-
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.
Super Meat Boy Forever PC version will be on the Epic Games Store (Update: Not On Steam for 1 Year)
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Because Valve have never bought that exclusivity, which is the main reason for the complaints here. They earnt it naturally by building a platform and providing tools to make things easier for both consumers and developers without spending any money in restricting either of them. In addition, thanks to unlimited free keys, you always had the option of buying the games without supporting Valve if that was a thing you cared about.
Believe me, if Valve just straight up paid indie developers to not release things on other stores, I would be the first on here complaining with the rest of you. It's a shitty business practice regardless of who does it.
But Valve have never done it, and have been very vocally against the practice in the past.
And that's totally fair. So just say you want it on Steam. I just don't buy the "this should be on everything" reasoning.
Ultimately though, I get why people are upset and I don't think they're wrong to feel this way.
Considering how much people love Steam, I genuinely don't believe most would care if Valve started moneyhatting games, but I have no way of proving this, so it's really a moot point.
No, they shouldn't, what the fuck. Damn, are console warriors this indoctrinated?
Except a lot of games these days aren't selling well on Steam......
Of course they can look and it's EASILY the biggest market and would be the easiest for them... however there is SOME reason why they would choose to make deals with other platforms...
If Steam was a guaranteed success for them... there would be no reason... but it's not any longer.
I brought up that I thought Steam should curate their store a bit and improve relationships with developers... do more to expose developers and make partnerships. I was told Steam shouldn't be a gatekeeper and should just be open. This is what happens when you're just open and expect people to support your platform... they leave because others offer them a sweeter deal... and in the case of games like these ones announced... less risk.
They absolutely should... or not be surprised when developers make deals with others that will. I mean, that's the business....
Would it be nice and better for us if everything was everywhere and everyone was successful? Of course... but that's not how business works.
I think you are overestimating that :v
I think most are glad that steam doesn't get in the way most of the time like other platform on pc.
That is because steam allows developers to generate keys for free. They only take the cut from games sold inside the steam store.
If Valve moneyhatted FF15 to be a Steam exclusive everyone would be confused rather than angry, as the vast majority of sales will be on Steam anyway so it'd just be a waste of money.
because valve games have community market built into it, which other platforms don't and I'm sure there's other technical reasons.
The best part about all this is these are single player indie games going exclusive and then people asking why multiplayer games aren't on other platforms (and one special user I saw bitched that although CSGO was available on uPlay you still needed to launch Steam so it didn't count)
Why are you spamming elipses :v?
Btw, i think your reality isn't exactly the same as the one of everyone else.
Last edited:
Yea I am going a little overboard with the ellipses aren't I. That shit's terrible to read lol
Consumer choice is harmed by exclusivity. MY choice is harmed by exclusivity off of Steam.
I love certain features of Steam - like universal controller input options, BPM, Steam Link, unlimited cloud saves, and fully integrated Linux support for Windows games, but I definitely don't "love Steam". I have problems with it like many other people. If Valve were to actually pull something like that, I would happily critizise Valve for it and given how much of PC era talks about hating mindless corporatism and brand loyalty, I'm hoping many of them would too. However, to date they haven't and have been vocally against the idea, so their position aligns with mine and I'm happy with them.
However, this website can make it sound like I love Steam, because 99% of the time I'm forced into defending it from absolutely outrageous claims like "Valve don't do anything", "30% greedy Valve", etc. I could talk all day about how I think parts of the client are unorganised, or how the library page is sorely missing filtering options, or how their recommendation algorithms are totally broken, but I never really get the chance to do so because this site is totally blind to anything related to PC gaming and all the actually good things Valve have done for it.
Yet the honest reality is, outside of small contributions like Itch.io's cross-platform tabbed browsing client, nothing exists with the Steam featureset. Nothing even gets close, although GOG probably does the best. I'd like to see Epic build a client with something close to what Steam has but with fixes for the above. THAT I would support and love, and Epic definitely have the money to pull that off. However, they have already shown their priorities and aren't interested in doing anything actually good for the consumer and instead choose to just moneyhat. They don't even have a functioning search yet.
Last edited:
You're not entitled to the game on Steam, just because the game is coming to PC. Consumers have the choice to purchase the game where it's available or to not purchase it. If you're choosing not to, that's fine. It still doesn't mean that "games should be on every store." It really annoys me when I see that people would rather developers fail (and these are creators of games that these people supposedly want) because they didn't release it on all stores, or their preferred one. By all means vote with your wallet... but hoping they fail.. not good. People like that are NOT benefiting PC gaming in the long run. They are basically walling off their own garden at that point.
I'm not entitled to it but I still ain't happy about it and I ain't gonna act like they're doing me a favour. I get the business move, but it's clearly a business move that comes at my expense.
"Games should be on every store" is an appeal to customer centric business. Things are best for us when we have the choice. Of course, Epic and SMB care about their bottom line, not what's best for us. That's fine. I'm sure the offer Epic made Team Meat was very lucrative. I can't expect them to turn it down. But it's still harmful to the platform.
So you skip a game that's probably gonna be great just because a launcher doesn't fit your needs? I have to ask. Do you play with the launcher or the games?
Uh, when was that?
You can complain and want the developers to fail all you want, just like I can say how wrong I think it is and that it annoys me. Was that what you were referring to?
Both, sorta. Would it surprise you to know that I've opted to pay the extra however many dollars to get all the AC games on Steam rather than opting to buy them on Uplay? Achievements and community are worth it to me. And they'll be worth the wait. It's true that Epic seems to be deliberately grabbing all the very biggest upcoming indies, but none of the things they've poached so far are day 1 must plays to me.
Hold up. I get your logic that they have every right to do this. Why do you think it's wrong of us to voice our displeasure about it though? Griping about the continued fragmentation of this ecosystem seems pretty reasonable. What's your personal stake in this? Leave Epic alone?
It's possible to just not support business practices you don't agree with when there's so much to play already available (on Steam)
It's a good thing when people vote with their wallet. If this game sells poorly on Epic thingy then Team Meat's next game will surely launch on Steam.
Agreed. Competing storefronts isn't anti-consumer. But paying devs to keep their games away from competing storefronts is. That's what people are complaining about.
"Epic could do other things to make their platform appealing to us."
No, not really. They could build a carbon copy of Steam's feature set, and we would all still buy these games exclusively on Steam because 99% of our libraries are entrenched there.
I'm not at all a fan of what Epic is doing but let's not be argue from disingenuous positions, in regards to their chances of getting many of us to buy games on their platform, with or without buying exclusivity. Zero percent is zero percent.
No, not really. They could build a carbon copy of Steam's feature set, and we would all still buy these games exclusively on Steam because 99% of our libraries are entrenched there.
I'm not at all a fan of what Epic is doing but let's not be argue from disingenuous positions, in regards to their chances of getting many of us to buy games on their platform, with or without buying exclusivity. Zero percent is zero percent.
Ah, so you were mistaken. That doesn't imply that you can't have an opinion, it implies that it's a bad opinion. Something that is bad for PC gaming, and gaming in general.
You aren't wrong. I'm already deeply invested in a digital distribution platform on steam, why on earth would I want another one?
Market resistance means that building a copy of Steam wouldn't be enough to get an equal market share, absolutely.
But lets not pretend like Steam gets everything perfect, even if it does very well. GOG and Itch have shown it's possible to build a solid product with a clear message that advertises itself as offering something that Steam does not. GOG with 100% DRM free gaming and Itch with their indie friendliness.
Epic have the money to pull off something similar, with a solid featureset, and also put some serious clout behind it. "88%" could have been the start of that, similar to Itch but with better visibility. Then they had to go and fuck it up.
If I make a purchase, it is beholden to the place I am buying it and where I am accessing it - so it absolutely matters:
- Can you guarantee that I can get a refund if I have a problem with the game?
- Is the game going to be accessible with perpetuity from the store?
- Can I use my controller of choice correctly with the game?
- What about easy access to playing when I'm in the lounge, where I do most of my gaming? Am I meant to work around the deficiencies and lack of features of the store / ecosystem?
All trivial concerns clearly.
So when the choice comes between these concerns and a game elsewhere with none of these concerns that I also want - am I such an arsehole for exercising my free will and choosing the latter each time?
Fact is - there is no game at all that I care about so much that I absolutely have to buy it day one. All these amazing games are competing with each other. If there is even the slightest set of issues or concerns, I can easily pick other options and be just as happy. I have no problem with this - but clearly you do.
There are definitely ways to improve on what steam offers. Epic just has no interest in doing so, likely because it would be expensive.
If epic really wanted to win me over, offer features or services that appeal to consumers. Not just pulling 3rd parties to your store
For example, what if they created a Game Pass service for all these games and discounts to buy them from their store with better revenue cuts.
For example, what if they created a Game Pass service for all these games and discounts to buy them from their store with better revenue cuts.
I guess the same reason why would I want multiple consoles to play games, they want you to use their store. The big difference here is it's just a launcher at no additional costs so it is the developer who needs control of its pricing, not Epic. In an ideal world all games would be on all platforms and the hardware would decide the real value to everyone. That's never happened before and it surely isn't looking ahead. The PC allows multiple storefronts and developers are able to use whichever they like.
This reasoning is so backwards. Consumers are not obligated to support anything. Companies need to earn that support by providing a quality product/service. The Epic Game Store has not earned that support and paying for third-party exclusivity isn't generating them any good will either.
Zero percent? Really? The majority of Steam users do not have hundreds or thousands of games in their library. If a competitor appeared and offered superior features and service, these users would most definitely give it a fair shot.
Last edited:
It doesn't even have to be lower prices. Actually moderate your forums. Employ a real customer service department. Provide a minimal level of curation.
Of course, they would still have to get the basics right, which some other PC platforms don't.
This is such a nice bunch of handwavy bullshit. Business can be done in a customer-oriented way, or customer-hostile way. There are differences in various behavior that are possible to do in business. Handwaving shitty business practices as "that's business" isn't a good argument.
Fair enough. I don't think it's exactly backwards though. I think it's the reality. I never said the Epic store was great.. or even close to equal to Steam. I said I support the developers choosing where they want to release their games on an open platform.
If the Store isn't up to your standards and you wont support it.. then hopefully Epic will begin to make the changes necessary for you to maybe come around to the idea. What I mean by "support" is more like.. not actively wish the failure of. lol
Its the reality.. I'm not saying you have to be happy about it. I don't see it as dirty.. because I'm not entitled to it. It is what it is. Epic is a business.. not your friend. I'm not mad because I don't feel like I've been taken advantage of. I know what it is.. and I make the choice to support it or not.
Imagine writing these many words for a complete strawman based on something a famously pro consumer company has never done.
Getting into some meaty Twitter arguments with people who are rabidly anti-Steam over this. Its odd that people jump to the conclusion of me being a Steam fanboy when I simply state that I don't like Epic moneyhatting 3rd party devs.
Devs can decide what they do with their game, for sure, but don't let it bite you in the arse when people don't bother going to the competitor service. Is the payout from Epic worth the lessened audience? Sure, Epic have a huge reach due to Fortnite, but will people stop playing Fortnite and buy other games on there? Big questions on the horizon.
Also lack of price competition, no reason for Epic to improve their own service because they already "have" the game, etc. The list goes on.
Devs can decide what they do with their game, for sure, but don't let it bite you in the arse when people don't bother going to the competitor service. Is the payout from Epic worth the lessened audience? Sure, Epic have a huge reach due to Fortnite, but will people stop playing Fortnite and buy other games on there? Big questions on the horizon.
Also lack of price competition, no reason for Epic to improve their own service because they already "have" the game, etc. The list goes on.
One of the best aspects of PC gaming is it being an open market.
While I'm happy EPIC is supporting indie games, it's very clear they still don't understand the PC market at all. And I don't think many longer term PC gamers have forgotten EPIC was one of the first developers to hop ship off PC gaming and call all of them a bunch of pirates back in the early 2000s. So to come back still actively not understanding the PC gamer playerbase I think is not sitting well with people, and money hatting games to try to get people to come to your store (including games that were to be released elsewhere before this) and make people use more launchers, I think it's a bit obvious why people are upset over this.
Since Steam has to come into the picture here for discussion inevitably, Valve has never money-hatted any of their games, and have even allowed their first-party games to be sold on other stores. They attracted people through their specific launcher's features and single-handily revitalized PC gaming and set a standard. If other stores can't meet that standard and try to force their way into the market by money hatting games and not much else, it won't succeed. Money hatting is something many PC gamers hate and what made PC exclusive gamers often leave consoles in the first place since the dumb "money hatting" of games locking them to a single platform is tiring stuff to deal with, it isn't an attractive appeal to PC gamers and one they'd be understandably upset by seeing more corporations trying to approach PC gaming in this method.
Competition isn't bad, but the competition is not understand the platform they are trying to sell on and doing things that will actively turn-off their userbase. One of the big reasons PC gamers chose PC is because they like the openess of it, where to play your games, customize them, etc. So trying to close off games exclusively to certain markets is not the way to win over this playerbase, especially when there's already a standard in place here theseo ther stores aren't living up to.
While I'm happy EPIC is supporting indie games, it's very clear they still don't understand the PC market at all. And I don't think many longer term PC gamers have forgotten EPIC was one of the first developers to hop ship off PC gaming and call all of them a bunch of pirates back in the early 2000s. So to come back still actively not understanding the PC gamer playerbase I think is not sitting well with people, and money hatting games to try to get people to come to your store (including games that were to be released elsewhere before this) and make people use more launchers, I think it's a bit obvious why people are upset over this.
Since Steam has to come into the picture here for discussion inevitably, Valve has never money-hatted any of their games, and have even allowed their first-party games to be sold on other stores. They attracted people through their specific launcher's features and single-handily revitalized PC gaming and set a standard. If other stores can't meet that standard and try to force their way into the market by money hatting games and not much else, it won't succeed. Money hatting is something many PC gamers hate and what made PC exclusive gamers often leave consoles in the first place since the dumb "money hatting" of games locking them to a single platform is tiring stuff to deal with, it isn't an attractive appeal to PC gamers and one they'd be understandably upset by seeing more corporations trying to approach PC gaming in this method.
Competition isn't bad, but the competition is not understand the platform they are trying to sell on and doing things that will actively turn-off their userbase. One of the big reasons PC gamers chose PC is because they like the openess of it, where to play your games, customize them, etc. So trying to close off games exclusively to certain markets is not the way to win over this playerbase, especially when there's already a standard in place here theseo ther stores aren't living up to.
^^^^
Well said.
Well said.
This could happen but steam isn't the only place to buy steam games. You can buy steam keys for games from places like green man gaming and fanatical. Considering valve takes a zero cut for keys generated by developers for these stores then arguably you may always find a steam version cheaper and epic doesn't want this so they will buy out exclusivity.
Last edited:
Yep, this is great example of competing in a good way. Now obviously it still sucks that EA games are Origin only, but at least EA is not bribing third party devs to keep their games Origin only too. Epic apparently is, hence the hellfire.
It is not entitlement. It is being a PC gamer and liking its open nature and wanting to preserve it. And wanting to reward good behavior (GOG, Steam, Humble..) instead of bad one.
The worst part is that they just had to rush it out like Discord. Just give it a year or two first before launching. Get all standard features in etc.
Then do that. Reward what you think is good and don't reward what you think is bad. We're not entitled to the games on Steam. Maybe eventually Epic will change some things and make the store more desirable for you. That's going to be a lesson they'll have to learn.
Because they've never been in the position to have to. We'll see how they react.. then draw conclusions of whether they are as pro-consumer as we hope they are.
Alright, I'm looking at a game in my library for it and I see an Install button with some social media links. There's some other information like system requirements too. Is that it? It may be all that's required to play a game, but I would like a forum where I can look up common issues for a game or post my own bugs. A built-in FPS counter would be nice. Can it assist me with controller compatibility issues? Will my friends be able to watch be demonstrate how to do something in a fighter for them quickly via a two minute broadcast? These are all things I frequently use/do on Steam.
People were very apprehensive about Steam when it launched, especially because it wasn't even a store, and only served as a barrier of entry to Half-Life 2. And once it became a store, people were still apprehensive because nothing like it had really been done before. Valve has earned people's trust by making a number of pro-consumer decisions and changes over the past decade.
So when you've had a whole decade of history to learn from, and you can't even bother to emulate the most basic features your biggest competitor provides its customers, where's my incentive as a customer to support it?
Yes, and me saying that their current anti-customer behavior is shitty is precisely that "not reward", as is me ignoring their paid exclusives. But it is also good to talk about it and let them know, even indirectly via forums and twitters, that this is not a good way to compete.
Funnily enough, I was defending Tim Sweeney here and elsewhere when he railed against MS and their locked UWP store nonsense. I am a fan of Sweeney since Unreal 1 in 1998 and I have been loving Steam Spy for years and reading Galyonkin's blog for years. Which is why this unfriendly business of theirs disappoints me doubly.
