Ah yeah, I think you're right. I was thinking of Death Stranding that was on the list and then removed.
-
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.
New games to be announced for Epic Games Store at Gamescom Opening Night
- Thread starter Deleted member 8196
- Start date
User banned (3 days): bad faith trolling, platform warring
this is called exclusivity. this has been done for quite a few decades and since ms moneyhatted quite a few games last gen, people seem to be very distrustful.
why dont you try to reason, why there is no pokemon or super mario game on playstation?
or no uncharted game on xbox?
EGS has a reason to exist: some devs would like to try out another platform, others only want to see their game being sold instead of being pirated(because GOG/steam seems piratable(i dont know if this is real, because i dont play on pc, but this seems to be a thing)
another reason is that the EGS is a platform with nothing else than only the game being on display. or another store which does not shit out every game out there in existance. you could argue, why the humble bundle is not offering an option to donate the money to help refugees, so why do you argue in the same why against the EGS?
isnt that already one big reason for that store?
as said in my previous post, it curates the games which get on the store, and it is not an overbloated storefront. just the games, nothing else.you could also ask yourself, why are people buying the more expensive versions on consoles instead of pc.
I see we're at Tales from Your Ass, Steam has much stronger piracy protection options than EGS.
as said, i dont want to spout anything wrong. if this is true, then i take that back, but for the rest, it is a choice by the customer and the developer.
Nowhere did I argue they don't have a right to exist, I asked 'what are they doing right?', and I honestly can't find anything in what you just wrote that answered that.
Last edited:
Those are first party games. Egsclusives are third party games that already planned to release on another storefronts.
I don't see why you would want free games on PC if you don't play there.
I genuinely don't understand how "curated storefront" is a feature.
Visibility and discoverability are important *features* of a store, but "curation" is just ducking the problem. Curation means limited library. It's a step backward.
There's a good and serious debate to be had about how "open" a platform should be. Whether Valve (and others) should be more selective in who can publish on their platform. We've seen very valid debates about certain classes of games where the distributor might have a responsibility to reject them.
But EGS isn't touching that debate. It's not even serviceable as a primarily AAA game platform. If it only had all the major games from major publishers (let's say equivalent to console games that get physical releases), the EGS design/system couldn't cope with it.
Visibility and discoverability are important *features* of a store, but "curation" is just ducking the problem. Curation means limited library. It's a step backward.
There's a good and serious debate to be had about how "open" a platform should be. Whether Valve (and others) should be more selective in who can publish on their platform. We've seen very valid debates about certain classes of games where the distributor might have a responsibility to reject them.
But EGS isn't touching that debate. It's not even serviceable as a primarily AAA game platform. If it only had all the major games from major publishers (let's say equivalent to console games that get physical releases), the EGS design/system couldn't cope with it.
This ended up being a whole bunch of nothing. Tim running out of cash?
Haha haha. I'm not surprised.
Haha haha. I'm not surprised.
More like running out of desperate studios willing to make deals in light of either poor sales and/or bad publicty too.
I mean, they announced two games coming to EGS in Opening Night Live, had a trailer for a previously announced game and a sizzle reel for the rest, so the tweet was technically true.
I would guess a lot of publishers right now are waiting to see how the Borderlands 3 launch goes- both the number of people willing to buy off the EGS, and Epic's ability to handle the game's infrastructure.
If Borderlands 3 exceeds expectations on PC, there will probably be plenty of exclusivity announcements in the TGA trailer, unfortunately.
If Borderlands 3 exceeds expectations on PC, there will probably be plenty of exclusivity announcements in the TGA trailer, unfortunately.
Another shill that has been caught.
Really shows how most of EGS defenders are just console users trying to stir shit on the EGS threads.
I agree, although I really doubt borderlands 3 will even touch 2 popularity but we will see if it will be enough for publishers.
This thread was created for entertainment reasons / to have something to complaint, not because they had said previously they were going to present several new exclusives. It was always about people's speculation running amok. RDR2! Mount & Blade 2! Death Stranding! etc
Yeah. More to the point, from a PC users perspective, Epic has consistently missed the mark as a service, which is what matters and many users take seriously, driving them away from considering that store seriously - generating a large lack of trust / faith in that service. I don't think some console users get that, or why.
Year long exclusivity itself ends up being so meaningless, beyond aggravating fans of something. With so much high quality content from so many different services, they just get out-competed. Also a bunch of games tend to be more worthwhile years after when content is built up.
The good thing from EGS is the rare instances where there funds are supporting a games existence / providing security against risk. That's about it. I'm sure though there's a portion of the Fortnite crowd that will be on-board regardless of what they do long term.
Man this sure is becoming a systematic happening, makes you think
To be honest, the most shocking moment of Gamescom was getting an Early Access announcement for Mount & Blade 2.
As a fan of indie games, I appreciate EGS and Twitch for letting me play many for free, whilst compensating the developers and publishers.
User banned (2 weeks): trolling and hostility against other members over a series of posts in the thread + history of inflammatory posting and generalizing
V-bucks have been deposited into your account
I have yet to play any of the free games Epic gave me. With my backlog and the FFXIV hole is just logical.
The problem PC market has writes itself honestly.
It's a "feature" for devs. For them, EGS is like getting on Steam back before Greenlight was implemented. Basically guaranteed revenue.
Sooner or later they'll have the same problem a Steam, though. Too limited bandwidth to curate all the games and too many games for an "open store".
Nonsense, curation doesn't guarantee revenue only exposure and quite frankly the single page epic store is already a mess will 100+ games, most of them already given for free or old Ubisoft games. The store is dozens of pages long, how many people are scrolling all the way to the bottom when getting their free games every week? They should probably make it harder to find the free games each week not place them at the top, maybe expose people to some ads, make them scroll past the original adopters already condemned 30+ pages deep? The only thing guaranteeing revenue is the compensation paid up front to leave other stores.
True, but as bad as EGS may be, it's still 100x better than Steam which literally has hundreds of new games added to it every day. I don't remember where exactly I read it, but I'm pretty sure devs were commenting that they have an easier time getting visibility and sales on EGS compared to Steam.
I'm a buyer and player of games. I'm not concerned with features for *publishers* (mostly not 'devs').
And yeah, this model is untenable. Practically everything cited as a benefit of EGS is under the assumption that it doesn't compete on an even level with established platforms. Critical players frequently ask what will the benefit of EGS be when Epic decides it can no longer afford to give away 2 free games a month. There is no answer.
But Epic's basic strategy from Day 1 has been to appeal to developers/publishers directly, not to consumers. And it's working pretty well for them so far.
Is there any way to find EGS games by features like "gamepad support" or "cooperative multiplayer"?
FelixFFM said:
This is exactly why the hate for it is so strong, and (deplorable harassment/abuse aside) so justified.
Yeah, well. The store has to appeal to both the seller and the customer. Hopefully, the EGS thing is just one step of the way towards a future of many different stores that DON'T take a huge chunk of revenue to pocket it anymore, and that compete solely on features. The huge revenue split on digital stores is conceptually broken and unsustainable and is a root cause of the push towards platform exclusivity.
I genuinely don't understand why it's "hopeful" that a digital store takes less revenue, when the advantages to the end user are so clearly tilted.
The evidence I have to go on is that Steam's revenue share funds a more user-friendly, integrated experience which is expected of a modern game platform. In all honesty, Steam is lagging *behind* PS4's functionality in major ways. To some extent the features lacking in Steam are compensated by 3rd party apps and the inherent multitasking of PC. But when I'm sitting on my couch with a gamepad, every time I have to touch a keyboard, a part of the experience is broken.
By that measure, Epic Games Store represents a downright primitive user experience, and I don't see the 12% cut as a "hopeful" future in any way.
I say that because all digital stores, no matter if they're streaming services, app stores or game stores currently compete on exclusivity, not features. One big reason for this is the huge chunk of revenue split that the stores are pocketing. If the chunk is big enough, it creates a huge incentive for major content owners to create their own store as competition, which competes with the original store on the basis of exclusivity and withholding content and not on features. This is what happened with Steam and other publisher's own stores, and with Netflix and Cable Network services.
At the end point of this trajectory is a splintered marketplace and more piracy. The eventual solution (I hope) is a law that BANS exclusivity and forces content owners to provide their content on every platform. The result will be increased competition through price (both actual cost as well as revenue split) as well as features and quality of service. I see EGS as a stepping stone to this future that might get the ball rolling.
See this for more info: youtube.com/watch?v=fDF-S68kx5o
But Steam only competes on the basis of features, not on exclusivity, unlike EGS.
I think the real bellwether for publishers will be what happens when Borderlands 3 releases on Steam in 6 months time. That will be first real opportunity to see how much many people were actually forgoing purchase on EGS to wait for a Steam release.
I understand this point when it comes to *publishers* who can cut out distribution and keep 100% of the revenue. This is particularly acute in movie streaming, where users don't expect many ancillary functionality.
PC gaming has been unfortunately stricken with the same problem for nearly 10 years. EA, Activision, and Ubisoft all release their PC games exclusively via their own primitive storefronts.
That tendency does not include the Epic Games Store, which is a 3rd party storefront, apparently aspiring to be the primary distributor of PC games. EGS's strategy of buying exclusive rights to major games is a new and pernicious tendency. I don't think your wish of anti-exclusivity legislation (US-only? EU-only? globally?) is remotely likely. Far more likely is that the existing trends continue, the Steam store has fewer and fewer in-demand games, and the PC platform as a whole is dragged back to the user experience of a launch-era Playstation3.
Notably NONE of the publisher-specific PC stores has had a significant advancement in features. Origin (currently 9 years old) had a nice UI overhaul a couple years ago, but nothing comparable to the features of the Steamworks API or Steam's many user-facing features (in-home streaming, integrated game broadcasts, parties, voice chat, gamepad configuration, big picture mode, etc).
It might be argued in the abstract that Valve's cut is too greedy. Maybe they could provide the same pace of advancement on 20% and the other 10% is just padding Gabe's wallet. Frankly that probably is true. But in the absence of any competition proving otherwise, I have to say that Valve's take is well-earned.
Show me an actual competitor and we can talk about what a "fair" revenue split would be. There is no such competition right now.
Last edited:
Steam is not competing on just features. They are very much competing on exclusivity. CS:GO and Dota2 are still the Top 2 most played games on steam and their concurrent players are more than the rest of the Top10 combined.
As for anti-exclusivity legislation, one of two things will have to happen or we'll get back to the old days of cable television packages and internet piracy. Either exclusivity gets banned, or stores drop their size of the cut well below 10%. The latter would almost inevitably happen if the exclusivity ban would go through.
As for anti-exclusivity legislation, one of two things will have to happen or we'll get back to the old days of cable television packages and internet piracy. Either exclusivity gets banned, or stores drop their size of the cut well below 10%. The latter would almost inevitably happen if the exclusivity ban would go through.
I doubt it will be many. The pull of the launch hype of a hotly anticipated multiplayer game is just too strong.
Strange that we need to keep repeating the obvious distinction between securing 3rd party exclusives vs 1st party exclusives for storefronts.
To adress your final point: EGS is as close of an actual competitor as we're going to get. At the very least on the dev/publisher facing side. *Actual* competition on the consumer-facing side is close to impossible in the current situation due to exclusive content still being allowed/par for the course. If actual competition was actually happening and every store would compete *solely* on features, then the "fair" revenue split would rapidly approach zero.
I wish that there was a separate market for a lot of the features that steam provides, like I think back a lot on the early 2000s and how wild west-like it was in terms of 3rd party features/add-ons. The only way this would be possible is if storefronts were relegated to exclusively act as storefronts, rather than these complete package style products like Steam. If devs needs to pay 30% to steam as a de facto industry price, then imo the urge to take better deals for exclusivity will always exist and be taken. If, instead, devs were able to somehow self-publish/release and not rely on steam (say, an efficient barebones storefront that took a small cut), then services that concentrate specifically on things like the extras that Steam provides would be able to compete. But this is all fanfiction ofc, Steam holds the industry and sets the standard as a product, so the future will be created under that context. So to that end, I pretty much don't expect any stoppage in terms of exclusivity deals unless Valve stomps them out or changes their rate
Discord is quickly filling the friendlist/VoIP void to such a degree that I don't feel the need to rely on steam for it anymore.
With what you're saying, there is a huge opportunity in the market for a tool that provides all of steam's features (except maybe achievements) while ALSO bundling the libraries of all other launchers into one common library. Basically a mix of Discord and GOG Galaxy 2.0...