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

Oct 25, 2017
3,663
More thought I put into this...it’s wrong. I understand fighting for exclusives. It sells platforms. Epic will need exclusives to get traffic and if it benefits a developer in the process, more power to them.

It was the method Epic did this. Pulling it literally hours before it was supposed to launch on other platforms is the kind of thing that causes uncertainty and distrust amongst consumers. That’s a bad thing. There were likely some PC gamers who bought Game Pass on sale because this was Play Anywhere. Now gamers are faced with the reality that something can be announced as coming to a store for a couple years, be announced for Game Pass for 6 months...and it can be pulled literally hours before launch. That’s going to cause distrust in Microsoft or Steam’s services...which from a competitive standpoint makes sense as you’re weakening you competition. But this is the kind of shit that can lead to shrinking an industry rather than growing it. You don’t fuck with consumers that way. Fuck with corporations and money-hat developers all you want...but don’t fuck with consumers. This is the kind of shit that turns me off from considering Epic. Hope consumers teach them a lesson.


You think that now that it's removed from Windows Store though.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
Yeah, MS probably shouldn't have advertised something they didn't actually have locked down.

I'm not surprised to see devs jumping to Epic's Game Store. The terms are hugely more favorable even if there was no exclusivity payout from Epic. They're looking at only giving up 12% instead of 35% (for an Unreal Engine game) and that is a giant difference.

The game pages are also so much nicer to look at and do a way better job of selling the games. Steam is so dated and confusing by comparison. Just looking at a screenshot that isn't tiny is a hassle on Steam. They also aren't saddled with the need to personally moderate a game forum that Valve will take no responsibility for, lest it become a cesspool. Obviously there are things they need to add like wishlists, etc, but I think it looks like a really strong foundation. The idea that people who installed the Epic Launcher for a single game will somehow refuse to use it for any more games is just silly.
A nice Ui and pictures

But no Regional Pricing.
A way to get technical support
no required reviews

Amazing that Epic didn't' focus on the consumer when making a new store.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
Yeah, MS probably shouldn't have advertised something they didn't actually have locked down.
This was unprecedented. No reason to prepare for having a game pulled from your platform hours before release. Ironically Microsoft has been doing most of the promoting for this game and probably felt they had a solid relationship.
 
Jun 7, 2018
510
A nice Ui and pictures

But no Regional Pricing.
A way to get technical support
no required reviews

Amazing that Epic didn't' focus on the consumer when making a new store.
Well, Galyonkin the aptly named Steamspy guy, designed the store for devs first and foremost, eliminating forums and user reviews.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
Well, Galyonkin the aptly named Steamspy guy, designed the store for devs first and foremost, eliminating forums and user reviews.
And making more money buy making poor countries pay in US equivalents.

But hey, C O M P E T I TI O N, and that means removing/notadding pro-consumer features.
 
Oct 30, 2017
415
It's weird that MS dropped the ball on the one Play Anywhere title that was getting me over the edge. Had planned to buy game pass and spend some time with this and Forza this weekend.

I get going to Epic store for exclusivity, but ditching the Play Anywhere thing is weird. And it's just weird in general that Epic got to announce the shadow drop rather than MS when they were always pushing it and it seemed like a title they had under wraps. Wonder what happened there.

Still might buy it, gonna look around for word of mouth.
Yea after that trailer I was confused because it almost seemed like it wasn't coming to Xbox at all. Then Phil during his interview had to somehow put it out there that is was also available on Xbox One Game Pass. Just felt so awkward.
 
Jan 17, 2018
861
Well, it seems their store doesn't have a regional pricing so it's an automatic no from me.

Quite an asshole move on Epic's part, it's not even their game iirc.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
You think that now that it's removed from Windows Store though.
Entire thing is shitty. Yeah...fact that people actually paid money for Game Pass due to this game...yeah that’s another level of shitty. It’s shitty to Steam gamers who thought they’d be playing it up until a few hours before release. It’s the timing.

Exclusive content is part of the business. Platforms fighting over developers is good for developers. There’s right ways and wrong ways to do this stuff. This is wrong. I would think it’s wrong for any platform holder to yank any game off of another platform last second. It comes down to consumer expectations.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,663
Entire thing is shitty. Yeah...fact that people actually paid money for Game Pass due to this game...yeah that’s another level of shitty. It’s shitty to Steam gamers who thought they’d be playing it up until a few hours before release. It’s the timing.

Exclusive content is part of the business. Platforms fighting over developers is good for developers. There’s right ways and wrong ways to do this stuff. This is wrong. I would think it’s wrong for any platform holder to yank any game off of another platform last second. It comes down to consumer expectations.


Moneyhatting is never good.
 
Oct 25, 2017
911
Yeesh. People would be screaming bloody murder if Valve were moneyhatting exclusives with Steam. We're in for a reminder of just how unusual Valve's commitment to openness is for a platform holder.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
Moneyhatting is never good.
Part of the business. Moneyhatting means publishers help developers mitigate some risk. It helps the industry when platform holders and pumping money back into the system. I prefer that money be used to help fund development of games but it’s fair game and as long as consumers aren’t getting the rug pulled out from under them last second, it doesn’t damage the industry. Steam, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo...none of them are owed anything. No developer is obligated to put their game on any particular platform. But when a developers or platform holder advertises one thing, they should follow through on their commitment. Publishers shouldn’t falsely advertise or cancel games they’ve advertised for a couple years. Developers shouldn’t pull their game from a platform 1 day before release.
 
Oct 25, 2017
579
I’ll go where the games and sales are. I have very, very limited use or desire for most steam features, especially community features, since it’s a dumpster fire. Discord and Reddit for specific game communities suit my needs 100%.

Just give me the games with a lightweight client, run sales, and loop in websites like GMG so they can sell keys and offer deals too.

Well, Galyonkin the aptly named Steamspy guy, designed the store for devs first and foremost, eliminating forums and user reviews.
Steam forums and reviews are largely an cesspool that make gamers look like shit, make Valve look like shit for letting things run so unchecked most of the time, and contribute to the toxicity of gaming culture.

So, Epic keeping that out of the experience sounds like a real positive to me. Though, I would like to see user reviews with actual curation.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,663
Part of the business. Moneyhatting means publishers help developers mitigate some risk. It helps the industry when platform holders and pumping money back into the system. I prefer that money be used to help fund development of games but it’s fair game and as long as consumers aren’t getting the rug pulled out from under them last second, it doesn’t damage the industry. Steam, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo...none of them are owed anything. No developer is obligated to put their game on any particular platform. But when a developers or platform holder advertises one thing, they should follow through on their commitment. Publishers shouldn’t falsely advertise or cancel games they’ve advertised for a couple years. Developers shouldn’t pull their game from a platform 1 day before release.

No one has to act like a prick.
I'll tell you something: Valve bought Campo Santo and "Valley of the Gods". It's still coming to consoles.
It does damage the industry.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
No one has to act like a prick.
I'll tell you something: Valve bought Campo Santo and "Valley of the Gods". It's still coming to consoles.
It does damage the industry.
Won’t be launching on Epics Store. Or GoG. Doubt it launches on Microsoft’s Store.

It doesn’t.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,459
I


Steam forums and reviews are largely an cesspool that make gamers look like shit, make Valve look like shit for letting things run so unchecked most of the time, and contribute to the toxicity of gaming culture.

So, Epic keeping that out of the experience sounds like a real positive to me. Though, I would like to see user reviews with actual curation.
While forums and whatnot are generally not a fun place to browse, they are a good source of tech info.

For instance, I made a thread about a Save Game issue in a game about a year ago. In that thread there were some fixes suggested, and some worked for some people. I still get a notifiaction about new posts to that thread about once or twice a month as people discover the issue, and try to fix it. Lack of official forums means a game with these sorts of issues that isn't like, getting a hugely devoted subreddit, is frankly a sad loss. A game like Fortnite doesn't need one but something like Man Eater from Tripwire absoutely should have one.
 
Oct 29, 2017
124
Won’t be launching on Epics Store. Or GoG. Doubt it launches on Microsoft’s Store.

It doesn’t.
Like I said in another thread, It's fine when you make YOUR game exclusive for YOUR client, Microsoft has totally the right to make Forza exclusive on MS Store, Epic has the right to make Fortnite exclusive for the Epic store. What is not fine is when you make exclusive deals with third parties for releasing the game exclusively on your store like it's a fucking console. This was deal breaking for me.
 
Oct 27, 2017
410
This was unprecedented. No reason to prepare for having a game pulled from your platform hours before release. Ironically Microsoft has been doing most of the promoting for this game and probably felt they had a solid relationship.
The fact that there was any possibility that the game could be pulled from the Windows Store at last minute is 100% Microsoft's bad. There should have been a contract in place before they were ever advertising the game as Play Anywhere.

eliminating forums and user reviews.
The Steam Forums and Reviews are, on balance, more harmful than they are good. There's very little helpful about the mountain of ".1 hours played: This game is SJW trash and will probably turn you queer." or "900 hrs played: This six dollar game is a ripoff and also I take personal offense to some minor balance adjustment as if the developers killed my family". The forums are also usually bad because smaller devs don't have the resources to manage them, and bigger publisher don't care to manage them.
 
Jun 7, 2018
510
I’ll go where the games and sales are. I have very, very limited use or desire for most steam features, especially community features, since it’s a dumpster fire. Discord and Reddit for specific game communities suit my needs 100%.

Just give me the games with a lightweight client, run sales, and loop in websites like GMG so they can sell keys and offer deals too.



Steam forums and reviews are largely an cesspool that make gamers look like shit, make Valve look like shit for letting things run so unchecked most of the time, and contribute to the toxicity of gaming culture.

So, Epic keeping that out of the experience sounds like a real positive to me. Though, I would like to see user reviews with actual curation.
Steam forums are an invaluable source for user fixes, from AAA games to indies that won't run properly or crash at startup.

Can't wait for the day when a game on Epic has users on Steam forums trying to post on how to fix it or launch it.

The Steam Forums and Reviews are, on balance, more harmful than they are good. There's very little helpful about the mountain of ".1 hours played: This game is SJW trash and will probably turn you queer." or "900 hrs played: This six dollar game is a ripoff and also I take personal offense to some minor balance adjustment as if the developers killed my family". The forums are also usually bad because smaller devs don't have the resources to manage them, and bigger publisher don't care to manage them.
Refer to the above, Steam guides, community fixes, workshops all of these are what spread success for a game, Steam community can be invaluable for spreading word of mouth about a game, especially when a community is over 100 million users active.
 
Oct 25, 2017
195
Mar del Plata
Well, Galyonkin the aptly named Steamspy guy, designed the store for devs first and foremost, eliminating forums and user reviews.
Wanna see something funny?

This is Galyonkin back when he was only the SteamSpy guy and not the Epic Store guy:

https://galyonk.in/pricing-on-steam-67d1e040b543

Regional pricing
Steam advises setting local pricing for some markets with lower GDP per capita — mostly BRIC and developing countries. Please, follow its advice, because it matters a lot.
For example, Russians and Chinese are infamous for pirating games and if you check geo stats for some games you’ll see that these countries aren’t buying much.
Except when your game is priced according to expectations in this region (and localized properly, but that’s a topic for another post). An average share of China in paid games is around 1%, but for GTA V it’s 10% — and we’re talking about 250 thousand additional copies sold because of the right price. The same is true for Russia — Russians can buy up to 18% of your game copies if you price, localize and market it right.
Effectively you can double your sales and increase your revenue by up to 50% if you cater to the most important markets outside US and Europe.
Galyonkin Epic Store doesn't believe in that, though. Epic Store doesn't feature the things Galyonkin SteamSpy guy said a store should have.
 
Oct 25, 2017
163
Aside from loss of regional pricing (which I think some are over-emphasizing for the sake of trying to latch on something tangible) and the timing of becoming Epic store-only (which is poor form given just days ago this was allegedly Steam-bound), despite numerous outcries about how awful this is (I've seen the phrase "anti-consumer" thrown out more readily than Molly at a rave), I have yet to see a compelling argument for why this is awful for anybody (consumer, developer, or store). And no, annoyance over multiple launchers, while annoying, is not grounds for brandishing the pitchforks.

The consumer can still play the game on their PC regardless of storefront, far different from moneyhatting within the console sphere. The developer can mitigate the risk of the game bombing (which is certainly more likely when it comes to an indie game) by hedging with an exclusivity buyout and a greater percentage payout per game sold. The storefront can attempt to establish its own unique footprint in the ever-growing industry of digital distribution. If anything, of these three, it's the developer who is most at risk of being hurt, given loss of exposure from more popular and established storefronts.

I maintain that thus far, no one has actually explained why this is so bad. "Anti-consumer", whatever that means? Prove it.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
Like I said in another thread, It's fine when you make YOUR game exclusive for YOUR client, Microsoft has totally the right to make Forza exclusive on MS Store, Epic has the right to make Fortnite exclusive for the Epic store. What is not fine is when you make exclusive deals with third parties for releasing the game exclusively on your store like it's a fucking console. This was deal breaking for me.
Actually that’s their right to. They have the right to pay or take any form of legal payment to make a game exclusive. The only thing immoral about this is the timing and fact that some consumers paid money for a service due to a game that was then pulled hours before it was supposed to launch.

Steam doesn’t do this because they never really had competition. That’s also why they retired Half Life 3. Don’t give this Valve is the saint of the gaming industry bullshit.

...and if this leads to Valve feeling some heat, maybe they’ll pump more money back into the gaming industry. Maybe they’ll make Half Life 3 now.

Competition is good. Moneyhatting is part of that process. The timing is shitty. You can bitch about which exclusives should and shouldn’t be exclusive all you want...but moneyhatting happens when exclusives matter...and exclusives matter when there’s competition...and when exclusives matter the rich platform holders send more money developers way...which is good for the health of the industry.

Can’t look at everything in a vacuum.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
Aside from loss of regional pricing (which I think some are over-emphasizing for the sake of trying to latch on something tangible) and the timing of becoming Epic store-only (which is poor form given just days ago this was allegedly Steam-bound), despite numerous outcries about how awful this is (I've seen the phrase "anti-consumer" thrown out more readily than Molly at a rave), I have yet to see a compelling argument for why this is awful for anybody (consumer, developer, or store). And no, annoyance over multiple launchers, while annoying, is not grounds for brandishing the pitchforks.

The consumer can still play the game on their PC regardless of storefront, far different from moneyhatting within the console sphere. The developer can mitigate the risk of the game bombing (which is certainly more likely when it comes to an indie game) by hedging with an exclusivity buyout and a greater percentage payout per game sold. The storefront can attempt to establish its own unique footprint in the ever-growing industry of digital distribution. If anything, of these three, it's the developer who is most at risk of being hurt, given loss of exposure from more popular and established storefronts.

I maintain that thus far, no one has actually explained why this is so bad. "Anti-consumer", whatever that means? Prove it.
How nice of you in your probably first world country to dismiss regional pricing,

You know who didn't say regional pricing was a small thing that didn't matter?

The person running the Epic store right now, who worked on SteamSpy. as said in the post above you.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,154
Comp-r-TISHUN!!!!!

I think it actually is valid competition. It's just lowly, short sighted, lazy, ugly competition.
 
Jun 7, 2018
510
Aside from loss of regional pricing (which I think some are over-emphasizing for the sake of trying to latch on something tangible).
People in Brazil have to pay double, people aren't over emphasizing, you're just downplaying.

The consumer can still play the game on their PC regardless of storefront, far different from moneyhatting within the console sphere. The developer can mitigate the risk of the game bombing (which is certainly more likely when it comes to an indie game) by hedging with an exclusivity buyout and a greater percentage payout per game sold. The storefront can attempt to establish its own unique footprint in the ever-growing industry of digital distribution. If anything, of these three, it's the developer who is most at risk of being hurt, given loss of exposure from more popular and established storefronts.

I maintain that thus far, no one has actually explained why this is so bad. "Anti-consumer", whatever that means? Prove it.
They removed choice and agency from me, the consumer, and it differs from person to person, some people don't care, I do. They went against what they were championing, Tim Sweeney was raging against the walled garden that is UWP and MS store, and now he's doing a 180.

I prefer to play my games on Steam where all of my friends are and where most of the PC gaming community is , devs are free to go where they want and I'm free not to support them any longer as I don't care for a new launcher, but what irks me most is the walled garden approach, this is something I would never support, didn't do it in the GFWL days and won't do it now.
 
Oct 25, 2017
195
Mar del Plata
Aside from loss of regional pricing (which I think some are over-emphasizing for the sake of trying to latch on something tangible) and the timing of becoming Epic store-only (which is poor form given just days ago this was allegedly Steam-bound), despite numerous outcries about how awful this is (I've seen the phrase "anti-consumer" thrown out more readily than Molly at a rave), I have yet to see a compelling argument for why this is awful for anybody (consumer, developer, or store). And no, annoyance over multiple launchers, while annoying, is not grounds for brandishing the pitchforks.

The consumer can still play the game on their PC regardless of storefront, far different from moneyhatting within the console sphere. The developer can mitigate the risk of the game bombing (which is certainly more likely when it comes to an indie game) by hedging with an exclusivity buyout and a greater percentage payout per game sold. The storefront can attempt to establish its own unique footprint in the ever-growing industry of digital distribution. If anything, of these three, it's the developer who is most at risk of being hurt, given loss of exposure from more popular and established storefronts.

I maintain that thus far, no one has actually explained why this is so bad. "Anti-consumer", whatever that means? Prove it.
Thanks for the regional pricing bit, I really appreciate it. I live in Argentina, a country where our currency goes up and down (mostly down) as fast as it can. I also earn about 500 US dollars per month, while people doing the same thing in the US earn 3000. So yeah, fair regional pricing that takes into account my region's economy is very important for me, as otherwise I have to pay a lot more if I decide to buy a game. I wouldn't care as much as I do if I didn't have skin in this game.
Also, thanks to the introduction of local payment methods and fair regional prices lots of people here started to buy games instead of just pirating them. I guess that's not important either since we are not the US or a rich European country.

Once again, thanks! It's nice to see how unimportant I am.
 

J2d

Member
Oct 26, 2017
226
I just put that on my wish list yesterday after learning of its existence, sucks but I hope it will come to steam later on.
 
Oct 29, 2017
124
Actually that’s their right to. They have the right to pay or take any form of legal payment to make a game exclusive. The only thing immoral about this is the timing and fact that some consumers paid money for a service due to a game that was then pulled hours before it was supposed to launch.

Steam doesn’t do this because they never really had competition. That’s also why they retired Half Life 3. Don’t give this Valve is the saint of the gaming industry bullshit.

...and if this leads to Valve feeling some heat, maybe they’ll pump more money back into the gaming industry. Maybe they’ll make Half Life 3 now.

Competition is good. Moneyhatting is part of that process. The timing is shitty. You can bitch about which exclusives should and shouldn’t be exclusive all you want...but moneyhatting happens when exclusives matter...and exclusives matter when there’s competition...and when exclusives matter the rich platform holders send more money developers way...which is good for the health of the industry.

Can’t look at everything in a vacuum.
Of course it's their right, but on an open platform like the PC feels like a contradittory move, nobody did before because nobody thought it was a good move, not because they didn't know it was possible. My point is, using exclusive deals is totally against of what make PC gaming an open platform.

Also, it's time to stop using the rethoric that Valve didn't ever had competition, Valve had always competition, even when Steam was in his infancy. We should remember Valve started selling third parties game in 2006, when Game tap was a thing, and when Steam gained gas, EA released Origin for making competition on Valve. But Valve didn't bought any exclusive deals, ever. And so EA for Origin, Ubi for uPlay, CD project for GOG and so on
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
User banned (2 days): lazy devs rhetoric
As opposed to what they were doing until now?

This is fucking hilarious.
They’re fucking lazy. Anyone who sits on an IP like Half Life doesn’t feel challenged and is absolutely not being their best. Glad you got a chuckle though.
 
Jun 7, 2018
510
As opposed to what they were doing until now?

This is fucking hilarious.
I mean who cares about Valve's numerous contribution to the industry from supporting games for linux, Mac, pioneering VR and Digital distribution, while also making new games? WE JUST WANT HL3!

They’re fucking lazy. Anyone who sits on an IP like Half Life doesn’t feel challenged and is absolutely not being their best. Glad you got a chuckle though.
Lazy my ass, Valve did more work for PC gaming, from hardware to drivers than Epic ever did. At this point I hope Valve never makes HL3.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,663
Aside from loss of regional pricing (which I think some are over-emphasizing for the sake of trying to latch on something tangible) and the timing of becoming Epic store-only (which is poor form given just days ago this was allegedly Steam-bound), despite numerous outcries about how awful this is (I've seen the phrase "anti-consumer" thrown out more readily than Molly at a rave), I have yet to see a compelling argument for why this is awful for anybody (consumer, developer, or store). And no, annoyance over multiple launchers, while annoying, is not grounds for brandishing the pitchforks.

The consumer can still play the game on their PC regardless of storefront, far different from moneyhatting within the console sphere. The developer can mitigate the risk of the game bombing (which is certainly more likely when it comes to an indie game) by hedging with an exclusivity buyout and a greater percentage payout per game sold. The storefront can attempt to establish its own unique footprint in the ever-growing industry of digital distribution. If anything, of these three, it's the developer who is most at risk of being hurt, given loss of exposure from more popular and established storefronts.

I maintain that thus far, no one has actually explained why this is so bad. "Anti-consumer", whatever that means? Prove it.

So, I have to prove that a storefront paying to remove a product from other stores to sell it exclusively on their for a higher price, less fonctions, so resulting in an inferior product, is anti-consumer ?

"Gamestop just paid exclusivity rights to sell the PS4 on Amazon. It can't be sold anymore at Best Buy, Walmart and Amazon. Price is now 499 instead of 399 dollars. How's that anti-consumer ? You just need to litterally browse a different website !"
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
Of course it's their right, but on an open platform like the PC feels like a contradittory move, nobody did before because nobody thought it was a good move to begin it, not because they didn't know it was possible. My point is that using exclusive deals is totally against of what make PC gaming an open platform.

Also, it's time to stop using the rethoric that Valve didn't ever had competition, Valve had always competition, even when Steam was in it's infancy. We should remember Valve started selling third parties game in 2006, when Game tap was a thing, and when Steam gained gas, EA released Origin for making competition on Valve. But Valve didn't bought any exclusive deals, ever. And so EA for Origin, Ubi for uPlay, CD project for GOG and so on
Valve has 125 million users and haven’t had to innovate or invest in content in years. Those other platforms are irrelevant to them. They don’t need all the games.

Fact that they sit on Half Life is all the evidence needed. That proves beyond a reasonable doubt they have felt no pressure.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
They’re fucking lazy. Anyone who sits on an IP like Half Life doesn’t feel challenged and is absolutely not being their best. Glad you got a chuckle though.
Do you know that EPIC famously abandoned the PC market for console because it wasn't profitable due to piracy?

Do you know who solved PC piracy overall? Valve did with Steam and its various features.

So literally the only reason why Epic is back into the PC market is because Steam unfucked it from years of abuse from companies liek Epic who then abandoned it to Consoles and now coming back years later as the White Knight to save PC gaming from Valve.

How fucking laughable is that.

The fact that you are attacking Steam and yet support Epic in this endeavour, shows your blatant bias and ignorance about the entire PC market and PC gaming History./
 
Jun 7, 2018
510
Valve has 125 million users and haven’t had to innovate or invest in content in years. Those other platforms are irrelevant to them. They don’t need all the games.

Fact that they sit on Half Life is all the evidence needed. That proves beyond a reasonable doubt they have felt no pressure.
This post proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you have no idea about what Valve has been doing this past decade, you just want HL3.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,122
What the fuck is this post?
My fucking post. I’m going to bed now. I’ll be happy to answer replies during the weekend.

My point is this move is shitty by Epic. But I feel bad for consumers. Not Valve or Microsoft. Valve needs a kick in the ass.