Weird example, Tomb Raider was release on the Saturn before it was on the Playstation, and it was released for PC in the same month as the Playstation version.
-
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.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Says Only Exclusive Deals Can Combat Steam (see staff post for discussion guidelines)
- Thread starter RevengeTaken
- Start date
Weird example, Tomb Raider was release on the Saturn before it was on the Playstation, and it was released for PC in the same month as the Playstation version.
Tomb Raider was also out on the saturn and was not exclusive. The exclusive argument that everyone else does it and it's fine isn't a good arugment and fails instantly., Like Linkark said.
Still a bad example it was released on pc and playstation, saturn was dead or almost dead at the time and it was another 2 years before dreamcast came out.
Either way, we don't know if Sony paied Enix to not release it on the Saturn after it was almost done. Probably not, unless we get some proff or evidence that tells otherwise.
We are not talking about consoles here, though. This shit is new on PC, where it doesn't have a place.
We are not talking about consoles here, though. This shit is new on PC, where it doesn't have a place.
When the purpose of egs exclusives is to take away games from steam, yeah it is. It's why people have such an issue with it. If they paid to make exclusive games and not specifically pay to take it away from steam. it wouldnt' be an issue. Your points are disenginous.
I'm betting they didn't because when the dreamcast was released it got an tomb raider game. They didn't want to port the game to the n64.
Funding without any milestones, goals, or oversight is charity.
Devs (or the customers who claim to know the reason of the devs) who take Epics money because they would fail in the free market otherwise, have no incentive to change. To make a game that can compete on the free market, to make a game that would stand out, to make a game that is succesfull even if only 10.000 people buy it (i.e. budgeting realistically).
(I am talking about the argument that the devs are taking the money because they would close or would have no success otherwise.)
Sony did engage in buying temporal exclusivity at the time (Mortal Kombat Trilogy, off the top of my head). But in the end they didnt even need it since the PSX was desirable product for consumers and made business sense to publishers.
I've played Mortal Kombat Trilogy on the N64. Wikipedia says it was released on other consoles as well.
Nice. Also:
Halo was demoed at E3 2000, and that was the PC version. Then MS acquired them, the game came out for Xbox and didn't come out on PC for another two years. People love MS today.
Wasn't GTA3 paid to be Playstation exclusive?
Wasn't GTA3 paid to be Playstation exclusive?
It had a 6 month exclusivity
Nice try with the gotcha attempts but it doesnt work like that
People have to stop trying comparing EGS from Steam in 2004, the landscape in that era was immensely different than today.
There was no model of digital distribution to be based off, the only digital distribution model at the time was things like emule and shareaza.
EGS has all lay down to then, and they still fucked up with they bare bones model.
We, maybe, can´t even consider Half-Life 2 as an exclusive, because there was nowhere to distribute the game digital besides steam, unless you gave people an exe to download.
There was no model of digital distribution to be based off, the only digital distribution model at the time was things like emule and shareaza.
EGS has all lay down to then, and they still fucked up with they bare bones model.
We, maybe, can´t even consider Half-Life 2 as an exclusive, because there was nowhere to distribute the game digital besides steam, unless you gave people an exe to download.
Last edited:
I'm not talking about whether it's ok to pay to deprive certain platforms from access to a game from a moral point of view or whether it "has a place" on PC
I'm saying that what he said rings true from a business development perspective
I know that console exclusives is a thing. It happened a lot during last gen too. But, just because some shitty thing happens somewhere it doesn't make it ok to bring it to where it doesn't belong.
It may ring true from a business prospective but that doesn't make it right or a good thing. Exclusives with how epic are handling it is actively making PC gaming worst for everyone that's a fact as well.
Halo was Mac exclusive before MS bought Bungie. Bungie was a Mac developer.
It doesnt because so far doesnt seems to be working well for EGS, which had to do a mega sale. No wonder Epic couldnt secure any big title on E3.
And MS is the real threat for EGS, not Steam 🤷♂️
And even then, their argument doesnt work since MS helped fund the game. Lets not forget that Halo was retooled from TPS to FPS.
With - it's worth mentioning - a very desirable feature as far as my games collection is concerned that is currently pretty much unique to GoG, and - if they pull it off - an excellent selling point against Steam's feature set.
And I'd hazard a guess that CDProjekt don't have the same amount of resources to throw at this development than Epic do.
So?
In the real world said game would also release on consoles, and if they're smart, other PC launchers.
Nobody's stopping them from doing these things, so I'd blame the developers for mishandling their game. They should be putting their game on as many platforms as possible, and not limiting it to one single outlet.
Edit: On a side note it's disgusting that cherry picked console exclusives across different generations are used to justify Epic starving launchers of a multitude of games.
I guarantee y'all will be holding up consoles paying for online as justification for anyone that tries to do the same on PC. Whatever serves the billion dollar corporations.
It makes me shake my head that people still don't understand why what he's doing is a step back for PC gaming and are willing to go to bat for some Jeffrey Dahmer looking motherfucker that doesn't give a shit about them.
Well, that didn't work some years ago. Hopefully will never happen again.
Why are people comparing this to console exclusive.
They are literally buying thing to stop it releasing on one major distribution store.
The best comparison would be some new game store opens up and uk wise stops amazon and game uk from selling the last call of duty for a year because reasons.
It would be completey ridiculous and stupid
They are literally buying thing to stop it releasing on one major distribution store.
The best comparison would be some new game store opens up and uk wise stops amazon and game uk from selling the last call of duty for a year because reasons.
It would be completey ridiculous and stupid
If what he says rings true to you, I assume there's some precedent (or assumption) that the EGS will be profitable at some point. So the question is, how and when will that take place?
History has shown us that in order to maintain a sustainable business you need consistent exclusives (that is dominantly self owned/published) and/or a good service people want to use. There's no guarantee EGS will have any of those considering they've said they're not going to use this strategy long term and that they're not going to compete with Steam in terms of features.
Even if people buy all current exclusives that are available on EGS, what's their incentive to stay invested in their ecosystem? Why would they buy a game that is also available on other stores?
lol yep. imagine if Stadia came out, and Google was freely admitting that it's inferior to PS Now, it's laggy and blocky, etc. And Phil Harrison is openly saying if PS Now reduces their streaming fees, he'll pull the plug on Stadia.
But they bought Cyberpunk 2077 as a one year exclusive, and they're giving away Rime.
"you can't expect them to start with all the features!"
Consoles are used to justify Epic's buying up as many exclusives as possible.
They'd be used by the same people as an excuse for online multiplayer fees, because in their eyes what happens on consoles is okay to happen on PC.
There's no shortage of people that put what's best for corporations over what's best for them.
Yet consoles are exempt from the discussion when talking about the 70/30 cut to publishers...
Cause then, well, they aren't related for some reason. Consoles deserve the 70% cut. And licensing fees.
Funny how the TimmyDefenseCore likes cherry picking when and when not to invoke the console comparison.
Edit: And you expect a good faith discussion? Just put them on ignore and let them spout their hollow EGS talking points into a vacuum.
Last edited:
And that's when even Nintendo, from all people, has more features than EGS.
Consoles cost a lot of money to design and create, and are often sold at a loss at first. The software subsidizes that hardware investment. It's been that way for decades. Not only is your post a whataboutism, why would you even argue for Steam having a high royalty rate? Are you worried Steam making fewer billions would make your store experience worse? Has your Steam experience gotten worse since they cut that rate in December?
So the only way that funding is an investment is if there are milestones, goals, or oversight? Otherwise it is always charity and the resulting product should be free?
That's a pretty narrow definition. What about funding to gain exclusive access to the product?
yea, it takes no money to design and create software functionality, thankfully
Yeah, all those PS and Xbox software libraries and features get created by magic, doesn't cost a thing! WTF...
No, it wasn't. I'm not sure why this myth is going around so much here.
Halo was claimed to be coming on PC, was shown to journalists, published and commented on all the PC magazines of its time, this at least two years before it became the XBox megahit we know now.
Also yes, Bungie was born mainly as a Mac developer, sure, but after Marathon all their subsequent titles (MYTH 1 and 2, Oni, etc) were developed as multiplatforms.
At no point during the development and promotion of Halo (pre MS) ANYONE ever said a word about it being a Mac exclusive.
It would have also been quite bizarre, in a time where gaming on Machintosh was as its direst in terms of market share and Apple actively looked down at it.
Yep exactly, that's how they are able to subsidize the hardware
yeah, sure, not an exclusive
not like I needed Steam or anything to activate and install my retail copy
Seems odd to even mention the Playstation 1 in these arguments.
This console was $100 cheaper than its competitor (the Saturn) and much easier to develop for.
An appealing product for both consumers and developers. What a great idea!
Shame Epic can't even begin to understand it.
EDIT: Oh wait. Now we're back on the "Valve doesn't have a console, so they don't deserve their cut." nonsense. God damn.
This console was $100 cheaper than its competitor (the Saturn) and much easier to develop for.
An appealing product for both consumers and developers. What a great idea!
Shame Epic can't even begin to understand it.
EDIT: Oh wait. Now we're back on the "Valve doesn't have a console, so they don't deserve their cut." nonsense. God damn.
Are you saying they subsidize the hardware by the use of magic, or by spending money on software? You might want to start over...
Cherrypicking when and when not to invoke the console comparison when it suits their narrative. Just like good PR.
You weren't here during the days when Microsoft initially announced Games For Windows Live and said that there would be a monthly fee for online play?
We already heard those arguments. Haha
console this gen weren't sold at a lose so theres no need to any subsidising from software.
Strongly agree RE the bold. I'm really looking forward to that feature
User Banned (1 week): Trolling, history of similar infractions.
You should make a topic about it.
Glad I can make someone's day a little brighter :)
As someone who's been gaming on the PC since, oh, 84 or so, I don't know why these knuckleheads just don't get it.