5838

Well, that isn’t exactly what I was looking/hoping for :)

5839

You guys are confusing the concept of competition. There’s more than 1 type, and while in some regards, @Brad_Grenz and @Nesrie are both right, they’re talking about different types of competition.

First, the competition that is happening in regards to the EGS store, is Epic competing with Steam and other store fronts for the rights to sell certain products. That is supplier competition, and only benefits the developers of games, as they are the ones that get the choice, and get to make the best decision for their product.

What we end users normally think of with competition is when we have a choice. It can be a choice between different but similar products (Coke or Pepsi) or it can be a choice of where to buy our favorite products (Wal-mart, Target, Amazon). This is consumer competition, and generally benefits the end user as they are now the ones getting the choice, and can usually price compare/shop.

So, yes, in both cases there is competition happening, but on very different levels.

I think what most consumers dissaprove of is when the competition is at the supplier level, instead of the consumer level. This gives the seller more leverage, and the consumer does not benefit.

If you could imagine a scenario where Wal-mart decides to throw billions of dollars at Coca Cola (or whatever your fav brand is), to become the exclusive seller, I think more of you would understand the disgust many people are having towards EGS right now. Maybe you don’t like Wal-mart, or find their stores less appealing to shop in, or less convenient, or whatever. Yet, if you want your favorite soda, you would now be forced to go there to get it. And guess what? Wal-mart would be much less likely to offer sales on Coke because they are the only ones that sell it. In this case, exclusivity does not benefit the end user at all.

This is the scenario that should be being discussed here with EGS. Let’s not confuse it with supplier level competition.

5840

I get what you are saying, but Walmart would still need to have some sales on Cold, because there is a large part of the population that truly think that Coke and Pepsi are completely inter changeable. So, if Pepsi at at Target is cheaper then Coke at Walmart, then they would just buy the Pepsi at Target.

5841

I hate to be “that guy” but what is your source here? I completely disagree, and in my personal opinion, I think brand loyalty is much higher than you think.

5842

Your logic is fine, but only if your assumption is true, that a large number of people have zero preference for any particular type of cola, but instead just like cola. If your assumption is not true, if most people are quite brand conscious and will only drink Coke or Pepsi, not both, then the scenario you describe doesn’t work.

I think a lot of the discussion here is about assumptions, and whose are right. In the soft drink analogy, I’m from Atlanta. Growing up, admittedly a long-ish time ago, you did not get Pepsi in Atlanta, except at a grocery store, and then you often got looks from people. Atlanta, being the HQ of Coca-Cola, in restaurants you would get asked what kind of Coke you wanted, etc. But even nationally, if we go back to the New Coke fiasco, yeah, people have pretty damn strong opinions about sodas.

You have consistently maintained that games, in general, are fungible products, and thus supplier monopolies over one specific game are insignificant, because there are X other games out there that are essentially identical or at least equivalent. I think most of the people on this forum disagree with that assumption, which if true, I grant you, would lend strength to your argument. I’d argue that for many consumer products, perhaps everything beyond the most basic of utilitarian commodities, like, I dunno, kitchen sponges, people develop very strong preferences, and get rather irate when they are forced into alternatives.

5843

When you go into a Restaurant, and they tell you they serve only Pepsi and Pepsi products, do you refuse to buy Pepsi? I guess that is kind of the question about how elastic the product and your loyalties are.

There is a difference in taste between Coke and Pepsi, and I do prefer Pepsi, but not so much that I wouldn’t buy Coke instead of Pepsi, if the Coke was on sale. Although, to be honest, I stopped buying soda years ago. I’m a fat guy that loves to eat, I would have diabetes if I drank more sugary drinks as well.

Anyway, to respond to @TheWombat, I don’t think there is a one to one replacement between games, especially if you are the type of person that buys a game on day one, but, if you are a consumer, like myself, with a huge backlog, I believe games tend to be more fungible. I mean it’s not perfect I’m spending a dollar on being entertained, not trying to prop up some developer. I only have so many dollars to spend, so I want to make it count. Some games I won’t ever buy. Like a racing game.

But, within a genre, if the games are equally good (a tall order, I am sure) then it really is a question of value for price for me.

5844

No one ever competes on PRICE for consumer interest in the games industry. There are established tiers with the standard, regardless of platform…59.99 USD. The Epic store split won’t ever pass on savings to the consumer. The whole point of it is to give the developer more money at the standard price.

Games use to cost 49.99 USD? Remember those times? I do. Then some publishing just went fuck it, 59.99! and here we are still…forever until it gets increased again. (Don’t talk about 80~90 dollar games in the '90s I already know)

5845

Guess what, Metro is 49.99.

5846

Exception that proves the rule…given the clusterfuck 2-week launch bribe hijack.

5847

It’s 49.99. that was your big complaint.

5848

No…it wasn’t.

5849

It wasn’t? Sorry, it sounded like it was.

5850

They lowered their price because of the shitstorm that was pulling out of Steam 2 WEEKS before launch. Figure it out for yourself.

The standard price for a new release (AAA) is 59.99 USD and has been constant for over a decade. The point being no competition will actually affect this price point as a standard across platforms.

5851

This is a good post that gets at what I was talking about above.

And that’s why I and others were pushing back at @legowarrior’s position that EGS is more competition and ergo lower consumer prices. When, as you note, it is not consumer competition but supplier.

Plus I feel we are already at maximum competition from developers on the consumer side, and so any price flexibility has already been in place. See Steam sales, Humble Bundles, etc. for those more price than time concious.

5852

I am stating the obvious but EGS has brought down the prices to $0 for some games. From a consumer point of view. That’s always something to cheer about.

5853

Yeah, free games are now considered to be setting game price at 0 USD as a competitive price. Steam, GOG, Humble Bundle, Origin, and even Uplay have given away free games. These are not really examples of being competitive on price and are more promotional limited time offers to grab during a narrow window of oppertunity.

Currently my GOG, Origin, and Epic Game Store libraries are almost entirely nothing but made up of these. (For Epic it is 100%)

5854

Never pay more than zero dollars for a video game. :)

5855

If all it takes a free game to have proper competition, I think we got that years ago. I am pretty sure I’ve received free games from every single store I currently use.

And I don’t think there is much, if any, disagreement on developers benefiting from the new split or at least why they would want it.

Costco not carrying Coke anymore didn’t make the news because people don’t care or are indifferent.

5856

Alternatively, Costco is a small percentage of the overall grocery market and there are enough other places to buy Coke it’s a total non-issue.

5857

The point is a lot of people care about brand. It’s kind of silly to say they don’t.