Epic paid $10.5 million upfront for Control exclusivity

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,532
That happened because EA got greedy and forced people to buy ME DLC using the scammy Bioware Points, Valve came out of that smelling like roses even if everyone knew why they actually did it.

That is an excellent example. The Mass Effect DLC model and its pricing was obscene. Interestingly not many people were very upset with absolute bullshit method of selling DLC for that game. Probably one of the most scummy ways to sell DLC, especially considering it was an SP game.

So while a bullshit policy on EA's part, Valve was only interested in their cut that they weren't getting. Let us not pretend it was any other reason.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
That is an excellent example. The Mass Effect DLC model and its pricing was obscene. Interestingly not many people were very upset with absolute bullshit method of selling DLC for that game. Probably one of the most scummy ways to sell DLC, especially considering it was an SP game.

So while a bullshit policy on EA's part, Valve was only interested in their cut that they weren't getting. Let us not pretend it was any other reason.
I complained about it a lot. Especially when the game was 3-4 years old and a dlc still cost 1200 bioware points and you could either buy 800 or 1500.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
Free Steam key generation is great, but only a small number of people buy from 3rd party sites. Likewise I doubt Steam would allow a company to generate free keys and not sell the game directly on Steam because they would be providing a service with no way to get money.
They could always charge more for the game on steam. As every 3rd party key is cheaper than on steam anyway. Win win. Sell 3rd party keys on your own store for slightly less than on steam. That's why it isn't necessary to create an own launcher to go around steam. So cutting out steam from the revenue is not the only purpose of creating origin, it was all the added benefits. Monitoring playing habits, is far more valuable. Selling directly in game items is also more valuable than cutting out steam from the initial revenue.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
That is an excellent example. The Mass Effect DLC model and its pricing was obscene. Interestingly not many people were very upset with absolute bullshit method of selling DLC for that game. Probably one of the most scummy ways to sell DLC, especially considering it was an SP game.

So while a bullshit policy on EA's part, Valve was only interested in their cut that they weren't getting. Let us not pretend it was any other reason.

It was DA2, not Mass Effect. ME2 released a year prior to the policy change. Same bullshit with Bioware points though. Also, if my memory serves my right it was Crysis 2 that started all of it. EA had deals in place for Crysis 2's DLC distribution that they couldn't break when Valve implemented their DLC policy and the game got kicked from Steam after new DLC was release for it. Following that DA2 got kicked and EA said "fuck it" and went exclusive to their own store.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,277
anyone is free to compete in the open market. the competition in this case is getting games to sell in their store. the strength of their offerings is the games that they have available for sale. I get that you want something different as a consumer, but your typical "my steam game backlog is so huge I never buy games except when they are on deep deep sales" - there just is not that much appeal in catering to that customer base, so it is not exactly a huge loss.

Except that it is... when Steam puts a game on sale (I'm sure this is negotiated with the dev/publisher, if not requested by them to begin with), the sales go up 40 fold. 40 times as many sales... The sheer volume, even when on sale, is great for the game dev's and extremely profitable...

And gamers saying "I got a backlog of 100 games..." this is great for game dev's. We wrote a game, and we've found a way to sell it to lots of people who will never even play it?!?! Win! It's insane. How many people will spend $59.99 on a game they are not likely to ever play? The age of the demo is pretty much gone. Most consumers who are "not sure" they will like or enjoy a game, are far more likely to spend $9.99 on it to give it a try than they are to spend $59.99.

The game gets increases sales (the sales count has its' own value), the game gets more exposure, they get follow-on sales because some of those new sales result in players who do in fact play the game, and then they bring their friends. It's a win all around.

If you think game dev's do not make money, and lots of it, by putting their games on Steam, you don't know how it works...
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
32,388
So now all of a sudden platform exclusivity is an issue. People are shouting from the rooftops that they're canceling preorders over this.


ZdMKMm.gif
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
So now all of a sudden platform exclusivity is an issue. People are shouting from the rooftops that they're canceling preorders over this.


View attachment 189341

i hope they do.

exclusivity is a virus and has to be terminated.

although it's activision so i mean that a virus in itself.

still sucks for anyone who doesn't want to be held back by shitty consoles.

imagine paying the same money for less game.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
i hope they do.

exclusivity is a virus and has to be terminated.

although it's activision so i mean that a virus in itself.

why is it a virus? companies are doing what they feel will make them the most money.
It is not DLC or microtransactions so as things go this is the least offensive method possible.
Vote with your wallet.
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
why is it a virus? companies are doing what they feel will make them the most money.
It is not DLC or microtransactions so as things go this is the least offensive method possible.
Vote with your wallet.

as i said and you removed from my quote

you are paying the same for less game.

that's why it is a virus.

60$ for all game modes on ps4

60 dollars and missing game mode on PC and Xbone

yep nothing wrong there.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,954
why is it a virus? companies are doing what they feel will make them the most money.
It is not DLC or microtransactions so as things go this is the least offensive method possible.
Vote with your wallet.
as i said and you removed from my quote

you are paying the same for less game.

that's why it is a virus.

60$ for all game modes on ps4

60 dollars and missing game mode on PC and Xbone

yep nothing wrong there.

I agree with both of you. It's a practice that should be killed (from a customer's perspective), and it's also a good opportunity to not purchase this product. When they removed dedicated servers from COD:MW2 I didn't buy the game and I haven't purchased a COD game since then for a variety of reasons. The franchise is clearly surviving without my couple of bucks, but it's basically dead to me.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
I agree with both of you. It's a practice that should be killed (from a customer's perspective), and it's also a good opportunity to not purchase this product. When they removed dedicated servers from COD:MW2 I didn't buy the game and I haven't purchased a COD game since then for a variety of reasons. The franchise is clearly surviving without my couple of bucks, but it's basically dead to me.
Having the "opportunity" to not buy something is not good enough. It's like saying well, we know the winner used illegal performance enhancers in the marathon, but you have the opportunity to not partake in the race.
 

Inacurate

Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
520
I wonder if Sony approached Activision offering to pay for this arrangement, or Activision made the offer to Microsoft & Sony and allowed them to bid on the opportunity.
Without knowing how that developed, I'm conflicted as to where to throw shade, as it would really frame the conversation in different ways.

Several months ago there was a leak saying Sony had paid $50million USD to have exclusive DLC, I recall seeing the headline but since I don't play COD I'm not directly impacted and didn't investigate further, but I wonder if this latest news is part of that?

Microsoft paid Take Two for GTA DLC exclusivity in the past, so Epic is not to blame directly but they've certainly been a lot more flagrant with their approach and that may be encouraging other entities to test the waters and push those the boundaries as well.

If money is changing hands behind the scene to allow for these exclusivity deals, that's not pro-consumer and it's up to us to call them out on it if we feel the need.

Make a great product, and it will sell itself.

anyone is free to compete in the open market. the competition in this case is getting games to sell in their store.

Lets not blur the facts here - by 'getting games' the fact is Epic is paying for them.

That's not competition.
If it went to court, it may not even be found illegal, but that still doesn't make it competition.

Coupled with a bare minimum of improvements, what appears (to me) as avoidance on committing to drastically and immediately improving the QoL and feature set of the EGS.
From outward appearances, it looks like they are trying to puff out their chest to draw attention and make themselves seem important, investing the least amount of money possible into EGS while trying to remain in a holding pattern waiting for...Valve to cave and adjust the split? Consumers to jump on Epic's bandwagon and demand Valve change?

I can appreciate people feel the need for changes, but how one goes about

Epic's approach is gaudy in the worst possible way, and their re-active decision after backlash to give away free games is to help encourage those on the fence to damper said backlash, whether it's against someone like me who is approaching objectively and has concerns, a blow with the wind SJW or other group.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,532
They could always charge more for the game on steam. As every 3rd party key is cheaper than on steam anyway. Win win. Sell 3rd party keys on your own store for slightly less than on steam. That's why it isn't necessary to create an own launcher to go around steam. So cutting out steam from the revenue is not the only purpose of creating origin, it was all the added benefits. Monitoring playing habits, is far more valuable. Selling directly in game items is also more valuable than cutting out steam from the initial revenue.

While it isn't explicitly not allowed, if the sales percentage drop below a certain point Valve will step in. You can take a look at what happened with Eagle Dynamics as one example. They were selling their keys directly and people would activate them on Steam. But sales on Steam itself was so low that Valve eventually ended this. Understandably. If 50-60% of your sales don't net you any profit, why continue to allow it? For a while ED stopped putting their titles on deep discount on Steam and only put them on huge sales on their own store. Essentially, the Steam sale price would roughly reflect the extra fee cost. Looks like behind the scenes Valve disapproved of that as well as the large sales have returned to Steam with the same level of discounts.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
I wonder if Sony approached Activision offering to pay for this arrangement, or Activision made the offer to Microsoft & Sony and allowed them to bid on the opportunity.
Without knowing how that developed, I'm conflicted as to where to throw shade, as it would really frame the conversation in different ways.

Several months ago there was a leak saying Sony had paid $50million USD to have exclusive DLC, I recall seeing the headline but since I don't play COD I'm not directly impacted and didn't investigate further, but I wonder if this latest news is part of that?

Microsoft paid Take Two for GTA DLC exclusivity in the past, so Epic is not to blame directly but they've certainly been a lot more flagrant with their approach and that may be encouraging other entities to test the waters and push those the boundaries as well.

If money is changing hands behind the scene to allow for these exclusivity deals, that's not pro-consumer and it's up to us to call them out on it if we feel the need.

Make a great product, and it will sell itself.



Lets not blur the facts here - by 'getting games' the fact is Epic is paying for them.

That's not competition.
If it went to court, it may not even be found illegal, but that still doesn't make it competition.

Coupled with a bare minimum of improvements, what appears (to me) as avoidance on committing to drastically and immediately improving the QoL and feature set of the EGS.
From outward appearances, it looks like they are trying to puff out their chest to draw attention and make themselves seem important, investing the least amount of money possible into EGS while trying to remain in a holding pattern waiting for...Valve to cave and adjust the split? Consumers to jump on Epic's bandwagon and demand Valve change?

I can appreciate people feel the need for changes, but how one goes about

Epic's approach is gaudy in the worst possible way, and their re-active decision after backlash to give away free games is to help encourage those on the fence to damper said backlash, whether it's against someone like me who is approaching objectively and has concerns, a blow with the wind SJW or other group.

Sony's been getting exclusive content from Acti published titles (COD and Destiny) since the start of the generation. This is probably an extension of that deal.

People like to harp on about how "this isn't competition" but it is. It's not the kind of competition that you like but it is still competition. In a relatively free capitalist market this is exactly how companies compete. The myth of "compete by providing the better service" has never been true when it comes to large corporations. This isn't even exclusive to games, or digital media.

Both Epic and Valve need to get off their asses and get their shit in order.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
Lets not blur the facts here - by 'getting games' the fact is Epic is paying for them.

That's not competition.
If it went to court, it may not even be found illegal, but that still doesn't make it competition.

it doesn't matter who did or did not pay for games. publishers regularly finance games all the time and they own the rights for sales of those games according to a split formula
epic then bid on the rights to sell games in their store from the publisher. there is nothing remotely illegal about it, it is just an extension of whatever was already being done
the difference is that in the past it was assumed the games would go on steam, and steam would get 30% of all profits for doing nothing but being a webhosting service. now that is no longer the case.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
While it isn't explicitly not allowed, if the sales percentage drop below a certain point Valve will step in. You can take a look at what happened with Eagle Dynamics as one example. They were selling their keys directly and people would activate them on Steam. But sales on Steam itself was so low that Valve eventually ended this. Understandably. If 50-60% of your sales don't net you any profit, why continue to allow it? For a while ED stopped putting their titles on deep discount on Steam and only put them on huge sales on their own store. Essentially, the Steam sale price would roughly reflect the extra fee cost. Looks like behind the scenes Valve disapproved of that as well as the large sales have returned to Steam with the same level of discounts.
Fair enough.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
the difference is that in the past it was assumed the games would go on steam, and steam would get 30% of all profits for doing nothing but being a webhosting service. now that is no longer the case.

Continuing to repeat that Steam is "nothing but a webhosting service" comes across as mentally challenged. If it were true then it should be a cakewalk for any other company to come along and beat them in features and services. And yet despite having hundreds of developers on the payroll, Epic struggles and continues to make excuses for being so anemic in that area. Its baffling.

The simplest explanation is they don't actually want EGS to be a viable store longterm, that competes on features and service and builds trust with customers over time; they don't want to provide a net value-add to the PC gaming ecosystem. And that there's some other angle they're playing in lighting hundreds of millions in Fortnite profits on fire in attempt to create short term market distortion.
 
Last edited:

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
Continuing to repeat that Steam is "nothing but a webhosting service" comes across as mentally challenged. If it were true then it should be a cakewalk for any other company to come along and beat them in features and services. And yet despite having hundreds of developers on the payroll, Epic struggles and continues to make excuses for being so anemic in that area. Its baffling.

if you are creating a game then steam is a sales platform to you. all the features in the world do not matter. you are not making a game based on steam features, you are making it on some internal design that hopefully will work cross platform where steam features do not exist. do console players bitch about their consoles lacking steam features? The question is ludicrous. What does steam do for their 30%? The give you a webpage and handle file transfers. If you are a big title and have publicity you might be in the box that pops up when you launch steam, or somewhere on their front page. Aside from that 1% of all games, steam is not going to do crap for you.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
Continuing to repeat that Steam is "nothing but a webhosting service" comes across as mentally challenged. If it were true then it should be a cakewalk for any other company to come along and beat them in features and services. And yet despite having hundreds of developers on the payroll, Epic struggles and continues to make excuses for being so anemic in that area. Its baffling.

The simplest explanation is they don't actually want EGS to be a viable store longterm, that competes on features and service and builds trust with customers over time; they don't want to provide a net value-add to the PC gaming ecosystem. And that there's some other angle they're playing in lighting hundreds of millions in Fortnite profits on fire in attempt to create short term market distortion.
Epic is just confused. They think the client they are serving are the game developers and the players are chattel. It's not like farms do much to please the pigs either.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
if you are creating a game then steam is a sales platform to you. all the features in the world do not matter. you are not making a game based on steam features, you are making it on some internal design that hopefully will work cross platform where steam features do not exist. do console players bitch about their consoles lacking steam features? The question is ludicrous. What does steam do for their 30%? The give you a webpage and handle file transfers. If you are a big title and have publicity you might be in the box that pops up when you launch steam, or somewhere on their front page. Aside from that 1% of all games, steam is not going to do crap for you.
You keep circling back to steam vs everyone. When in reality it is epic vs everyone. When epic strikes an exclusivity deal, they aren't screwing over steam. They screw over every other store in existence.
If you still think this is about the features of the storefront you're beyond hopeless. It is about ethics and principles, and a practice that was until 2019 almost completely alien to the pc ecosystem. (MS tried it and failed, but they didn't have fortnite+tencent cash to bleed the market)
I'd not buy anything from epic even if their launcher and store was far superior to steam or any other store, period.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,944
Epic is just confused. They think the client they are serving are the game developers and the players are chattel. It's not like farms do much to please the pigs either.

Given how long it takes them to add features I wonder if the store is just so poorly coded that they can’t get things done without a ton of effort.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
Given how long it takes them to add features I wonder if the store is just so poorly coded that they can’t get things done without a ton of effort.
So you're suggesting that the company that created ue4 is incapable of adding basic features to a launcher in a year? I believe the operative word is disinclined here. Or not giving a fuck in vulgar.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
You keep circling back to steam vs everyone. When in reality it is epic vs everyone. When epic strikes an exclusivity deal, they aren't screwing over steam. They screw over every other store in existence.
If you still think this is about the features of the storefront you're beyond hopeless. It is about ethics and principles, and a practice that was until 2019 almost completely alien to the pc ecosystem. (MS tried it and failed, but they didn't have fortnite+tencent cash to bleed the market)
I'd not buy anything from epic even if their launcher and store was far superior to steam or any other store, period.

BS. Tell me about xbox or sony exclusivity. then it is literally "everyone". You just mean PC sales. For which you can buy some of the games in other stores including humble. Then you mean "PC exclusiveish" - the exclusive part meaning not the store but the launcher. I am just hearing entitled moaning.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,954
Having the "opportunity" to not buy something is not good enough. It's like saying well, we know the winner used illegal performance enhancers in the marathon, but you have the opportunity to not partake in the race.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't want to have to vote with your wallet. I get it - I too would rather have the product I want rather than no product and whatever satisfaction I can get out of not spending my money on it...but this is pretty much the issue with most of the boycotts we've seen over the years: no resolve from those boycotting the products.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,277
.. Then you mean "PC exclusiveish" - the exclusive part meaning not the store but the launcher. I am just hearing entitled moaning.

I wouldn't call it "entitled moaning".

The store and launcher are one and the same on PC.

But yes, PC store exclusives are annoying, just as annoying as you would find them to be on consoles. (Now you gotta buy all the consoles..)

We have the same first party exclusives that consoles also experience, which is annoying but understandable. We live with it and have all the launchers because of it. (much easier than multiple consoles)

Third party exclusives are the sticking point, especially when you've owned a game for 2 years, most of your friends have it on steam, but all new sales are now epic store only because EGS bought/bribed the game dev to do this... Can we still play games against players on different store/platforms? It's a shitty business tactic, and not competition that is good for consumers.. (It's actually anti-consumer if I cannot get into network games with new friends because they are on another platform now and have no option to buy it on my platform, among other reasons). It's only "pc platform" vs "pc platform" competition, that may or may not be good for the game dev (ultimately remains to be seen). But it's already alienating some consumers.

And of course many consumers will not really care one way or the other, if their game isn't impacted by the issues others are (games being pulled from one platform to be placed on another 'exclusively').

The PC gaming market doesn't need platform exclusives, not in the way consoles do. PC's are generally all running standard OS's (Windows or Linux) and games can be written for those, and will typically run on any of them. There's no need for different versions beyond windows and linux. The market is huge. Consoles can have different processing architectures (switch vs gamecube vs xbox vs ps, etc), and they originally had justified reasons why a game would only be available on one of them, hardware capability and coding languages. PC's don't suffer from those issues.

So while exclusive arrangements are nothing new, they splinter the market in un-needed ways. And some of it has been pretty backstabbing to the consumer. Kickstarter game that promises steam versions for all of the backers, only to become an Epic store exclusive 2 weeks before release.... pretty shitty. Pulling a multiplayer game from one platform to move to another. Might be ok for the game dev, but screws the customers over. This kind of shit is what really irks me (and no, will not be spending any money in the EGS store until this changes)

The games should be released on multiple stores simultaneously. Hell, if you buy the game, you should get a copy of it on ALL of the stores/launchers it is for sale on, IMHO, to make sure you can play it with your buddies no matter where they buy it; or ensure cross-platform multiplayer support.. (but that's likely a nightmare when it comes to handling things like reporting cheating).

In the end after this experiment concludes and time tells, I hope the game devs decide making a game exclusive was not the best decision.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,532
Epic is just confused. They think the client they are serving are the game developers and the players are chattel. It's not like farms do much to please the pigs either.

Unfortunately, that is ultimately how it works. People will go to a different client if there is a game they want. So by focusing on game developer/publishers you by extension automatically get the gamers.

So you're suggesting that the company that created ue4 is incapable of adding basic features to a launcher in a year? I believe the operative word is disinclined here. Or not giving a fuck in vulgar.

They either have very little manpower dedicated to EGS or the people working on it are simply inept. I don't expect Steam's feature set day one, but by now I would expect some of the more basic features to be there. They're getting there but slowly. Too slowly.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,938
But yes, PC store exclusives are annoying, just as annoying as you would find them to be on consoles. (Now you gotta buy all the consoles..)
Launchers are free. That is a positively ludicrous comparison. A console costs hundreds.
 

capt_cope

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
947
Non starter as consoles track you too... And time? Bwahahaha it takes all of 2 minutes one time only to install a new launcher.
At least you can admit that there's *some* cost as far as time goes, but the whole "Non starter as consoles track you too" bit is irrelevant. I didn't argue the fact that consoles cost "hundreds" - I'm saying installing another launcher isn't "free." I'm not suggesting that everyone values their information and time the same, if the benefits outweigh the costs in your mind by all means install ALL the launchers! But especially in the case of Epic I'd be pretty concerned with the scope of the info they're collecting - they're trying to under-cut Steam in fees to devs AND giving ANYONE who installs their software "free" games. There is no free lunch (or game for that matter,) if they weren't making money on this deal they wouldn't be doing it.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
Unfortunately, that is ultimately how it works. People will go to a different client if there is a game they want. So by focusing on game developer/publishers you by extension automatically get the gamers.



They either have very little manpower dedicated to EGS or the people working on it are simply inept. I don't expect Steam's feature set day one, but by now I would expect some of the more basic features to be there. They're getting there but slowly. Too slowly.
Not putting enough manpower on it fits in the category of disinclined. Which points right back to my first statement: They don't care.
It really shows the type of company they are and the attitude they have, when they pay out upwards of 10 mil sums. How many devs would 10 mill support for a year? At least 50.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
BS. Tell me about xbox or sony exclusivity. then it is literally "everyone". You just mean PC sales. For which you can buy some of the games in other stores including humble. Then you mean "PC exclusiveish" - the exclusive part meaning not the store but the launcher. I am just hearing entitled moaning.
You wanna gotcha me by saying "You just mean PC" when I specifically said I was talking about PC? So either you didn't even read my entire post, or you couldn't understand it at all. Which is it?
BS what? You can't just say BS, you have to be more specific and point out which statement I made is false, and why. Otherwise "BS" just shows you're having an emotional reaction.

It's not that I like console exclusivity either, but that's besides the point. Is there some quota I need to meet about complaining?

You hear what you want to hear, you made that abundantly clear. Like so many of egs shills, if you refuse to hear things there is no point in talking to you.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,938
LOL, you want to gotcha me by saying "You just mean PC" when I specifically said I was talking about PC. It's not that I like console exclusivity either, but that's besides the point. Is there some quota I need to meet about complaining?

You hear what you want to hear, you made that abundantly clear. Like so many of egs shills, if you refuse to hear things there is no point in talking to you.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a shill.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a shill.
And saying "BS" is not an argument. I want to hear why do you disagree but so far nobody is willing or able to provide arguments. And advocating for something with no apparent reason makes you look like a shill.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
Not putting enough manpower on it fits in the category of disinclined. Which points right back to my first statement: They don't care.
It really shows the type of company they are and the attitude they have, when they pay out upwards of 10 mil sums. How many devs would 10 mill support for a year? At least 50.
None of us know what they are doing, or why they are doing it. My guess is that they are trying to attract certain companies and in order to do that those companies are wanting their application to do certain things. And that is what they’re going to be working on. Example gearbox wanted pre-loads. Gearbox helped and they made that happen. There’s probably other stuff companies want to be implemented. And that’s going to be the priority, not things customers want, but things the big companies want.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,879
None of us know what they are doing, or why they are doing it. My guess is that they are trying to attract certain companies and in order to do that those companies are wanting their application to do certain things. And that is what they’re going to be working on. Example gearbox wanted pre-loads. Gearbox helped and they made that happen. There’s probably other stuff companies want to be implemented. And that’s going to be the priority, not things customers want, but things the big companies want.
That's exactly what I meant when I said they treat developers as their clients and customers as chattel.
This wouldn't fly in any other industry. And it shouldn't here either.
Imagine a brick and mortar store where you can't do certain things that have been industry standards for decades.
And when you complain they just say, we'll add shopping carts after we satisfied the supplier's request for a new loading ramp, until then just deal with it.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,907
if you are creating a game then steam is a sales platform to you. all the features in the world do not matter. you are not making a game based on steam features, you are making it on some internal design that hopefully will work cross platform where steam features do not exist. do console players bitch about their consoles lacking steam features? The question is ludicrous. What does steam do for their 30%? The give you a webpage and handle file transfers. If you are a big title and have publicity you might be in the box that pops up when you launch steam, or somewhere on their front page. Aside from that 1% of all games, steam is not going to do crap for you.

There are many many games where the community page, the forums and most especially the mod workshop make or break a game. Pretty much every survival/builder game in the last 5+ years lives on mods to extend the life of the game (or fix bugs devs miss or wont fix). Many city builder games are the same way. Rimworld comes in drm free if you buy it from the dev's website but even they promote Steam (you can get a key if you buy it from their site with drm free version) because of one click mod installs.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,277
Launchers are free. That is a positively ludicrous comparison. A console costs hundreds.

The annoying, perhaps a better word is undesirable, part of pc exclusives, I explained in the rest of my post which you did not quote.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
47
Idk maybe steam been out for 20 years and EGS is relatively new. Don't act you don't remember what a shit show steam was on release. Far worse then EGS is now. Now in 5 year the EGS hasn't improved much then you have a right to complain.

i believe there are some valid concerns about EGS relationship to Ten Cent. with the china dictates to businesses, i will be scrubbing my computer with bleach after im done with borderlands3
 
Top