• 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.

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
How is the discussion around EGS mature in any way or form?

Customers objecting to and protesting against a company's practices isn't an activity particularly associated with children.

But both developers of those games that did give real numbers were quite happy with sales, the major third party partners at least talk the talk, and there aren't a whole lot of other exclusives to base data around.

So instead of assuming Epic and the various publishers/developers they're working with are lying why not consider that he long proven tradition of online angst over corporate practices never actually resulting in a meaningful sales impact is once again occurring?n

The sales of Call of Duty on PC didn't tank when they took away private servers.

Valve didn't struggle to sell HL2 despite pushing online DRM in it.

EA has long stopped giving out information on Origin's growth and sales.

Ubisoft's PC games requiring uPlay even when bought from Steam didn't slow their sales in a meaningful way.

EA's move to full exclusivity on Origin didn't impact them in such a way as to ever back down from it.

Consumers are proven to not stick to the rhetoric of online resistance against anti-consumer changes in business models. When you consider that part of Epic's push is bringing millions of Fortnite players who don't have a Steam account into their ecosystem you can see where its very possible the amount of sales lost in protest are being at least offset by those who wouldn't have seen the game without Fortnite, etc. boosting the game's presence within EGS.

Again, the data you are presenting can be interpreted very differently if you take into account various relevant factors. I'll answer the above one by one because I've been a PC gamer for decades and I remember all of these situations.

EGS game sales: Satisfactory and WWZ were sales successes, period. Metro, the CEO straight up declined to give more information. Ubi games, the only reference was that EGS exclusivity pushed people towards uPlay. Nothing else is known. I don't think that the available data paints a picture of sales success for EGS.

Call of Duty: A prime example of consequences taking time to materialize. The Call of Duty franchise experienced a massive decline on PC over the years.

HL2: People forget or don't know what the DRM situation was on PC at the time. Steam had issues but online authentication was already a standard, often accompanied by various dumb shit like install limits.

uPlay: Nobody minds uPlay because it works ok, it has some useful features (like the uplay points to unlock extra stuff) and it's a first-party service.

As for customers not sticking to the rhetoric of online resistance, PC gamers have very much proven otherwise. Games for Windows Live, Starforce, Ubisoft's always-on DRM, Microsoft trying to make paying for online a thing, the Windows Store are some noteworthy examples of PC gamers forcing change through their protest and boycott.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
1,469
Devs/publishers that say their game will come out on Steam and take customers' money but then take the EGS moneyhat for timed exclusivity deserve pushback, but threats and personal harassment are not OK and need to stop.
 
Last edited:

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,905
I agree with BronsonLee that the toxicity has risen to an unhealthy level (even higher than I imagined with those threads tbh) but I honestly don't see that level dropping anytime soon. It feels like each day someone decides to add fuel to the fire (like that Ooblets mess) and people won't stop trying to defend their own stance or attack the opponents opinion, especially if it's that easy once somebody else messed up.

I don't think that the heated arguments will stop anytime soon as long as we keep on having these PR blunders that basically go like "no, we won't move to the EGS, promise!" - 2 months later - "We are now EGS exlusive! YAY!". We even had posts like these from verafied people here and people feel betrayed if a person boasts about releasing on Steam and then - suddenly after some kind of exclusivity deal got announced - ignore all questions why the game won't be released on Steam anymore as was promised. I can't blame people that feel lied to. BUT the issue is that most PR strategies are never intended to be truthful, or good for you as a customer / consumer. Marketing departments aren't your friends and they will say anything that is needed to gain profits and switch their stances any time. And some PR voices are absolutely trolling at this point, see Tim Sweeney, and this trolling gets echo'ed everywhere. That guy would instantly get bannend on Era.

I guess we'll see the current trends continue that communities as a whole either shift to the Pro-EGS or Anti-EGS side. Era feels like an outlier in that regards with a mix close to 50:50 but that might be related to the huge parts of PC-Era that already left in the last weeks / months on their own or were forced to leave.

I took a timed PlayStation exclusivity agreement on my last game.
I doubt that many people would have any issues with that. The console and PC eco systems aren't comparable when it comes to the matter of exclusivity.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
The idea that the people who disagree with you just need to be better educated is exactly the kind of thing that leads to these toxic arguments.

I took a timed PlayStation exclusivity agreement on my last game. The idea that this decision was somehow immoral or in fact related to morality at all is one that I strongly disagree with. The Switch didn't exist at the time and Nintendo had a history of ignoring small indie devs. Microsoft had a history of ignoring us on the XBLIG. Sony was the only big platform that expressed interest in what we were doing. Not only that, but as the only programmer on our team, it's not like I was going to be able to handle multiple platforms simultaneously. We took the PlayStation timed exclusivity, got a lot of great support from Shane (our primary Sony contact), and eventually managed to get on the Switch as well (and are still working on getting on XBO). And in both the Nintendo & Microsoft instances, the delay as getting through the bureaucracy & logistics and had nothing to do with the timed exclusivity (which was long done by that point).

If you instantly classify everyone who disagrees with your stance as evil, stupid, or uninformed, you're not going to have a civil, productive conversation with them.

Would you consider a customer protesting your decision or not buying your game because of it immoral?

Is the "point" of PCs for you having open architecture, access to games in every (or many) digital stores, and modding and customizing this and that?

For someone else they may care not the least bit about any of that. The point to PC gaming for them is just to occupy some down time in their lives and nothing more. Perhaps they aren't invested in any long term future on the platform, or don't feel it's at risk by games appearing one place and not another.

Not caring about something doesn't change the core of the platform. You may not be invested in it but others are. Both of these situations can coexist.
 

Sean Mirrsen

Banned
May 9, 2018
1,159
I wouldn't really mind. As you said, it's the same hardware.

It's a silly example though. I can understand if you're running any linux distro, but if you're running Windows you just have to donwload an installer and that's it

Ah, so you're a Linux user then. Because honestly if using Linux was so seamless, there's no way its adoption rate would be so low, now with how it costs nothing to acquire and has a number of definite advantages over Windows.

Face it, Linux has a barrier to entry. Which is its defining problem - for the vast majority of people, even being free, Linux is just not as convenient.

I see you pushing back proposed effective forms of protest (Voting with your wallet) and claiming that what we have now is ok because seeing the outrage developers will think twice before taking the deal. I'll save my opinion about that because i don't want to get banned but, are you aware of how do you sound?
I did not "push back" voting with your wallet. I declared it ineffective, because voting with your wallet is a monetary form of protest. Epic Games is explicitly negating monetary protest by directly compensating the publisher for lost sales.

Do not put words in my mouth, I did not say that what we have now is "okay". I said that that's the way it's going to be. It's a statement based on observation, not an opinion.

Take a look at the current landscape and tell me you wouldn't shield developers from reviewbombing, death threats, insults and the likes just because they took their game to another fucking storefront for fucks sake.
The "current landscape" being a mad dash to wring as much money from the gamers by whatever means possible? The current landscape in which the consumer is regarded as anything from a resource to be exploited, to a necessary evil?

I don't condone death threats, I believe those should be regulated by law regardless of cause. Everything else though? Yes people tend to be volatile on the internet, but even so there are very few cases of review bombs and insult/harassment sprees that were not in some form caused by the inability of the playerbase to convey the magnitude of their displeasure by other means.
I would, for instance, in no shape way or form remove "review-bombing" as a form of expressing displeasure. I would instead create a way for users to manage how they view user reviews, to rate and evaluate them. Very much the kind of thing Steam does already, except I would make the "include off-topic review-bombs" option an opt-out, rather than opt-in. People should see them, and decide for themselves if they don't want to see them again. Because this way they will not bother the users who don't care for them, and the devs/publishers are not automatically shielded from negative feedback on any dumb decisions they commit in the future.

Yeah, why didn't they see such a huge and unjustified shitstorm coming?
Yes, why didn't they? They literally advertised the lack of user reviews and community forums as a safeguard to shield developers from negative backlash on their platform, and they didn't think that there exists an entire world-wide web beyond their platform for that backlash to spill over into, with far more wide-reaching social media services that leaves those developers completely exposed?

Oh, it isn't? Let's make these studio's fans buy another hardware... forever isn't scummy to you?
When console platform holders "buy exclusives", they buy them in advance. Because platforms are different and hard to port to, a "platform exclusive" is more often than not entirely funded by the platform holder, basically start to finish.

I would honestly get more value out of spending money on a PS4 to play some games, than getting those same games on EGS, even if I already have a PC to run them. Because with spending money on a PS4, I actually get something of value out of it - as another gaming platform, a standalone media player, a paperweight or a doorstop if nothing else. With entering the Epic Games Store ecosystem 'for free', I don't just get 'nothing' - I get stuff taken away.

Buying exclusives (and incidentally support their operations with money) is a time-honored tradition too.
Not on PC. There were no platform wars on PC until Epic Games brought them in.

I have no idea what you mean by this. That's like saying would you be fine with the next Zelda running exclusively on Android because the Switch can technically run that OS. It's not going to happen. The fear monger approach isn't worth the eInk it's printed on.
It's not fearmongering, it's an exaggerated counterexample. I'm pretty tired of people saying that "all PC is the same hardware", as if software platforms do not exist, or do not have barriers to entry, or do not affect one's enjoyment of something in one way or another. Just because one can play the same game on a Switch in two different configurations (i.e., Doom, or any number of Shield ports or emulators, etc - via homebrew), does not mean that it doesn't matter which one you are able to play.

This entire gaming thing seems to be headed towards a "streaming future" where hardware won't mean a thing anymore. I wonder if the differences between software platforms will become a bit more obvious then.

So Epic publishing the games and having publishing control forever is better than a timed exclusivity after which the developer can do whatever they want with the IP?

I don't know, that kind of seems worse for consumers...
True, worse for the consumers overall. But that doesn't stop anyone now, so I'm not sure why it's a consideration. :P
Either way, it's a much better solution for developers, because they get some manner of 'contractual obligation' from the platform holder, to keep upholding them and any of their following projects, rather than getting paid for one game and getting thrown to the wolves after the exclusivity ends.
These developers that took the deal and only have timed exclusivity on their game, what do you think the user reviews on their game will be like elsewhere? Or on their next game? Or any community forums they set up? The internet is nothing if not petty, and it doesn't often forget.
 

Hucast

alt account
Banned
Mar 25, 2019
3,598
I agree with BronsonLee that the toxicity has risen to an unhealthy level (even higher than I imagined with those threads tbh) but I honestly don't see that level dropping anytime soon. It feels like each day someone decides to add fuel to the fire (like that Ooblets mess) and people won't stop trying to defend their own stance or attack the opponents opinion, especially if it's that easy once somebody else messed up.

I don't think that the heated arguments will stop anytime soon as long as we keep on having these PR blunders that basically go like "no, we won't move to the EGS, promise!" - 2 months later - "We are now EGS exlusive! YAY!". We even had posts like these from verafied people here and people feel betrayed if a person boasts about releasing on Steam and then - suddenly after some kind of exclusivity deal got announced - ignore all questions why the game won't be released on Steam anymore as was promised. I can't blame people that feel lied to. BUT the issue is that most PR strategies are never intended to be truthful, or good for you as a customer / consumer. Marketing departments aren't your friends and they will say anything that is needed to gain profits and switch their stances any time. And some PR voices are absolutely trolling at this point, see Tim Sweeney, and this trolling gets echo'ed everywhere. That guy would instantly get bannend on Era.

I guess we'll see the current trends continue that communities as a whole either shift to the Pro-EGS or Anti-EGS side. Era feels like an outlier in that regards with a mix close to 50:50 but that might be related to the huge parts of PC-Era that already left in the last weeks / months on their own or were forced to leave.


I doubt that many people would have any issues with that. The console and PC eco systems aren't comparable when it comes to the matter of exclusivity.
It wont drop as long new bases and groups keep getting pissed off. The whole exclusivity thing EGS only works for non kickstarter or any type of funded projects, especially when there was no exclusivity expectation compared to consoles, untill egs ofcourse. Edit: also already on steam store (with pre order)

You will notice that every console game anouncememt thread of a game without platforms named usually has people ask for which platforms it going to be to see if it is going to be on their favourite platform, because console gamers have a different expectancy. PC has been synonomous with steam for years so i think gamers need to learn that that time is over. Before any client platform anouncement peopel need to stay reserved.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
386
To be honest I am surprised it is not even more toxic and hostile. We have an industry that shows complete and utter contempt for it's own customer base. At every level from Publishers, Developers and even Journalists we get nothing but scorn and contempt piled on the average consumer. The message is clear from all three sections of gaming "dear consumer, shut the fuck up and just consume whatever shite we serve up to you".

The minute we try to push back against anything our concerns are dismissed and belittled by all three sections of the industry. They go straight for the jugular with shit like "entitled gamers", "man babies" and "toxic gamers". I used to love gaming but that time has passed I buy the odd game from developers that still see the customer as a human being but by and large the vast majority of publishers and developers really do not give one single solitary fuck about the user. So I don't give one single solitary fuck about them.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,469
The idea that the people who disagree with you just need to be better educated is exactly the kind of thing that leads to these toxic arguments.

I took a timed PlayStation exclusivity agreement on my last game. The idea that this decision was somehow immoral or in fact related to morality at all is one that I strongly disagree with. The Switch didn't exist at the time and Nintendo had a history of ignoring small indie devs. Microsoft had a history of ignoring us on the XBLIG. Sony was the only big platform that expressed interest in what we were doing. Not only that, but as the only programmer on our team, it's not like I was going to be able to handle multiple platforms simultaneously. We took the PlayStation timed exclusivity, got a lot of great support from Shane (our primary Sony contact), and eventually managed to get on the Switch as well (and are still working on getting on XBO). And in both the Nintendo & Microsoft instances, the delay was getting through the bureaucracy & logistics and had nothing to do with the timed exclusivity (which was long done by that point).

If you instantly classify everyone who disagrees with your stance as evil, stupid, or uninformed, you're not going to have a civil, productive conversation with them.
It would have been immoral if you had said it would come out on other platforms and took customers money through pre-orders, KS, or Patreon who thought they were getting the game on their platform of choice.
 

Aemony

Member
Nov 6, 2017
28
It's not outliers. It's outrage culture. It is 2019 and this happens everywhere everytime. It is also disgusting.

Pretty much this.

People want to be outraged, and that their opinions are validated, so they typically resort to whatever echos the most. Neither "side" of the topic is free from this, and you have people on both sides that strawman's their opinion unto others'.

---

Personally, I don't like the way Epic have decided to compete by introducing paid timed exclusivity to the mix (and even the whole "we must compete with Steam" stuff, which I feel unnecessary). I understand why they do this, and I hate that it seems to work, and I don't like it, but I also understand why developers (especially indies) are quick to take them up with their offer, and apparently GOG's way of competing (which have them see ~15% sales figures of Steam of a shared simultaneous release) isn't "good enough" for Epic, which only leaves this way.

However, past that, I really couldn't care less about the platform. I'll be sure to take them up on their free games offers, because why not? And I bought a few games I see as good examples of exclusives when they were on sale (the Quantic Dream titles), but past that I don't see much reason to care about their platform, neither to purchase titles on it nor to spend a lot of time trying to persuade people to not use it.

The way I see it, at this point Epic only gets more exposure the more people talk about the platform.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
PC has been synonomous with steam for years so i think gamers need to learn that that time is over. Before any client platform anouncement peopel need to stay reserved.

This is 100% not true. Not only have alternative clients been a thing for many years, many of the platform's biggest games aren't on Steam and have never been on Steam. People have a problem with the moneyhatted exclusives, not the existence of a launcher.
 

Sailent

Member
Mar 2, 2018
1,591
This is 100% not true. Not only have alternative clients been a thing for many years, many of the platform's biggest games aren't on Steam and have never been on Steam. People have a problem with the moneyhatted exclusives, not the existence of a launcher.


Although there's a bunch of launchers out there, we need to realize many, many people, have their full library on steam, with a couple exceptions like having OW on BNET or BF on Origin, etc.

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Not exactly, just trying to say that, although Steam is not a literal monopoly, we gotta admit they have most of the digital market on PC. Having alternatives to it or not. We can't deny that.
 

Hucast

alt account
Banned
Mar 25, 2019
3,598
This is 100% not true. Not only have alternative clients been a thing for many years, many of the platform's biggest games aren't on Steam and have never been on Steam. People have a problem with the moneyhatted exclusives, not the existence of a launcher.
synonymous for guaranteed day one release on steam also not true?
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,956

Page 10's top result:

Not making steam - Hoover Advice Centre - Hoover Service Reviews

https://service.hoover.co.uk/advice-centre/not-making-steam/ The cleaner will not steam if the handle is upright. Recline the handle by pressing the foot pedal to release the handle and after a few seconds the steam will ..

Totally a reasonable rebuttal.
 

Deleted member 11626

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,199
You're exactly right. Personally, I was getting pretty bad there for a while. Took a step back and reminded myself of all of the much more important things I have going on right now, as well as the fact that my backlog is large anyway. I can afford to wait, and not spend my money where I don't want to. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that for anyone, no matter where they are in all of this.

Also, I'm sorry that shitty gamers keep harassing you like that. You, and everyone else, deserve better than that.
 

Cecil

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,445
PC has been synonomous with steam for years so i think gamers need to learn that that time is over. Before any client platform anouncement peopel need to stay reserved.

I've bought most of my recent games on GOG, and every EGS deal is a game I won't be able to buy there as well. But that's something that doesn't seem relevant in the EGS discussions.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,956
I've bought most of my recent games on GOG, and every EGS deal is a game I won't be able to buy there as well. But that's something that doesn't seem relevant in the EGS discussions.

There's so many reasons to not accept EGS buying exclusives, but there's also been so many threads where we're told "You're just Steam fanboys", that endlessly repeating every reason why EGS's tactics are problematic is just so exhausting. :/
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
Thank you for this topic, BronsonLee . EGS discussion has been the lowest point of ResetEra and a veritable warzone for months. There's really no discussion at this point, just battle lines and people slinging mud from their trenches.

It might be worth noting that other types of subtler ad-hominems are used very often on Era, because they're less prone to be moderated against. I've lost count of the people that accused me of not playing games on PC or having no clue about PC / Steam because I'm not active in the Steam thread, which is kind of hilarious considering I own more than one thousand Steam games and play it more than any other platform, consoles included.
 

StormEagle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 29, 2017
672
Call of Duty: A prime example of consequences taking time to materialize. The Call of Duty franchise experienced a massive decline on PC over the years.

HL2: People forget or don't know what the DRM situation was on PC at the time. Steam had issues but online authentication was already a standard, often accompanied by various dumb shit like install limits.

uPlay: Nobody minds uPlay because it works ok, it has some useful features (like the uplay points to unlock extra stuff) and it's a first-party service.

As for customers not sticking to the rhetoric of online resistance, PC gamers have very much proven otherwise. Games for Windows Live, Starforce, Ubisoft's always-on DRM, Microsoft trying to make paying for online a thing, the Windows Store are some noteworthy examples of PC gamers forcing change through their protest and boycott.
  • There are several reasons for Call of Duty to decline. Franchise fatigue, botched games/marketing (Ghosts, Infinite War,...), better competition,... And Call of duty is still way too popular.
  • People forgot about what is terrible about steam, they probably forget about EGS issues too. Hell, since EGS launched people stopped hating on Origin and Uplay and the discussion about them was similar to EGS now. I have to admit I was on the hate train there. And I think the launcher battle was lost there. Also, online authentication was not a standard back then. Steam made it a DRM standard. They did it so well, that most people don't consider it DRM anymore.
  • What is your definition of works ok? EGS let's you buy, download, install and play games. Which would be 'works ok' in my opinion. Not elevating the experience, but neither is steam in my opinion.
Now the important part. Always-on DRM was not defeated. It is still alive and well. Diablo 3 has always-on DRM the Warhammer Diablo Clone has it. Several others too. Cause consumers don't care. I seem to be the last one fighting that war by never buying a game with always-on DRM.
Starforce got replaced with Denuvo which now also has defenders on this forum. So no win on the DRM front either.
Windows store, unlike EGS, actually tried to 'destroy' PC gaming as we know it through its forceful push of UWP and trying to become an App-store monopoly. And they might try again and win in the long run.

My opinion on the money hatting is Epic trying to boost their store on the market and get a foot in the door while they still can. It's only timed exclusive and it will stop as soon as they think their store is seen as an alternative by more publishers. It seems to me that some exclusive deals needed to be made to just get games on their store. Steam doesn't need to do this as they get exclusives for free now.
Also, Metro 2033 was the game that forced me to install steam after I bought it physically at a retail store. Soon this became the standard. So in my eyes, steam isn't innocent.

And none of the issues excuses toxicity in the discussions, especially on this forum. Not even Always-on DRM.
 

werezompire

Zeboyd Games
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
11,319
I doubt that many people would have any issues with that. The console and PC eco systems aren't comparable when it comes to the matter of exclusivity.

PC games have had exclusivity on specific storefronts for a long time now, from small indie flash games on Newgrounds to behemoths like League of Legends & Minecraft. Would it be better if Epic had decided to make a console and was throwing this kind of money around to secure 3rd party games on that? Somehow, I don't think people would be any less angry at that scenario. At least this way, a Steam version inevitably shows up after the timed exclusivity ends.

It would have been immoral if you had said it would come out on other platforms and took customers money through pre-orders, KS, or Patreon who thought they were getting the game on their platform of choice.

And in such cases, the correct thing to do is to try to make things right. For example, giving out full refunds or offering said backers a DRM-free copy of the game at launch & a Steam code when it comes out on Steam. Or having a backer-exclusive Steam build.

That's one of the reasons why I'm wary of doing crowdfunding these days - things move so fast that it can be dangerous to lock yourself into a specific plan of action early in development.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
The examples of hideously intense toxicity described in the OP are obviously completely legitimate. Unfortunately, barring some completely miraculous development, people that express that toxicity will always be present in some quantity. Moderation is the only solution against these people, they must simply be allowed no place in the discourse. But as the OP describes, these people are outliers. The reason discussions surrounding the Epic Games Store have become as generally heated as they are is different.

That reason is that what Epic is doing is unethical, full stop, and moderation here has been too lax on this issue. I'm going to quote myself here:

As to exactly why it's unethical, I can get into that if we really need to, and did a bit in the post I quoted, but since we're trying for a saner conversation here let's just take that as given for now.

We have no real power over Epic's course of action, or the developers and publishers that sign on with them, so we can't truly solve the problem, but we desire to lower toxicity here. How do we do that? Let's start by looking at the nature of these threads by describing the posters in them.

There are essentially 6 categories of posters arguing in these threads:

1. Those that see the exclusivity practice as unethical, and argue against it
2. Those that don't see this practice as unethical, and argue for it
3. Those that see this practice as unethical, and argue for it
4. Those that see this practice as unethical but support Epic for other reasons, or claim to
5. Those that see this practice as ethical, but don't support Epic for other reasons
6. The broadly uninformed that have nonetheless formed an opinion

The first category is completely reasonable, unless it gets into toxic territory.

The second category consists of people that are either somewhat uninformed/misinformed, misguided, or both. The best solution for them is a combination of a direct and detailed statement of the facts in threads on this subject (a mod post) and ongoing moderation in-thread with a low tolerance policy for those who ignore the facts in the mod post. The existing statement on threads on this subject is insufficient.

The third category consists of trolls. They do what trolls do: build toxicity while generally being careful to never cross the line into obvious expressions of bad faith, exploiting the inability to distinguish between people that truly believe in what they're arguing and people that don't. In reality it's rarely all that difficult to distinguish between the two, and what trolls are really exploiting is soft moderation. Obviously then what's needed to deal with them is (much) stronger moderation, again with the statement of the facts as the base for justifying moderating action.

The fourth category has obviously spurious arguments and consists of more trolls and people who've been duped. Moderation can be less harsh on them unless they're suspected of trolling, but they should be reminded of the facts.

The fifth category is weird, and effectively similar to the second. They're tough to moderate, but aren't very common. Again, remind them of the facts.

The sixth category is problematic whether they're arguing for or against the subject, but they tend to move with the status quo, which in this case is with Epic (these are the genuine "I don't know why people are so heated it's just another launcher" people). In that case their effect is the same as those who are knowingly trolling. Once again, an ignore-at-your-own-peril statement of the facts and strong moderation are the solution here.

If those solutions seem repetitive, you're right. If they seem similar to what's already in place, you're right. The difference between a toxic environment here and a better one is actually pretty simple, it just involves accepting some harsh realities: that what Epic is doing is unethical, and that moderation hasn't been good enough in standing against it. I'd also say that those posters in the first category that take clear stands and write detailed, relevant posts deserve more leniency. There have been instances where really excellent posters have gotten a bit heated in these threads and been banned, sometimes for rising to the bait of a troll. This is really unfortunate.

Thank you for exemplifying everything wrong with ResetEra's discussion of the Epic Store in one single post. People that believe their own position to be the only possibly right / moral one, and can only conceive of people who disagree as either clueless, immoral or trolls, have no place in this (or, really, any) discussion. To post this in a thread asking for more tolerance when discussing this topic is quite the lack of self-awareness.

We do agree on one thing though: moderation is indeed too lax about this issue, on account that you can make such claims as the above and not be banned or even warned.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,469
And in such cases, the correct thing to do is to try to make things right. For example, giving out full refunds or offering said backers a DRM-free copy of the game at launch & a Steam code when it comes out on Steam. Or having a backer-exclusive Steam build.

That's one of the reasons why I'm wary of doing crowdfunding these days - things move so fast that it can be dangerous to lock yourself into a specific plan of action early in development.
I totally agree. That's how that situation should always be handled.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,905
PC games have had exclusivity on specific storefronts for a long time now, from small indie flash games on Newgrounds to behemoths like League of Legends & Minecraft
League is not a third party exclusive, Minecraft is not party exclusive, and Newgrounds (or Kongregate, ArmorGames and so on) do not buy third party exlusivity rights.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
"No Steam No Buy" gets 4.500 results. "Steam monopoly" gets 21.400 results.
So there are 5 times more people that falsley think Steam might be a monopoly and only 1/5 that demand to play on Steam? (am I doing it right?)

Eh?
fzcXHvz.png
 

Absolute

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,090
A quick look at the Valve being responsible for the Capcom SF leak show how bad things are getting. Lots of EGS related shitposting not moderated. Breeds toxicity.
 

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,622
Just throwing this out there but someone being totally dismissive with the " it's just another store front .. so what?" Should be frowned on. It's not just about a launcher. That statement just increases peoples frustrations.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,003
Dunno why anyone is splitting hairs on the first party and third party stuff. People absolutely shit their pants every time a publisher does their launcher shit like with Origin and Bethesda.net. People get used to it, eventually, but I still remember all the moaning at even the THOUGHT of Warner Bros and Square opening their own launchers because they started their goofy login programs.

People are better behaved about it now, but those events were obvious precursors to the behavior now.
A big publisher opening their own store and launcher isn't as big of a deal imo, it's annoying but it's their games. Epic coming into it as an outsider with a big wallet purchasing and removing games from the other stores/launchers stings a bit more. It's like when Rise of the Tomb Raider was timed exclusive on XB1. There is no reason for the exclusivity besides the obvious one to pull more people in.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
It's almost as if Google tailors the results based on the browser user making the query?!

firefox_2019-08-03_13-15-11.png


firefox_2019-08-03_13-15-35.png

I get almost the exact same results (4050 "steam monopoly", 4930 "no steam no buy") when googling through an US proxy inside an incognito mode window, which is about as far as I'm going to stretch this little experiment, so either there's something weird going on on your end, or Google are getting really fucking good at this.
 

Jebusman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,081
Halifax, NS
PC games have had exclusivity on specific storefronts for a long time now, from small indie flash games on Newgrounds to behemoths like League of Legends & Minecraft. Would it be better if Epic had decided to make a console and was throwing this kind of money around to secure 3rd party games on that? Somehow, I don't think people would be any less angry at that scenario. At least this way, a Steam version inevitably shows up after the timed exclusivity ends.

That exclusivity is a little different than Epic's scenario though. No one was mad at Newgrounds being the "exclusive" location of indie flash games because literally no one else wanted to be the kind of portal that Newgrounds was trying to be. Newgrounds wasn't also actively throwing money around to stop those flash developers from releasing it elsewhere (which would have been a futile effort considering how easy it was to rip .swf files from a site)

League of Legends is owned, produced and distributed by Riot via their own client. There was never any expectation they should release it somewhere else.

Minecraft was produced and distributed by the creators on their own client, the same deal (although it would ultimately get ported everywhere).

No one (read: not nearly as many people as when it began) gets mad at seeing developers/publishers releasing their own games on their own clients. No one is angry that Fortnite is an Epic exclusive. But the idea that a third party game becomes exclusive to a storefront due to the storefront actively pursuing them/offering them cash? That's not what PC gaming has been about.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
Just throwing this out there but someone being totally dismissive with the " it's just another store front .. so what?" Should be frowned on. It's not just about a launcher. That statement just increases peoples frustrations.

People saying this at face value are almost always warned or banned. They're also far outnumbered by the people using it ironically / as a strawman, which frankly is getting really annoying in itself.
 

Aemony

Member
Nov 6, 2017
28
I get almost the exact same results (4050 "steam monopoly", 4930 "no steam no buy") when googling through an US proxy inside an incognito mode window, which is about as far as I'm going to stretch this little experiment, so either there's something weird going on on your end, or Google are getting really fucking good at this.

It's geographically based on your country, where some countries return more results than others. That's why some searchers gets approximately the same number of results for both search queries, while others gets more on one or the other search queries.

As it stands, though, we've basically confirmed its unreliable nature as any sort of rebuttal in a discussion, as the results given is affected by multiple factors that may or may not be relevant in any given discussion.
 

Quacktion

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,479
I dont see this getting any better sadly. The frustrations people have with the store and the fact that Epic responds to them by throwing more money at the screen to cover it up is making everyone feel helpless and in turn louder and angrier, its a cycle that will only get worse. There will be a breaking point eventually but I cant even predict what it would mean.
 

Deleted member 8696

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
283
Chile
People who constantly ask "What's wrong with EGS, it's just another launcher" are toxic

How is this shit any toxic? I literally don't give a fuck anymore about if a game is in one store or another. To me is not a problem, and it's just another launcher of the bunch.

Am I being toxic? I feel like the internet is so basic in its black and white mentality. This bad, that good.
 
Jun 2, 2019
4,947
Just throwing this out there but someone being totally dismissive with the " it's just another store front .. so what?" Should be frowned on. It's not just about a launcher. That statement just increases peoples frustrations.

Why? Is just another point of view and imo more reasonable than the outrage for games that change storefront while staying in the same hardware
 

True Prophecy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,921
How is this shit any toxic? I literally don't give a fuck anymore about if a game is in one store or another. To me is not a problem, and it's just another launcher of the bunch.

Am I being toxic? I feel like the internet is so basic in its black and white mentality. This bad, that good.

If you don't care about something but enter a thread to state "I don't care!" While I couldn't call that toxic I would call it trolling and not posting in good faith.

You might not care but many people do and you should be understanding of that even if you don't agree.

But then what do I know.

Why? Is just another point of view and imo more reasonable than the outrage for games that change storefront while staying in the same hardware

Nice attitude... good to know that your the arbiter of what's reasonable.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,956
How is this shit any toxic? I literally don't give a fuck anymore about if a game is in one store or another. To me is not a problem, and it's just another launcher of the bunch.

Am I being toxic? I feel like the internet is so basic in its black and white mentality. This bad, that good.

If you don't care if a game is in one store but not another, why post in threads about the EGS? The FAQ says

.. If you have nothing of substance to contribute to a thread it may be best to avoid it.

A lot of people do care about this issue, and for someone to come in and say "I don't have a problem" is dismissive and disrespectful.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,529
A lot of people do care about this issue, and for someone to come in and say "I don't have a problem" is dismissive and disrespectful.

That user was definitely overtly dismissive and not in a good way, but it's not immediately unhealthy for people to believe this problem isn't as big as other users think it is.

People are allowed to react to things in different ways, to feel different ways about situations. Nobody is being killed, nobody is being oppressed, at the end of the day it's just video games. Someone having a different opinion than you isn't automatically being disrespectful - these kinds of discussions have to have levels, and if everybody's just screaming into the void the exact same way it breeds just as much toxicity by creating a feedback loop of negative energy that exacerbates the negative feelings in the air.

Discussion is a good thing.
 
Jun 2, 2019
4,947
User warned: Trolling, antagonizing members.
Nice attitude... good to know that your the arbiter of what's reasonable.

Well, at the very least I don't belong to a group that insults and launches death threats to developers.

Also I still have to hear a convincing argument WHY this is a thing. Tim Sweeny dickery aside, what I see is just another launcher without the need of purchasing new hw and a fuckton of people angry for... No reason

The moment someone told me that the EGS is worse than GFWL is when my point of view became what it is. Want me to have another opinion? Convince me that there is a reason for all this fuckery, attacks to developers included.
 

BrutalInsane

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
2,080
A quick look at the Valve being responsible for the Capcom SF leak show how bad things are getting. Lots of EGS related shitposting not moderated. Breeds toxicity.

I was going to post this earlier, but I didn't want to stir the pot. I'm glad someone did tho.

Best to ignore these threads from now on. I see some guy posting about 'de facto monopoly' over and over again after being explained why it's not for months now. It's transparent as f.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
Of course not. Degrading or threatening others is immoral. Saying I disagree with a developer/publisher's decision and am not going to buy your game is not a problem.

Agreed. The problem is that in these discussions there is a contingent that strongly believes that the developer is allowed to make decisions that go against a customer's preferences or wishes while the customer isn't allowed to do the same. When there is a clash of interests it is not unreasonable to expect each side to do what must be done to uphold those interests.

Now I assume that a counterpoint would be "ultimately, isn't in the interests of the customer to get the game?" to which is would reply "no, not always, not if it's going to have lasting negative consequences". This is why I said that the overall state of the platform is way more important than any single game. If those games end up establishing a culture of storefronts and services competing not based on merit but based on who can throw around the biggest moneyhats then I as a customer have a lot more to lose than any single game.

  • There are several reasons for Call of Duty to decline. Franchise fatigue, botched games/marketing (Ghosts, Infinite War,...), better competition,... And Call of duty is still way too popular.
  • People forgot about what is terrible about steam, they probably forget about EGS issues too. Hell, since EGS launched people stopped hating on Origin and Uplay and the discussion about them was similar to EGS now. I have to admit I was on the hate train there. And I think the launcher battle was lost there. Also, online authentication was not a standard back then. Steam made it a DRM standard. They did it so well, that most people don't consider it DRM anymore.
  • What is your definition of works ok? EGS let's you buy, download, install and play games. Which would be 'works ok' in my opinion. Not elevating the experience, but neither is steam in my opinion.
Now the important part. Always-on DRM was not defeated. It is still alive and well. Diablo 3 has always-on DRM the Warhammer Diablo Clone has it. Several others too. Cause consumers don't care. I seem to be the last one fighting that war by never buying a game with always-on DRM.
Starforce got replaced with Denuvo which now also has defenders on this forum. So no win on the DRM front either.
Windows store, unlike EGS, actually tried to 'destroy' PC gaming as we know it through its forceful push of UWP and trying to become an App-store monopoly. And they might try again and win in the long run.

My opinion on the money hatting is Epic trying to boost their store on the market and get a foot in the door while they still can. It's only timed exclusive and it will stop as soon as they think their store is seen as an alternative by more publishers. It seems to me that some exclusive deals needed to be made to just get games on their store. Steam doesn't need to do this as they get exclusives for free now.
Also, Metro 2033 was the game that forced me to install steam after I bought it physically at a retail store. Soon this became the standard. So in my eyes, steam isn't innocent.

And none of the issues excuses toxicity in the discussions, especially on this forum. Not even Always-on DRM.

I don't think we can agree on this. We are commenting on the same events and data but we interpret them wildly differently so I believe it would be best to agree to disagree and move on, if that's ok with you. If you want me to comment on something specific tag me and I will.
 

ShadowAUS

Member
Feb 20, 2019
2,106
Australia
I was going to post this earlier, but I didn't want to stir the pot. I'm glad someone did tho.

Best to ignore these threads from now on. I see some guy posting about 'de facto monopoly' over and over again after being explained why it's not for months now. It's transparent as f.
I was going to do the same, it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth considering the point of this thread but I didn't think it would do anything to help the point of the thread to bring it up. That thread was the first time I've been tempted to use the ignore feature.