If they killed competition they did a terrible job as there is more now then ever.
Microsoft popularised micro transactions, however they were never used, but DLC which they also popularised along with Sega and Sony adopted that name. Microtranactions were renting software where every time you opened the software or used a specific feature you would be charged a part of a cent, i.e. microtransactions
Loot boxes came from MMOs. The gambling thing Valve has certainly been a leader in.
Sell now fix later, EA and Ubisoft.
Anything with DRM can stop older titles, Steam included. However this is normally after decades of use. This is why many people buy Single player games on GOG.
I’ll add they only offer refunds because the EU forced them and that at the time even EA offered better refunds, I don’t know now because I am detached from gaming these days.
It’s not even the worst. If Epic goes down, you have lost everything. If Steam goes down you have lost everything. If Gog goes down you have lost nothing (because you have a backup I hope).
Which one killed competition with anti consumer practices in the 2000’s?
Epic has even more anti-consumer practices.
Which one popularised micro transactions?
Does Epic ban micro transactions?
Which one popularised loot boxes and gambling?
None of this available on EGS either?
Which one popularised the current “Sell now, fix later” model
“The service that was around first did these things that the service that came later is also doing, that makes the service that came later better for some reason!”
Imagine being so full of yourself that you think saying nothing has any value.
Fun fact: the term “Stockholm syndrome” originates from a hostage situation in which the authorities did not seem to care about the safety of the hostages at all, they regularly put the hostages in danger and the hostage takers were frequently trying to protect the hostages from the actions of the authorities.
In light of that, the hostages having more empathy towards their captors makes perfect sense. However ignorant people who did not understand the details of the event coined the term “Stockholm syndrome” instead of actually listening to the hostages or trying to understand a different point of view.
Which one killed competition with anti consumer practices in the 2000’s?
Which one popularised micro transactions?
Which one popularised loot boxes and gambling?
Which one popularised the current “Sell now, fix later” model
Which one bricks older titles because of it’s DRM requirements
(The answer is Steam btw, I know I’ll need to spell it out for G*mers)
If they killed competition they did a terrible job as there is more now then ever.
Microsoft popularised micro transactions, however they were never used, but DLC which they also popularised along with Sega and Sony adopted that name. Microtranactions were renting software where every time you opened the software or used a specific feature you would be charged a part of a cent, i.e. microtransactions
Loot boxes came from MMOs. The gambling thing Valve has certainly been a leader in.
Sell now fix later, EA and Ubisoft.
Anything with DRM can stop older titles, Steam included. However this is normally after decades of use. This is why many people buy Single player games on GOG.
I’ll add they only offer refunds because the EU forced them and that at the time even EA offered better refunds, I don’t know now because I am detached from gaming these days.
It’s not even the worst. If Epic goes down, you have lost everything. If Steam goes down you have lost everything. If Gog goes down you have lost nothing (because you have a backup I hope).
If Steam goes down I have no problems torrenting games I’ve already paid for
That’s the thing: You paid for it, you should not be forced to illegally download anything.
Epic has even more anti-consumer practices.
Does Epic ban micro transactions?
None of this available on EGS either?
“The service that was around first did these things that the service that came later is also doing, that makes the service that came later better for some reason!”
Imagine being so Stockholmed that you miss the point that bad.
Imagine being so full of yourself that you think saying nothing has any value.
Fun fact: the term “Stockholm syndrome” originates from a hostage situation in which the authorities did not seem to care about the safety of the hostages at all, they regularly put the hostages in danger and the hostage takers were frequently trying to protect the hostages from the actions of the authorities.
In light of that, the hostages having more empathy towards their captors makes perfect sense. However ignorant people who did not understand the details of the event coined the term “Stockholm syndrome” instead of actually listening to the hostages or trying to understand a different point of view.
Your use of the term feels very appropriate.