Rebel Galaxy Outlaw is 12 Month Exclusive for Epic Store (possibly other titles too)

[Armaros]

Those are the same thing. If a studio chooses to be on Epic's store and you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. There are still tons of games on Steam to choose from.

People also seem to not be giving Epic a chance to improve their store at all. They only announced this push recently. Give them some time to build out their features.

Click to shrink...

So they llitearlly just started their push for this store yesteday?

Why did Epic not have regional pricing for the three years their launcher had the ability to money from their users? Regional pricing is something to do only because you are competeing with Steam?

 

[Pargon]

Those are the same thing. If a studio chooses to be on Epic's store and you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. There are still tons of games on Steam to choose from.

Click to shrink...

No, that's not the same thing as having a choice in where to buy the game.
With games on Steam there is a huge list of stores that I can choose to buy those games from, and they are all competing with each other—which is a great thing as a consumer.
And third-party games are sold on services other than Steam too, like GOG, Uplay, Origin, Humble, Twitch, itch.io etc.

With games which are exclusive to a single store, the only choice you have is to buy the game at the price they set, or not.
People on here—mostly people that are not PC gamers—love to call Steam a "monopoly" but Epic are the ones employing monopolistic practices by doing this.

People also seem to not be giving Epic a chance to improve their store at all. They only announced this push recently. Give them some time to build out their features.

Click to shrink...

They have already said that they do not intend on matching Steam's features, and are specifically excluding things like user reviews from the service.

 

[Tizoc]

Add more features? Pay more to developers? Get off their asses and make games? Anything but coast, which is what they've done for years. You better bet your ass Valve is watching.

Click to shrink...

What more features would you like to see them add? This is the one point i am most curious about.

 

[Wigdogger]

Stepping back and looking at it dispassionately: The more places sells your product, the better.

Let's be honest: Moneyhatted for a year.

Click to shrink...

And your point? There are dozens of games every year that are "moneyhatted." How about every indie game in the space? Console exclusivity isn't free. You're not the one paying the bills of the small studio that is developing the game. Not to mention, why is a better profit share for devs a bad thing? Is Steam not an actor in this situation?

I like a lot of what Steam does, but this is a strategy to get people into the service. It doesn't make Epic the evil empire.

 

[Alexandros]

It's time to vote with our wallets and refuse to support these bullshit practices on our platform.

Click to shrink...

Indeed. It is the time to make our voices heard as customers and ensure that those who choose to give out or accept money in exchange for exclusivity do not get rewarded for that practice. We need to show them that they will hurt their business by offering or accepting those deals.

 

[GhostTrick]

And your point? There are dozens of games every year that are "moneyhatted." How about every indie game in the space? Console exclusivity isn't free. You're not the one paying the bills of the small studio that is developing the game. Not to mention, why is a better profit share for devs a bad thing? Is Steam not an actor in this situation?

I like a lot of what Steam does, but this is a strategy to get people into the service. It doesn't make Epic the evil empire.

Click to shrink...

My point is that it's not about the cut. If the cut is more attractive elsewhere, you can sell on both places.

As for exclusivities in console space, I dont really look into what's happening into console space otherwise I'd be paying a online paywall, since they do on consoles too.

 

[Pryme]

Better for who?

Because from where I'm sitting it looks like nobody is going to win from this nonsense.
.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I forgot that small developers don't matter.

Yep because valve just sit on their arse while raking in the cash. How dare they.

Click to shrink...

Nice strawman. I haven't said that, and the bulk of my argument was centered around the console makers hardware overhead. Because Sony, Nintendo and MS also devote significant resources to improving console and storefront software features.

 

[GhostTrick]

While I agree with you overall, how does Valve taking a smaller cut ruin PC gaming?

Click to shrink...

If 12% becomes the norm, you're killing the 3rd party store market. You're killing Humble Bundle, Voidu, GreenManGaming, Gamesplanet and all these legit retailers, which often compete in term of price. Their 30% cut allows them to offer discounts up to 25% by eating into their cut. If you reduce that to 12% they cant discount anymore, or by 7% at best.

 

[Pryme]

While I agree with you overall, how does Valve taking a smaller cut ruin PC gaming?

Click to shrink...

I'm very interested in this answer too.

 

[maximumzero]

So Indies get more money, a potential marketing push from Epic due to exclusivity, and don't get lost in the torrent of garbage that inundates the Steam storefront?

Can't imagine why any developer would pass on this.

 

[Deleted member 15476]

Yeah, I don't see why should people mainly gaming on PC have to accept console space practices. If that was the case, GFWL would still exist. The open nature of PC is bidirectional as well. Factorio will see my money instead of Satisfactory for instance.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

It's time to vote with our wallets and refuse to support these bullshit practices on our platform.

Click to shrink...

You are right, about time someone shows Steam how it goes.

 

[GhostTrick]

Those splits could stand to come down, but At least Nintendo, Sony and MS have the excuse of needing these royalties to defray the cost of development, marketing and launching consoles. Hardware support, repairs etc.

PC gaming storefronts don't have that hardware overhead and should really be more favorable in terms of dev cuts.

My opinion.

Click to shrink...

Is that a joke ?
Because it clearly has to be. Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's 30% cut is only for the storefront. It has shit to do with their hardware stuff. You know what pays their hardware covering ?
Well... Hardware sales. You'd have a point if they were handing these for free. But they dont. Consumers pay for the hardware and that money covers all the other hardware related stuff. On top of that, dont they also make people pay for online paywall ? And they also take royaltie fees on physical copies.

So please spare be the "hardware r&d" bullshit you're spouting here.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Indeed. It is the time to make our voices heard as customers and ensure that those who choose to give out or accept money in exchange for exclusivity do not get rewarded for that practice. We need to show them that they will hurt their business by offering or accepting those deals.

Click to shrink...

While I am 100% for customer choice, this is the most passive aggressive post on the subject that I've read. You want to be mad at a publisher, that's cool. But phrasing it like you are doing this for their own good is bullshit.

 

[GhostTrick]

You are right, about time someone shows Steam how it goes.

Click to shrink...

That wont be you though since it's highly likely you used and will use none of these stores.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Indeed. It is the time to make our voices heard as customers and ensure that those who choose to give out or accept money in exchange for exclusivity do not get rewarded for that practice. We need to show them that they will hurt their business by offering or accepting those deals.

Click to shrink...

GAMERS RISE UP!

 

[Edward]

The bullshit practice of indie devs doing what they have to in order to support themselves?

Click to shrink...

But are they supporting themselves if they ultimately make less money because of this? It doesn't matter if they got 100% proceeds if nobody buys it or it gets 75%+ less sales. I don't mind competition but there is already GOG, Origin, Humble, Discord, Twitch, Steam, Bethesda, Battle.net, Uplay etc. I don't want more platforms so i won't buy exclusives to Epic. If they dont' put it on Steam or consoles or one of the other 30 fucking programs i have installed then they don't want my money.

If Epic is something you want that's awesome. A lot of people don't. I don't buy games on the other 30 platforms and i won't buy off here. I'd rather a developer sell me their games through their own site or humble that gives me a key to redeem on Steam.

 

[DailyCalmSpirit]

Don't know what all the fuss is about. They said you can email them, on the Epic store. What more do you want?

 

[SteveWinwood]

Yeah, I forgot that small developers don't matter.

Click to shrink...

A majority of small developers aren't getting on the epic store. It's curated.

That's how you know they truly care for the little guy.

 

[Ganado]

Nice strawman. I haven't said that, and the bulk of my argument was centered around the console makers hardware overhead. Because Sony, Nintendo and MS also devote significant resources to improving console and storefront software features.

Click to shrink...

Is that the developers problems though? Maybe they should sell the consoles at higher prices so that developers can get their fair share of the cake? Of course this goes to Steam as well and while I don't think 30% is a very good deal for developers (It's okay, but it's the consumers are what really gets something out of this share), they've done more to earn that percentage. Their new shares are better but they should've gone two-tiered, 25% and 20% at least. But without knowing Valves expenses, it's hard to know if it would be feasible.

Yeah, I forgot that small developers don't matter.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the small indie devs are not going on Epics Store. Only the more famous indie developers. Games like Hidden Folks doesn't really seem to have a place there I think but I'll guess we will see what happens in a year.

 

[GhostTrick]

GAMERS RISE UP!

Click to shrink...

Well if you did the same, today you wouldn't be paying for a fictionnal service called "Nintendo Online" that offers the same service as they did 6 months ago for free. But at least your Stockholm Syndrome has been rewarded with a few "freebies" you can rent aka NES titles.

 

[no1]

It would be pretty fucking funny if we returned to the good old days of "succeed on your own to get Steam's attention," just with a hilarious twist of "succeed on Steam to get Epic's attention."

Click to shrink...

Hey the effect will trickle down to the small indie devs actually hurt by no exposure.

While the already more well off bigger name indie devs bask in the glory of Epic.

It's Reaganomics for Video Game Launchers!

Click to shrink...

I mean that is basically what it seems like Only Published, or games that went through Xbox@ID or any other early preview program are there. It's almost that games on the platform are viral enough to be considered for it. Hand curated is more like we ain't wasting our Fortnite cash to make a good store.

While I agree with you overall, how does Valve taking a smaller cut ruin PC gaming?

Click to shrink...

Just to add to your post, I hope people know Valve's cut sure makes them money but they do service around 18 million users online all the time so double fortnites count on PC, and then around probably now 200 million active users in total which ranks them basically the same as xbox live and psn.

Now if we take into account the workshop/storage/screenshots/forums/community/etc/cloud saves. That they provide for fucking free for both the user and the devs? Then yes this "bad cut" is beyond completely justified. Don't forget the R&D they put into better experiences. Proton, Steam Tracking. Even creating a new platform both open SteamVR/OpenVR. These cost money to make, Epic games literally does fucking none of this. Of course they don't have this damn overhead to worry about. Also valve still makes games on top of this all.

Why do you think they aren't hosting a forum? You guess it right it's money. Epic is basically going to be pushing a "premium hand curated store" but offer nothing with it, and hand-curated sounds more like anything that will attract users and not smaller indies.

People using the excuse that Valve launched with nothing? Do you remember when Valve started Steam? September 12, 2003 do you remember anything like Steam being launched back then? No because it didn't exist. Just because it exists now does not excuse the fact that you can just make a barebones system. With the literal billions that Fortnite is making.

 

[Valdega]

I'd be interested to see how long that 88% cut lasts when Epic has to host thousands of games. It's easy to take a smaller cut when you're hosting less than 20 games. As that number increases, so do server, bandwidth, maintenance and customer service costs.

Its good for you, not the consumer. I remember when Indie devs complained that Valve was gate keeping too much games from it store and when it opened the floodgates, they still complained. I wonder what will happen to the Epic Store when it also gets flooded by indie games :thinking:

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this. Indie devs complained when Valve was very selective and they complained when Valve became less selective. The reality is that the games market is saturated. It's now cheaper and easier to make games than ever before so we're seeing far more quality indie games on a regular basis. That means more competition. When an indie dev says they want a curated store, they really mean they want less competition. Of course, when their own game gets refused a spot, they'll bitch and moan and write angry tweets and blogs.

 

[no1]

So Indies get more money, a potential marketing push from Epic due to exclusivity, and don't get lost in the torrent of garbage that inundates the Steam storefront?

Can't imagine why any developer would pass on this.

Click to shrink...

Because indie devs don't get half the features valve does. that extra cash goes into other overhead that falls on them, and Indies aren't really what Epic is pushing it's AA games.

 

[Alexandros]

While I am 100% for customer choice, this is the most passive aggressive post on the subject that I've read. You want to be mad at a publisher, that's cool. But phrasing it like you are doing this for their own good is bullshit.

Click to shrink...

I think you completely misread the post. I am not doing this for their own good. I am saying that I will vote with my wallet to make sure that this practice ends up unprofitable for them so they will be forced to abandon it.

GAMERS RISE UP!

Click to shrink...

Yes. Exactly. Gamers rise up. Despite the silly meme, gamers rising up to express their opposition to bad things happening in the games industry is how we as a gaming community can try and put a stop to anticonsumer practices. People trying to discredit such efforts isn't going to make them any less important in shaping a more consumer-friendly industry. Rewarding companies that exhibit a postive attitude towards the customer and refusing to give your business to companies that don't respect the customers is the main way of fighting back against bad practices. That and being vocal on any suitable platform.

 

[CrashFaster]

How well did the original Rebel Galaxy do? Even though it looks great, these space games are still kind of niche. They're probably taking the big chunk of money op front rather than relying on pure sales through game stores. I can understand that.

The email address and communication argument - yeah whatever. Currently the Epic Store is pretty bare bones, Steam offers a lot more for keeping in touch with a game's community - reviews, discussion forums, a blog etc.

 

[Wigdogger]

My point is that it's not about the cut. If the cut is more attractive elsewhere, you can sell on both places.

As for exclusivities in console space, I dont really look into what's happening into console space otherwise I'd be paying a online paywall, since they do on consoles too.

Click to shrink...

I get what you're saying in general, but I don't get the bolded at all. Are you their Biz Dev team? They're going somewhere where they can get more exposure, more money up front, and a higher cut. That means an exclusive 12-month window.

And why is PC immune to any sort of financial influence? Just because Valve got in the door first, they're masters of the rest of PC history? I don't see how waiting 12 months really inconveniences you. You'll still get your game. But having to wait is some sort of hill to die on? These are business deals.

Is a studio going partially exclusive (MS's recent acquisitions) against the rules? They're making these decisions to stay solvent.

Fair enough to delineate the console space, but it's a big space. Sony has kept a heap of software "exclusive" to their platform for years. No reason at all it couldn't be on PC. Don't hear any hue and cry over that. Put it another way: Sony has kept games like Bloodborne and Last of Us away from PC. Why is that okay there (for all gamers, now) and it's not okay for Rebel Galaxy devs?

If someone is to compete with Valve, they need exclusive content. They can't just hit the ground running and out-feature Valve. It's like asking someone to come into the console space and dunk on XBL right off the jump. That's not happening.

Epic, presumably, will add features in due time. To get their foot in the door, they make business deals. So all of these devs are just unscrupulous for making a business deal?

The baseline of this sort of argument seems to be: "I don't want to wait; I don't want to download a different launcher."

I get that we all want choice, but the undercurrent of a lot of this argument seems to be about some Steam preference. That's not really much of an argument. If people want more choice, I don't see why they wouldn't want to see Valve (and others) get pressured a bit.

 

[GhostTrick]

I get what you're saying in general, but I don't get the bolded at all. Are you their Biz Dev team? They're going somewhere where they can get more exposure, more money up front, and a higher cut. That means an exclusive 12-month window.

And why is PC immune to any sort of financial influence? Just because Valve got in the door first, they're masters of the rest of PC history? I don't see how waiting 12 months really inconveniences you. You'll still get your game. But having to wait is some sort of hill to die on? These are business deals.

Is a studio going partially exclusive (MS's recent acquisitions) against the rules? They're making these decisions to stay solvent.

Fair enough to delineate the console space, but it's a big space. Sony has kept a heap of software "exclusive" to their platform for years. No reason at all it couldn't be on PC. Don't hear any hue and cry over that. Put it another way: Sony has kept games like Bloodborne and Last of Us away from PC. Why is that okay there (for all gamers, now) and it's not okay for Rebel Galaxy devs?

If someone is to compete with Valve, they need exclusive content. They can't just hit the ground running and out-feature Valve. It's like asking someone to come into the console space and dunk on XBL right off the jump. That's not happening.

Epic, presumably, will add features in due time. To get their foot in the door, they make business deals. So all of these devs are just unscrupulous for making a business deal?

The baseline of this sort of argument seems to be: "I don't want to wait; I don't want to download a different launcher."

I get that we all want choice, but the undercurrent of a lot of this argument seems to be about some Steam preference. That's not really much of an argument. If people want more choice, I don't see why they wouldn't want to see Valve (and others) get pressured a bit.

Click to shrink...

Why being on only one store would make you more visible ?

In what way the game being sold on Steam and everywhere else would make the game less visible in Epic's own store ?

 

[Valdega]

Fair enough to delineate the console space, but it's a big space. Sony has kept a heap of software "exclusive" to their platform for years. No reason at all it couldn't be on PC. Don't hear any hue and cry over that. Put it another way: Sony has kept games like Bloodborne and Last of Us away from PC. Why is that okay there (for all gamers, now) and it's not okay for Rebel Galaxy devs?

Click to shrink...

Because Sony actually funded those games? Creating a game specifically for your own platform is fine. Nobody is complaining that Fortnite is exclusive to the Epic Game Store. However, Epic did not fund the third-party games that are now exclusive to their store. In fact, most of those games were originally planned to release on Steam (and some even had Steam store pages).

 

[Alexandros]

And why is PC immune to any sort of financial influence? Just because Valve got in the door first, they're masters of the rest of PC history? I don't see how waiting 12 months really inconveniences you. You'll still get your game. But having to wait is some sort of hill to die on? These are business deals.

Click to shrink...

A customer not buying a game because it isn't available on their service of choice is also a business decision. As in "I won't give my business to this developer". Why are you upset by only one of these business decisions?

As for the argument on why PC is different than consoles, it's because the platform gives us the ability to fight against practices we don't like and we care enough about it to do so. Is that wrong?

 

[sheaaaa]

-The fuck is big picture? The full screen application? Not needed.
-VR is still in its infancy.
-Controller Support? Most games offer controller support when you plug it in.
-Communities...are now on discord and reddit. Those two are extremely more popular than having to use the steam communities.

Click to shrink...

Man fuck this shit. I use big picture literally every day. And Steam's forums are great for bug fixes. Dismissing features that millions use is not a good look.

 

[Noob Pilot]

I'm cool with it. Healthy competition is always good....just not too excited about another software ecosystem to handle.

 

[Cecil]

If they were visible on the Epic Store - and available on GOG and Steam, as with their previous title, they would get the benefits from all of them, and we customers would get the benefits of competition that's actually good for us.

Good for them that Epic have funded them to do this, but the part of the text that tries to explains for us how this is going to be good for customers is just plaing bullshitting.

 

[dex3108]

I'm cool with it. Healthy competition is always good....just not too excited about another software ecosystem to handle.

Click to shrink...

Yes healthy competition is good, but again this is not competition. They took their games from previously announced and promoted platforms and put it exclusively for 12 months on new unproven platform with less features than any other platform out there. They could easily fund projects like EA did with Unravel and A Way Out to promote their store but they didn't, they went with paying devs not to release on other stores that i worst kind of exclusivity.

 

[Deleted member 9317]

Won't this lead to uninvited piracy? Store exclusivity is weird, whether Epic paid a "fat cheque" or not is irrelevant. PC is not a locked hardware where you simply cannot run apps without the hardware manufacturers' permission. Locking software will just lead to folks finding a way to go around it.

Good luck to all devs making exclusive games in a market where 3rd party exclusivity is almost dead. A 12 month store exclusivity? Shiiiiiit.

 

[TheIlliterati]

Fuck curation. Indie devs wouldn't be where they were with curation originally. Indie devs are glad to be the chosen ones and feel like they were always destined to be the chosen ones.

 

[Noob Pilot]

Yes healthy competition is good, but again this is not competition. They took their games from previously announced and promoted platforms and put it exclusively for 12 months on new unproven platform with less features than any other platform out there. They could easily fund projects like EA did with Unravel and A Way Out to promote their store but they didn't, they went with paying devs not to release on other stores that i worst kind of exclusivity.

Click to shrink...

You're not wrong but I'm sure there are even more reasons as to why they chose an exclusivity deal instead of releasing on both Epic and Steam.

Wait...Epic paid up for the exclusive? Did i miss something??

 

[Cecil]

You're not wrong but I'm sure there are even more reasons as to why they chose an exclusivity deal instead of releasing on both Epic and Steam.

Wait...Epic paid up for the exclusive? Did i miss something??

Click to shrink...

Of course they did. Why else would it be exclusive? A dev like these would turn down the biggest store on the platform, without incentives for it. That would be a massive gamble on the future of the company.

Fuck curation. Indie devs wouldn't be where they were with curation originally. Indie devs are glad to be the chosen ones and feel like they were always destined to be the chosen ones.

Click to shrink...

When Steam did curate the store, everyone was on their backs everytime a dev spoke out against how they weren't allowed on the store.

 

[dex3108]

You're not wrong but I'm sure there are even more reasons as to why they chose an exclusivity deal instead of releasing on both Epic and Steam.

Wait...Epic paid up for the exclusive? Did i miss something??

Click to shrink...

I don't see any other reason why would you risk success of your game on new unproven store if there wasn't some kind of financial backing. On top of that why would any developer sign 12 month exclusivity deal without getting anything in return?

 

[Noob Pilot]

Of course they did. Why else would it be exclusive? A dev like these would turn down the biggest store on the platform, without incentives for it. That would be a massive gamble on the future of the company.

Click to shrink...

It's not a stretch but if I was an indie and got offered a deal like that, I would probably lap it up too.

All I see from this is Steam having to step up it's game.

I don't like exclusive deals when it involves exclusive hardware like consoles and VR headsets. This is just a PC storefront, no one loses out unless they don't have a PC.

My only little qualm is having to install another piece of DRM software on my PC. I just don't like clutter on my taskbar.

Edit: Spelling error

 

[Wigdogger]

Because Sony actually funded those games? Creating a game specifically for your own platform is fine. Nobody is complaining that Fortnite is exclusive to the Epic Game Store. However, Epic did not fund the third-party games that are now exclusive to their store. In fact, most of those games were originally planned to release on Steam (and some even had Steam store pages).

Click to shrink...

Naughty Dog was indie, and they were moneyhatted to go exclusive. From Software is not Sony. Why are their games not on PC? Unlike Microsoft who allows it? Do you think Bloodborne/Last of Us wouldn't sell like gangbuster on PC? Can't see any reason why those game aren't on "other storefronts." Ultimately, people often have a problem with optics, as in the Rebel Galaxy situation, but these sorts of deals are happening every day.

Plenty of indie games get moneyhatted to stay on one console platform, and that doesn't seem to ruffle any feathers.

 

[dex3108]

Naughty Dog was indie, and they were moneyhatted to go exclusive. From Software is not Sony. Why are their games not on PC? Unlike Microsoft who allows it? Do you think Bloodborne/Last of Us wouldn't sell like gangbuster on PC? Can't see any reason why those game aren't on "other storefronts." Ultimately, people often have a problem with optics, as in the Rebel Galaxy situation, but these sorts of deals are happening every day.

Plenty of indie games get moneyhatted to stay on one console platform, and that doesn't seem to ruffle any feathers.

Click to shrink...

Bloodborne and TLoU were funded by Sony. Rebel Galaxy is not funded by Epic. And guess where Dark Souls games sold the most, yes answer is PC.

 

[GhostTrick]

Naughty Dog was indie, and they were moneyhatted to go exclusive. From Software is not Sony. Why are their games not on PC? Unlike Microsoft who allows it? Do you think Bloodborne/Last of Us wouldn't sell like gangbuster on PC? Can't see any reason why those game aren't on "other storefronts." Ultimately, people often have a problem with optics, as in the Rebel Galaxy situation, but these sorts of deals are happening every day.

Plenty of indie games get moneyhatted to stay on one console platform, and that doesn't seem to ruffle any feathers.

Click to shrink...

I didnt know The Last of Us and Bloodborne were announced and planned for PC/Steam with store pages.

"Doesnt seem to ruffle any feathers"
"Check Rise of the Tomb Raider announcement reactions"
"Check Bayonetta 2 reactions"

Sure. Lol.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

Feels weird to use The Last of Us and Bloodborne as examples since those are just games they published, especially when Sony has worked with indie developers plenty of times to get their games to be a timed exclusive when it comes to consoles. They just don't do it anymore now, seemingly cause of people like Adam Boyes who tried to get indie games on Playstation systems no longer working there.

(Not like indie devs being funded by Sony was a bad thing. Neither is Epic Games doing this.)

 

[dex3108]

Feels weird to use The Last of Us and Bloodborne as examples since those are just games they published, especially when Sony has worked with indie developers plenty of times to get their games to be a timed exclusive when it comes to consoles. They just don't do it anymore now, seemingly cause of people like Adam Boyes who tried to get indie games on Playstation systems no longer working there.

(Not like indie devs being funded by Sony was a bad thing. Neither is Epic Games doing this.)

Click to shrink...

Most of indie games Sony promoted were already successful games bitn and released on PC. They did fund few but it didn't help developers that much. One of the examples is Resogun and Housemarque that is still struggling. Other one is Everybody's Gone to the Rapture where there was some heat between developers and Sony, also didn't help developers. RiME was dropped by Sony after some time for unknown reasons because game ended up being really good.

In general Sony used indie developers as marketing thing for first 2 years of PS4 and then dropped them because they didn't need them anymore. Guess where those developers went after that? Yes to PC.

 

[Deleted member 3294]

Most of indie games Sony promoted were already successful games bitn and released on PC. They did fund few but it didn't help developers that much. One of the examples is Resogun and Housemarque that is still struggling. Other one is Everybody's Gone to the Rapture where there was some heat between developers and Sony, also didn't help developers. RiME was dropped by Sony after some time for unknown reasons because game ended up being really good.

In general Sony used indie developers as marketing thing for first 2 years of PS4 and then dropped them because they didn't need them anymore. Guess where those developers went after that? Yes to PC.

Click to shrink...

The examples you picked weren't games I was thinking of, those are all examples of Sony publishing games. I was more talking about them working with developers like Supergiant (on Transistor) and Hello Games (on Joe Danger and No Man's Sky) and getting their games to be timed exclusives for their platforms in the console space. In return, they got free dev kits and were marketed by Sony, and presumably got extra funding (or were "money hatted") as well.

Point is: this isn't anything new. And it has worked in indie developers' favor before to work with companies to be timed exclusive on a platform.

 

[Cecil]

It's not a stretch but if I was an indie and got offered a deal like that, I would probably lap it up too.

All I see from this is Steam having to step up it's game.

I don't like exclusive deals when it involves exclusive hardware like consoles and VR headsets. This is just a PC storefront, no one loses out unless they don't have a PC.

My only little qualm is having to install another piece of DRM software on my PC. I just don't like clutter on my taskbar.

Edit: Spelling error

Click to shrink...

It's not a problem with another storefront. As long as the games are mad available on several of them, if not all, so that we as customers get to chose.

 

[WeaselKing]

So basically they strip away consumer choice, take away regional pricing and keep the extra 18% on a storefront that offers a fraction of what steam does. You would at least assume that they would reduce the price, even if just 5% or 8%.
Vote with your wallets!

 

[xrnzaaas]

I really hope that all the companies that sign up for Epic's store have some additional lucrative deals signed other than wishing for a better percentage. I imagine quite a lot of people will ignore their games if they can't be linked to a Steam account.

 

[Valdega]

Naughty Dog was indie, and they were moneyhatted to go exclusive. From Software is not Sony. Why are their games not on PC? Unlike Microsoft who allows it? Do you think Bloodborne/Last of Us wouldn't sell like gangbuster on PC? Can't see any reason why those game aren't on "other storefronts." Ultimately, people often have a problem with optics, as in the Rebel Galaxy situation, but these sorts of deals are happening every day.

Click to shrink...

Funding a game is not the same as owning its developer. Sony paid From Software to make Bloodborne for PS4. Sony bought Naughty Dog in 2001 and has funded their games ever since. These games were never going to be multiplatform. The same can't be said for Epic's "exclusives." These are games that were independently funded and definitely going to be on Steam until Epic convinced the developers otherwise. Epic hasn't bought any of these studios nor has it published or funded their games.

It's weird that people can't distinguish between funding exclusives and paying for timed exclusivity on previously multiplatform titles.