EnigmaToday at 1:48 PM
"defending exclusives" - no one defended them, they're not even bad, they're a legitimate form of capitalistic competition.

"shilling epic" - no one shilled Epic, people only discussed the rumors and went about debunking them.


Clearly didn't read anything but doesn't hesitate to make uninformed comments of certainty on what happened.
MangoToday at 1:52 PM
DividedByZero did
Also nice strawmanning me Bleaf, it’s not like my perspective on the whole Epic Games data thing has gone from definitive to debatable as I don’t have full information on that specific aspect
BleachedleavesToday at 1:59 PM
aren't you strawmanning DividedByZero?
MangoToday at 2:00 PM
I distinctly recall him defending exclusives as not being anti-consumer
And him saying that Epic Games weren’t bad for doing it
Despite the practice being inherently anti-consumer as it doesn’t promote competition whatsoever
BleachedleavesToday at 2:01 PM
how does it not?
MangoToday at 2:02 PM
Unless you consider locking off games to one specific platform as competition
Games that weren’t even developed by the owners of said platform
BleachedleavesToday at 2:02 PM
microsoft sony and nintendo combined
EnigmaToday at 2:02 PM
It promotes competition absolutely, whether or not it's anti-consumer is an entirely different concept
MangoToday at 2:03 PM
If it promotes competition explain why Sony has been doing nothing but screwing over their consumers ever since they became number 1 in the console market?
EnigmaToday at 2:03 PM
Wew lad
It's like you don't understand capitalism
"It doesn't drive competition"
mad
you ok mango?
BleachedleavesToday at 2:04 PM
i did explain it earlier
MangoToday at 2:05 PM
Fine, consider your anti-consumer practices pro-consumer
I’m done
EnigmaToday at 2:05 PM
Deflecting the point
WEW
BleachedleavesToday at 2:05 PM
well a consumer buys goods
EnigmaToday at 2:05 PM
MAD
Mango lacks the logic circuits to comprehend they're two different concepts and can't wrap his fruity mind around the fact something anti-consumer in nature can drive capitalistic competition
rofl
Then exits the convo by completely deflecting the point and still mixes the two as a singular concept in a condescending manner lel
How did you ever spend hours of your day arguing on twitter with some Tumblrcite?
BleachedleavesToday at 2:09 PM
lmao
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:18 PM
@Mango

Not to mention that Epic Store exclusivity deals wouldn't be a problem if the games were first-party titles like Fortnite. However, companies are BREAKING PROMISES to sign these deals.
Most Epic Store exclusives aren't Epic titles.
They're third-party.
MangoToday at 2:20 PM
Okay then explain to me why being forced to use or buy an inferior platform that sometimes forces you to pay for their online is good for the consumer @Enigma
EnigmaToday at 2:20 PM
Simple mango.
You're not being forced to do anything.
Stop being so weak and think you're forced.
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:20 PM
Epic IS the inferior platform anyway.
I know that just by looking at the data. I'm not actually on either Steam or Epic.
MangoToday at 2:21 PM
If you want to play a particular game YOU ARE FORCED to use their platform if it’s an exclusive
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:21 PM
That's exactly what Epic is doing.
MangoToday at 2:21 PM
You get no choice to buy it on another platform
EnigmaToday at 2:21 PM
Yes, or wait like a good adult.
Ergo you are not forced.
You have no idea what the word forced means lol.
MangoToday at 2:21 PM
Oh yes let’s wait for bloodborne to release on PC OH WAIT
EnigmaToday at 2:22 PM
Oh you mean console exclusives?
You don't NEED to play them.
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:22 PM
Or Metro Exodus to come out on Steam like promised OH WAIT.
EnigmaToday at 2:22 PM
If you WANT to play them, then you know full well what that entails being a CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE
MangoToday at 2:22 PM
I mean all exclusives. Sure some are timed but it comes off as scummy
EnigmaToday at 2:22 PM
the very concept of which is a capitalistic practice to drive console sales
and promote competition
but evidently THAT IS WRONG AND NOT ALLOWED
BY MANGO'S FEDERAL TRADE PRACTICES
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:22 PM
It's problematic because it's anti-consumer.
MangoToday at 2:23 PM
What the fuck are you on about? I’m not some federal trade centre you fucking retard
I’m just calling things as I see them
EnigmaToday at 2:23 PM
I'm glad you're not, games would be even worse.
MangoToday at 2:23 PM
So games on every platform is bad?
EnigmaToday at 2:24 PM
No, Mango is bad.
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:24 PM
The problem is that Epic is taking these games to their platform (which, by the way, doesn't even have forums for pointing out bugs) when these games were SPECIFICALLY ADVERTISED as being across multiple PC platforms like Steam.
Which, by the way, counts as a bait-and-switch under Federal Trade Commission regulations.
MangoToday at 2:25 PM
No Gundum you’re just an NPC because you don’t like Epic games, isn’t that right Bleaf?
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:25 PM
I'm not on either platform.
MangoToday at 2:25 PM
Doesn’t matter to Bleaf
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:25 PM
I stick to classics like Playstation 2.
MangoToday at 2:25 PM
Criticising Epic is bad
But seriously explain to me how games being on every platform hurts competition?
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:26 PM
Epic Store launched before it was ready. Now Epic is trying to compensate with tons of exclusives that they had no hand whatsoever in developing.
MangoToday at 2:27 PM
Because I don’t see the issue of it purely being about how good the platforms themselves are instead of games being locked onto specific platforms
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:27 PM
And it's come back to bite them in the ass much sooner than they evidently expected.
MangoToday at 2:29 PM
Have you seen Sony’s attitude towards their consumers now that they don’t have serious competition in the console market? It’s horrendous
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:30 PM
Exclusivity of first-party titles is fine. It's THEIR product. That's why Nintendo and Microsoft don't get flak. But of third-party titles? The way they're doing it is paying money to have companies break the promises they made in advertising, which is, for example, the very same reason the "canvas" bag scandal happened to Bethesda.
@Enigma getting all this?
EnigmaToday at 2:31 PM
no i stopped paying attention once you began to derail the subject and go ad hominem
MangoToday at 2:32 PM
Okay you disingenuous prick
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:32 PM
@Mango THAT'S ad hominem. That's attacking the person, not the problem.
EnigmaToday at 2:32 PM
You spend hours arguing with some nobody on Twitter about something that means absolutely nothing and call me a fucking retard with nothing to back up your opposing viewpoint and have the audacity to demand it of others & call ME disingenuous?
Lol'd
MangoToday at 2:33 PM
You decided to ignore Gundum’s argument, not me
lexaeus999274Today at 2:33 PM
I have an idea that would fix everything
EnigmaToday at 2:33 PM
It is my heightened, wettest fever dream that one day all of Epic crashes and burns and I never have to hear another word of Chinese bullshit in vidya, but if you think there is a single thing illegal or something to be banned with exchanging business deals for exclusive products last minute then take it up with regulations and vote with your wallet and quit crying so hard about a legitimate business practice.
No shit it's anti-consumer.
lexaeus999274Today at 2:33 PM
Make every game for every platform and sell it in every games store
EnigmaToday at 2:33 PM
But you cannot say it doesn't drive comp.
Because it does.
/thread.
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:34 PM
@Enigma it IS illegal, at least in the United States according to the rules set by the Federal Trade Commission. Bait and switch in advertising and selling a product is illegal.
EnigmaToday at 2:34 PM
Then go hold them accountable.
If it was illegal it would have been stamped ages ago.
These companies make the decision to sign a contract last minute for exclusivity.
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:35 PM
And by the way? It doesn't drive competition. Other companies don't have the money to put down these exclusivity deals or to prevent them.
EnigmaToday at 2:35 PM
It does drive competition.
Go look at a sales #'s graph.
Tata.
MangoToday at 2:35 PM
Honestly @Loneliness Gundam I’m leaving this to you, you’re more expert on the legal side of this
Loneliness GundamToday at 2:37 PM
The devs benefit from the money, there's no question. But Epic only gets away with this BECAUSE of that money. It's why Monsanto has so much power in the chemical industry. Money. A bit of lobbying in the right circles, and the government will just act like they don't see it until somebody takes them to the United States Supreme Court.
Other distributors like Steam don't have the money to make their own exclusivity deals, or to prevent Epic from making theirs.
And even if the devs DO get pulled into court, Epic doesn't lose anything.
It's a no-win situation.
Take for example Metro Exodus. People made PRE-ORDERS on Steam for that game. And then, 3 weeks before launch, the devs announced that those who hadn't pre-ordered already would have to go to Epic Store, despite every single promotional image showing either the Steam logo for distribution or no distribution logo whatsoever.
@Enigma
EnigmaToday at 2:49 PM
1.) You're comparing apples to oranges with the canvas bag. One is a tangible product and the other is a service. That was clearly false advertising.

2.) There's legalese involved in pre-orders and business practices such as this, and it was very kind to allow people (subjectively kind) to keep their pre-orders and still get copies by Steam by a certain deadline, but in cases like a contract being signed and platforms being swapped, law requires that those pre-orders be refunded and so usually you can cancel your pre-orders if you do not like the fact the product changed stores.

3.) The chinese spyware rumor was finally officially debunked and the chinese sphere of influence was scrutinized and evaluated to not be as far reaching as once speculated. The only thing people are pissy about is having to have a new launcher with less features to launch their game. Lacking features can easily be subsidized by users while they are missing officially. The problem is being blown way out of proportion and seeing as the rumors have been debunked, all I'm seeing now is a bunch of asshats sperging out and throwing out personal attacks just because they don't like capitalism when it works against them. (Ex:/ 5 of those features in your chart a user can already do without Steam installed)
EnigmaToday at 2:56 PM
@Mango  Imagine being such a loser you don't take the time to understand free market principles and true form capitalism but you take the HOURS to sit on twitter and argue with some lame tumblr artist about video game difficulty.
Now THAT FeelsDumbMan.
And this is what gamers have become.
MangoToday at 2:57 PM
Implying that I took hours when it was minutes
EnigmaToday at 2:58 PM
Implying that you can't read timestamps on your old messages :wink:
MangoToday at 2:59 PM
At least I’m smart enough to understand that exclusives aren’t friendly to consumers
But no go ahead keep telling me how dumb I am
EnigmaToday at 2:59 PM
I never once said they were, in fact I explicitly stated the counter; once again, you clearly don't even read these things before commenting on them.
MangoToday at 3:00 PM
Then if you agree that they don’t help consumers, why are you advocating for them?
Because “muh capitalism”?
EnigmaToday at 3:01 PM
I'm not advocating for them, I'm telling you what you need to know; this is perfectly legitimate.
MangoToday at 3:01 PM
Perhaps but I never argued that it was illegal
EnigmaToday at 3:01 PM
You think it should not be allowed.
MangoToday at 3:01 PM
I’d prefer if it didn’t exist at all
It does nothing but screw over consumers
Preferring that something didn’t exist and it’s legality are two different things
EnigmaToday at 3:04 PM
Oh yes, but not every business practice will cater to every consumer; those who are on the fence are usually best benefitted by fresh exclusives...otherwise no one really benefits from that at all except the company to drive sales #'s, which is the method working as intended.  In an ideal world, in a perfect world, the company should care about you and all practices should be to win your favor, but this is not a perfect world and unfortunately this practice is perfectly legitimate, albeit polarizing.
It's been happening for years and it's never going to stop, this time it's much more potent because it's more about a streaming service rather than a physical store & it's rising up from an incredibly rich company and rather than work on features they're using all of their capital from Fortnite to instead secure licenses to coerce users into doing business with them..... and they're not stupid either, they know what they're doing, they're targeting highly desired games and even pouncing on them last minute.
It's very cut-throat.
But it's all perfectly legitimate.
It's up to the consumers to resist and/or Steam to undergo changes.
That's just how it is.