Epic Games Store



  • @mbun said in Epic Games Store:

    Their FAQ

    was written in 2017



  • @sabotagethetruth VR is more like consoles, limited to hardware that can run it. If Steam is releasing their own hardware, it makes sense for them to release exclusive software to sell said hardware. Same principles consoles run off of. I'd be more concerned if they were buying up VR games about to come out on other platforms as exclusives for their new hardware, except obviously this is very unlikely with VR since the games have to be made to spec with the hardware much earlier. So that's a whole different thing entirely.



  • @mbun So if I have a Vive that has the perfect specs to run a VR game AND I have Steam (which is normally enough to play VR games), it's totally okay that they have an exclusive game available on their headset that costs a few hundred dollars?

    But it's not okay that Epic is making someone download a free launcher to play a game?

    If you want to boil it down to the core, each scenario is causing you to use something you normally don't. One of the options is free and you dislike that. One of the options is hundreds of dollars and that's okay to you.



  • @sabotagethetruth said:

    So if I have a Vive that has the perfect specs to run a VR game AND I have Steam (which is normally enough to play VR games), it's totally okay that they have an exclusive game available on their headset that costs a few hundred dollars?

    Steam's new headset sounds like it is going for top of the line specs, so obviously they're going to develop the games to run on that, which a Vive probably can't keep up with. Plus of course they want to sell their headsets.

    But it's not okay that Epic is making someone download a free launcher to play a game?

    Not when they pay another developer to make their game exclusive to their platform, even though it could run on anything otherwise and in cases was even planned to before they bought exclusivity like with Metro Exodus. They didn't even fund the game's development. They bought exclusivity last minute.

    If you want to boil it down to the core, each scenario is causing you to use something you normally don't. One of the options is free and you dislike that. One of the options is hundreds of dollars and that's okay to you.

    One is morally justified, while the other is shady business practices. Of course a new, top of the line, VR headset is going to cost you hundreds of dollars. What the fuck are you even arguing at this point?



  • @mbun You specified earlier that one of the advantages of owning a PC is choice and freedom - that you can play things how you want, which is why it frustrates you that you are given essentially four options when it comes to games like Borderlands 3 - either you download a launcher you don't like for free, you wait a year for the game to come to Steam, you play on consoles, or you don't play at all.

    If I decide to buy a HTC Vive Pro (which is more powerful from my understanding) and I want to play the new Valve game, I have two options. I either buy the Valve Index or I don't play it at all. According to you, that first scenario with four available options is more limiting and shady business, the second option is just fine.

    It makes no logical sense and due to the hostility you've expressed in this thread, I'm really wondering what you have to gain by so adamantly supporting Valve. Are you playing Metro Exodus? Are you playing Rocket League? Do you plan to play Borderlands 3? There's been no official notice what is going to happen to future DLC for Rocket League, yet you assume only Epic will get it. There's been no official notice what is going to happen to In the Valley of Gods now that Valve owns it and you assume it will release everywhere. Your stance completely changes based on the company in question.



  • 0_1557096899987_Hindenburg_disaster (1).jpg

    This thread, black & white, 1937



  • @sabotagethetruth said:

    when it comes to games like Borderlands 3

    I have no interest in that game, so I have no idea what the release rollout for Borderlands 3 is. Doing a quick Google search brought me to this:

    We don't know for sure, but there's a strong possibility that Borderlands 3 will come to Steam after its 6-month exclusivity period on the Epic Games Store.

    So there's ANOTHER Epic Store exclusive, thankfully just a timed exclusive by the sound of it, which isn't quite as bad and more in line with what Xbox has done in the past.

    If I decide to buy a HTC Vive Pro (which is more powerful from my understanding)

    I'm not versed in VR devices, but the latest EZA Podcast led me to believe the Valve Index would be the most powerful one, at least it better be if it ends up as expensive as they're saying it will.

    I either buy the Valve Index or I don't play it at all.

    I either buy a Playstation 4 or I don't play Bloodborne at all. I either buy a Nintendo Switch or I don't play Super Mario Odyssey at all. I either buy a Playstation VR or I don't play Astrobot at all. These are normal incentives to sell hardware. In the case of third party games like Bloodborne, the game was funded from the beginning to be sold for Playstation 4. This should be easy to understand how this differs from Metro Exodus and Borderlands 3 on the Epic Store.

    According to you, that first scenario with four available options is more limiting and shady business,

    either you download a launcher you don't like for free, you wait a year for the game to come to Steam, you play on consoles, or you don't play at all.

    If they cut an exclusivity deal to lock it down to their platform when it could feasibly have released on them all and they didn't fund the game's development either, then yes.

    the second option is just fine

    If I decide to buy a HTC Vive Pro (which is more powerful from my understanding) and I want to play the new Valve game, I have two options. I either buy the Valve Index or I don't play it at all.

    First off, as gone into above, I don't know that the HTC Vive Pro will be able to run the same games. Second off, Valve is first party funding and developing the games to sell their new hardware from the beginning. This is normal and standard, so yes this is fine. You might as well get angry at Nintendo for making Mario exclusive or Playstation for making God of War (2018) exclusive if you're going to get upset about this. As much as we may dislike it, software exclusives are sometimes necessary to move enough hardware to justify making them to begin with. Basically, it is why Xbox hasn't done so well this past console generation.

    It makes no logical sense

    It makes complete sense, and I've laid it all out for you time and time again as clear as possible for you to understand, no matter how you try to twist stuff.

    due to the hostility you've expressed

    All I've been trying to do is point out where these exclusivity deals can negative impact the playerbase on PC.

    I'm really wondering what you have to gain by so adamantly supporting Valve.

    Nothing. I have nothing to gain. I've frankly probably wasted my time trying to make the people in this topic understand why others are so upset when you guys clearly do not want to listen and just want to twist things to make Epic seem like the good guy here. I'm really wondering what you have to gain by so adamantly supporting Epic and making excuses for them.

    Are you playing Metro Exodus?

    No, my toaster can't run that. I've played previous Metro games through friends though and enjoyed them in the past. I can very much sympathize with my friends when they're forced to get a new platform to play the game on for no reason last minute and have to abandon the Metro communities on Steam they've been with since the earlier entries when Epic doesn't even have communities.

    Are you playing Rocket League?

    Yes.

    Do you plan to play Borderlands 3?

    Completely checked out on Borderlands 3.

    There's been no official notice what is going to happen to future DLC for Rocket League, yet you assume only Epic will get it.

    When this topic began, I thought that had already been confirmed. Now, reading their very specific language, I see it as only a matter of time. Plus, they've set the precedent for this completely with their past actions. It would be dumb not to expect this as their latest move.

    There's been no official notice what is going to happen to In the Valley of Gods now that Valve owns it and you assume it will release everywhere.

    Their FAQ states it will. Their development blog just says their developing it as Valve now, not developing it for Steam now. If Steam had been buying up exclusives to compete with what Epic has been doing, then I'd say sure that's probably a safe bet, but right now that hasn't been Steam's M.O. Will I be happy about it if that's what it becomes? Of course not.

    Maybe Valve will see it as they invested their own money in this, and it is a game still in development, versus Rocket League which has launched. You could argue Epic will have funded the DLC for Rogue League and earned exclusive rights to it I guess, but that still sucks for everyone who owns the base game and previous DLC elsewhere. They're pretty different situations overall.

    Your stance completely changes based on the company in question.

    Incorrect. My stance changes depending on the circumstances surrounding the exclusivity, whether it seems justified in the sense of investing the money to develop the exclusive or using an exclusive to sell a piece of hardware, versus simply buying rights to a game that's finished, so you can squeeze anyone who wants to play said game into using your storefront and launcher to do so.

    I've made this as clear as I possibly can, so if you try to circle back around and make me repeat the same thing over again, then I will not be responding.

    @El-Shmiablo PC Gaming Market, Morally Gray, 2018-????



  • A popular image on this forum deserves to be used after I read that response.

    alt text



  • First I'm just gonna give a shout out to GoG Galaxy, because I think it is great (ussually cheaper than Steam) and more people should use it.

    As for the Epic Game Store, I've seen some incredibly valid and real concerns people have had with it and that do cast a shadow of doubt over its future viability, and that as far as I know remain valid, but the exclusivity of games to the platform and their moves to secure games I don't see much of a problem with that.

    Steam has some real advantages, that can't be denied, but expecting or demanding that everything must be available for it, well I can't put it any other better way besides entitled, as far as I'm concerned availability of PC games has been an issue (really a non-issue) for a while, since big companies all have their own clients you have to use if you want to play their games.

    I'm kinda lucky that I don't really care about a lot of games in the other clients, so I've never had or will have to deal with Origin, or the Activition client, but I don't see how it is different, and why Epic has to take such a beating for it, it's been true for a while that you need to use specific clients for specific games, and it is not like there's a big barrier preventing people of using the Epic Store (that I'm aware of).



  • interesting thread



  • As someone who loves Linux but hasn't use it in years, I honestly have to say to people campaigning for gaming in Linux

    Who gives a fuck, just give up your delusions about Linux ever being a viable gaming platform and accept the dystopian present we live on controlled by large corporations.

    You can keep using Linux for the important stuff though.



  • @bard91 said:

    Steam has some real advantages, that can't be denied, but expecting or demanding that everything must be available for it, well I can't put it any other better way besides entitled

    When I heard Epic give their bullshit spiel about "not wanting to form a walled garden of games" and that they had partnered with Humble Bundle, I thought they solved it. But then I found out that all this partnership meant was that you can get keys for the Epic Launcher through Humble Bundle. On top of this, the partnership meant they were no longer offering Steam Keys for games, eliminating a place I could purchase Steam games in one fell PR swoop. I don't need everything to be available everywhere, but when things make no sense why they're not available anywhere but a single place you don't want to use, that sucks, especially when the reason for this is to force people to use said place to rapidly grow it.

    as far as I'm concerned availability of PC games has been an issue (really a non-issue) for a while, since big companies all have their own clients you have to use if you want to play their games

    Thankfully lots of these have boiled down to timed exclusives, but yeah Epic isn't the first. They're just the most aggressive about it I've seen, and unlike those other companies, they're not only doing it with their first party offerings.

    I'm kinda lucky that I don't really care about a lot of games in the other clients, so I've never had or will have to deal with Origin,

    You're very lucky. I dealt with that once, and my experience was so bad I just avoid games exclusive to it now and usually get them for console instead.

    I don't see how it is different, and why Epic has to take such a beating for it

    Because they're buying exclusives they had no hand in developing solely to funnel people to their store front and client. In the case of Metro Exodus, this was a game listed as coming soon to other platforms, already with a store page and people preordering it there, that was pulled down last minute when Epic bought exclusivity rights. Anyone who saw the game but didn't preorder the game before it was pulled down was forced to then trot over to Epic's platform to play it when there's no good reason it couldn't be available everywhere.

    As someone who loves Linux but hasn't use it in years, I honestly have to say to people campaigning for gaming in Linux

    Who gives a fuck, just give up your delusions about Linux ever being a viable gaming platform and accept the dystopian present we live on controlled by large corporations.

    I've never used Linux, but everyone I've known who does seems very used to having to tweak games to run on it. If they choose to do that, good on them. I don't know how annoying for developers it is to offer Linux versions of their games, but that's probably a whole different topic in itself. Whether the game is available on Steam or the Epic Store, if it is made for PC and not Linux, the result will be the same. Not to get too much into it when I admittedly don't know alot about Linux, but I think that isn't always offered by developers as a platform because the perceived audience of Linux users is smaller in scale, and it would take more development time and resources to do a Linux version than the seen return on that version of the game. Or maybe those devs just assume Linux users are smart enough to make them run even if they aren't officially supported.



  • @mbun If I get your point I think the main gripe you would have with Epic specifically is that they are buying exclusives instead of doing so with their first party games, if that is the case, we will simply have to disagree with that being an issue as I don't see it as a problem in of itself, I agree that the way they did with Metro was not the best way of going about it though.

    And yes that is very much the experience with Linux, not just with games but with everything, you can and usually have to tweak things to get them to work, this can go from being relatively trivial to requiring comprehensive knowledge of the OS and a lot of effort, which aficionados like to do, and it can feel rewarding but it is a steep barrier, and the reason why there will never be a demand and why Linux development for games won't be a thing, the audience is not there and the effort is big. Not to long ago a developer released some stats about the crash cases they worked on based on user reports, it was like 90+ % were Linux crashes and they accounted for less than 1% of sales, so yeah I think that is a great example of it.



  • @bard91 said:

    If I get your point I think the main gripe you would have with Epic specifically is that they are buying exclusives instead of doing so with their first party games

    Basically removing games from the rest of the market to force people who want to play them to go there for them, and also if they have that much money to throw around, you'd think they could invest some of it in more features for their userbase to rival Steam. As time goes on, I doubt they even want their own market place and launcher. Just feels like they're trying to use the money they have now to bizarrely negotiate better future income.



  • @mbun said in Epic Games Store:

    Just feels like they're trying to use the money they have now to bizarrely negotiate better future income.

    This is literally the goal of every company, and there's nothing bizarre about it.



  • @tokyoslim It is bizarre when instead of just trying to negotiate a larger cut directly you start a competing marketplace and use underhanded methods (buy exclusives, placate people with free games, pretend it is all for the greater good) to get others to flock to it and try to turn the whole thing in some kind of ethical movement to achieve the same end goal. The hilarious part is if this actually worked out for Epic in the sense of they end up overtaking Steam as the big store for PC games, they'll probably drown in the upkeep costs or be forced to raised their cut for the hosted games themselves, unless they keep operating costs down by never giving the community any decent features I guess. That's why they'd rather Steam just fork over the percentages they want and pretend this whole thing never happened. But people are stupid enough to get swept up in this fake ass "more money for developers!" movement when Epic just wants that themselves and are using that lots of other developers do too to their advantage.

    Yeah, and it'd be great if the game industry unionized too, but then everyone will complain how long the games take to come out and having to pay more than $60 for a new AAA release. Unlike this stupidity though, that one should actually happen. People can deal with getting less games if it results in higher quality ones that don't destroy the lives of those who make them.



  • @mbun said in Epic Games Store:

    It is bizarre when instead of just trying to negotiate a larger cut directly you start a competing marketplace and use underhanded methods (buy exclusives, placate people with free games, pretend it is all for the greater good) to get others to flock to it

    I am telling you that it's not bizzare at all. In fact, this is exactly what Steam did to brick and mortar stores ten years ago.



  • This is literally how capitalism and the free market work.
    Don't like it? Jordan Peterson would like a word with you, ya dang commies.



  • From experience in the TV/film world, I know how difficult it is to secure all the pieces of your pie (graph) that makes up the funding/budget of your show. Sometimes $200k can be the difference between a new season and a cancellation. So I definitely support game developers bringing revenue into their studio any way they can get it.

    Sure, Metro was already done and the Epic deal didn't directly fund the game development, but there is such a fine line between a studio that is thriving, then later showing up to work one day with the doors locked. People don't realize how possible that can be - even for a studio that works on HIGH PROFILE stuff. Sometimes your budget quite literally just pays for the product and you lose money just to get it finished.

    So if a studio can get an extra milly here and there, I think any studio owner would do that. Say what you will about Epic being anti-consumer but jobless developers doesn't help consumers either. I obviously know this isn't a dichotomy between store exclusives and losing your job. My point is to create an example.

    In all, I'd disagree that something like Sony making Bloodborne (and funding it) is different than a studio taking a, say, $1M bonus from Epic because until we see that pie chart, we don't know where the money for Bloodborne even came from and we don't know how it compares to a third party studios financing. All I know is that in a world of big budget high profile media, sometimes these businesses go tits up in a heartbeat and I would take the money if I ran the studio too.



  • According to this week's EZA Podcast, Valve's VR games will be available on Rift and Vive as well and not be exclusive to the Index, but also yea apparently there's a Vive Pro that costs more than the Index. So there's some pointless semantics arguing thrown out the window. Your move Epic.