News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
I think you have misunderstood what I was saying and I don't blame you. I meant that as far as directly personal consequences go. I also think you're saying this to the wrong person. There are no words for the contempt and revulsion I have at his actions. I have been a very vocal critic of him since this bullshit broke out both here and on other forums.
On the other hand, I also am very aware of where Epic stands in the engine business. Support is indeed the reason Unreal is still so popular and I remember Unreal 3 being adopted on the pure virtue of being able to get answers on their forums. Long story short, I get it and I know. However this is something I cannot agree with.
If what you are saying truly amounts to calling people who are dejected by Epic's tactics Steam fanboys who only care about their Steam library, you truly haven't understood what this was about. The problem is maddeningly simple, it's about doing the right thing. Third party exclusivity on PC, an open platform, is wrong and leads to terrible consequences if it gets normalized. It has nothing to do with Steam. Hell, they are the least threatened by Epic and it's the smaller platforms that risk going under first.
I also don't think you can speak for the whole games development community. Again, there is a difference between the Epic working on UE4 and the Epic passing deals behind studio's back and burning their entire lifetime of goodwill. This whole narrative of "Epic is good and widely loved by the gaming industry community" is wearing thin.
What has Valve done for them? Opening the floodgates, providing them with a distribution platform, with features that allow them to interact with their community. I can't possibly agree with the implied reality of what you are saying and it seems disingenuous to me. Saying that people trust Epic's leadership, especially in light of their recent actions with EGS is an ambitious claim. Many developers had to reassure their fans that they weren't going to sign with Epic. Some have expressed personal views against Epic and the impact Epic has had on crowdfunding can't be understated. Point is, you can't in good faith say that Epic is the face of baby jesus to the gamedev community right now. People sure as hell don't trust their leadership, especially with the characteristics Sweeney is showing to the world right now.
TL;DR : Having an amazing engine team and support doesn't translate to the store nor Epic being widely regarded as a good partner as a whole. Apples and oranges.
I'd argue most console warriors, for instance, aren't intimately familiar with the corporate leadership of their console of choice. Most Apple fans don't know who the CEO of Apple is. They're loyal to the brand. Most people are primarily loyal to brands. Sometimes the individual is the brand, but that's the exception, not the norm.
Fortnite has completely redefined the multiplayer landscape and consumer expectations of multiplayer development cycles. Thanks to Epic and their somewhat concerning crunch-driven development cycles, consumers now expect game to receive significant weekly updates, and for issues to be rapidly addressed. The oldschool approach where you release a game, go silent for a month, release some new content, go silent again, etc now results in massive audience backlash. Everyone marches the beat of Fortnite's drum now. Which is not a good thing, but it is what it is. Fortnite and PUBG together also had a huge impact on making mobile TPS gaming extremely relevant and lucrative, forcing Activision to get on the bandwagon with Call of Duty Mobile. It was two-pronged, basically. Fornite made mobile gaming hugely relevant in English speaking countries on Apple platforms. PUBG Mobile made mobile gaming (which was already hugely relevant) even more relevant in non-English speaking countries on Android devices. Absolutely insane revenue and user bases in the hundreds of millions.
Fallout 3 was a Games For Windows title. New Vegas was a Steam exclusive. I was unhappy at the time because I had to take my PC to a friend's house to use their internet to install a game. I highly doubt Obsidian had much say on whether New Vegas was a Steam exclusive or not. Those kind of decisions are almost always made by publishers. That is nothing new.
The Metro exclusivity deal, like most of Epic's deals, was about keeping the game off Steam for a year. That's why Metro Exodus is on Windows Game Pass. The nature of these deals has always been very apparent. (And the way it was handled with Metro was very awkward. It's very poor form to make that kind of deal after preorders have opened, although to their credit Steam preorders were honoured on Steam.)
This whole affair a direct and vicious attack on Steam, and that is why people invested in the steam brand are (understandably) so defensive about it. Their favorite game platform is having its spleen perforated by one of the most powerful companies in gaming. And the attacks are working. Epic is not slowing down. This isn't some phase like Bethesda removing their games from Steam and then changing their mind. Bethesda can't take those kind of risks anymore, so they backed down. Epic have endless money, and endless power and influence. They have a vendetta against Valve. That much is very apparent.
When Borderlands 3 releases in September, it is going to be massive. It will sell millions and millions of copies. The chances that RDR2 ends up being a timed Epic exclusive is pretty strong. It's just gonna snowball. I am pretty confident that Epic are probably gonna snag stuff like STALKER 2, as well unless Microsoft come along with an offer.
6% of developers polled at GDC agreed that Valve was earning the 30% cut they were paying. Valve do good work, but their popularity is sinking with the developers who use their platform. This discontentment has been brewing for the past 2-3 years. Maybe longer. Developers are unhappy with several aspects of how Steam is run. Now it goes without saying that just because publishers and developers want something doesn't mean that something is inherently good. But Valve are losing the goodwill of developers and developers who don't like Valve very much are even more likely to jump ship to the Epic "FREE MONEY" Store. The indie scene is especially disgruntled. Also, there's a growing disdain for the community and culture that Valve has fostered. It is seen as racist, outrage prone, and generally unpleasant to deal with. (I personally think forums are absolutely essential and play a key role in troubleshooting, technical support, and modding and all that good stuff. The good outweighs the bad, ultimately.)
No that many. And how many developers have ummed and awwed on the situation before inevitably signing deals with Epic? Rebellion, who have stated that, "Upsetting a few people isn’t necessarily bad," is just the most recent. Remember when Take Two pretended they didn't have plans to sign such deals? They were just oiling the squeaky wheels while the paperwork went through. Don't mistake developers and publishers placating upset people for them actually caring. They will tell people what they want to hear.
Crowdfunding has been in decline for several years because projects kept failing to deliver or disappointing. It was always primarily a mechanism for "indicating interest" to potential investors rather than a true funding technique. (It led to woeful misconceptions about how much games cost to make.) To some degree its role will probably be taken over by companies like Epic paying a few million dollars in exchange for timed exclusivity. Over the next few years we are going to see the major players such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Epic, and so on pay for content. Content is going to become the measure of value. It's about having content the other service doesn't.
Some argue this will lead to piracy based on the logic associated with streaming TV, but this is extremely unlikely because the barrier to entry is so low. For most people, the choice between Epic, Origin, Steam, Uplay, Bethesda Launcher, etc is minimal. They will go where the content is. If you buy a game physically, most people aren't going to care if the game installs via Uplay or Origin. It's just the launcher that gets them to their game. As long as the platform works properly, everything will be fine. This is where MS repeatedly screwed up with technical dumpster fires like GFWL and the Microsoft Store.
edit:
As some others have noted in this thread, the emotions around Epic vs Valve on the internet are clearly more than normal people talking about two companies having an arguably very petty tiff (Sweeney's attitude towards Valve reveals someone who clearly has a bone to pick) and one company throwing around money to buy its way to victory. People become emotionally and financially invested in brands. There is overlap with stuff like mobile gaming. Why are some people so deeply offended by developers making mobile games? Alien: Blackout comes to mind. Why did people react so emotionally and negatively to its existence? Because their emotional and financial investment in PC gaming or console gaming is being threatened by mobile. They see the success of mobile games as a direct threat to their way of life. Alien: Isolation 2 had been stolen by this mobile usurper sequel. The economic realities that drove the game's creation didn't really matter. Its existence was unwelcome. People feel this moral responsibility to wage war on stuff like mobile games or The Epic Games Store out of fear that if they don't fight this crusade, their way of life is going to come to an end. They feel like their entire hobby is at stake. The deep rooted fear is that the games industry as a whole will leave them behind. Nobody likes being left behind. It's a very depressing feeling. Just picture me silently crying into my Rainbow 6: Raven Shield pillow.
Last edited:
I think you're downplaying the issue people have with the EGS, while painting them as brand loyal sheep.
You didn't see people riot against Origin and screaming "no steam, no buy" when Mass Effect 3 or Anthem launched. You don't see people complaining about the new GOG project. People bought Fallout 76 from the Bethesda Launcher and they will buy the new Jedi Knight game and Doom Eternal.
Those brand loyal people seem to be able to adept and willingly use other store fronts, I'd even go further and claim that many people don't even buy through steam, but from key sellers instead. Steam is just a client to them that allows them to turn in keys, offer cloud saving, linux support, family sharing, chats, friends list, community sites etc.
But they did speak out against UWP in the form of the Windows Store and they're fighting the EGS.
True PC brand loyalty exists, but not to the extend we see in the mobile market. Most PC costumers are willing to switch if the offered product is better than the competition. Take Intels CPU monopoly as an example, for about 10 years PC Gamers bought Intel CPUs and the blue team dominated the market. Things have changed in the last few years and we are now more in the 50:50 range, according to many, big retailers.
You see, PC is an open market. "PC Gamers" aren't just mindless Gabe fans. They tend to choose their own hardware, they often enough build themselves, they are used to being able to download and install software from any website. Everything that tries to force them into something will be fought. This is the most important fact Tim overlooked. He confused the mobile Smartphone and the PC gaming market. He thought that we are in a Apple vs Android Situation, but with Apple dominating the market. He thought people are unreasonable fan boys and the only way to change something was to apply force. In fact the EGS had a chance to become the new darling, just like AMD managed to go from meaningless to exciting. But Tim don't understand and underestimated his costumers and most importantly started to treat them like enemies and to antagonize them. But it's not Tim's fault, he did nothing wrong and his strategy was reasonable and understandable. It's just those fan boys, those stupid, unreasonable sheep. They are nearly as bad as flat earth believers.
If you're a developer: You're underestimating your own clients as well , people aren't as dump as marketing companies like to paint them. They are willing to adopt, learn and make decision based on logic.
Software costumers are developers in other fields after all: They make engines, develop technology, fly planes, build complicated electronics. Software development isn't the peak of human intelligence, like Tim might think. If you're able to afford an expansive gaming PC, chances are high you aren't stupid.
Good luck treating the people that are providing other products and services to you like idiots.
A number of people asserted that they weren't going to buy games on Origin and Uplay during the first few years. A number of Origin exclusive titles such as Syndicate 2012 and Crysis 3 were massive flops on PC. Even today you still have people upset that all Ubisoft games must be run through Uplay, and there are threads on the Far Cry 3 Steam forums accusing Uplay of being spyware, much like you're seeing nowdays with other stores.
What you're overlooking, I feel, is that Epic's actions are calculated to inflict maximum damage upon Valve as a company. This is unprecedented. EA parted ways with Valve due to disagreements over how updates were handled on Steam. Bethesda experimented with their own launcher because they wanted more money. None of that was really hostile.
Epic is hostile to Valve. I'm not entirely sure why, to be honest. This goes beyond corporate disagreements. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars for the primary purpose of hurting Valve and "disrupting" the industry. (Disruption is a tech buzzword for lower wages, less employee protection, and all that capitalist nonsense.) Yes, they have other goals like supporting indie developers and establishing themselves as a storefront. Sweeney is to some degree a philanthropist as evidenced by this environmental stuff. His support for indie devs appears to be sincere. But this hate for Valve is also real. And this is the root of the problem. Why this won't blow over. Epic is not trying to compete with Valve so much as destroy Valve's business model. People with an emotional investment in Valve and Steam as a platform (and I myself like Steam, like quite a few of Valve's policies) are perturbed by Epic declaring war on Valve. They don't necessarily know how to articulate this. But that's what's going on. Metro Exodus is on the Epic Store and the Microsoft Store. The Division 2 is on The Epic Store and Uplay. You'd gonna see heaps of Epic exclusives show up on MS Game Pass. It's not about making games exclusive to the Epic Store, although that's a part of it. Epic will keep some stuff for themselves. (Although their timed exclusive approach makes them a lot of friends because publishers don't feel trapped.) Their current tactic is predominantly focused on making sure that Valve can't have things. They didn't pay for Metro Exodus to keep it exclusive to The Epic Store. They paid to keep it off Steam in particular. Everyone else can have it. Just not Steam. That is spiteful and malicious behavior, but it is effective in the long run. Adding value to your own service is one approach. Removing value from your competitor's service is another, more subtle approach.
gotta love capitalism ... NOT!
I admitted and agreed that brand loyalty exists, to a degree. I disagree though that it's the most important factor why the EGS opposition is big and vocal. Even aggressive to certain degrees.
For Syndicate 2012: A beloved strategy, management, RPG series was turned into a FPS. I think there were other reasons why the game flopped, like a complete game redesign. The game also didn't sell well on consoles afaik.
Crysis 3: Not even Cevat Yerli thinks that exclusivity was at fault. Crysis 1 received a 91% on meta critic, while crysis 3 only received a 78%. Blaming bad sales on exclusivity, while even professional reviewers didn't "feel" the game is a bit far fetched. To quote Yerli:
"When it (Crysis 1) launched in 2007, only on PC, it was released against first-generation Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games. Thanks to that, "it was so different to others that the relative impact it created was so much more bigger than Crysis 2 or Crysis 3," Yerli says.
And if there's one thing you just can't compete with, it's the subjectivity of human memory. "So, for me, the relative impact that Crysis 3 has created is lower than what Crysis 1 did. But I would think at any level it's better than Crysis 2, and it's certainly still better than Crysis 1. People remember Crysis 1 much bigger than it was, because it had a high impact," Yerli says."
And yes, there was opposition to uplay and origin on release. Still, both clients are well accepted and used today. In some ways people are more used to not using steam today then ever before. A golden opportunity to release a new one, because others already paved the way.
Oh no, you have to be blind to not see that. But Epic attacking Steam and people rioting against the EGS is a correlation: There is certainly a connection between those two things. But you are going one step further:
1. Epic is attacking Steam
2. People like Steam
3. People dislike Epic
--> People dislike Epic because they like Steam. (your conclusion)
But the conclusion isn't the result of the explicit stated requirements. You are making a big, logical jump here and coming to a preemptive conclusion.
We have to look at the whole situation from a time line.
When EGS was announced reactions weren't enthusiastic but also not negative. They offered free games, made some promises about improving the industry and the 88-12 split. Then came the Metro exclusivity and the rioting started. Not because costumers were defending Steam, they were against third party exclusivity in general. At this point in time the idea that epic was set on damaging just valve was more of a tinhead foil conspiracy. As you said: It's kind of strange and illogical. Phoenix Point for example was taken down from both Steam and GOG (and still is).
Most people assumed Epic was trying to monopolize PC distribution under their own reign. That probably changed once Metro Exodus became part of Game Pass, for 1€. The hatred agains steam became obvious, several months later. But the "fuck epic movement" started earlier.
Are they really? Are they? If they were working, you can bet your ass off Epic would tout their own horn with actual units sold numbers, wouldn't have to rapidly change their stance on sales and wouldn't have to change the 'let's bribe users to use our store' from biweekly to weekly.
You say many thing that I think are baseless but in particular you keep repeating this. That people who oppose Epic only do so because they are attached with Steam and you even deny them their own agency when saying that "they don't necessarily know how to articulate this. But that's what's going on."
Come on. You know perfectly well that the problem we have with EGS has nothing to with Valve. The problem is specific to PC in that 3d party exclusivity tactics are bullshit, toxic and for all their "subtlety" they are still wrong.
Also, there was never any such thing as a "Steam exclusive" from a 3rd party studio or publisher. You had, at most, a game only being distributed on Steam because the product owner refused to put it on GoG or have their own distribution platform. Epic are the one and only actor in the PC space to ever pull what they are doing in the history of the platform.
Precise sales figures are not commonly shared in the games industry. Also, we have sales figures for stuff like World War Z. It's really up to the publisher to divulge sales. Epic don't disclose sales. Do you see Valve disclosing sales? No, because they don't have that right. Deep Silver isn't going to tell you how many copies Metro Exodus sold. They generally didn't tell you how many copies any of their games sold until the THQ Nordic buyout.
The trick with Epic's approach overall is that they don't need to sell games to achieve short term goals. Every game they can keep off Steam (albeit temporarily) hurts Valve. Epic pays developers so even if the game sells poorly, they're fine.
Borderlands 3 is going to be the game changer, I think. So far, Epic have focused on more niche indie titles. Borderlands 3 is the kind of game that will sell 15-30 million copies.
This has always been a weak argument. It's not without merit, but it's weak. There are endless third party games that are exclusive to Steam. Like I mentioned earlier, Bethesda chose to make Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim Steam exclusives, and while people like me without easy internet access were unhappy about it, people who liked Steam weren't kicking up a fuss. In fact, quite a few were happy that the games no longer used GFWL. Most Steam users have never had a problem with being forced to use Steam to play third party games. At least post-Orange Box boom.
The thing about exclusivity disputes in general is that for the most part it boils down to game I want on platform I don't want = bad exclusivity vs game I want on platform I do want = good/benign exclusivity.
The initial argument when the Metro Exodus situation broke was that the problem lay in gaining exclusivity of games that were available for pre-order on Steam. Metro was handled incredibly badly overall. If the game already has preorders open, you don't pull it from sale. That is just sucky form. But then the net expanded. Any game that had a Steam page, but became Epic exclusive became a target. Eventually literally any developer who signs an exclusivity deal with Epic faces backlash from an anti-EGS faction. If STALKER 2 were announced as an Epic exclusive tomorrow, a number of people would be angry because EGS is bad and games shouldn't be exclusive to it. Yet if STALKER 2 were announced as a Steam exclusive, there would no backlash. Some might argue, "Well, Valve wouldn't pay GSC for exclusivity and it's the paying that is wrong," but in the broad sense the "exclusivity is always bad" argument doesn't apply to Steam. And I think that says a great deal about the perception of Steam as the "default". Exclusivity to Steam isn't exclusivity. It's the status quo. Exclusivity only becomes a problem when it's exclusivity to services that aren't Steam. And granted the EGS is a not good launcher. The Windows Store was really freaking bad. But heck, that's another example of the cracks in the argument. Before Microsoft took the canny step of publishing all their games on Steam, literally every Microsoft game faced a chorus of "Will it come to Steam." No Steam, no buy, basically. It's only third party exclusivity that's a problem until suddenly it isn't. Suddenly it's a problem if first party PC games I want to play aren't on Steam.
There are significant differences between hardware platform exclusivity and software platform exclusivity, namely that a software platform doesn't cost 200-500 dollars. It really is just using a different (free) software platform. But look at console exclusivity. In 1997, Sony paid Eidos for console exclusivity of Tomb Raider until 2000. Why would they do that? To keep Tomb Raider off the N64, basically. They didn't care about the PC versions. Sega wasn't really a threat. They just wanted to undermine Nintendo. They did this again after the exclusivity expired, snagging Angel of Darkness as a PS2/PC exclusive. But at that point they also had competition from Xbox.
But then we fast forward to 2014/2015. And Microsoft announce Rise of the Tomb Raider as an Xbox One exclusive. And people were LIVID. How dare Microsoft give Square Enix millions of dollars to make Tomb Raider a timed exclusive. The fact that Sony did the exact same thing multiple times doesn't really get discussed. Because the truth is that most of the people angry about RotTR being a timed Xbox exclusive were not angry about the exclusivity itself, but rather that it was exclusive to a platform that wasn't their platform of choice. This is a fairly recurring pattern with exclusivity both paid and incidental. Some people are opposed to all exclusivity, but the trigger for outrage is almost always exclusivity to a disliked platform.
That isn't strictly true. In 2005, Valve paid Introversion to remove Darwinia from their website and sell it exclusively on Steam.
That is literally a Steam exclusive. If you release a game only on one platform, it ultimately doesn't matter whether you were paid for exclusivity or not. For example, back in the day, Metal Gear Solid 3 was a PS2 exclusive. Did Sony pay for that? Nobody knows. Did Sony pay for Persona 5 to stay off other platforms. Nobody knows. But it's an exclusive. If you want to play it, Sony's platform is the only place, emulation notwithstanding.
Back in the day, Amazon had a digital games service. One of the games they had was King Kong Gamer's Edition. KKGD is an Amazon exclusive. You can't buy it anymore because the service was shut down. The circumstances behind the exclusivity don't really matter. Did Amazon pay Ubisoft? Maybe? It's an Amazon exclusive regardless.
I'm not convinced that Epic's way of competing with Valve will work in a long-run, the latest batch of exclusives wasn't impressive at all and judging from all the policy changes and the trashfire they called sale the strategy isn't working as expected. Even with all the money they can sink into the black hole of EGS if it continues to perform at the current level sooner or later someone is ought to tell Sweeney that he better start making up for the losses and, as of now, EGS simply can't offer anything to anyone to justify its existence, a couple of high-profile exclusives (which they don't have) won't change that, at most it'll bring one-time buyers who'll never return to the platform again.
You are twisting the definition horribly. You know it, I know it and everyone reading this does as well.
Most of your quoting of me in the last page isn't part of my post (you only half-responded to like half a line), fix that. Edit: ok you fixed it.
And yes, of course there's a difference between being paid to make something exclusive to a lesser service in an attempt to sell potential fans of your games to its parent company, and making it exclusive to another based on your informed opinion that it's the best service for your game due to its developer features and user features that make said users willing customers, while maintaining full control of your product and being able to release it anywhere else you choose at the same time. Not to mention all the other retailers, physical and digital, that can then stock your game as you see fit, even if it's still a Steam key.
And yes, of course there's a difference between being paid to make something exclusive to a lesser service in an attempt to sell potential fans of your games to its parent company, and making it exclusive to another based on your informed opinion that it's the best service for your game due to its developer features and user features that make said users willing customers, while maintaining full control of your product and being able to release it anywhere else you choose at the same time. Not to mention all the other retailers, physical and digital, that can then stock your game as you see fit, even if it's still a Steam key.
Last edited:
An exclusive is defined by a third party signing a contract obligating him to release on only specific platforms. As far I know, Steam has never forced anyone to release only on Steam. I have no idea what Persona 5 has to do with any of it.
What does being exclusive to a closed platform from one manufacturer has to do with Epic butchering historically open platform like PC?
They can do the same thing with Epic keys.
If you release your game exclusively on the Epic Store, it is an Epic exclusive. It doesn't matter whether Epic paid you or not. If you release a game exclusively on itch.io it's an itch.io exclusive. Doesn't matter whether itch paid you or not. If you release a game exclusively on GOG, it's a GOG exclusive. Doesn't amtter if CDPR paid you or not. If you release a game and only sell it through Amazon, then it's an Amazon exclusive.
Far Cry: Instincts and Morrowind were Xbox exclusives. Arguing that they weren't exclusives on the grounds that Microsoft didn't pay for them is not logical. They were exclusive to the Xbox platform through the circumstances of their creation. Just as many Steam games became Steam exclusives through circumstance.
It seems that there is a bit of confusion regarding the nature of the relationship between publicher/developer and gamer. While publishers and developers have the ability and the right to choose where and how to release their products, customers have the ability and the right to not support or even actively oppose those choices. It is the industry's strategy to always put customers on the defensive by criticizing or mocking customer choice but customers should give absolutely zero fucks what the industry thinks. In brief:
As a customer I will do what I want and I don't have to explain myself to anyone.
The pattern is clear. The industry does a shitty thing, gamers react, then the industry attacks those that react and guilt-trips everyone else. Games launch in a broken or unfinished state? "Games development is hard, developers crunched for months, don't you feel sorry for them?". Games come riddled with microtransactions and lootboxes? "The industry is healthy, don't you want what's best for the people who make your favorite games?". Epic buys up exclusives? "Competition is good, this is better for developers, don't you care about them?". As for those who react and protest, it's always "a vocal minority of toxic manbabies that don't understand business. Gamers rise up!".
So my answer to all of the above is this. "Don't you feel sorry for developers?". No. It's not my responsibility to set realistic timetables, manage development properly and delay the release if necessary. Release a properly working product or go fuck yourself. "Don't you want what's best for the people who make games?". No. I won't support an industry that is thriving by addicting young or vulnerable people to gambling. Earn your money honestly or go fuck yourself. "Don't you care about developers?". No. I don't care because they're lining their own pockets by screwing me over. Offer me options or go fuck yourself.
As a customer I will do what I want and I don't have to explain myself to anyone.
The pattern is clear. The industry does a shitty thing, gamers react, then the industry attacks those that react and guilt-trips everyone else. Games launch in a broken or unfinished state? "Games development is hard, developers crunched for months, don't you feel sorry for them?". Games come riddled with microtransactions and lootboxes? "The industry is healthy, don't you want what's best for the people who make your favorite games?". Epic buys up exclusives? "Competition is good, this is better for developers, don't you care about them?". As for those who react and protest, it's always "a vocal minority of toxic manbabies that don't understand business. Gamers rise up!".
So my answer to all of the above is this. "Don't you feel sorry for developers?". No. It's not my responsibility to set realistic timetables, manage development properly and delay the release if necessary. Release a properly working product or go fuck yourself. "Don't you want what's best for the people who make games?". No. I won't support an industry that is thriving by addicting young or vulnerable people to gambling. Earn your money honestly or go fuck yourself. "Don't you care about developers?". No. I don't care because they're lining their own pockets by screwing me over. Offer me options or go fuck yourself.
Last edited:
Well, I see I'm not getting through to you. I'm not insisting, have a nice stay here
.
Only humble bundle so far is a possible Epic exclusives key seller. It was in all the news when they partnered. How informed are you about what you discuss? When you only respond to a small part of a post, does this mean you concede to the rest of the points or that you don't want to engage in real debate? Mostly asking for the stuff in the last page than this, to know if you've already accepted previous points or if they will come up again whenever you wish to stir the pot.
Last edited:
Arguing about Steam exclusives is nothing but pure pedantry about the meaning of the word 'exclusive' that serves only to distract from the actual point people are critizing.
Yeah it's a dumb argument and y'all remember what I said yesterday about dumb arguments and those who spew them.
EDIT: Ain't worth it.
I find it strange that some people want Steam to fail in this situation. I don't have any loyalty for Valve, but people are forgetting that Gaben is in a dominant position now because literally every major publisher basically stopped working on the platform back in the mid 00s.
I find it strange that some people want Steam to fail in this situation. I don't have any loyalty for Valve, but people are forgetting that Gaben is in a dominant position now because literally every major publisher basically stopped working on the platform back in the mid 00s.
Last edited:
No you can’t. Tim said the exclusivity deals prevents you from selling on any other storefront except Humble unless given permission from Epic. The only other website that has an Epic game is GreenManGaming with Borderlands 3.
Fair point. One concern I have is that Ubisoft are making clear moves towards killing key reselling outside of their special system that delivers games directly to your account, and there are noises the industry at large will follow suit. I'm sure Valve will resist as long as they can, but publishers are opposed to keys in general. They want control. And it's kinda troubling because for years "get a key" has been a go-to response for games that disappear from storefronts due to legal issues.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Broadly speaking, the gaming community has a very poor understanding of game development, partially because the industry is obscenely secretive. This lack of transparency has resulted in a general lack of understanding about what is going on with the games industry. It has also created a very skewed perception that trickles down to indie developers. In particular, how badly the industry is doing in many areas. It is true that corporate greed plays a huge role. Capitalism consuming without end. But the conflict between Epic and Valve is crass capitalism vs tech libertarianism.
End of the day, the indie development scene is in deep trouble. Many independent developers were lucky to survive the 2000s. I saw an interview with Oddworld Inhabitants, and they said that they closed the company down for a few years because their only options were to go bankrupt or to sell out to a major publisher. There are very, very few independent game developers left. MS are snatching them up. THQ Nordic is snatching them up. The financial fragility of the game development scene is real. And it's the reason why Epic's offers to developers have been so well received. It's why the animosity towards Steam is growing over time. The Switch has provided a welcome lifeline, incidentally, but that may not last forever.
The biggest problem with gamer rage stuff is how ill informed it tends to be. People have every right to be upset. Particularly with Epic, in broad terms. Make no mistake. Epic are doing a lot of stuff that is just plain mean. Unfair sportsmanship. The whole bit. Not even touching stuff like loot boxes. But the key is to understand how things got this way. And a lot of gamer rage is blind. And being blind makes it stupid.
Think about something like Crysis 2. Why did Cryis 2 need to be multiplatform? Because game budgets were rapidly rising, and the sales of the Crysis 1 were not good enough. Also the 2008 GFC hit them like a brick. It was very clear cut. Adapt, or die. But angry gamers didn't care about such realities. Crytek were traitors. Crytek had insulted them by saying that piracy was a huge issue for them. Crytek were greedy, Crytek were liars.
In fact, the PC gaming community has a massive problem with people who won't accept that piracy was, and is a huge problem. They're completely in denial about it. And they take it very personally when a publisher talks about piracy being a problem for them.
What happened with Dead Space? Multiple people from Visceral have stated that the games cost too much to make and didn't make enough profit. Instead of appreciating that, people just lashed out. EA was greedy, games should cost less to make. Use magic to reduce costs. You shouldn't be spending so much money on advertising. It's not our fault people didn't buy enough copies of Dead Space 2. It's your fault for making the game.
Then along comes Bethesda. TEW2 sells poorly. Prey sells poorly. And people argued that, "Oh, it was obviously the fault of advertisers. I don't remember seeing any advertising therefore you mustn't have spent any money on advertising." Which is patently untrue.
I commonly see people argue that the games industry is totally fine because "If you make a good game, it will sell." This is woefully naive. But it's a view that fuels a great deal of outrage. Game developers are lazy, greedy, incompetent, etc. If a developer makes a game, and the game flops, and the developer goes bankrupt, the finger of blame is pointed at the developer because if they'd made a good game logically it would have sold a bajillion copies.
Making games is hard. Making games is expensive. The cost of making games is out of control. Cash up front always beats cash down the road. When a beloved game underperforms, a common reaction is that "Oh, your expections were just too high." As though adjusting expectations will magically fix a company bleeding money. And if a studio does try to reduce costs to avoid bleeding out, people attack them because their game looks too "cheap". Gaming also has a massive survivor bias problem where people look at a development scene littered with corpses and say, "Look, there's ten people still standing. How can you say that the situation is falling apart!"
The average casual gamer does not know any of those names. We are not talking about enthusiasts here. Normal people don't watch E3. They don't watch Nintendo Directs. They buy a Playstation because it's a great value console with games that they find appealing. Most people who buy Apple Products do not buy them because of who the current CEO of Apple is. Tesla is niche. You think the average person buying a Mazda knows who the CEO of Mazda is? The CEO of Toyota? They know Henry Ford because his name is on the car.
But don't mistake enthusiasts for the average person. This is a very common problem with enthusiasts.
1. Epic is actively paying publishers to not release their game on other stores.
2.a Publishers are deciding to not actively release their games on other launchers
2.b Publishers still sell their games through other means and independent sites that sell steam keys.
There is a significant difference between games that are exclusive to download on Steam and games that are store exclusive.
Isthereanydeal.com exists for a reason and that reason is that steam isn't a cooperation actively trying to destroy a free market. Yes you can only download certain games through steam, but in most cases you can buy them from many places that are independent from steam.
Epic is the opposite, you must buy and download their games through their service.
It's also nothing new, this has been going on since forever.
No idea where this "weak argument" is coming from, because there is a significant difference here.
I'm surprised that you are surprised about this.
- GFWL was bound to Xbox Live and you had to pay $50 a year to play a couple of games that supported it. Microsoft dropped that fee around 2008.
- GFWL barely worked, you constantly had to reconnect, updates often didn't download, save files were being corrupted and couldn't be recovered because of encryption.
- Using a 360 and a PC with the same account simultaneously was impossible. So your wife watching netflix on 360 while you wanted to game on PC? No way.
You are mixing up first party and third party exclusivity. First party exclusivity is well accepted on PC. People swallowed that some time ago. I'm sorry for repeating myself, but GoG.com, Uplay, Origin and even the Bethesda Launcher are being used for first party exclusive titles. Costumers aren't happy about it (look at how bad the bethesda launcher worked when fo76 launched), but they are accepting it.
There is resistance to third party exclusivity though.
So what is the difference, you may ask. Exclusive is exclusive, after all. It's kind of a perception thing imo.
I'll give you a bit flawed, but I hope mostly working example:
First party is the equivalent of a private amusement park. It always belonged to the company, was build by the company and therefore people accept that there is a special entry rule and fee.
Third Party exclusivity is the perceived equivalent of a park that was public domain, you still had to pay a fee but it belonged and was made for everybody. But suddenly a cooperation bought the park, took it away from the "public domain", build a fence around it, dictates how you have to dress and takes all the money now.
You still have to pay a fee to enter both parks, but in one case something was taken away. Naturally, people don't like that.
EGS is using force, taking things away while steam is just neutrale. I said it many times: They should have used their money to subsidize games on their store instead. Metro for 39.99€ on EGS vs 59.99€ on Steam... That would have started impacting the market. Give, don't take.
Of course.
Again first party exclusivity is accepted. Third party not so much. Offering something that always belonged to you versus taking something away and then offering it through your system. Significant enough difference for people.
Depends: I'm pretty sure there would be massive backlash, if Valve paid for that exclusivity.
If Stalker 2 is just exclusively available to download through Steam though? No backlash, you'll still get your game through other stores if you wish so.
You are trying to paint a not accurate picture here. In a way you are blame shifting to make your argument fit, but people weren't unhappy because Microsoft was offering their own games on their own store.
The Problem with the windows store is UWP, encryption of files, not giving you (the system owner) access to files on your system etc. It wasn't Microsoft offering their games, on their own store.
Even Tim Sweeny understood how dangerous of a situation this was. To quote him
"Microsoft has launched new PC Windows features exclusively in UWP, and is effectively telling developers you can use these Windows features only if you submit to the control of our locked-down UWP ecosystem. They’re curtailing users’ freedom to install full-featured PC software, and subverting the rights of developers and publishers to maintain a direct relationship with their customers.
The specific problem here is that Microsoft’s shiny new “Universal Windows Platform” is locked down, and by default it’s impossible to download UWP apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the Windows Store. "
Later he choose to no longer understand though.
A bad thing in the past legitimated a bad thing now? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point here.
Sony did something anti consumer (not the first or last time) and that's why it is okay for Epic to do so now?
That's whataboutism, isn't it? Please, we shouldn't fall down to that level.
Just as livid as they are now with Epic. The antipathy against third party exclusivity isn't something new.
For the rest: I'm not sure people understood what happened back than with Sony and Tomb Raider. I don't even remember the situation tbh. I remember the game being available on PC and PS back then.
People are more informed and up to date today. They have more insight into systems, distribution and how their hobby works. I'm pretty sure if the internet was as evolved back then as today the reaction would have been similar to today.
You guys don't get it. In short, it's fine to criticize bad/lesser services like gfwl, windows store and Bethesda's launcher which the media mouthpieces (and Tim occasionally!) at the time agreed with gamers on and it made these companies default back to the industry standard of quality that is Steam (until they can get to try again, you can bet your ass on that, they're not going to give up forever, just like Ubisoft). But when another company goes around paying everybody loud enough off it's suddenly not okay to criticize their quality, then you're just a Steam/Gabe fanboy who doesn't wish for the status quo to change even if you have hundreds of games on other good or inoffensive services ranging from gog, to blizzard, to uplay, to itch.io, to direct-from-developers DRM-free copies. Duh!
Last edited:
Yeah, well, making money is hard and buying games is expensive. I don't think devs have much concern about where I find money to buy their game, they're only interested in the final transaction. I don't see why it should be any different from the consumer perspective
In any case, even if we give indie devs a pass on taking Epic's money, what's the excuse of Take-Two, Ubisoft and THQ Nordic? What's the excuse of crowdfunded projects which already sucked money from the backers and now not fulfilling initial promises?
Unfortunately my bad English prevents me from fully engaging (otherwise I would waste the whole day typing responses) but that's a lot of text that actually boils down to same arguments as ever including only Steam fanboys are angry ("emotional investment") and it's just another launcher ("differences between hardware platform exclusivity and software platform exclusivity") with some little concessions in the middle that make it sound more reasonable. Oh... and a lot of the consumer is stupid and don't know about the business too.
Of course you can find people saying "I will only buy it on Steam" just as with any platform, but the vast majority of the arguments done here and elsewhere have nothing to do with that. We simply don't want third party exclusives on PC. Doesn't matter if they are common elsewhere, just as it didn't matter that was normal for console players to pay for online. It would be really nice not having to deal with that on an open platform.
It is true that Borderlands 3 will be a true test for a huge game, but meanwhile you don't buy exclusivity for "Shenmue III" if you are after the average gamer. That's a game that only exists because of enthusiasts supporters giving a lot of money for it several years in advance. So if Epic is going after that audience, it is only fair to for them to react.
I don't know if the whole EGS strategy will work out or not, but you don't do a month long loss leading sale (without even communicating well with the publishers) if things are going "as planned".
Of course you can find people saying "I will only buy it on Steam" just as with any platform, but the vast majority of the arguments done here and elsewhere have nothing to do with that. We simply don't want third party exclusives on PC. Doesn't matter if they are common elsewhere, just as it didn't matter that was normal for console players to pay for online. It would be really nice not having to deal with that on an open platform.
It is true that Borderlands 3 will be a true test for a huge game, but meanwhile you don't buy exclusivity for "Shenmue III" if you are after the average gamer. That's a game that only exists because of enthusiasts supporters giving a lot of money for it several years in advance. So if Epic is going after that audience, it is only fair to for them to react.
I don't know if the whole EGS strategy will work out or not, but you don't do a month long loss leading sale (without even communicating well with the publishers) if things are going "as planned".
Digoman
From one non native speaker to another.
Your English is better than mine and I'm writing a lot. Just jump over your shadow and participate
From one non native speaker to another.
Your English is better than mine and I'm writing a lot. Just jump over your shadow and participate
Didn't know paying one to stay while one being open to letting them not only choose you is the same.
One is paying (and contracting) to stay off and use a shitty service. Other is not paying them to stay but offering services.
Everybody got over first party exclusives. Well not completely over, but the pill does get swallowed.
The problem with UWP was that Microsoft had very clear plans to transition Windows into a closed ecosystem where everything had to be installed through the Windows Store and phase out Win32. Sweeney's issue with MS from that era was that if MS created this closed ecosystem stuff like Steam wouldn't be able to operate anymore, at least not without being horribly crippled. Microsoft later changed their mind as part of wider policy changes. Microsoft had plans to remove the option to remove alternate storefronts. This is very different to storefront content exclusivity.
It has been rumoured for years that Sony is paying to keep the Persona series exclusive to Playstation. Yet most Playstation owners are totally fine with that. Because it doesn't affect them. Sony paid for timed exclusivity for stuff like Nioh and NieR: Automata and so on. Most people were fine with that. Xbox fans were disappointed by having to wait quite a while. But generally speaking, people only lash out against exclusivity if the exclusivity involves a platform they don't want to use. If Rise of the Tomb Raider had been exclusive to Playstation and PC, the reaction would have been far more muted. There would have been some upset, for sure, since Tomb Raider had gotten cosy on Xbox with Legend/Anniversary/Underworld. But the whole thing was heavily tied up in disdain for Xbox after the always online DRM thing and stuff like that. People were angry because it was Xbox and because they hated Xbox.
I disagree. I think with tech and entertainment fanaticism more fanatical people tend to be paradoxically ill informed and superficial in their engagement. Ignorance breeds console wars.
I don't think they're really enthusiasts in the sense of spending time understanding their area of interest so much as single minded loyalists. People have been waging online console wars since the bulletin board days. And it's blind "Your brand sucks, my brand rules". Console warriors shouted at each other about SEGA vs Nintendo, the original console war. And it was about the brand, not the people behind the brand. Millions of people are convinced that Apple sucks, or that Android sucks. Someone who loves their Galaxy phone and hates the evil Apple and takes every opportunity to attack Apple products as being garbage doesn't necessarily know who the CEO of Samsung is. They are loyal to Android, and they hate Apple. That's the phone warrior for you. Same as people who hate AMD and love Nvidia and vice versa probably don't know who the CEOs of those companies are. Enthusiasts know. And there is overlap between enthusiasts and internet warriors, but they're not the same. Some companies have a strong brand association with their leadership, but this isn't really true for the likes of Microsoft and Sony in particular.
Bioware are an interesting example. They were always terrible as a company. Every one of their games was developed by floundering around for years and then crunching insanely during the final period to pull the product together. This is why Mass Effect 1 is so different in footage that was alarmingly close to release date. They crunched like crazy to rework the game. The plot underwent drastic rewrites on a stupidly tight schedule. These terrible development tactics eventually stopped working as games become more complex. They could no longer hide terrible management and scheduling with last minute crunch. There's a misconception that Bioware changed. They didn't change, and that's the entire problem.
I mean, TR 2013 being a flop after selling 6 million copies definitely says that something wasn't right with the management during development. Marketing costs have sky-rocketed, trends are changing every day, there's more competition than ever before, a myriad of reasons why the game can flop, but none of them can explain bloated budgets that can't be recovered after selling 5+ million copies.
Marketing budgets are often as close to as large as -- or larger than the development budget. It's been this way for a while now. You can't sell your game to people who don't know it exists. A secret a lot of people aren't aware of is that Nintendo spend HUGE money on advertising. Moreso than most of their competitors. This is a factor in why Nintendo games enjoy such strong sales for such a long time. Nintendo get their games in front of people's eyeballs and don't let up.
My understanding is that the problem with Tomb Raider was a few intersecting factors.
1: The game had been in development since 2008, and was rebooted at one point. A five year dev cycle does cost more money than a 3 year cycle or something like that..
2: Square Enix had a problem with a few games in the prior year, most notably Sleeping Dogs and Kane & Lynch 2 which flopped horribly. Their financial status was not great.
3: Square Enix were eventually happy with the game's sales. This is important to note. But initial sales fell short, and Square Enix didn't have a lot of hits during that period. Long term sales are not great for a business that needs money NOW.
Something like Hellblade cost around 8 million and it made its money back upon reaching 400,000 copies. But of course Ninja Theory were in serious trouble and they sold themselves to Microsoft in order to stay afloat. Hellblade had a really good marketing hook. Realistic facial animation, and as story about mental illness. That really worked for them. But a typical AAA game might cost 50-70+ million to develop. And then you've got marketing on top of that. This is why Epic sold Gears of War. They rationalized that Gears of War 1 cost 12 million in 2006. But Gears 4 was going to cost them over 100 million dollars to make. They felt the AAA industry was unsustainable financially. And I think overall the industry is unsustainable. Corporate greed isn't helping of course, but the issues are much deeper than greedy execs taking all the cream.
AAA games, especially "cinematic" ones cost a huge amount of money to make, and there's no real way to fix this. It's a vicious cycle where audiences expect greater and greater fidelity, content, polish, etc. And developers create these expectations themselves. And the cycle repeats. When Shadow of the Tomb Raider was revealed, the biggest PR problem the game faced was accusations that the game's graphics were worse than Rise of the Tomb Raider. A lot of people argue that "Oh, stop spending so much money on graphical fidelity. Gamers care about gameplay, not graphics." Well, that isn't true in the AAA space. Graphics are the single largest factor in purchasing decisions. If people think your sequel looks worse than the game before it graphically, or look significantly worse than its competitors, you are in trouble.
For refence, these are some game budgets from the 90s. Games were always remarkably pricey to make, even back then. But we're looking at a 10x increase for a lot of games over the past decade, and even worse sometimes.
I've been playing Blade Runner on ScummVM. Amazing game. But the reason the game has voxel characters is because the game was so obscenely expensive it literally needed to be the best selling adventure game ever made (thus needed to run on very, very low end PCs) in order to break even. Which it did, apparently, selling 700,000 copies or something like that. Which was insane for a 1997 point and click title.
I'm going to be blunt in this post but that bluntness isn't directed towards this particular poster that I'm replying to. It's meant to illustrate just how fucked up the game industry's attitude towards its customers is.
As for piracy, Gabe Newell and the PC audience proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed a service problem. Epic will cause an increase in piracy because it provides a shitty service.
I don't care. I have no idea how my TV was made, nor my washing machine. I expect a fully working product and that's that. Anything else is unacceptable. Would you buy a car with a flat tire and a leaky gas tank because car making is hard?
It's not ill informed. The reasons behind most gamer outrages are clear and well defined. The problem is that the game industry seems to think that "this is how the industry works" is an acceptable response. It most certainly is not.
None of what you wrote is true. Crytek and EA thought they had a COD-level franchise after Crysis 1. Cevat Yerli thought that expanding to consoles would lead to COD-like numbers. In the end Crysis 2 sold on three platforms about as much as the first game did on PC but it had a vastly bigger budget than the first one. Despite the bigger budget it was a worse game in every way and it started Crytek's death spiral.
As for piracy, Gabe Newell and the PC audience proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed a service problem. Epic will cause an increase in piracy because it provides a shitty service.
I don't care. It's not my fault if the industry can't sustain itself without lootboxes or moneyhats. It means the industry is bloated and it needs correction. The game industry is just like any other industry in that regard. Companies go out of business every single day in every single industry all around the world.
"Think of the poor developers" Motherfucker I live paycheck by paycheck, I don´t care about your situation, I care for mine, play ball with me and I´ill gladly buy your shit, don´t try to tell me what is best for me and what I should spend my hard earned money on.
EGS is a shit service and won´t spend money on it, Epic removing my ability to buy the game where I want just solidify my decision.
Fuck Epic and those who defend its pratices.
EGS is a shit service and won´t spend money on it, Epic removing my ability to buy the game where I want just solidify my decision.
Fuck Epic and those who defend its pratices.
Yeah nothing makes my eyes roll more than the people who tell me paying more for games is somehow better for me.
EGS is literally (and I mean literally) the only major launcher that doesn’t support my currency. Its not on their roadmap (only AUD and Brazilian) and even if it was Im not holding my breath for anything on that roadmap releasing on time. Even if you include resellers only like 2-3 dont support my currency,
If developers are making their game exclusive to the ONE store that doesnt support my currency then they can fuck right off. I’m a broke ass university student, Im buying a product not donating to a charity. I have every right to spend my money how I want, if a product isnt available in the format I want I wont buy it, Im not paying more for a lesser version of a product because the devs sold out. Sorry.
but but but.... gamers rise up! gamergate! ill informed! poor devs! timmy knows what he's doing, nothing worked until now but you fucks just wait for borderlands! we are all just dumb gabeN PC MASTERRACE fanboys! poor timmy!
spew bullshit, earn bullshitmedal dear Aelphaeis.
This is an oft-repeated misconception. Crysis 1 took three years to sell 3 million copies. (2007-2010). Crysis Warhead sold 1.5 million during the same period. We are assuming these are sell-in numbers. EA are a bit fuzzy, but they generally mean sell-in-slash-shipped. Crysis 2 shipped 3 million in a few months. We don't really have any details on long term sales, but we do know that EA were kinda-sorta okay with how it sold because they greenlit a third game. Crysis 2 sold better than Crysis 1. It had no choice but to sell better because game budgets were rising year on year. The increase in budget between Gears of War 1 (12 million) and Epic's planned Gears of War 4 (100+) million demonstrates this. Crysis 2 was always going to cost a lot more than Crysis 1. And there was no feasible way to create a version of Crysis 2 that was PC exclusive and financially viable. Expanding the audience was the only viable option available to them. There's a reason Doom is a multiplatform game. If the new Doom were a PC exclusive, it would be a financial disaster. The market for singleplayer PC FPS games simply isn't that large.
A number of people chose to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore this reality because it didn't suit them. As far as they were concerned, EA and Crytek were just greedy. Crytek made a number of mistakes over the years, but they were 100% right that the PC market wasn't able to reliably support these kind of AAA games. Only multiplatform development could do that. Time proved them right beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Android phones have a slick Google provided store built directly into the phone, yet piracy is rampant on Android. Steam didn't magically cure piracy. Piracy of Steam games is rampant. Valve accidentally created a whole suite of problems on their own, including the rampant devaluation of games through discount culture. This hit indies especially hard. Valve didn't usher in a magical era of peaches and sunshine. They did a lot of good work, but their system had unforseen consequences, if you will.
I think this is one of the biggest problems with games companies. You often see people say, "How does this, that, or the other benefit me as a consumer." Sometimes the blunt answer is "It doesn't", and people shouldn't try to dress it up as some kind of pro-consumer thing. A good non-gaming example of this is milk. Supermarket milk is often severely underpriced. This hurts farmers. Some supermarkets have take the step of adding 20 cents onto the price of milk to distribute it to farmers. How does that help consumers? It doesn't. It's not supposed to. One of Tim Sweeney's weirder arguments is that the things he's doing will help consumers through the magic of "disruption". And okay, in theory that might happen in a roundabout way, but it's not about helping consumers. It's about helping developers. (And also sticking it to Valve because Epic seem weirdly obsessed with doing that.) That's entirely what it's about. And trying to dress up helping developers as helping consumers is some trickle down economics-tier stuff, IMHO.
It honestly seems like Epic is leaning on trickle down economics pretty hard as the biggest “example” of the lower dev cut benefiting consumers. Completely ignoring that its unsustainable and hitting people in several countries with hefty payment processing fees.
It continues to blow my mind that people eat up the idea of trickle down economics every time its proposed.
Discount culture didnt really hit the "Indies" hard. Indies barely fucking existed before that. Like a dozen of lucky bastards and little else. Indie development is in a much better state and more accessible than ever, no matter how many claim to be in a "apocalypse". It's certainly much better than when only very lucky few could make it.
Steam helped indie developers bloom in a field that was considered barren. For all its faults and repeated mistakes we need to acknowledge the primary role steam played for the progress of gaming on PC.
New gaming stores should come bringing features to compete and not bullying their way in.
There was a mention about the almost certain commercial success of Borderlands 2 in correlation to the six month EGS exclusivity but, as far as i am concerned, both Pitchford and Sweeney are appearing as assholes so, as long as they stay assholes, i will remain satisfied that i am not giving them my money.
New gaming stores should come bringing features to compete and not bullying their way in.
There was a mention about the almost certain commercial success of Borderlands 2 in correlation to the six month EGS exclusivity but, as far as i am concerned, both Pitchford and Sweeney are appearing as assholes so, as long as they stay assholes, i will remain satisfied that i am not giving them my money.
Yep, nobody would blame lack of success on shovelware if it was so hard to make an indie game, there wouldn't be any shovelware (or majority indie games) to begin with.
Let's be practical here. Sweeney is a cunning individual with perhaps more money than sense, who has positioned himself as the patron saint of the struggling independent developer. This is why he has successfully acquired a remarkably large number of independent and low budget titles (games where Epic can essentially cover development costs with a nice payout) as timed exclusives. These are sweeteners to make his platform more appealing. He has also been dabbling in deals for higher profile games. The Division 2 was an interesting experiment. But Uplay is a way better launcher so there's not a whole lot of reasons to get it on Epic. Also it had a Watch_Dogs 2-esque soft launch. Borderlands 3 is likely going to be one of the biggest games of the year. There are 37,403 people playing Borderlands 2 on Steam right now. The series is HUGE. And its exclusivity will drive unprecedented sales to the Epic Store. If they pull this off correctly, this is the game that will launch the Epic Store into the public consciousness akin to Halo and the Xbox. It will be the killer app for a store that has until now primarily marketed itself with free games and relatively niche titles. If Epic have also got RDR2 waiting in the wings, that will have a huge impact. If Epic could secure an extremely high profile release like Borderlands 3, I wouldn't be surprised if Take Two were willing to play ball with RDR2.
I think the biggest reason to be upset at Epic even if you don't have strong feelings about either company is because they're clearly targeting Valve in a very unfair manner where Valve cannot fight back without resorting to the same tactics. Valve paid for exclusivity once upon a time, but that kind of exclusivity isn't their style. Valve have been a great figurehead for open standards, open platforms, and Epic's vendetta against Valve is troubling in its implications.
However, you can't beat Epic by internet raging at them. That is pathetically ineffective. You may as well smear poop on the outer walls of Epic's HQ for all the good it will do. Epic have oodles of Fortnite money.. An industry-leading engine platform that rakes in constant money. And they're on the brink of a massive windfall from high profile titles such as Borderlands 3. Now of course it's a 12% windfall but it'll be hugely profitable for them. And it will lead to further deals.
I respect people who refuse to buy from the EGS. I respect people who refuse to use Epic's engine. If you feel a company is being a dick to their peers, I respect you for having the principles to not partake of their products. But this rage against Epic is at a point where it's starting to become glaringly unhealthy. Largely because it's not having any visible effect. Impotent rage festers. The chances of Epic backing down are nil. They have nothing to lose at this point. They have huge amounts of money, and a huge line of developers waiting to sign deals with them. They are going to pull this off. I am certain of it. The pieces are falling into place.
This doesn't mean what they're doing is right, or anything like that. What Epic are doing is underhanded. It is not in the spirit of the game, so to speak.. It will solve certain issues and improve the lives of indie developers, but it will also have negative impacts where companies across the industry begin to horde content because content is value. Epic are capitalizing upon pre-existing discontent with Valve. Now the solutions Epic are selling that don't involve cash payouts to developer who desperately need the money are not necessarily going to work, and they may cause more harm than good long term. But this situation with Valve is the tide coming in, and the chickens coming home to roost at the same time. Consumers are happy with Valve because Valve offer a fantastic platform for consumers. But developers are increasingly unhappy with Valve. And that's what Epic is exploiting. Like I said, Valve's customers are basically gamers, wheras Epic's customers are basically developers and this is reflected in their priorities. Epic is not what you might call "pro-consumer" because their primary audience is game developers. Much of what they've done with the Epic Store, right down to not having reviews and not having forums has been designed to pander to publishers/developers instead of giving customers what they desire.
Like I said earlier, Epic are very... capitalist, And I mean that in an unflattering way. wheras Valve have a kind of libertarian thing going on. It's reflected in their moderation, their approach to curation, their general business model. It comes with some naive stances, such as their view that once you solve the service problem, piracy disappears.. Valve have always been a bit iffy at predicting how humans will behave in the real world vs planned scenarios. But from the perspective of a consumer, Valve largely has your back. But some time, developers have been feeling that Valve doesn't have their backs, and that's a major reason why this thing has snowballed.
So what's your point actually? You wrote a whole lot but danced around a point.
We can't beat Epic but we can wait it out and ignore them.
There's going to be a wealth of games to play which are not associated with them and, as for the rest, they got Sweeney's money so they do not need mine.
Problem sol-ved.
There's going to be a wealth of games to play which are not associated with them and, as for the rest, they got Sweeney's money so they do not need mine.
Problem sol-ved.
Yep I agree with this, i am drowning in good indie games.
It's really not. Crytek had sales expectations which were 4-5 times what Crysis 1 sold.
Crysis budget unveiled
Again, sorry to be blunt but: Pirates don't give a crap about indie games. They might hoard downloads of many games but they only care about the big releases.