How am I not accepting others have a different opinion? I am reading them, interpreting them and responding to them using what I understand of the language we appear to be conversing in. That necessarily means I accept others have different opinions. As for only my opinions matter then not really -- I am just a dude on an internet forum, one advocating for their approach to the world (which is a fairly common thing to be doing in such a place). I do see a value in what Valve provide, however the cost of it is way in excess of that from where I sit. Similarly in this sort of thing everybody else is free to have their own variables in the "something is worth what someone else is willing to pay" equation.
You accept them, yet you immediately dismiss everyone as not a big deal. Every Epic topic it's the same song and dance. You come in, "just asking question", can't understand why people don't like Epic. You get an answer, dimiss it and we go around again and again.
If you accept others opinions, why do we have this conversation in some form in every Epic topic? It doesn't seem like you accept others opinions when every epic topic we have the same questions. Why do people not like Epic, why do they love Valve, you get your answer, you apparently accept other people have a different opinion and yet like clockwork, there you are in Epic topics "I can't understand why people are so passionate about X issue".
From here it really doesn't seem like you have taken peoples opinions onboard.
As far as not a big deal then the primary role of a game launcher these days is to sell me games and let me download them/play them then Epic have that on lock it seems. Everything else is ancillary. If Valve want to gate off* some extra functionality to entice people then that is a fine way to play it (in business terms that is probably something known as intangible extras). Some of those things Epic is lacking are no question nice, however most of those are happily provided at OS level, by third parties (usually for free) and what remains largely ranks around "Steam uses my favourite colour as its background when it launches". If people want to bring up a lack of a few ancillary features as to why Epic are the king arseholes and should be shunned then play it as you will, don't expect me to be there with the pitchforks and torches though. From where I sit "exclusivity" is another take on acting as a publisher (and again this means another free account with a simple program that people likely have dozens or already, no subscriptions, no extra hardware, no crazy software reconfigurations) and that also goes for the claim of "bribe" which some were throwing around.
If it helps then feel free to read "not a big deal" as "why would I make a big deal of that being there or lacking?".
Did anyone say you should have pitchforks out? No. Likewise, no one says you should personally find it a big deal. It's fine if you don't. Others do, you don't that's fine. But you are the one that keeps asking "why", why do people have an issue, but can't seem to accept the answer, because to you "it's not a big deal".
*if they were truly the magnanimous saviours of gaming that some paint them as it would not be gated but they are free to gate it though and I will not fault them for that one.
Valve have pushed the no second hand thing for a long time, argued against it when courts tried to introduce it and argued against things that de facto resemble resale options, coupled with their nice little monopoly then they as good as did it, and it would have been trivial (barring existing contracts) for them to implement it on their system. If resale of existing copies was a thing then it if not solves then renders the disappearing games the same as physical, give or take shrinking pool of saleable copies probably shrinking at a slower rate (account destruction, deaths without concern for such things and whatnot being lower than spurned lovers and bored mothers sticking things in the bin, battery leaks, little brothers needing a bad Frisbee and general physical issues), and that is the same as everything else which is a bit sad that we still have the technology to solve already in place**but we can work on that one later. The Stockholm bit was a snarky remark but the underlying point still stands --
Everyone pushed the no second hand sales.
Not just Valve. Origin, Battlenet, Steam, everyone, even Epic. Every form of digital distribution pushes "no resales". Valve might have argued against it, because Valve were the big player, so of course it was brought against them, but it's not a Valve thing no matter how much you want it to be.
Even GOG which is completely drm free copies of games doesn't support "resales". There's no way to remove the entitlement from your account and give it to someone else.
I really am at a loss as to why people are willing to jump in and defend Valve as much as they seem to be and focusing so much ire on Epic.
You're at a loss because you want to be. You've had your answer again and again. Valve provides a service, features & convenience that people clearly value. You don't value it the same way, and that's fine. You apparently accept others opinions on this and yet once again at the end of a post, you are at a loss as to why people like Valve despite people telling you why constantly in these topics.
You don't have to accept it, you can disagree, but at this point, I can't see how you are at a loss when people constantly tell you why.
Source
