That's News!



  • I think they feel like if Treyarch is doing it they need to put Black Ops in the title. Just saying Treyarch is developing doesn't have the same brand recognition.



  • @dmcmaster

    You answered your own answer without I even gave another explanation.

    @El-Shmiablo

    You hate it that much ha.



  • https://controlgame.com/ultimateeditioncommunityblog/

    Holding firm that only Ultimate Edition purchasers will get the Next-Gen Enhancements. But reaffirming that Control will be backwards compatible.



  • It wouldn’t be THPS on Nintendo without worse graphics and bad instrumental loops of the soundtrack. Make it happen VV.



  • So much news coming out today.

    Hitman 3 is Epic Games Store Exclusive on PC for 1 year.

    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-08-20-epic-snaps-up-hitman-3-as-another-pc-store-exclusive



  • I can live with it. It'll give me time to upgrade my PC.



  • @hazz3r seeing a company act like they're fighting to break up monopolies while literally monopolizing a market that was much more open before they showed up will never stop being infuriating/hilarious



  • Oh well. If I get it on anything it will probably be Playstation anyway. Never understood the outrage over this shit. That is how a free market works, fellas.



  • @hanabi said in That's News!:

    @hazz3r seeing a company act like they're fighting to break up monopolies while literally monopolizing a market that was much more open before they showed up will never stop being infuriating/hilarious

    I disagree that they are "monopolizing a market" by paying for exclusives. They've given developers and publishers an option that didn't exist before. To me, that's more options, more competition, more business decisions to be made.

    It seems it's mostly at the benefit of publishers and developers instead of the consumers, which is clearly a problem, but until the other marketplaces producer a better product than EGS, I wouldn't blame Epic for being better for developers.

    Not trying to dismiss your point that Epic is trying to act virtuous. Anybody with a marginal grasp on rhetoric knows the Epic is doing a whole song and dance to make as much money as possible.



  • @dipset one key point that I agree with on relation to criticism to Epic, is that they are not really competing in a productive way, just making use of the capital they have to force their way into a market without actually offering something that gives their platform an actual advantage, it is a common criticism of capitalism where competition can be circumvented if you have enough capital available.



  • @dipset said:

    until the other marketplaces producer a better product than EGS

    ??? Nobody is signing exclusivity to the Epic Game Store for the storefront's "product". It is simply because Epic hands them cash.



  • @mbun

    It is a product / service / platform for the game publishers. Handing somebody money and publishing it on your platform is a product / service in the same way Crave TV is a product, HBO Max is a product, etc.

    I could rephrase it like this: EGS is a service that benefits the publishers and developers more than consumers, but until other marketplaces provide better incentives and services than EGS, I don't blame Epic for being the better option for developers.



  • @mbun Epic pays developers for a certain amount of copies upfront, basically ensuring a game "sells well" on their platform.
    They also charge less than half of what other platforms do per sale.
    So yeah, for developers, EGS is an incredibly desirable "product".

    Personally, I find it great since I have a pretty damn substantial library on EGS and haven't spent a single dime, but I also don't find pressing a different icon on my desktop as egregious as some people I guess.



  • @hazz3r

    It's ridiculous. Nearly all of the games that at least made a little impact from last years will be backwards compatible, otherwise it would be surprising.

    Everyone who own the game should had the next gen upgrade when they put it in their new consoles.



  • One more thing I wanna add to the EGS thing is that the whole "it's just another launcher bro" rhetoric really doesn't ring true when you have a Linux computer and Epic has gone out of its way to make that a harder OS to play games on. Compare Valve's efforts with Proton (or if you'd rather I didn't focus on their competition, the internet at large with WINE) to how Tim has gone on record saying using Linux is akin to running away to Canada after an election, or how they bought out the Rocket League devs and then years of being able to support Linux just fine magically became an issue and they had to drop that version, or the stuff with Easy Anti-Cheat.

    And I know, it's easy to say "that's a you problem" since Windows is more popular, but it clearly shows they absolutely don't have the customer's best interest in mind whatsoever.



  • Exactly, their service is better for developers than consumers. But for developers, it’s clearly an enticing option.



  • @dipset said in That's News!:

    It wouldn’t be THPS on Nintendo without worse graphics and bad instrumental loops of the soundtrack. Make it happen VV.

    Aside from the lack of FMV and blood, THPS 1 looks better on N64 than PS1.



  • @oscillator no FMV and no blood. Is it really THPS?



  • @bard91 said in That's News!:

    @dipset one key point that I agree with on relation to criticism to Epic, is that they are not really competing in a productive way, just making use of the capital they have to force their way into a market without actually offering something that gives their platform an actual advantage, it is a common criticism of capitalism where competition can be circumvented if you have enough capital available.

    I found this is to be an interesting take worth thinking about. Most of the "competition" that benefits us as gamers is the competition between developers to create more and better products. And it seems like store competition wouldn't benefit us in the same way. For whatever reason, it is different with physical stores that sell "normal" products. In that case, you can get better quality and better prices when stores compete with each other. But videogames tend to be sold an a uniform price, and the digital file you end up playing tends to be nearly the same across digital storefronts.

    With these presumptions, the "cost" we are paying these digital storefronts is some kind of inconvenience or opportunity cost that could be spent using a different store (digital or physical). To the extent competitive forces could decrease this cost, it would be about features, customer service, and how nice the store+launcher works.

    To your point, I'm not especially impressed with what they offer in that sense.

    However, if I'm not coming from the perspective of trying to "agree or disagree" with your point, and if I start coming from the perspective of challenging myself intellectually then I begin to think they are doing something else productive...

    Like, lets pretend for a moment that EGS exclusives were never a thing, and games on EGS are always available elsewhere. I would look at EGS and say that instead of competing on features to attract users, they are competing on fees to attract developers, and then they pair this strategy with goodwill PR to encourage sufficiently emphatic users to go out of their way to buy from their store because of the inherit "virtue", if you will. This isn't far removed from companies competing on eco-friendly production to attract consumers. It wouldn't be a stretch to say it falls underneath some parts of "brand identity". Purchasing with EGS can psychologically align yourself with a group of people you might like to identify with.

    I don't know... in a broad enough view I'm not willing to say that a user who values these intangible quantities more than some (largely non-financial) store features isn't in fact receiving benefits of competition.



  • @dipset said:

    until other marketplaces provide better incentives and services than EGS

    This is the entire reason I responded. When you word it like this, saying Epic Game Store provides the best "services" you make it sound like their storefront has the best features, when in fact it is close to the opposite. Yes, they're providing a tempting "incentive" for developers and publishers, a safety net in case their game turns out to be a failure and a cash bonus in case they need some funds to sprint to the end of development, but most of the time it ends up more like a deal with the devil where Epic approaches them right at their most panic'd and vulnerable time when they would've been successful anyways since they tend to only go after games that already have a ton of hype around them and often snatch exclusivity deals with them right before they launch.

    Yadda yadda yadda, it is just business, sure. It is still scummy business. Especially when they're pretending otherwise. I laugh every time they redeliver their "we're not building a walled garden" line, because actions speak louder than words, and it is clear with the hot water Epic has been in elsewhere lately that maybe you shouldn't be putting your faith in the company that's trying to weaponize the children that play their games to boost their bottom line. Maybe you shouldn't so readily let them buy your loyalty with free games like users such as El-Shmiablo have expressed. I think you need to look at what the company is actually doing instead of patting yourself on the back for supporting "the good guy" that "feels good" to defend as Epic has positioned themselves, which Chocobop brought up. If Epic actually was matching their brand with their actions and not using "backdoor shady deals" to force themselves into the market, I'd be much more willing to "just use another launcher", but if this is what they're doing to try and break into the market, can you imagine the nightmares they'd bring if they ever ended up leading it?

    I love Fortnite (except for the crunch obviously), and I think Epic has alot of talented developers making industry leading stuff like the Unreal Engine, but unfortunately whoever they've got making these company decisions ever since they got the capital to throw around to make them I'm afraid is destroying their company. End of the day of course people will point to whether it worked out or not, but they're making alot of risky moves, often at the cost of the consumer, and I'm happy to be absolutely no part of it. Even when they last minute snatch up something like Manifold Garden, that I was looking forward to for ages and had wishlisted on Steam for years and years, I just have to wait it out until I'm able to get it elsewhere, this time on my Switch some months before their exclusivity deal for PC drops out. Still sucks, but some inconveniences now are probably better than what actually supporting a company like this would lead to, but hey when one of these moves explodes in Epic's face and they reconsider management and pivot away from this direction, then maybe I can give them my business once more. There's definitely an ideal Epic that's possible that I'd be happy to support, but this current one ain't it.