-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Borderlands 3 is coming to the Epic Games Store (Exclusivity Unknown) [Read Staff Post]
- Thread starter Rodjer
- Start date
- Status
No one knows. They probably work out some one-off contractual split.
If you didn't intend to be snarky with that comment, the way you phrased it, then you need to start thinking more about what you post. Because there really isn't any way for that comment to be anything else then that.
No, it won't stop you. It won't stop a lot of other people. But it's still a part of the explanation as to why the discussion surrounding Epic Store is a what it is today.
Instead of being disruptive and bringing a positive change for the customer, they're just disruptive for something that works for the customer today, without bothering to bring something as compensation for it. And being dicks about it in their communication.
That you don't care doesn't really change that.
I remember disliking Steam. And I remember disliking Origin. Both turned it around eventually and I now actively use both. Epic are capable of turning this around too, but as of yet have made no effort to treat me with any respect or offer me any value as a consumer, in fact doing the opposite. Until they show signs of both of those, I will continue to not support them.
I'll be disappointed if Borderlands 3 is exclusive just because of how successful I believe Borderlands is on Steam, as well as Gearbox and Valve going way back. Though I suppose it's not Gearbox's call. I'll be waiting for official confirmation either way but with Randy's comments it sounds like it could be a 6 month exclusive. In which case I will wait 6 months. Not too long, really.
I'll be disappointed if Borderlands 3 is exclusive just because of how successful I believe Borderlands is on Steam, as well as Gearbox and Valve going way back. Though I suppose it's not Gearbox's call. I'll be waiting for official confirmation either way but with Randy's comments it sounds like it could be a 6 month exclusive. In which case I will wait 6 months. Not too long, really.
First I disagree that the only way my comment can be taken is snarky. Secondly anyone can interpret anything anyone says however they want, especially if it's in regard to a sensitive issue that they've internalized and take personal offense from if they don't like what's being said. There's nothing I can do to change that short of qualifying everything I say, which is a waste of energy. For example, I'm not implying that you took personal offense to the dying on a hill comment. See, I wasted time qualifying my statement so you don't think I was attacking you.
Can't argue. It's a good reason and you put it clearly. And we've arrived full circle and distilled my original post. I understand why people don't like it, I'm not too bothered by it, and I'll use it to play borderlands 3 if I have to. It's okay for people to be upset by it, and it's okay for me to not be upset by it. That's my point and the replies to my comment either directly or indirectly made it seem like I was some kind of an asshole or that the collective has already settled all arguments and by simply stating that I'm not bothered by it was some kind of 88/12 argument (whatever the fuck that means).
Edit: took out my last statement as it was just me kinda off topic bitching about the internet in general.
Last edited:
And that`s 6,5 years after its release....
Just beat UVH last weekend. I play with a friend of mine who lives outside the country, so we can only get in a handful of hours a month at best.
The game still holds up incredibly well.
i am debating if i should buy the handsome collection on steam
it's $5 and i don't know i am a gonna like these games at all
it's $5 and i don't know i am a gonna like these games at all
Where the hell you get Handsome Collection for 5$??
I just payed 14.... lol
it's on sale for $5 over here
this is probably region pricing tho lol
i am in Argentina btw
I'm not even convinced it's that always going to be good for affiliated devs in every event. At least right now, today, going EGS-exclusive might not be the right move for, say, a new IP, or an iteration in a long-standing franchise that isn't AAA. Upfront money is good, but I have to wonder just how much impact having a smaller playerbase will have on some of these games, or what the makeup of that playerbase will be. Time will tell, though, and I'm not putting down any concrete bets about that quite yet.
Personally, my disdain toward EGS is partly in response to their business practices, but also largely in response to their rhetoric and posturing, which to me seemed intended to disguise Epic's methods and intentions in preparation for an expected backlash. EGS ultimately released as platform with no user-facing advantages over its competition, and I'm not convinced that EGS had to release that way. I'm not convinced that Epic wasn't capable of creating a platform competitive to Steam in most respects, IN ADDITION TO having a lower cut for developers. That was never outside of their ability as a company, even if that may have been prohibitive to a 2019 release. Instead of putting in that work and competing with Valve on the basis of a purportedly friendlier environment for developers and gamers alike... Epic paid publishers and developers vast sums of money to take their games off of Steam, and put them on to EGS. Then, Epic deliberately misrepresented these moneyhats as choices made by developers who saw the value in that big beautiful cut, and couldn't help but to come on over. All of this, in an attempt to not only pressure the PC gaming community into accepting a platform propped up by practices that would not (and did not) resonate with the PC gaming community once exposed... but to also renew the narrative of Steam as a bad actor, so that they could position themselves as the good to Steam's bad, in order to capitalize on a healthy environment that Steam had a large part in cultivating, and in proving the existence of.
And it all feels so incredibly disingenuous. Epic, a company that spent the better part of the last decade adhering to the notion that the PC market wasn't especially important or worthwhile, observes Steam's success, the health of PC gaming, and the rise of Twitch, and decides that the best way to re-enter the market would be to attempt to compromise the company that worked to justify their re-entry into the PC space to begin with, in a targeted manner, through shady means. It'd be one thing if EGS had a low cut and competitive features to boot, and again, it could have, but instead, to convince me to play on their store... Epic brought paid exclusivity to PC, using misleading rhetoric to stifle skeptical PC gamers and to place the optics squarely on Valve. Epic paid to remove games from a platform that generally enhances my experience with games, in order to force me and fans of those games to purchase those games on a launcher that does basically nothing for us, with the specific intent to carve a hole into Valve's piece of the pie and insert themselves firmly into it.
Epic's intention is for us to believe that in order to compete with EGS's burgeoning presence, other PC gaming giants, mainly Steam, must lower their own cut to match Epic's cut, and it's a compelling idea, because no matter how you feel about Valve or Steam, developers are the people who make our games, and if they can make more money on their games, they can live better and achieve more. Even now I'm still on the side of Valve lowering their cut, but Epic's intent isn't altruistic. It feels to me like Epic's true interest is in reducing Steam's marketshare in whatever ways they can, in order to carve themselves out an unearned presence in the market - so for Epic, the cut was largely a PR move, one convenient for the holders of a platform that wouldn't demand the ongoing maintenance and R&D expense that more ambitious competitors do, and which ultimately lacks any other innate reason for developers to switch over. This was meant to suit a specific narrative that would pressure its competitors into reducing their cut and therefore their revenue streams, so that Epic may more freely take advantage of that Fortnite money and compete in the actual manner they've chosen to - with large payouts, to secure exclusives and convince fans to use Epic's launcher in lieu of any other reason to.
It's easy to imagine why Epic didn't lead in with that, right? I mean, I'm not ignorant to the fact that a large initial payout would be and is a boon for some developers. So why did Epic place so much emphasis on their cut alone? Why did Epic choose not to reveal the role their payments played in securing EGS exclusives until their hand was forced? Because this practice emphasizes Epic's actual goal - a goal that would go without saying in any other context. That is to say, Epic is just another company that wants people to pay them a cut on PC. Just like so many other publishers and gaming giants that released launchers designed solely and specifically to give them deeper control over the monetization of their games. And they wanted to position themselves as something more than that. They wanted to sidestep the suspicion, skepticism, and stigma that the act of releasing a shitty launcher in a transparent attempt to enhance your revenue stream usually carries with it on PC.
The ripple effects that EGS's actions and rhetoric will have across PC gaming may, in some ways, prove positive. I will support Valve lowering their cut, although I'd love for them to actually come forward and describe how their money moves within the company, because that would give us all some much-needed context better informing us as to how and how far Valve could lower their cut while continuing to advance Steam and contribute to PC gaming. It's easy for me to choose not to support Epic Games Store, however, until they get their shit together and give me reasons to utilize their service and buy games on their platform. Reasons that aren't openly hostile toward my user experience gaming on PC, or openly hostile toward other PC gaming entities (including but not limited to Steam), entities who I perceive as actually having contributed positively to the texture and state of PC gaming today. Until they can achieve that and prove their commitment to PC as more than just a big new revenue stream for the company, I'll continue seeing them as outsiders who've got little to offer me for my money.
Last edited:
Oh come on. You want to follow up a comment about people fighting for companies honours, with nonsense like "anyone can interpret anything how they want?" That's just weak.
If you don't want to waste energy, don't. But if you post something here, you will always have the risk of someone actually reading it and commenting on it.
I'd be surprised if BL3 is a EGS exclusive. I don't think Epic could pay enough to lock down a title of this magnitude. I suspect BL3 will launch on Steam and Epic's store simultaneously. Gearbox needs the largest audience it can get, their last few games weren't exactly huge financial successes, and the potential of BL3 becoming a colossal financial success is too great to lock it down to a single store front. imo
What games has it brought to PC? Epic Confirmed they didn't make QD port the games
Back when I bought it last year, the Handsome Collection's price varied depending on what you owned. Mine was $10.83. Lacked most BL2 skins DLCs and Pre-Sequel DLCs.
User Banned (Permanent): Ignoring mod post, history of trolling
Sorry, I really don't understand.
Regardless if the game is on Steam or EGS, you will be able to buy and play it on your PC for, I'm assuming, the same price. So why does it matter? Is it a matter of principle of not having more than one "launcher" installed?
Regardless if the game is on Steam or EGS, you will be able to buy and play it on your PC for, I'm assuming, the same price. So why does it matter? Is it a matter of principle of not having more than one "launcher" installed?
Imagine, having the ability to read previous posts and even previous threads.
I think at this point we need a summation post, much like Chaobreaker's GamerGate synopsis at the old place, to sticky and link to when new JAQ'ers arrive to the thread.
Is "what's wrong with another launcher" the new "it's all about ethics in game journalism"?
EDIT: Gonna start linking to GhostTrick's infographics, which they were good enough to repost a few posts downstream.
Is "what's wrong with another launcher" the new "it's all about ethics in game journalism"?
EDIT: Gonna start linking to GhostTrick's infographics, which they were good enough to repost a few posts downstream.
Last edited:
I second this. I haven't kept up with this and am not a PC player at all, but I'm interested about the subject and kind of afraid to ask what the deal is.
Are you sure isn't like the others? I know that this argument is used by most people, but I'd say they aren't thinking things through.
As a consumer, why should you care who are the developers of a game in the first place? Why should the consumer care if they are a first party of the store, or a third party, or whatever else?
What it matters is you want a product, it's on store X at price Y, so if you buy (or don't) depending of a series of factors (quality of the game, price, extra features of the store, etc). But why I, as a consumer, should think "oh, Origin store, it's kind of decent but not the best, I will buy the game but only because it's from EA, who also makes the store". That's silly. If the store is good enough to buy Battlefield on it (supposing I want BF), it's also good enough to any other game I want, even if it's third party.
Same with the Epic Store. Or it's good enough or it's not, but that shouldn't change depending if the game is the next UT from Epic or Metro Exodus.
It's so simple, for console players you have 2 similarly powered ps4 systems, one has the ps4 feature set whereas the other has the feature set of the ps1 and questionable spyware which would you rather play on?
What's worse is Epic are forcing people to play on the gimped version by buying all these exclusives.
So even switching to a console instead would provide a better experiance.
What's worse is Epic are forcing people to play on the gimped version by buying all these exclusives.
So even switching to a console instead would provide a better experiance.
Despite the fervor and antagonistic responses you find on Era/Reddit etc, this is probably how most people will see it. People already do it en masse for games like Fortnite, Destiny 2, and Apex Legends -- whether it's a first party or third party game doesn't make a big difference for most people, I imagine.
You're straight up wrong. You can easily get new games under MSRP when a game is on Steam due to something called "competition", you know, the word that the people who defend the EGS to death love to pull out, between keysellers. Good luck getting that when the only place to buy games for the EGS is from the store itself
Said post should be mandatory to read if you want to actually partake in the discussion as well.
I was wondering the same. Too much "it's just another launcher, competition is good, you're all Steam white knights" posts, blatantly ignoring the point of view of PC players worried about the Epic Store since a few months.
Some people simply disagree that EGS competing with Steam is a bad thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would love them to compete with Steam, it's a shame that they are instead going down the path of paying to get games removed from Steam such that they do not have to compete.
And that's fine. But it'd be better with actual arguments and not blanket statements
Do Hulu and Netflix not compete? Spotify and Apple Music? Music and TV/Movie streaming services compete over content and strike exclusivity deals. It's a normal part of competing in just about any industry.
That goes both ways.
It's just up. 2 pictures summing up and a full thread of it.
Also it's a good exemple you took since that kind of """competition""" led to a rise in piracy.
You seriously are saying nobody has articulated any reasonable problem with EGS? Really?
By all means feel free to show me any content for those services that were announced for one service, but then prior to release pulled and then made available for another instead.
Typically if something is only available for one of those services, it's because it's actually exclusive, not just because they paid to get it removed from one rival service. Epic are not securing exclusives, they are just paying for games to be pulled from Steam.
Apple Music got a ton of shit for buying exclusivity on albums multiple times.
Also pretty bad example bringing up streaming services. TV piracy in particular has (once again) been an increasing issue recently with every network creating their own service, Its pushing people back to piracy undoing all the work Netflix did over the past few years to decrease it.
Music services have moved away from securing exclusives. Everyone hated it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/app...-exclusives-angering-labels-kanye-west-2017-5
Almost all of the exclusives on video streaming services are produced by the service it is exclusive to.
What game has been pulled from Steam? Afaik it's just been pre-orders and coming soon pages that got pulled -- not the actual games.
But either way, just google and you'll find Jay Z and others have pulled from Spotify to move to Tidal etc.
No, I'm saying there's both legitimate and dumb bad faith arguments on both sides. On the other hand, you seem to be implying nobody has articulated any reasonable arguments in favor of EGS competing, which I think is pretty ridiculous.
I'm talking about third party content, not first party content.
And yes pre-orders and coming soon pages were for games.
I really don't care about the exclusivity, but I'd rather it not be exclusive to EGS just so this negative cloud won't hang over the game indefinitely.
Is "whataboutism" one of those reasonable arguments? Because, you know, I have a big problem with the way Netflix secures exclusives, too.
I never said anything about what you think about exclusives so I dont' know why you think we're arguing about that.
- Status