said that many of exclusivity deals weren’t a good investment while the free games have been “magical.”

    So, it seems like a problem that is solving itself over time. Epic will probably still have exclusives going forward, but I would expect them to target a few high-value exclusives like they got with Alan Wake 2. Or, maybe they will just do more acquisitions of games to self-publish, like they did with Rocket League and Fall Guys.

  • KuroiKaze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Gee maybe you should sue epic and make them carry other stores apps and not lock in their payment system and allow downloading steam from their store for giga karma.

  • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    210
    ·
    8 days ago

    An exclusive on Epic Games may as well just not even exist, as far as I’m concerned. Didn’t play Anno 1800 until it was finally released on Steam. Nice discount too.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 days ago

      So they still got your money eventually. That’s a double win, in their eyes.

      • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        69
        ·
        8 days ago

        They lose day 1 hype, tho. Sure, the game eventually comes to steam, but that’s after it’s already been overplayed on twitch and YouTube’d to death.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          In what way does that matter outside of driving sales? Which people like op happily still gave them?

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              If that was actually a concern, why would companies do it at all?

              • njm1314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                32
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                Why do companies do exclusive launches? Presumably they think the money they get from Epic is more than the money they’ll lose in sales. Whether or not they’re right is another question.

                • sep@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Basicaly they do not think their game is any good. So if someone takes the deal. I instantly loose interest. I mean if even the developer think it is no fun…

                • Ech@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Presumably they think the money they get from Epic is more than the money they’ll lose in sales

                  Congrats on getting the point.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 days ago

          In what way is it not? They get Epic’s money for exclusivity and know they’ll still get sales after it ends from people that “boycott” them for doing that.

          Buying the game later doesn’t hurt them, it just reinforces the same behavior later.

          • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Getting Epic’s money isn’t a slam dunk for profit. You’re hedging your bets taking guaranteed Epic money for lower potential sales vs non-guaranteed Steam money for higher potential sales. Having a bad exclusivity deal on Epic and then selling your game at a loss (90% discount) on steam isn’t profiting both ways, and sometimes isn’t profiting either way.

            I also disagree with the sentiment that you’re reinforcing bad behavior. If anything, you’re signalling to them that you won’t support exclusivity deals, and are happy to wait for a deep discount on Steam. Ultimately, that’s a win for consumers.

            That said, fuck exclusivity deals, and I’m much in the same boat where I’m hard pressed to support developers that take them.

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 days ago

              Unless they’re actively losing money in their deal, they’re not gonna care if the sale comes immediately or years later. If Epic exclusive + late “hold outs” = $$$, they’re just gonna do that until the equation changes.

              • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                8 days ago

                It’s less money in their pockets and more money in ours. That’s not going to be a double win in their books.

                • Ech@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Nobody ever hurt a company or made them reconsider their decisions by giving them money, no matter how little it was.

              • Resonosity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                Economists cannot predict the future, as much as some people might wish they could.

                Whatever break even point the devs of Anno 1800 considered when making the decision between releasing only on Epic and releasing to all platforms may have seemed reasonable at the time the devs were gearing up to release the game, but performance of said game is never guaranteed. Sure you may have statistics to influence things one way or another, but it’s still a gamble.

                We don’t know if Epic exclusive + late discounts > full game purchases on all platforms specifically for Anno 1800, and it appears that you’re claiming which way that equation points with no evidence. Do you work for Epic? For Ubisoft? For Blue Byte? Are there public sources pointing to game sales? What research are you pulling from that considers game futures?

                I will respect that you’re right about predicting devs’ decisions based on which way that equation points. Everyone is downvoting you though because you’re making it seem like you know the answer when clearly there’s more to this game, and financial gaming decisions like this.

                You’re not an expert. You’re a chatter. Unless you can prove otherwise.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 days ago

            That’s not what a boycott is. If I don’t buy a game because it’s exclusively on Epic, it’s not because I’m taking a moral stance. It’s because it’s invisible to me.

            A boycott is when I don’t play Epic/EA/Unisoft/Blizzard-Activism games for the company’s historic shitty behavior.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          And? It’s still profit. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be listed.

          • Resonosity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 days ago

            Profit matters on a quarterly basis.

            If a company gets the full profit of their game as they predicted they might in 1 quarter, then that’s basically the best case scenario.

            If instead that full profit is spread of multiple years, then quater-to-quarter the game might look like it is underperforming, or severely so.

            The timing of profit matters just as much as how much profit there is. Time value of money is a pretty useful concept in the financial world.

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 days ago

            and… instead of getting $60 immediately, they are getting $30 or whatever later. clearly one is better than the other, no?

      • stardust@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        When I see sales of Playstation games on PC the numbers are very underwhelming compared to other big third party titles. In contrast helldivers 2 got insane numbers when it launched simultaneously.

        I don’t think launch hype sales can be overlooked and how much may potentially be lost. If people are willing to wait then by the time game is available hype is less and it’s more likely for people to move on or wait for even steeper sales.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’m not sure why you’re trying to convince me about it. I’m not the one deciding to sell out to Epic.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        If I like the game then good for them. Epic didn’t get any of my money and they’re the one I have an issue with.

      • brrt@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        You need a better definition of „they“. Because I don’t buy from Epic for one particular reason, so they (Epic) don’t get my money. If the game is good and I want to play it I will do so later and at that point the developer still deserves my money.

      • Emerica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        Pretty much everything really. It’s basically a store and that’s it, no cool features that Steam has. They may have achievements now but not positive. Think it took two years just for them to add a shopping cart. They dump money on developers to release exclusively on Epic instead of spending it making a good experience for customers. No reviews, no forums, no workshop etc.

        I grab the free games they offer every couple weeks and use Heroic to play them, not touching their launcher.

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          not to mention steam’s:

          screenshot manager

          community card trading

          friends & chat

          easy to join small muliplayer (friends can just send you a button that launches the game and joins them instantly)

          highly customisable profiles

          tools & soundtracks

          achievemnts

          and so much more that can be simply small little fun

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Copying my reply to someone else:

        Epic is anti-customer: https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7

        Tldr: Kickstarter Game with a lot of interest while in development announces a release date on Steam. After the date announcement they get contacted by Epic saying “we’d love to host your game” for an exclusivity deal.
        Dev responds that they would be happy to have their game on Epic but promises were made during crowd funding that it would be available on Steam.
        Epic replies that they aren’t interested if it’s not exclusive.

        This tells me that

        1. Epic is full of shit. "We’d love to have your game, but only if it’s exclusive.
        2. Epic doesn’t care about being a better service for its customers. Having the game available on Epic as well is strictly better for Epic’s customers and they easily could have done that. They chose not to.
        3. Epic is not interested in actually having to compete with other companies. This would require them to provide a better service in some fashion. They are only interested if they can force people “if you want to purchase this game you have to buy it through us” which is anti-consumer.
      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah, but frankly the high seas usually provide less than Steam does even with money in the equation. And that’s probably the only case when high seas is worse, with all the other services in my experience the high seas provide better service(spotify was close). So the point is if a game doesn’t release on Steam it’s release date just moves to the moment it releases on Steam. Not the best scenario, but Steam really has little competition and Epic surely isn’t trying to be one.

        • Dicska@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I have no problem with Steam. I was mainly talking about games that only (don’t) come out on Epic Store, but maybe I wasn’t clear enough.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    8 days ago

    Epic pays for exclusivity sometimes. It’s funny, I keep picking up the free epic games but I don’t think I have ever once played a single game on there.

    • stardust@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      I claim but I don’t even have the launcher installed. If it wasn’t for the giveaways I’d completely forget about the place.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        8 days ago

        I don’t even get the free games…they aren’t worth my time. I’ll pay to get them elsewhere instead even if it’s free there when I’m looking

        • kitnaht@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’m claiming them for the day when Epic games store shuts down and they give out keys for redeemed games on steam. I’m playing the long game. :D

      • Xabis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        I just use the heroic/legendary alternative launcher for any single player games I actually want to play from egs. It’s open source and gives epic less footprint on my machine.

        Unfortunately if you want to do anything multiplayer then you need the real client.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’ve been picking them up religiously after I found out I missed Frostpunk. The only ones I’ve played were the big names like Control, Death Standing, and the old Fallout games. For everything else, the client doesn’t give you enough information to decide if it’s worth your time or not. I keep having to go back and forth between Epic and Steam to read reviews and the “similar to other games you’ve played” thing. It’s not worth the effort.

  • Don_alForno@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    8 days ago

    like you have no choice but to use Epic… which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.

    Literally anything besides not getting that game?

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I say this every time Epic comes up but it remains the same.

    Steam is the pro-consumer storefront. Epic is the pro-developer storefront. What Epic seems to fail to understand is that by being so staunchly pro-developer, they effectively become anti-consumer. And as a consumer, I’m just not going to spend money on an anti-consumer marketplace.

    When Epic considers adding necessary pro-consumer measures like actual user reviews so I can hear how a game actual performs from real end users, then and only then will I consider Epic a real storefront viable for consumers.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      8 days ago

      Epic is the pro-developer storefront.

      I think their historically-bad UE5 documentation and laser focus on adding features optimized for Fortnite but terrible for other uses beg to differ.

      They’re the pro-shareholder storefront. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Epic’s main selling point was it’s lower storefront fee (15% vs 30%, if I recall). It didn’t offer any other benefits for consumers and I think Epic realised rather quickly that the people who are actually supposed to be paying money for all of this are the buyers and not the sellers, and thus they’ve resorted to strategies like making games “exclusive” or trying to bribe players with free games.

    • nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      I understand that they are pro-developers, like, they only tale 15% of the sales etc. But why are they anti-consumers?

      I use Heroic Games Launcher on Nobara Linux and my experience is more seamless than buying and installing games from Steam. I don’t have to bother with Epic Games Launcher, I just download a game and run via proton or wine.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        I gave what I see as a significant example in my original comment. Not being able to see comments or reviews from those who have purchased games through the storefront is a problem for me. If a game has a bug or problem, especially if it is one that could potentially be tied to or unique to the EGS version, I would like to know about it. That EGS currently doesn’t provide readily available user feedback when it frankly has been the standard as defined by steam, just doesn’t for me.

        So you have to ask yourself why they wouldn’t include such a simple a rudimentary feature - the only result I can come up with is to appease developers who want to prevent being negatively impacted by bad reviews. Thus what we have is prioritizing the wants of developers at the expense of features which benefit consumers.

      • frazorth@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        The fact that you can’t use the Epic games launcher on Linux should be telling you what you need to know.

        How is their 12 foot interface these days?

        How is their position on running things via wine? Tim the bellend has generally been telling Linux users to use wine, but at the same time been generally hostile to it.

          • frazorth@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Yep. Fucking hypocrite tells people to use something he is hostile towards.

            Fuck Epic, they are destroying PC gaming which means they are not developer friendly.

            They are actively trying to shrink the market that developers can target.

            • pivot_root@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              “Fucking hypocrite” and “Epic Games”. Never have any other set of 4 words fit together so perfectly.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        I agree they don’t have to be anti-consumer to be pro-developer, but my point is that that is how they are approaching being pro-developer - by limiting pro-consumer features at the behest of developers. Or perhaps I should be saying more actively publishers, to be fair.

  • drdiddlybadger@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    8 days ago

    If a game is only released on Epic, it hasn’t been released yet. Its just in some weird alpha state until it has broader release.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Otherwise why would anyone use software they aren’t used to? Steam is really good, they’ve been putting massive resources into making it better for many years, and it has all the network effects.

        • Renacles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          8 days ago

          Epic has a lot of money, they should find a way to offer a better service in some ways like Gog does.

          Exclusivity deals are anti-consumer.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          So we’re using a bad mechanism (exclusivity deals) to make people use an inferior product (Epic vs Steam), but “It’s totally going to be better for you in the future bro, trust me!”.

          I’m sorry, but can we make it sound any more like a scam? It’s not quite there yet. Can you add something with crypto or AI or an MLM?

          Epic has a lot of money, they should find a way to offer a better service in some ways like Gog does.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Steam is really good, they’ve been putting massive resources into making it better for many years

          Damn, imagine how good Epic could be if instead of buying exclusives it spent that money on improving itself?

    • scbasteve7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      GoG has been a competitor for as long as I can remember. It’s not exactly a fair comparison because they mostly carry older games. But you can buy a ton of games off GoG. Itch.io exists, however it’s a bit niche. Origin, humble bundle, Microsoft store. You can use all of these and get the majority of the games steam offers. Why don’t people? Because steam is just better. Steam has competition. It has a ton. People don’t feel that way cause EVERYONE who games on PC buys from steam. But it’s not because steam has a monopoly, it’s because steam offers more than their competitors, and does it better.

      I don’t like monopolies. I agree with you. However, a monopoly existing because they are snuffing out the competition and forcing it to be the only option for consumers is different than a monopoly that exists because consumers choose it over and over again because of their pro consumer policies.

      Now because this makes it seem like I’m saying “steam is the best”, there’s a good bit of stuff steam has done that I don’t like. But they understand what the gaming scene is and not just see the consumers as cash cows.

        • scbasteve7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          I edited that part out because as soon as I posted i did a quick fact check. Im just leaving this comment so people don’t think you’re crazy. You were just really fast to comment.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Why don’t people? Because steam is just better

        I am skeptical that this is the main reason (even though it’s true and is a reason). I think people don’t like the idea of having their games library split across multiple services, and don’t like using/learning software they aren’t familiar with, or that other people aren’t using.

        • scbasteve7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          That’s a possibility. You could also make a point that it’s cultural at this point to use steam if you PC game. The exact reason steam is used is split across many different points. However, I stand by my statement. If games like league, valorant, osrs, or anything from blizzard can exist strongly in the pc scene, I think it heavily refutes your points. For those people at least. These are all games that don’t use (or for some are mainly used by) the steam client.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 days ago

      funny you never hear about games being ONLY on steam. it has nice features but riding so hard for a gigantic monopoly is going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires. nothing lasts forever, and we don’t know who or what will replace the current structure at valve.

      not to mention valve has had its share of anti consumer and predatory practices. most of the concessions have been in response to legal threats.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        going to bite our asses real bad when gaben retires.

        Blizzard was a good company when they released StarCraft, so I purchased StarCraft. Blizzard is a shit company now so I do not purchase or play their games now.

        If Steam becomes a shit company in the future I’ll stop using it. I don’t understand the argument of "you should purchase for a shitty company now instead of a good one, because if you purchase from the good one it might one day become a shitty one.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          except you didn’t buy all your games from blizzard. we’re talking about having your entire library depend on one company.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            If Steam blocks my access to my legally purchased games or I refuse to run the Steam launcher there is no moral or ethical issue with me pirating my library.

    • RxBrad@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      Look at all those downvotes from people who took offense to this comment, and WANT Steam to have a monopoly.

      Yes, corporations bad. But don’t forget: Steam is a corporation, too.

      • shneancy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        yeah but the thing is, Steam isn’t even trying to be a monopoly, all of Steam’s competitors just seem to have a hobby of shooting their own foot, repeatedly. Steam is trying to make the gaming experience easier and more fun, and excelling at it!

        unlike some other platforms, Steam doesn’t do exclusive deals, literally the only Steam exclusives are Valve’s own games, everything else is up to be decided by devs

        • RxBrad@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 days ago

          Steam itself seemingly isn’t trying to have a monopoly.

          But damned if there isn’t a massive, very-loud Internet contingent that desperately wants them to have that monopoly.

          If your immediate trigger reaction is seething anger when someone says, “I got a good deal on a game from Epic”… maybe that’s not healthy. The “Lord Gaben” meme isn’t meant to be taken 100% literally.

          • shneancy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            i don’t get angry at things that don’t affect me lol

            i do worry for steam’s future, it’s only this good because “Lord Gaben” has made many great decisions, it may not be a democracy but a good “dictator” is often more effective than a democracy. But what happens if/when Steam goes to shit for whatever reason? the internet will implode

        • indog@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          They’re in a class action lawsuit now over price fixing. They’re kicking games off Steam if their publishers offer games at lower prices on cheaper stores. They’re trying to be a monopoly.

            • indog@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 days ago

              They don’t offer lower prices on Epic because Valve bullies publishers into matching the price with Steam. Valve threatens to delist the game from Steam if a lower price is available elsewhere, using their market dominance to prevent smaller stores from competing the only way they realistically can – on price.

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      But steam isn’t trying to be monopoly. They don’t pay developers to only sell on their platform. Games that are only on steam are only on steam because steam is the only place that developer wants to sell the game.

    • JayDee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      Federated marketplace protocol really should happen at some point.

      Like, it seems like a very clear solution to an online monopoly risk. Maybe I’m wrong, though.

        • JayDee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service. In that fashion it’d be no different than how stores host their own websites you can order from. In my mind, the federated protocol would simply be a means for a person to browse stores similar to how one can navigate a mall or market.

          For games, the further benefit after would be that via a client of the protocol, you could then download your games from the various stores in a singular library page.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service.

            Yeah but that would mean each server has to take custody of funds, have their own individual contractual agreements with game companies, handle refunds, bear all the legal and tax burdens of this, and get people to trust they won’t scam them. It’s just too much of a burden, these are all things that benefit heavily from centralization and economies of scale, due to the legalistic nature of payments. You would end up with one dominant instance and unused federation, if there was even anyone willing to deal with all that stuff to begin with.

            I feel like you could solve this stuff pretty well with crypto, having payment go directly to the game devs, and a no refund policy or something to simplify things, but crypto is too hated so that wouldn’t work right now.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Like people who would otherwise get banned from a platform for cheating in games. Tracking that down is so much more complicated/impossible with federation. In other words it makes ban evasion super easy. See also: email spam.

        • JayDee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’m not following.

          Markets were originally decentralized, and while that has its problems, a decentralized market is miles better than a monopolized market.

          Like, are you thinking of Etsy or Amazon or something? Because those are all run by a single point-of-sales and logistics collectives.

          What we’re talking about is basically building a means for getting all the websites around the web of small shops and such (or in this case all the various game store fronts like steam, itch.io, GOG, and EPIC GAMES) and giving you client which allows you to browse and order from them simultaneously. All that store’d have to do is add the protocol to their server and add themselves to a list.

          • aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Oh I thought you meant decentralized currency. What you’re describing is just standardized storefront apis though, the vendors don’t need to talk to each other (federate) for it. unless i’m missing something

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 days ago

    I recently discovered that I can buy, download, and launch games from my Epic Games library without having the Epic Games Bloatware even installed.

    Heroic Games Launcher serves as a storefront, installer, and launcher for Epic Games, GOG, and Amazon.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 days ago

    Every time someone takes the epic deal it just makes it easier to choose which game to ignore forever