I don't mind changing platforms to keep testing but I'm shocked honestly.
Early fucking speaking.Given all the hacking attempts on my old Epic account after Fortnite came out, I'm not particularly inclined to hand over my money to them.
But most likely less cash in the end. We will all see what will happen."Begun the PC Store Wars has... "
Developer definitely got a better deal over at Epic.
And how will Epic ever compete against a monopoly without any type of insentive?
So paid exclusivitiy is fine because its a different launcher?
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.
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.
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.
Because if it wasn't, then surely selling the game in both stores should make the most money possible?
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
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?
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 gaming having a history of shit tier moves means that pc gamers should be okay with facing shit tier moves too?
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.
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
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?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?
Because the game literally already was on steam?
Do you think the dev just removed it and limited their audience for shits and giggles?
Putting Ashen and SMB:F on watchlist right now, not that they're gonna be removed too
https://store.steampowered.com/app/581660/Super_Meat_Boy_Forever/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/649950/Ashen/
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
I seeRemoving 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'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 ?
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?
It's interesting to see how many people are conditioned into thinking this is good competition.
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.A better share of less customers still equals less money.
It's not like there hasn't been any precedence for that.
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.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
Era: I want Steam to have some real competition!
Epic: Ok lets make some real competition.
Era: No I don't like it!!
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?
Era: I want Steam to have some real competition!
Epic: Ok lets make some real competition.
Era: No I don't like it!!
It's interesting to see how many people are conditioned into thinking this is good competition.
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.
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
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.
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