And screw consumer features to get that.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION, DOWN WITH THE CONSUMER!
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Satisfactory removed from Steam to be announced as Epic Store game
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
And screw consumer features to get that.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION, DOWN WITH THE CONSUMER!
This assumes that Epic and Valve offer the same things for their cut.
I bought on Steam, but I preferred to buy on Humble. And, yeah, you could class it as double-standards that I bought Artifact last week, but am coming down hard against this. The difference, though, is that this seems very specifically anti-consumer - literally removing a game from a store at the last minute, and deliberately placing a TBD where the release date was for another game. That's different to Artifact not being available elsewhere from the get-go, and there was never any doubt that Artifact was going to only be available either through Steam or dodgy sellers, just like DOTA 2. The intent to release Satisfactory on Steam was there, then it was very specifically removed because of Epic giving the devs money to make it exclusive. I legitimately cannot see how anyone can say this is "good for the consumer", unless every dev who had a game moneyhatted for timed exclusivity came out and said as much, so as to give the consumer as much information to help them make an informed decision as possible.
Last edited:
I don't get how people, especially a tech writer can do the whole "It's just another launcher to double click" thing mere weeks away from when Betheseda.net was doing things like deleting your preloads, showing you other people's support tickets, had a FUBAR refund policy and system, etc.
Platforms are more than just an .exe to click. Like 3 of them offer easy refunds. Until like a year or two ago Uplay was still making you launch a game to patch it rather than it passively happening. If there are tech issues for say, an unpopular game, I can still usually find that answer on Steam forums. Can I do the same if say, Man Eater or Outer Wilds don't attract enough attention to earn a dedicated subreddit (heck, does Hades, an early access game, have one yet)? There are a dozen different things platforms like Steam (or GoG Galaxy) offer me that many of these barebones ones don't. That's not even going into things that I don't know the answer to like how easy is it to use non Xbox controllers in the store's games, or use the UI with a controller (something Steam and Uplay offer) if I want to play games on my TV instead of my monitor.
Platforms are more than just an .exe to click. Like 3 of them offer easy refunds. Until like a year or two ago Uplay was still making you launch a game to patch it rather than it passively happening. If there are tech issues for say, an unpopular game, I can still usually find that answer on Steam forums. Can I do the same if say, Man Eater or Outer Wilds don't attract enough attention to earn a dedicated subreddit (heck, does Hades, an early access game, have one yet)? There are a dozen different things platforms like Steam (or GoG Galaxy) offer me that many of these barebones ones don't. That's not even going into things that I don't know the answer to like how easy is it to use non Xbox controllers in the store's games, or use the UI with a controller (something Steam and Uplay offer) if I want to play games on my TV instead of my monitor.
Whatever, they'll be back on steam once it stops selling on the epic platform.
They'd be leaving money on the table otherwise.
They'd be leaving money on the table otherwise.
I get why the devs did this, but I think it's bullshit Epic asked for exclusivity (and I'm sure they did, because why else would small indie-ish devs want to also lose Steam sales?)
Is it anti-consumer? Who cares, that term lost all meaning. What's annoying and causing all the uproar here is this: If Epic wants to compete with Steam, they can go at it, but compete in ways that make PC gaming better, like Steam did with BPM, Controller configuration etc. Instead, they chose to make PC gaming worse, even if just by a tiny bit.
Last edited:
Good news: they are not forcing you to use it. You could... just not play the game.
Okay, I can jive with that explanation. Only because it reminds me that Steam has never done the same thing back to any other storefront in the world. Thanks for the response.
(Yes, a mind was changed on an Internet forum.)
You're an editor at Ars Technica and you're this out of touch with why PC gamers use steam?? This post is embarrassing.
As consumer, i don't really care if devs get more. I care that I have to pay more. That the won't be others selling game. Lack of Linux support alone would not be deal breaker, but all in all.
Maybe in future they want consumers in addition to devs, and I can wait.
Still waiting for actual competition.
I totally get that, you are right in your arguments, but also it reminds me of when HL2 was released, something that people seems to have forgotten.
There were not options given by Valve then. Installing steam wasn't optional, it didn't matter if you bought the game digitally or physically. And it didn't make the game or pc gaming any better in that moment. They made a highly desired game exclusive to Steam system to force people's hands into installing what no one wanted to install then, Steam.
And it worked.
Well then, Epic can continue to not put Fortnite on Steam then :P
Dishonest marketing? Because the dev decided to sell their game at a different store? Or do you think people who make games don't have the right to sell their games where they want to?
A big difference is that you could buy HL1 and 2 from places outside of Steam. Retail discs were sold, even.
Again, Satisfactory and Ashen were marketed as coming to Steam, and Satisfactory has been removed, and Ashen has a TBD where there was previously a release date.
Wow, they didn't post any notification for the Steam community as to what was happening, just removed the store page then up and left it seems. :\
undercutting the competitions fees and giving incentives is how Sony was able to steal away Nintendo and segas support back in the day in order to establish the PlayStation. whether or not this tactic works with digital stores will remain to be seen but odds of it succeeding is about as good as it can get thanks to the massive fortnite user base.
Well, the Steam forums are toxic (right? :p ) and Epic are specifically saying they're marketing to devs who don't want toxicity, so it actually makes sense. It's crappy as hell, but there's logic there.
Users here make a good point about controller configuration and regional pricing being big boons for Steam's service. On that same coin, I think it's fair to criticize Steam for certain issues that are unique to them, like poor support response times for problems with account recovery - but at least they've made improvements there.
But I'll definitely disagree that Epic made PC gaming worse - the sheer fact that they only take 12% instead of 30% of sales is a net positive for PC gaming, as companies now have an alternative storefront to select that will host and distribute their games while they take in more revenue percentage to help build their companies. If those companies are run properly, this should eventually result in bigger and better titles.
Does Epic have a ways to go to catch up in feature parity? There's no arguing with that, it's a damn good point. However, if Fortnite's ongoing development and playerbase communication is any indication of how Epic is going to run their store, then there is good reason to believe that Epic will address such concerns in a timely manner. It's not a guarantee - running a storefront is certainly different than supporting a game - but there's no reason to believe they'd drag their feet either. It sounds like they're all in, and they got that ongoing Scrooge McDuck level of Fortnite revenue to back them up.
But I'll definitely disagree that Epic made PC gaming worse - the sheer fact that they only take 12% instead of 30% of sales is a net positive for PC gaming, as companies now have an alternative storefront to select that will host and distribute their games while they take in more revenue percentage to help build their companies. If those companies are run properly, this should eventually result in bigger and better titles.
Does Epic have a ways to go to catch up in feature parity? There's no arguing with that, it's a damn good point. However, if Fortnite's ongoing development and playerbase communication is any indication of how Epic is going to run their store, then there is good reason to believe that Epic will address such concerns in a timely manner. It's not a guarantee - running a storefront is certainly different than supporting a game - but there's no reason to believe they'd drag their feet either. It sounds like they're all in, and they got that ongoing Scrooge McDuck level of Fortnite revenue to back them up.
this is the most entitled gamer nonsense I've ever seen. if you think independent developers are moving platforms to screw over consumers I don't know what to tell you
He's not wrong, though. Indie games are floundering on Steam. The last week or so has been a disaster. The idea of Epic offering to give you a huge advertising campaign, an uncrowded storefront (for now) and lots of money, plus a bigger cut of the profits is pretty darn appealing for a lot of developers.
Pretty much this. That's what I'm doing anyways. I don't even have time to play all great games on Steam, missing a few won't be problem at all. And beign realistic, it is very likely I'll forgot even that these exist.
Times are different, we compare how are the things today. Back then Steam didn't have competition. When Steam initially launched, it was nothing but just a store and DRM. Valve realized that they won't attract people that way so the started adding features. Now Steam is more than a store, its a platform. Epic Store is what Steam was back in ~2005. We shouldn't give Epic Store a slack just because Steam was just like that in the past. It was over 10 years ago.
Yeah, I would have held that in their favor if their store was open like Steam, but it's curated as well - So only the select few can enjoy this positive effect. The real indies who are trying to build their companies will still only be on Steam.
To be fair - When Steam launched, who would it have stolen games from? :P
But I do think Valve/Steam has always had a different view on the industry, and I hope that Epic can adopt some of it as the store gets bigger and they're less desperate for users.
So i guess refunds (it doens't matter that they are annouced, they aren't avaliable and games are already being sold), Regional Pricing, and other consumer side features are missing or out right ignored? And devs are delieverately moving to the plateforms that dont have any of these while also not informing the people on the plateform they previously marketed the game as coming out on?
Shake up the status quo which was cheaper games, more open platform.
Giving us more expensive games, moneyhat to avoid release elsewhere and set the prices.
Thank god for competition.
It's somewhat unSatisfactory. They could have at least made a post about it and invited them over to the new forums at.. oh nevermind.
Yep. From my perspective as the prospective customer, they have lost my custom by both following paid exclusivity, which I abhor for being functionally useless, and forcing use of an ecosystem that has no reliability, is barebones, and featureless. There are so many games vying for what little time and games I can play.
On PC in this day and age, they have no chance of winning me over and chances are even if/when the game appears on a better service, my interest will like be in something else.
I'm confused as to why this is a big deal. Could someone explain to me? I thought the issues with exclusives was that it limited the kind of hardware that something could be played on, but this is still PC, and thus compatible with the same hardware. Is the support forum the main motivator here?
To be fair, "console level 'competition'" gave us our TGA GOTY this year...GoW wouldn't exist were it not for "console level competition"
Dishonest marketing aka false advertising is to provide intentionally misleading information to garner a sale. Like how is posting a game that is going to be released on steam then deciding not to sell it on steam tricking you into buying the game on epic's store?
I should save this as a copy pasta whenever I need to reply to this tired argument:
"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 !""
They tie your purchase to a new set of credentials and server dependencies, and a client with much less features.
I don't really agree.
Since anti-consumer would be ONE platform with monopoly, which Steam almost have.
I would agree with you if the market was more diverse, but since Steam is such a juggernaut, I don't think so in this case (in the long run at least).
It will certainly be interesting to see how these games sell. I mean, Sergey's working there now so of course this information will be freely available to us. He won't even need to use statistics tricks to guess the sales like he did Steam Spy. The numbers will just be right there!
"Has learned how to effectively monetize me" - but I still understand the end result is still better for you if the games are priced well
I've had an epic account for a while for Unreal Tournament (RIP), and I've had literally hundreds of emails along the lines of change your password/attempt to access your account etc. This does not make me inclined to trust them with my card details
Sorry, I don't get it. I was referring to the fact that Steam offers fair regional pricing that lets me buy games I wouldn't be able to buy if they were 1:1 US dollar conversions. I'm not sure if you got that from my post or something else.
That's what happens when only one place sell something: They decide of the price. No GMG, no Voidu, no Wingamestore, no Gamesplanet. Maybe no Humble Store.
It is almost as if Steam providing free keys to the developers so they can sell them enables different shops to compete against steam shop by providing a product with all the steamworks functionality (sadly with less weight on reviews due to some developers exploting them).
Meanwhile only launching on a shop that does give you a better cut but doesn't compete in function nor allows reselling disables the competition of other stores in price.... or maybe i am imagining things. Steam is a monopoly!!!111!!1!
Its almost as if you had read none of the posts in this thread. BRAVO!
Thing is, will this help in the long-run? I genuinely believe PC gaming has hit critical mass of titles, like books and films have. If I'm right, devs - especially indie devs - moving to a new service is only going to delay the inevitable, or even make things worse. There's too many titles to play, and consumers have limited time. How will Epic Launcher help this? Worse, what if more people do what I'm going to do - use the fact that a game isn't on Steam as a reason to whittle down the list of games I'm interested in? Devs lose out immediately by not even being in the running.
Yeah, it's almost as if, having Steam being the only place, meant we had the most open place which meant more fonctionnalities and vendor/hardware agnostic features and also price competition between 3rd party stores.
But it's a good thing we have Competition™ to shake things up and bring us moneyhatted store exclusives, price fixing and broken clients.