I hate having to use all these different launchers and stores :X Yes, yes i know first world problems. But i had to install Epics launcher to buy World War Z.
I mean either way, it's a high risk game considering is a later entry in a series from a studio that tanked. I'm sure the studio had way more problems than walking dead not selling enough, but either way it didn't sell enough to float them through the end of the series.It's hard to know, considering that they announced that the game had been saved early, and that Epic was involved much later. So it feels like the game would have continued without Epics involvment, and that they just added more cash on top of that.
I hate having to use all these different launchers and stores :X Yes, yes i know first world problems. But i had to install Epics launcher to buy World War Z.
Not if i want to play World War z :(You didn't HAVE to. There are so many other great games to play!
my guess is that borderlands 3 will be the last big exclusive they secured for a while
Is the Epic game store the first to try to hold hostage PC games by money hatting and calling them exclusives?
The thing that's great about PC games in general is that you can purchase keys virtually everywhere and play games. But Epic just wants that 💰
my guess is that borderlands 3 will be the last big exclusive they secured for a while
Every company has a price and every user has a game that will make them break, if they can keep funding it then it will 100% succeed even if it is bad for the marketplace.
Oh you're referring to the keys not being sold through third party sellers. The topic is slightly confusing as it's conflating paying for exclusives and epics stance of being restrictive with third party sales of keys for exclusive games. A lot of the early comments (and even now) are really referring to simply epic paying for exclusives as the OP is threadbare with a confusing title.Honestly, no, but it has nothing to do with you personally. Most previous Epic threads enter a tiring cycle: We debate the issue for several pages, then a poster comes and asks "what's the big deal" and we explain the same things again, after a few pages another poster does the same and we have to explain the same things over and over and over again. The difference between a game that is exclusive on a platform but can still be bought from various stores and a game that can only be bought by a single store should be obvious even without the explanation in previous pages.
And done.
Steve Gaynor just said on his stream that Fullbright are working with Annapurna on their next game (as he played Ashen via an EGS key Annapurna gave him) so I'm already sadly gearing up for that to be EGS exclusive. And I'm sure if that is the case, the influx of Epic cash after Tacoma seemingly bombed is welcome. Just sucks that I'll have to skip it.
Steve Gaynor just said on his stream that Fullbright are working with Annapurna on their next game (as he played Ashen via an EGS key Annapurna gave him) so I'm already sadly gearing up for that to be EGS exclusive. And I'm sure if that is the case, the influx of Epic cash after Tacoma seemingly bombed is welcome. Just sucks that I'll have to skip it.
The Oculus store from Facebook did this (while also funding entire games to be fair) and got some flak, but I think VR being a smaller market made the issue slip by most people. I even imagine there are plenty of people here who are against Epic but own Rifts. Epic are probably hoping the issue blows over like it did for Facebook.
That sucks. Annapurna seems to be completely in bed with Epic. I guess they won't get my money anymore.
Just to be clear, he didn't say anything about going exclusive, it's totally my speculation based on it being Annapurna. I know Fullbright have been big proponents of itch previously, so hopefully they'll continue with that at the very least.
The major thing with Oculus was their outright attempts to block the Vive (and anything else that wasn't a Rift) from working on their store front and thus exclusive first/second party games. That was unprecedented as it was a company trying to create a closed hardware ecosystem on the PC platform. They eventually rolled back on that sort of garbage, and things have been relatively peaceful on the PCVR front since.I think Oculus and Epic are pretty different.
For starters I'm not locked into buying from the Oculus store. I've purchased all of my Oculus compatible VR games on Steam.
I'm not aware of Oculus stealing any third party games off Steam and forcing people to buy them off their store? To my knowledge they've funded their first party games, which to me is the only exclusives that are acceptable.
Most importantly I feel Oculus is trying to improve the VR experience, while Epic can't be bothered to do anything outside of unauthorized spying/money hatting.
I'm not aware of Oculus stealing any third party games off Steam and forcing people to buy them off their store? To my knowledge they've funded their first party games, which to me is the only exclusives that are acceptable.
And he is right.Tim is a massive hypocrite. He believes money-hatting exclusives is pro-competition.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/c...believe_that_epic_games_is/eimee9b/?context=3
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.Tim Sweeney two years ago.
"The thing that I feel is incredibly important for the future of the industry is that the PC platform remains open, so that any user without any friction can install applications from any developer, and ensure that no company, Microsoft or anybody else, can insert themselves by force as the universal middleman, and force developers to sell through them instead of selling directly to customers."
So they are making the games they paid for exclusive to their store so they can get full revenue from all the sales? Oh the horror.
And he is right.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
He wants an open platform where everyone can create a store and compete. Using money to get exclusive content in no way shape or form goes against that.
If you end up in a situation where you need a billion dollar war chest to pay off publishers to get them to consider releasing on your store, then I'd say it absolutely goes against the idea of an open platform where everyone can open a store and compete. Unless your definition of "everyone" is "everyone with tons of money".He wants an open platform where everyone can create a store and compete. Using money to get exclusive content in no way shape or form goes against that.
Tim Sweeney two years ago.
"The thing that I feel is incredibly important for the future of the industry is that the PC platform remains open, so that any user without any friction can install applications from any developer, and ensure that no company, Microsoft or anybody else, can insert themselves by force as the universal middleman, and force developers to sell through them instead of selling directly to customers."
Here's the thinking behind it:
-Steam is so big no one can come and compete on a fair basis
-So Epic needs to be given a bigger marketshare with exclusives
-Because of Epic getting a bigger marketshare, Valve will try to improve
-Both will compete and improve each others in the end
-Epic pushing for a 12% cut means devs will be able to offer lower prices when Steam adopt it
It's basically the sweet little lie of the invisible hand, that is in fact the visible middle finger.
"If the rich gets richer, the poor will get some of the money trickling down on them".
If you end up in a situation where you need a billion dollar war chest to pay off publishers to get them to consider releasing on your store, then I'd say it absolutely goes against the idea of an open platform where everyone can open a store and compete. Unless your definition of "everyone" is "everyone with tons of money".
The last part won't happen, the devs will just pocket it. This is why EGS isn't really good for consumers, among the other shitty practices of EGS. I'm all for Valve getting competition (they need it), and I'll for lowering Valve's 30% fee, but EGS is a "cure" worse than the "disease".
Epic is doing the only thing that might actually work to lower Valve's marketshare though. Nothing else would.
So they are making the games they paid for exclusive to their store so they can get full revenue from all the sales? Oh the horror.
And he is right.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
He wants an open platform where everyone can create a store and compete. Using money to get exclusive content in no way shape or form goes against that.
What a shitty post. We are talking about 3rd party exclusives, not 1st party exclusives.Gamers don't read the writing on the wall. Games as a digital commodity is no different than the other media you consume (in this sense). The models will move to those proven models.
Tim Sweeney two years ago.
"The thing that I feel is incredibly important for the future of the industry is that the PC platform remains open, so that any user without any friction can install applications from any developer, and ensure that no company, Microsoft or anybody else, can insert themselves by force as the universal middleman, and force developers to sell through them instead of selling directly to customers."
Can't someone quote this to Tim Sweeney and ask him to answer his own bullshit?
Yes, and the PC remains open, and there is more robust competition among PC stores than ever before. There's Steam offering Valve games, Origin offering EA games, Battle.net offering Activision and Bungie games, Epic Games offering games from many publishers.
I get that you guys don't like store-exclusive games, but that's a completely separate, and PROCOMPETITIVE issue, compared to closing down platforms like Windows to monopolize distribution, as iOS does, and as Microsoft was trying to do with UWP and locked-down versions of Windows -- which failed, and whose proponents are now gone and replaced with great leaders like Satya Nadella and Phil Spencer who are driving Windows forward as an open platform!
Of course a lot of thing would.
I already detailed it. Instead of forcing people to come, have they released a far better client with more features and used that Fortnite money to strike deals with publishers so that customers gets their Steam library on their EGS library (like GOG Connect), it'd be easier to convince people. You're not lowering the marketshare by doing so, you're just buying time. Because it means you'"re not getting people by goodwill but merely distracting them one game at a time... if at all.
Thank you for contributing to the conversation with this lovely drive by post
This is not what's happening with Walking Dead. Skybound picked it up to complete it before they signed the deal.Want to let me know what I missed then? Cuz I did read... Are you referring to some people previously not understanding how exclusives work and saying this was ubisofts decision?
Isn't this the implication of what's happening with the walking dead?
Even if it's not, I have a feeling the vocal sentiment about epic store would remain the same.
If I was the PC gaming community, I'd starve this beast for as long as it takes.
In other words, I wouldn't buy any games from EGS.
Let's see how much money Epic is willing to throw away.
to be honest though i don't think epic is doing a good job with the whole exclusivity thing. i mean the biggest game they got was metro exodus and we know that is only for a 12 month period. you can't really count the division 2. my guess is that borderlands 3 will be the last big exclusive they secured for a while (and that might also only be a timed exclusive). the other games are mostly small indie titles. i think the announcement that the whole halo series is coming to steam is a far bigger deal. epic is losing the "exclusives war" or whatever you wanna call it in my eyes.
My hope is that the backlash is driving the price up for them to secure these deals as developers don't want to deliberately antagonise their audience unless the price is right, and that they've set a budget for securing exclusives with a limit in mind unless they are seeing fruit from those deals (which the continued withholding of sales data at least suggests they might not be doing).Its only few months more. You are delusional if you think they aint inking exclusive deals for more games right now for the next few years
That's the plan as far as I'm concerned. There is absolutely no game or feature that can force me to use their service anymore.If I was the PC gaming community, I'd starve this beast for as long as it takes.
In other words, I wouldn't buy any games from EGS.
Let's see how much money Epic is willing to throw away.
Unfortunately, this beast has a very full belly. It is effectively subsidizing games that won't see any significant customer base in their store.If I was the PC gaming community, I'd starve this beast for as long as it takes.
In other words, I wouldn't buy any games from EGS.
Let's see how much money Epic is willing to throw away.
No, we are all certainly not. The problem is the smaller sites, such as mine that bitch about this stuff, pales in comparison to the larger press that aren't saying jack shit. That's part of the issue.
Love how Tim had to put in some of his MS tin foil hat in there. He was shit talking Phil and the current CEO with that BS like last year hahaha.
Tim is turning into what he accused MS of