News Epic Games Store

[Cordelia]

So a few days back EGS announced that devs could use they own payment method for in game purchase, that seems cool, surely Epic was doing that to help other devs.

Exclusive: Epic submitting Fortnite for Android to Play Store in hopes of special billing exception

In launching on Android last year, Fortnite could not be installed by simply going to the Google Play Store. Rather, the battle royale game...

9to5google.com

So Epic wants to be on Play Store but not pay the 30%, maybe Google will help out poor Epic.



Oh

Google says it won’t grant Fortnite an exemption to the Play Store’s 30 percent cut

Epic and Google are in public disagreement about distributing Fortnite on the Play Store with an exemption to Google’s 30 percent cut.

www.theverge.com

 

[Alextended]

Next step is Fortnite wanting to be on Steam but not paying the fee, so making millions for free (well, $1000), lol? Did Apple grant that?! I guess they could work around it by not having transactions in those versions at all, but having people unlock those for their account via a constantly advertised web store? Though it I guess defeats the point of wanting the attention from people who don't normally use other storefronts but just whatever is on App Store/Google Play store.

 

[ISee]

Epic doesn’t seek a special exception for ourselves;

We believe this form of tying of a mandatory payment service with a 30% fee is illegal in the case of a distribution platform with over 50% market share.

lol

The amount of attention seeking is getting ridiculous.

 

[eonden]

Epic trying to go that way about illegal is stupid. The main way something like that would be illegal is if Google prevented people from offloading / having other stores on phones by default, a thing Europe actually fined them for this decade. But if they want to try and sue Google over it have fun losing money as Google just shows how Fortnite is available in distribution platforms with 100% marketshare that use the 30% cut.

Next step is Fortnite wanting to be on Steam but not paying the fee, so making millions for free (well, $1000), lol? Did Apple grant that?! I guess they could work around it by not having transactions in those versions at all, but having people unlock those for their account via a constantly advertised web store? Though it I guess defeats the point of wanting the attention from people who don't normally use other storefronts but just whatever is on App Store/Google Play store.

Steam Direct is 100$ but Epic is a consolidated publisher so it wouldnt need to get the game approved through it, so it would be 0$ to publish a game. Apple grants 0 exceptions, heck they went on a battle with subscription services in their platform over the 30% such as Spotify!

 

[C-Dub]

This is just an Epic PR stunt - they knew Google would say no and the whole "illegal" thing is a talking point. The next step is to now release the Epic Games Store on Android because Google left them with no choice.

Sweeney has been shit-talking Google for a while now, and it's probably because they're ready to launch at the Keighleys or something.

 

[ISee]

Is Epic also calling out Apple?
Just curious because Tim's displeasure with relative open platforms like PC and Android is interesting.

 

[C-Dub]

He has made some remarks that he'd like Apple to open the platform, but he hasn't railed too hard against them just as he hasn't against Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft (on Xbox at least).

 

[Swenhir]

So what then stops all games from being free with in-app DLC content unlocking meaning they can all use all the stores for (near) free should that be adopted?

There's pretty much no way to classify limits that separate Fortnite micro transactions from things like that unless they make it so only pure cosmetics get a pass (so anything with even miniscule statistics doesn't which would obviously cause an uproar from all the developers that do have statistics in their DLC and why shouldn't they also get a pass and so on) but then why should the service provider be less "greedy" than the developer/publisher that sells such things?

You might as well call the fee a "single player campaign tax" at that point, like such games aren't already hard enough to come by depending on the genre (plus, yes it's risky, but you'd have the odd developer trying to still take advantage by making their single player game f2p with advertising "support-the-developer" cosmetic DLC, or if small statistic improvements are allowed then an RPG could give you an accessory of +1 conversing which is the only way to increase that beyond 0 for actual dialogue skill checks required to move past the intro, with that statistic and equipment slot devised solely for that purpose, and so on).

That is in my opinion a problem with the mobile market being a nearly unregulated clusterfuck that makes Steam's "lack" of curation look like an art museum, where horror stories of clones being more successful than the original seem to be allowed to happen. If me calling it tax is unsavory, then just call it a cut on MT/DLC.

On the other hand, I may have spoken too soon. I was very tired and had forgotten how Google Play worked at all, that some people have entire storefronts based on a free download. In which case, yes, a cut makes sense on in-app purchases. I still abhor how Google and mobile works in general as closed platforms, but yeah in this instance, they deserve each other.

 

[Kyougar]

To be fair, taxation is theft.

And who is paying for Schools, roads, and all the other government provided community services? It is the fairest system out there. Do you want to pay for every mile on the road? Do you want the white community in your city to pay for the school through "donations" and only allow whites to go to it (because it is a private school and they can decide who will go to it) If everything has to be paid by the individual, the poor would be less mobile, would have less chances in life. Racism would be more prevalent because the people who finance community services can decide who can use those.

 

[C-Dub]

Taxation is necessary. I wouldn't even call it evil. It is kind of benign and can be used as a cruel stick to beat the poor (see VAT and the Poll Tax in the UK) or as a way to make everyone pay a fair share towards public services we can all use. It can also be used for good or evil, such as the NHS or the Iraq War being two examples of the good and evil applications of tax money.

When Sweeney brands it as a tax he is of course harking to a certain business-oriented view.

 

[Cordelia]

Is Epic also calling out Apple?
Just curious because Tim's displeasure with relative open platforms like PC and Android is interesting.

No because it's a walled garden just like Sony.

 

[eonden]

This is just an Epic PR stunt - they knew Google would say no and the whole "illegal" thing is a talking point. The next step is to now release the Epic Games Store on Android because Google left them with no choice.

Sweeney has been shit-talking Google for a while now, and it's probably because they're ready to launch at the Keighleys or something.

Epic has already released the Epic Games Store on mobile (it is where their gacha game is currently failing to get traction). I think it is more likely they just want to lower player acquisition cost on Android as much as possible now that their playerbase is slowly decreasing.

Still, any secondary store on mobile will always fail to gain traction to become mainstream unless they get some mobile OEMs to bundle the store with their phones, at which point, they might as well just have their own store (such as Samsungs). Amazon tried with a ton more money and time to spend and failed, Epic based only on a hit title wont make it.

 

[Ge0force]

Ashen already dropped significantly in Steam's best selling list. There's also no promotion at all on the store page...

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

Epic went after Apple and Google's walled gardens a few years ago. Just before they put up their own Walled Garden.
Epic are just a bunch of attention-seeking, click-baiting hypocrits that moan about other people's behaviours before doing the exact same thing themselves.

 

[Kyougar]

Ashen already dropped significantly in Steam's best selling list. There's also no promotion at all on the store page...

Being in the top 20 for a few hours wasn't really that much of an achievement. super-niche titles can get into the top5 on their launch-day.

 

[C-Dub]

Epic has already released the Epic Games Store on mobile (it is where their gacha game is currently failing to get traction). I think it is more likely they just want to lower player acquisition cost on Android as much as possible now that their playerbase is slowly decreasing.

Still, any secondary store on mobile will always fail to gain traction to become mainstream unless they get some mobile OEMs to bundle the store with their phones, at which point, they might as well just have their own store (such as Samsungs). Amazon tried with a ton more money and time to spend and failed, Epic based only on a hit title wont make it.

The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning. However, it is only available to Epic games right now, not third parties. The EGS will properly launch when they start getting other games on their store.

Combine the two and it seems obvious to me that Epic is going after Google. Sweeney has already been laying the groundwork with talks of a monopoly and how the company is acting illegally and now we have this latest PR stunt.

In regards to Amazon, they have their own hardware that they bundled their store with - obviously they'd like to be dominant on Android too, but any Android users they have is just a minuscule boost to their ecosystem of low cost Fire devices. Epic is in a different position and will need to find other ways to get people using EGS on Android. That might involve moneyhatting high profile exclusives, or promotiong cross-buy between PC and Android as a feature, even going as far as paying OEMs to include the store on their devices.

And I don't buy the argument that OEMs could just do a Samsung and make their own store. Samsung is a lesson in why they shouldn't do it, and they've all probably weighed it up and decided it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean the OEMs won't take cash from someone to include their own store with their phones - there is a long and storied history of manufacturers bundling bloatware with their devices.

 

[eonden]

The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning.

Combine the two and it seems obvious to me that Epic is going after Google. Sweeney has already been laying the groundwork with talks of a monopoly and how the company is acting illegally and now we have this latest PR stunt.

In regards to Amazon, they have their own hardware that they bundled their store with - obviously they'd like to be dominant on Android too, but any Android users they have is just a minuscule boost to their ecosystem of low cost Fire devices. Epic is in a different position and will need to find other ways to get people using EGS on Android. That might involve moneyhatting high profile exclusives, or promotiong cross-buy between PC and Android as a feature, even going as far as paying OEMs to include the store on their devices.

And I don't buy the argument that OEMs could just do a Samsung and make their own store. Samsung is a lesson in why they shouldn't do it, and they've all probably weighed it up and decided it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean the OEMs won't take cash from someone to include their own store with their phones - there is a long and storied history of manufacturers bundling bloatware with their devices.

Amazon tried hard to pùsh Android store for years and ended up bailing out because it just wasnt possible to grow after a level, even trying to pay manufacturers to put their store in the devices. All the things you are talking about for possible growing the stores are things that Amazon tried to do, and was not succesful to.

I could see this being just a stupid PR move, but I dont see any viable path to make EGS store a thing on Android.

 

[C-Dub]

Amazon tried hard to pùsh Android store for years and ended up bailing out because it just wasnt possible to grow after a level, even trying to pay manufacturers to put their store in the devices. All the things you are talking about for possible growing the stores are things that Amazon tried to do, and was not succesful to.

I could see this being just a stupid PR move, but I dont see any viable path to make EGS store a thing on Android.

The difference is Amazon tried to be an all-purpose app store on Android. EGS will be a game-only curated store. I can see the appeal of having a store with only big budget games that you can also play on PC, at least a differentiator compared to Amazon's offerings.

And just because Amazon failed doesn't mean Epic thinks they will fail too. That Epic feels this way doesn't have to align with reality, as we've seen in the PC space.

 

[Álvaro de Campos]

And who is paying for Schools, roads, and all the other government provided community services? It is the fairest system out there. Do you want to pay for every mile on the road? Do you want the white community in your city to pay for the school through "donations" and only allow whites to go to it (because it is a private school and they can decide who will go to it) If everything has to be paid by the individual, the poor would be less mobile, would have less chances in life. Racism would be more prevalent because the people who finance community services can decide who can use those.

There's nothing fair about taxes. Forcing sovereign citizens to pay for a service they do not want (or use) under threat of incarceration is abuse. The rich pay more, yet the poor pay too much (proportionally speaking); the decisions on who benefits are all over the place too. Also the tax law is insane, taxing people when they make money, buy goods, gift goods, and even die; meanwhile corporations have all kinds of loopholes that allow them to get away with tax evasion.

Taxation was a system devised by the rich and powerful to serve themselves (this has been the case for 5000 years), don't let their paltry handouts fool you. Just mention Negative Income Tax (which is arguably more "fair" by your metric, it's like UBI for the poor) and watch how they squirm with excuses. This applies to corporations too, both are cancers feeding off the sweat of the working man (and woman), surplus value and taxes are identical. I honestly believe that with a proper system in place the downtrodden would have no need for taxes in the first place, unless they are failed by their communities, families and themselves (but that already happens anyway, since the current system fails them too).

That said, you're correct that as part of living in a society we must all agree on some kind of middle ground, or otherwise the most disenfranchised will bind together and attempt to flip the entire system on its head (if they have the power) which is why we have a lot of less-than-optimal rules and regulations. I may agree to taxation on a practical basis, but not on a fundamental one.

P.S. Please support your local worker co-ops, if any.

 

[Alextended]

Taxes as a whole being theft is a wholly different argument to unfairly distributed taxation, you can't conflate the two to reinforce arguments for one or the other. So yes, plenty will agree that the rich should be taxed more, and the poor less, and those without anything should be exempt, but not also agree taxes are theft.

Also, maybe make a thread about it in off topic.

 

[Álvaro de Campos]

Taxes as a whole being theft is a wholly different argument to unfairly distributed taxation, you can't conflate the two to reinforce arguments for one or the other.

Sure, but aside from "Forcing sovereign citizens to pay for a service they do not want (or use) under threat of incarceration is abuse." there really isn't much else to say, one either agrees or disagrees with that statement; the rest of my post is just my unhinged ranting on how taxes are actually stupid (in the way they're currently implemented, granted) and should be abolished anyway.

Also, maybe make a thread about it in off topic.

If one pops up I'll post in it, there's a lot I wanted to say on the topic of wage slavery too, but I honestly don't have the time to moderate such a thread.

 

[eonden]

The problem of "forcing people to pay for a service they do not want to use" will always benefit the rich people who create their own separate services not to pay for the communal services while the communal services die down as they work on economies of scale that get hurt when people are given the chance to not pay it.

 

[Swenhir]

The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning. However, it is only available to Epic games right now, not third parties. The EGS will properly launch when they start getting other games on their store.

Combine the two and it seems obvious to me that Epic is going after Google. Sweeney has already been laying the groundwork with talks of a monopoly and how the company is acting illegally and now we have this latest PR stunt.

In regards to Amazon, they have their own hardware that they bundled their store with - obviously they'd like to be dominant on Android too, but any Android users they have is just a minuscule boost to their ecosystem of low cost Fire devices. Epic is in a different position and will need to find other ways to get people using EGS on Android. That might involve moneyhatting high profile exclusives, or promotiong cross-buy between PC and Android as a feature, even going as far as paying OEMs to include the store on their devices.

And I don't buy the argument that OEMs could just do a Samsung and make their own store. Samsung is a lesson in why they shouldn't do it, and they've all probably weighed it up and decided it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean the OEMs won't take cash from someone to include their own store with their phones - there is a long and storied history of manufacturers bundling bloatware with their devices.

I think you are onto something, even though Epic is ridiculously, stupendously tiny and powerless against Google - as all corporations are, outside a few. I will however say that I agree with the criticism of walled gardens and the general state of Android. It also, incidentally, is what EGS could be seen as hoping for on the PC - as its master. I wish we could call Epic out more on their bullshit, but it seems Exclusivity is a misunderstood issue among the gaming mainstream.

Not, as luck would have it, in the PC gaming world. The pushback there has been pretty successful in my opinion.

 

[C-Dub]

Epic probably thinks it can make a splash on Android with the following:

• Fortnite
• Exclusives
• Cross-Buy with PC
• Paying OEMs to put EGS on Android as bloatware
• 88/12 for paid games and microtransactions going through Epic
• 100/0 on microtransactions if you want to put the infrastructure in yourself

And frankly I think there's less resistance to something like that on Android, because the gaming situation on Google Play is so dire that even Epic's shovel of shit is probably a better product than what Google offers. And considering Google Play doesn't have even a tenth of the human editorial or machine curation that the Apple App Store or Steam has, I reckon people may be more amenable to Epic as far as Android goes if they can filter out the garbage and fake games.

What's really sad is doing an Android and PC gaming store with cross-buy would be a hugely compelling feature for Epic, to the point that it might actually have convinced me to buy some games on their store over Steam just to have it on two platforms. It literally would've been one of the biggest gauntlets thrown down at Valve ever, and would've led to healthy competition. But exclusives on PC has really killed them for me, regardless of whether they are doing good work on Android.

 

[Álvaro de Campos]

The problem of "forcing people to pay for a service they do not want to use" will always benefit the rich people who create their own separate services not to pay for the communal services while the communal services die down as they work on economies of scale that get hurt when people are given the chance to not pay it.

Hence why we should eat the rich. The world doesn't need them anyhow, building their undeserved fortunes on the backs of the working class through force.

 

[InquisitorAles]

Tried to make some coverage of EGS anniversary with less bullshit than you see in some big media outlets:

It's kinda long video, 24 minutes, but I've tried to cover all the important stuff that happened in the past year. Hopefully, I didn't mess up with script and editing much, because I was staying till 3AM today while working on it because I slightly underestimate the time I'll need to write and record all this stuff.

 

[ISee]

Mechwarrior 5 came out today.
It's on place 16 on EGS, behind the beloved Rune II.
Well done Piranha Games, well done.

Meanwhile, Boneworks VR a niche game on niche hardware is number one on steam.

 

[eonden]

Mechwarrior 5 came out today.
It's on place 16 on EGS, behind the beloved Rune II.
Well done Piranha Games, well done.

Meanwhile, Boneworks VR a niche game on niche hardware is number one on steam.

Pretty sure the revenue list updates either every day or manually, as RDR2 also took like 1 day for it to appear on top sellers lol

 

[lashman]

Pretty sure the revenue list updates either every day or manually, as RDR2 also took like 1 day for it to appear on top sellers lol

Sergey said it's once a week, actually

 

[ISee]

Sergey said it's once a week, actually

This is surely helpful in finding new releases and things people are excited about.

 

[lashman]

This is surely helpful in finding new releases and things people are excited about.

 

[Swenhir]

Well, now that Hades is on Steam, we'll see how things go. I certainly won't be buying it. Their attitude toward the PC platform in having taken these deals is unacceptable, and this is the consequence I wish for them to hear in the only language they seem to care about.

 

[Deleted member 113]

Well, now that Hades is on Steam, we'll see how things go. I certainly won't be buying it. Their attitude toward the PC platform in having taken these deals is unacceptable, and this is the consequence I wish for them to hear in the only language they seem to care about.

Sadly, I think we've already seen how things will go.
As soon as the game launched, the majority of my friends list ran to purchase the game.

As usual, it seems people are bothered by these practices, but not enough to skip a fricking videogame.
Release a game a year later, for pretty much the same price (or higher, under the justification that it has more content now; any developer that updates their games with new content, say the Grim Dawn developers, should start increasing the price of their games, even if it's years after launch ), and people will still buy it.
Because, just think of the poor developers!

The guys that took these deals really got the best of everything: they got a significant amount of funds from Epic, possibly some more funds from sales on their platform, a lot of free publicity from the exclusivity deal (and the "backlash" that followed; I say "backlash", because let's face it, by now it's clear it was less of a backlash, and more of a twitter "hissy fit", since most people never followed through with their boycotts or promises of "ignoring" the developers), they got to have a second launch (after the exclusivity period was over), with healthy sales (as if the game is not a year old product), and they'll surely get the usual later income from discounted sales + bundles.

Meanwhile, those indie developers who didn't "win the Epic lottery" are left with barely any publicity/visibility, and struggle to get any sales on their one and only launch, let alone a year later.

People complain about industry practices, like microtransacions, pay-to-win mechanics, platform/retailer exclusive content, and whatnot.
But, they end up supporting all these. Why would these developers, or publishers, change anything, if no matter what they do, people will keep purchasing these games and content?

 

[Ge0force]

Sadly, I think we've already seen how things will go.
As soon as the game launched, the majority of my friends list ran to purchase the game.

As usual, it seems people are bothered by these practices, but not enough to skip a fricking videogame.
Release a game a year later, for pretty much the same price (or higher, under the justification that it has more content now; any developer that updates their games with new content, say the Grim Dawn developers, should start increasing the price of their games, even if it's years after launch ), and people will still buy it.
Because, just think of the poor developers!

The guys that took these deals really got the best of everything: they got a significant amount of funds from Epic, possibly some more funds from sales on their platform, a lot of free publicity from the exclusivity deal (and the "backlash" that followed; I say "backlash", because let's face it, by now it's clear it was less of a backlash, and more of a twitter "hissy fit", since most people never followed through with their boycotts or promises of "ignoring" the developers), they got to have a second launch (after the exclusivity period was over), with healthy sales (as if the game is not a year old product), and they'll surely get the usual later income from discounted sales + bundles.

Meanwhile, those indie developers who didn't "win the Epic lottery" are left with barely any publicity/visibility, and struggle to get any sales on they one and only launch, let alone a year later.

People complain about industry practices, like microtransacions, pay-to-win mechanics, platform/retailer exclusive content, and whatnot.
But, they end up supporting all these. Why would these developers, or publishers, change anything, if no matter what they do, people will keep purchasing these games and content?

Well said. But at least your friends didn't purchase Hades from EGS. While Supergiant becomes better from the exclusivity deal, Epic doesn't if the majority of people still buys the game on Steam.

 

[Joe Spangle]

The only 'positive' from people buying a year later on Steam seems to be that they didn't buy on eggs and so I wonder how long Timmy will keep up the moneyhatting if people arent buying. And once that stops these games are back in the competition pool with all the other games.

 

[Deleted member 113]

But at least your friends didn't purchase Hades from EGS. While Supergiant becomes better from the exclusivity deal, Epic doesn't if the majority of people still buys the game on Steam.

Is that supposed to be any "consolation"?
I really don't feel like it is.

So, supposedly only one of two entities majorly profited from a shitty practice. I say supposedly, because I still believe the only lesson developers and publishers will take from this is that the best scenario is to continue to release exclusively for a year on the EGS (thus, a win for Epic), and launch elsewhere a year later.
How is that any good? Am I supposed to cheer for a developer who engages in a shitty practice?

I really don't get why people are all like "let's all go and buy this game a year later, to show it sells better on Steam".
Again, this is rewarding a developer who engaged in a shitty practice.

Why isn't everyone going "let's support other developers, who treat me well as a customer, and don't pull crap like this" instead?
No, those developers don't get any of the support, sales, and publicity. No one cares about those games. People wait to get those games on bundles for next to nothing, or when it's 80%-90% off on a sale.
But Supergiant, now there's a company worth supporting. Here, there's not even a publisher to blame (like people like to do with other EGS exclusives, where when it's a highly anticipated game, the developers are never to blame, and never had any say, and it's all the publisher's fault).
Even people who usually skip games that launch on Early Access (not even if they are already content complete, and just missing some polish and tweaks) are running to buy Hades!

Honestly, I don't know why this thread got 160 pages of "indignation" about all this EGS crap.
Many of the people who posted here already went and bought either, or both, of the former EGS exclusives, so again, what's the point?

Let's admit (most) people couldn't care less about any of this, and whatever these developers/publishers do, people will still flock to purchase these games.

 

[fantomena]

In case of Hades, there were no switcharoony or anything, the game was announced as EGS 1 year exclusive from the get go.

My personal thoughts ar every simply and I know some of you will agreed with it: I want to play games, but not on EGS, so I will wait till they hit Steam to buy them.

 

[Dandy]

In case of Hades, there were no switcharoony or anything, the game was announced as EGS 1 year exclusive from the get go.

My personal thoughts ar every simply and I know some of you will agreed with it: I want to play games, but not on EGS, so I will wait till they hit Steam to buy them.

This is where I am as well.

The only exceptions are when developers screw over their customers(ie: Phoenix Point), or act like jerks(ie: Ooblets).

 

[fantomena]

This is where I am as well.

The only exceptions are when developers screw over their customers(ie: Phoenix Point), or act like jerks(ie: Ooblets).

Yeah, I can definetly see those as exceptions.

 

[Alexandros]

The important thing is that games flop on EGS. That alone is enough to send a very clear message. A former exclusive's sales on Steam can be used to reach whatever conclusion one wants. However, having already witnessed the narrative that was ready to form around RDR2 on Era ( "people that wanted to play it already bought it on other launchers and didn't wait for Steam, ergo no one cares about launchers" )I am leaning towards the opinion that strong sales on Steam after the exclusivity period is over isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Again, the important thing is that the games flop on EGS. As I've argued many times in the past, Epic is the party most likely to back out of those deals first, not developers.

 

[Ge0force]

Is that supposed to be any "consolation"?
I really don't feel like it is.

So, supposedly only one of two entities majorly profited from a shitty practice. I say supposedly, because I still believe the only lesson developers and publishers will take from this is that the best scenario is to continue to release exclusively for a year on the EGS (thus, a win for Epic), and launch elsewhere a year later.
How is that any good? Am I supposed to cheer for a developer who engages in a shitty practice?

I really don't get why people are all like "let's all go and buy this game a year later, to show it sells better on Steam".
Again, this is rewarding a developer who engaged in a shitty practice.

Why isn't everyone going "let's support other developers, who treat me well as a customer, and don't pull crap like this" instead?
No, those developers don't get any of the support, sales, and publicity. No one cares about those games. People wait to get those games on bundles for next to nothing, or when it's 80%-90% off on a sale.
But Supergiant, now there's a company worth supporting. Here, there's not even a publisher to blame (like people like to do with other EGS exclusives, where when it's a highly anticipated game, the developers are never to blame, and never had any say, and it's all the publisher's fault).
Even people who usually skip games that launch on Early Access (not even if they are already content complete, and just missing some polish and tweaks) are running to buy Hades!

Honestly, I don't know why this thread got 160 pages of "indignation" about all this EGS crap.
Many of the people who posted here already went and bought either, or both, of the former EGS exclusives, so again, what's the point?

Let's admit (most) people couldn't care less about any of this, and whatever these developers/publishers do, people will still flock to purchase these games.

I understand your frustration; money hatting is a shitty practice and I want it to fail as well. That's why I've also decided to blacklist any games involved in Epic's exclusivity deals permanently. There are plenty of other great games to play on pc, much more than I have time to play them.

This said, I understand why small developers like Supergiant accept Epic's money. Developing games is hit or miss, so financial stability can be a blessing. In Supergiants case, I'm pretty sure sure Pyre sold way below expectations. So while I won't buy Hades, I'll be happy to buy their future games if there's no exclusivity deal involved.

I also understand why many people are buying Hades on Steam. First of all, many people don't mind exclusivity deals because they benefit the developer or because they don't mind waiting a year. For other people it's rather about boycotting Epic because of their strategy or bare bones storefront.

At this moment, Epic is the only storefront money hatting 3rd party games. So if this fails to gain popularity for EGS, the practice may completely die on pc. So yes, people buying Hades on Steam instead of EGS is a consolidation imo.

 

[Cordelia]

We need numbers though. Right now people are like "steam fanboys who boycott EGS is just a very loud minority".

 

[lashman]

We need numbers though. Right now people are like "steam fanboys who boycott EGS is just a very loud minority".

we won't get any official ones ... i'm like 95% sure they all have complete NDA on numbers in their egsclusivity contracts

 

[C-Dub]

When it comes to buying EGS exclusives once they go elsewhere, I tend to take a case-by-case basis.

I also feel the most expedient way to make exclusives go away is to make them poor value for money for Epic.

When the industry is such a shit-pit it's hard to teach anyone a lesson when Epic is dangling moneybags in front of them. You can punish one dev and they may not take a moneyhat again, but that won't stop another developer from taking it, because it is sensible risk mitigation.

But if Epic sees their former exclusives doing well on Steam they will eventually have to decide if paying for them is worth their while.

 

[eonden]

I am not gonna boycott EGS games that launch later on Steam, however my hype and mentality on them is different. Good luck trying to sell me a 1 year old meh game for full price.

 

[Digoman]

Disclaimer: I did end up getting Hades (in part because of some very good regional pricing that I'm always scared will be "corrected" later), but not Ashen, though to be fair that game didn't interest me that much.

I don't know if you can send a "message" either way. If the game sells well on Steam but not on EGS, developers/publishers can say nothing was lost with the deal. If it sells bad on Steam, than they can also see the deal as the reason they saw some profit instead of looking at any other reasons for the failure.

So for each game I weight how much I want to play it with my dislike for exclusivity deals, and more importantly, how the developers treated their customers after taking the bag of cash. The result can be "buy when releases on Steam if the price is good", or "only when it's 70% off" or even "never".

Hades excuse for using EGS as a "early access" was bs, but compared with what came after, it was somewhat tame. I enjoyed Bastion and Transistor a lot (couldn't really get into Pyre), the price over here was nice, so I end up buying it.

As others have noted, I think the essential here is for the games to fail to get an audience on EGS, so maybe, just maybe, they decide that spending all that money isn't the best strategy. I don't think that will happen anytime soon, but it is probably more realistic than to hope that publishers and indie developers start turning down the trucks of money - with the exception of course when they are actually after active users like Microsoft is.

That being said, the point that it is important to support developers that aren't "chosen" by Epic and are also releasing good games is very valid. I have some indie/medium budget games that I bought on release to support and haven't even played yet, but in this area I can probably do better

Unfortunately now we have not only the "I will wait for a bundle" philosophy, but also "I will wait to be on the Gamepass that I got for free/$1".

 

[unknownhero]

initially, I was on the boycott train. Now though, if the devs weren't pricks and if the game is interesting enough to me then I'll buy it on steam eventually.

 

[Cordelia]

Currently the only game on my block list is Ooblets.

 

[bobnowhere]

I'm not touching a game until it's reaches the same price/discount it was on Epic during sales etc...

 

[Tizoc]

This recent EGS talk these past couple of posts is some chick fil a shit.