Yeah, the Epic Games store is really scuzzy. It has minimal security, it's buggy as hell and lacks features that I could put on a website in five minutes.
I wonder if they're going to do that for Phoenix Point backers as well. That caused a similar backlash (but a much smaller community), and the switch to Epic was long after the Fig campaign was wrapped back in 2017.
The best part about this is how it completely and utterly misses the point, and potentially stiffens future kickstarter efforts.
People are angry because they backed a project on promises, and those promises reneged without input so the person the backers funded could get a bigger cut of the funding that was given to them to fund the product, not necessarily their pockets. Obviously kickstarter isn't a non-profit, but presumably if you are looking to put a project on Steam and that's what you advertise, then presumably people are funding you money for that purpose. It's part of the deal. If anyone should be refunding money it should be the devs, who presumably saved money with the switch and should rightfully return it to backers themselves. While this is a comparatively tiny evil, I find the idea of it really raises my hackles. I'm not even sure I'm well articulating why it's sleazy in my mind.
The second is that now no one can just go to Kickstarter and not wonder if the project they'd like to back will be removed from their preferred platform arbitrarily at some later date. I.E. less likely to back.
It's sleazy because it's a bait-and-switch. Literally a classic example of a bait-and-switch. It's not a high-consequence bait-and-switch, but nonetheless...
There's also a third thing. A dev willing to do that kind of sleazy thing is probably willing to cut corners in their games, too. And thus, even if I didn't trust Epic Games with my personal information as far as my kitten can throw a truck, I'd assume their game was inferior by default.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, the Epic Games store is really scuzzy. It has minimal security, it's buggy as hell and lacks features that I could put on a website in five minutes.
It amazes me that they managed to produce a store worse than the windows store.
That seems to be the modus operandi for all AAA publishers these days. Rush out half baked and crap product, force purchases down throats, release half baked DLC, cram in loot mechanics, then release a "Road map" apologizing for the state of the game, do a mea culpa, then promise broad ranging yet oddly unspecific changes to the core mechanics over the span of the next 6-12 months.
Meanwhile, dump all investment into said product, and begin focusing on new product.
Epic does it with games, they did it with their store, and they are doing it with their business practices.
I mean even if it was not a steaming turd of a store I would not have anything to do with a company linked to Tencent king of the data “breach” and/or data mining depending on which reports you believe. On top of that even if all the data stuff is wrong Tencent are morally and ethically scuzzy in ways that Epic and even MS could only dream of.
Well, as I've been reading, it seems that one of the most criticized elements of Tencent's business is their inability to innovate. They copy other products (poorly) and generally refine them to work in specific markets, which actually has me wondering if western gamers are even the real target of Epic's current business plan, or if there's some intention to Segway the Epic Games Store into being a gateway for the Asian market to western products. It's actually more in line with Tencent's usual business and does explain a few of their "so stupid it's stupid" decisions. Carts are not common in a lot of Asian based webstores for example.
If I backa kickstarter and post-facto a publisher buys out thr dev and restricts platform access, regardless of whether I'm given a refund or not, at that point I'm no longer a just a customer, I'm a creditor and investor, and I have no interest in supporting that sort of behavior.
It's would certainly make me substantially more wary of kickstarting any future videogame projects.
I’m done with kickstarters now. This is 3/3 for me backing famous Japanese developers where i’ve felt stung. First Mighty Number Nine comes out and is absolutely gak, then Bloodstained comes out and is cheaper to buy new from Amazon than my investment, not to mention shady DLC lies. There was also that dick head from 505 games telling investors we got a great deal because of a mobile game they gave us for free. Now Shenmue 3 has taken a crap on its PC investors. It’s the last one i’ll ever back, that’s for sure.
Don't hate me, but I don't know what a "Shenmu III" is, but from the looks of things it's quite popular?
It's the third game in a series that has never made money but has a hardcore fanbase and the previous games did get critical acclaim.
Shenmue 3 is looking to continue that trend, seeing as it had the crowdfunding money then it took money from Sony and Deep Silver and finally the money from Epic.
Good. I hope Epic games buries Piranha with it. Outside of some excellent 3D modelling those arrogant crap sacks are the worst thing to happen to BattleTech since Harmony Gold.
Huh. Not as shocked by this as I could be. Did some digging, found that even before this announcement backers had been unhappy, as they hadn't heard anything about the status of MW5 for 5-6 months.
They still haven't taken down all the 'Release date: september 2019' announcements, even though the Epic deal somehow pushes things back further.
But their facebook page is now basically a stream of 'refund' request comments. I do like that there is actually pushback on this sort of crap.
The problem is thus far the pushback has had basically no real world effect. The companies get such a huge hand out from Epic and now Epic has set the tone for allowing full refunds being paid for by them not by the developers. So there's even less risk for the developer taking the Epic Golden Handshake.
What I can't work out is why Epic isn't putting some of their obscene amounts of money into making their store better. If they just added basic features (seriously a cart, comments,review system shouldn't take that long to add to a modern store front); then spent a bit of money improving security and marketing it then they could get over a lot of the issues people have.
The whole "its not steam" issue is overblown considering that Origin, Uplay and Battlenet all exist along with many MMO games not even being on Steam (or starting on steam). So if Epic just restored some faith by making their store "not suck" they could easily resolve many issues.
I don't know, it seems that for all their money they seem content just throwing large amounts at issues they make for themselves rather than tackling them head on. Then again they've also got sales data, it might be that for all the gamer fury and hate; the actual buying that goes on is only impacted by a little. Ergo lots of hot air and disgruntlement, but still getting high volume sales.
Voss wrote: Huh. Not as shocked by this as I could be. Did some digging, found that even before this announcement backers had been unhappy, as they hadn't heard anything about the status of MW5 for 5-6 months.
They still haven't taken down all the 'Release date: september 2019' announcements, even though the Epic deal somehow pushes things back further.
But their facebook page is now basically a stream of 'refund' request comments. I do like that there is actually pushback on this sort of crap.
Because I gak you not, Pirhana games hates their customers. The owner of the company has said so three or four times over the years and the way the company treats people kind of makes it really obvious once the idea is in your head. Pirhana is probably uniquely situated to suffer for this decision honestly. They already deal with rampant user discontent on a daily basis from the proverbial Sodom and Gomorrah that Mechwarrior: Online's development became. They hermorraged users when they first announced MW5, because the logic behind most of the announced design decisions was either nonsensical, or blatantly trying to justify bad mechanics they wanted but that none of their players did (for a company that makes video games, it's amazing how much Pirhana seems to want to make anything else). I imagine the other half, the idiot half that was giving that gak company any benefit of doubt, is now rioting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Ergo lots of hot air and disgruntlement, but still getting high volume sales.
This is my experience with gamers in general.
They bitch and moan from heaven to hell, and then they'll bend over and let the people they profess to hate got right at whatever pocket contains their wallet.
Voss wrote: Huh. Not as shocked by this as I could be. Did some digging, found that even before this announcement backers had been unhappy, as they hadn't heard anything about the status of MW5 for 5-6 months.
They still haven't taken down all the 'Release date: september 2019' announcements, even though the Epic deal somehow pushes things back further.
But their facebook page is now basically a stream of 'refund' request comments. I do like that there is actually pushback on this sort of crap.
Because I gak you not, Pirhana games hates their customers. The owner of the company has said so three or four times over the years and the way the company treats people kind of makes it really obvious once the idea is in your head. Pirhana is probably uniquely situated to suffer for this decision honestly. They already deal with rampant user discontent on a daily basis from the proverbial Sodom and Gomorrah that Mechwarrior: Online's development became. They hermorraged users when they first announced MW5, because the logic behind most of the announced design decisions was either nonsensical, or blatantly trying to justify bad mechanics they wanted but that none of their players did (for a company that makes video games, it's amazing how much Pirhana seems to want to make anything else). I imagine the other half, the idiot half that was giving that gak company any benefit of doubt, is now rioting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Ergo lots of hot air and disgruntlement, but still getting high volume sales.
This is my experience with gamers in general.
They bitch and moan from heaven to hell, and then they'll bend over and let the people they profess to hate got right at whatever pocket contains their wallet.
So basically they were the old version of GW when Kirby was still running things. Man i hated that guy. Things aren't the greatest now but it's better than what it was.
---------
Anyway this'll probably sound weird but i still want phoenix point and that Fallout-esque Space Western sounded cool too. I just don't know if i want em badly enough to deal with Epic. It really depends how good the games are i guess. After Fallout 76 being crap on release (and still probably crap) what can one do for a similar fix.
Agreed on waiting. If Epic was giving away copies of my favorite games away for free, I would still go the Steam and buy them full price just out of spite. Feth, if they are on Origin I would even do that. Anything but Epic.
I mean, that's the big thing isn't it - are all these publishers/developers really going to have the audacity to drop these games on Steam 6-18 months after the Epic Store and demand full price for them? Withold them from sales or restrict the discount until they've been on Steam for the normal "after launch" period despite that not being the PC platform launch? What happens when Epic inevitably go back on their word and start doing proper sales with a functional shopping cart etc, will the game be discounted on Epic but arbitrarily kept at regular price on Steam?
Frankly if they launch on Steam and the price isn't already what it would be on Steam if it had been there for 6-18 months, I'll just be hoisting the Jolly Roger and the lot of them can bog off.
I mean, that's the big thing isn't it - are all these publishers/developers really going to have the audacity to drop these games on Steam 6-18 months after the Epic Store and demand full price for them? Withold them from sales or restrict the discount until they've been on Steam for the normal "after launch" period despite that not being the PC platform launch? What happens when Epic inevitably go back on their word and start doing proper sales with a functional shopping cart etc, will the game be discounted on Epic but arbitrarily kept at regular price on Steam?
Frankly if they launch on Steam and the price isn't already what it would be on Steam if it had been there for 6-18 months, I'll just be hoisting the Jolly Roger and the lot of them can bog off.
Whilest i generally don't condone this, or G2A for that matter, i can understand it as a reaction against exclusives. Especially if they were kickstarter backed and promised to be on Steam.
In fact, G2A sounds especially enticing for such indy games.
I mean, that's the big thing isn't it - are all these publishers/developers really going to have the audacity to drop these games on Steam 6-18 months after the Epic Store and demand full price for them? Withold them from sales or restrict the discount until they've been on Steam for the normal "after launch" period despite that not being the PC platform launch? What happens when Epic inevitably go back on their word and start doing proper sales with a functional shopping cart etc, will the game be discounted on Epic but arbitrarily kept at regular price on Steam?
Frankly if they launch on Steam and the price isn't already what it would be on Steam if it had been there for 6-18 months, I'll just be hoisting the Jolly Roger and the lot of them can bog off.
Whilest i generally don't condone this, or G2A for that matter, i can understand it as a reaction against exclusives. Especially if they were kickstarter backed and promised to be on Steam.
In fact, G2A sounds especially enticing for such indy games.
I mean, that's the big thing isn't it - are all these publishers/developers really going to have the audacity to drop these games on Steam 6-18 months after the Epic Store and demand full price for them? Withold them from sales or restrict the discount until they've been on Steam for the normal "after launch" period despite that not being the PC platform launch? What happens when Epic inevitably go back on their word and start doing proper sales with a functional shopping cart etc, will the game be discounted on Epic but arbitrarily kept at regular price on Steam?
Frankly if they launch on Steam and the price isn't already what it would be on Steam if it had been there for 6-18 months, I'll just be hoisting the Jolly Roger and the lot of them can bog off.
Whilest i generally don't condone this, or G2A for that matter, i can understand it as a reaction against exclusives. Especially if they were kickstarter backed and promised to be on Steam.
In fact, G2A sounds especially enticing for such indy games.
I agree that PGI is a terrible developer. I played MWO for a stretch and they are just terrible - same bad, stale gameplay, same handful of maps, constant tinkering with core game mechanics they should be leaving alone... I'm not sure I saw anything in any of the MW5 trailers that looked to offer much more than that really.
And the pricing is so horrific! I don't begrudge developers money for their software, I mean, it's a business and they need to, you know, pay their employees and stay alive. I get how game development works. But $20-$70 for a mech pack, that is just a bunch of marginally different versions of the same mech? With the only "good" variant invariably being the $70 one? GTFO. That's literally more expensive than a complete AAA game for what is ultimately a very limited, small piece of DLC. Combine that with the repetitive, stale gameplay and it's basically high-end Clash of Clans, but much more expensive and graphically intensive. This doesn't make me think the SP version is going to be great, it's likely going to follow some similar outlandish scheme.
If I had seen really high metacritic scores upon release I probably would have thought about it a little harder... but not on Epic, for sure. So, I've gone from "No unless it looks amazing" to just plain "no".
Literally, the only credit PGI deserves is their head artist's awesome design work updating mechs and making the entire aesthetic of the franchise look quality rather than cheap. The rest of the company can go live in a dumpster for all I care.
Not Online!!! wrote: In fact, G2A sounds especially enticing for such indy games.
No. Not G2A. Not ever. They are very bad for indy games. Very, very bad.
I think his point (which I disagree with even though I requested a refund from PGI) is to hurt the developer as punishment. And while I disagree, I can see the reason why people are that angry with PGI.
For MW5 specifically it's just like this: PGI is getting a good deal from Epic (better % per sale, and an additional payment for the Exclusivity deal), and us customers will have to wait another year or deal with that gakky store. But if you don't want to use Epic, you can get a full refund no questions asked from PGI, and you get to keep all of the MWO content you got by preordering (which was a LOT of stuff for me since I went with the Ultimate edition).
So, in terms of that deal, I'm just disappointed that they decided that higher profits are more important than customer loyality (They literally said they could deal with all preorders being refunded and they'd still went with Epic), and that's that.
What is really making me lose my trust in PGI entirely is that they knew they were going Epic exclusive in April, and they had planned to tell us at the end of August. It being announced in July now is simply due to their website team making a mistake and publishing updated FAQs a month early - they even went with the "oh, no no, nothing changes, it's just a simply FAQ update" at first - blatantly lying. They could have told us about the deal during the preorder period, and chose not to.
Not Online!!! wrote: In fact, G2A sounds especially enticing for such indy games.
No. Not G2A. Not ever. They are very bad for indy games. Very, very bad.
I think his point (which I disagree with even though I requested a refund from PGI) is to hurt the developer as punishment. And while I disagree, I can see the reason why people are that angry with PGI.
For MW5 specifically it's just like this: PGI is getting a good deal from Epic (better % per sale, and an additional payment for the Exclusivity deal), and us customers will have to wait another year or deal with that gakky store. But if you don't want to use Epic, you can get a full refund no questions asked from PGI, and you get to keep all of the MWO content you got by preordering (which was a LOT of stuff for me since I went with the Ultimate edition).
So, in terms of that deal, I'm just disappointed that they decided that higher profits are more important than customer loyality (They literally said they could deal with all preorders being refunded and they'd still went with Epic), and that's that.
What is really making me lose my trust in PGI entirely is that they knew they were going Epic exclusive in April, and they had planned to tell us at the end of August. It being announced in July now is simply due to their website team making a mistake and publishing updated FAQs a month early - they even went with the "oh, no no, nothing changes, it's just a simply FAQ update" at first - blatantly lying. They could have told us about the deal during the preorder period, and chose not to.
Exactly, also you might disagree, but pulling a bait and switch with kickstarter money is imo very much a move of a group of individuals which have shown their integrity to be lacking to the point that you can not expect good faith buisness from them. Ergo these are groups and "companies" (better word would be scam artists and backbonless morons with a basic lack if integrity and legitimacy) that we as consumer are better off without.
Not Online!!! wrote: Exactly, also you might disagree, but pulling a bait and switch with kickstarter money is imo very much a move of a group of individuals which have shown their integrity to be lacking to the point that you can not expect good faith buisness from them. Ergo these are groups and "companies" (better word would be scam artists and backbonless morons with a basic lack if integrity and legitimacy) that we as consumer are better off without.
MW5 wasn't on kickstarter, and as I said - I no longer trust PGI. As a consequence I'm no longer supporting them through MWO purchases, and I'll pick up MW5 only if it becomes available outside of EGS AND is actually a good game, and even then only if the game is no longer full price.
The issue with G2A is that while you hurt the dev (which I can understand) you're also supporting G2A by doing so, and that - for me - isn't worth it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Exactly, also you might disagree, but pulling a bait and switch with kickstarter money is imo very much a move of a group of individuals which have shown their integrity to be lacking to the point that you can not expect good faith buisness from them. Ergo these are groups and "companies" (better word would be scam artists and backbonless morons with a basic lack if integrity and legitimacy) that we as consumer are better off without.
MW5 wasn't on kickstarter, and as I said - I no longer trust PGI. As a consequence I'm no longer supporting them through MWO purchases, and I'll pick up MW5 only if it becomes available outside of EGS AND is actually a good game, and even then only if the game is no longer full price.
The issue with G2A is that while you hurt the dev (which I can understand) you're also supporting G2A by doing so, and that - for me - isn't worth it.
I was more talking into regards to certain, others.
And later? The best thing that can happen is that Epic and G2A go at each others throat.
One less tumor on the industry.
tl;dr Game Dev turns down Epic Exclusivity bribe, EGS refuses to let him sell on EGS if he also sells on Steam, despite Tim Sweeney always talking about how multiple storefronts are good.
tl;dr Game Dev turns down Epic Exclusivity bribe, EGS refuses to let him sell on EGS if he also sells on Steam, despite Tim Sweeney always talking about how multiple storefronts are good.
Jim also covered it today.
Hillarious situation really.
but Sweeny is sweeny. and if you belive in determination through name, atleast for german speakers, he is excactly how he behaves.
Did anyone read the article about how Epic is forcing dev's into going Exclusive? They refuse to allow games on their store that are non-exclusive.
Several devs have tried to get their games on released on Epic and everywhere else recently, only to be told by Epic staff that they don't want to deal with non-exclusive content.
Epic's view is clearly that if they can starve the market they will control the market. For them it will work so long as they can pump money into developers and throw cash at them to become exclusive. They are VERY aggressive at growing their market share.
The sad thing is that they aren't actually offering a better service, nor even a comparable one. In fact from both a publisher/developer and consumer standpoint their service is worse than Steam's. They also appear to resolve most of their matters with a strong arm and throwing money at it; so they don't even sound nice to deal with as a company.
Overread wrote: Epic's view is clearly that if they can starve the market they will control the market. For them it will work so long as they can pump money into developers and throw cash at them to become exclusive. They are VERY aggressive at growing their market share.
The sad thing is that they aren't actually offering a better service, nor even a comparable one. In fact from both a publisher/developer and consumer standpoint their service is worse than Steam's. They also appear to resolve most of their matters with a strong arm and throwing money at it; so they don't even sound nice to deal with as a company.
Na, it's tried and true robber Barons tactic.
And imo grounds for anti Kartell laws to kick in.
But that would require actual change in the circumstancial landscape of politics and big buisness and considering we allow exorbitant prices on life saving medication nothing will change in a comparativly unimportant market.
Oh the strongarming makes sense as does poaching as many popular titles to get people onto their service. The main issue that I don't get is why they don't use some of their funds to improve their service. Right now I kind of get the feeling developers don't want to be on Epic Store for any reason other than the golden handshake; whilst gamers have no reason to use it beyond them getting exclusives. It's odd that there dosn't seem to be any more toward ingratiating themselves to either group in a big way. It's just odd.
Overread wrote: Oh the strongarming makes sense as does poaching as many popular titles to get people onto their service. The main issue that I don't get is why they don't use some of their funds to improve their service. Right now I kind of get the feeling developers don't want to be on Epic Store for any reason other than the golden handshake; whilst gamers have no reason to use it beyond them getting exclusives. It's odd that there dosn't seem to be any more toward ingratiating themselves to either group in a big way. It's just odd.
If they were in Steam's position, then strong arm tactics would make sense. But they're not. They don't have the market dominance. So Epic telling developers that they'll only sell games that are Epic exclusive just seems like shooting themselves in the foot.
If I were a developer that had been told by Epic that they wouldn't carry my product because I wasn't Epic exclusive, I'd just shrug my shoulders and move on. The vast bulk of my customers are probably on Steam, so it's not like I'd be losing much (if any) money. And I'd certainly get more from Steam sales than from Epic sales.
Plus, Epic's status as the place to go for games relies on all of the hot games going exclusively to Epic. And since what is quite possibly the hottest game of 2020 is from CDPR (who operate their own portal, AND sell on Steam), that isn't going to happen.
Overread wrote: Oh the strongarming makes sense as does poaching as many popular titles to get people onto their service. The main issue that I don't get is why they don't use some of their funds to improve their service. Right now I kind of get the feeling developers don't want to be on Epic Store for any reason other than the golden handshake; whilst gamers have no reason to use it beyond them getting exclusives. It's odd that there dosn't seem to be any more toward ingratiating themselves to either group in a big way. It's just odd.
Because they don't need to.
That's the issue.
True, however I wonder how long Epic can significantly undercut the competition on royalties per sale. Right now they offer a massive discount compared to Steam and GOG. Now GOG pays less because they take a far more active role in providing patches and modern OS support; whilst Steam might well have room to "trim the fat" in their system. However the vast diference makes me wonder if Epic isn't setting themselves up for a fall. Ergo their current divide is based on Epic providing a smaller service to fewer users and stocking fewer games; plus likely bankrolling it and being prepared to make a loss for a period of time (or if not a loss then inoperable income). The idea being to build a foundation now so that in the future they've got the developers and the gamers. However if that golden handshake starts to waver and go away in a few years (when Epic has to make profit off the store) then if they've already got a poor reputation then there's less to bind developers to them; esp big name developers who know the ywill get sales no matter where their game is sold (within reason). Indie-developers might hang on more because Epic will likely offer more exposure to them than on Steam.
It just seems short-sighted to me, especially when the resolutions are surely a financial drop in the ocean of money that Epic is rolling out for exclusive titles and such.
Eumerin wrote: If they were in Steam's position, then strong arm tactics would make sense. But they're not. They don't have the market dominance. So Epic telling developers that they'll only sell games that are Epic exclusive just seems like shooting themselves in the foot.
If I were a developer that had been told by Epic that they wouldn't carry my product because I wasn't Epic exclusive, I'd just shrug my shoulders and move on. The vast bulk of my customers are probably on Steam, so it's not like I'd be losing much (if any) money. And I'd certainly get more from Steam sales than from Epic sales.
Plus, Epic's status as the place to go for games relies on all of the hot games going exclusively to Epic. And since what is quite possibly the hottest game of 2020 is from CDPR (who operate their own portal, AND sell on Steam), that isn't going to happen.
But epic has market dominance.
They have a monopoly on select few high profile titles.
And they have the cash from Fortnight.
And the unreal engine.
It just seems short-sighted to me, especially when the resolutions are surely a financial drop in the ocean of money that Epic is rolling out for exclusive titles and such.
The goal is to force steam into investing ressources in a fight it can't atm win.
Weakening them longterm by forcing their margin down.
It's not about making steam better for developpers, it's about taking over steams spot in the PC market. And this is also preciscely why Steam wont react. And you also can bet your backside that Epic would stop their exclusivity deals even if steam would go down.
And for that goal to accomplish they don't need to implement user friendly shop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: If they were truly evil, they'd say that you could only use their engine if you made your game Epic exclusive.
Why do that.
Money is the endgoal. Oh you not selling on epic store, you pay 5% more licensce fee. And yes that is allready the case.
It just seems short-sighted to me, especially when the resolutions are surely a financial drop in the ocean of money that Epic is rolling out for exclusive titles and such.
The goal is to force steam into investing ressources in a fight it can't atm win.
Weakening them longterm by forcing their margin down.
It's not about making steam better for developpers, it's about taking over steams spot in the PC market. And this is also preciscely why Steam wont react. And you also can bet your backside that Epic would stop their exclusivity deals even if steam would go down.
And for that goal to accomplish they don't need to implement user friendly shop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: If they were truly evil, they'd say that you could only use their engine if you made your game Epic exclusive.
Why do that.
Money is the endgoal. Oh you not selling on epic store, you pay 5% more licensce fee. And yes that is allready the case.
I don't think steam is in any danger. No one I know uses the Epic store, I've not given it a second thought since I first heard of it.
Eumerin wrote: If they were in Steam's position, then strong arm tactics would make sense. But they're not. They don't have the market dominance. So Epic telling developers that they'll only sell games that are Epic exclusive just seems like shooting themselves in the foot.
If I were a developer that had been told by Epic that they wouldn't carry my product because I wasn't Epic exclusive, I'd just shrug my shoulders and move on. The vast bulk of my customers are probably on Steam, so it's not like I'd be losing much (if any) money. And I'd certainly get more from Steam sales than from Epic sales.
Plus, Epic's status as the place to go for games relies on all of the hot games going exclusively to Epic. And since what is quite possibly the hottest game of 2020 is from CDPR (who operate their own portal, AND sell on Steam), that isn't going to happen.
But epic has market dominance.
They have a monopoly on select few high profile titles.
And they have the cash from Fortnight.
And the unreal engine.
G2A is basically the Napster of video games. The only reason to use it is if you’re an edgy teenager who likes pretending your not stealing from the people who make your favorite things.
Epic is obviously garbage, but the fact that so many indies are eager to jump on the deal really isn't surprising. First, direct influx of cash vs potential cash from sales is always nice for security, and two, good luck getting noticed on steam without spending big on youtuber/influencer marketing.
Steam has almost no oversight to speak of, so every garbage "game" that wouldn't be out of place on Itch.io or a flash games website clogs their "new releases" feed. I literally find my new indie titles by following a few letsplayers on YT, because eff ever browsing steam directly. Epic can very easily exploit that.
Aye Steam could do with a big overhaul of their front page and also their submission and approval system. The way I see it they saw games like Minecraft make a fortune and basically relaxed most of their application process to try and let more of those kind of games through. Sadly Greenlight and their current "pay us a nominal fee" approaches basically didn't work. It's flooded Steam with a lot of dross that wasn't there a few years back.
Indies can still do ok if they advertise, but any indie with a smaller budget or any niche title game might not make it onto the front page for very long if at all to get noticed. Once it would have guaranteed a week or so sitting there on the front page - now its not. Heck the steam front page is so cluttered with stuff now that it almost hides all the upcoming games barring the one on the banner.
And about the only thing epic has going for it from a custommer perspective.
However also from a custommer perspective, they are owned by tencent. I don't like that company, i won't go there. (not all are as paranoid as me though )
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
I think at present developers still dislike G2A far more than they like. Things like the payback are as yet untested (no one has the money) and there's no talk that I've seen of long term means by which developers can continue to get payments on a rolling system to account for thefts and chargebacks.
Personally if I want cheap games I find that waiting, Fantaticals and Humble Bundle alongside Steam and GOG sales will generally get me cheap games.
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
Of which G2A has yet actually to do anything.
The tool for exemple was claimed to be massively expensive (which it isn't to make but G2A if full of gak)
And G2A recently got challanged by the makers of Factzorio to pay up 300'000 $ which they haven't yet procurred.
G2A is anything but reliable or ernest, or even honest.
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
Of which G2A has yet actually to do anything.
The tool for exemple was claimed to be massively expensive (which it isn't to make but G2A if full of gak)
And G2A recently got challanged by the makers of Factzorio to pay up 300'000 $ which they haven't yet procurred.
G2A is anything but reliable or ernest, or even honest.
For things like these, it takes time. You don't just snap your fingers and pay Factzorio 300 grand.
People are far to quick to jump on the hate bandwagon these days....
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
Of which G2A has yet actually to do anything.
The tool for exemple was claimed to be massively expensive (which it isn't to make but G2A if full of gak)
And G2A recently got challanged by the makers of Factzorio to pay up 300'000 $ which they haven't yet procurred.
G2A is anything but reliable or ernest, or even honest.
For things like these, it takes time. You don't just snap your fingers and pay Factzorio 300 grand.
People are far to quick to jump on the hate bandwagon these days....
I mean it's only been 3 months and the only response from G2A was to announce they weren't going to make the tool. I'm certain they are upright, honest and totally meaning to get around to those refunds by 3050.
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
Of which G2A has yet actually to do anything.
The tool for exemple was claimed to be massively expensive (which it isn't to make but G2A if full of gak)
And G2A recently got challanged by the makers of Factorio to pay up 300'000 $ which they haven't yet procurred.
G2A is anything but reliable or ernest, or even honest.
For things like these, it takes time. You don't just snap your fingers and pay Factzorio 300 grand.
People are far to quick to jump on the hate bandwagon these days....
I mean it's only been 3 months and the only response from G2A was to announce they weren't going to make the tool. I'm certain they are upright, honest and totally meaning to get around to those refunds by 3050.
Btw, for such a huge ass Marketplace, don't you find the lack of available funds to run a bit critical low if that would be the case Togusa?
You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.
I've looked into it a lot over the years, and I really think some of the claims against them are over-exaggerated. They definitely have an issue with things like stolen keys, however, they've taken quite a few steps to improve their ability to filter out and punish accounts attempting to sell stolen materials. They've even started trying to work with Developers to create incentives and help them grow as well and have even begun to set up a key blocking tool so that developers can choose to allow or disallow their games to appear on the platform. They've even offered to pay independent developers a significant amount of money for lost charge-back issues.
I think they're quite ernest in their willingness to hear complaints and take action to help improve their own business and the hobby itself. I typically use them for games that do not appear on Steam as I refuse to break up my library, so for me it is more about sticking it to EA/ActiBlizz than anything else.
Of which G2A has yet actually to do anything.
The tool for exemple was claimed to be massively expensive (which it isn't to make but G2A if full of gak)
And G2A recently got challanged by the makers of Factorio to pay up 300'000 $ which they haven't yet procurred.
G2A is anything but reliable or ernest, or even honest.
For things like these, it takes time. You don't just snap your fingers and pay Factzorio 300 grand.
People are far to quick to jump on the hate bandwagon these days....
I mean it's only been 3 months and the only response from G2A was to announce they weren't going to make the tool. I'm certain they are upright, honest and totally meaning to get around to those refunds by 3050.
Btw, for such a huge ass Marketplace, don't you find the lack of available funds to run a bit critical low if that would be the case Togusa?
Togusa wrote: For things like these, it takes time. You don't just snap your fingers and pay Factzorio 300 grand.
People are far to quick to jump on the hate bandwagon these days....
More like people are way to quick to give up and start making excuses for abusive behavior these days.
No doubt, but I like to research these things before I turn. Currently I am looking up some of the things that were mentioned in this thread so that I can see what has transpired since the articles I shared were published.
I mean that a market place off that size that can't throw up that ammount of money easily, even though knowingly operating in a legaly questionable realm, is strange.
Especially compared to their boast of 10x replacement, don't you think?
Their offer of 10* the lost money is a very overly generous offer. Most companies with a problem wouldn't turn around and offer ten times the money owed over the issue unless there was some major reason:
1) They feel its a big cost but cheaper than marketing to repair the damage to lost revenue by developers turning customers away from them.
2) It's a smokescreen that they hope to dissuade the developers badmouthing them for a time by making an offer and then locking them up for several months, or longer with negotiations and deals and suchlike.
3) They were unaware of the actual scale of the problem and thus made an overly generous offer which they thought wouldn't come with as great a cost as it is likely to become. This might mean their intentions were good, just that they were unaware of the scale of hteir own issue; which would be a stretch considering the store is one of the places that should get loads of complaints when keys are withdrawn due to theft.
If they had just offered to repay the money lost that would have been " just as good" but 10 times is a boastful value. Perhaps they really are raking in that much money and they perceive the theft problem being that small; perhaps is a smoke screen to prolong the site before all the cards come tumbling down
Their offer of 10 times the money lost is also a smokescreen because it's not legally enforceable. Contracts require two-way consideration; gifts are not contracts, and the promise to give a gift is not something you can be compelled to fulfill. It is nothing more than a gimmick to save face, because by the time reports of them not fulfilling the promise get on the news, they expect the controversy to be over and therefor they'll get away with it.
I mean that a market place off that size that can't throw up that ammount of money easily, even though knowingly operating in a legaly questionable realm, is strange.
Especially compared to their boast of 10x replacement, don't you think?
I really don't. I am not understanding what you mean.
Are you saying that because a payment hasn't yet been made (assuming it will be eventually) that this means they don't have as much money as they claim to?
I mean that a market place off that size that can't throw up that ammount of money easily, even though knowingly operating in a legaly questionable realm, is strange.
Especially compared to their boast of 10x replacement, don't you think?
I really don't. I am not understanding what you mean.
Are you saying that because a payment hasn't yet been made (assuming it will be eventually) that this means they don't have as much money as they claim to?
No i am saying that they have a missmanagement of security liquidity. Which is gak buissness planning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Their offer of 10 times the money lost is also a smokescreen because it's not legally enforceable. Contracts require two-way consideration; gifts are not contracts, and the promise to give a gift is not something you can be compelled to fulfill. It is nothing more than a gimmick to save face, because by the time reports of them not fulfilling the promise get on the news, they expect the controversy to be over and therefor they'll get away with it.
Ayy it is a smoke screen, that doesn't change that someone now want's to see if it is Actuallly a smokescreen and badmouth them even harder or get his "due"share now doesn't it.
I mean that a market place off that size that can't throw up that ammount of money easily, even though knowingly operating in a legaly questionable realm, is strange.
Especially compared to their boast of 10x replacement, don't you think?
I really don't. I am not understanding what you mean.
Are you saying that because a payment hasn't yet been made (assuming it will be eventually) that this means they don't have as much money as they claim to?
No i am saying that they have a missmanagement of security liquidity. Which is gak buissness planning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Their offer of 10 times the money lost is also a smokescreen because it's not legally enforceable. Contracts require two-way consideration; gifts are not contracts, and the promise to give a gift is not something you can be compelled to fulfill. It is nothing more than a gimmick to save face, because by the time reports of them not fulfilling the promise get on the news, they expect the controversy to be over and therefor they'll get away with it.
Ayy it is a smoke screen, that doesn't change that someone now want's to see if it is Actuallly a smokescreen and badmouth them even harder or get his "due"share now doesn't it.
It's possible. But I don't know anything about economics and haven't looked up how well or bad their company is doing.
Na, it's tried and true robber Barons tactic.
And imo grounds for anti Kartell laws to kick in.
But that would require actual change in the circumstancial landscape of politics and big buisness and considering we allow exorbitant prices on life saving medication nothing will change in a comparativly unimportant market.
Yep, saw that earlier. It's clear that Epic has no interest in "bettering the market", and that was all just marketing lies.
"We don't have the bandwidth to sell this small indie game developed by a single person." -- Producer behind Fortnite, the most successful game in the world, lying their asses off because they're liars.
Melissia wrote: Yep, saw that earlier. It's clear that Epic has no interest in "bettering the market", and that was all just marketing lies.
"We don't have the bandwidth to sell this small indie game developed by a single person."
-- Producer behind Fortnite, the most successful game in the world, lying their asses off because they're liars.
Considering that game is also just online available, one would expect them to have atleast basic ideas about online infrastructure.
Cronch wrote: ... but the fact that so many indies are eager to jump on the deal really isn't surprising...
I don't think indies jumping into bed with Epic is a problem (as long as said indies haven't taken pre-orders on steam/made promises about Steam/based their Kickstarter around steam).
It's the ones that do that, and the greedy AAA's that don't need the extra cash but do it anyway, they're the scum here.
Thing is for Indies Epic offers several big bonuses
1) The Golden Handshake for exclusivity - that in itself is a big guaranteed payout of a very significant portion
2) Guaranteed sales profit. Epic has a clause whereby if the game makes less sales than projected, Epic will cover the difference.
3) Bigger royalties per sale. For indies that might not ship hundreds of thousands of units easily this is another big bonus
4) Greater exposure. Whilst Epic isn't that popular, it still is a big store and the exclusives will keep cornering more and more customers. Right now Steam is a marketing mess and their front page can easily lose indie games who can't stump up the money for advertising space on the page.
Overall I can see why indies want in and even big AAA developers too. Epic is basically offering them a chance for easier profits and potentially greater profits. For indies or AAA games these are big numbers for those developers.
I don't think AAA games are being "scum" for going after money any more than indie games or any other developer - going after the money is kinda the whole point of running companies and this is pretty easy money to go after. I agree with regard to the predatory nature of Epic poaching games that already promised and even took pre-order money for other distribution networks. I think the drama there would be far less if Epic presented as a capable, feature rich store front and had a good track record of consumer support. IF GOG started getting predatory people would complain, but in the end they'd likely not complain half as much.
Also lets not forget that thus far games are actually selling rather well on Epic; its showing that the greater majority of complaints are "hot air" from a minority in the market. There ARE serious and valid concerns, but at present its a bit like paid lootboxes. It's bad for the health of the market, but financially it IS working.
A bigger royalties means nothing when they don't sell any copies because a) People don't want to use EGS and b) They piss off their potential customers by accepting EGS bribe money.
BaconCatBug wrote: A bigger royalties means nothing when they don't sell any copies because a) People don't want to use EGS and b) They piss off their potential customers by accepting EGS bribe money.
Very true, but from what I gather games are still selling pretty well on Epic store and the more exclusives they bag the greater their customer pool becomes. Plus Epic has guaranteed a minimum number of sales for the games. That in itself is a massive boon for many developers.
Of course my impression is that at present Epic is happy to lose money on the store or at least profit less whilst growing their marketbase and dominance in the market. Once they've grown up many of these bonuses might go away. Esp since they are takinga significantly smaller percentage from each sale.
BaconCatBug wrote: A bigger royalties means nothing when they don't sell any copies because a) People don't want to use EGS and b) They piss off their potential customers by accepting EGS bribe money.
This is as opposed to Steam bribe money, which is clean and acceptable.
I suspect that most people are triggered by the idea of having to shop on a store other than Steam. Valve has put a lot of legal and marketing money down to condition them and they aren't going to shake it for anything. I mean, Valve has been treating its customers like chattel for years and never suffered for it. .
BaconCatBug wrote: A bigger royalties means nothing when they don't sell any copies because a) People don't want to use EGS and b) They piss off their potential customers by accepting EGS bribe money.
This is as opposed to Steam bribe money, which is clean and acceptable.
I suspect that most people are triggered by the idea of having to shop on a store other than Steam. Valve has put a lot of legal and marketing money down to condition them and they aren't going to shake it for anything. I mean, Valve has been treating its customers like chattel for years and never suffered for it. .
Show me when Valve has ever bribed a game dev to sell ONLY on Steam and nowhere else?
Well with any luck lootboxes get banned and Epic then feth off and die in a corner. Since there entire current bussiness model revolves around scamming kids I doubt they could recover from a ban.
If steam has had to bribe games onto their service then it was years ago when they were getting started. Otherwise right now steam is pretty much the baseline for getting released on PC - even more so now that its open submission. There's a paltry fee, which is likely voided/not even a bother for any major publisher; whilst even for small indies the amount of cost it has is tiny. Sure its another cost, but it should be nothing more than a handful of copies to recoup.
Steam doesn't have to secure exclusivity; heck for a long time it was pretty much exclusive because they were the only decent name in the game. A position they maintained until GOG came along and even then it took years for GOG to rise up. Meanwhile services like Battlenet and Uplay are limited to one publisher block (and Uplay sells through steam anyway. Origin is about the only other competition and they've never really pushed to beat steam; just secure enough interest in the market to keep the MS games selling strongly as their own exclusives.
Epic wanted a slice of Steam's pie so securing exclusives was a very smart and likely the only way to achieve that. It's what any other major company would have done to secure a slice of the pie in a meaningful way in a very short span of time. Epic's strategy is all about fast growth. Heck it might even be that the potential clamping down on lootboxes is what's driving them to want to use their current money and grow a fast service to replace their lootbox earnings. Plus any mmo company knows that any mmo is always on a time limit and, at some point, will stop being "the new hotness" and die off.
Yeah, the only thing really exclusive on Steam right now, IIRC, is the "console" and controller they themselves created to work with Steam. And even that is probably not. If a dev who has released on Steam wants to release on GoG or somewhere else, Valve never objects to it.
Don't get me wrong. I could gak all over Valve for their ineptitude in trying to solve problems due to their trying to focus on algorithms to solve them instead of using any sort of sense. They're not saints or angels by any means. But at least when you talk about how bad Valve is, talk about things that are actually true.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, the only thing really exclusive on Steam right now, IIRC, is the "console" and controller they themselves created to work with Steam. And even that is probably not. If a dev who has released on Steam wants to release on GoG or somewhere else, Valve never objects to it.
Don't get me wrong. I could gak all over Valve for their ineptitude in trying to solve problems due to their trying to focus on algorithms to solve them instead of using any sort of sense. They're not saints or angels by any means. But at least when you talk about how bad Valve is, talk about things that are actually true.
Steam also takes criticism of their store somewhat to heart.
Mind you curation is Still utter Gak, but tools and structure are there. And their algorithms are just wierd.
I also never had issue with custommer Service of steam.
That's more then what i can say about EA and origin or Blizzard.
EA Origin's customer service hung up on me twice. Blizzard didn't hang up on me, but they also didn't much help with my problem. I had to solve it myself.
I've never needed to contact Steam's customer service for any reason. And that's the best kind of customer service there is in my book
LordofHats wrote: EA Origin's customer service hung up on me twice. Blizzard didn't hang up on me, but they also didn't much help with my problem. I had to solve it myself.
I've never needed to contact Steam's customer service for any reason. And that's the best kind of customer service there is in my book
Origin is absolute gak, especially when you want help.
I don't think AAA games are being "scum" for going after money any more than indie games or any other developer - going after the money is kinda the whole point of running companies and this is pretty easy money to go after. I agree with regard to the predatory nature of Epic poaching games that already promised and even took pre-order money for other distribution networks. I think the drama there would be far less if Epic presented as a capable, feature rich store front and had a good track record of consumer support. IF GOG started getting predatory people would complain, but in the end they'd likely not complain half as much.
"Companies exist to make money" is not a blanket justification for every possible method of making money. For the sake of making the point take it to an absurd extreme; third world child labour can be a very efficient way of increasing profits, but few people would try to argue any company taking advantage of it would be justified "because moneymaking".
Also lets not forget that thus far games are actually selling rather well on Epic; its showing that the greater majority of complaints are "hot air" from a minority in the market. There ARE serious and valid concerns, but at present its a bit like paid lootboxes. It's bad for the health of the market, but financially it IS working.
Lootboxes are an odd point of comparison if the argument is that Epic exclusivity sells games, given the entire ingame gambling system is predicated on exploiting a relatively small segment of the playerbase with more money than sense/poor impulse control/outright addiction issues. We have no way of knowing whether games that sell well on Epic could have sold even better had they not been exclusive, or how large that difference might be, so the most you can say from the perspective of the game makers' is that financially it's not failing. Whether it ends up working for Epic depends on the eventual outcome - given their reduced cut, income guarantees, and outright lump-sum bungs I very much doubt many of the games on the Epic Store are turning a huge profit for Epic themselves, so for it to qualify as a success for them the overall strategy has to pay off, and we won't know if that's the case until either Steam collapses and the EGS becomes the new default, or Epic chooses to end their bribery scheme and the EGS maintains a significant userbase who choose to shop there.
Melissia wrote: Don't get me wrong. I could gak all over Valve for their ineptitude in trying to solve problems due to their trying to focus on algorithms to solve them instead of using any sort of sense. They're not saints or angels by any means. But at least when you talk about how bad Valve is, talk about things that are actually true.
Their faults come from a certain level of incompetence alongside a certain level of just not giving a gak. They're lazy.
Epic is devious and underhanded. That makes them far worse.
Melissia wrote: Don't get me wrong. I could gak all over Valve for their ineptitude in trying to solve problems due to their trying to focus on algorithms to solve them instead of using any sort of sense. They're not saints or angels by any means. But at least when you talk about how bad Valve is, talk about things that are actually true.
Their faults come from a certain level of incompetence alongside a certain level of just not giving a gak. They're lazy.
Epic is devious and underhanded. That makes them far worse.
Assuming this is correect and not bs-- Valve/Steam changes its distribution agreement. tl;dr: Valve/Steam will likely say breach of contract if a company hypes a game as to be released on Steam, and then signs an exclusivity agreement with epic afterwards.
Perhaps the threat of a lawsuit will get dev teams to stop being shady about this stuff.
Assuming this is correect and not bs-- Valve/Steam changes its distribution agreement. tl;dr: Valve/Steam will likely say breach of contract if a company hypes a game as to be released on Steam, and then signs an exclusivity agreement with epic afterwards.
Perhaps the threat of a lawsuit will get dev teams to stop being shady about this stuff.
Well so long they still allow GoG and other platforms that seems ok, i guess.
They haven't had an issue with competing retail platforms in the past, so I don't expect them to going forward. I suspect thst Steam's biggest complaint is in having themselves used as an advertising platform for games that are ultimately not available on Steam.
Or in other words, don't spend a month using Valve's platform to generate buzz for your game if you're not going to sell the game on Steam. It also neatly works to undercut Epic, as Epic can't wait to see what's getting good pre-release PR on Steam before extending an exclusivity deal.
I wish Steam would get more non-game programs for their library. I would love to use Steam for my Anti-virus software, my mal-ware suite, or my system optimization stuff. Steam would be awesome as a one stop shop.
In fairness Steam hasn't really had any serious competition. Most of the companies that split away like Microsoft were more concerned with their own titles than building a huge library. They grew steadily over time and established themselves. GOG did the same, a steady growth. They either didn't direct compete to start with or were very small.
Epic is going at it very differently with a VERY aggressive method of poaching top titles from upcoming games on Steam and leaching them off with a powerful golden hand. Now securing exclusives makes sense, but poaching like Epic is doing isn't consumer nor competition friendly. In addition Epic is clearly out to not just take a slice but a BIG slice of the pie; its the only way I can see them justifying taking such a big market undercutting percentage on sales and also paying out such big exclusivity deal payments.
I'm still part convinced that in the long run we will see Epics percentage reduce and its golden handshake lose its power. That is unless they grow to dominate steam and the market. Even then they are taking a bitter percentage than the competition and in a huge way. That makes me wonderif all the competition are greedy or if there are logistical and support reasons for them needing a bigger slice of the pie. Things that perhaps Epic hasn't encountered as its not as big a company or because they are bankrolling other aspects with investment from other divisions to make it work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I wish Steam would get more non-game programs for their library. I would love to use Steam for my Anti-virus software, my mal-ware suite, or my system optimization stuff. Steam would be awesome as a one stop shop.
They sort of did try but never got anywhere big with it. Likely because:
1) Many software firms would rather you signed up to their annual programs and own systems. Adobe already does all their software through their own subscription system and they've no reason to want to run it through steam and lose direct profits. I suspect many others are in the same position.
2) Again the messy interface of steams front page I think worked against them. Plus it still presents itself as a game site first and foremost; they don't make much noise or advetising about their other software.
It seems a legit approach to me, as several of the crowdfunded games still advertise steam keys, since the crowding funding pages are locked after the campaign is over. Similarly the Outer Worlds trailer had the Steam logo on it in several places, and the exclusivity deal would have been in process at the time.
The epic exclusives wouldn't be nearly so noxious if they didn't involve a bait and switch
Voss wrote: It seems a legit approach to me, as several of the crowdfunded games still advertise steam keys, since the crowding funding pages are locked after the campaign is over. Similarly the Outer Worlds trailer had the Steam logo on it in several places, and the exclusivity deal would have been in process at the time.
The epic exclusives wouldn't be nearly so noxious if they didn't involve a bait and switch
Indeed.
It would also mark the Epic deal takers propperly for what they are, oppurtunistic weasels not worthy or money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw it seems that Boderlands has screwed with the Ratings?
where are you seeing the issue with Gearbox and ratings? I don't doubt it though, they have yet to get a story printed about them that wasn't "housewives of New Jersey" level pedantic drama.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: where are you seeing the issue with Gearbox and ratings? I don't doubt it though, they have yet to get a story printed about them that wasn't "housewives of New Jersey" level pedantic drama.
Again, and I don't want to sound silly, but a twitter post about a company that is basically the bottom of the barrel as far as games journalism goes getting denied a copy of their game isn't proof. Especially since PC gamer got a copy and their review was "Meh".
Not defending 2k or Epic or Gearbox. But they have been getting a lot of flack for stuff that may not have been really that bad. It's the dogpile mentality of American internet culture I'm sorry to say.
Yeah plus even if reviews are not front and centre on Epic store there's loads of review sites out there now. Within a day you can easily harvest up a load of twitch, youtube and blog posts for a new game and there's enough people earning off it to launch review games - esp something high profile like BL3. Sure they might not get pre-release copies; but they can certainly bash out reviews darn fast.
It's not like it was 20 years ago when review copies were essential because you were writing a magazine and taht was the primary review spot so you had to have those review copies early.
Today a review copy is nice and launch sales are important; but you can still review games at launch pretty fast.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, apparently reviewers were sent old debug versions of Borderlands 3 to review.
Jim Sterling video:
That's pretty normal. If anyone had a fully finished product 3 weeks in advance (when you arrange for the copies to be sent out), there wouldn't be a need for Day 1 patches. The retail copy you buy is often in a similar state these days.
They should report on the bugs they find anyway. If you don't want a games journalist to report on bugs, you should probably not give them a buggy copy...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Again, and I don't want to sound silly, but a twitter post about a company that is basically the bottom of the barrel as far as games journalism goes getting denied a copy of their game isn't proof. Especially since PC gamer got a copy and their review was "Meh".
Not defending 2k or Epic or Gearbox. But they have been getting a lot of flack for stuff that may not have been really that bad. It's the dogpile mentality of American internet culture I'm sorry to say.
PC gamer was offended by the jokes so they gave it a lower rating. If GB is near the bottom, PC Gamer is the bottom. Have we all forgotten the Dorito Pope incident?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Again, and I don't want to sound silly, but a twitter post about a company that is basically the bottom of the barrel as far as games journalism goes getting denied a copy of their game isn't proof. Especially since PC gamer got a copy and their review was "Meh".
Not defending 2k or Epic or Gearbox. But they have been getting a lot of flack for stuff that may not have been really that bad. It's the dogpile mentality of American internet culture I'm sorry to say.
PC gamer was offended by the jokes so they gave it a lower rating. If GB is near the bottom, PC Gamer is the bottom. Have we all forgotten the Dorito Pope incident?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Again, and I don't want to sound silly, but a twitter post about a company that is basically the bottom of the barrel as far as games journalism goes getting denied a copy of their game isn't proof. Especially since PC gamer got a copy and their review was "Meh".
Not defending 2k or Epic or Gearbox. But they have been getting a lot of flack for stuff that may not have been really that bad. It's the dogpile mentality of American internet culture I'm sorry to say.
PC gamer was offended by the jokes so they gave it a lower rating. If GB is near the bottom, PC Gamer is the bottom. Have we all forgotten the Dorito Pope incident?
Well it would appear the UK are calling loot boxes gambling and are going to legislate as such hopefully. If that sticks and spreads I would imagine Epic are going to be throwing a lot less cash around parasites that they are.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In before EA just re-brands Lootboxes into Live Service Consumer Choice Options, and we have to do this all over again.
Does you member when you could buy full physical game, and not broken into 6 full price dlc? MEMBER?
Your kidding once they realised how much untaxed gambling profits were being made there’s going to be no stopping them going after these guys whatever they call them, I know it’s more or less impossible but I wish they could go after them for undisclosed gambling profits EA and Epic would be funding the NHS for decades.
I think the general government angle was also that EA in particular, but others too, tried to pull the wool over their eyes (its just video games) too much and it clearly struck a nerve. Esp since its not the 70 or 80s - games are not some kind of tiny niche over in a corner and arcades; they are mainstream. Heck some of those on the panel likely "game" in their free time
I'm literally surprised Fanduels hasn't gotten in on the E-sports stuff, and started doing pick-em betting for things like DotA leagues, or whatnot. I mean, it's getting to the point now where people are making millions off of literal in everything BUT name gambling, why not just make it out and out, and allow gambling on E-Sports?
Because once you get into actual gambling and can't hide it a whole rafter of legislation and tax and such comes right down on top. Not to mention new measures in tackling addiction which requires vendors to have monitors on individuals gambling to help avoid problems.
Overread wrote: Because once you get into actual gambling and can't hide it a whole rafter of legislation and tax and such comes right down on top. Not to mention new measures in tackling addiction which requires vendors to have monitors on individuals gambling to help avoid problems.
Especially when some governments decide that you skimmed Profits you shouldn't have had without taxing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In before EA just re-brands Lootboxes into Live Service Consumer Choice Options, and we have to do this all over again.
Does you member when you could buy full physical game, and not broken into 6 full price dlc? MEMBER?
Yes.
I miss them.
Do you also miss propper expansions?
Like, propper expansions not cut content?
Yep plus you've got to consider your marketing too. It's one thing to hide it behind "lootboxes" but straight up gambling is one of those things that can shut down markets - gamers might refuse to buy; parents will avoid them (lets not be silly a lot of adult and over 18 games are bought by parents for younger kids ;but gambling with real money is a whole other matter than a few red pixels)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In before EA just re-brands Lootboxes into Live Service Consumer Choice Options, and we have to do this all over again.
Does you member when you could buy full physical game, and not broken into 6 full price dlc? MEMBER?
Well, not much point in buying a physical copy, but I can think of several current and upcoming complete games. That don't need DLC (let alone 'full price' DLCs, which I don't think I've seen often, if ever.
Guys i'm not gonna lie. I have an urge to buy Phoenix Point. There's a few things about it that I like and I enjoy xcom enough to play another xcom type game until xcom 3 comes out (whenever that is). Can you at least tell me the good and bad of epic games store so I don't do something I regret one way or another? I want to be armed with information but hopefully not misinformation or extraordinary rumors.
Overread wrote: Because once you get into actual gambling and can't hide it a whole rafter of legislation and tax and such comes right down on top. Not to mention new measures in tackling addiction which requires vendors to have monitors on individuals gambling to help avoid problems.
Isn't it a bad idea to let the government or corporations tell you how to live your life? I'd prefer family and friends personally. Perhaps i'm drifting into politics though.
Isn't it a bad idea to let the government or corporations tell you how to live your life? I'd prefer family and friends personally. Perhaps i'm drifting into politics though.
It's not so much politics as it is society. Even in times when family units were not as heavily broken up as they are now, addiction issues were a major problem and gambling can be highly destructive. Having limitations in place can help prevent or at least attempt to discourage abuse and resulting disasters that can befall people from such an addiction. Of course legislation typically only restricts and places some codes of practice in place - family and other support is often essential to breaking a habit.
Also, think about how cigarette makers targeted children to get them addicted for life. That's what video games are doing and why they bribe the ratings boards to let them get gambling under all ages games.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Guys i'm not gonna lie. I have an urge to buy Phoenix Point. There's a few things about it that I like and I enjoy xcom enough to play another xcom type game until xcom 3 comes out (whenever that is). Can you at least tell me the good and bad of epic games store so I don't do something I regret one way or another? I want to be armed with information but hopefully not misinformation or extraordinary rumors.
It's all rumors pretty much. A lot of the early epic store backlash that I saw literally stemmed from a belief that they were sneaking Chinese spyware onto your computer when you installed it.
The biggest valid concern is that Epic has had issues in the past with hackers and data breaches. Make sure to use two-factor authentication.
The biggest group of anti-epic store people know are the ones that just disagree with the business practice of purchasing exclusives, especially after those exclusives were already announced or on pre-order for steam and other storefronts. As well as an appearance that epic cares more about securing these exclusives that getting their actual storefront up to snuff to compete with steam. (I haven't checked in a while, did they ever get the shopping cart or wishlist added?)
If you don't want to support the epic store, then purchase pheonix point when it releases on steam. That should be approximately one year after the official launch of pheonix point.
balmong7 wrote: If you don't want to support the epic store, then purchase pheonix point when it releases on steam. That should be approximately one year after the official launch of pheonix point.
Or, ya know, don't buy games from shady developers period. If you must buy it, buy it on G2A. If devs who take Epics bribe money get hurt later on, devs won't take their bribe money any more.
balmong7 wrote: If you don't want to support the epic store, then purchase pheonix point when it releases on steam. That should be approximately one year after the official launch of pheonix point.
Or, ya know, don't buy games from shady developers period. If you must buy it, buy it on G2A. If devs who take Epics bribe money get hurt later on, devs won't take their bribe money any more.
JARR HARR FIDELDIEDIE, is also an option.
But yeah if the dev has pulled a bait and switzch, G2A seems fair imo.
I don't fully agree that changing the distribution site is a bait and switch move as the product is still the same. It's more of a case when its a shift between no DRM and DRM protected (eg moving off GOG at launch) and I appreciate that paying for a product on one service and then getting it delivered via another is not a good thing; nor something we want to encourage.
I think if Epic had put more of their copious millions into making a really top end store front system then many of the complaints would have reduced even with the distributor change.
Plus I think its important to note that this i the kind of issue where there's a lot of hot air blown around - ergo people complaining but then still getting the game (even if they don't admit to it). Where many comments are just people venting frustrations.
The real test will be what happens in a year. Will Epic make another bold move and say. "Hey this years exclusivity has done us both really well, how about we offer you a second golden handshake and you remain exclusive to us forever". With the predatory and money driven approach Epic has used thus far I can see them making such a move. If they give the same golden promises such as guaranteed sales and a wad of cash up front its going to be another hard thing to pass, esp if the developer has already seen healthy direct sales through the store front. Why release on steam and have less profits when you're making more from Epic and Epic is sweetening the deal.
Epic store is just basicly a bit gak with nearly as many security issues as sony have had and they have ties to a shady as feth chinese company.
While Epic have stated no personal data is currently available to Tencent given the complete lack of ethics that they have shown I find it hard to trust Epic not to sell the information if offered enough money.
Right. Epic's security has more holes than swiss cheese. They've had multiple major breaches this year alone, all of which resulted in hackers gaining access to millions of entire accounts as well as all of the details inside, including payment details.
And that's just this year. They are facing a massive class-action lawsuit over how massive this year's breaches alone were.
balmong7 wrote: If you don't want to support the epic store, then purchase pheonix point when it releases on steam. That should be approximately one year after the official launch of pheonix point.
Or, ya know, don't buy games from shady developers period. If you must buy it, buy it on G2A. If devs who take Epics bribe money get hurt later on, devs won't take their bribe money any more.
This is the equivalent of saying "Instead of buying flour from this store I don't approve of, lets try the crack dealer down the street."
The real point of contention here is people's fear for their steam library. With so much money and time invested in Valve, many players just feel they are too big to allow to fail and will do whatever it takes to keep Valve (and thier 200+ steam games) afloat. An important task when you don't actually own your games in these DRM-based ecosystem.
ChargerIIC wrote: The real point of contention here is people's fear for their steam library. With so much money and time invested in Valve, many players just feel they are too big to allow to fail and will do whatever it takes to keep Valve (and thier 200+ steam games) afloat.
That really has nothing to do with it. Epic is just that f***ing bad. I'll gladly buy games from other stores that are competently put together-- I've actually bought more games from GOG than Steam this year, and I still play games from Origin and Uplay, even though they're very mediocre services. But even by comparison to Origin and Uplay, the Epic store is just utterly insecure and ridiculously amateur in implementation.
There is definitely some elements of tribalism around Steam.
There are also serious concerns with a company acquiring marketshare via what is essentially wholesale bribery without actually providing a competitive product.
I will admit if I didn't already own Pheonix Point when the epic switch happened I would never have downloaded the epic store. Not for any real reasons besides all my games are on steam pretty much and I don't want to download another launcher. (This thread actually reminded me that I own games on GoG and Origin. lol)
Overread wrote: I don't fully agree that changing the distribution site is a bait and switch move as the product is still the same. It's more of a case when its a shift between no DRM and DRM protected (eg moving off GOG at launch) and I appreciate that paying for a product on one service and then getting it delivered via another is not a good thing; nor something we want to encourage.
I think if Epic had put more of their copious millions into making a really top end store front system then many of the complaints would have reduced even with the distributor change.
Plus I think its important to note that this i the kind of issue where there's a lot of hot air blown around - ergo people complaining but then still getting the game (even if they don't admit to it). Where many comments are just people venting frustrations.
The real test will be what happens in a year. Will Epic make another bold move and say. "Hey this years exclusivity has done us both really well, how about we offer you a second golden handshake and you remain exclusive to us forever". With the predatory and money driven approach Epic has used thus far I can see them making such a move. If they give the same golden promises such as guaranteed sales and a wad of cash up front its going to be another hard thing to pass, esp if the developer has already seen healthy direct sales through the store front. Why release on steam and have less profits when you're making more from Epic and Epic is sweetening the deal.
If you advertise your crowd funded game as beeing on Plattform X, then switch to plattform Y. IT is a bait and switch.
LunarSol wrote: There is definitely some elements of tribalism around Steam.
There are also serious concerns with a company acquiring marketshare via what is essentially wholesale bribery without actually providing a competitive product.
To be fair console exclusives used to be a thing but the whole bait and switch thing developers are doing with Epic Store is sleazy. "Yes give us pre-order money....now it's epic store only (or at least for a year). So deal with it suckers!"
Btw does anybody have any review info on Phoenix Point? I haven't heard from anybody that played the actual game and the one person who saw the game wasn't an xcom-style gaming fan. I love xcom so perhaps that person's tastes are different to mine.
LunarSol wrote: There is definitely some elements of tribalism around Steam.
There are also serious concerns with a company acquiring marketshare via what is essentially wholesale bribery without actually providing a competitive product.
To be fair console exclusives used to be a thing but the whole bait and switch thing developers are doing with Epic Store is sleazy. "Yes give us pre-order money....now it's epic store only (or at least for a year). So deal with it suckers!"
Btw does anybody have any review info on Phoenix Point? I haven't heard from anybody that played the actual game and the one person who saw the game wasn't an xcom-style gaming fan. I love xcom so perhaps that person's tastes are different to mine.
I own it. Haven't played the last couple beta builds because I was waiting for a bit more content to be added in (one of the builds had the perma soldier death but no way to recruit new soldiers). But it's solid so far and they keep adding new stuff and refining things. Check out their youtube channel for some let's play content and how to plays. They recently started a "pheonix point for XCOM Fans" tutorial series that is amazing.
Changing where you can purchase the game after people have pledged money to you/paid for pre-orders is a bait and switch.
ChargerIIC wrote: This is the equivalent of saying "Instead of buying flour from this store I don't approve of, lets try the crack dealer down the street."
I'm not really in the drug game, but do crack dealers sell flour? Seems like an odd alternative place of purchase.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Changing where you can purchase the game after people have pledged money to you/paid for pre-orders is a bait and switch.
ChargerIIC wrote: This is the equivalent of saying "Instead of buying flour from this store I don't approve of, lets try the crack dealer down the street."
I'm not really in the drug game, but do crack dealers sell flour? Seems like an odd alternative place of purchase.
If you replace flour with baking soda then it works better.
