I expected Epic trying to get SkateBird dev to not put their game on Steam because they see how awesome the game is and want it for themselves. But it sounds more like EGS is maybe understaffed on vetting games for being on their store, a position like Sony's Third Party Relations group that get games on PS4 (Adam Boyes old job, I forgot the MS person). Maybe the game will be on their radar now so they can look into, or focus on it more, due to this news and buzz around the game if that's the case. I'm only going on what I saw in the tweet in the OP. There may be more soon.It left out the Kickstarter part which, meh, I'm not gonna headbutt OP in the face for
This just tells me the dev has a good head on their shoulders and also SKATEBIRD
"But it's only another launcher..."
This game looks so fun, I need it (on Steam).
Please explain why it's petty and unhealthy to focus attention on the market leader.
So as long it's capitalism, people shouldn't react against it?
I'm not interested in a launcher where the CEO decides what I can buy based on his grudges.
Thanks for the info. That gif looks amazing, they really shouldn't have blocked it from being on the store, either delayed if they have release plans, or whatever. Not a good look.If it says they're focusing on exclusives, then that is a direct response to an inquiry about being on the storefront. Epic Grants is a no-strings-attached, separate program that is actually super wonderful and a part of Epic that I think is an overall good for the dev scene. They do not tie Grants to exclusivity for eligibility, as the teams handling them are separate and have their own defined criteria.
Megan is good people, she's been outspoken against many of Steam's shortcomings as well as been positive towards EGS in the past. Frustratingly, she's been shown directly by Epic that they aren't exactly interested in helping the actual small developer through the EGS nearly as much as they say they are. She's taking it well though, and SkateBIRD is looking to do decently! So, I'm glad that she won't be negatively affected by Epic's refusal to even allow the game on their store.
Something I did find interesting about this was their point on refusing due to promises of Steam keys in the Kickstarter. That hasn't stopped them in the past, and Sweeney sounded pretty adamant that they would continue that approach for the foreseeable future. Has that policy changed? Was it just a convenient way to tell her off because they don't think SkateBIRD passes their bar for curation?
but it is? lol"But it's only another launcher..."
This game looks so fun, I need it (on Steam).
Yeah, that is my point. Epic keeps throwing excuses to reject games at the same time they say the only purpose of their store is to help devs. None of the excuses actually make sense or are consistent. In this case, it flies in the face of their past Kickstarted exclusives. Unless those were saw as valuable enough for them to buy the exclusivity, and this one is not seen as a valuable. What also would show their actual ""pro dev"" stance.Because if it wasn't crappy, it'd still be denied? It's irrelevant, what did you think the crux of the topic was?
Yeah, I've looking at it for over a month now.
Grudges? Lol. OK then. I love how the dev is pretty nonplussed about it and understands that business is business, but people here overreact as usual.
So as long it's capitalism, people shouldn't react against it?
What is there even to react to? They are continuing what they've been doing, and people like the top post of this page are going fucking nuts.
This scientific chart proves that Birb should be the correct term.
The real headline is a kickstarter that honors their words and is giving backers steam keys even when EGS comes calling
Why do you always tell people not to quote you? The way you come into a thread and tell people not to quote you makes you seem incredibly fragile to any kind of discussion....on a discussion forum. If you don't want to have what you post responded to, then I suggest you don't post.
Yeah Nintendo pretty much did the same thing early on with devs being ignored unless they were offering exclusives/exclusive content.I mean this is nothing new. For them right now they want only exclusives, we already see that.
Nindie 1 is yet to get in the door with Switch, and argues that the eShop team - formally called the Publisher & Developer Relations department - in North America doesn't necessarily have the experience to perform the curation / gating role it has. They make the point, partly substantiated by another source later in the article, that the team is also using a curation remit to "try and force developers to create exclusive game modes or commit to some time-based exclusivity just for the right to release games on their system". The word "arrogant" is used when referencing the drive by Nintendo to gain some forms of exclusivity while offering little in return, a conflating of publication approval with "strongarm" demands for unique content.
This scientific chart proves that Birb should be the correct term.
Lol I actually spat out my drink reading this. A business obsession with its market leader is unhealthy? C'mon breh let's do some critical thinking and reasoning.My response is at the pettyness of epic towards one store specifically. Their obsession with steam is quite unhealthy
Should they really? Let's look at that scenario. A game that's on both Steam and EGS is unlikely to sell a significant number of copies on EGS so it probably make Epic a whole lot of money and it won't lock too many people into using their launcher to play the game in question. However, it will take up space on their storefront which could be used to promote the games of developers Epic has signed exclusivity deals with. I do believe that the EGS still having a relatively tightly curated, small library is part of what makes their current strategy work. Sure, devs get big bags of many for making their games EGS exclusive but, presumably, they also still want their games to sell on the EGS. The more other games it has to compete with for storefront space, the harder that will become. So I can imagine that, to Epic, it may actually make more sense to try and make sure EGS exclusives get as much of the spotlight as possible (as this may help them sign more exclusive deals) than to try and get as many games onto their store as possible, regardless of whether they're exclusive or not. Now, whether you think that that strategy is consumer-friendly or not, dev-friendly or not or just generally ethical or not is another question but from Epic's perspective, I do think that it makes sense.Yeah, but wouldn't you think part of the battle would not be giving Steam exclusives? They should want it simply because it's on the other store.
Its weird how this forum tends to be critical of capitalism but when these epic threads get posted the capitalism is good posters come in.
They're doing what they're doing, and people are reacting like they do?
I guess you don't care that much about the subject, or the arguments being made in the discussions about it?
That's real good. I'm so down for extreme bird sports. Give me Dove Mirra's Freestyle BMX, or how 'bout some Swan White's Snowboarding?
I really hope that's the OT title
Or maybe Epic just wants exclusives and said as much. I seriously doubt they've got some curator who played this game extensively and reported back "nah, sucks".Maybe, just maybe, the game isn't any good and Epic didn't want it on their store. Possibly dev was rejected in the nicest way by whoever curates the store. Instead, of, "your game doesn't meet our minimum standards because it sucks", the dev was given the "we only have room for exclusives" response.