Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'll still wait. Maybe it'll hit the Steam sales

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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'll still wait. Maybe it'll hit the Steam sales

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'll still wait. Maybe it'll hit the Steam sales

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.

Check out about mid way down this blog post
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-303

G2A can actually be worse for indie developers than straight up pirating a game!

 Overread wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'll still wait. Maybe it'll hit the Steam sales

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.

Check out about mid way down this blog post
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-303

G2A can actually be worse for indie developers than straight up pirating a game!

That's why i suggested it for those that went and changed their tune torwards exclusivity.


Edit: Some call me spitefull, i deem to reconsider, especially in the light of historical swiss reactions torwards beeing insulted.

If not Steam, I'd go GOG.

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.

"Still gonna extract their models to 3d print, tho"

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

Do you even bother to read why i suggested and for which indy games or are you just seeing red due to g2a bad.?

I suggested it for companies and Studios that promised a steam release and then made a bait and switch and went exclusive.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

nekooni wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

nekooni wrote:

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.

So, daily reminder that Tim Sweeney is a two faced lying sack of grox manure. https://medium.com/@info_68117/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7

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.

Doesn't surprise me at all. I'm glad Valve and GoG don't feel the need to do this kind of thing...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, daily reminder that Tim Sweeney is a two faced lying sack of grox manure. https://medium.com/@info_68117/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7

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 is effectively starving the market.

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.

Because they don't need to.
That's the issue.

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 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.

If they were truly evil, they'd say that you could only use their engine if you made your game Epic exclusive.

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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 use G2A for most of my keys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

Sarcasm, I hope?

 Togusa wrote:
I use G2A for most of my keys.

You really shouldn't. G2A is basically a money laundering site for identity thieves.