News Epic Games Store

[Deleted member 113]

AHA-Lambda In case you want a minor update about the whole Shenmue 3 refund situation, I contacted them through Kickstarter (since Backerkit never replies to emails) asking why people who asked for a refund after me already received a refund, but I didn't.

Here's the most useful reply I received:

«Thank you for contacting us. It may take 20 business days to 3 months from the time the refund request is made until the refund transaction is completed. We kindly ask for your patience while refunds are being processed. »

So, yeah.

 

[fantomena]

Is it confirmed somewhere that devs/pubs won't get money from sales until they are above the advanced sales? Like, let's say Epic payed for 50.000 copies in advance, not until the game has sold the 50.001 copy will Remedy/505 games receive money so below 50.000 copies sold they will never receive anything?

 

[Stone Ocean]

Is it confirmed somewhere that devs/pubs won't get money from sales until they are above the advanced sales? Like, let's say Epic payed for 50.000 copies in advance, not until the game has sold the 50.001 copy will Remedy/505 games receive money so below 50.000 copies sold they will never receive anything?

It's not that they don't recieve anything, they recieve it upfront. Using your example, Epic essentially "buys" 50.000 copies of the game from 505 at full price and then resells it at their own risk, once that "stock" is gone its business as usual.

 

[fantomena]

It's not that they don't recieve anything, they recieve it upfront. Using your example, Epic essentially "buys" 50.000 copies of the game from 505 at full price and then resells it at their own risk, once that "stock" is gone its business as usual.

Yeah I know, they pay for those 50.000 copies upfront.

My question was if they won't get more "standard" sales money until they reach 50.001 copies sold?

 

[Stone Ocean]

Yeah I know, they pay for those 50.000 copies upfront.

My question was if they won't get more "standard" sales money until they reach 50.001 copies sold?

Beyond whatever other deals that are in place? Nope.

 

[fantomena]

So far we know that Satisfactory and WWZ, 2 of the first Epic exclusives sold a ton, super vague Exodus and Blands 3 wordings and nothing else.

 

[Chudah]

It's not that they don't recieve anything, they recieve it upfront. Using your example, Epic essentially "buys" 50.000 copies of the game from 505 at full price and then resells it at their own risk, once that "stock" is gone its business as usual.

So, even if those copies haven't sold by the time the exclusivity period is up, Epic continues to "re-sell" the games until they've exhausted all copies, even if it takes years for that to happen? If that's the case, it makes sense why the first devs to go exclusive over there have Steam store pages ready to go MONTHS before their Steam re-release. I bet they've blown through all of the exclusivity money and are in serious need of a cash injection right about now.

 

[Stone Ocean]

So, even if those copies haven't sold by the time the exclusivity period is up, Epic continues to "re-sell" the games until they've exhausted all copies, even if it takes years for that to happen? If that's the case, it makes sense why the first devs to go exclusive over there have Steam store pages ready to go MONTHS before their Steam re-release. I bet they've blown through all of the exclusivity money and are in serious need of a cash injection right about now.

I don't think we know that for sure, the safety net could very well have a time limit on it - like say, Epic pays upfront for 50k copies in the first year and beyond that even if the game hasn't sold 50k the revenue goes back to the dev anyways - but either way that safety net might as well be a ceiling for most games going EGS.

 

[MJunioR]

https://www.amd.com/en/gaming/raise-the-game

Raise the Epic Games exclusives (plus 3 months of XGP PC)

 

[Kyougar]

So I bought Untitled Goose Game...

...on Switch because I want the developer to get 70% of the sale rather than the 0% they get from EGS thanks to the sales advance.

What a time to be alive :>
PC enthusiasts buying and supporting console releases so that the PC Gaming market doesn't get worse.

 

[beep boop]

It’s an amusing paradox. Developers not meeting their quota on EGS is a plus for them if sales are instead redirected to other platforms. I’m doing my part too #forthedevs

 

[Kyougar]

I don't think we know that for sure, the safety net could very well have a time limit on it - like say, Epic pays upfront for 50k copies in the first year and beyond that even if the game hasn't sold 50k the revenue goes back to the dev anyways - but either way that safety net might as well be a ceiling for most games going EGS.

We don't know many things. like how much Epic paid for a copy. The sales guarantee could be:

100% of the sales price, Epic even foregoing their cut
88% of the sales price. Like a normal sale.
50% of the sales price. because Epic has the risk and would even lose more money if the game goes on a sale.

Gaming Industry historically, I would say 50% and even lower. But this is Epic with their fuck-you-money.

 

[madjoki]

With Techland onboard with EGS, I guess Dying Light 2 shall be exclusive too.

https://www.amd.com/en/gaming/raise-the-game

Raise the Epic Games exclusives (plus 3 months of XGP PC)

Well that sucks. Just after bought my 3900x.

 

[lashman]

With Techland onboard with EGS, I guess Dying Light 2 shall be exclusive too.

yup

 

[MJunioR]

With Techland onboard with EGS, I guess Dying Light 2 shall be exclusive too.

Wait, what happened?

Oh, Arise. Eh, I still expect to see DL2 launching on Steam day-1.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Wait, what happened?

Their upcoming indie game is EGS exclusive.

Contsct them
I got my refund form a few days after they started sending them.out

AHA-Lambda In case you want a minor update about the whole Shenmue 3 refund situation, I contacted them through Kickstarter (since Backerkit never replies to emails) asking why people who asked for a refund after me already received a refund, but I didn't.

Here's the most useful reply I received:

«Thank you for contacting us. It may take 20 business days to 3 months from the time the refund request is made until the refund transaction is completed. We kindly ask for your patience while refunds are being processed. »

So, yeah.

Well looks like the guy on Era didn't even have the option to select refund as they never changed it back from PS4 to pc, whereas I have had that option and a reference number, so I think I'm in the clear

 

[Stone Ocean]

With Techland onboard with EGS, I guess Dying Light 2 shall be exclusive too.

Isn't Dying Light 2 published by Squeenix as well?

 

[madjoki]

Isn't Dying Light 2 published by Squeenix?

Only North American Physical versions only. PC is self-published.

 

[ISee]

Dying Light 2 is also another Nvidia RTX title.
Some people are taking every deal possible, as long as they can stay independent from having to sell their product to consumers.

-Get money from Nvidia or AMD
-Get money from Sony, Microsoft or Epic
-Publish your game on as many "services" as possible
-Dismiss everybody else as unimportant.

That's the current state of this industry.

 

[madjoki]

-Get money from Sony, Microsoft or Epic

- or Sony AND Epic (Control)

 

[gabbo]

I don't think we know that for sure, the safety net could very well have a time limit on it - like say, Epic pays upfront for 50k copies in the first year and beyond that even if the game hasn't sold 50k the revenue goes back to the dev anyways - but either way that safety net might as well be a ceiling for most games going EGS.

Haven't wee seen wording that the initial lot has to sell off before the devs see anything besides their up front payment?

 

[Deleted member 113]

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about knowing the sales of these EGS games? Or how much these developers/publishers received, or how they were paid?
Does it matter?

I really don't get it. I mean, these people made their deals, and we have people worrying about the games selling poorly or not, or wanting to support the developers further (on top of the deals they already made, that were certainly profitable for them).

Please don't take it the hard way, but some of you sound a bit "masochist". These developers/publishers couldn't care less about you, they care about money, and they made the deals they wanted, and which were certainly profitable for them.
Why are you worried about the fate of these developers/publishers/games, when they couldn't care less about you, or your "support"?

 

[ISee]

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about the sales of these EGS games?

Because I fear that this exclusivity thing will go on forever, without epic having to pay for it. If you sell as much on EGS as on Steam, what's the point of not going exclusive? I want those epic games to sell bad, but that is also dangerous for some developers and some beloved game series.

A good selling EGS game means less options for me in the future: No way to buy a game outside of epic, less support, no forums, no family sharing, no proton, a closed off echo system etc.
It's a mayor loose for us consumers and leaves us even less powerful.

If a game, on the other side, sells badly on EGS and publishers loose money without epic stepping in: We are safe and the balance of power between consumers and producers is still where it should be.

For this very reason it is important that we don't buy from Epic, but from Steam once the exclusivity periods are over. Even if sales on Steam aren't as high as on EGS. All we have to prove is that publishers have to sell on as many store fronts as possible to make the maximum possible profit.

 

[RionaaM]

No Twitch, don't be that guy >_<

Funny how client makers, platform owners and various other gaming companies feel so entitled to customers' hard drive space, internet data and personal information. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Arsene]

Arise screamed EGS exclusive when I watched the announcement trailer. Absolutely not surprised.

- or Sony AND Epic (Control)

And Nvidia lol

 

[Stone Ocean]

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about knowing the sales of these EGS games? Or how much these developers/publishers received, or how they were paid?
Does it matter?

It's just curiosity, I don't particularly care about their cash flow.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about knowing the sales of these EGS games? Or how much these developers/publishers received, or how they were paid?
Does it matter?

For me it's understanding if the EGS strategy is working or not, and that hopefully it isn't for obvious reasons.

 

[Deleted member 113]

ISee Thanks for your reply.

The thing I don't get is why you worry about the developers, and their franchises, when they certainly don't care about you?
Essentially, you have some teams acting like they couldn't care less about the people who supported their previous games, and telling everyone you either buy the games where they want, or they give you the "honour" of buying their games a year later, and you still want to support them, and their games?
With so many other games, and developers, around, who are not pulling crap like this?
Some are even locking content to other platforms as well (Remedy), on top of that.

Why is it so hard for some of you to skip a game, when you have so many alternative ways of spending your money, including other games?
I really don't get why gamers and developers act like gamers are the ones who "need" to buy the games, when it's actually the other way around, developers and publishers need people to buy their games, to keep their doors open.

 

[Alexandros]

Yeah I know, they pay for those 50.000 copies upfront.

My question was if they won't get more "standard" sales money until they reach 50.001 copies sold?

Yeah, they get zero money until they cross the threshold.

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about knowing the sales of these EGS games? Or how much these developers/publishers received, or how they were paid?
Does it matter?

Who said that the interest in sales is about caring for the developers? My interest in how EGS games sold is strictly because I want them to sell as little as possible so Epic's strategy blows up in their face. Why would I care about a developer that doesn't care about me?

 

[ISee]

The thing I don't get is why you worry about the developers, and their franchises, when they certainly don't care about you?

Because it's never "everybody" and problems are complex and have many layers.
We (maybe) should starting to differentiate between companies and people working there.

Not everybody at Remedy is happy with Control being exclusive. Not everybody at Piranha is happy about how their higher ups handled the Mechwarrior 5 pre order fiasco. Not everybody over at 4A likes how Tim and his propaganda machine "shits" on us and declares that consumers are irrelevant. They just aren't allowed to speak up.

I dislike Tim, Epic and most big publishers. In other words, I understand that a company doesn't care for me and I don't care for the well being or profit of companies and share holders. But I care for people and I know that there are good people everywhere, alongside assholes. In truth most people are both, simultaneously.

I want Epic and the games associated with it to fail on a "maximizing profit" level. But I would also like for the individual people there to not be fired.

Sounds strange and like a contradiction. But as said, problems aren't easy. Things are always complex. But it's easy to forget this very fact, happens to me all the time.

 

[Digoman]

Why is it so hard for some of you to skip a game, when you have so many alternative ways of spending your money, including other games?
I really don't get why gamers and developers act like gamers are the ones who "need" to buy the games, when it's actually the other way around, developers and publishers need people to buy their games, to keep their doors open.

I have seen some people that appear to taking the more ... "personally betrayed" and "I need this game" approach that you describe, but that doesn't appear to be the majority (at least here). Even then, it is probably more of a consequence of the hype and FOMO games companies have used to market their games for a long time. They spent a lot of time of money trying to create a loyal fanbase, so if something gets in the way of them experiencing the game, some will get mad.

For me, after a adaptation period this new strategy (on PC) it is now more of a annoyance deciding if I should look at some trailer for a game that looks interesting or wait a year to do so (or never if the developer starts with the bullshit excuses).

But I am curious about EGS numbers and such because like Alexandros wrote, I'm hoping they sell like shit so the third-party exclusivity deals don't become the common strategy in the PC market for years and years. It is not about a single game/developer but the overall ecosystem that I like. And Borderlands 3 numbers are going to have a huge impact one way or the other.

 

[lashman]

i might as well drop it here since it's EXTREMELY relevant to pretty much this entire thread:

News - Activision, Call of Duty, Lootboxes, and the REAL Outrage Economy

Let's talk about Activision, Inifinty Ward, lootboxes, and the outrage economy So Activision, publisher of the Call of Duty franchise, recently announced that a small part of the upcoming Call of Duty game will be quarantined off as a Playstation exclusive for a year, which just so happens to...

metacouncil.com

(seriously - watch it! it's not even about CoD, not really ... and has a few bits about epic!)

 

[Deleted member 113]

Because it's never "everybody" and problems are complex and have many layers.
We (maybe) should starting to differentiate between companies and people working there.

Sorry, but I can't say I agree with this.

You go to a store, or a restaurant, and you are badly served, or disrespected. by an employee. Will you be back again, just because someone that works there, maybe the cleaning staff, or the kitchen staff, may be a good guy?
That's not how it works.

No offence, but I think you are trying to rationalize, and justify, still going and buying and supporting these games and developers, no matter what they do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying with this to tell you, in any way, what you should do with your money. You buy what you want, and you certainly shouldn't care about what a random guy on the internet, like me, says.

But, that logic that someone working on "x" developer, or "x" publisher, may be a good guy, so we should still support them, doesn't make much sense.
Tell me: I don't know where you work, but if a colleague of yours screws up with a client, do you really expect people to be back, and continue to purchase good or services from your company, after that? Would you blame them for not returning?

That's really not how things work. In a company with thousands of people, I'm sure there's good people, and bad people. But still, you "judge" the company by how it handles its business, and if it aligns with your interests, or not.

If you apply that logic, every company is great, every company is worth supporting.
Like, a company that majorly pollutes the air and water around it? Someone there may be a good guy, and not really agree with their practices, so we shouldn't be too hard on them?

 

[Kyougar]

I'm genuinely curious: why are people so worried about knowing the sales of these EGS games? Or how much these developers/publishers received, or how they were paid?
Does it matter?

I really don't get it. I mean, these people made their deals, and we have people worrying about the games selling poorly or not, or wanting to support the developers further (on top of the deals they already made, that were certainly profitable for them).

Please don't take it the hard way, but some of you sound a bit "masochist". These developers/publishers couldn't care less about you, they care about money, and they made the deals they wanted, and which were certainly profitable for them.
Why are you worried about the fate of these developers/publishers/games, when they couldn't care less about you, or your "support"?

because there will be some (more) idiots who will either bank on an exclusive deal or overbudget (more) to present a nice looking exclusive-bait game. Instead of teaching the current market to properly budget and market their games, build up an audience, etc. You have a bubble of exclusive-bait games that want to sell to the storefronts and not to the customer.

 

[ISee]

Sorry, but I can't say I agree with this.

You go to a store, or a restaurant, and you are badly served, or disrespected. by an employee. Will you be back again, just because someone that works there, maybe the cleaning staff, or the kitchen staff, may be a good guy?
That's not how it works.

No offence, but I think you are trying to rationalize, and justify, still going and buying and supporting these games and developers, no matter what they do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying with this to tell you, in any way, what you should do with your money. You buy what you want, and you certainly shouldn't care about what a random guy on the internet, like me, says.

But, that logic that someone working on "x" developer, or "x" publisher, may be a good guy, so we should still support them, doesn't make much sense.
Tell me: I don't know where you work, but if a colleague of yours screws up with a client, do you really expect people to be back, and continue to purchase good or services from your company, after that? Would you blame them for not returning?

That's really not how things work. In a company with thousands of people, I'm sure there's good people, and bad people. But still, you "judge" the company by how it handles its business, and if it aligns with your interests, or not.

If you apply that logic, every company is great, every company is worth supporting.
Like, a company that majorly pollutes the air and water around it? Someone there may be a good guy, so we shouldn't be too hard on them?

No, I'm not saying you should buy everything, give everybody a pass or revisit a restaurant you didn't enjoy because the waitress there is working minimum wage. I'm not a "turn the other cheek" person. But I stand by what I said: Problems and situations are often complex and a "them vs. us" point of view is an oversimplification. It's best to try to look at things from different angles. I'd be happy if BL3 failed, for my own selfish reasons, but I also don't want people being fired because of it. You asked why I care about sale numbers and that's my answer.
I never told people to, nor am I myself buying from Epic though. I just hope everything will end relatively smoothly, without drama for people that have no say in this fiasco.

Also no offense, but logic always make sense. You might not like the conclusion, but you can't deny it: There are (some) good people working there, this isn't a question or something debatable. But I'll repeat: This, of course, doesn't mean that you have an obligation to make an unprofitable exchange or transaction with a company or a service provider. Still, it's wrong to paint everybody as the bad guy, just because he is working there. I hate when gaming journalists are calling "us" toxic, unreasonable, women harassing A-holes and I think we should make a good example by not making the same mistake ourselves. But that's hard, I made this mistake myself many times. I'm a hothead.

I've also said multiple times that I believe we need to convince publishers by using the only language they understand: Money. If we don't buy from Epic, but from other sources they'll learn a valuable lesson: Loosing money by going EGS exclusive. I strongly believe that cultivating a grudge against all studios because they went EGS exclusive will do more harm than good. Those games need to sell (25-30% of EGS numbers), once they go public.
If Epic can spread the fairy tale of EGS sales = Steam sales things will turn bad for the PC market. It will be a monopoly in the hands of Tim.
That would be bad. I don't want that at all.
That's why I'm trying to convince you to support the devs and games you like, once they arrive on the free market.

But there will, eventually, be collateral damage. This one franchise that didn't sell well enough, this one developer that will be closed by his publisher, because a game under-performed. It's needed, but we would make a mistake to not acknowledge both the good and the bad.

 

[Ge0force]

I've also said multiple times that I believe we need to convince publishers by using the only language they understand: Money. If we don't buy from Epic, but from other sources they'll learn a valuable lesson: Loosing money by going EGS exclusive.

I believe you're completely wrong here. If we buy moneyhatted games when they arrive on other storefronts anyway, it's a double win situation for the devs and publishers: they get financial security through Epic, plus the usual income from sales on other storefronts. This will only motivate devs and Epic to keep making exclusivity deals.

In the past few months, we have seen several devs and publishers speaking out against exclusivity deals because they want to respect their customers. This is where our money should go to. Again, if we buy moneyhatted games anyway, we will send a clear signal to the devs and publishers that we are fine with exclusivity deals, resulting in even more of them accepting Epic's money.

This is why I will not buy any games involved in store exclusivity deals on pc. Not now, not when they arrive on other storefronts later. There are plenty of other great games to play on pc.

 

[C-Dub]

As far as prioritising my spend, games that went EGS exclusive are bottom of the pile.

But I’m not going to deny myself something if it’s on a platform I’m happy to play on.

It’s also done on a case-by-case basis. Will I bother buying a AAA moneyhatted EGS game ever? No. But I’m more forgiving of indies while we are in a legitimately fucked up and volatile market.

And I think, ultimately, the best way of stopping exclusives is less about making devs the target, but Epic. If you make it not worth Epic’s while, they will stop quicker than having to convince every developer that they are a bad idea.

Remember that once Epic gives developers that money, it’s very likely that they are getting 0% of the cash on EGS until they’ve met that advance. It’s an easy argument to make to people who are so-called “friends of the devs” or just want to support developers that they’d be better off supporting a developer on any store but Epic if they’ve taken a moneyhat.

 

[ISee]

I believe you're completely wrong here. If we buy moneyhatted games when they arrive on other storefronts anyway, it's a double win situation for the devs and publishers: they get financial security through Epic, plus the usual income from sales on other storefronts. This will only motivate devs and Epic to keep making exclusivity deals.

In the past few months, we have seen several devs and publishers speaking out against exclusivity deals because they want to respect their customers. This is where our money should go to. Again, if we buy moneyhatted games anyway, we will send a clear signal to the devs and publishers that we are fine with exclusivity deals, resulting in even more of them accepting Epic's money.

This is why I will not buy any games involved in store exclusivity deals on pc. Not now, not when they arrive on other storefronts later. There are plenty of other great games to play on pc.

You are correct. The message that consumers will ignore you even after the exclusivity period ended is stronger and far more impactful. And yes, there is some danger that publishers would start thinking that timed exclusivity is the way to go. I'm just unable to come up with a better idea.

I've thought about it and I don't believe in this industry respecting consumers. As said not everybody is an a-hole and naturally not everybody will go down the exclusive route. But relying on respect and people being benevolent? I don't think that's a valid strategy.

My problem with ignoring them completely is: I don't know how to make this kind of behaviour visible in market research data. If a game doesn't sell after the exclusivity period ends chances are that publisher will come to the conclusion that interest wasn't high in the first place, that they reached most of their consumers on EGS and that it is better to get 88% revenue on one platform instead of splitting everything up. This might send the far more dangerous wrong message.
Especially once games media and epic start lying, spinning and bragging about great sale numbers again.

as said: I understand that it's not perfect, but there never are perfect strategies. I believe that giving them something that they have to worry about loosing is more impactful than taking something away that they might not even notice and miss.

 

[Alexandros]

I believe you're completely wrong here. If we buy moneyhatted games when they arrive on other storefronts anyway, it's a double win situation for the devs and publishers: they get financial security through Epic, plus the usual income from sales on other storefronts. This will only motivate devs and Epic to keep making exclusivity deals.

In the past few months, we have seen several devs and publishers speaking out against exclusivity deals because they want to respect their customers. This is where our money should go to. Again, if we buy moneyhatted games anyway, we will send a clear signal to the devs and publishers that we are fine with exclusivity deals, resulting in even more of them accepting Epic's money.

This is why I will not buy any games involved in store exclusivity deals on pc. Not now, not when they arrive on other storefronts later. There are plenty of other great games to play on pc.

Fully agreed, with the exception of developers that will commit to not making their next games exclusive. If any developer ends up regreting the decision to go exclusive I would be willing to give them a second chance. That said, ISee 's argument is valid. The message that will be sent to developers is of paramount importance.

You are correct. The message that consumers will ignore you even after the exclusivity period ended is stronger and far more impactful. And yes, there is some danger that publishers would start thinking that timed exclusivity is the way to go. I'm just unable to come up with a better idea.

I've thought about it and I don't believe in this industry respecting consumers. As said not everybody is an a-hole and naturally not everybody will go down the exclusive route. But relying on respect and people being benevolent? I don't think that's a valid strategy.

My problem with ignoring them completely is: I don't know how to make this kind of behaviour visible in market research data. If a game doesn't sell after the exclusivity period ends chances are that publisher will come to the conclusion that interest wasn't high in the first place, that they reached most of their consumers on EGS and that it is better to get 88% revenue on one platform instead of splitting everything up. This might send the far more dangerous wrong message.
Especially once games media and epic start lying, spinning and bragging about great sale numbers again.

as said: I understand that it's not perfect, but there never are perfect strategies. I believe that giving them something that they have to worry about losing is more impactful than taking something away that they might not even notice and miss.

Maybe buying on Steam at a heavy discount? It is indeed a tough issue. Buying the game day 1 at full price on its launch on Steam would send the message that developers can accept any exclusivity deal they like and not be worried about losing the Steam audience so that's out of the question. Not buying at all might indeed be interpreted as the game itself not resonating with the public, which will lead to the developer thinking "whew, thank God I took that deal because my game would have flopped". So buying at a heavy discount might succeed in sending the proper message that the game did have an audience on Steam and the developer sacrificed a lot of full-price day 1 sales by going exclusive.

In any case, we should always remember that there are two parties involved in these deals: Publishers/developers and Epic. Even in the case of customers buying a previously exclusive game at launch on Steam in great numbers, developers might be getting away with no negative impact but Epic still ends up getting screwed. Ideally both parties would be hit hard enough to realize that this sort of business practice hurts their bottom line but if that's not possible I will take Epic paying through the nose for a handful of sales while most people keep buying games on Steam.

 

[Ge0force]

Fully agreed, with the exception of developers that will commit to not making their next games exclusive. If any developer ends up regreting the decision to go exclusive I would be willing to give them a second chance. That said, @ISee 's argument is valid. The message that will be sent to developers is of paramount importance.

Agreed. That's why I often send a polite Tweet to the devs or publishers that I understand Epic's money is hard to reject, but that I won't buy any games involved in store exclusivity deals on pc. I also mention that I'll be happy to buy their next game when it isn't involved in moneyhatting if the devs communicate the deal in a respectful way. Deep Silver and the Ooblets devs can GTFO for example.

Of course I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. Chances are huge that the devs see me as an entitled toxic child. But I really don't want to support moneyhatting 3rd party games in ANY way.

 

[ISee]

I don't know either. Buying games at discounted states would reinforce the importance of steam as a long term platform. But it could also be interpreted as "the audience willing to pay full price" being satisfied with epic. And that's an important audience, especially with a 88% cut.
I understand that nobody wants to reward publishers/developers for doing something unwanted. After all it's our money and giving them the maximum profit on Steam sounds strange.
But looking at epics PR talk. They want publishers to make games exclusive on a voluntary basis. That would be the worst possible outcome and a monopoly in disguise. We, somehow, have to proof that going on to as many stores as possible is the most profitable publishing strategy.

 

[C-Dub]

At least we can respectfully disagree on this. I get a lot of your positions regarding a full boycott, even if I don’t 100% agree with it.

Ultimately, I just want Epic to fuck off. I find it increasingly more difficult to be angry at smaller developers who are struggling in a cutthroat market. Capitalism forces compromises for commercial viability.

My sympathy for publishers pleading poverty is nonexistent, as is my support for asshole developers. Otherwise, I’m with ISee on this. We need to send the right message, and if that message is the PC platform is a dead platform with Epic exclusivity (with audiences willing to support the game on other platforms) then that’s a win for everyone barring Epic.

So I will buy games that interest me on platforms I’m willing to use, especially if that means the developer gets some extra cash. That’s my way of giving my middle finger to Epic.

 

[ISee]

Of course I'm not sure this is the right thing to do.

I actually think that's exactly one of the things that need to be done. The key is to stay polite and non aggressive, but to also carry the message of: you are loosing money and costumers.

At least we can respectfully disagree on this. I get a lot of your positions regarding a full boycott, even if I don’t 100% agree with it.

This is the only place you can talk about this. All other places are circle jerking in one direction or the other. Conversations are impossible.

 

[Ge0force]

But looking at epics PR talk. They want publishers to make games exclusive on a voluntary basis. That would be the worst possible outcome and a monopoly in disguise.

This, so much this. Everything Epic says and does indicates that exclusivity is their long term strategy to become the most popular storefront. This would be the worst possible outcome for us as consumers.

 

[ISee]

BL3, Breaking Point and Outer Worlds will be bundled with AMD CPUs and GPUs soon.
Anything to further push and inflate EGS sale numbers.

 

[kio]

BL3, Breaking Point and Outer Worlds will be bundled with AMD CPUs and GPUs soon.
Anything to further push and inflate EGS sale numbers.

Why would ubi provide eggs keys instead of uplay keys?

 

[ISee]

Why would ubi provide eggs keys instead of uplay keys?

Why would anybody take outer worlds when it's also available over game pass, which is also included in the bundle.

I don't know.

Maybe it's a deal that involves epic, Ubi and AMD.

 

[MJunioR]

Why would anybody take outer worlds when it's also available over game pass, which is also included in the bundle.

I don't know.

Maybe it's a deal that involves epic, Ubi and AMD.

Well, for what's worth when Division 2 was bundled on one of these AMD things it was activated directly on uPlay.

 

[ISee]

Well, for what's worth when Division 2 was bundled on one of these AMD things it was activated directly on uPlay.

Fair enough.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

BL3, Breaking Point and Outer Worlds will be bundled with AMD CPUs and GPUs soon.
Anything to further push and inflate EGS sale numbers.

Goodness gracious. They're spending money like Microsoft did when they launched the OG Xbox. Packaged-in games with video cards?

Wow.

This isn't good because I just said in the Cyberpunk thread that I am considering upgrading my GPU.
I see in the replies that there are mitigating circumstances like Uplay and Xbox Game Pass, but that's only relevant for those games, not BL3., which will still act as a gateway to EGS.

That's like how Microsoft lost a class-action lawsuit for always packaging IE with Windows, preventing other browsers from being competitive.