The only right thing to do is to delete your account.
News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
Update your EGS client, you're running the old version.So because I'm a bit interested in Control and because the PS4 version of the game won't be available in Asia region until God knows when, I tried to check EGS to see how much does it cost here in my country.
Okay, maybe I need to login first.
Goddammit the last time I visited EGS was weeks ago.
Nice store btw.
The only logical explanation is that a member of the anti-Epic group is in charge of the internet in your country and is fighting the good fight by blocking it. Let us all salute this nameless hero.So because I'm a bit interested in Control and because the PS4 version of the game won't be available in Asia region until God knows when, I tried to check EGS to see how much does it cost here in my country.
Okay, maybe I need to login first.
Goddammit the last time I visited EGS was weeks ago.
Nice store btw.
In case you don't like what Epic is doing: Control is still lots of fun to play next year. Meanwhile, you can visit our "metasteam" thread for other recommendations.
Deleted member 113
Guest
I don’t care about BigBen, or Paranoia in particular, but the passivity from Valve regarding this kind of crap pisses me off.
I mean, a while back, they were banning indie developers left and right, for the minimal thing.
There were games that were removed from Steam, and the developers banned from posting further games, because they posted a single review of their own game.
That, for Valve, is a bannable offense. It wouldn’t matter if the developer recognized their error and apologized, or deleted that fake review, they would be banned from doing business on Steam. No appeals, you were banned, and that was the end of it.
But, having developers and publishers publicizing their products on Steam, with false releases dates, when they are not launching on Steam in those dates, if at all (because they have exclusivity agreements), is apparently fine. As is having them using these pages for customer support of their… EGS releases.
I mean, it was known at least since earlier this month that WRC 8 was exclusive to the EGS. The official website and trailer had the EGS logo.
If you check Steam, the game still has a September 2019 release date:
This is the same publisher that did the same thing with The Sinking City, and even has a post in the main store page advertising the EGS release:
steamcommunity.com
Operencia was another example. The game even had a beta test running on Steam, and then… released as a EGS exclusive.
Despite that, until the game was released on the EGS, that game was always showing at the top, or near the top, of my Upcoming list of games on Steam (despite no longer being on my wishlist, and I choosing to ignore it).
Deep Silver and Ubisoft had pre-orders for games, only to remove them at the last minute.
Again, that is fine for Valve.
The difference in treatment between some indie developers, and others, in this case the ones that took an EGS deal, is perplexing.
Why don’t they have the balls to do something about it, and ban some of these developers/publishers from the store, like they did for lesser things to other developers?
Make a post advertising direct sales for your game? Get banned (or, at the very least, have that post deleted).
Mention other websites where the game is sold? You probably get your post deleted as well.
Post about your game launching on EGS? It's fine.
I mean, a while back, they were banning indie developers left and right, for the minimal thing.
There were games that were removed from Steam, and the developers banned from posting further games, because they posted a single review of their own game.
That, for Valve, is a bannable offense. It wouldn’t matter if the developer recognized their error and apologized, or deleted that fake review, they would be banned from doing business on Steam. No appeals, you were banned, and that was the end of it.
But, having developers and publishers publicizing their products on Steam, with false releases dates, when they are not launching on Steam in those dates, if at all (because they have exclusivity agreements), is apparently fine. As is having them using these pages for customer support of their… EGS releases.
I mean, it was known at least since earlier this month that WRC 8 was exclusive to the EGS. The official website and trailer had the EGS logo.
If you check Steam, the game still has a September 2019 release date:
This is the same publisher that did the same thing with The Sinking City, and even has a post in the main store page advertising the EGS release:
Steam :: The Sinking City :: Events
Operencia was another example. The game even had a beta test running on Steam, and then… released as a EGS exclusive.
Despite that, until the game was released on the EGS, that game was always showing at the top, or near the top, of my Upcoming list of games on Steam (despite no longer being on my wishlist, and I choosing to ignore it).
Deep Silver and Ubisoft had pre-orders for games, only to remove them at the last minute.
Again, that is fine for Valve.
The difference in treatment between some indie developers, and others, in this case the ones that took an EGS deal, is perplexing.
Why don’t they have the balls to do something about it, and ban some of these developers/publishers from the store, like they did for lesser things to other developers?
Make a post advertising direct sales for your game? Get banned (or, at the very least, have that post deleted).
Mention other websites where the game is sold? You probably get your post deleted as well.
Post about your game launching on EGS? It's fine.
Don't worry, I have no plan on supporting timed exclusivity.In case you don't like what Epic is doing: Control is still lots of fun to play next year. Meanwhile, you can visit our "metasteam" thread for other recommendations.
I kinda agree with you Funktion. I get that even when Valve said that Metro Exodus late Steam removal was unfair some people were saying 'hurr durr it's not unfair valve bad and big dumb' but it's past time for them to do something about games with a store page going exclusive, especially this close to release, like WRC. Something that will make those deals not be only pros for the publisher.I don’t care about BigBen, or Paranoia in particular, but the passivity from Valve regarding this kind of crap pisses me off.
I mean, a while back, they were banning indie developers left and right, for the minimal thing.
There were games that were removed from Steam, and the developers banned from posting further games, because they posted a single review of their own game.
That, for Valve, is a bannable offense. It wouldn’t matter if the developer recognized their error and apologized, or deleted that fake review, they would be banned from doing business on Steam. No appeals, you were banned, and that was the end of it.
But, having developers and publishers publicizing their products on Steam, with false releases dates, when they are not launching on Steam in those dates, if at all (because they have exclusivity agreements), is apparently fine. As is having them using these pages for customer support of their… EGS releases.
I mean, it was known at least since earlier this month that WRC 8 was exclusive to the EGS. The official website and trailer had the EGS logo.
If you check Steam, the game still has a September 2019 release date:
This is the same publisher that did the same thing with The Sinking City, and even has a post in the main store page advertising the EGS release:
Steam :: The Sinking City :: Events
Operencia was another example. The game even had a beta test running on Steam, and then… released as a EGS exclusive.
Despite that, until the game was released on the EGS, that game was always showing at the top, or near the top, of my Upcoming list of games on Steam (despite no longer being on my wishlist, and I choosing to ignore it).
Deep Silver and Ubisoft had pre-orders for games, only to remove them at the last minute.
Again, that is fine for Valve.
The difference in treatment between some indie developers, and others, in this case the ones that took an EGS deal, is perplexing.
Why don’t they have the balls to do something about it, and ban some of these developers/publishers from the store, like they did for lesser things to other developers?
Make a post advertising direct sales for your game? Get banned (or, at the very least, have that post deleted).
Mention other websites where the game is sold? You probably get your post deleted as well.
Post about your game launching on EGS? It's fine.
I'm fooling myself if I even think that they will do something regarding this, though. If they were to do something, they would have done after Metro. At least I'm pretty certain that WRC, Bee Sim and Paranoia won't make them review how they react to games being pushed one year on Steam due to an exclusivity deal with 'another PC store'.
So, the only solution for this whole situation is having our own storefront. This is it - MetaCouncil Store. 11.8% for us, 88.2% for the publisher, any payment fee is paid by the publisher and they manually send the game files through PM for whoever shows them a receipt of purchase. lashman will redirect about 10% of his funds that were previously directed to buying games on Steam to sign exclusivity deals so you can expect some big names here already.
There definitely needs to be "consequences" for these developers to stop them behaving the way they are. Right now they are having their cake and eating it too. Personally I would be entirely happy with Steam blacklisting developers and refusing to allow developers to create store pages for new titles unless they have an ironclad guarantee that said game is going to be released on steam at the same time as other stores. If a developer renegs on said deal then they get locked out of the steam store completely.
Because right now there is very little downside to developers fucking customers over. They get a big fat check from Epic and then can carry on as normnal on steam 12 months later. I think some devs will think twice if they are running the risk of losing access to steams market share.
Because right now there is very little downside to developers fucking customers over. They get a big fat check from Epic and then can carry on as normnal on steam 12 months later. I think some devs will think twice if they are running the risk of losing access to steams market share.
Re: Greedfall
On the one hand I can understand the 'concern' for the game's release on Steam, but I am of the mindset of wait and see, should the unfortunate happen, well I saved myself $40.
Otherwise, YuRiPa on suicide watch, and should rename themselves to KuSoHiMe cuz my 3 woman team gonna bring RIGHTEOUSNESS to Teer Fardee, and then Spira is nexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt~
On the one hand I can understand the 'concern' for the game's release on Steam, but I am of the mindset of wait and see, should the unfortunate happen, well I saved myself $40.
Otherwise, YuRiPa on suicide watch, and should rename themselves to KuSoHiMe cuz my 3 woman team gonna bring RIGHTEOUSNESS to Teer Fardee, and then Spira is nexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt~
I agree with both of you. Devs and publishers are actually abusing Steam for visibility, while f*cking them over with an exclusivity deal with Epic.
But I'm not exactly sure what Steam can do without raising a huge media storm against them. According to the media, accepting Epic's money is just a logical business decision.
I think Steam is hesitant to ban or remove these developers' store pages because they are still anticipating sales after the exclusivity period ends. Yes, they're being used for exposure, but what can Valve do that won't make them look like the bad guys in this? Nothing. As of now, once the release date passes, the developers will need to contact them directly to change it anyway, so they won't be able to play games with moving it around for continued exposure.
The devs are the focus of people on social media, their Steam discussion forum is spammed, and the game will likely get review-bombed on day one, which will prevent them for being recommended by Steam's algorithms for some time. Even with Valve's tool to dump Steam reviews during the review-bomb time-window, there is nothing to do if the time-window coincides with the release window of the game; there is no review prior to the review-bomb.
This is also one of the reasons why the dev of DARQ refused Epic's money hat.
We will see what happens for Hades and Ashen.
I think Valve is just playing a long game, which will be vindicated when Hades makes Supergiant more money on Steam than EGS.
Remember that, regardless of what third parties do, Valve has to maintain a relationship with them. While it'd be great karma if there was a tit for tat, and it's frustrating to see Valve just doing nothing, it's actually in Valve's best interests that the EGS exclusives sell better on Steam, because it weakens Epic's stance that developers can make games exclusive to EGS without Epic throwing around cash for exclusives. That, unfortunately, does require them to maintain good relationships with developers. If Valve start tightening the rules, it's a tacit admission that Epic's scheme is working and weaken's their stance.
But as it stands, no one is going to go EGS exclusive without serious risk mitigation by Epic. And Epic is hoping that it pays off in the long run and they no longer need to mitigate developers' risk, and they just go to Epic by default for the 88/12 split.
If developers still make more money on Steam than they would going EGS exclusive without the moneyhat, Valve's 20-30% cut is vindicated. That means Epic will need to accept games will have to be on both stores, which then opens the door to them getting their ass whipped on multi-store games.
Remember that, regardless of what third parties do, Valve has to maintain a relationship with them. While it'd be great karma if there was a tit for tat, and it's frustrating to see Valve just doing nothing, it's actually in Valve's best interests that the EGS exclusives sell better on Steam, because it weakens Epic's stance that developers can make games exclusive to EGS without Epic throwing around cash for exclusives. That, unfortunately, does require them to maintain good relationships with developers. If Valve start tightening the rules, it's a tacit admission that Epic's scheme is working and weaken's their stance.
But as it stands, no one is going to go EGS exclusive without serious risk mitigation by Epic. And Epic is hoping that it pays off in the long run and they no longer need to mitigate developers' risk, and they just go to Epic by default for the 88/12 split.
If developers still make more money on Steam than they would going EGS exclusive without the moneyhat, Valve's 20-30% cut is vindicated. That means Epic will need to accept games will have to be on both stores, which then opens the door to them getting their ass whipped on multi-store games.
Deleted member 113
Guest
Valve doesn't believe in reacting to anything.
That's why, I open my Steam front page, and I have WRC 7 being given top honours as a deal of the day.
From a publisher whose upcoming titles are all releasing elsewhere, not Steam.
I couldn't care less about backlash, media coverage, whatever.
I, as a customer that uses the store, would like to be able to open it, and not be flooded with direct or indirect advertising to a platform I don't have any interest to use. And, no matter if I select to ignore the games, or the developer, I keep having Valve present them on my front page. It's ridiculous.
Valve can't be arsed to do the most basic things, like allowing users to filter search results, so that games and DLCs that are already owned are not displayed. Or, not having games displayed on my front page, when both game and developer/publisher are ignored. Is it really too much to ask?
Additionally, I really disagree with how they've been reacting to this. Essentially, for a company that posted on the Metro Exodus store page that they believed what happened was "unfair" to their customers, by not doing anything, they are essentially allowing their customers to be treated as 2nd rate.
You look at what Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft did, and sometimes still do, and you see some of them only allowing games on their platforms that launch alongside the competing console's versions. Or, if they have exclusive content (plenty of games that were available on PC were only released on Switch after offering exclusive content). Heck, even EGS pretty much only sells games that are timed-exclusive to the store.
Why should Valve play the good guys, and allow all this to happen? So that their customers can get to play the games a year later, probably at the same price?
All this worry of visibility, and store placement, and all they are doing is allowing games to launch twice.
This is great for developer and publishers indeed: sales guarantee and/or an advance payment, and having two launches for their games, probably at the same price.
But for me, as a customer and Steam user, how is it good? Spending a year seeing direct or indirect ads to games that are unavailable, and the EGS, and then after a year they'll get more promotion, obscuring games I might be interested in, while being given the honour of buying them a year later?
All Valve is doing is encouraging the situation to continue, and aggravate.
For me, I own a few thousand games, I have plenty to keep me busy, so I couldn't care less.
But, is the future of the platform to be the store where you can get games a year after everyone else? That's a great calling card.
Stores/platforms are companies. And companies don't exist isolated/alone in the market, they need to compete.
I don't really agree with what Valve is doing, which is nothing.
They don't need do buy exclusives. But, some measures like "your game can't launch on Steam if it's provided "x time" before on other stores", or "if your game launched a year after everywhere else, you either need to have some new added content, or a significantly lower price, in order to sell on Steam".
Otherwise, Steam users are getting a raw deal, with Valve's blessing.
That's why, I open my Steam front page, and I have WRC 7 being given top honours as a deal of the day.
From a publisher whose upcoming titles are all releasing elsewhere, not Steam.
I couldn't care less about backlash, media coverage, whatever.
I, as a customer that uses the store, would like to be able to open it, and not be flooded with direct or indirect advertising to a platform I don't have any interest to use. And, no matter if I select to ignore the games, or the developer, I keep having Valve present them on my front page. It's ridiculous.
Valve can't be arsed to do the most basic things, like allowing users to filter search results, so that games and DLCs that are already owned are not displayed. Or, not having games displayed on my front page, when both game and developer/publisher are ignored. Is it really too much to ask?
Additionally, I really disagree with how they've been reacting to this. Essentially, for a company that posted on the Metro Exodus store page that they believed what happened was "unfair" to their customers, by not doing anything, they are essentially allowing their customers to be treated as 2nd rate.
You look at what Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft did, and sometimes still do, and you see some of them only allowing games on their platforms that launch alongside the competing console's versions. Or, if they have exclusive content (plenty of games that were available on PC were only released on Switch after offering exclusive content). Heck, even EGS pretty much only sells games that are timed-exclusive to the store.
Why should Valve play the good guys, and allow all this to happen? So that their customers can get to play the games a year later, probably at the same price?
All this worry of visibility, and store placement, and all they are doing is allowing games to launch twice.
This is great for developer and publishers indeed: sales guarantee and/or an advance payment, and having two launches for their games, probably at the same price.
But for me, as a customer and Steam user, how is it good? Spending a year seeing direct or indirect ads to games that are unavailable, and the EGS, and then after a year they'll get more promotion, obscuring games I might be interested in, while being given the honour of buying them a year later?
All Valve is doing is encouraging the situation to continue, and aggravate.
For me, I own a few thousand games, I have plenty to keep me busy, so I couldn't care less.
But, is the future of the platform to be the store where you can get games a year after everyone else? That's a great calling card.
Stores/platforms are companies. And companies don't exist isolated/alone in the market, they need to compete.
I don't really agree with what Valve is doing, which is nothing.
They don't need do buy exclusives. But, some measures like "your game can't launch on Steam if it's provided "x time" before on other stores", or "if your game launched a year after everywhere else, you either need to have some new added content, or a significantly lower price, in order to sell on Steam".
Otherwise, Steam users are getting a raw deal, with Valve's blessing.
Last edited by a moderator:
If they start tightening the screws, however, then Epic has made a dent. Right now Valve is in a position where they can wait and see - the sand isn't going to shift under their feet considering how garbage the so-called "disruptor" is, but they are a data driven company and if they have data that Epic could start eating their lunch by games launching on Steam a year later, then they will react.
Until then, they will just play the long patient game and let developers come to their own conclusion about where the best place to sell their games is without any coercion. Valve are clearly still confident that Steam is better than anyone else and most will come around after the Epic goldrush is over.
Until then, they will just play the long patient game and let developers come to their own conclusion about where the best place to sell their games is without any coercion. Valve are clearly still confident that Steam is better than anyone else and most will come around after the Epic goldrush is over.
Welp, PC version of Control has 85 on Metacritic, on one hand I'm glad that Remedy made a great game, on the other, I don't want to see more good games selling to Team Sweeney.
Deleted member 113
Guest
C-Dub, do you think that the lesson the developers/publishers will take, if the games still sell 1 year later on Steam, is that their next titles shouldn't be exclusive?
I think it's the exact opposite. I mean, their strategy is vindicated. They got an advancement and guaranteed sales from Epic, and one year later, they will still make money elsewhere, with a second launch. That's the perfect deal. And assuming Steam sales are much higher than the ones on the EGS, if you do the math, the exclusivity deal would be the best scenario (I mean advance + guaranteed sales on Epic + Steam sales > Slightly higher Steam sales + EGS sales).
I think it's the exact opposite. I mean, their strategy is vindicated. They got an advancement and guaranteed sales from Epic, and one year later, they will still make money elsewhere, with a second launch. That's the perfect deal. And assuming Steam sales are much higher than the ones on the EGS, if you do the math, the exclusivity deal would be the best scenario (I mean advance + guaranteed sales on Epic + Steam sales > Slightly higher Steam sales + EGS sales).
My rationale is this:
Regardless of whether the exclusive pays off or not, there will always be one scrub or another lining up to take money from some yahoos for some form of exclusivity. Game devs/pubs taking exclusivity contracts are like mice: you think you've killed them all and then five more pop up so long as someone's feeding them.
With the above in mind, stopping their food source is probably the best way of making them go away, and the best way to do that is to bleed Epic dry. They may have mountains of Fortnite cash, but they can't fight a war of attrition with Steam on these terms forever, because Fortnite's fortunes won't last forever, and that cash needs to be invested in the company's future rather than just setting it alight on a long and expensive war that may not yield any positive returns for them ever. That in addition to the fact that Tencent has a 40% stake in the company, and will want their dividends from Fortnite's cash. Epic literally cannot spend all that money on a PC games store because they have a responsibility to their stakeholder and they need to turn $1bn into $2bn in the magic capitalist scam of infinite growth. A loss-making PC games store will not be tolerated when that money could be invested in making the successor to Fortnite, or bolstering out UE5 or 6, or giving Tencent their ROI.
In short, I don't give a hoot about punishing developers for signing a deal that was clearly in their financial interest. And if they do away like bandits for it, then good for them. Because in the end, no amount of consumer punishment or backlash meted out against these guys is going to discourage someone inclined to take the money from taking it. They are just mice who can smell food. But if Epic is punished by people boycotting them, and then buying games on other stores, then they are killing their business plan dead.
Wrong, because as we've clearly seen doing nothing engenders editorials (hit pieces) on how Steam is stagnant and hasn't done anything in 1000000 years because Half-Life 2 Episode 3 (or something).
What Valve needs to do is wait for the first batch of EGS exclusives sell better on Steam, then throw an olive branch as some sort of positive PR.
Like they have the 30% cut dwindling down to 20%, they should offer an alternative revenue share where the game starts off at 20/80 then gradually goes up to 30/70 after revenue thresholds are hit. For most indies, they probably wouldn't get past the 25/75 threshold, and the successful ones will probably be delighted that their game has sold enough to pass it.
Just set it up so, before your game releases, you can pick one. 70/30 dwindling down to 80/20, or 80/20 gradually going up to 70/30. And once you've picked and released your game for sale, you can't change it.
In addition, Valve should open some sort of "Game Fund" that will give promising games an advance in sales on Steam, similar to what Epic does with EGS, but stipulate no store exclusivity as a term of receiving the cash. In short, they'll still be free to release on GOG, EGS and anyone else.
Sweeney loses a talking point, Valve gets a double whammy of positive press, and they can take the moral high ground.
Deleted member 113
Guest
And if Epic doesn't stop signing exclusives, despite losing money?
They are in it for the long run, you know...
Companies (and developers and publishers are companies as well) care for one thing: money. If you can get a deal that gives you an advance, guaranteed sales (meaning, zero, or close to zero, risk to your project), and a year later, you will get healthy sales on top of that, it's the ideal scenario.
It's so great, in fact, they would have no incentive to chance this, if another exclusivity agreement is presented.
The only thing that would make them think twice is a scenario were it would be easily demonstrable that going EGS exclusive meant a significant loss of sales. Like, if people don't buy the game one year later on Steam.
You can say "that would vindicate their move to go exclusive". Perhaps. But, if after this backlash, people actually skipped the games, it would definitely get them thinking.
I don't believe in rewarding bad practices.
I'm not going to pay, probably the same price, for a game that is 1 year old. You can say that it's still in Early Access and whatnot, but again, I'm not paying for a product that it's presented to me a year later.
It's like they are telling me "you were now granted the honour of paying us to get our product". Yeah, good luck with that.
Not when I have plenty of other things to buy, and I don't mean just video games.
Your logic ends up being "think of the developers", "let's reward the developers", a positive impulse will somehow make them see their wrong ways, and they will allow me to buy their game on day one next time.
My logic is simple: "don't want my money? Fine, I'll spend it elsewhere".
People get all worked up with these exclusives, post on the Steam forums, post here, post on twitter, some even make death threats. And, after all that, will apparently run and buy the games a year later, because that will make developers see the way.
Sorry, C-Dub, you have your view, and I'm not going to tell you what to do with your money.
But, I can't say I agree with it. Not when what you are proposing just makes all this exclusivity deals more enticing to the developers/publishers. Essentially, you believe in rewarding them twice.
Good game is good game, no matter where it sold. Then again Remedy (or 505?) looks like they need money, other than EGSclusives they also have PS4 exclusive content.
Valve does pre-paid Steam revenue with (some?) VR games iirc. They're okay with taking a loss on VR if it means boosting that ecosystem, but I doubt they're interested in doing the same for traditional games which is an already established market. It could also be interpreted as a monopolistic move, because sure they aren't forcing you to only sell on their store, but by virtue of being the largest store in the first place they can guarantee the status quo.
Exactly, which is why Valve can't afford to make enemies of the developers. Until they know how the first batch of exclusives plays out once they start hitting Steam, they're in no real position to start penalizing developers on the platform. Anything they do will be construed as them being spiteful against those who are "only doing what they must to stay afloat", They're in a lose/lose situation at this point. Right now, the only thing the media cares about are the "poor, poor developers", and the customers and storefronts (outside of Epic) can go to hell for all they care. The only thing that's going to make a difference is the success or failure of these indies once they make it back to Steam. And that can be a year or two in the making. We just need to stick to our guns and wait it out.
Personally I would prefer that Valve does absolutely nothing to placate developers. It will only lead to more outrageous demands and it won't stop anyone from taking Epic's moneyhat.
As much as I agree with you, tossing developers off their store for signing exclusives is pretty much against Valve's philosophy of letting developers do whatever they want. The only thing I'd like to see them do is shut down the community hubs for games that have signed exclusives, but I doubt that would ever happen because it would basically be setting a double-standard between devs who sell on Epic and everyone else.
I think ISee is right in saying that wanting Valve to fail is the Zeitgeist of our times, and nothing Valve can do can change that, only we as customers can by voting with our wallets.
Just so you know, Epic had a security breach that had a lot of usernames + passes leaked, so you might want to change those in case someones FortNite aimbotting on your account or whateverSo because I'm a bit interested in Control and because the PS4 version of the game won't be available in Asia region until God knows when, I tried to check EGS to see how much does it cost here in my country.
Okay, maybe I need to login first.
Goddammit the last time I visited EGS was weeks ago.
Nice store btw.
Personally I'm tired of Remedy making business decisions that f*ck over the pc gaming community. From Alan Wake going Xbox exclusive, Quantum Break being one of worst pc ports ever and now Control going EGS exclusive.
While one could argue that none of these decisions were made by Remedy, for me they resulted in losing my interest in their games completely.
I'm still not sure if I'll ever buy Hades or not, but Control and other publisher-backed games involved in Epic's exclusivity deals will stay on my ignore list forever. I really don't care anymore.
From my post in the Hades thread on Era:
Counterpoint to the "but after the guaranteed amount, they get 18% more out of a sale on EGS":
A little math (I hope I didn't mess up the calculation)
If a company still had 50,000 guaranteed sales and they price the game 20 bucks at Steam, they will make 700,000 bucks with a 70% share.
To get the same amount of profit from EGS through the fact of 18% less cut, they would have to sell an additional 195.000 units of the game on EGS, AFTER they sold the 50,000 units from the guarantee. So, 245,000 units after 1 year on the market
Sure, the money from the additional 145,000 (-50k guarantee, -50k Steam equivalent) sales on EGS would be cool, but how realistic is that 1 year after release?
Counterpoint to the "but after the guaranteed amount, they get 18% more out of a sale on EGS":
A little math (I hope I didn't mess up the calculation)
If a company still had 50,000 guaranteed sales and they price the game 20 bucks at Steam, they will make 700,000 bucks with a 70% share.
To get the same amount of profit from EGS through the fact of 18% less cut, they would have to sell an additional 195.000 units of the game on EGS, AFTER they sold the 50,000 units from the guarantee. So, 245,000 units after 1 year on the market
Sure, the money from the additional 145,000 (-50k guarantee, -50k Steam equivalent) sales on EGS would be cool, but how realistic is that 1 year after release?
Text to comment on that picture above.
Is the tide starting to turn? I there an actual fucking voice of reason out there? Or is it just a one time fluke?
The DARQ dev is fucking with Timmy on levels I could never dream of.
Really curious if anything happens there.
That guy is a f*cking hero. I can't respect him enough for what he's doing.
Betting it won't. Pretty sure the reason Epic does not want to "simship" games is because it will give verifiable proof that Steam sales trump Epic's by a vast margin.
Good point, the revenue would be public and that's not what Epic wants I guess.
Well, we could get info like that already from games like Outward (are there any more?). But they probably have NDA and can't disclose shit even vaguely.
But yeah he backed him in a corner there haha. Go ahead Tim, please respond:
Of course he could say yes then take a hit with a bunch of faked transactions (whether with alt accounts or just faking the info the dev sees) far surpassing Steam sales of the game just to spite the dev (and get the PR when he announces how much more he "had" to give to charity compared to Steam profits).
But yeah he backed him in a corner there haha. Go ahead Tim, please respond:
Of course he could say yes then take a hit with a bunch of faked transactions (whether with alt accounts or just faking the info the dev sees) far surpassing Steam sales of the game just to spite the dev (and get the PR when he announces how much more he "had" to give to charity compared to Steam profits).
Last edited:
I can see the reaction from Friends of the Devs now.
"Look at that bastard, wanting to donate money to charity."
"Look at that bastard, wanting to donate money to charity."
Massive balls. I like it.
i'm already seeing people saying it's a PR stunt
I can just imagine Sweeny screaming the F bomb over and over in his office right now. I can assure you that men like him don't know how to deal with someone who isn't ruled by greed.
Yeah, and Sweeny's original Tweet was a PR stunt too. Funny how nobody seems to give a shit about that. If he had just kept his mouth shut, the Darq dev wouldn't have had anything to respond to.
Jeez, its just giving money to charity, what a martyr
Do people think they're some kind of geniuses for realizing that?
Of course it's a PR stunt. He's using his platform to show that Tim won't give in and change the store's stupid rules.
It's a "stunt" and a good one.
Agree with the gist of it but, there aren't rules, they just do whatever whenever, say this and do that, backpedal and change constantly (never to our benefit).
Like said there already are non-exclusive games like Outward on EGS. They tend to avoid it for reasons already explained, I guess they thought it's low key.
Just wait, we're going to get news stories complaining about how the dev offering to donate his game's revenue to charity is nothing more than BS PR, and he should be ashamed of himself for using charity to improve his business's image since other developers aren't in the position to do the same, so it's making his indie peers look bad for his own benefit, or some shit.
Last edited:
Posted this innocuous jab on Era.
Got a "warning", that few minutes later turned into a 24h ban, which few more minutes later somehow turned into a two-weeks ban. Because it was clearly a serious infraction... I guess?
I regret nothing.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Got a "warning", that few minutes later turned into a 24h ban, which few more minutes later somehow turned into a two-weeks ban. Because it was clearly a serious infraction... I guess?
I regret nothing.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Yeah that place that "shall not be named" has become so twisted and bizarre now. I am kinda glad I got my 1 week ban because I ended up here and have never been happier to find a moderate home that actually cares about PC gaming rather than a forum where how much you smell a developers farts and like them consitutes how "woke" you are.
As for the latest development with the Darq developers. I had been umming and ahhing about buying the game. It really isn't my cup of tea and right now all my gaming time is taken up with gta 5 and no mans sky so even if I bought it I would probably never play it. Then the developer really showed his balls and I just had to buy it. So chalk up another purchase of Darq may even play it one day