News Epic Games Store

[Alexandros]

People have raised some valid points on the possible consequences of a law that forces companies to allow the resale of digital content. My disagreement mainly lies with the principle of denying customers a fundamental right based on the fear of possible negative consequences. For me the most important question is: "Do customers have the right to sell a product that they bought?". I can't conceive of any answer other than "yes". At the most basic level, before taking into account the type of product or any possible complications, I can't think of any reason why the seller should retain any kind of power over the product I bought once the transaction is completed.

So in my opinion, customers being able to sell products that they bought is one issue. The way that this will be implemented in the case of digital content is another. It is inconceivable to me that just because we're not sure right now how to handle the latter, we should ban the former. The basis of the discussion should be "customers should be able to resell their property, now let's talk about how to do this so that content creators aren't disproportionally affected".

 

[Tizoc]

Emailed fangamer asking about my refuns of shenmue 3. Hope they reply soon xo

 

[CommodoreKong]

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this French case. Obviously the potential consequences are a long way out (from what I understand Valve is going to appeal and there actually has to be a law passed for this to have any effect) but obviously this case has far ranging consequences far beyond Valve and will effect any digital distribution platform (at least in France).

Digital items exist in a different way than physical items. They don't degrade or get damaged. They can't be lost (unless the entire account they're on is lost in some way). A used digital copy would be exactly the same as a new digital copy, which obviously isn't the case with a physical item. There's also the issue of a third party besides the seller and buyer (in this case Valve) having to pay for the costs of the buyer downloading the game if they didn't make any money off of the transaction, which would obviously be an issue (though I would assume Valve would probably take some cut like how they do with sales on the community market). Obviously being able to resell digital games is good for consumers but it's hard to say what effect it will have on the industry, especially single player games.

It's always possible they'll be loop holes that companies can get around if this does become law, perhaps they could do something like making a purchase a 1000 year license instead of buying the game.

 

[lashman]

oh hey ... look what i found:

#WaitForShenmue

www.waitforshenmue.com

 

[Alexandros]

oh hey ... look what i found:

#WaitForShenmue

www.waitforshenmue.com

"If you really love developers, don't buy a single copy on EGS". That seems like a fun way to break the brains of 'friends of developers'.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

oh hey ... look what i found:

#WaitForShenmue

www.waitforshenmue.com

This is absolute perfection and runs a dagger through the heart of the 'more money for devs going to EGS' argument.

 

[C-Dub]

I was gonna make an argument like this before. If you want devs to get more money, supporting the game on EGS is the last place you should buy it so long as Epic is doing sales advances.

 

[Nabs]

 

[morningbus]

I wonder if we tried hard enough if we could get Sweeny to recognize the #waitforshenmue on Twitter.

Someone @ him.

 

[Álvaro de Campos]

"Do customers have the right to sell a product that they bought?". I can't conceive of any answer other than "yes".

Not a gun owner, I see.
Not that I'm equating guns to video games, just pointing out that there's a universe where the answer should be no (whether guns should be a product in the first place is another question).

 

[Alexandros]

Not a gun owner, I see.
Not that I'm equating guns to video games, just pointing out that there's a universe where the answer should be no (whether guns should be a product in the first place is another question).

Guns shouldn't be sold to regular people unless they have a valid reason to fear for their lives. Gun culture in America is fucked up.

 

[Matimeo]

The only reason the big corps have gone along with a move to digital is they found a way to leverage it to give them more control.
You don't own anything, just a license, and if people continue to push this, everything becomes a service which you see being pushed now.
You own Destiny until they cut they the servers which means you don't own anything at all but access until they decide you don't.

Companies also reserve the right to block your access, platforms have way more power and most can legally remove you from their platform
and restrict you from accessing any content you may have purchased before.

Companies also know the legal battleground is theirs to control, even if you are right as a consumer, they know no consumer can afford
to wage a battle in the legal systems , especially in America.

Companies also know gamers in particular have addictive personalities, all of these so called boycotts are fun to watch while you watch
the real time data in the background. Gamers cant help themselves, but alot of it is because we have been making games, and platforms addictive
for years now. Valve didn't employ psychologists for nothing.

You never win battles against corporations, they let you think you won , but in reality you just played into their hands as they have created
a new strategy around your weakness which you have exposed to them. I always laugh when gamers think they somehow stopped a billion dollar corporation from doing something, when they dont realize the company isnt even looking at them when making decisions. There is basically game of thrones style political warfare within corporations that come before any data or community retrospective. Ive seen profitable ventures killed off because someone wanted someone else out.

I think I heard the best explanation of corporations on a recent podcast, which basically described them as sharks. They cant help but be sharks, and that means everything around them is prey, it just is the way it is. It will never be enough, just like its never enough for a shark, they are just being what they are.

So you are not out smarting a shark, you are simply another piece of potential meat in the sea to them.

I would live life, have fun, not take things so serious.
Stick to your principles , sure but if its affecting your daily life, they already won because none of this is affecting their life.
The sharks continue to circle and go after other prey.

 

[ISee]

You better don't fight them or they'll make things worse. You are powerless anyway, so give up before you even started?

That's the stance you people want to take on this?

You have no ownership claims over your purchased digital items. There is literally no difference if they license something (as they do now) to you or lend it for 125 years. After your death, it's theirs and it never was yours in the first place. You are literally loosing nothing, there is no risk because you don't own anything and you have no ownership rights, according to companies, in the first place.

Sorry to say so, but this "don't touch companies or else they'll bite you" stance is strange af.
What are they going to do? No longer take your money or give you even less rights than zero over your products?

Services are coming, independent of this. But to repeat myself. The movie and music industry are still selling hard copies, despite digital dominating everything. The gaming industry won't stop either.

I'm really afraid now of loosing rights I don't have in the first place. I'm shaking.

Do you think the people who started fighting tobacco companies 50 years ago had that attitude? The cigarette industry has now to acknowledge that their products are poison, they even have to admit that their products are killing people on cigarette packaging and sure people are still smoking but numbers are going back.
They even advertised to children!

Do you think women fighting for their right to take part in the democratic process (elections) had that attitude when things started?

Do you think the food industry is happy because many European countries started printing warning labels on unhealthy food? Those suckers even started making their food less bad, but just in the countries with said labelling.
(F* you nestle, btw)

Do you think we should stop demonstrating for more green laws because those laws are going to hurt big industries?
No, on the contrary: we should have started 30 years ago!

Yes, it is hard to fight for consumer or political rights, winning isn't guaranteed.

But don't you dare starting, because success isn't guaranteed? That's the stance you people are taking?

I'm disappointed.

I've already written to my European representatives, informing them that companies are not acting in accordance to EU law and that there need to be strict rules for digital distribution (aka new laws), while pointing to the French ruling and blaming every digital store front out there.

Cheers.

 

[Alexandros]

You better don't fight them or they'll make things worse. You are powerless anyway, so give up before you even started?

That's the stance you people want to take on this?

You have no ownership claims over your purchased digital items. There is literally no difference if they license something (as they do now) to you or lend it for 125 years. After your death, it's theirs and it never was yours in the first place. You are literally loosing nothing, there is no risk because you don't own anything and you have no ownership rights, according to companies, in the first place.

Sorry to say so, but this "don't touch companies or else they'll bite you" stance is strange af.
What are they going to do? No longer take your money or give you even less rights than zero over your products?

Services are coming, independent of this. But to repeat myself. The movie and music industry are still selling hard copies, despite digital dominating everything. The gaming industry won't stop either.

I'm really afraid now of loosing rights I don't have in the first place. I'm shaking.

Do you think the people who started fighting tobacco companies 50 years ago had that attitude? The cigarette industry has now to acknowledge that their products are poison, they even have to admit that their products are killing people on cigarette packaging and sure people are still smoking but numbers are going back.
They even advertised to children!

Do you think women fighting for their right to take part in the democratic process (elections) had that attitude when things started?

Do you think the food industry is happy because many European countries started printing warning labels on unhealthy food? Those suckers even started making their food less bad, but just in the countries with said labelling.
(F* you nestle, btw)

Do you think we should stop demonstrating for more green laws because those laws are going to hurt big industries?
No, on the contrary: we should have started 30 years ago!

Yes, it is hard to fight for consumer or political rights, winning isn't guaranteed.

But don't you dare starting, because success isn't guaranteed? That's the stance you people are taking?

I'm disappointed.

I've already written to my European representatives, informing them that companies are not acting in accordance to EU law and that there need to be strict rules for digital distribution (aka new laws), while pointing to the French ruling and blaming every digital store front out there.

Cheers.

I understand why people are worried. I really do. I just feel strongly about not letting these worries affect us to the point of giving up our rights as customers. Publishers and developers have frequently used these scare tactics in the past in order to stop or delay various policies aimed at protecting customers. So while I accept that discussions need to take place on adapting current consumer laws for digital content in a way that is fair to both customers and creators, I consider the right to resell a product that I bought as fundamental and as such non-negotiable.

 

[ISee]

I understand why people are worried. I really do. I just feel strongly about not letting these worries affect us to the point of giving up our rights as customers. Publishers and developers have frequently used these scare tactics in the past in order to stop or delay various policies aimed at protecting customers. So while I accept that discussions need to take place on adapting current consumer laws for digital content in a way that is fair to both customers and creators, I consider the right to resell a product that I bought as fundamental and as such non-negotiable.

As is the right to inherit something you own.

 

[Alexandros]

As is the right to inherit something you own.

Absolutely.

 

[lashman]

As is the right to inherit something you own.

... unless it's money

 

[ISee]

... unless it's money

I can though. Or are you talking about taxes? Because my kids will pay taxes for my money, my property,my house etc.
That is another problem, but it's not the same as a company forbidding me to give something I own.

 

[beep boop]

Yes, it is hard to fight for consumer or political rights, winning isn't guaranteed.

Nobody is taking to the streets for better terms when buying/renting video games I think you're being entirely unrealistic about this top to bottom and underestimate how lawmakers manage to implement bad policy under the guise of "more rights" all the time. We'll see though.

It’s like with that ESA E3 strategy paper that came out recently. Oh look they’re focusing on doing social good! Reality: they’re only doing it to bank goodwill so they can fuck you later.

 

[ISee]

Nobody is taking to the streets for better terms when buying/renting videogames

Nobody was talking about rentals, we are talking about purchases.

I didn't ask anybody to go on the streets.

I was responding to the attitude of not challenging companies for consumer rights, because companies are sharks, all powerful, they'll try to circumvent etc.

All I'm asking is to support the notion that digitally bought things are products and not licenses and not to borrow our heads in the sand like ostriches, or even worse support the stand that we shouldn't have those rights.

You can go further and write to your representative, support the stance on social media, if you wish so.

But I'll never understand the stance off not supporting your rights because companies think you shouldn't have them. No street demonstrations needed here.

 

[beep boop]

Nobody was talking about rentals, we are talking about purchases.

I didn't ask anybody to go on the streets.

I was responding to the attitude of not challenging companies for consumer rights, because companies are sharks, all powerful, they'll try to circumvent etc.

All I'm asking is to support the notion that digitally bought things are products and not licenses and not to borrow our heads in the sand like ostriches, or even worse support the stand that we shouldn't have those rights.

You can go further and write to your representative, support the stance on social media, if you wish so.

But I'll never understand the stance off not supporting your rights because companies think you shouldn't have them. No street demonstrations needed here.

I support the notion of them being products too. But that won’t stop publishers from recategorizing games from goods to services.

 

[ISee]

I support the notion of them being products too. But that won’t stop publishers from recategorizing games from goods to services.

So, just shrug and swallow?

They can recategorize as much as they want. If the legislative says digital goods are products than that's how it is.
If the legislative says that they have to sell you products instead of licenses or lease it to you than that's how it is.

The ruling means nothing, even if it got confirmed. The next step is for our parliament to react based on the rulings.
And court rulings force them to react. It will take a lot of time, but new digital trading rules will come. That's what this ruling means and not that you can sell your games next year.

That's also the thing apple, Amazon, valve etc. don't want to happen. They don't want rules telling them how they are allowed to trade with consumers. They want to categories themselves, make their own rules.

But their rules just favour them and so we have nothing to lose here. It doesn't matter if I'm buying a licence or rent for 100 years. It's the same. We need clear rules and laws about this. Need to know what's allowed and what not.
And we need to give our concerns to get the best possible outcome.

 

[beep boop]

Continuing to think about this, and if games in the form they are sold to you today are classified as "products" rather than "licenses (to play)", that seems to complicate the idea of resale as well. If it is a license, it is obvious how it is transferable since a license can only be held by one person at a time. The license exists separate from the game (files), clearly. However, if we look at games as purely products, does that not presume that you are being sold the files you are downloading (i.e. not the license to access and use said files)? The idea here being that how do you manage who gets to use the files without digital certification of who the user using the files is (i.e. a license + DRM check-in)? And how do we know someone didn't back up the files beforehand without a certification system under our current level of access to game files? I specify current level of access, because another thing that could happen, for example, is that game files move to a UWP style container in which you cannot access the folder of a game anymore, even with high level privileges, in order to avoid people copying the files they are able to resell.

Edit: also, I do think it would make sense to move this talk over to a dedicated thread so as to not pollute this one, which has little to do with this resale thing.

Edit 2: doing some more reading and there are clauses in EU directives that prevent restrictions to backing up software if said copying does not impact the functioning or intended use of the software. Some of the academic literature surrounding the Oracle and Usedsoft cases also refers to the trend of software sales moving to a SaaS model (software as a service, e.g. Adobe's CC lineup) in order to get around the exhaustion principle of first sales for unlimited use software licenses (which the aforementioned two cases reaffirmed).

Edit 3: upon further reading of the Usedsoft and Oracle cases, it seems that the idea of classifying software that is licensed to you as a "product" is founded on it being licensed to you for an indefinite period or otherwise a very long term -- this is what causes the line between the two to be blurred. So, once again and still, I am worried about where games will go in the future, as I'm not a fan of subscriptions or year-long licenses and so forth.

 

[Alexandros]

I agree that this discussion should be moved to a new thread.

 

[beep boop]

I'll post a new thread with links to relevant reading material soonish then, unless someone else is already working on one.

 

[Tizoc]

I know this being dickish but i am curious how well Falcon age has sold on egs ....

 

[MJunioR]

I know this being dickish but i am curious how well Falcon age has sold on egs ....

Wouldn't be surprised if they are on 1xxx ~ 5xxx still, the game barely got any promotion before and after release. Probably sitting along Roller Coaster Adventure, Dangerous Driving and Omen of Sorrow (or not since these three at least could get some extra sales from the Mega Sale EGS had months ago and Falcon Age wasn't there, I believe)

 

[Tizoc]

I would say 1000 to 5000 units is about what itnwould had sold on steam...at least day 1 or 2?
The game has some counter colonial themes and i am curious if they even approached sites like giant bomb etc. For promoting the game

Tho one wonders if most of that is from regions where it is cheaper than usd price

 

[Myradeer]

Honestly, companies would move toward subscription services anyway, with or without any helpful opportunity from EU.

 

[MJunioR]

Borderlands® 3 Redefines Mayhem; Establishes Franchise as Billion Dollar Global Brand | Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

Latest installment in genre-defining, shooter-looter series sold-in more than 5 million units within first five days of launch, making Borderlands 3 the fastest-selling title in 2K history and highest-selling title for the label on PC NEW YORK --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep.

ir.take2games.com

Borderlands 3 marks 2K’s highest percentage of digital sales for a cross-platform, cross-distribution title, with more than 70 percent of consumers purchasing the game digitally in its first five days of release. In addition, Borderlands 3 delivered the highest pre-order sales figures to date for a 2K title, as well as broke pre-order records with the Epic Games Store. Initial sales of Borderlands 3 have exceeded the label’s expectations and, in particular, PC sales of the title through the Epic Games Store have been incredibly strong.

Within its first five days of launch, 50 percent more consumers purchased Borderlands 3 versus sales of its predecessor – Borderlands 2 – making the title the fastest-selling in 2K’s history, as well as the highest-selling title for the label on PC in a five-day window.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

welp, fuck

 

[Flips]

I mean, none of this is unexpected?

The last big Borderlands game released seven (7!) years ago.

Within its first five days of launch, 50 percent more consumers purchased Borderlands 3 versus sales of its predecessor – Borderlands 2 – making the title the fastest-selling in 2K’s history,

The franchise built a huge fanbase over the years and BL3 got a lot of marketing. Anything other than a new record would have been a massive surprise.

the highest-selling title for the label on PC in a five-day window.

Comparing the current PC gaming market to what it was seven years ago doesn't make sense. PC gaming got huge. Also, they just say "highest-selling title"; they don't even use obscure numbers like "50 percent more"

broke pre-order records with the Epic Games Store

You don't say lol

 

[arts&crafts]

I mean, none of this is unexpected?

The last big Borderlands game released seven (7!) years ago.


The franchise built a huge fanbase over the years and BL3 got a lot of marketing. Anything other than a new record would have been a massive surprise.


Comparing the current PC gaming market to what it was seven years ago doesn't make sense. PC gaming got huge. Also, they just say "highest-selling title"; they don't even use obscure numbers like "50 percent more"


You don't say lol

Yea as with most EGS stats they are definitely misleading. It is by far the biggest game on EGS and the PC landscape has changed as well as Borderlands has gotten much more popular since BL2.

 

[Kyougar]

Borderlands® 3 Redefines Mayhem; Establishes Franchise as Billion Dollar Global Brand | Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

Latest installment in genre-defining, shooter-looter series sold-in more than 5 million units within first five days of launch, making Borderlands 3 the fastest-selling title in 2K history and highest-selling title for the label on PC NEW YORK --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep.

ir.take2games.com

This is Sell-in. So they most likely include Sales guarantees. If 2K has a 1 Million sales guarantee, that would be 1 million sold for 2K, even if Epic only sold 500k copies of Berderlands 3.

 

[fantomena]

I don't want to derail the thread much or create any big discussion, so just quickly, what happened to BronsonLee on ERA? Did he ban himself or something? I do lurk on ERA a few times during a week, but not as much as before and I haven't seen him there for some days.

 

[unknownhero]

like I said before, it wasn't the question of if borderlands 3 will be successful but how much. Note that they gave numbers for current sales and a percentage of how many were digital but were still kinda vague on the pc side of things.

 

[Trisolarian]

I don't want to derail the thread much or create any big discussion, so just quickly, what happened to BronsonLee on ERA? Did he ban himself or something? I do lurk on ERA a few times during a week, but not as much as before and I haven't seen him there for some days.

Most likely the same reason I left, a lot of interpersonal hostility and nastiness. Endless digging, snipping, testing, digging into other users pasts and off site activity and straight up bullying. Hell, I have trouble reading the site now because of the posters who bullied me is now a mod.

Just last week I saw someone openly admit in a thread to purposely being overtly nasty to someone just because of a PM from another member suggesting that they (person on the receiving end of nastiness) was a troll. No proof, just that PM. No action was taken and no one told them were way the fuck out of line.

 

[beep boop]

Last post about this topic here, but in case some of you haven't seen it since a lot of the talk was centered here, there's now a new thread on the digital game resale thing:

News - The ongoing case about the resale of digitally distributed games - UFC Que Choisir v. Valve

So, as many of us have already seen, there have been some interesting developments surrounding the sale of "used" digital copies of videogames. Most recently, in a case between UFC Que Choisir v. Valve, the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris ruled that so-called dematerialized games, i.e...

metacouncil.com

 

[Kyougar]

He always derailed threads with his antics or personal drama. he was also banbait.

 

[fantomena]

The 2K pr for Blands 3 is written so terrible it's so easy to misread.

What we know is that Blands 3 is the fastest selling in a 5-day window for the 2K label on PC. Rockstar is not part of that label.

This sentence is easy to misread:

Within its first five days of launch, 50 percent more consumers purchased Borderlands 3 versus sales of its predecessor – Borderlands 2 – making the title the fastest-selling in 2K’s history, as well as the highest-selling title for the label on PC in a five-day window

Because due to the wording later in that paragrap "as well as", it means that Blands 3 sold 50% in the first five days across ALL devices (PS4, Xbone, EGS), not only on PC.

So from what I gather that we only know that Blands 3 is the highest selling 2K title on PC during the first 5 days, but not by how much and that it is the highest pre-ordered game on EGS (well duh, would be suprised if it wasn't). That's all.

Actually reading the PR statement from 2K makes the whole statement regarding Blands 3 and EGS vague as fuck. I

 

[Koz]

We don't know if it accounts for the EGS guaranteed sales or not either. If it does, then it tells us nothing since they could have proclaimed that stat the day they signed the EGS contract.

I'm sure it sold well on PC, there's no way it couldn't have, but as usual we just don't know any specifics. I think the real indication will be in 6 months when it goes on sale on Steam and how many copies it sells there.

 

[Tizoc]

The most significant difference had blands 3 released on steam AND egs instead of just egs is that Randy P. Would be having a couple of million dollars less :V

 

[Joe Spangle]

Really pleased to see the 'its just another launcher' argument seems to making a comeback due to the BL3 sales numbers.

Oh good.

 

[Kyougar]

Really pleased to see the 'its just another launcher' argument seems to making a comeback due to the BL3 sales numbers.

Oh good.

Sponsored by era Admins

 

[BernardoOne]

I know this being dickish but i am curious how well Falcon age has sold on egs ....

The game is out? Lmao

 

[TioChuck]

That news about Borderlands 3 is some nice Spin, "five-day window" so the months of preorder is in this window? The EGS sales guarantee is in this window?

50% more is not 2x more.

I will not be surprised if Epic is responsable for this Spin, they really need Borderlands 3 to be successful.

 

[Wok]

"five-day window" so the months of preorder is in this window? The EGS sales guarantee is in this window?

I don't think so.

Within its first five days of launch, 50 percent more consumers purchased Borderlands 3 versus sales of its predecessor – Borderlands 2 – making the title the fastest-selling in 2K’s history, as well as the highest-selling title for the label on PC in a five-day window.

 

[Ascheroth]

That news about Borderlands 3 is some nice Spin, "five-day window" so the months of preorder is in this window? The EGS sales guarantee is in this window?

50% more is not 2x more.

I will not be surprised if Epic is responsable for this Spin, they really need Borderlands 3 to be successful.

Note that the 50% more does not refer to the PC version in any way.

 

[madjoki]

Is WWZ still only game where we got actual hard facts and not some PR sping that one needs to guess what it actually means?

Also, I don't think BL2 sold that much on launch, but had incredible long tail (BL3 could have too who knows)

 

[Nabs]

PR Speak is wonderful.