• 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.

Bede-x

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,423
Regarding the Epic-Nintendo comparison because of the lack of features compared to the competition, there are two important differences. The first one is obvious, Nintendo creates first-party titles of very high quality. The second one is that the Switch has a unique selling point, its portability. So while you may lose on hardware power or online features, you do get something as a trade off. EGS has no unique selling points.

Except it does, but only to developers/publishers. If Epic and Steam were of a similar size many developers would gravitate towards Epic store (assuming curation would let them in), due to the lower cut and the wavering of royalties on Unreal Engine. That's what makes this such a strange situation. Epic is offering nothing to consumers and in many cases making things worse, readily assuming that as long as they just twist peoples arm enough, they'll have no choice but to buy there.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
It is and it isn't. Epic didn't invent this strategy. It's what most new companies do when their product is content. Look at companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime. They sign tons of exclusive deals with content creators. They also fund a lot of original content too.
Epic is not in the position to create a lot of new content. It just doesn't work that fast. So they are left with signing exclusives.
I don't claim it's the absolute means of success. Only that it's the best avenue for success considering what they have to work with.
They can't keep this up though, even with FortNite money. They know that wont last forever and are investing heavily in a more longterm source of income, the store. The exclusive content is to get people to download the store. To get people aware of the store front. They will need features and competitive pricing to keep people coming back though.

True. In the end I think the measure of success will be if they can get people to buy games on EGS without them being exclusive and if they can get developers to prioritize EGS without signing an exclusive deal. You are absolutely right that their current strategy is a short-term one.
 

Dr. Ludwig

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,521
It is and it isn't. Epic didn't invent this strategy. It's what most new companies do when their product is content. Look at companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime. They sign tons of exclusive deals with content creators. They also fund a lot of original content too.
Epic is not in the position to create a lot of new content. It just doesn't work that fast. So they are left with signing exclusives.
I don't claim it's the absolute means of success. Only that it's the best avenue for success considering what they have to work with.
They can't keep this up though, even with FortNite money. They know that wont last forever and are investing heavily in a more longterm source of income, the store. The exclusive content is to get people to download the store. To get people aware of the store front. They will need features and competitive pricing to keep people coming back though.

The flaw of that strategy to me has always that these "exclusives" are in fact timed. Like a year, to even cases with Borderlands 3 where they can go down to 6 months. By the time these exclusivity periods are up:
  • These games are content complete with additional polish, extra content and bug fixes ready to be distributed to Steam.
  • Valve may have introduced a new feature ahead of the competition to add value to Steam.
  • Some unknown gem will find success on Steam thanks to the open nature of the store as opposed to the exclusive boys club approach to curation Epic has.
So Epic, continuing with their current strategy and the comments they made, will need to continually sign more exclusives without adding any sort of value to the market and their own terrible store. They've basically trapped themselves in this vicious cycle that they themselves created.

Which is why I'm myself not worried about these exclusives, I have a giant backlog to play through and I'll probably find time to play Epic's "exclusives" by the time they hit Steam or GoG.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
Except it does, but only to developers/publishers. If Epic and Steam were of a similar size many developers would gravitate towards Epic store (assuming curation would let them in), due to the lower cut and the wavering of royalties on Unreal Engine. That's what makes this such a strange situation. Epic is offering nothing to consumers and in many cases making things worse, readily assuming that as long as they just twist peoples arm enough, they'll have no choice but to buy there.

This is exactly right, in my opinion of course. Epic focused their entire sales pitch on attracting developers under the assumption that customers will have no choice but to follow. We'll see if they were right, I think they'll be proven wrong.
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
Except it does, but only to developers/publishers. If Epic and Steam were of a similar size many developers would gravitate towards Epic store (assuming curation would let them in), due to the lower cut and the wavering of royalties on Unreal Engine. That's what makes this such a strange situation. Epic is offering nothing to consumers and in many cases making things worse, readily assuming that as long as they just twist peoples arm enough, they'll have no choice but to buy there.
I don't know if they would though, If EGS and Steam were the same size that developers would exclusively go without some type of incentive such as the pile of money given. I think it would be a much more likely scenario of developers putting the game on both stores, not to mention depending on if they wanna use any client specific features.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
The flaw of that strategy to me has always that these "exclusives" are in fact timed. Like a year, to even cases with Borderlands 3 where they can go down to 6 months. By the time these exclusivity periods are up:
  • These games are content complete with additional polish, extra content and bug fixes ready to be distributed to Steam.
  • Valve may have introduced a new feature ahead of the competition to add value to Steam.
  • Some unknown gem will find success on Steam thanks to the open nature of the store as opposed to the exclusive boys club approach to curation Epic has.
So Epic, continuing with their current strategy and the comments they made, will need to continually sign more exclusives without adding any sort of value to the market and their own terrible store. They've basically trapped themselves in this vicious cycle that they themselves created.

Which is why I'm myself not worried about these exclusives, I have a giant backlog to play through and I'll probably find time to play Epic's "exclusives" by the time they hit Steam or GoG.

I see another flaw in their strategy. Most of the platform's biggest games are out of their reach because all major publishers have their own services.
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
The flaw of that strategy to me has always that these "exclusives" are in fact timed. Like a year, to even cases with Borderlands 3 where they can go down to 6 months. By the time these exclusivity periods are up:
  • These games are content complete with additional polish, extra content and bug fixes ready to be distributed to Steam.
  • Valve may have introduced a new feature ahead of the competition to add value to Steam.
  • Some unknown gem will find success on Steam thanks to the open nature of the store as opposed to the exclusive boys club approach to curation Epic has.
So Epic, continuing with their current strategy and the comments they made, will need to continually sign more exclusives without adding any sort of value to the market and their own terrible store. They've basically trapped themselves in this vicious cycle that they themselves created.

Which is why I'm myself not worried about these exclusives, I have a giant backlog to play through and I'll probably find time to play Epic's "exclusives" by the time they hit Steam or GoG.
I fail to see how they are forced to continue buying exclusives and NOT improve on the feature set of the store. They have in house developers working on new features for the store (very slowly as everyone is aware). I can't see how ANYTHING that has happened or been said regarding the store has indicated that no new features would ever be implemented. It would be guaranteed failure for the platform if they didn't.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,708
Lol i still don't get the rage for EGS. Yes, people explained it to me, and yes i still don't get it. Ooblets can be a better game thanks to this. Anyway..
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
I see another flaw in their strategy. Most of the platform's biggest games are out of their reach because all major publishers have their own services.
But Steam has this same issue and has done just fine. There is enough money in this market to make competing with a new store viable. It's why Valve can afford to not counter offer anything to the devs being poached by Epic and just simply wait and see what happens.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,251
But Steam has this same issue and has done just fine. There is enough money in this market to make competing with a new store viable. It's why Valve can afford to not counter offer anything to the devs being poached by Epic and just simply wait and see what happens.

Part of the reason Valve is doing "just fine" is because they've invested in features that create value for players and thus make them want to use it. The Epic Games Store has done little to give players that sort of value.
 

Airbar

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,564
But Steam has this same issue and has done just fine. There is enough money in this market to make competing with a new store viable. It's why Valve can afford to not counter offer anything to the devs being poached by Epic and just simply wait and see what happens.
Valve and Gabe Newell have said time and time again that they don't believe in exclusivity of games. They will probably never pay for exclusivity. They excel at providing stuff like Proton, OpenVR etc.
 

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
Why not? Because steam buying exclusives would be horrible too. I want games on GOG.

It is not just a launcher. Fucking hell, I can't believe people are still peddling that nonsense. It is a barely functioning store as opposed to, for example, Steam and GOG Galaxy, which have loada of useful features that games on the EGS store are deprived of.
The EGS also doesn't allow devs to sell their own keys for more profit.
The "just a launcher" line is offensively missing the point.

Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?
 

Airbar

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,564
Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?
Again my question: What about Linux support? I can no longer play the game and have to wait for the release on other storefronts like GOG, Humble or Steam.
 

ramoisdead

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,603
Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?

1) What's wrong with GOG? Most folks want games to be DRM-free as they are afraid of what will happen to their games if in the foreseeable future GOG is shut down. Unless you're showing contempt on GOG for their social media past, they already fired the person that did all of that.

2) Again with the "it's just a launcher" retread...for the millionth time, for you it may be just a launcher which is fine. Like you said, you do you. For other folks who use the features Steam has and don't want to install a bunch of third party apps, it's what they want to use. All that matter is playing the game...whether it's now or a year from when it's released.
 

Dalik

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,528
Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?
No cloud saves, no steam controller profiles even if you add the game as non steam (no native universal controller support either), no steam achievements, games a lot more expensive, no family sharing, no forum for a game to look at for any bugs/tips/mods.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Ludwig

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,521
I fail to see how they are forced to continue buying exclusives and NOT improve on the feature set of the store. They have in house developers working on new features for the store (very slowly as everyone is aware). I can't see how ANYTHING that has happened or been said regarding the store has indicated that no new features would ever be implemented. It would be guaranteed failure for the platform if they didn't.

Tim Sweeney himself said (and I do realize that he's full of shit like the majority of the time) that they will not compete in feature set but in exclusivity deals. From my perspective, I can only see failure with their current strategy and continued bleeding of their Fortnite warchest.
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?

Even if you *can* do these things (some of them are not clear cut), Epic is practically forcing players to accept a huge step backward. It's like if PS5 comes out and Sony is like "good news, party chat is now provided by Discord. Go ahead and install it and create an account"... repeated across 6-10 different core features players take for granted today.

Even if you LIKE to use 3rd party services on PC, Steam doesn't stop you. Why not take the core features of Steam PLUS the 3rd party features rather than rely on a whole bunch of external apps (all with their own UI, most of them not gamepad or TV-UI accessible) to provide basic functionality?

I don't see how it's not a horrible to take PC gaming back to the functionality of 2004.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,950
And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?

Achievements, Trading cards, screenshots, my Friend's list, cloud saves...

You're right in that EGS is just a "launcher", because it's true. All it's capable of doing is launching games.

I prefer to build my PC library on stores that offer more than just a launcher.
 

TheVoidDragon

Member
Jan 16, 2018
475
Ew, GOG, no thanks! But you do you!

And it totally is just a launcher. Most if not all of the 'features' in Steam can be done just as well if not better by other third-party apps... Or, like, you could actually just run your Epic games through Steam itself, and get plenty of those features back? If you really want overlays, or whatever else is that Steam does? None of that seems prohibitive enough to warrant being upset by all this though. You can still play the game, which is all that really matters in the end, surely? What point am I missing?

It doesn't seem as if you're taking into account the overall context surrounding these situations, either. To some that "you can still play the game" isn't all that matters and the reasons/implications behind these exclusivity deals are potentially a bigger problem than just the feature set of the Epic store; they're choosing something detrimental to many of those looking forward to their games because they're being paid to do so. Consumer choice is being taken away (or at least, delayed for quite a while) to instead limit games to an objectively worse store because the developer/publisher was given money to go exclusive regardless of the impact to those who want to play their games. I don't think that show a good attitude towards those supporting their games and to me not supporting that negative decision is of just as much importance as the feature set of the store.

The games might play the same other than those missing platform features, but that does not mean these situations don't have a negative context behind them that isn't a good thing for consumers.
 
Last edited:

snail_maze

Member
Oct 27, 2017
974
Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong:
The way I understand these Epic exclusives is that the devs pretty much get an amount of money equivalent to x amount of sales guaranteed. After that they don't earn money until x+1 units is reached?
So I assume the best way to actually support the devs is to buy it on a different storefront when it releases there since all you're doing otherwise is paying Epic unless those x units have already been reached, right?
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,108
Austria
What's wrong with GOG? Most folks want games to be DRM-free as they are afraid of what will happen to their games if in the foreseeable future GOG is shut down. Unless you're showing contempt on GOG for their social media past, they already fired the person that did all of that.
Pretty sure that "Ew" comment was just some pretend bullshit to act like "See? To each their own".
Completely ignoring that GOG is DRM free, and epic exclusives mean that even if they have no problem going DRM free in theory, devs won't.
But hey, fuck smaller stores in general, it's somehow good that a huge one gets to pay to not have them as competition.

Minky You're full of it. "Overlays or whatever it is that Steam does". Right. If you don't even know what features EGS is missing, why are you trying to dismiss them as unimportant?
Also, I'm looking forward to your opinion on Linux users, like others already asked.
 

Bede-x

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,423
This is exactly right, in my opinion of course. Epic focused their entire sales pitch on attracting developers under the assumption that customers will have no choice but to follow. We'll see if they were right, I think they'll be proven wrong.

I hope they are, but I'm not fully convinced they're not onto something. It's still strange to me that with all the money they're throwing around, no one at Epic thought of offering consumers anything. Why let the pitch be so lopsided, when there were so many opportunities to offer something to both sides? They could have had both developers and consumers cheering them on.

I don't know if they would though, If EGS and Steam were the same size that developers would exclusively go without some type of incentive such as the pile of money given. I think it would be a much more likely scenario of developers putting the game on both stores, not to mention depending on if they wanna use any client specific features.

It's possible, but I think the lower cut and not having to pay for the engine is too much of a draw. The larger publishers already have their own store, because that cut is important, even if the stores themselves have far fewer users than Steam. At an equal size, I imagine developers would slowly gravitate towards the store giving them the better deal.

That's what's gonna make this interesting to follow. Developers want this, consumers don't. And if Epic continues to offer consumers nothing, it'll be interesting to see if they get enough traction to get to the point, where the build in developer pull, will start doing the work for them.
 

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
Again my question: What about Linux support? I can no longer play the game and have to wait for the release on other storefronts like GOG, Humble or Steam.
Personally I would say... Don't use Linux for gaming lol, but that's just me :P
The storefront will definitely make its way to Linux in the near term, but for the time being you could always try this: https://itsfoss.com/epic-games-lutris-linux/

1) What's wrong with GOG? Most folks want games to be DRM-free as they are afraid of what will happen to their games if in the foreseeable future GOG is shut down. Unless you're showing contempt on GOG for their social media past, they already fired the person that did all of that.

2) Again with the "it's just a launcher" retread...for the millionth time, for you it may be just a launcher which is fine. Like you said, you do you. For other folks who use the features Steam has and don't want to install a bunch of third party apps, it's what they want to use. All that matter is playing the game...whether it's now or a year from when it's released.
1) Yeah the multiple social media trashfires were enough for me to never touch that shit again, fuck that noise.
2) For sure, I won't deny that a launcher that's been around for a hell of a lot longer than Epic's will have a more fleshed-out feature set. But as EGS has been around for a very, very brief amount of time, who's to say that those same features won't be implemented? Are any of those features really so key to the act of actually playing the game that buying an exclusive through Epic is really such a big ask?
No cloud saves, no steam controller profiles even if you add the game as non steam (no native universal controller support either), no steam achievements, games a lot more expensive, no forum for a game to look at for any bugs/tips/mods.
As I said above, who's saying these features aren't coming? And I mean, come on, achievements and forums... You're using one of those features right now without the aid of Steam :P
Achievements, Trading cards, screenshots, my Friend's list, cloud saves...

You're right in that EGS is just a "launcher", because it's true. All it's capable of doing is launching games.

I prefer to build my PC library on stores that offer more than just a launcher.
Trading cards I mean, sure, I can take them or leave them, but I accept that people care about them; but screenshots??? :P You've never not been able to take screenshots.

I won't reply to the others because they're all saying basically the same thing, but... In summary it always takes time to bring features to something that's brand new; obviously, right out of the gate it's not going to be as polished or developed as something that's been around for nearly two decades. But I don't think having to install another launcher is anti-consumer at all. Sure, it may not be explicitly pro-consumer either, but I feel the impact of this is being greatly, greatly exaggerated.
 

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
Pretty sure that "Ew" comment was just some pretend bullshit to act like "See? To each their own".
Completely ignoring
that GOG is DRM free, and epic exclusives mean that even if they have no problem going DRM free in theory, devs won't.
fuck smaller stores in general, it's somehow good that a huge one gets to pay to not have them as competition.

Wow, I'm not even remotely saying any of those things at all but okay!
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
It's possible, but I think the lower cut and not having to pay for the engine is too much of a draw. The larger publishers already have their own store, because that cut is important, even if the stores themselves have far fewer users than Steam. At an equal size, I imagine developers would slowly gravitate towards the store giving them the better deal.

That's what's gonna make this interesting to follow. Developers want this, consumers don't. And if Epic continues to offer consumers nothing, it'll be interesting to see if they get enough traction to get to the point, where the build in developer pull, will start doing the work for them.
I agree, It's really interesting long term when most of the exclusive deals run out and they do release the games on steam and gog if it will make a difference for other devs going forward if the performance wasn't there on the egs store. One of the most interesting things I find right now is the lack of sales knowledge because If games were doing amazing sales on egs than it seems like epic would be championing it but other than a few games that have announced numbers, it's silent.

I won't reply to the others because they're all saying basically the same thing, but... In summary it always takes time to bring features to something that's brand new; obviously, right out of the gate it's not going to be as polished or developed as something that's been around for nearly two decades. But I don't think having to install another launcher is anti-consumer at all. Sure, it may not be explicitly pro-consumer either, but I feel the impact of this is being greatly, greatly exaggerated.
I don't agree, I think the lack of features is a huge sticking point especially when epic keeps missing the timeline. It's not the installing another launcher if that was the case than no problem but it's also them specifically paying to keep them off other places but being okay with them being on windows store and so on. Buying exclusives like this just doesn't go over well.
 

Dalik

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,528
As I said above, who's saying these features aren't coming? And I mean, come on, achievements and forums... You're using one of those features right now without the aid of Steam :P
Steam forums have much more info about games than era, pc performance threads almost no longer exists here, not to mention games with mods fix like jrpgs, mhw, nier. I certainly didn't get the fix from era. And we know some of those are never coming to egs, the forum for sure, or family sharing.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
Lol i still don't get the rage for EGS. Yes, people explained it to me, and yes i still don't get it. Ooblets can be a better game thanks to this. Anyway..

The issue is bigger than just one game. Even if we accept that this game will become better through Epic's cash infusion, a PC gaming market in which storefronts compete not through quality of services and price but through whichever service can lock down specific games faster is simply not a good market for customers.

But Steam has this same issue and has done just fine. There is enough money in this market to make competing with a new store viable. It's why Valve can afford to not counter offer anything to the devs being poached by Epic and just simply wait and see what happens.

Valve doesn't use third-party exclusives as a strategy though, Epic does.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,108
Austria
Wow, I'm not even remotely saying any of those things at all but okay!
It seems like you're handwaving all worries about exclusivity, which ends up meaning exactly that.
I may have jumped the gun about GOG, but your dismissal of it, just like Linux, is in stark contrast to your claim that a game releasing exclusively on EGS is "good."

Edit: Like I said in my first post, it's okay. But it won't be good until important features are implemented.
 

Airbar

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,564
Personally I would say... Don't use Linux for gaming lol, but that's just me :P
The storefront will definitely make its way to Linux in the near term, but for the time being you could always try this: https://itsfoss.com/epic-games-lutris-linux/
Sweeney himself said they don't plan Linux support at all. And the client doesn't work with Wine 95% of the time.
And your first point ... well I'm not going to respond to that.
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,993
Texas
Apparently we all love timed exclusive money hats and agree it's good for consumers and the industry.

These threads exemplify why PC era is diminishing.
Personally I would say... Don't use Linux for gaming lol, but that's just me :P
The storefront will definitely make its way to Linux in the near term, but for the time being you could always try this: https://itsfoss.com/epic-games-lutris-linux/


1) Yeah the multiple social media trashfires were enough for me to never touch that shit again, fuck that noise.
2) For sure, I won't deny that a launcher that's been around for a hell of a lot longer than Epic's will have a more fleshed-out feature set. But as EGS has been around for a very, very brief amount of time, who's to say that those same features won't be implemented? Are any of those features really so key to the act of actually playing the game that buying an exclusive through Epic is really such a big ask?

As I said above, who's saying these features aren't coming? And I mean, come on, achievements and forums... You're using one of those features right now without the aid of Steam :P

Trading cards I mean, sure, I can take them or leave them, but I accept that people care about them; but screenshots??? :P You've never not been able to take screenshots.

I won't reply to the others because they're all saying basically the same thing, but... In summary it always takes time to bring features to something that's brand new; obviously, right out of the gate it's not going to be as polished or developed as something that's been around for nearly two decades. But I don't think having to install another launcher is anti-consumer at all. Sure, it may not be explicitly pro-consumer either, but I feel the impact of this is being greatly, greatly exaggerated.
How about people who live in unsupported countries or use unsupported payment methods?

Or people who rely on competing marketplaces to grab games for less than MSRP?

All you've done in this thread is handwave the issues people have with the store. People explained why it isn't just another launcher for them, and you've done your best to dismiss than rather than acknowledge that maybe your stance is flawed.

It isn't just having to install another launcher.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
Guys, ignore the "just another launcher" crowd. We've had a few pages of actually interesting discussion with people who make arguments and are willing to debate the issue, let's not ruin this.
 

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,116
Chesire, UK
Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong:
The way I understand these Epic exclusives is that the devs pretty much get an amount of money equivalent to x amount of sales guaranteed. After that they don't earn money until x+1 units is reached?
So I assume the best way to actually support the devs is to buy it on a different storefront when it releases there since all you're doing otherwise is paying Epic unless those x units have already been reached, right?

Yep.

The best thing you can do to support these devs specifically is to buy their game elsewhere once it's available.

The best thing you can do to support the industry is to buy games from other devs not lucky enough to be given Epic's Golden Ticket.

Buying games from the EGS only benefits one party: Epic. The devs on the EGS already got theirs, so your money is just going directly into Epic's coffers.
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
Tim Sweeney himself said (and I do realize that he's full of shit like the majority of the time) that they will not compete in feature set but in exclusivity deals. From my perspective, I can only see failure with their current strategy and continued bleeding of their Fortnite warchest.
It isn't true and it would be a formula for failure, I agree.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1106592237729787904?s=20
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1106594504381992961?s=20

I see tweets from Tim stating that competing with features alone wouldn't be enough. I don't see anywhere they state that they wont be implementing any more features for the store.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,315
Wow, I'm not even remotely saying any of those things at all but okay!


Which you didn't adress either. Same for the defacto more expensive games because of exclusivity.

As for features, if you dont care about them, props to you. But then dont tell others "there's no downsides for customers" since it's obviously wrong.
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
Part of the reason Valve is doing "just fine" is because they've invested in features that create value for players and thus make them want to use it. The Epic Games Store has done little to give players that sort of value.
Which is exactly why the strategy of buying exclusives is only viable short term. Please read my posts leading up to the comment you have quoted. You are repeating points I have made myself.
 

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
It seems like you're handwaving all worries about exclusivity, which ends up meaning exactly that.
I may have jumped the gun about GOG, but your dismissal of it, just like Linux, is in stark contrast to your claim that a game releasing exclusively on EGS is "good."
Nah "jumped the gun", dude you basically told me I want Epic to shit on the little guys out of spite. When that's the exact opposite of what they're doing in this case. You told me I was dismissive of GOG as part of some cynical act because "idk reasons", when in actual fact I steer clear of them out of principle because I find their past behaviour and attitudes utterly contemptible. Please do not tell me I'm full of it. Disagree with everything else I've said so far but please do not put that shit on me.
 

Deleted member 1635

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,800
Can you people please stop asking to many of us to feel guilty about some "harassment" we had absolutely no part in?

Unless we are going once again to reinforce the idea that any form of voiced malcontent is "harassment", any criticism is "toxicity " and any refusal to accept their conditions and bend over is "entitlement".

For real... It does feel like this is where the conversation has moved. People need to stop bringing up harassment as an excuse for anything the devs ever said or did and as an attempt to shut down any continued criticism.

I've seen that reeeeee shit for a long time and had no idea it was mocking autistic people and I'm usually pretty on top of that stuff. I'm willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt here and say they didn't know either. They're good people and they have zero history of sharing, liking or posting rhetoric like that. The dev response is fine and is something I'd expect after enduring non-stop abuse and harassment. It seems very odd to hold this over them when it seems like a brief lapse in judgement and a mistake.

Personally, I don't buy it. Why would someone like a tweet if you didn't know it would be offensive to the people it was directed at?
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
The issue is bigger than just one game. Even if we accept that this game will become better through Epic's cash infusion, a PC gaming market in which storefronts compete not through quality of services and price but through whichever service can lock down specific games faster is simply not a good market for customers.



Valve doesn't use third-party exclusives as a strategy though, Epic does.
Correct. Valve is already established. They retain their users via an expanded feature set. If Epic want's to succeed longterm, they will need to do the same.
 
Sep 14, 2018
4,624
Stop getting baited, that user isn't trying to discuss anything. But you can't actually report that because the mod post isn't up for some reason.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
10,108
Austria
Nah "jumped the gun", dude you basically told me I want Epic to shit on the little guys out of spite. When that's the exact opposite of what they're doing in this case. You told me I was dismissive of GOG as part of some cynical act because "idk reasons", when in actual fact I steer clear of them out of principle because I find their past behaviour and attitudes utterly contemptible. Please do not tell me I'm full of it. Disagree with everything else I've said so far but please do not put that shit on me.
Well, if it helps, while I thought the "Ew" comment was supposed to be symbolic, showing your position, the "you're full of it" was exclusively targeted at the line I quoted, as I think dismissing steam features as "overlays or whatever it does" is dishonest, that's what I meant.
I am really sorry about misinterpreting your GOG stance.
 

Orb

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,465
USA
"nobody owes you a game"

he's absolutely right, and it's absolutely okay if you don't like that answer

it's okay to not be able to buy things!!!!!!!
 

dabri

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,728
Valve and Gabe Newell have said time and time again that they don't believe in exclusivity of games. They will probably never pay for exclusivity. They excel at providing stuff like Proton, OpenVR etc.
How is that related to the comment? It was stated that Epic still has the issue of major AAA games being exclusive to their own platforms (like Origin). I stated Valve faces the same issue. There is lots of money to be made. It's a non problem.
Your response was that Valve doesn't want to pay for exclusives... I don't understand the point.
 

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
Stop getting baited, that user isn't trying to discuss anything. But you can't actually report that because the mod post isn't up for some reason.
If you're referring to me, please refer directly to me; I'm not 'baiting' anyone? I'm just expressing my thoughts on this, which a lot of people clearly disagree with for sure, but I don't see how that's something that deserves reporting?
Well, if it helps, while I thought the "Ew" comment was supposed to be symbolic, showing your position, the "you're full of it" was exclusively targeted at the line I quoted, as I think dismissing steam features as "overlays or whatever it does" is dishonest, that's what I meant.
I am really sorry about misinterpreting your GOG stance.
No it's fine, I just wanted to make that really really clear is all.

And in all honesty I guess I didn't realise those features of Steam were even that widely used or valued, hence why I've probably come off as a lot more presumptuous and dismissive here than I intended, so I do apologise for that. To me Steam has always just been nothing more than a launcher, but obviously that's just me, so yeah, I will stop talking now, sorry.
 

Dr.Social

Member
Oct 25, 2017
961
You are misrepresenting here what you actually did with that thread to a ridiculous degree. I have no idea what "side" of any debate you are on, I'm not paying attention to the hundreds and hundreds of pages of discussions and shouting matches people have been having the last few months about another digital video game store. I saw your thread and your posts regarding this issue, nothing else.

If your intention with that thread was to educate people about ableist, bigoted memes then, with your title alone, you failed that intention. Because your title, specifically with the "refuses to apologize" immediately puts the focus only on the developer and portrays him not as unknowledgable (arguably, not being aware what "reee" means because you don't take part in that kind of internet culture is something one could be commended for) but as actively, willfully harmful. He was talking about this with community members who identified themselves as autistic. Nowhere in that conversation did anyone ask for an apology, nowhere did the developer refuse to give one. He DID make not that this was and is going to be used and spread by people who spent the last week or so now trying to burn his life down. Denying that is acting willfully ignorant of the situation he is in and what he had to deal with.

Just because you don't WANT to take part in that campaign doesn't change that fact that you are if you, be it by intention or not, play into the narrative of the harassment, even providing sensationalist, misleading Thread titles in one of the most frequented video game message boards in the world. In a message board where you know that most will only read that title and where you know that most people will form their opinion around it.

My most charitable interpretation of this is that you are acting ignorant of the situation because you didn't think about how your framing of this issue would be used to deepen and worsen the harassment this person gets (which is ironic, of course, since you deny the dev the possibility of him being ignorant of what that meme means on 4chan and co. and framing it as a lazy excuse in the first sentence of your post).

Seemingly the mods agreed when they closed the thread so I won't keep harpening on it further. I simply didn't want your posts here stand on their own for people just skimming the thread.

If you spread hateful ablest memes you shouldn't have to be asked to apologize, you should do it willingly.

No amount of harassment makes insulting people on the spectrum, or dismissing their concerns as "righteous mob anger", ok.