Steam introduces feature to combat Borderlands review bombings, Gearbox CEO responds to situation

[MavericK]

Another thing that Gabe's NPC's like M76, Zara etc

The fact that you see this as shilling FOR Steam shows you don't understand the issues at all.

 

[M76]

Another thing that Gabe's NPC's like M76, Zara etc don't know that, steam has an agreement that forbids developers from selling any game cheaper at a direct competitor (GOG,EGS) but are fine with key reseller's since they can still profit from them through steam cards etc

If someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares. Assuming that is true, it still doesn't change the fact that exclusivity with no competition is bad, so I don't know what do you think you're proving with that, apart from your aforementioned cluelessness.

Oh yeah, I'm so big of a steam shill that I never actually purchased an AAA game on steam ever. and I don't give a duck what launcher a game uses, as I had no problem buying gog / origin / uplay games in the past.

 

[Flogger23m]

The fact that you see this as shilling FOR Steam shows you don't understand the issues at all.

No one is shilling anything here. Disagreeing with someones opinion doesn't mean they're a shill. Although yes in 2019 where people rage at everything they don't understand, I suppose everyone is a shill.

Oh yeah, I'm so big of a steam shill that I never actually purchased an AAA game on steam ever.

Its 2019, you're a shill for having a differing opinion. /Sarcasm.

They got a sweetener that is more then just Epic's smaller cut. They got some investment throw away money to try to grow the store ASAP. Instead of offering better deals which is a wildcard. They are using it to get exclusivity deals. If 2K isn't getting something extra, they're screwing themselves. Maybe Epic also promises less price attenuation over the life of the offering too. No $5 deals a year after release.

You realize developers/publishers set prices right? A developer can charge $15,000 for a game or $1 on Steam or EGS. Same with sales.

 

[MavericK]

No one is shilling anything here. Disagreeing with someones opinion doesn't mean they're a shill. Although yes in 2019 where people rage at everything they don't understand, I suppose everyone is a shill.

He is the one who used the term "Gabe NPCs", not me. Implying that people are shilling for Steam for some reason.

I guess you could use the term "unpaid shill" or "fanboy", because I seriously doubt anyone here is getting any monetary benefit one way or the other. Well, other than those of us who aren't buying the games on EGS.

 

[awawa]

I don't get it. People talk about Steam as if it were rainbows and unicorns.

Their customer support SUCKS.

The lack of reviews, however, is a huge flaw of Epic's.

 

[Flogger23m]

He is the one who used the term "Gabe NPCs", not me. Implying that people are shilling for Steam for some reason.

I guess you could use the term "unpaid shill" or "fanboy", because I seriously doubt anyone here is getting any monetary benefit one way or the other. Well, other than those of us who aren't buying the games on EGS.

To be a shill you need to be paid or doing it to influence a person's business that you know personally or have some connection to. I doubt anyone here with an old account is shilling for anything.

 

[M76]

I don't get it. People talk about Steam as if it were rainbows and unicorns.

Their customer support SUCKS.

The lack of reviews, however, is a huge flaw of Epic's.

Show me, where did people talk about steam as rainbows and unicorns?

Yeah, their support is terrible, and that gives a free pass for epic to do 3rd party exclusives, is that your logic?

The fact that people have any kind of emotion against or for any of the stores shows they are biased. It's not about steam or epic, it's about whether some practices are acceptable as a consumer or not. Buying exclusive rights to sell a 3rd party product is not acceptable to me.

 

[Deathroned]

Show me, where did people talk about steam as rainbows and unicorns?

Yeah, their support is terrible, and that gives a free pass for epic to do 3rd party exclusives, is that your logic?

The fact that people have any kind of emotion against or for any of the stores shows they are biased. It's not about steam or epic, it's about whether some practices are acceptable as a consumer or not. Buying exclusive rights to sell a 3rd party product is not acceptable to me.

Yet here you are Raging and getting your E-Diapers in a Twist.

 

[tetris42]

If someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares. Assuming that is true, it still doesn't change the fact that exclusivity with no competition is bad, so I don't know what do you think you're proving with that, apart from your aforementioned cluelessness.

I can't speak for him, but it's not that they cancel out each other, it's more hypocrisy + focusing on the smaller problem that bugs me. Let me ask you, do you ever buy exclusive console games? If so, I would put you in hypocrite category. If not, you at least have principles, though I still think you're focusing all your energy on the smaller problem.

With a console exclusive, I have to buy additional hardware, downgrade the experience, reduce options for framerate, resolution, controls, modding, etc. It would cost me money for a worse experience.

With a store exclusive, I have to spend 5 minutes with creating an account.

There's just no comparison at all, yet, I'm seeing more hell raised about the Epic store than I've ever seen for people complaining about console exclusives, because they've been so normalized. I see hypocrisy and / or focusing on the wrong problems.

From a long term perspective, what Epic is doing could work out better for the industry (I'll explain why if you really want me to, but I think you wouldn't even process it), it's hard to say for certain and is like trying to figure out a chess game 5-6 moves ahead while everyone is freaking out that they lost a pawn.

 

[M76]

Yet here you are Raging and getting your E-Diapers in a Twist.

What is your point? I'm perfectly justified in my "rage" against a wildly anti-consumer practice that may affect me negatively. I mean Metro Exodus is still 60 euros on the epic store. I'm used to paying 40-45 for bog standard editions of AAA games at release, not 2 months later. If some games really only will be purchasable trough the epic store then that will hurt consumers. There is nothing to argue there, I don't even know what are you trying to prove.

 

[M76]

I can't speak for him, but it's not that they cancel out each other, it's more hypocrisy + focusing on the smaller problem that bugs me. Let me ask you, do you ever buy exclusive console games? If so, I would put you in hypocrite category. If not, you at least have principles, though I still think you're focusing all your energy on the smaller problem.

First off first party exclusives are not the same as 3rd party exclusives. Second consoles have different hardware. so exclusivity is not arbitrary. Third, you can buy console exclusives at a bunch of different places not just for example the PS store. And you can even buy them second hand.
And if you ask, yes I fucking hate console exclusives, I wish there were none. The existence of console exclusives does not justify epic in bringing that shitty practice to the PC on steroids however.
And finally, how on god's green earth is not allowing the game to be sold anywhere else at all a smaller problem than not allowing them to be sold cheaper on gog / uplay / origin ? (For which I'm stilll keenly awaiting some source that would prove that claim) Not to mention the small thing that I didn't even hear about this (again assuming it is true) before, then how could I have spoken up against it?

With a console exclusive, I have to buy additional hardware, downgrade the experience, reduce options for framerate, resolution, controls, modding, etc. It would cost me money for a worse experience.

Yes, and as I've said I absolutely loath console exclusives. I wish they didn't exist, but they are an established practice that I have no hope of fighting. Exclusivity on PC is a completely new shit, that I have no intention of letting forced upon me.

With a store exclusive, I have to spend 5 minutes with creating an account.

It was only explained 1001 times already that it's not about that. On this very page even. In the post you're replying to for crying out loud. And people expect me to be calm, when presented with this kind of denial, that some refuse to even acknowledge what I declare over and over again, they keep pivoting back to the same talking points.

There's just no comparison at all, yet, I'm seeing more hell raised about the Epic store than I've ever seen for people complaining about console exclusives, because they've been so normalized. I see hypocrisy and / or focusing on the wrong problems.

I hate the fact that my country lost 2/3 of its territories in WW1, but there is not much I can do about that can I? We're focusing on the problem that is newly presented and that we might have a chance of resisting yet. But certainly not with your lot's attitude.

From a long term perspective, what Epic is doing could work out better for the industry (I'll explain why if you really want me to, but I think you wouldn't even process it), it's hard to say for certain and is like trying to figure out a chess game 5-6 moves ahead while everyone is freaking out that they lost a pawn.

What epic is doing if they keep it up in the long term is forcing steam's hand to engage in the same shitty practice. Which will be jolly good for us I'm sure.

You're naive and idealistic if you think this will end up with games becoming cheaper or developers getting better pay. Epic doesn't want to help consumers or developers, they want a piece of the pie and they want it fast rather than slow, and they don't mind walking all over gamers for it.

 

[tetris42]

First off first party exclusives are not the same as 3rd party exclusives.

From the consumer perspective (which you seem hyper-focused on) it is. They're both games you can't play anywhere else. I mean honestly, what's the difference?

1st party exclusive: A company funds a studio in-house to sell a game exclusively to keep it off other platforms in order to gain more profit
3rd party exclusive: A company funds a studio out-of-house to sell a game exclusively to keep it off other platforms in order to gain more profit

I honestly don't see how you can defend 1st party exclusives, but then say 3rd party ones are wrong and anti-consumer. News flash, they BOTH are. Plus, plenty of console games are 3rd parties to be on their platform. Hell, until Epic announced it on their store, Heavy Rain was originally going to be a PC game back in 2009, but then Sony bought them out and kept it off the PC.

Second consoles have different hardware. so exclusivity is not arbitrary.

That argument hasn't meant much for years now, it's all x86 hardware. Show me ONE developer that is totally free contractually to release a game on PC, but only releases on Xbox and Playstation because a port would be "too hard" from a technical perspective and not because of business reasons.

Third, you can buy console exclusives at a bunch of different places not just for example the PS store. And you can even buy them second hand.

Again, if you don't have the console, add a few hundred dollars to that price to balance it out.

And finally, how on god's green earth is not allowing the game to be sold anywhere else at all a smaller problem than not allowing them to be sold cheaper on gog / uplay / origin ? (For which I'm stilll keenly awaiting some source that would prove that claim) Not to mention the small thing that I didn't even hear about this (again assuming it is true) before, then how could I have spoken up against it?

I'm not arguing that point, I'm arguing console exclusives are the bigger problem than ones from any PC.

Yes, and as I've said I absolutely loath console exclusives. I wish they didn't exist, but they are an established practice that I have no hope of fighting. Exclusivity on PC is a completely new shit, that I have no intention of letting forced upon me.

It was only explained 1001 times already that it's not about that. On this very page even. In the post you're replying to for crying out loud. And people expect me to be calm, when presented with this kind of denial, that some refuse to even acknowledge what I declare over and over again, they keep pivoting back to the same talking points.

I hate the fact that my country lost 2/3 of its territories in WW1, but there is not much I can do about that can I? We're focusing on the problem that is newly presented and that we might have a chance of resisting yet. But certainly not with your lot's attitude.

I'm guessing you'll be about as effective as you were at preventing console exclusives. Regarding attitude, it's a matter of what we value more. I want games on the PC. I don't care which store they're from. From my perspective, I'm seeing more previously-console exclusives come to PC through Epic than perhaps ever in one year since maybe the 90s. You care more about choosing which store you buy the game from, unless it's a 1st party exclusive for some reason. Whatever. Our goals are simply different.

What epic is doing if they keep it up in the long term is forcing steam's hand to engage in the same shitty practice. Which will be jolly good for us I'm sure.

You're naive and idealistic if you think this will end up with games becoming cheaper or developers getting better pay. Epic doesn't want to help consumers or developers, they want a piece of the pie and they want it fast rather than slow, and they don't mind walking all over gamers for it.

That's not my argument exactly, but like I said, you don't sound receptive to examining the possible outcomes, so fine, Epic only bad, no good possible, enjoy the black and white thinking.

 

[GoodBoy]

From the consumer perspective (which you seem hyper-focused on) it is. They're both games you can't play anywhere else. I mean honestly, what's the difference?

1st party exclusive: A company funds a studio in-house to sell a game exclusively to keep it off other platforms in order to gain more profit
3rd party exclusive: A company funds a studio out-of-house to sell a game exclusively to keep it off other platforms in order to gain more profit

A 3rd party is just a random game dev house. They "fund a studio" (they are the studio) to sell the game as much as it can possibly be sold, not solely to only be sold at store X.

What you are describing (in terms of the companies involved in the current discussion) is if Epic "contracted" Gearbox to make a game for them, to be sold only on the Epic store. That's not what happened.

What happened: Company makes Game. Gamestop says "only sell your game in our store, and we will give you a few extra $ per sale". Company agrees.

(Note nothing has to do with consoles or hardware, take that discussion elsewhere, as it is not applicable. Explained below.)

Why is this a problem for consumers? I'll just go to Gamestop if I want Game X, right?

What if there are no Gamestops in your area? What if you are overseas and Gamestop hasn't been allowed in? What possible consumer benefit is there to selling a product only at one store? Why not sell it at Walmart, Target, and Costco (and hundreds of others) too?

That argument hasn't meant much for years now, it's all x86 hardware. Show me ONE developer that is totally free contractually to release a game on PC, but only releases on Xbox and Playstation because a port would be "too hard" from a technical perspective and not because of business reasons.

What about Nintendo? I should be able to play Halo on Nintendo dammit! Newsflash: It cannot run it. Stupid argument that really has no bearing the thread topic.

Again, if you don't have the console, add a few hundred dollars to that price to balance it out.

Not what this thread is about.

I'm not arguing that point, I'm arguing console exclusives are the bigger problem than ones from any PC.

Then why are you even in this thread? Go make your own thread to shit in. Compare all you want, it's not the same thing.

I'm guessing you'll be about as effective as you were at preventing console exclusives. Regarding attitude, it's a matter of what we value more. I want games on the PC. I don't care which store they're from. From my perspective, I'm seeing more previously-console exclusives come to PC through Epic than perhaps ever in one year since maybe the 90s. You care more about choosing which store you buy the game from, unless it's a 1st party exclusive for some reason. Whatever. Our goals are simply different..

That's fine.

It doesn't justify any reason why Game X should only be sold in one place.

It's not only anti-consumer, it is anti-competitive.

 

[Flogger23m]

...developers getting better pay. Epic doesn't want to help consumers or developers...

Getting a higher percentage of their games does help the developers. Epic has a strong history of being pro-developer. You can use UE4 for free, get some support and all that and you won't have to pay until you start selling something using UE4. That is fairly pro-developer.

Will this filter down to each individual employee? Circumstantial. If a studio has excess money maybe they won't have to lay off as many employees between projects.

Will it help the average gamer? A tiny bit. When Valve sees competition they start improving Steam in some good ways. Will it outweigh the inconvenience? Maybe not. But this whole initiative has always been developer focused, not gamer. Same reason Valve went around trying to grab developers over a decade ago. They would offer a better deal and they'd both make money in the process. But their focus was on the developer first and foremost. Developers would get a nice deal on Steam, lower fees than a traditional publisher but they'd turn around and sell the game at the price as at retail.

We're seeing a repeat here. Epic offers a better deal, and developers like this. They can charge the same while taking home more money. Except instead of B&M stores loosing out, its Valve.

Nice article on Tripwire from 2009 who endorsed this idea, while Gear Box Randy Pitchford thought they were being ripped off still:
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news..._Steam_And_How_Were_Not_Getting_Exploited.php

It is safe to say both Valve and Epic are very developer focused, and always have been. Consumer choice or good deals for gamers is not something either company ever put first. If that was the case Valve would've offered a non-Steam version of HL2 back in 2004.

What if there are no Gamestops in your area? What if you are overseas and Gamestop hasn't been allowed in? What possible consumer benefit is there to selling a product only at one store? Why not sell it at Walmart, Target, and Costco (and hundreds of others) too?

A client and a store aren't the same thing so the comparison is moot. The clients also function as a store, but they don't exclude other stores. You can buy Steam games at Walmart and Target but they still require Steam. You can still buy EGS games at physical stores as well, meaning that yes, you can buy from a different store.

You'll still be tethered to the client thought which is again, why you can't directly compare selling at Walmart or Target with something like Steam/EGS.

 

[odditory]

I'm not arguing that point, I'm arguing console exclusives are the bigger problem than ones from any PC.

Who gives a shit. That's not PCs problem. Go start another thread about the injustice of console exclusives.

 

[MavericK]

Who gives a shit. That's not PCs problem. Go start another thread about the injustice of console exclusives.

No one likes exclusives. Even on console, I don't like that they exist. But I understand why they have to exist.

This "but consoles do it!" thing is not an argument. It's a completely different set of circumstances.

 

[GoldenTiger]

No one likes exclusives. Even on console, I don't like that they exist. But I understand why they have to exist.

This "but consoles do it!" thing is not an argument. It's a completely different set of circumstances.

Yeah. The console one is the real problem, not the epic launcher.

 

[Flogger23m]

No one likes exclusives. Even on console, I don't like that they exist. But I understand why they have to exist.

This "but consoles do it!" thing is not an argument. It's a completely different set of circumstances.

I'd much prefer everything to be on my PC as well. Although I'll admit it, Nintendo mobile consoles do fill a niche. I'll allow them. But using an Xbox One was like using an old shitty PC. Obviously consoles have a different appeal. A cheap, marketable item that is easy to set expectations for. A little more simple than a PC but I think the lines have blurred. The Xbox interface was trash, confusing and the account management a little hard to understand. Plus with PCs you can get nice user work arounds that consoles gamers can't do.

 

[noko]

If Epic offer a better deal for Metro or any other title that is up to the parties involved. I too like a choice on what platform I can buy the game but that is not always up to me but to the owners of the software. Anyways if I really wanted to play Metro Exodus I would just buy it on whatever platform. That being said I do like Steam and never really had a problem with them.

 

[M76]

Yeah. The console one is the real problem, not the epic launcher.

You are really this blind are you? A console is a huge investment to develop, it takes years of R&D then having factories, supply chains and so on to make. The only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives.

You really cannot see the difference between exclusives that are funded by the manufacturer of a new HW, compared to someone setting up a fence around an already existing platform that used to be free for all?

I honestly never saw anyone doubling down on the regressive agenda this hard. And you lot do it collectively. Mentioning another problem is not an argument. And completely off topic as it was already stated.

 

[odditory]

You are really this blind are you? A console is a huge investment to develop, it takes years of R&D then having factories, supply chains and so on to make. The only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives.

You really cannot see the difference between exclusives that are funded by the manufacturer of a new HW, compared to someone setting up a fence around an already existing platform that used to be free for all?

I honestly never saw anyone doubling down on the regressive agenda this hard. And you lot do it collectively. Mentioning another problem is not an argument. And completely off topic as it was already stated.

GTiger is just pulling your chain. He's a smart guy and knows people are passionate about this topic.

 

[M76]

GTiger is just pulling your chain. He's a smart guy and knows people are passionate about this topic.

You know what that means right? That some have sunk to a level that is not discernible from actual sarcasm.

 

[GoldenTiger]

GTiger is just pulling your chain. He's a smart guy and knows people are passionate about this topic.

That one was sarcasm.

 

[Deathroned]

What is your point? I'm perfectly justified in my "rage" against a wildly anti-consumer practice that may affect me negatively. I mean Metro Exodus is still 60 euros on the epic store. I'm used to paying 40-45 for bog standard editions of AAA games at release, not 2 months later. If some games really only will be purchasable trough the epic store then that will hurt consumers. There is nothing to argue there, I don't even know what are you trying to prove.

No it won't, Its called Developer Choice whilst you and your fellow Steam Defense Force Squadron members get your E-Diapers in a twist, the Silent Majority will continue to enjoy games and purchase them anywhere, whilst whiny SJW's like yourself continue to get E-pimped by Outrage peddlers like Joe and Sterling.

 

[Deathroned]

If Epic offer a better deal for Metro or any other title that is up to the parties involved. I too like a choice on what platform I can buy the game but that is not always up to me but to the owners of the software. Anyways if I really wanted to play Metro Exodus I would just buy it on whatever platform. That being said I do like Steam and never really had a problem with them.

Getting a higher percentage of their games does help the developers. Epic has a strong history of being pro-developer. You can use UE4 for free, get some support and all that and you won't have to pay until you start selling something using UE4. That is fairly pro-developer.

Will this filter down to each individual employee? Circumstantial. If a studio has excess money maybe they won't have to lay off as many employees between projects.

Will it help the average gamer? A tiny bit. When Valve sees competition they start improving Steam in some good ways. Will it outweigh the inconvenience? Maybe not. But this whole initiative has always been developer focused, not gamer. Same reason Valve went around trying to grab developers over a decade ago. They would offer a better deal and they'd both make money in the process. But their focus was on the developer first and foremost. Developers would get a nice deal on Steam, lower fees than a traditional publisher but they'd turn around and sell the game at the price as at retail.

We're seeing a repeat here. Epic offers a better deal, and developers like this. They can charge the same while taking home more money. Except instead of B&M stores loosing out, its Valve.

Nice article on Tripwire from 2009 who endorsed this idea, while Gear Box Randy Pitchford thought they were being ripped off still:
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news..._Steam_And_How_Were_Not_Getting_Exploited.php

It is safe to say both Valve and Epic are very developer focused, and always have been. Consumer choice or good deals for gamers is not something either company ever put first. If that was the case Valve would've offered a non-Steam version of HL2 back in 2004.



A client and a store aren't the same thing so the comparison is moot. The clients also function as a store, but they don't exclude other stores. You can buy Steam games at Walmart and Target but they still require Steam. You can still buy EGS games at physical stores as well, meaning that yes, you can buy from a different store.

You'll still be tethered to the client thought which is again, why you can't directly compare selling at Walmart or Target with something like Steam/EGS.

Exactly, Epic has pledged a 100 million us dollars for their Mega Grants program, Steam stopped caring about developers after they got enough mind share, if you don't take care of your producers as a store, those producers will go elsewhere.

Tim has done more for gaming than Gabe ever will.

 

[odditory]

No it won't, Its called Developer Choice whilst you and your fellow Steam Defense Force Squadron members get your E-Diapers in a twist, the Silent Majority will continue to enjoy games and purchase them anywhere, whilst whiny SJW's like yourself continue to get E-pimped by Outrage peddlers like Joe and Sterling.

This guy.

Nobody talking about Steam would care if the games in question were also made available on 10 other stores, and there was actual price competition so consumers actually benefitted. GoG/Galaxy, GMG, Discord, Gamersgate, Origin, Amazon, whatever. What's on trial is Epic stealing the games by overpaying publishers with their Fortnite buckets, and holding the games hostage so consumers have no choice, there's no price competition, games will stay at $60 without any downward pressure.

Trying to red herring the argument with the platform loyalty argument is either trolling or just lack of comprehension about the scope of this, no offense.

 

[M76]

No it won't, Its called Developer Choice whilst you and your fellow Steam Defense Force Squadron members get your E-Diapers in a twist, the Silent Majority will continue to enjoy games and purchase them anywhere, whilst whiny SJW's like yourself continue to get E-pimped by Outrage peddlers like Joe and Sterling.

Which part of "never purchased a game on steam" do you not get? But keep referring to anyone against exclusivity as steam fanboys.
You built a strawman and keep talking about it, while ignoring the inconvenience of reality.

Majority of people also have sub 110 iq . Just because they are fine being subjected to this and don't even understand why is it bad, doesn't mean I must follow suit.

What does this have to do with social justice anyway? I'm aware of those youtubers but don't subscribe to them, I have my own thoughts. But keep adding hay to your strawman.

 

[tetris42]

A 3rd party is just a random game dev house. They "fund a studio" (they are the studio) to sell the game as much as it can possibly be sold, not solely to only be sold at store X.

What you are describing (in terms of the companies involved in the current discussion) is if Epic "contracted" Gearbox to make a game for them, to be sold only on the Epic store. That's not what happened.

What happened: Company makes Game. Gamestop says "only sell your game in our store, and we will give you a few extra $ per sale". Company agrees.

(Note nothing has to do with consoles or hardware, take that discussion elsewhere, as it is not applicable. Explained below.)

Why is this a problem for consumers? I'll just go to Gamestop if I want Game X, right?

What if there are no Gamestops in your area? What if you are overseas and Gamestop hasn't been allowed in? What possible consumer benefit is there to selling a product only at one store? Why not sell it at Walmart, Target, and Costco (and hundreds of others) too?



What about Nintendo? I should be able to play Halo on Nintendo dammit! Newsflash: It cannot run it. Stupid argument that really has no bearing the thread topic.



Not what this thread is about.



Then why are you even in this thread? Go make your own thread to shit in. Compare all you want, it's not the same thing.



That's fine.

It doesn't justify any reason why Game X should only be sold in one place.

It's not only anti-consumer, it is anti-competitive.

Who gives a shit. That's not PCs problem. Go start another thread about the injustice of console exclusives.

Your reply is just proving the point. Consoles exclusives ARE more anti-consumer, by a country mile. So your rebuttal is "go talk about that somewhere else." Since you guys don't get it, here's the point: You don't want to face the BIGGER anti-consumer issue, but are crying bloody murder about a VERY minor anti-consumer issue on PC. My point from bringing that up is this is hypocrisy. Raging against Epic exclusives while defending consoles in the same breath is just pure hypocrisy. You two don't seem to want to face that, so your answer is to "get lost." Got it.

You are really this blind are you? A console is a huge investment to develop, it takes years of R&D then having factories, supply chains and so on to make. The only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives.

You really cannot see the difference between exclusives that are funded by the manufacturer of a new HW, compared to someone setting up a fence around an already existing platform that used to be free for all?.

The irony of your statement is amazing.

1. What you're saying about consoles is more true of the past. Consoles are not the innovative breakthroughs they once were. They're x86 machines with AMD hardware. They're mid-range PCs in another words. Defending them on hardware investment terms is like saying Dell and HP should be entitled to sell exclusive games since that's the only way to make them profitable. They make mid-range PCs too! It's not. Console manufacturers don't even sell at a loss anymore, the way they did in the past. If console manufacturers dropped all exclusives, they would still be profitable due to the living room space still being a desired market, just not AS profitable. But if only ONE console did that, they would likely NOT be profitable, because the ones still with exclusives would eat their lunch.

2. The real irony here is your statement of "the only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives." You think that's not also the case for Epic? You think if they entered the market and had NO exclusives, sold games at the same price as Steam, they would be profitable? Despite the fact that Steam has monopoly-like marketshare and 15 years of entrenchment? Battle.net, Origin, Uplay, GOG, and especially Steam ALL have exclusives. If Steam didn't have 50-70% of the market, sure, they might. With the way it is now? Get real.

It flat out amazes me how you actually understand the profitability argument for exclusives on consoles yet do NOT understand the exact same argument for a store competing against Steam.

 

[GoodBoy]

Consoles are sold at a loss, with the intent of gaining back profit thru the software sales, some of that ensured by an exclusive property like Mario or Halo or Metal Gear.

Console Exclusive != PC digital store exclusive. For so many reasons.

That is why your points and comparisons are irrelevant to this thread.

[/ignore]

 

[Snowdog]

If someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares. Assuming that is true, it still doesn't change the fact that exclusivity with no competition is bad, so I don't know what do you think you're proving with that, apart from your aforementioned cluelessness.

Except this particular problem is directly relevant to launching competing game stores. If Steam has such an agreement in place, then it would be impossible for other stores to compete against Steam on the basis of price. Meaning you MUST resort to something like exclusives to compete.

While I have no idea if such an agreement is in place, I did read the Amazon Android store developer agreement and it had such a clause, so they are not without precedent.

IMO These kinds of agreements should be ruled anti-competitive abuse...

 

[MavericK]

No it won't, Its called Developer Choice whilst you and your fellow Steam Defense Force Squadron members get your E-Diapers in a twist, the Silent Majority will continue to enjoy games and purchase them anywhere, whilst whiny SJW's like yourself continue to get E-pimped by Outrage peddlers like Joe and Sterling.

Whelp, looks like you hit all the major "gamers rise up" talking points - do you get your tendies now?

Seriously, none of your blathering nonsense has anything to do with the issues. And checking your post history, this looks to be a recurring theme of "Steam bad" with zero actual discussion or evidence.

 

[M76]

Except this particular problem is directly relevant to launching competing game stores. If Steam has such an agreement in place, then it would be impossible for other stores to compete against Steam on the basis of price. Meaning you MUST resort to something like exclusives to compete.

While I have no idea if such an agreement is in place, I did read the Amazon Android store developer agreement and it had such a clause, so they are not without precedent.

IMO These kinds of agreements should be ruled anti-competitive abuse...

So because it could exist we should assume it does? If such a thing exists why is it that none of the devs opting for epic exclusivity mentioned it? If I had such an ace up my sleeve I'd have come out with it long ago instead of calling gamers entitled.

I think the recent china hacking we look the other way news demonstrates perfectly the situation. Epic offers a guaranteed sum, taking your chances on steam can go either way. And they opt for the guaranteed payout in the short term, even if it could mean loosing customers in the long run. Doesn't seem to be anything more to it.

 

[VanGoghComplex]

I'm bummed by this, but not excessively. I'll wait 6 months. Steam has never mistreated me in any capacity and I like their client better than the others I've used.

I'm a bit wary of EGS for a handful of reasons, and as BL3 is the only title they're holding hostage that's of any interest to me, I'll wait.

I understand people getting mad about it, but... jeeze. It doesn't seem to me like that big a deal.

 

[M76]

Getting a higher percentage of their games does help the developers. Epic has a strong history of being pro-developer. You can use UE4 for free, get some support and all that and you won't have to pay until you start selling something using UE4. That is fairly pro-developer.

Here is the thing: I don't believe a 12-88 revenue share is sustainable while being profitable in the long term. Epic has the advantage that they don't yet have to support a gazillion of previously released games, and maintain a ton of services and features for their launcher.

Will this filter down to each individual employee? Circumstantial. If a studio has excess money maybe they won't have to lay off as many employees between projects.

Assuming they come out ahead with all the backlash going on. It can be said that the majority doesn't care, but I see many people claiming they'd never buy anything from the epic store. I just hope they put their money where their mouth is.

Will it help the average gamer? A tiny bit. When Valve sees competition they start improving Steam in some good ways.

I fail to see how higher priced games and less choice on where I can buy them helps me.

Will it outweigh the inconvenience? Maybe not. But this whole initiative has always been developer focused, not gamer. Same reason Valve went around trying to grab developers over a decade ago. They would offer a better deal and they'd both make money in the process. But their focus was on the developer first and foremost. Developers would get a nice deal on Steam, lower fees than a traditional publisher but they'd turn around and sell the game at the price as at retail.

If by inconvenience you refer to the fact of having to install another launcher, that is still not the main issue in this.
Yes they are focusing on developers, but they didn't have to trample all over gamers. As stated by me and others many times they could have offered incentives for gamers to come into their store instead of handcuffing them and forcing them in.

We're seeing a repeat here. Epic offers a better deal, and developers like this. They can charge the same while taking home more money. Except instead of B&M stores loosing out, its Valve.

Except it is not just valve, but every other store that loses, and please don't forget commission free 3rd party keys that epic doesn't offer.

It is safe to say both Valve and Epic are very developer focused, and always have been. Consumer choice or good deals for gamers is not something either company ever put first. If that was the case Valve would've offered a non-Steam version of HL2 back in 2004.

One first party exclusive vs. buying out every major 3rd party game release? How is that even a comparison?

 

[Deathroned]

This guy.

Nobody talking about Steam would give a shit if the games in question were also made available on 10 other stores, and there was actual price competition so consumers actually benefitted. GoG/Galaxy, GMG, Discord, Gamersgate, Origin, Amazon, whatever. What's on trial is Epic stealing the games by overpaying publishers with their Fortnite buckets, and holding the games hostage so consumers have no choice, there's no price competition, games will stay at $60 without any downward pressure.

Trying to red herring the argument with the platform loyalty nonsense is either trolling or just a fundamental lack of comprehension about the scope of this, or people that don't actually buy videogames and they don't really care because it doesn't affect them..

Well that would happen if Good Guy Valve, didn't forbid developers from selling games cheaper at a competing store.

You Steam Cuckolds will never get it.

 

[Deathroned]

Your reply is just proving the point. Consoles exclusives ARE more anti-consumer, by a country mile. So your rebuttal is "go talk about that somewhere else." Since you guys don't get it, here's the point: You don't want to face the BIGGER anti-consumer issue, but are crying bloody murder about a VERY minor anti-consumer issue on PC. My point from bringing that up is this is hypocrisy. Raging against Epic exclusives while defending consoles in the same breath is just pure hypocrisy. You two don't seem to want to face that, so your answer is to "get lost." Got it.

The irony of your statement is amazing.

1. What you're saying about consoles is more true of the past. Consoles are not the innovative breakthroughs they once were. They're x86 machines with AMD hardware. They're mid-range PCs in another words. Defending them on hardware investment terms is like saying Dell and HP should be entitled to sell exclusive games since that's the only way to make them profitable. They make mid-range PCs too! It's not. Console manufacturers don't even sell at a loss anymore, the way they did in the past. If console manufacturers dropped all exclusives, they would still be profitable due to the living room space still being a desired market, just not AS profitable. But if only ONE console did that, they would likely NOT be profitable, because the ones still with exclusives would eat their lunch.

2. The real irony here is your statement of "the only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives." You think that's not also the case for Epic? You think if they entered the market and had NO exclusives, sold games at the same price as Steam, they would be profitable? Despite the fact that Steam has monopoly-like marketshare and 15 years of entrenchment? Battle.net, Origin, Uplay, GOG, and especially Steam ALL have exclusives. If Steam didn't have 50-70% of the market, sure, they might. With the way it is now? Get real.

It flat out amazes me how you actually understand the profitability argument for exclusives on consoles yet do NOT understand the exact same argument for a store competing against Steam.

What's amazing is that these same Hypocrites Clamour for Freedom and Capitalism, until those same things attack their favorite companies.

 

[Snowdog]

So because it could exist we should assume it does? If such a thing exists why is it that none of the devs opting for epic exclusivity mentioned it? If I had such an ace up my sleeve I'd have come out with it long ago instead of calling gamers entitled.

I don't know if such a policy exists. I never said to assume it does.

AFAICT most of the storefront developer policies are publicly available (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon), but Steams seems to be a secret, likely enforced by signing the agreement.

 

[Deathroned]

Your reply is just proving the point. Consoles exclusives ARE more anti-consumer, by a country mile. So your rebuttal is "go talk about that somewhere else." Since you guys don't get it, here's the point: You don't want to face the BIGGER anti-consumer issue, but are crying bloody murder about a VERY minor anti-consumer issue on PC. My point from bringing that up is this is hypocrisy. Raging against Epic exclusives while defending consoles in the same breath is just pure hypocrisy. You two don't seem to want to face that, so your answer is to "get lost." Got it.

The irony of your statement is amazing.

1. What you're saying about consoles is more true of the past. Consoles are not the innovative breakthroughs they once were. They're x86 machines with AMD hardware. They're mid-range PCs in another words. Defending them on hardware investment terms is like saying Dell and HP should be entitled to sell exclusive games since that's the only way to make them profitable. They make mid-range PCs too! It's not. Console manufacturers don't even sell at a loss anymore, the way they did in the past. If console manufacturers dropped all exclusives, they would still be profitable due to the living room space still being a desired market, just not AS profitable. But if only ONE console did that, they would likely NOT be profitable, because the ones still with exclusives would eat their lunch.

2. The real irony here is your statement of "the only way they can make it profitable is by funding exclusives." You think that's not also the case for Epic? You think if they entered the market and had NO exclusives, sold games at the same price as Steam, they would be profitable? Despite the fact that Steam has monopoly-like marketshare and 15 years of entrenchment? Battle.net, Origin, Uplay, GOG, and especially Steam ALL have exclusives. If Steam didn't have 50-70% of the market, sure, they might. With the way it is now? Get real.

It flat out amazes me how you actually understand the profitability argument for exclusives on consoles yet do NOT understand the exact same argument for a store competing against Steam.

What's amazing is that these same Hypocrites Clamour for Freedom and Capitalism, until those same things attack their favorite companies.

 

[Deathroned]

Here is the thing: I don't believe a 12-88 revenue share is sustainable while being profitable in the long term. Epic has the advantage that they don't yet have to support a gazillion of previously released games, and maintain a ton of services and features for their launcher.

Assuming they come out ahead with all the backlash going on. It can be said that the majority doesn't care, but I see many people claiming they'd never buy anything from the epic store. I just hope they put their money where their mouth is.


I fail to see how higher priced games and less choice on where I can buy them helps me.

If by inconvenience you refer to the fact of having to install another launcher, that is still not the main issue in this.
Yes they are focusing on developers, but they didn't have to trample all over gamers. As stated by me and others many times they could have offered incentives for gamers to come into their store instead of handcuffing them and forcing them in.

Except it is not just valve, but every other store that loses, and please don't forget commission free 3rd party keys that epic doesn't offer.


One first party exclusive vs. buying out every major 3rd party game release? How is that even a comparison?

Stores have 2 Customers (the producer and the buyer) if you mistreat the producer(like valve) they will leave for a better deal its Biz 101 and common sense.

How many times have you complained about paying for useless Cable TV Channels, If Steam treated its Producers well Origin, U-Play, EGS wouldn't exist.

Big Developers don't need Steam, considering the Biggest Games in PC Gaming aren't on Steam(Fortnite, WOW, League of Legends, Various MMO's, Battle field, Anthem, Mass Effect, COD etc) are selling like Hot-Cakes without Steam.

 

[Deathroned]

I don't know if such a policy exists. I never said to assume it does.

AFAICT most of the storefront developer policies are publicly available (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon), but Steams seems to be a secret, likely enforced by signing the agreement.

Exactly, its all under NDA if guys like M76, Maverick etc spent more time on r/gamedev, unity forums etc, instead of being brainwashed by Jim Sterling and Angry Joe, they would have seen it mentioned.