News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
If this means Epic moneyhatted Desperado's 3, I'm gonna cryIt's Shadow Tactics
Ah me too. I loved Shadow Tactics.If this means Epic moneyhatted Desperado's 3, I'm gonna cry
Wouldnt that be THQ Nordic?If this means Epic moneyhatted Desperado's 3, I'm gonna cry
You missed out.
I skipped on enter gungeon because I forgot and then I just decided to keep taking epics games after I caught myself almost buying it in steam.
Just take the games, it makes no difference. Plus I'm officially over the fucking valve vs steam thing now that it's officially a moral stance kind of thing. Steam isn't going to die by way of Tim and gamepass is way better at devaluing games. Anyone who gives another member side eye for using the store and heaven forbid buying something while pirating, lol.
BTW, this will get zero likes bc negativity in this thread gets likes.
I don't care what other people do, tbh, but just the thought of downloading the EGS Launcher makes me feel gross. Tim Sweeny is such an insufferable prick that I really don't want anything to do with his service. I'm sure most other CEO's aren't much better, but at least they don't go out of their way to be as annoying as this dude is.
See that's what I don't understand, criticism it's not equal to negativity and the store has a LOT of flaws (setting aside Sweeney personality)
A lot of friends and family members grab the free games, and it isn't a problem but that doesn't change the HUGE problems the ''platform'' has and will not change the way it is.
Seriously good for you if you take the games but you don't want people giving you ''the side eye''? Then let people just criticise and don't start like it's a dogpile or that it's negative. This doesn't work like a message board so don't get surprised if people react.
Honestly, nothing is going to have 100% same output outside of mathematical domain, and Hade - despite less than ideal PR - may be one of those cases that actually benefited from Epic deal. As indie gamer, I've seen lot of Early Access games get poor reviews during initial release and never recover in spite of future improvements... which is why games like Spire of Sorcery (which I personally found to be bad game but I digress) and Xenonauts 2 use limited early access to accept community input without reviews. Supergiant had enough name recognition and loyal fanbase to make "Epic as early access" strategy actually work.
At this rate I expect Limbo to be one of the games on offer.
Eh, I expected more from Sweeney’s warchest. Outside of couple of games it’s basically bundle fodder at this point. Maybe he’ll give away something substantial in the end (Shenmue 3, seemingly nobody bought this shit, so he might act as a Suzuki’s savior).
People can give me the side eye, I just want them to know they don't look great when doing so. Still pissed about being called a sellout by member that's avoided me and your comments and its shitty that one of the best games of the last decade was given for free and members didn't want to take it and experience it because of the energy consuming hatred frothed up in parts of Meta.
Could we please branch the users vs users thing out to another thread?
I'm here for my daily dose of negativity and resentment, not for figuring out who side eyes who and for what reason if any
I'm here for my daily dose of negativity and resentment, not for figuring out who side eyes who and for what reason if any
There are a lot of reasons why people don't care about free games. Judging people for not taking them even though they may be amazing doesn't help the situation at all. Maybe some people don't want to add to their backlog? Maybe people just don't like the genre? Maybe people just don't want to download another launcher. All of those are valid reasons to not care.
Personally, I'm actually MORE likely to play games I paid for because I paid for them, and that's money I don't want to go to waste.
Always a great look when you preemptively judge others for not giving you likes cos they're judgemental and negative. Talk about taking EGS personally.
Also you all suck for not being as excited about VR as I am so I just talk to myself in the VR thread and only lashman likes the posts cos he likes everything
Also you all suck for not being as excited about VR as I am so I just talk to myself in the VR thread and only lashman likes the posts cos he likes everything
Just as I don't care being judged by the stuff I buy or consume, I also don't feel like taking shit for the things I choose not to. I don't owe anyone anything, let alone my patronage. Don't like it? Don't do stuff or run policies I refuse to support. And I also don't owe anybody my validation for their own choices, in the same way they don't owe it to me.
In other news, I may or may not have an Index reserved for purchase. But I don't want to talk much about it for fear that it may all fall apart before it goes back in stock. If all goes well, I could maybe perhaps luckily hopefully own one at some point next month. If that happens, count me in for the VR thread
Not my fault VR is so expensive and unavailable in my country. Blame my government!Always a great look when you preemptively judge others for not giving you likes cos they're judgemental and negative. Talk about taking EGS personally.
Also you all suck for not being as excited about VR as I am so I just talk to myself in the VR thread and only lashman likes the posts cos he likes everything
In other news, I may or may not have an Index reserved for purchase. But I don't want to talk much about it for fear that it may all fall apart before it goes back in stock. If all goes well, I could maybe perhaps luckily hopefully own one at some point next month. If that happens, count me in for the VR thread
"My comments" hurt you because you thought they were an attack and sincerely it seems you take it too personal when people disagree with you. People are free to reject the games, the same way you are free to take them, you don't want to be judged for taking the games (and you shouldn't be) yet every intervention by you since then has consisted in throwing shade at others that disagree with you, the same thing you are accusing us of doing.
I meant it when I said it was interesting reading you because you give a different spin, you decided that was an attack and I didn't respond you because I didn't want to throw more wood into the fire but since it seems you are unable to let go and worst, you use every opportunity to cause more confrontation, this will be my last intervention.
no, i don'tonly lashman likes the posts cos he likes everything
there are definitely posts i don't "like"
Your own posts don't count, dummy!no, i don't
Just kidding,
U Lash, you naughty naughty boy who refuses to capitalize his name. I bet if the verb was called "socialize" you'd spell it with an uppercase "L"
<3 U lash, you naughty naughty boy who refuses to capitalize his name. I bet if the verb was called "socialize" you'd spell it with an uppercase "L"
Anime posts are your favorite no?no, i don't
Gonna be honest, I think they're tossing every single thing at the wall and hoping one of them sticks. I really do hope this means the EGS experiment isn't working out for them as well as they'd hoped.
I don't know. Maybe they lulled me to sleep, but I no longer perceive EGS as a threat to the open nature of PC gaming. EGS seems to pine away. Their newest exclusives are just not interesting to me, their free games are underwhelming (good games but been there, seen that category), the quality of many of their exclusives is below average. They'll stay active, some "press" will keep on praising them and I'm getting funny tweets and memes out of it. But they are on the road to reach EA Origin levels of impact. Sure, some hardcore fans will keep on supporting them, but if RDR2 taught us one thing: People even rather buy through the shitty Rockstar Launcher than through EGS.
I wonder what happens with EGS exclusives when they hit the end of their exclusivity period and they haven't hit the number of copies that Tim pre-bought? Does the game have to hit that sales number before making any extra money no matter what on the game or does Tim take the loss and start paying out that 88% for every copy sold?
My guess is 'depends'. There's no way Ubisoft would agree to that, for example.
But smaller indies might have to take the loss until they hit the sales target. Which is the most likely scenario. This is pure speculation, of course. But honestly, how much of the initial payout might remain within the developer to keep them afloat?
There's a reason Supergiant were happy to stop talking about the EGS version months ago, the literal second they were allowed to put a Steam store page up and advertise a release date for that platform.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you are sympathetic to some indies taking the deal from Epic, the best way to support them financially is to wait for the game to be unshackled from EGS or support it on a console platform. By buying moneyhatted games Epic are literally taking 100%, with the developer seeing nothing.
Logically and economically (for Epic) it should mean that the sales guarantee must be sold out before the dev ever sees any money from EGS sales. It would mean that any sale after the exclusivity, that is sold through EGS is a lost sale for the dev until the sales guarantee is over AND the dev sold enough copies with 88/12 to mitigate the $0 sales that could have been Steam sales under 70/30
That means, (if my quick math was correct) if the dev had 100k sales in the guarantee left, he would have to sell ~180k units on EGS to mitigate 100k sales on Steam. Good luck if your whole sales guarantee was 150k units and you are 1 year after launch.
It would be insane for the dev to promote egs after the exclusivity.
Tim could fuck them up and give the game away for free and the contract could be that the dev doesn't even see the pittance pay for free games unless the sales guarantee is over (so 100k people claimed the game)
There is even a point that EGS doesn't even want the rest of the Sales guarantee to sell because those are sunk costs and EGS wants the eyes of the customer on new exclusives.
Has Tim ever responded to the fact that they said they wont do sales and within a year have had two bargin basement everything must go sales?
Well said. Forums are meant to discuss, which means that people may agree or disagree with you. And there's nothing wrong with the latter.
Last edited:
First of all: I didn't call you a sellout, stop making things up.
Second: if disagreeing with someone's posts leads to hostile responses, I have no intention to talk any further with that person. I'll be happy to talk to you again when you've cooled down.
Last but not least: I am strongly opposed against Epic's strategy to strong arm people into using their bare bones storefront by money hatting dozens of the most popular games on Steam. Because of this, I won't support them in any way, including taking their free games and thereby becoming a monthly active user. This is my personal decision and anyone is free to disagree with this.
Pretty sure that Tim said that the exclusivity only lasts for the time agreed on between Epic and the pub / devs, independent of how many copies sold on EGS during this time but I can't find this tweet right now
I chose to believe him on this, but I guess we will see soon enough. Genesis Alpha One will be dropping in February and I doubt that it sold very well (and Hide & Seek is already on Steam, which I also have my doubts, but maybe it ended selling the number of copies Tim bought since it was a launch exclusive and all that).
They take no losses, they've already been paid for in full for the revenue the game would have generated.
If the game generates less than what EGS paid then they have a profit not a loss, because EGS overestimated and overpaid what the game would have sold, (if you account for inflation money now are more valuable than money later, so it's a very good outcome regardless if it takes them 1 year or 3 years or only the exclusivity period).
If the game generates more than EGS paid the devs start getting that revenue flow as well.
In both cases a developer/publisher wins.
The loss is that they could have easily lowballed what the game can achieve when not restricted by such a platform just to avoid the risk of not achieving shit because they lacked faith in it, because they were scared of the competition and because some certain money is better than potentially more but uncertain.
It's only a true win if the game wasn't going to do better on steam/gog/3rd party sellers combined and by actual players rather than any millionaire's money with whatever implications that can have. Implications such as, does epic moneyhat the next game, sequel or not, if the last didn't achieve the targets or gain enough of an audience in return for the money? By the time they have another product will epic still be into this strategy at all, nevermind also agree to take another deal? Have they potentially wasted x amount of years to develop a game yet squander its potential of gaining an actual paying player audience and a following for their future products to get tim's money this time? Have they added an additional year of competition and obscurity for when it does launch elsewhere? It's impossible to quantify it all but that doesn't make knowing that, indeed contracts were made and money was given, a win by default.
For hades it does seem to have been a win because the game's apparently doing well on steam and they still got epic's bonus money whether they reached targets or not (on the other hand if they haven't met targets then any future sale on egs is money lost as if they had bought it on steam instead that would be actual money to the devs, rather than money added to the targets), but it's neither certain (it's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't taken the deal) nor does it mean the same for all others. You'd think building an audience is what every developer wants, that's what epic tries to buy, so taking a company's money over player money doesn't seem to be the most forward thinking approach unless, again, the game wasn't going to do all that great.
Edit: it's also lowballing the game's value by default. As far as we know often in console exclusives the platform holder pays extra money, not just a sales guarantee. Epic is just paying money in advance and obviously they know to not make the targets unachievable so they end up getting the exclusivity for free and gain customers on top. Which makes the whole deal sound even worse for the developers. Why restrict your potential audience just for some advance payment? If anything they should be asking Epic to pay them just to put their games on their store at all, not as exclusives, epic almost solely benefits from this.
It's only a true win if the game wasn't going to do better on steam/gog/3rd party sellers combined and by actual players rather than any millionaire's money with whatever implications that can have. Implications such as, does epic moneyhat the next game, sequel or not, if the last didn't achieve the targets or gain enough of an audience in return for the money? By the time they have another product will epic still be into this strategy at all, nevermind also agree to take another deal? Have they potentially wasted x amount of years to develop a game yet squander its potential of gaining an actual paying player audience and a following for their future products to get tim's money this time? Have they added an additional year of competition and obscurity for when it does launch elsewhere? It's impossible to quantify it all but that doesn't make knowing that, indeed contracts were made and money was given, a win by default.
For hades it does seem to have been a win because the game's apparently doing well on steam and they still got epic's bonus money whether they reached targets or not (on the other hand if they haven't met targets then any future sale on egs is money lost as if they had bought it on steam instead that would be actual money to the devs, rather than money added to the targets), but it's neither certain (it's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't taken the deal) nor does it mean the same for all others. You'd think building an audience is what every developer wants, that's what epic tries to buy, so taking a company's money over player money doesn't seem to be the most forward thinking approach unless, again, the game wasn't going to do all that great.
Edit: it's also lowballing the game's value by default. As far as we know often in console exclusives the platform holder pays extra money, not just a sales guarantee. Epic is just paying money in advance and obviously they know to not make the targets unachievable so they end up getting the exclusivity for free and gain customers on top. Which makes the whole deal sound even worse for the developers. Why restrict your potential audience just for some advance payment? If anything they should be asking Epic to pay them just to put their games on their store at all, not as exclusives, epic almost solely benefits from this.
Last edited:
I think the point being made is that the loss comes in after the exclusivity deal is over and the game is available on Steam. If someone decides to buy a game on EGS over Steam at that point, developers could be losing out on revenue. An EGS sale, assuming the advance hasn't been met, gives developers 0% as Epic has already paid them for it. But if there are alternative places to buy the game where the developer gets their 70%, then that could definitely be seen as a loss.
I would play on EGS for Control (GOTY candidate for many outlets) or Shenmue 3.
I'm old enough to have played Shenmue on the Dreamcast, and I played Shenmue 2 on my brother's OG Xbox.
If I'm to add my personal two cents, I don't know where this recent goodwill towards benefit of developers came from. Main pillars of criticism against Epic are exclusivity, lack of features, lack of user benefit, and abysmal PR. Prevailing mood before was "indie devs are not one of us, they don't need to be coddled and their benefit does not matter as long as it doesn't translate into consumer benefit" (especially during multiple run of PR blunders). The reason why Epic's strategy of free games and strong discounts are so effective is that it tackles one of these pillars: 'lack of user benefit', which is why I'm not surprised to see some people being won over. Of course, the problem is that free games are temporary measures that Epic is going to have to abandon eventually, and we'll see if they'll have brainwashed enough players to sustain their fan base when perceived monetary benefits to the users are lost.
Also, people arguing for accepting Epic freebies with "you're losing out by being silly" are neglecting the fact that individuals have different value systems. Specifically, some emphasize 'exclusivity' 'lack of features' 'PR problem' pillar over the 'lack of user benefit' pillar. Yes, I'll save money by using Epic I guess, but I'm not poor enough that I'll bend down to exclusivity-supporting bastard who has constantly been condescending towards all "Valve fanboys" with gaslighting. Oh, and just to drive the point again, I also don't give hell about general well-being of indie devs or whatever, they get my loyalty only when they produce good quality games and don't act dumb.
Also, people arguing for accepting Epic freebies with "you're losing out by being silly" are neglecting the fact that individuals have different value systems. Specifically, some emphasize 'exclusivity' 'lack of features' 'PR problem' pillar over the 'lack of user benefit' pillar. Yes, I'll save money by using Epic I guess, but I'm not poor enough that I'll bend down to exclusivity-supporting bastard who has constantly been condescending towards all "Valve fanboys" with gaslighting. Oh, and just to drive the point again, I also don't give hell about general well-being of indie devs or whatever, they get my loyalty only when they produce good quality games and don't act dumb.
Never said anything like screw devs, it's great when they're doing great. But if they want to make tim instead of gamers their customer I don't have to follow.
Epic can't even get their own store backend to work properly. This, from the developer of Unreal Engine. It begs belief, to be honest with you.
Imagine epic sitting on prepurchased copies, the one year period is over and people starting to buy the game on other platforms.
That puts a smile on my face.