• Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

Ashen, Announced as Coming to Steam and the Win10 Store, Now Exclusive to the Epic Store on PC *Update* Game Director Responds - Win10 Coming ASAP

Feb 5, 2018
905
Now you seems more calm after I called you out, so it wasnt in vain :D
I mean, yes basically you've been calling out people with deaf tone arguments about blind love and "just a different launcher to click" on which shows how you talk about stuff you didnt touch.

People dont have a blind love for a client. What they care about is their features. What they care about is their wallet and their library.

And whenever I see you posting here, you talk high and belittle these people because as opposed to you, they are actual users and customers.

I mean, who in their right mind would tell people "Guys, dont be that mean toward that company because they force you into a subpar service by undercutting competition with monopolistic means". If it was any other industry, people would be like "Wait, you expect me to use an inferior product of a bad competitor just so that, eventually, that competitor becomes as good as the product I use already ?"
Just imagine OnePlus releasing a phone on par with the Galaxy S3 to compete against Galaxy S9.
Just imagine Samsung releasing a video streaming platform which doesnt support Livestreaming nor HD videos.

That's basically you right now. :O

I mean yeah, service matters. Why do you think since Steam became good, piracy rates dropped and more people bought stuff ?
Why do you think people suddenly started buying games on PC ?

Maybe, just maybe they see value in the service offered.
And yeah, you can dismiss that as much as you want but a storefront and a launcher are a service. If after 4 years of Steamspy Epic is not capable to offer descriptions on their store pages or basic controller support or regional pricing, the service sucks.

The customer is king.
All his post can be boiled down to: I play on consoles, consoles do it so why not pc?
 
Dec 3, 2017
641
Ok? Wouldn't that be on the developer or publisher of that game and what they offer in their physical version, not on Steam?

Besides which, I'm not sure if you're aware, Steam has a bunch of other stuff beyond Age of Wonders 3.
What I wanted to express is that what Steam cheerleaders are currently experiencing with the Epic Store exclusivity is exactly the same what people who do not want to use Steam for whatever reason are experiencing all the time a game forces them to use Steam.
 
Aug 28, 2018
608
Buying games away from the competition is definitely a bad guy move. Even more so when they have literally nothing else to offer consumers. Go check the client out it's barren as hell. It doesn't even have a search function!

It's nice for devs and all but seriously this site is obsessed with devs. You shouldn't be so worried about devs when it's hinged to a move that negatively harms you as the consumer. You come before them.
Devs come before your search function and the fact you’ll have to install another client.

You want more good games, original concepts, new ideas? This site is right to be obsessed with devs, because they are the ones making games - only natural. It’s funny how some “consumers” want devs to earn as little money as possible - they hate IAP, they hate preorders, and now they’r against a store offering a smaller cut? Insane.

Especially for smaller devs, gamedev is a really tough gig and the stores are not exactly fair. 30% cut on top of tax? Devs go where the money is, and Epic store is great news. More competition is good for devs, for players, for the industry.

I’m sorry you’ll have to install a whole new client on your PC, I know it’s painful but I hope you get through.
 
Oct 25, 2017
751
A big part of that is having Ashen featured in a place that isn't crowded and at an exciting time when a great new platform, one that genuinely wants to do the best for developers and players alike, first launches.
This has nothing to do with benefiting players.
 
Aug 28, 2018
608
These games arent there for the better rates but for the moneyhat.
https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/12/03/tim-sweeney-answers-questions-about-the-new-epic-games-store

What sort of exclusive games are going to come to this platform? Is exclusivity something you are thinking about?

Epic’s own games are exclusive to the Epic Games Store on PC and Mac, and we’ll sometimes fund developers to release games exclusively through the store.
Which is ok and fair. Exclusivity can help a small dev fund their title, and could push a bigger one to make the next God of War instead of Fallout 76.
 
Dec 28, 2017
670
Washington
I desperately want and welcome some competition for Steam since Steam feels like a garbage dump right now, but that's because I want Steam to feel the pressure and improve further. Other clients/launchers are bare bones as hell and don't have anything nearing the feature set of Steam. I appreciate Epic giving a bigger cut to devs/pubs, and I think Valve should do that too (beyond their recent new announcement), but there's no way in hell I'm buying games for the same or similar price on a different service with a fraction of the features, options, and support.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,201
Which is ok and fair. Exclusivity can help a small dev fund their title, and could push a bigger one to make the next God of War instead of Fallout 76.

Exclusivity is fine as long as you fund the game to be made.
Moneyhatting a game close to release so that it doesnt release elsewhere isnt.

I doubt any of the exclusive titles on Epic Games store needed funds. Ashen is published by Annapurna, Satisfactory's studio was bought by THQ.

It's just straight up moneyhat.
 
Oct 30, 2017
293
Exclusivity is fine as long as you fund the game to be made.
Moneyhatting a game close to release so that it doesnt release elsewhere isnt.

I doubt any of the exclusive titles on Epic Games store needed funds. Ashen is published by Annapurna, Satisfactory's studio was bought by THQ.

It's just straight up moneyhat.
Again with the “money hat”. Stay edgy and living in the past.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,201
Again with the “money hat”. Stay edgy and living in the past.

It's just what it is. If you aren't able to understate "fund titles to release exlusively on our store" I cant do much for you.
I mean, we basically have Epic saying "We'll pay people to release exclusively on our store".
What do we get ?
"Indies that were releasing their game on Steam delaying that release".

If you cant process two basic informations like this into a simple conclusion, I dont know what to tell you anymore. Maybe try to be less edgy ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,742
They didn't need funding, but they for sure needed exposure. Indie games live and die by exposure. Being on Epic store lineup and shown on game awards is the biggest exposure they could possibly get. They are among like only a dozen of games prominently featured on a store with the most popular game in the world.
On steam, they will be sharing with 100 others games on the frontpage then buried forever.

Look how many people are talking about it now, even if it's about it not being on steam, it's still being talked about, it makes the game much more sought after.
 
Oct 30, 2017
293
It's just what it is. If you aren't able to understate "fund titles to release exlusively on our store" I cant do much for you.
I mean, we basically have Epic saying "We'll pay people to release exclusively on our store".
What do we get ?
"Indies that were releasing their game on Steam delaying that release".

If you cant process two basic informations like this into a simple conclusion, I dont know what to tell you anymore. Maybe try to be less edgy ?
So they made a business decision that upset you?
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,699
Reading the statement from the game director, I'm curious as to whether they are contractually bound by Epic to not mention the word "Steam".

I'd feel a whole lot better about this stuff if the parties involved were more transparent.
 
Oct 25, 2017
95
The hot takes in this thread are other-worldly. My god. Devs are entitled to take their game away from Steam, but also can't complain when their games potentially fail to a very paltry and basic store. Which is what I honestly think will happen. I'm fine with skipping them. I don't need another client to spread my library across. If they want to go exclusive on that "storefront", by all means, just don't bitch when your company/studio fails to make any money and you are forgotten. :)
 
Oct 28, 2017
464
What I wanted to express is that what Steam cheerleaders are currently experiencing with the Epic Store exclusivity is exactly the same what people who do not want to use Steam for whatever reason are experiencing all the time a game forces them to use Steam.
Games are on Steam by default as a result of its tremendous success and userbase, gained by offering objectively the best store and features in the market. Steam has never paid for a game to be exclusive on its store. I mean fucking Age of Wonders 3 is available on Gog presumably DRM-free: https://www.gog.com/game/age_of_wonders_3

Games are on the Epic Store because Epic is paying them money not to be on Steam. These are not remotely comparable scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,083
Reading the statement from the game director, I'm curious as to whether they are contractually bound by Epic to not mention the word "Steam".

I'd feel a whole lot better about this stuff if the parties involved were more transparent.
"Variety of platforms", we know what they mean lol.
 
Sep 7, 2018
985
But somehow, Epic is able to make a living with a 12% cut, along with other Unreal Engine waivers.
Really? You do realize that Steam currently hosts over 20,000 games while the Epic Game Store has less than 20 (and less than 10 that can actually be downloaded and played right now)? It's safe to say that Steam's server costs and general maintenance expenses are significantly higher than the Epic Game Store's.

It's really not up to you to determine what 'competition' is. And no, they don't have to match Steam feature-for-feature to compete. Linux gaming and VR for example remain niche features that don't need to be in there day 1 to appeal to the vast majority of users.
You say these things but reality suggests otherwise. Origin, Uplay, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, etc, all offer basic feature sets. Unsurprisingly, people only use these platforms to play the games that require them. Steam is far more useful and that's why the majority of PC gamers actually want their games to be on Steam. It's true. Go to a gray market site like G2A or Kinguin and you'll notice that Steam keys and gifts are almost always more expensive than their equivalents on other platforms.

There's nothing inherently wrong with paying for 3rd party exclusives. Feels a lot less distasteful than seeing people become fanboys for a particular PC storefront.
It's a shitty practice because you're inconveniencing the majority of consumers, especially when your platform is woefully underdeveloped. Developers should be trying to get their games into the hands of as many players as possible and signing exclusivity deals tends to have the opposite effect.

No. It's basically launching with an inferior service, but nobody is saying there's no plan to improve the client over the years. Why are you spreading FUD? They have a viable product, able to hit the features that the majority of PC gamers want. They can work to add the extras over time.
You're ignoring history. People made the very same claims about Uplay and Origin when they first launched. Years later, these platforms still lack most of Steam's features. There's no reason to think Epic will be any different.

Look, I understand the desire for competition. However, competition needs to be driven by quality. If you want to compete with Steam, offer customers a better service. Don't resort to third-party exclusives in order to compensate for your platform's lack of appeal.
 

qrac

Member
Nov 13, 2017
172
Looks like epic didn't pay the developers. Some people should apologize to the devs and epic. They, mostly the devs, need all the support they can get.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,699
"Variety of platforms", we know what they mean lol.
Exactly, which makes their dancing around the subject more curious.

I can't see why they'd do it unless they were contractually obliged to not mention Steam.

Maybe there's another explanation, but I can't think of one.

I think it would be noteworthy if Epic are requiring these developers to not mention Steam, or plans to release on Steam later. I think it would be better for players if developers were able to be transparent about their release plans, rather than being somewhat misleading.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,083
Exactly, which makes their dancing around the subject more curious.

I can't see why they'd do it unless they were contractually obliged to not mention Steam.

Maybe there's another explanation, but I can't think of one.

I think it would be noteworthy if Epic are requiring these developers to not mention Steam, or plans to release on Steam later. I think it would be better for players if developers were able to be transparent about their release plans, rather than being somewhat misleading.
Agreed, especially when all of this pretty much happened over night. Could have given people some warning first.

Personally I won't be buying these games on Steam at launch, if or when they decide to sell them there, but when it's discounted - maybe. I've got too many games to play and once I see something I don't like it's not getting my money.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,574
Brazil
But that was like what, 14 years ago?

Any new storefront/launcher/client launching now would presumably have the benefit of seeing what the main player in this market is doing and try to one up them in some way or try to compete with features or novelty, like GOG with games being DRM free. All I'm seeing right now from Epic is a nicer cut for developers and Epic basically moneyhatting indies into some form of exclusivity for their games. So sure, that's nice for developers I guess but as a consumer what's in this for me? I have zero choice now in terms of where I can possibly play or buy those games from as they're locked down to one client. That's not competition or choice for the consumer.
So no one should get into the market unless they match the features and content that took steam 14 years to develop? That's a super reasonable take.

And it's competition, they are offering a game that if you want you have to consume it from there, you are not forced you can simply not buy it.

Make their own exclusives? Push their game giveaway promotion?
There's literally no difference from funding an exclusive from the start to making a deal. At least in this case the game will eventually launch elsewhere.
 
Apr 9, 2018
13
I don’t really understand why all these PC gamers, on the “open platform”, are so happy with Steams monopoly. If they don’t make exclusives then consumers have no reason to use Epics store, and Steam have no reason to rebalance the scales(70/30).

Epic’s is another launcher that you can use on the very same hardware. A minor inconvienance, sure, but this is a move that’ll help developers (who make the games you all love) have a better chance at survival. Recycling is an inconvience too, but we do that so that it’ll bring about good change.

Let’s do some simple Math:
For a €20 game, on Steam the developer receives €14
On Epic, they recieve €17.60
So €3.60 of a difference.
So for 10000 copies that’s €36000, that’s another developers wage for a year, and a low one at that.

The difference adds up quickly, so ask yourself if the minor inconvience is worth the health of the companies that actually make your games.
 
Oct 27, 2017
33
Earth
I don’t really understand why all these PC gamers, on the “open platform”, are so happy with Steams monopoly. If they don’t make exclusives then consumers have no reason to use Epics store, and Steam have no reason to rebalance the scales(70/30).

Epic’s is another launcher that you can use on the very same hardware. A minor inconvienance, sure, but this is a move that’ll help developers (who make the games you all love) have a better chance at survival. Recycling is an inconvience too, but we do that so that it’ll bring about good change.

Let’s do some simple Math:
For a €20 game, on Steam the developer receives €14
On Epic, they recieve €17.60
So €3.60 of a difference.
So for 10000 copies that’s €36000, that’s another developers wage for a year, and a low one at that.

The difference adds up quickly, so ask yourself if the minor inconvience is worth the health of the companies that actually make your games.
This, as someone who is working on my own small UE4 project, the Epic Store option is extremely alluring, specially since the usual 5% Epic takes is included in the 12% if sold through their store.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,697
It's moon logic to assume the sales will be similar. That extra 18 percent won't mean much if you could sell 2 or 3 (or many more) times as much on a different store

If CD Projekt Red can't even do well on Thronebreaker with 100 percent of their money going into their own pockets, breaking within 20 days their exclusivity, it's going to be very hard for anyone to do it.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,388
Exactly, which makes their dancing around the subject more curious.

I can't see why they'd do it unless they were contractually obliged to not mention Steam.

Maybe there's another explanation, but I can't think of one.

I think it would be noteworthy if Epic are requiring these developers to not mention Steam, or plans to release on Steam later. I think it would be better for players if developers were able to be transparent about their release plans, rather than being somewhat misleading.
As with console exclusivity of a third party game purely for the purpose of locking the game to a service /platform, if you were open about the game coming to X platform in future, people will wait and the point of a platform / service paying for exclusivity to them, is diminished.

By deceiving and obfuscating this fact from customers, you introduce doubt and uncertainty in customers looking / waiting for said game to be elsewhere, which is the goal here, to drive customers to this service / platform. It isn't a healthy way to do this necessarily, as many customers are not stupid. If your service offers far less to them beyond the game, they will complain about what they are seeing and some may push back. I feel this is certainly more true on PC, where users are generally strongly against this activity. Then when the game is available elsewhere that image for the game and company remains, sales can be affected also.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,697
It's also fallacious to suggest the only way to compete is with exclusives. Ubisoft has made huge strides with Uplay because they compete on a price and availability front. If I want ACO I can go get a Uplay key on like 13 different sites, and at competitive prices that Steam or even base Uplay won't match. And so I buy nearly every Ubisoft game via Uplay despite preferring Steam.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,803
This, as someone who is working on my own small UE4 project, the Epic Store option is extremely alluring, specially since the usual 5% Epic takes is included in the 12% if sold through their store.
That doesn't stop you from putting your game out elsewhere.

Epic’s is another launcher that you can use on the very same hardware. A minor inconvienance, sure, but this is a move that’ll help developers (who make the games you all love) have a better chance at survival.
If they pull this kind of bullshit, they're going to have to survive without my help. By all means they should sell in as many places as possible. What they shouldn't do is pull the rug out under me as a customer.

I prefer steam, but I bought Witcher 3 on GoG, because the developers asked nicely, and enticed me with something unique, namely a discounted price.
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2018
6,896
So you’re not going to play a game because it’s not coming to steam day one ? Or is it the play anywhere part ? Either way just play it and stop being outraged over silly things.
You don't watch things you wouldn't normally watch because they are on Netflix? I pay for a subscription service so I can play all kind of different games (besides games I buy). Ashen was supposed to come to Gamepass to PC (Now delayed, which is fine.. I can wait. (But communicate for gods sake)) so I was willing to try it out. I really do not care if a game is on Steam, the Epic Store or Origin personally. I do see the negatives in features and support like regional pricing, Linux support, friendlists hassle, etc.

Don't assume things.
 
Oct 25, 2017
821
I don’t really understand why all these PC gamers, on the “open platform”, are so happy with Steams monopoly. If they don’t make exclusives then consumers have no reason to use Epics store, and Steam have no reason to rebalance the scales(70/30).

Epic’s is another launcher that you can use on the very same hardware. A minor inconvienance, sure, but this is a move that’ll help developers (who make the games you all love) have a better chance at survival. Recycling is an inconvience too, but we do that so that it’ll bring about good change.

Let’s do some simple Math:
For a €20 game, on Steam the developer receives €14
On Epic, they recieve €17.60
So €3.60 of a difference.
So for 10000 copies that’s €36000, that’s another developers wage for a year, and a low one at that.

The difference adds up quickly, so ask yourself if the minor inconvience is worth the health of the companies that actually make your games.
Steam isn't a monopoly. I can buy Steam games from a multitude of storefronts that compete in pricing with each other.

Also having to pay a much higher price due to no regional pricing isn't a "minor inconvenience".
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
4,699
As with console exclusivity of a third party game purely for the purpose of locking the game to a service /platform, if you were open about the game coming to X platform in future, people will wait and the point of a platform / service paying for exclusivity to them, is diminished.

By deceiving and obfuscating this fact from customers, you introduce doubt and uncertainty in customers looking / waiting for said game to be elsewhere, which is the goal here, to drive customers to this service / platform. It isn't a healthy way to do this necessarily, as many customers are not stupid. If your service offers far less to them beyond the game, they will complain about what they are seeing and some may push back. I feel this is certainly more true on PC, where users are generally strongly against this activity. Then when the game is available elsewhere that image for the game and company remains, sales can be affected also.
Yep, this is pretty much what I was alluding to.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,996
Belgium
I don’t really understand why all these PC gamers, on the “open platform”, are so happy with Steams monopoly. If they don’t make exclusives then consumers have no reason to use Epics store, and Steam have no reason to rebalance the scales(70/30).
1) PC gamers don't want a monopoly. They want a choice where they buy and play their games. Epic buying store exclusivity takes that choice away.

2) PC gamers would have a reason to use Epic's store if it was actually better than steam. But it isn't, not by a long shot. Being forced to use a worse store to play a certain game because of a moneyhat isn't competition; it's anti-consumer.


Like I told one guy some days ago, I cannot be blamed for your comprehension issues.
My God, what's wrong with you? :(
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
464
So no one should get into the market unless they match the features and content that took steam 14 years to develop? That's a super reasonable take.
Well yes, why should I care at all how difficult it is to match Steam's feature set? A new store is competing with Steam now, not Steam 14 years ago. A company releasing a new phone in 2018 is competing with today's iPhone, not the iPhone from 10 years ago. What a bizarre opinion.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,201
So no one should get into the market unless they match the features and content that took steam 14 years to develop? That's a super reasonable take.


Uh, YES ???!!!
It took 10 years for Youtube to arrive where they are.
Should we be fine if a new service launched without HD video support, livestreaming and such ?

Should we be fine when a 1st part hardware maker has a online service so bad there's no vocal chat of party ? Should we say "It took 15 years for Xbox Live to be like this !"

I swear the gaming industry is the most blind one. Either you're saying that because you have an agenda or because you're so used to publishers stomping and taking a dump on consumers that it sounds okay for you. I dont what's the worst between these two, honestly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,953
Uh, YES ???!!!
It took 10 years for Youtube to arrive where they are.
Should we be fine if a new service launched without HD video support, livestreaming and such ?

Should we be fine when a 1st part hardware maker has a online service so bad there's no vocal chat of party ? Should we say "It took 15 years for Xbox Live to be like this !"

I swear the gaming industry is the most blind one. Either you're saying that because you have an agenda or because you're so used to publishers stomping and taking a dump on consumers that it sounds okay for you. I dont what's the worst between these two, honestly.
PSN didn't match XBL when the PS3 came out, Nintendo Online does not match either service. I mean it's a little disengenuous to think everyone should be just as experienced or will put in the same amount of resources at first. Valve has had many years of making huge profits from its service throughout the years, other companies are not going to simply match that out of the gate.