-
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.
DARQ Dev: Why I turned down exclusivity deal from the Epic Store
- Thread starter Axisofweevils
- Start date
- Status
If Epic wanted to keep this out, they could have gone into a proper buisness discussion with a full NDA, like all their other deals, instead of of an unsolicited email that spilled everything on the first conversation.
A great PR move drawing attention to yourself and your game by writing an article like this. A bit cynical, but thats often whats needed to succeed. Its a super cheap way to get a lot of attention, and get some goodwill especially from those who hate or dislike EGS.
Proper business? Please show us the NDA that was broken.
"Proper business" would be to absolutely take the free PR for exposing Epic's shitty behaviour and establishing credibility with the Steam customers they are expressly trying to reach.
It's not a cheap way at all. What's cheap is how epic is being. This dev did nothing wrong and deserves success from it.
exactly, they could have had him sign an nda but they didn't and it's a public email.
Or maybe how about disclosing Epic's Scummy business practices and him getting the short stick end since they don't allow to publish on steam at all? The only cheap thing is people like you accusing the dev for making a supposed 'PR Stunt'. Its disguting tbh.
I wonder if Epic would be open to a counter-offer for indie games like this? Keep your bribe money, you can have the game, but it also stays on other platforms. If they reject that, then there's absolutely no defense left.
They keep saying "Competition", but that's not how competition works. That's how monopolies work. You don't combat a monopoly by becoming a monopoly yourself. Competition drives innovation and pricing because the customer has a choice. You entice a customer to choose your product over your competition, you don't force them to. That's the opposite of competition.
They do it to indie games because they can get away with it. Good on Unfold for doing what's right by the customer and maintaining the integrity of making games for gamers and not shareholders.
They keep saying "Competition", but that's not how competition works. That's how monopolies work. You don't combat a monopoly by becoming a monopoly yourself. Competition drives innovation and pricing because the customer has a choice. You entice a customer to choose your product over your competition, you don't force them to. That's the opposite of competition.
They do it to indie games because they can get away with it. Good on Unfold for doing what's right by the customer and maintaining the integrity of making games for gamers and not shareholders.
Im not saying he did anything wrong. He made the right call writing an article like this, its a integrity boosting move, generates attention (including a thread on this very site and no doubt many others) and requires very litte work from him (which is what i meant by cheap, but i should have said "low-cost"). Already on the first page we see a person who says he will buy the game just based on the article. Its shrewd, and its absolutely a PR stunt, but thats not a bad thing.
Last edited:
There should now be a new option in preferences to set it back to the old way:
Official Staff CommunicationGood news regarding the user ignore feature! After putting in some extra work, we found a way to provide members with an option to choose between the new version and the old. Under your Preferences, there should now be this toggle:
The default (no selection) will have the newer function, where content from ignored members will be indicated with a stub. If you choose the other option, it'll be as it was before -- all traces of content from ignored members will disappear.
I never said the broke an NDA, which would have had severe financial penalties.
I said using social media and banking on ill will towards EGS likely played a part in this.
I could be wrong, but that seems to be what the developer was saying. EGS isn't interested in selling indie games that won't agree to exclusivity, even without the payoff.
That's exactly what this dev offered already (and was denied, Epic don't want indie games if they can't deny it to Steam, that option is reserved only for Cyberpunk and Vampire: The Masquarade)
Good for them. I wouldn't blame most indies for taking the money but I appreciate seeing an indie dev holding their ground against Epic's advances. And as always, I'm left feeling vindicated as every ounce of information regarding Epic's strategy and behavior affirms that which I had been saying about them since day 1.
That kind of rhetoric concerns me quite a bit tbh
There isn't some magical conspiracy about the media, we shouldn't perpetuate that
People are going too far but i don't think that there is conspiracy. Ijust think that gaming journalists are way more oriented toward the devs than toward the customers. And this is the case for years. That is why you don't see that many journalists complain about MTX, most of them consider them good thing.
Exactly.
Most journalists consider MTX to be a good thing....?
Where are you getting this from?
I've seen way too many posts saying something to the tune of 'Epic bought the media, that's why they're hiding the true story here/that's why they're supporting EGS'
You can disagree with journalists and their articles, even talk shit, but we enable that kind of conspiracist behavior when we don't stamp it out. It's bad.
EGS forcing exclusivity makes no sense as it doesn't intrinsically benefit the bottom line for developers. Especially with GOG Galaxy 2 aspiring to eliminate the segregation of PC platforms, giving players a choice between purchasing the game on non-EGS stores or supporting the devs even more going on EGS is ultimately the better option. Epic still gives them a good deal and financial boost and gamers are free to buy the game wherever they please.
Dunno, we had a "journalist" in this very thread that suggests that you're either pro-EGS or pro-harassment. This shit needs to get called out.
Or that thread where a PCGamer editor got banned for spreading lies. That was kinda epic.
Last edited:
Various podcasts and talks. From what i heard there general consensus is that they are fine with them or neutral.
As i said people go too far. But in case of PCGamer things are a bit muddy because Epic was major sponsor of their E3 event and they published a lot of pro-Epic Store articles that were reading more like PR talk than opinion pieces or reporting. And i usually compare this things to things from my work (architecture) where a lot of things looks absolutely fine to people outside these circles but boy are things different behind the scenes. Or to put it short i trust nobody, journalists, gamers or developers.
This "you either are pro-EGS or you harass developers" narrative is so manipulative and screwed up, yet so funny at the same time since you can see it's bullshit from 500 kilometers away lmao
Exactly.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy for a minute, but just plain old incompetence.
Then call it out. I'm not going to stop you from arguing their points.
Referring to someone as a "journalist" accomplishes nothing. It's just red meat for the gamergate crowd.
We literally had a journalist in here saying if you are anti-egs you are pro harassment, and in another thread, we had a PC gamer author antagonising everyone upset by the Shenmue situation and spreading bullshit "just a launcher" rhetoric.
This distrust of game journalists hasn't come from nowhere.
Edit: I guess I'm late to this point.
Calling it a conspiracy would be giving them way too much credit lol
You forgot the part where he sheds light on EGS scummy methods for the world to know. That's kind of cool of him don'tcha think?
MS's problems were all ingame. Not much to do with their storefront. They barely had a store as it is.
This is a really dumb move. Getting into to the good graces of "gamers" is absolutely worthless.
What else should you call someone posting on ResetEra with a Journalist tag?
Edit:
Why shouldn't we be allowed to call someone "journalist" who took the process to get verafied as a journalist and stated to get a journalist tag?
You shouldn't demonize the media in general but you should be free to critize specific outlets or journalists.
Last edited:
Well, I'm glad some developers don't share your opinion.
Jeez dude, era users are just waiting for the -80% sale to support the dev.
Whelp.
I mean the real question is exactly how many copies would Epic have fronted if he took the offer?
Whelp.
He said upfront that he was more concerned with long term success/vs short term gain, and its why this discussion is hard to have without being privy to his (and Epic's) sales projections.
This was never going to be a million seller, so was Epic's theoretical offer more than what he's selling right now?
Last edited:
Are you asking if Epic's offer would have been more than the equivalent of 105 copies sold on Steam? Probably. **EDIT** I was mistaken on what peak players meant. Thanks.
This would have been a great way for the "I hate EPIC" people to support a dev who didn't take the deal and put their money where their mouths are. Instead it just proves people like to complain and jump on bandwagons. Maybe people will buy it when it's a dollar on Steam and pretend they're really helping.
Just goes to show that the "I would have bought it if it wasn't an EPIC exclusive" people are full of shit.
Last edited:
You understand that's peak 105 people playing at the same time, not sales numbers right?
Not to mention a short length horror based indie adventure game was never going to sell gangbusters on any platform. Again, without any knowledge of sales numbers or what Epic's offer would have actually been, you can't say if this was a huge mistake on his part or not.
I'm sure none of this matters as you seem more concerned with shitting on people but whatever.
Last edited:
Considering that this is an adventure game that lasts a little over 2 hours, I really don't think the number of concurrent players is a good indicator of how well it's selling.
edit: Goddammit Jason.
edit: Goddammit Jason.
I don't get how Mat Piscatella and Jason Schreier see this as coming out as a martyr. The dev is clear in his statement; Epic's terms are too restrictive and he doesn't want to betray the fans who were promised a Steam release.
What an odd conclusion to jump to.
What an odd conclusion to jump to.
Whelp.
Taking into account those are just 'peak players playing at the same time' numbers for a single player puzzler that just came out, those numbers could be better.
Ok, I was mistaken on that point. Regardless, it's still not a great number. Or even good.
The game's been out for less than three days. This dev's article has been out for even less time. And that's just peak concurrent players. So I'm not sure that the point you're trying to make here holds up at all.
That's dumb as fuck honestly. In no way they're trying to come off as a martyr.
"Turning down the Epic exclusivity offer might have been a foolish decision in the short term, considering the amount of money that might have been involved. When thinking long term, however, this was an easy and obvious decision to make (in my case).
"Pulling the game off Steam a few days after Steam release date announcement would forever ruin the credibility of my studio. I would like for my customers to have confidence that my word means something, especially when making announcement as crucial as release date/platform."
"Every indie studio has a unique story and has to deal with a unique set of obstacles. The reasons are mine and mine only. Rejecting such offer happened to be right for my game, but might not be right for other games/studios, as their goals and long-term plans might differ from mine."
How is that being a martyr ?
- Status