-
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.
World of Goo getting rebuilt for modern PCs, updated version coming to EGS first, no artificial delay for other stores (see threadmark and staff post)
- Thread starter Deleted member 10737
- Start date
That's way different. World of Goo is still on modern store fronts and was released initially in the "digital age" of PC gaming. Did Star Wars X-Wing still have the infrastructure and same studio to even update the version you bought after so many years? I doubt it.
The update also includes Linux, and Epic is vehemently anti Linux, so I doubt they funded the update itself.
OP
OP
this is more than a resolution fix, they've upscaled the assets and then tweaked them manually.
I am sure that you got evidence for that, otherwise you wouldn't post something like this, right?
Because it seems very unlikely that Epic would fund something like a Linux version (which they cannot even sell in their own store).
nothing to see because everyone in here makes up fake drama about exclusive patches, completely not grasping that this is 1:1 exactly how GOG (Good Old Games) started its business but since the EGS is everyone's favorite thing to hate (I don't care) we need to pretend they're "moneyhatting patches" which is completely false.
Literally no, guys.
The patching situation could be a manpower issue though Epic could have paid for it, just with the money to make it a free game for 2 weeks.
Likewise, right back at you. Why would Epic tell them, "here's some money to update the PC version, but only Windows and Mac, you aren't allowed to update Linux at the same time."
It'd be an incredibly stupid move - they would get even more bad press than what they've actually done today, and you can bet that the devs wouldn't have let that lie on them. You can't extrapolate that Epic wouldn't have paid for a generalised personal computer patch based off a single Tim Sweeney tweet.
This is really a brand new port of the Switch version of the game; not a patch for the existing PC version. Chances are that this was always on the cards anyway and Epic just bought temporary exclusivity.
Why would it be an incredibly stupid move ?
I mean, they gave them money to not update it anywhere else.
Nice going ignoring what I actually said about this possibly being a "remaster" instead of an update to the existing games that people already know.
Keep on gaslighting for something you don't care about (?!)
No it isnt because GOG is actually developing those patches themselfs.
And that makes this worse how exactly?
edit: I guess it's fair to point that out since I said 1:1
I was answering your question. Also, gaslighting - what in the actual fuck? lol
Last edited:
Sounds shitty in theory, but on the other hand despite exclusivity for a Patch I kinda guess epic is in the right? Game preservation is a step in a right direction, even if its being fueled by corporate greed.
What I meant is that the code for the leaderboards should already exist, why not make use of it when Steam offers it for free, like Dangerous Driving most certainly will when it reaches Steam? I mean, it's a service problem if those services doesn't offer it. It also REALLY doesnt help that it says this on the store page on Steam RIGHT NOW.
Because there's PR they can manage the message of and provide reasoning for that will placate the majority of people without coming across as a total villain ("hey, we paid for this patch, so we feel it's okay for it to be exclusive to us for a while, but everyone else will get it soon!"), and then there is PR they cannot, such as "hey, we paid for this patch, but an entire version of the game on the platform isn't getting the changes, because we don't want to pay for them!"
No one is going to give a shit about this once the patch becomes available everywhere. Specifically not patching the Linux version would be hung around their neck for years, and years, and years. It'd be used as a fighting point against them for the rest of time, and it pushes Linux nerds away from the company even further. Allowing the devs to patch the Linux version too avoids that entirely, and let's be real - it's not going to be a huge additional cost on top of whatever the lump base payment for doing the patch is.
Let's Change the sentence a bit:
"here's some Money to update the EGS Version, you aren't allowed to update the Steam, GOG, HumbleBundle, Retail, (…) Version at the same time" - sounds familiar?
It's somewhat unlikely that Epic Paid for the patch because then there would most likely be no Linux Version. What probably happened is that the devs worked on the Patch already and EGS just bought the exclusivity (including the Linux version that they cannot offer) for the whole patch.
Right now we are in a situation where a Linux patch exists, but nobody can use it because it is timed exclusive to the EGS (which does not offer the Linux version). So the Linux patch was locked away with cash. Still a bad PR move if you ask me.
Literally yes, the comparison you are making with GOG is disingenous, GOG are fixing issues with those games themselves, this isn't a developer/publisher giving an exclusive update to them and them only until a later date.
EGS have clearly spoken with the creators and asked them for exclusivity on this update and clearly there would have been a monetary incentive behind doing so.
I don't understand the defending of these awful practices by Epic, do people not understand it actively works against them as a consumer?
The part where we don't know if Epic is actually responsible for this or if this patch would have been made either way, unlike GOG games where we can say with certainty that GOG was responsible because they were the ones doing the effort of developing them in the first place.
It's a simple re-release of a remastered version. this has been common practice for years.
"That makes this worse how exactly"
Situation 1: A Company developp a work themselves and offer it on their store because it's their added value: Making patch themselves. Something was created here.
Situation 2: A company pay a developper to not release a patch anywhere but their store. Nothing was created here. They paid to remove value elsewhere, not to create value.
Fuck the bullshit idea that because a shit practice existed before that it's okay.
I edited the post while you were responding.
Okay, first off, cool, I forgot that GOG was developing the updates mostly themselves. My bad. Second, the general point that this is a simple re-release still stands.
And moreover, how in the actual fuck is this gaslighting. I'm not cool with you throwing this term in my face.
A shit practice? What shit practice? Are you now rallying against timed platform-exclusive games?
This is not actually the case?!
Yes. I am. Paying for an artificial exclusivity is shit. I don't mind Epic paying to develop their games. But paying for a finished product to not release elsewhere is fuckin dumb. If you feel it's okay, then you should question your own tolerance to bullshit practices.
JUST BUY IT AGAIN, ARE YOU POOR OR SOMETHING?
Haha, wow you sure are something. No, we all love timed exclusives, just look at Rise of the Tomb Raider and all the games on EGS. We are all so happy.
A simple rerelease that is a timed exclusive to Epic...
I didn't accuse you of gaslighting? Are you confusing me with another poster?
Well, according to TheMoon, it's a new release (and by reading the article, it never states it will be a free update).
OP
OP
it literally isn't, i don't know why you're so insistent on making this look like what GOG does. there's now a patch that exists, made by the devs (not epic), but it can't come out for linux at all, and for pc/mac on other stores, for a limited time. show me other examples of this very common practice, please.
and to make matters worse, the patched version is available for two weeks for free, while those who actually paid for the game can't get it.
sorry, that was the other guy who responded, the forum not showing the source quote you responded to made the wording sound like a response to that.
I'm not here to cheerlead timed exclusives, I just find the whole messy discussion here confusing since that is all a whole other bucket of issues.
I find it equally unlikely that the devs were working on a patch themselves before Epic came along. WoG is such an old game that I don't see why they would do so unless a 3rd party was giving them the money to cover the time it took to do it.
Discussion Guidelines
Official Staff Communication
Given the volatility in recent Epic Game Store related threads we have decided that some clearer guidelines are required to cultivate healthier discussion.
- Do not enter these threads in bad faith. If we conclude that your goal is to misrepresent the concerns of other users or rile people up, you will be moderated. Intent matters here. Honest questions or commentary about the differences and similarities between the Epic Games Store and other storefronts are fine. Deliberately and dismissively attempting to troll concerned members on those topics is not okay. These discussions must be held in good faith and in a civil manner.
- As a reminder, antagonizing or engaging in personal attacks on other members is still against the rules. We have a large community with a wide range of preferences and personal priorities. Not everyone will feel the same way as you do on any given topic. If you feel a post is breaking a rule please report it and do not respond with hostility. If you choose to engage do so politely. We always check to see which users have a history of trouble in this area.
- It is perfectly acceptable to want to wait for a game to be released on the storefront of your preference (ex: "I'll just wait for the Steam release.") It is not acceptable to troll threads because of storefront exclusivity timed or otherwise (ex: "So the real PC release is going to be a year later.") The latter is needlessly inflammatory and distracts from discussion. We will be scrutinizing these posts more closely going forward.
- Do not advocate, defend, or admit to piracy under any circumstances. This is explicitly against our Terms of Service. There are no justifications that will make this acceptable.
I feel like a lot of people don't realize this isn't just a patch, it's closer to a remaster. They cleaned up the assets and fixed the resolution issues. When I played World of Goo for the first time on a 1280x1024 monitor the assets were noticeably low res. Be mad at Epic or whatever, but don't get mad at the devs or act like it's a little patch or ini tweak.
I mean, in a perfect world timed platform-exclusive games wouldn't exist surely? Why would it be bad for people to rally against them?
Also this isn't a console exclusive made by a first party, this is a company purposefully limiting consumer options and forcing them to a store front for a period of time in order to gain market share rather than taking a pro-consumer approach and offering incentives to use their store via better features and cheaper prices etc.
Ah, you're right.
Still not really malicious. Epic is looking for free games to give to people. If the devs decided to do the work to re-release it and improve functionality for modern PC, then fine. It honestly makes sense for them to make the deal with Epic and then release elsewhere after. I think of it more as 'making a deal to have the game as one of their free game promotions' rather then "Epic is moneyhatting patches!!!"
is there a definite "never" for a new linux version? again, the example is gog. Feel free to dismiss my point based on this but to me which company developed this update to the game has little bearing on it.
well those who paid for the game before (of which I am one, on several platforms) can still get that version for free...
No, new linux version was made, but is only coming after epic exclusivity is over, since they don't support linux.
Sure, agreed. This just seemed like a larger point to me against a very broad issue.
(technically ..."free" = "cheaper prices" as incentives :D)
So there will be one in the end, did I get this right?
OP
OP
how is that even a question? who isn't against that?
yes it does. you admitted yourself that you brought up GOG while not knowing that they're the ones doing the patches, it's a completely different scenario here where all epic did was pay to stop something from happening.
what if they'd rather have the already existing patch for the version of the game they paid for?
These are all… lies?
I installed it and the game ran just fine here on a dual monitor setup without having to do anything. Installed it, clicked play, and it works. Windows 10, 1809.
Computers don't support 800x600 any more? What kind of nonsense is that.
"We worked really hard on this, I swear."
Admittedly the game does crop the view if you use a widescreen resolution rather than something like 1600x1200, but let's see if they actually fixed that.
Translation: Epic Games Store doesn't offer the functionality to run leaderboards, so we aren't going to fix them. See also: Dangerous Driving.
Yes, but not because the developers are incentivized to do so. It was due to GOG's allegedly terrible process for updating games (which is said to have improved a lot now).
There are also situations where you have DRM-free versions of games released on GOG, and the existing Steam versions are not updated to be DRM-free. Bethesda games are particularly known for this.
Epic offers the money, 2DBOY takes the offer. It's actually unfair to just blame Epic on these kind of deals. They just show the money, it's the devs that agrees on the terms. Possibilities that they are in financial crisis isn't really relevant to this discussion.
Sure, but it all depends on whether it's a free patch or a new re-release that you have to pay for. For me, both are bad in their own way.
OP
OP
oh wow, i wonder why they're lying here. is it just to make the epic release seem like a bigger deal than it is?
I'm a bit confused by your 2nd quote response there. I said I don't personally care who's developing the new version. Epic essentially funding the original devs to do this in the first place with the freedom to rerelease it elsewhere later seems like an okay deal to me even?
if the only difference is having to click on a difference icon on their desktop to launch it then I truly don't see the problem.
Maybe there are specific scenarios where the game does break, but I doubt that it's typical.
User-mode software such as a game should not be capable of "crashing your computer".
World of Goo is still to this day one of my favorite games. It was my own personal indie revolution back on WiiWare.
I'll definitely go through it again with this update.
I'll definitely go through it again with this update.
