Damn now that you put it that way, they need to be brought to justice. We can't let them get away with this without sentencing them to some mild disapproval. The punishment should fit the crime.
-
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.
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
Damn now that you put it that way, they need to be brought to justice. We can't let them get away with this without sentencing them to some mild disapproval. The punishment should fit the crime.
The guy's offering free DLCs to his customers, this is the opposite of cheap.
I think he would genuinely offer his EGS revenue to the chose charity if Tim was brave enough to pick up the glove. Why? Because he would be crucified if he did not.
So far the only one that appears cheap and hollow is the one that denied the game's access.
Some people are ok with witholding donations to charity in the name of attention. You do you, I guess.
He is promising something he does not have to give. Any store is free to accept or reject access to their business, Valve included.
Dude weaponized the charity I've said that 3 times. Why are you so fixated on that.....Im asking you though so what? If it proves his point and gets money to people who need it, Id say nobody is gonna argue the means. Least of all the charity.
You can draw the line in the sand if you wish but that line has been crossed and that line makes sense. But of coarse, we could take a lesson from the Ooblets devs and instead of arguing about a miniscle store we can donate to a charity.Was it crossing a line when they said this to the anti-epic crowd?
"Evil" is silly, but let's not be so profoundly naive as to pretend it's anything but a perfectly calculated PR move that they know Epic will never agree with (especially considering a) Epic would stand to lose money if "100% of revenue" was donated, and b) it would settle a precedent for other indie devs to do the same). Still, indie games need all the exposure they can get, this back and forth is quite amusing to watch, and it's sparking a lot of conversation about Epic's practices.
Last edited:
That's not a Valve call, that's a developer decision. To my knowledge, Valve has never forced exclusivity on any developer.
But of course, you probably know that and acknowledging it is an omission of choice.
It would be great if it happened. Not going to deny it. But weaponzing charity is still a bad look. It's bad on Twitter when right wing types go "Debate me and I will donate to charity!" in bad faith, it's bad here too in my opinion. But if it does end working, then good.
So all you have done is confirm his post, you have an agenda against the dev probably because he's making epic look like fools which it seems you don't like.
He's promising something that would make him and epic look good, that's all he's not doing anything wrong.
If the dev wants to give to charity, they should give to charity. Not playing games, like the dev is doing.
What are you talking about? Square Enix of Japan haven't put any of their titles out on PC because of no support in that landscape and piracy. It changed when Valve entered and where it became a place of profit that all of a sudden they place it on Steam and Steam only. PC isn't popular in Japan so they didn't know of any other PC launchers...just that Steam is the most popular.
The reason you see Squeenix titles on Steam because that's the only place they know where most of the sales are on PC and they choose just to have it there.
You know there is a difference between offering a oportunity to make charties money, and weaponizing indies precarity. Don't pretend it's the same.
Epic is ok with witholding visibility and access to their advantagous revenue repartition, to struggling indies, in the name of trying to get marketshare.
or as posted by Kaguya
Yep:
Than Epic should allow him on EGS, your posts have consistently been attacking the dev for little reason well excusing everything else, you keep making points that make very little sense.
but whose to say that the darq devs won't give to charity still even if tim says no?
It would be bad faith if Tim himself wasn't known to use the same language and using it here to show that even in a situation were basically everyone involved could come out looking great at no expense, Epic are still going to cling to their exclusivity clauses.......well lets just say one party comes out looking worse than the other.
Either way, thats why I find the entire thing so hilarious.
Because the topic is about sales within the EGS getting donated to charity. It's pretty much the title of this thread?
He said if his game is allowed to be sold on Epic's store any profits from them will be donated for charity. This is the whole thing. Epic looks bad because they keep refusing his game after wanting exclusivity. The dev hasn't done anything wrong on this whole thing.
Ok troll, one more try-
Darq dev will donate any EGS money to charity. If Darq isn't on EGS, there's no money to donate to charity. It's not like he's got the EGS money already to donate and holding off until his game is allowed.
How is this complicated?
Oh but he has. He has his creation, his intellectual property that has a certain value which he intents to offer to a charity if something that normally happens on stores, happens with his game: place it for sale.
The one that has nothing to give is Epic because, from this situation, the only thing they wanted is take.
User Banned (5 days): Antagonizing over a series of posts, history of infractions in related threads.
Jesus, you guys don't really read what I post, right?
In simpler terms: weaponzing charity=BAD
Donating to charity wihtout using it as a weapon=GOOD.
Got it? Do you disagree with this? Is this okay because it hits a target you don't like? What does that say about you as a person?
In simpler terms: weaponzing charity=BAD
Donating to charity wihtout using it as a weapon=GOOD.
Got it? Do you disagree with this? Is this okay because it hits a target you don't like? What does that say about you as a person?
I only mention the Steam store in that quote, I didn't blame Valve at all. I'm hoping Stadia and EGS gets popular so that developers have more reason to start considering putting their games on more than just steam so I have more options on how I get my games. I actually wish more devs used Origin, it's fast, snappy, amazing customer service, and light. I love Amazon's PC game delivery (bought a few games directly from them). Their customer service is S-tier, same with EA from my experience. I just try to avoid Steam if it's possible, and now even with hardware.
I love the Steam Controller to bits, and I've had to craft my own parts replacements for this darn oddly made thing. Parts break inside just from normal use (look up the bumper button mechanism for example). My Y button's membrane just wore out and pressing it now cause it to stay down for a bit before quickly popping back up loudly. My gyro always drifts no matter how often I calibrate it, and the analog drifts too (maybe similar to the Switch controller contacts thing). This is the most annoying to maintain controller I ever had, but I need it, it's is awesome when it works and I don't have to counter the gyro drift.
Yeah, wtf is up with that?
"nice game you have there, want to sell it only on our store?"
Pretty much. Fiercely stanning for one side or the other, when it's nothing more than two professionals trying to maximize their own exposure, public image and revenue, is the equivalent of getting emotionally invested in WWE drama.
I would agree, if the dev was going to donate to charity prior and Epic were going to give him money regardless. Unfortunately regrdless of how you wanna spin this, the dev is asking to be helped onto the store as Tim has hinted he wanted to do and has even pledged that he will donate any revinue from said store if allowed.
Its weaponized but not only did he play it smart but he managed to make the billionare company look greedy in comparison.A masterstroke in PR which may well end up helping someone in need.
There's maybe a distinction between a lone individual and a multibillion-dollar corporation.
Help someone in need? nah. We have a corporation to stan for here.
I don't think there's enough straw in the world for the strawman this guy is trying to build. "Nobody profits from charity". "The dev is withholding charity donations". Like what the hell is wrong with some people?
With regard to SE, that seem to be changing soon, and I hope they go back and start including more games. Origins sell FFXV. I used SE as an example since it was the most recent in my mind from wondering if Nier was patched yet, and having to just get FFXII TZA on steam. Some of their games aren't the only ones obviously.
The thing with Square though, they have a very convoluted double account and store setup on PC. They go through all of that setting up and they don't even sell all their games themselves. Maybe it's coming, I could only hope. It would be something if they start with Avengers.
----------
Just saw a rpg game reviewer that I trust is uploading a lot on Remnant From The Ashes. After I scanned google to see if it's on anything but Steam, so far not so good. I'll wait a bit since some people say Darksiders was on GOG and this game is apparently related somehow.
Last edited:
Welp, we have our new talking point deflection. Weaponizing Charities. This is going to be an interesting one to see the through line for. Poor Billionaire Timmy. Being provoked by an independent developer.
(Props to the soulless PR people who came up with that. It's catchy. They earned their pay.)
(Props to the soulless PR people who came up with that. It's catchy. They earned their pay.)
Last edited:
So your grievance is with an imaginary timeline you've invented? Has it occured to you the Epic's interest and the release date announcement were only a coincidence?
Which is how we can tell you don't know what you are talking about.
Weaponizing charity is exactly what they did.
Money is money. Pretending like there is a difference based on when it comes in is total nonsense. Many devs are up to their eyeballs in debt. An exclusivity deal from Epic that lets them pay that all off in one fell swoop is financing as much as anything else.
No. And EGS isn't forcing games to be EGS only. Valve assumes costs involved with Steamwork features that, once integrated, make games defacto exclusives. Devs save on cost in exchange for tying their game to Steam. EGS just writes checks instead. Either method echanges financial benefits for exclusivity.
Perhaps it would be better to call this "a trojan horse" in place of "weaponized". The latter term seems a little too much given the context. This is not a war.
EDIT: I realize the horse has been used in a war, lol.
EDIT: I realize the horse has been used in a war, lol.
Remember when Gametap funded games like Telltale's Sam & Max?
Remember when Gamespy was the default provider for multiplayer/online services?
No, you dont remember any of that.
NOOO EGS isn't forcing games to be EGS only.... WTF is this no sense. A lot of games that integrate Steamworks are sold on another stores without talking the fact that you can generate unlimited keys without fee that you can sell anywhere and where steam eats all the costs.
Last edited:
Developers are still free to release their games on other stores and platforms regardless of wether or not they're using steamworks features in the steam version
Okay, some of the users here have apparently gone nutso with all the misinformation being spread around here pertaining to PC, Steam, and especially EGS.
And people wonder why the PC thread in this forum is pretty much a former shell of itself.
I'm sorry, did Darq end up exclusive to EGS without the developer's consent? No? They made and offer and he declined? So no one was forced? Right.
Charity wasn't Just weaponized, it was stolen as a child from a 3rd world country and raised by radicals in a secret blacksite to gain psychic powers to be used against CAPITALISTS
What? The condition of the deal offered to the DARQ dev was that it must be exclusive. This is known. Valve doesn't stipulate you can't sell elsewhere or else you can't be on Steam.
What am I even reading?
I'd be happy to listen to your argument on this. The game has been in development for quite a while and presented in various events. Epic could have approached the developer at any time with an exclusivity offer, yet they did so a couple of days after the developer announced the official release date on Steam. Do you think that the available data paints coincidence as the most likely scenario? Explain please.
But I do. I really do. Arguing that Epic is an extra option like any other when choosing to go with Epic means that you have to abandon all other choices is simply false. Objectively false, not a matter of opinion.
Absolutely not. The only thing that the developer weaponized was Epic's own hypocritical stance. Doing so for charity and not for personal gain really hammered home his point.
But they're not forcing anyone. They gave them an option, which they chose not to accept.
Seriously... what is your point? what do you expect? A gun pointing on the head of the dev? We are talking that the saviors of the "monopoly of steam" are creating a worse monopoly where only can buy the game on one store and in one price stablished while now you have plenty of other stores with better prices than steam itself.
Charity is like nuclear power itself. it can be used for good, or to kill millions.
"Either methods" you're not making sense here.
Steamworks doesn't make "defacto exclusives". You can sell Steamworks games on Uplay, Origin, any store. They're not exclusives to Steam. Heck, you can also have a same game integrate Steamworks on Steam and integrate something else on other clients.
But for Epic though ? Nah. No choice. No other choice possible for a year.
If you can't see the difference, you should tone down on the bad faith console warring.
- Status