-
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
Next headline: "Martyr indie dev is threatening benevolent Epic Games Tim Sweeney with weaponized charity".
A) He's donating 100% of his own revenue, not Epics who would still get their cut
B) A precedent where a small dev can get on EGS without an exclusivity deal! How is this a bad thing for anyone involved, including Epic?!
This is a scenario where the worst that could happen is putting some pressure on Epic to start treating small developers better and maybe not prevent them from selling their games on EGS unless they cave in for exclusivity. And at its best, Epic actually do live up to their words and do something that would really help a lot of small developers while some charity get some free money... Like, the most negative thing that could come out of all this is some multi billions company getting bad press for the way they treat developers(which is also good, really), yet you, and some others are trying to somehow paint this as something bad.
TIL that the basic tenets of supply and demand are akin to contractual exclusivity clauses.
There's literally nothing that Steam is doing that you don't see in most competitive markets throughout the world. Saying they're "forcing developers to choose them" by offering up a better service is like saying your regular hairdresser is forcing haircuts on you by making your hair look the best.
That's not really what "revenue" means. They may have actually meant "profit", or they might have not. It's entirely academic as they're not actually donating anything since it's not happening anyway.
I find it hard to praise theoretical philatropy conditional on impossible conditions, but I'll gladly donate $1000 to the charity of your choice if you manage to convince me of how admirable that is.
Is this a) actually asking me for Epic's reasons, b) the start of a tangential discussion about these reasons, or c) a clumsy attempt to bait me into seeming aligned with Epic when I provide them? I find it hard you can't figure out a), and I'm obviously not interested in b) or c).
and you know what FUCK the musicians who do charity performances
why they gotta hold the venue owners hostage with that shit
'oh but we need the money from the charity performance sales to have money to donate to charity hurr"
if ur gonna donate, just donate, leave others out of it with your militarized assault charity
why they gotta hold the venue owners hostage with that shit
'oh but we need the money from the charity performance sales to have money to donate to charity hurr"
if ur gonna donate, just donate, leave others out of it with your militarized assault charity
Man, I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread lol. I'm gonna get a fucking brain aneurysm reading all this shit about defacto exclusives and weaponized charities.
See now it's escalated to us weaponizing laughter.
We'll be lucky if cockroaches survive this.
Epic agreeing to sell a game is an impossible condition?
All they have to do is agree, the same way they agree to larger publishers that aren't playing along with their exclusivity game.
Shhh, to the EGS converts GOG isn't "significant" enough to talk about.
Perhaps the only positive development out of the whole EGS fiasco is that more publishers are announcing their games will also release on GOG after the exclusivity is up. Ashen and Sinking City are both GOG-bound now, and I'm actually hoping 505 will do the same for Control, since they don't seem to have a problem with GOG in general.
Glad to hear these games are GoG bound. The more options the better, and I seriously doubt they were selling well being trapped on EGS.
Do these musicians go to twitter and @ them asking if they are allowed to perform there expecting the audience and followers to cheer for them?
The more games on GOG the better, it's nice to see those are all coming to GOG. I hope all the EGS exclusive games end up there eventually.
User Banned (1 week): drive-by posting, history of similar infractions
Why make the deal with Epic ic you don't want the exclusivity? Seems kind of two faced.
"I don't understand anything that's going on and just want to shitpost and insult indie devs"
A corporation accepting a deal where they would only stand to lose money, from someone that's been publicly critical of them? I would definitely not bet my savings on that. :D
The EGS would lose money if they sell a game and keep their 12% cut? Interesting.
The money that is promised to charity will come from the developer's revenue not Epic's.
But even so, Epic is losing far bigger amounts of money from their moneyhats and so but also makes a lot. It will not be a live or die situation even if they were to contribute their share of sales.
It's charity. Unarmed as any charity is.
OP
OP
But he wasn't "publicly critical of them". He just stated why he couldn't accept the deal, and that he wished that smaller devs could get the same kind of treatment as bigger ones when it comes to EGS releases (namely, the ability to ship a game on both EGS and Steam). There was nothing critical about it.
thankfully venue's dont ask for smaller bands to go exclusive to their locations for a year or kick rocks while letting some Headliners come and go as they please (Money is money after all, but only for SOME bands) and say its all for the good of the little indie bands they love so much who have it so hard
Do venues go on twitter and @ musicians who chose not to play there due to not wanting an exclusivity deal, and in the process piggyback the artist's current good press, success and hard work to promote the venue's own business?
Fair point, assuming that's what he meant (it would be nice if someone asked him to clarify). It would still open the possibility for any other dev to do the same (which, don't get me wrong, would be awesome, but I don't think Epic would count that as a win).
I disagree with the whole premise that the dev is "weaponizing charity". Epic is being given a chance to look good with only the need to treat an indie dev like they do the big guys (drop the exclusivity clause) and prove they "love devs" like they always say they do. They still take their 12% and the dev donates his revenue from EGS to charity. I see a clever marketing move, no weaponization of any sort. All you are doing is trying to use aggressive terms to try to paint the dev in a negative light.
that's just me doing that cuz im dumb
and I know some record labels already do stuff like exclusivity contracts
OP
OP
Now that this point has been clarified, could you show me receipts on the dev criticizing Epic? ("A corporation accepting a deal where they would only stand to lose money, from someone that's been publicly critical of them?")
From his tweet:
His EGS revenue doesn't include Epic's share of the sale, that's not part of "his" revenue, there really is no room to interrupt this as anything other than exactly this!
Imagine if your actually spent as much time trying to understand his tweet, as you did coming up with that disingenuous condition as an example, which hilariously is nothing like the offer he's making!
I wouldn't even bother trying to decipher what you're trying to say in the rest of that post...
The DARQ dev is only employing Tim's own tactics. Remember when Sweeney was, uh, weaponizing Epic's lower cut and exclusivity deals by pretending to wanting to end his shady business strategy as soon as Valve lowers their cut? While knowing full well it won't happen because it's not sustainable without significant cross-subsidization if your store is more advanced than a wet paper bag. But now a small dev challenging a billionaire? Oh no, we can't have that. it's against the rules, pls one man game developer, stay professional.
- Status