Satisfactory removed from Steam to be announced as Epic Store game

Oct 28, 2017
1,178
#54
That's not real competition, lol.
And how will Epic ever compete against a monopoly without any type of insentive? So you want competition, you want games, but you think people will just wander over and sign up because.....? Ok great, devs get 88%. 88% of zero is still zero. They're tempting the developers, now they need to tempt the players. I wouldn't be surprised if you see some absolutely crazy good deals on there after they build up a few games. Getting some exclusives at the beginning seems like the obvious choice a mile away.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,554
#58
So paid exclusivitiy is fine because its a different launcher?
It's exclusive to a storefront that anyone who has access to Steam has access to as well. It amounts to an annoyance for the end user who has to juggle a bunch of different launchers (or make a Steam shortcut to the .exe once). So yeah, it's not ideal, but it's also not the same as paid exclusivity in the console space which requires a purchase of completely seperate hardware.
 
Oct 27, 2017
806
#59
And how will Epic ever compete against a monopoly without any type of insentive? So you want competition, you want games, but you think people will just wander over and sign up because.....? Ok great, devs get 88%. 88% of zero is still zero. They're tempting the developers, now they need to tempt the players. I wouldn't be surprised if you see some absolutely crazy good deals on there after they build up a few games. Getting some exclusives at the beginning seems like the obvious choice a mile away.
You literally don't know what a monopoly is. Steam is not a monopoly.

Moneyhatting games is not a way to be competitive. It's anti-consumer garbage.
 
Oct 28, 2017
10,358
#60
Oh no, now the new excuse is that you don't need new hardware to play these games so its not bad.

The competition excuse is aleady over, defending money hatting because its just another launcher is the new mantra.
How do we know it’s moneyhatting ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
#61
It's exclusive to a storefront that anyone who has access to Steam has access to as well. It amounts to an annoyance for the end user who has to juggle a bunch of different launchers (or make a Steam shortcut to the .exe once). So yeah, it's not ideal, but it's also not the same as paid exclusivity in the console space which requires a purchase of completely seperate hardware.
So some anti-consumer behavior is fine because its not anti-consumer enough.

How do we know it’s moneyhatting ?
Because if it wasn't, then surely selling the game in both stores should make the most money possible?
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,178
#65
Moneyhatting games is not competition.
Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
 
OP
OP
dex3108
Oct 26, 2017
3,791
#66
You want another one? Ashen is currently available on Xbox and Epic Store but even though it had Steam page for ages it is not out on Steam.
 

Hektor

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,929
Deutschland
#67
How do we know it’s moneyhatting ?
Because the game literally already was on steam?

Do you think the dev just removed it and limited their audience for shits and giggles?

Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
What argument are you even trying to make?
Console gaming having a history of shit tier moves means that pc gamers should be okay with facing shit tier moves too?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,036
#68
How do we know it’s moneyhatting ?
Removing the product (which can be seen in the history on SteamDB), gives a good indication it is. It may not be - it may just be that they wanted to delay release of the Steam version - but in that case, they could easily have left the product details up on Steam, "coming soon" release date and all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
108
Philadelphia
#70
Finally, a simple question: If a game that had until two days ago been set for release on XBone and PS4 was suddenly moneyhatted by one or the other for some unknown amount of time, would it be okay?
I’m strictly a console gamer and my only computers are Macs so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but does having Steam lock you out of the Epic store the way you can’t buy things from the Google store on an iOS device or from the App Store on Android?

If so, that’s messed up, especially if they took pre-order money and didn’t refund it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,785
Phoenix
#71
Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
So becasue it has happened on consoles its fine for PC now?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
#73
Removing the product (which can be seen in the history on SteamDB), gives a good indication it is. It may not be - it may just be that they wanted to delay release of the Steam version - but in that case, they could easily have left the product details up on Steam, "coming soon" release date and all.
And we already see it happening with Ashen too, the game is already released on other plateforms but in limbo on Steam.
 
Oct 27, 2017
806
#74
Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
So now it's ok because it's whats been done in the past? That doesn't make it ok. Your argument is absolutely awful and you should probably consider what you're actually arguing for.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,175
#75
Because the game literally already was on steam?

Do you think the dev just removed it and limited their audience for shits and giggles?



What argument are you even trying to make?
Console gaming having a history of shit tier moves means that pc gamers should be okay with facing shit tier moves too?
maybe they just liked the idea of 88% vs 70% and figured they would stand out more on the epic store instead of steam and did it on their own?

I mean it's sort of a moneyhat then but not really as they weren't directly paid to change platform?

I should note personally I think the right move would be to release on both and just put the game like 10% off on epic store compared to steam as the developers would make more money per copy and consumers would pay less so a win win but still. just saying it might not be a moneyhat.
 
Oct 28, 2017
10,358
#76
Because the game literally already was on steam?

Do you think the dev just removed it and limited their audience for shits and giggles?
I’m not sure I understand the argument. Is it impossible for them to switch to Epic because they’re receiving a better share for example ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
197
Mar del Plata
#79
Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
Console manufacturers also charge money for online, something that doesn't happen on PC... Your argument doesn't really apply to the way the platform works.
 
Oct 28, 2017
10,358
#80
Removing the product (which can be seen in the history on SteamDB), gives a good indication it is. It may not be - it may just be that they wanted to delay release of the Steam version - but in that case, they could easily have left the product details up on Steam, "coming soon" release date and all.
I see
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
#81
I’m not sure I understand the argument. Is it impossible for them to switch to Epic because they’re receiving a better share for example ?
So you think they would somehow make more money JUST selling it on Epic store even with their share then selling on BOTH STORES?

That makes financial sense without someone else paying them to not be on another store? Ubisoft have their own store, they still sell on Steam to make money from both sides. Because people dont leave money on the table without a big reason.
 

Hektor

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,929
Deutschland
#82
I’m not sure I understand the argument. Is it impossible for them to switch to Epic because they’re receiving a better share for example ?
maybe they just liked the idea of 88% vs 70% and figured they would stand out more on the epic store instead of steam and did it on their own?

I mean it's sort of a moneyhat then but not really as they weren't directly paid to change platform?
A better share of less customers still equals less money.
It's not like there hasn't been any precedence for that.
 
Oct 28, 2017
739
#83
That’s fine, it’s their choice.

Just like it’s been my choice to basically ignore EA games for years because they don’t come to the storefront (Steam) or console (Switch) that I prefer.

When Epic’s storefront is better for my tastes as a user I will use it. Until then PC games released exclusively for their storefront basically don’t exist to me.

The developers have to do what’s best for them.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,170
#84
I don't even have a that big a problem with a moneyhatted exclusive, as fully unimpressive as that may be. But this shows they are not interested in the steam approach to pc. They're going to do what everyone else does and be useless.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
4,175
#86
A better share of less customers still equals less money.
It's not like there hasn't been any precedence for that.
I updated my last post but even then. I never said it was a good move for them, just that they may think it is and might not be being paid to do so.
 
Oct 25, 2017
804
Spain
#88
Except that's how it's been done in the gaming industry since...forever. Hell, you have people getting giddy and excited over Microsoft buying up developers and then upset over this. I'm sure the next Obsidian game will definitely be on PS4 and Switch! /s
There's a difference between buying a studio and start funding their games; and paying a game that was going to release in another launcher to come to yours instead. Heck, I wouldn't care if it was planned like that from the beginning, but they did it afterwards.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,198
#89
Era: I want Steam to have some real competition!

Epic: Ok lets make some real competition.

Era: No I don't like it!!
Acting like a console maker on an open platform is not competition. It's the lazy way to do business when you know you can't actually compete.
 
Oct 28, 2017
10,358
#90
So you think they would somehow make more money JUST selling it on Epic store even with their share then selling on BOTH STORES?

That makes financial sense without someone else paying them to not be on another store?
They could decide selling it later on steam considering the bulk of sales are during the first month, they could very much profit from Epic’s share and then tap into Steam’s audience when all is said and done
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,036
#93
It's interesting to see how many people are conditioned into thinking this is good competition.
I posted this in another thread. It really sums everything up, I think:
From "console exclusive", "exclusive (but everyone knows it's timed)", "actually exclusive" to console manufacturers owning their stores and pushing the line that "competition = games that aren't on another platform/store" , Sony/MS/Nintendo/Sega are to blame for:

a) people's ignorance about what Valve do as a company (it's not just games, but people think that because PC is a standard, it must be just games. Or something.)
b) the "Valve don't do anything for their 30%" arguments, when console manufacturers charge the same
c) the false equivalency that store = platform
d) the false equivalency that exclusivity = competition
e) ignorance over what a monopoly is.

People really need to step back and look at how console sales/development/manufacture have skewed perception and conversation about what a digital store is, what a digital platform is, what a company can do, and how all of that can actually be disassociated from making and selling games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,523
#94
They could decide selling it later on steam considering the bulk of sales are during the first month, they could very much profit from Epic’s share and then tap into Steam’s audience when all is said and done
Then there is the issue with just silently moving everything off of steam after advertising it on Steam for a long time, Which is 100% scummy and equally anti-consumer, just by the Developers themselves.
 
Nov 1, 2017
3,418
Eastern US
#95
Well, it's simple. Instead of buying the game for full price initially on Steam, very small amount of people are going to buy it on Epic store. We shall see how long exclusivity stays. Plenty of other games out there once again, and once stuff comes to Steam/GoG/etc... nobody will buy it full price.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,530
#96
There's a difference between buying a studio and start funding their games; and paying a game that was going to release in another launcher to come to yours instead. Heck, I wouldn't care if it was planned like that from the beginning, but they did it afterwards.
Basically this last part. Wouldn't be a big deal to me if fhehy hadn't flipped at the 11th hour.
 
Oct 27, 2017
806
#98
They could decide selling it later on steam considering the bulk of sales are during the first month, they could very much profit from Epic’s share and then tap into Steam’s audience when all is said and done
But why would they remove all the information from Steam? They could have left all that up. Taking all that down implies some sort of exclusivity.