Don't think people are upset. Just people thinking it's a sad display as per usual
-
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 developer pledges to donate 100% of the EGS revenue if Tim Sweeney accepts to sell their game non-exclusively
- Thread starter Kurt Russell
- Start date
- Status
"It deserves success" but then saying they wanted it exclusively. Wouldn't it be even more successful if it was available on more than one store?
Ha awesome, way to stick it to those assholes and turn it around on them. We need more devs like this.
Recently released indie game. Epic said they'd only host it on EGS if it was exclusive, dev refused and posted the email on Twitter along with an explanation about why they didn't take the deal. Reactions to the deal-refusal and the posting of the email (even in the absence of an NDA) were mixed.
I understand people who aren't fussed by EGS stuff, but the takes that were really alien to me were the ones being very concerned by how "unprofessional", "cynical" etc the Darq devs were by speaking publicly on this issue. Which included people like J Schreier.
Its more pointing out the hypocrisy of saying"Yes I want you to be as successful as possible" whilst limiting your options to be successful. It shows an inherit flaw in EGS' stance as pro developer.
Last edited:
They would be pretty much the only group to have any incentive to do so.
He was explaining in hindsight why they made the exclusivity offer to begin with. Egs guarantees success with these offers.
As of this writing, Darq has 460 reviews on Steam, which gives me an idea of about how many copies it has sold. This tells me that being a twitter hero doesn't always translate to sales, and maybe taking the deal would have been far more lucrative
Ah I see, I honestly think the devs are enjoying the publicity
we like seeing such info but is it ok to just reveal private agreement emails?
Then he pretty much looses nothing now by adding the game onto EGS. This will still add to the success of the game and will fufil the EGS mission of helping indies. Of coarse he wont..cause reasons......but its good for the industry.
I was to lazy to search for the article, but here is the quote where they mention it being a bandwidth problem.
Once again, smells like BS excuse. It was Epic that contacted the developer to get his game in the store, but just because he dosent want to be exclusive to Epic, now all of a sudden, sorry, we got no bandwidth for you. :(
I have no stakes on the EGS steam war but i cant see an issue in this
Epic refuses nothing changes
Epic accepts a charity gets profit
What exactly is the issue here?
"Enjoying publicity" is such an outdated critique to this day and age that i'd rather not humour it. There are several ways to get publicity and this is one of the most harmless and possibly profitable (for charities) ways of doing it so again, whats the issue?
Epic refuses nothing changes
Epic accepts a charity gets profit
What exactly is the issue here?
"Enjoying publicity" is such an outdated critique to this day and age that i'd rather not humour it. There are several ways to get publicity and this is one of the most harmless and possibly profitable (for charities) ways of doing it so again, whats the issue?
I don't know that he won't. Have they replied to his public offer?
If I was EGS, though, I wouldn't sign him -- Not because of exclusivity, but because he burned the bridge by using their private email offer to dunk on them publicly for PR. It appears it didn't pan out.
I mean If I were them I would just disagree and move on, but it seems the devs found an opportunity to gain publicity?
I wanna say that the idea of selling it on EGS and have 100% of it go to charity is great. I am talking about how all this started
Nah, it's pretty baller of him. He just called the school yard bully out pretty much.
In what way is a unsoliciated email with no previous contact or agreement private?
Release bandwidth meaning "capacity to handle uploading it and releasing it". But yeah it is a laughable thing. What they really mean is they don't think the game is important enough to worry about it unless it is exclusive (which they would care about because it would give them a competitive advantage).
The conversation was very much in the vein of "Ok, there's nothing legally binding preventing them from showing the email but was it professional?". Being relatively outspoken against EGS was also seen by some as implicitly condoning harassment of devs who did take the deal, but personally I found their explanation was pretty civil and it didn't rule out publishing on EGS in the future.
There was also stuff about some games journalists accusing the dev of trying to be a "martyr" but I don't know how that ended up.
I was under the impression DarQ was getting review bombed on Steam.
he's happy with his sales
but you should make sure to let him no actually he's wrong and you obviously know better
All of this talk about burning bridges and unprofessionalism is very odd considering we have seen pro-EGS developers basically do the reverse of this, defending EGS and there was none of this rhetoric. Only until it exploded with the oblets devs issue that it has been discussed.
Do EGS Apologists know what user reviews are? Or has Epic actually added that functionality in yet?
Personally I don't think I would have ever heard of this game or looked at it if wasn't for this story.
Game could be great or bad, regardless I'm just stating an observation
I didn't say whether he was happy or not, please don't suggest that I did say that, because I didn't. I won't be so bold as to suggest I know what numbers would make anyone happy, or maybe some people don't value money at all -- and that could very well be why he turned it down. I can say that I strongly believe he would have made a lot more from an EGS deal, though.
And the developer believes he would have made even more with steam + EGS sales.
And there is this wierd thing that we should accept that taking an EGS deal is fine for developers the believe they need the money, but people the opposite cannot be true, and we have the play "lets hope you fail" game for developers that dont take the deal. Its pretty hypocritical of this forum and a bit disturbing.
Not publicly. If Epic choose to allow the game onto the store it would actually be for the better IMO as they would still be helping indies whilst allowing them to reach the widest audience. Of coarse this would run contrary to their exclusive strategy so thats highly unlikely.
It did pan out though,the game was relatively successful according to the dev himself. So at this point, its more a pr battle which i might remind you our boy Tim has been playing for a very long time, so its nice to see a dev actually call him out on his help the devs stance.
User banned: (1 month) antagonizing other posters, history of previous infractions and similar actions
Holy shit, 100% of the revenues is a pretty generous offer.
At 20$ per copy for a multiplatform on the EGS that could make up to 400-500$!
And it would be a great chance for Hobbs, Jobbs and Bronson Lee to contribute to a charity, too.
At 20$ per copy for a multiplatform on the EGS that could make up to 400-500$!
And it would be a great chance for Hobbs, Jobbs and Bronson Lee to contribute to a charity, too.
Using reviews is a poor way of estimating sales. I've bought hundreds of games and I've left maybe two reviews, and that's because it was a thing for a badge
I've observed that a certain % of users who buy a game on steam review it on steam. IIRC I determined at one point it was about 10% but it could be bit lower. It's obviously not a science, and there are obviously factors that can make that number different -- for instance, people inverse review bombing him because he's an anti EGS champion. That probably made the number higher.
I can't say it with scientific certainty, but, again, it's just my strong belief that an EGS deal would have been more lucrative financially.
It's in the trending section on steam it can't be doing that bad.
Quick cash isn't lucrative perse if you cant build a brand with it. You need a bigger reach for that and other things like respect to be taken serious. If EGS really wants the best for the devs it buys out then it should want that long term succes for them. So no pettyness towards steam would be a good thing
What difference does it make? They're already not accepting the game, the devs have just turned the bizzareness of the situation around on them.
Title has a mistake in it. He pledges 100% of EGS revenue, not profit.
Important distinction, since revenue = whatever the game sells for on EGS. Profit = revenue less costs.
Important distinction, since revenue = whatever the game sells for on EGS. Profit = revenue less costs.
"EGS exclusives are good because we treat Developers better. Now do what we say or we will ban you from our store"
You can't make this shit up.
Ignoring your flawed assumptions, do any of you people realize that some developers make games because they want as many people as possible to play them, building an actual audience, and not just to get paid X amount of money?
Tim Sweeney using that winky face emoji after talking about knowing it would be a success, hence why they wanted exclusivity, is the very reason I refuse to purchase from EGS, his attitude and his companies attitude towards all of this is disgraceful imo.
On one hand he tries to take the moral high ground by claiming he cares about developers and wants healthy competition but then on the other hand behaves in such a childish and trollish manner on his personal twitter and every business move he makes with the store contradicts what he claims!
He has no shame and has made it abundantly clear at this point with his actions that all he wishes to do is snatch games from Steam and make Epic the very thing he claims to dislike about Steam, a monopoly (even though Steam isn't a monopoly whatsoever) this has nothing to do with anything else and he is not helping indie devs with his exclusionary deals either.
I don't like speaking this way but I really feel like him and his company are trying to exploit consumers and developers with the way he is conducting business, it just doesn't sit right with me.
On one hand he tries to take the moral high ground by claiming he cares about developers and wants healthy competition but then on the other hand behaves in such a childish and trollish manner on his personal twitter and every business move he makes with the store contradicts what he claims!
He has no shame and has made it abundantly clear at this point with his actions that all he wishes to do is snatch games from Steam and make Epic the very thing he claims to dislike about Steam, a monopoly (even though Steam isn't a monopoly whatsoever) this has nothing to do with anything else and he is not helping indie devs with his exclusionary deals either.
I don't like speaking this way but I really feel like him and his company are trying to exploit consumers and developers with the way he is conducting business, it just doesn't sit right with me.
How dare he slight Tim Sweeny, savior of PC gaming, by not taking his truck loads of cash in order to reduce competition.
- Status