It sounds like you are trying to paint me in a very bad picture and I'm not interested in making the thread turn into a review of me as a person. If you reply to any of the actual points I made I'll be happy to indulge you.
-
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.
We need to talk about how toxic discussing the Epic Games Store is when it comes to accusations and insults (Read OP and Threadmarks Before Posting)
- Thread starter Deleted member 42
- Start date
To speak a little to the business side, EGS is not unique in signing deals with developers/publishers that include minimum sales guarantees, and those sorts of deals can be very material to smaller studios. Several platform holders have similar terms and I expect to see an expansion in those sorts of deals (or something analogous) as game subscription libraries become more widespread. Getting an immediate advance against future sales is often the difference between making a game and building a studio.
That isn't to say there aren't lots of sources of funding - work for hire contracts, grants, tax incentives in various states/countries, tech/content licensing - but platform deals are a significant one. When the margins, even for a "funded" independent studio, are so thin, every little thing can help to make it a sustainable venture.
As I said, Jason's stance is conditional. When he says that he's always for supporting developers, that's obviously untrue when he does things that hurt developers (like poor reviews or leaked announcements). In this case, he supports developers getting paid before releasing anything. Epic is essentially pre-ordering a bunch of copies of the game. I wonder what Jason's stance on pre-orders is?
At the end of the day, when you accept a timed exclusivity deal, you've chosen the deal-giver over your customers. Developers have repeatedly stated that Epic pays them enough to break even, at which point sales to customers are just a bonus. I think developers should be making games for customers, not mega corporations, but that's just me.
I didnt, you did. By your own admission your not interested in changing your view on the topic which leads me to believe that you are more interested in solidifying your own perspective by the developers account.
I think part of the issue of these discussions is that people dont approach these topics with an open mind. You have to be willing to atleast empathise and understand each other if you hope to combat toxicity.
There's no doubt that us gamers would do well to cool off a bit.
But at the same time, do you think that Epic, Tim Sweeney and devs are doing their bit to help in this?
I absolutely get that "what about them?!" is a kinda weak argument, and that you cannot always wait on the other side before you make your own move towards a resolution. Not saying that people that are really on the offense here should wait before throwing too many more stones.
But if you look at the Ooblets devs blog post, and Tim Sweeneys tweets about that, would you say that it's an ok behaviour, in an already infected debate?
I don't think everyone assumes it's in bad faith if someone disagrees, I certainly dont.
I understand the realities of why developers take the deals and I also understand why some people don't care about things like exclusives.
I have tried my best to explain my feelings In a rational way and I hope we can continue to have pro and con conversations where relevant even if they are bad actors out there.
I have seen you say it's just games a few times and while yes of course politics is way more important and life effecting we are on a video game enthusiast forum.
I don't care about being right (I'm often wrong and an idiot) I hope things do get better because these conversations need for happen.
Not at all! I come to this place to read and see opinions. And I trust most of you alls opinions. It's part of why I always come back.
But like the topic of this thread is discussing, the volatility of the EGS thing was SO heightened SO fast, that even as much of a drive-by post as I made, in a sea of drive by posts in this forum, me and a bunch of others caught bans very fast. And that's worth discussing. Not our ban, but why it triggered people so harshly at that level.
From reading the thread, there are two related but separate issues here:
1. Disagreements on whether EGS is ethical/good for the consumer.
2. Disagreements on whether the extraargumental response to a contrarian stance in #1 is proportionate.
#1 has been litigated enough, but no one should be trying to justify #2. I'm honestly really confused how the response is so hostile on this particular issue. Maybe it's just a new era on internet discussions.
1. Disagreements on whether EGS is ethical/good for the consumer.
2. Disagreements on whether the extraargumental response to a contrarian stance in #1 is proportionate.
#1 has been litigated enough, but no one should be trying to justify #2. I'm honestly really confused how the response is so hostile on this particular issue. Maybe it's just a new era on internet discussions.
I clarified above that it wasn't the message I intended to convey. I can assure you every exchange I have is with an open mind, my intention was to clarify that this isn't some topic I am completely clueless in and I've followed it quite a lot to create my own opinion, which is pretty damn pro-Valve and anti-Epic I personally feel.
With that I hope I don't have another reply about this which is about me as person vs the views I have expressed.
The issue then comes to the fact that the market cannot support every developer on the sheer strength of digital retail sales alone any longer. The PC gaming market is so crowded and so prone to flash-in-the-pan successes being the single arbiter of a company's continued survival that it's becoming increasingly necessary for small studios to sign deals just to give themselves some level of assurance that they can keep making games.
If you put your heart and soul into making a game for YEARS and then people just don't click with it for whatever reason - a comparable game came out a month before that soaked up all the Twitch streamer attention, your launch had bugs that turned people off from investing in it, your marketing wasn't aimed in the right direction, etc - that could mean the end of your company. Even if your game is really good, that no longer guarantees success.
It isn't 2007 anymore. You can't put your game up on Steam and expect people to find it - the marketplace has become so crowded and clogged with shit that it's practically all luck as to whether or not you get noticed at all. As such, I just find it really hard to demonize developers trying to make decisions to sustain themselves as companies as long as they aren't doing what YSnet did and lying about Steam codes to get people to pay upfront for a game they won't actually get to play. THAT is unethical and SHOULD be called out.
There are levels to all of this, and the blanket "I won't support any game by a developer that signs a deal with EGS even if it goes to Steam later" mindset I've seen espoused in this thread is worrisome because it essentially DOES scream entitlement - "If you don't give me what I want when I want it and where I want it, I'll never support you, even if you DO start giving me what I want where I want it, even if your circumstances change".
That level of hardlining isn't healthy for the industry and it isn't healthy for people.
I feel the moderation is quite good on this forum. It's fair and balanced. Ummmm, how can I word that better =P
The Ooblet's blog post read as a bit antagonistic to me, and probably could have used another round of editing to pare that back. I can understand the frustration and identify with the attitude expressed in that post, but it may (?) have overstepped the line for a PR release. At the same time I can understand not wanting to cede how the conversation around platform choice and distribution needs to be framed, even at the risk of angering some fans.
I don't think that post would exist without the level of toxicity around the topic of EGS. It reads as a frustrated response to it. I hope the developer and community can move past it quickly as the game looks great and I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy it.
In general people tend to ignore toxic behavior when it aligns with their beliefs. As a consumer I absolutely despise what Epic is doing but using wording like "sub human" is absolutely appalling. It's why I don't usually engage in a lot of topics on here, because I wouldn't want to have an offensive slur used against me and I don't want to be lumped in with users that engage in that behavior.
There is no way to have a conversation in good faith when you don't call out toxicity. Because the person you're engaging with is going to be defensive from having slurs and other bullshit thrown their way.
There is no way to have a conversation in good faith when you don't call out toxicity. Because the person you're engaging with is going to be defensive from having slurs and other bullshit thrown their way.
I still don't understand what is entitled about not buying something because you are no longer interested, regardless of reason. Not bought, is the default state of a product. It isn't inherently entitled to be purchased.
Didn't mean to call out your views in particular, just that your initial statement struck me as a bit brash but as you've clarified, I agree with you .
Is there such a thing as discussing in bad faith?
Edit: read follow-up posts, disregard.
Why does every game need to make it? Not industry can support every idea or piece of art.
There are always risks but I think Indies have only gotten better over time some are now massive sellers in ways they never have been which is great because there are more options for players and players in general.
It may suck to see good things not work out hell I'm a Deus Ex fan that's sad that Cyberpunk is getting all the attention it should have got but at the end of the day it is what it is.
I personally will be buying the games I want to try once they are off EGS as I'm not that hardline towards games or developers I like.
Anecdotally no store front has ever been how I discovered a game it's usually because the community is talking about it.
OP
OP
People either frustrated or annoyed with how 1 goes feed into 2, or people immediately roll into being assholes and start at 2
Every game DOESN'T need to make it. And even if they did, there aren't enough people in the world to make that work. The point I was making is that from a developer's perspective, signing a deal with a storefront like EGS or GOG to guarantee some financial return is preferable than your game going completely unnoticed and your company dying.
And that's why I don't find it logical to demonize developers for making decisions that allow them to keep making games.
Sweeney is a shit bag and consistently proves it, he just might not be an alt right shitbag. I'm under no obligation to buy their game when it goes none exclusive. The fallout from how exclusives do after they come out to other stores will be interesting in the long term.
I think the conversation of entitlement cuts both ways. Developers are entitled to make business decisions which are best for them which is fine but you also have to consider that consumers arent static entities which will wait forever for you you to provide a service. Eventually they will simply go to the supplier(developer) who consistently delivers to their shop/outlet of choice.
You can certainly ask for sympathy and understanding but its not really an expectation.I wont demonise them for taking the deal but I wont support them if its not advantageous to me in every given situation.
I think the necessity for cash influx has actually shown that there is an underlying issue within the games industry when it comes to how developers are supported, but thats a discussion for another topic.
I assume that you with talking about how the discussion needs to be framed, means how badly money like this is needed for a dev? If so, I don't think many of us argues against that.
But when you take the deal because of that, can't you ask yourself as dev, is there anything I can do give something back, when I take away options that the customers obviously cares about? Has any dev really taken that step, other then "well, I guess refunds can be ok?".
I can, as a customer who opposes EGS quite strongly, give a bullet list of things that would make things better, and I assure you that none of them is "cancel the deal, opt out of EGS exclusivity". Some might not be doable because of how the deals are written, but none of them are really that unreasonable.
I mean, we're 8 months into this now, the deals aren't stopped being made, and the the discussion surrounding is not getting better, but rather getting worse and worse for each deal that gets announced. Shouldn't devs taking the deals try and learn from the discussion, and think about what they can do? If we just keep doing what's being done, why would anything result in somthing different.
And shouldn't all of us, including devs, publishers and journalists, ask the spokesman for Epic Games Store, to stop fueling the flames, and act like a professional?
That's a whole 'nother topic: The word "entitled" is thrown around as a pejorative, but it essentially has no meaning in the way that it is used at this point.
- It is not entitled for a company to ask a certain price for a game or other service that is particularly expensive.
- It is not entitled for a company to earn money by selling their game or product via a seller that is financially supportive of their work.
- It is also not entitled for a consumer to ask for a lower price or to wait until the price is dropped to acquire the service.
- It is not entitled for a consumer to ask for a better service than they are getting or to avoid sellers that they don't want to deal with.
Before anyone suggests that I'm offering up strawmen, I have seen these exact arguments being made multiple times on the internet. As far as what can at least be somewhat accurately described by the word "entitled," IMO:
- It IS entitled to assume that you have the right to harass (note: notifying the company of your concerns politely once and moving on is not "harassment") a company or a consumer over their choices related to the above.
- It IS entitled to just say "well, I'mma pirate the game since it's not on the service I want it on" (though in the interest of honesty, I've done this before - for example, getting a song via a YouTube rip that was only on Apple Music instead of paying the dollar for the song because I want nothing to do with Apple's store. Yes, I admit it, I've been entitled before).
The rest of it is just market forces at work. A company offers a product; the consumer buys it or not based on price, quality of services, concerns about the company, etc., and then the market adjusts based on who buys what or how well a product is received. Making your voice known if you don't like a product is not "entitled;" it's the best way to share with the producer of the product that you're not interested so that they can, if they choose, make adjustments to capture your dollar!
Last edited:
Absolutely on the bolded part.
The thing for me is this: if a developer signs a timed exclusive deal for a game, I may not follow them to the platform where the deal was signed. I'm certainly not buying an Xbox just to play one game, as an example. But I find it absurd to then say "no matter what happens in the future, I will never support that developer again, even if they put entirely new games out on platforms where I want to play them".
I just find it so strange that people are willing to hold long-term grudges over something like this. Especially toward developers they like.
Fair enough. I agree they can sign on the dotted line as much as they feel they need to.
If I ran a studio and had no commitments to players and it was the difference between me closing and not closing I would do it too.
But consumers can also choose a response to that if they then felt they didn't want to buy my game well that's the calculated risk I suppose.
What do you feel about the big publishers that take the money?
Thanks! I was wondering if I should edit my original post but then it'd feel like I'm trying to cover my tracks or something.
Going to watch EVO now but anyone replying to my opinion on the situation itself I ensure I'll give a proper reply to later!
If they choose to continue to snub my platform of choice in the PC market then I have no issues ignoring them. It's not a grudge as in it's something that angers me, it's a simple business decision, I choose not to do business with EGS and those that are exclusive to it. Timed exclusives I'll get if they come to Steam. If not, then they've lost my business.
Do big publishers do that very often? It kinda feels like most of the major publishers already have their own dedicated storefronts that they run in conjunction with Steam.
The biggest example I can think of is the Shenmue 3 debacle, and as I've mentioned before that one WAS truly shitty because Yu Suzuki promised Steam codes and then signed a deal that made that promise invalid, getting people to invest in a product they can no longer play. That's a serious ethical breach that I don't agree with at all.
Depends. Personally I have no problem buying a game when it eventually comes to steam provided it's good and the developers didn't piss me off like the ooblets guys. However I will be extremely wary of being excited for their future projects because they could at anytime break their promise to the release the game on steam if a pile of money is offered. To me they would be permanently risky and I wouldn't always be confident purchasing/following them and their games.
If people want to take this to the extreme and just not purchase anything from them then, it's their money their choice. So long as they aren't harrasing the developers then they are well within their rights to do so.
Yeah shenmu had been a mess.
I guess I think of any publisher house as big when I'm comparing to an Indy Dev team I should clarify.
The biggest is Ubisoft taking deals (but I use Uplay so whatever) Take 2 I think does it... Deep Silver...
The biggest publisher disappointment for me was devolver since they sell themselves as rebels lol.
Either way none of it needs toxic behaviour but I also don't think we should to not call out corporations either.
i want to stand my ground and tell those developers that yes it's fine you signed with epic, yes it's good you got the money to help you but i feel that what the egs store does catches on it is ultimately going to hurt pc gaming in some major ways. So i will do what i can which might mean never buying their game or supporting them in the future.
Well, it's certainly your money and it's not like anyone can force you to spend it on anything. I would just say that I hope you're wrong about Epic being bad for the PC market in the long run. Games for Windows Live would have been infinitely worse than this if it caught on, and thankfully it didn't.
When someone signs on to an EGS exclusive they're treated like they just stabbed consumers through the heart. Square signs up for an exclusive and "Well gee that's okay because some game from 22 years ago was also a Sony exclusive." Zero logical consistency here.
Like I said, people just carve out their own rules and exceptions depending on how they feel about the companies involved or how it affects them. They say it's about this or that principle, but suddenly the principle doesn't actually matter if it doesn't inconvenience them or benefit Epic. There's a 22 page thread about friggin' Ooblets......a game that nobody really cared about or was interested in, that could have quietly been exclusive to any other store and nobody would have cared much.
i hope I'm wrong as well but I feel it's pretty equivalent which is why I'm taking a stand for the egs store just as i did for gfw.
i don't agree, ffvii remake was never announced for anything but ps4. The vast majority of Epic exclusive games have been announced for stream. It's totally different things.
Maybe, there's zero logical constancy because you're comparing exclusivity to hardware to exclusivity to a storefront.
Which are two very very different things, which is a good explanation why these people (assuming you're referring to real people and not strawmen you've made up) have two different opinions on the two different topics.
I'm comparing it to GFWL because that was the last time the PC gaming community basically set itself on fire over another company threatening the status quo. GFWL was actually asking players to pay money to play online, though.
My experience in both are minimal but is EGS for real equivalent to Games for Windows Live? I've only been gaming on PC a few years but I've heard the talk and I've seen some side effects of GFWL in Dirt 3 which couldn't even run unless the devs patched out to login screen, which happened like 6 months after I bought the game on Steam. It was my first real annoyance with PC gaming.
EGS Exclusives are equated to hardware exclusives literally all the time. I'm not the one that brought up Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example, FWIW.
Hardware exclusives are arguably worse since they require a huge expenditure of money to get around.......EGS Exclusives are only a problem for people that steadfastly refuse to install EGS.
Games for Windows Live was a complete mess. EGS is basically just a glorified downloader that some devs, for some reason, decides to make a requirement for evening running the game (when they don't have to).
So paid exclusives are actually okay so long as they were never announced for another platform? That seems like a fairly nonsensical exception to the rule. People would be upset over Borderlands 3 pretty much regardless of if it were ever promised for Steam (I'm not even sure if it was).
With how they are attempting to take over pc gaming yes i feel so, games seem to run fine from what I've been told so that part is better than gfw but I'm not sure either way.
Its not an nonsensical exception, there was never a promise of remake coming for anything but ps4. It will probably come out for everything else once the full game is out. Borderlands 3 was mentioned for Steam but there were hints of it being egs exclusive for a long time before.
I think many understand why developer might signup for Epic's deal. And in most cases it probably is an offer they can't (and frankly shouldn't) refuse.
But on other hand it's probably good to also understand that some of your fans might not like this - and have understanding for that.
In case of Ooblets, maybe attacking those who don't like your decision isn't good way to write your PR. (Or maybe it is, considering how much press they got, but it probably didn't create positive towards the game for those who were affected by issue)
There was never a promise of ROTR for anything but Xbox, yet there were still months of furor over it. The Borderlands 3 announcement trailer has no Steam logos or promises, yet people still rage over its EGS-exclusivity.
Whatever ruleset you're personally operating from seems to differ from the community at large.
It boggles the mind that you would think the issue here is not understanding why a dev would take an egs deal, or that this somehow needs elucidating from a biz insider.
This isn't brain surgery or even some high level business maneuvering. We know why devs take this deal, any 13 yo can understand why.
People have a problem with the practice of money hatting devs away from stores because it's pretty unprecedented in what has always been an open platform. Because Epic has some pretty shitty business practices because Epic has been hostile to the PC market place in the past because it's mouthpiece continues to be hostile to pc gamers. Because Epic has gone on record stating that customers, we, are not its first or second or third priority. People have an issue with these deals because the store lacks a ton of features we have come to expect from our PC games. People have a problem with these deals when they were promised a steam release, the steam platform was used by the developer as part of their initial marketing campaign, community or development efforts, and then suddenly the platform is dropped.
People have a problem when developers, instead of being transparent and understanding in how removing a game from steam can be an issue for some for a myriad reasons illustrated here and elsewhere, begin the conversation with hostility towards its customers, tone deafness towards their concerns, and in the case of many other devs, outright lie to customers by Claiming this is good for them.
I recall Big Giant Games going at length about how egs was the best place to engage their early access community, for fuck's sake.
We get it. You want money. Fine. Let us know and be upfront. Don't lie to us. We understand that sometimes these deals come late, in fact, it seems egs are specifically targeting games that have a presence on the steam store already, are highly wished for, have communities attached, etc, maybe take that into consideration when you take the deal. Make things right, Try to understand where we are coming from. Don't take it personally when we say we won't support you on egs.
People will complain, as they have a right to, but as we have seen, people move on. It's when the lies and condescending hostility come that things get out of control.
Last edited:
I think you mean 'refuse to support third party exclusivity on PC', but you do you, baby.