• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Supergiant about Epic Store: "Competition is good for everybody. It's good for customers. It's good for people working in the industry"

Oct 27, 2017
5,071
Not the first time they lie blatantly to consumers. Here's their "justification" for going EGS only
"We’ve never launched a game into Early Access before, and our players have come to expect complete, self-contained games from us ever since Bastion’s debut in 2011. With Hades, we knew we really wanted to create a game we could develop in partnership with the community, and from talking to the folks at Epic, we realized their store would be the perfect place to conduct our latest experiment."

Anybody with a brain knows this is a lie. There's zero community outreach or communication features on the store. In fact, the Devs are taking feedback and user outreach... Using their own Discord.
You know, the same Discord that has a store? If their dumb excuse made any sense, they would be Discord exclusive instead.
Hilarious! Yeah, we’re developing with the community in mind, on a launcher with zero community.

This guy’s so full of shit.
 

Pal

Tried to circumvent ban with alt-account
Member
Oct 25, 2017
634
Exclusivity deals provinding no discount do not benefit any way the consumers. I fully understand how it can benefits the developpers however. That said, spare me your bullshit that competition is good while every fucking shop is selling the game at the same price. It's just like Gaz stations over where I live. No matter the petrol company, no matter the station, it's always the same price per liter everywhere.

The only good thing I see out of this for consumers is a new digital store with possible sales event joins the lot. If at a certain moment I want to buy X game and X game is 85% off at the Epic Store while it's not on Steam, I guess I'll bite.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,014
I hate the "competition is always good for the consumer" meme. It's a nice trick that corporations figured out to make people side with them. More competitors in a field usually results in each of them trying to get exclusive features, which reduces the value of each individual competitor to the customer. For example, if you prefer to buy DRM free games from GOG, the entrance of Epic to the market is a net negative for you because there will be less DRM free games you can buy since Epic is snatching them as exclusives. Or if you prefer to use Steam because of the myriad features of steam that other clients don't have, it's just worse for you.
 

BernardoOne

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,287
Imagine keeping a straight face and trying to argue that a game being sold on one single store instead of thirty different ones is not taking away choice.

Just imagine
 
Nov 10, 2017
7,388
He's 100% right and a lot of the people crying in this thread about muh steam aren't seeing the big picture. Epic is doing literally the only thing that could ever possibly work to create a viable competitor to Steam, and I think that's a good thing. Over the short term, I understand that free game launchers are expensive and not everyone can afford more than one, so the consumer is being seriously harmed here, but ultimately I think having more major storefronts is going to be better for everyone over the long run.
Competitor to steam as a games launcher or storefront?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,029
Texas
I think the problem is, you can’t have it both ways. Steam has such an iron grip on the digital PC games market that any potential competitor would have to do something disruptive like EGS for them to be a viable competitor. If EGS didn’t do the exclusivity deals, there is no way on this planet that people would randomly decide to give it a try over Steam.
So, yes what they’ve been doing lately kind of shitty, but I get why they’ve done it, and I think long term it will be for the best to break up Steam’s market share a bit
Obviously we shouldn’t be naive about why they are saying this, but it doesn’t have to be interpreted as supportive of how the Epic store currently works but rather a general statement of more high profile competitors in a market can more more innovation and benefits for the consumer (but not always).

I’m not a PC gamer so I can’t say I’ve been keeping a real close eye on this, but how the Epic store is now isn’t how it will be in five years assuming there is still an Epic store. It feels like some are bothered by this and instead of pushing for positive changes or being hopeful that the competition of Steam and GOG and other storefronts will cause Epic to change for the better they just want Epic store to cease existing. Maybe that would be better, but maybe Epic changes for the better and becomes another competitor that pushes Steam and introduces some good or cool feature of idea that becomes industry standard?
Agreed. You probably phrased it better
 
Nov 2, 2017
1,096
Cool. Another game that I wasn’t aware of that I won’t buy because I prefer the choice of not having the Epic Storefront loaded on my PC. Competition IS good!
 

merf

Member
Oct 27, 2017
199
I think the problem is, you can’t have it both ways. Steam has such an iron grip on the digital PC games market that any potential competitor would have to do something disruptive like EGS for them to be a viable competitor. If EGS didn’t do the exclusivity deals, there is no way on this planet that people would randomly decide to give it a try over Steam.
So, yes what they’ve been doing lately kind of shitty, but I get why they’ve done it, and I think long term it will be for the best to break up Steam’s market share a bit

Agreed. You probably phrased it better
Or they could develop their own content like every other storefront that has exclusives, instead of taking from other storefronts and fanbases, in the process walling off the PC space like consoles.

Origin, for instance, which is waaaaaaaay more feature-rich than EGS despite being waaaaaaay less feature-rich than Steam, has Apex Legends. I've been popping on there every night. They are now having a sale I wouldn't have otherwise known about because I'm in-client. I didn't buy anything, but I did put eyes on everything. Meanwhile, I'm fine with the browsing experience and the client feels good to be in because, again, the EGS is shambles.
 
Nov 16, 2017
1,914
The reality is that moneyhatting is the only way to net exclusives. Exclusives is the only way to draw consumers away from their store of choice.
Whether you like it or not this is competition.
For years people have talking about how steam needs a real competitor and competing stores have existed, but, like, nobody fucking used them.
That last bit was an exaggeration, Matt, I know you use GOG.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,396
I think the problem is, you can’t have it both ways. Steam has such an iron grip on the digital PC games market that any potential competitor would have to do something disruptive like EGS for them to be a viable competitor. If EGS didn’t do the exclusivity deals, there is no way on this planet that people would randomly decide to give it a try over Steam.
So, yes what they’ve been doing lately kind of shitty, but I get why they’ve done it, and I think long term it will be for the best to break up Steam’s market share a bit

Agreed. You probably phrased it better
I agree, the only way to have real competition in the future is to disrupt the marketplace. It will be shitty in the beginning but I think in the end it will pay off. Maybe even force Valve to actually develop some games that interest me again with all the billions they made over the years (that they don't release to the public).
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
765
You think sports are transparent? I could be a seaon pass holder and my number one player gets traded, that's not transparency at all. Epic is guilty of in my eyes removing games from Steam. That to me is unethical.
You aren't a competitor in those sports. You're a spectator. Also the sports themselves are competitions, the management of professional sports teams is something else (probably most closely resembling an oligarchy).
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,807
The reality is that moneyhatting is the only way to net exclusives. Exclusives is the only way to draw consumers away from their store of choice.
Whether you like it or not this is competition.
For years people have talking about how steam needs a real competitor and competing stores have existed, but, like, nobody fucking used them.
That last bit was an exaggeration, Matt, I know you use GOG.

Not the competition people ask for.
I mean, if Epic paid ISPs in USA to limit Steam's bandwith, it'd be competition too.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,255
It's definitely a good thing when struggling niche developers like supergiant games will finally get their deserved visibility on a curated storefront after their last 3 games had bombed on steam.
I didn't knew their games bombed.

People are too focused on the Epic vs Steam fight, but forget that this could mean the life or deaths of some smaller studios.
 

BernardoOne

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,287
I agree, the only way to have real competition in the future is to disrupt the marketplace. It will be shitty in the beginning but I think in the end it will pay off. Maybe even force Valve to actually develop some games that interest me again with all the billions they made over the years (that they don't release to the public).
Lmao

You think that a company (Epic) that has killed every single one of their games in favour of Fortnite... Will make Valve make more games? LMAO
 

BronsonLee

it me
Member
Oct 24, 2017
13,244
I suppose it's worth pointing out that Bastion is still Supergiant's biggest hit by a large swath

My understanding is that Transistor did well but not as well, and Pyre did not do well (though Pyre is my favorite game of theirs)
 
Jan 7, 2018
1,000
Slovakia
If they are happy, I'm glad for them..

But I never buy their games on Epic store, sorry

BTW Competition is good, yeah, but not the way how it right now does Epic.. I mean from the customer viewpoint
 
Nov 10, 2017
7,388
oh.

Well, I got nothing. Since I am primary a console player, monehating is hardly new for me.
Ok, well, moneyhatting is the opposite of what attracts many of us to PC gaming.
Just because its common and begrudgingly accepted in the console space doesn't mean that we need to suck it up and support the epic store. It doesn't.

I like the Epic Store.
You've posted this in more than one epic games store thread.

I like the Epic Store.
He's one from February.

Your troll game is weak lol. 0/10.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
8,842
Georgia
All I care about is Epic paying devs like Supergiant the money they need to keep it pushing and not dumb shit like the Division 2/Metro Exodus moneyhatting

You would think that a team that makes consistently great products would have the support necessary to not venture into funding arrangements like this but hey whaddya know
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,372
The reality is that moneyhatting is the only way to net exclusives. Exclusives is the only way to draw consumers away from their store of choice.
Whether you like it or not this is competition.
For years people have talking about how steam needs a real competitor and competing stores have existed, but, like, nobody fucking used them.
That last bit was an exaggeration, Matt, I know you use GOG.
You are 100% wrong.
The way to benefit consumers, is to fund actual new games as exclusives. Like Tetris 99.

i am going to assume you are just being ignorant, rather than being dishonest. Because the classic way to get Exclusives is to MAKE them. You can even just pay to get an old IP, like Bayonetta 2 for Nintendo.

Moneyhatting is NOT desirable. Instead of spending money making a game that would otherwise not be made, you spend that money to take the game away from other stores. That is generally a horribly bad way to do things for the consumer. And in general, it is also a horrible financial end to the company that Moneyhat. This is why these days MS and Sony mostly do exclusive marketing deals instead.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,038
USA USA USA
I think the problem is, you can’t have it both ways. Steam has such an iron grip on the digital PC games market that any potential competitor would have to do something disruptive like EGS for them to be a viable competitor. If EGS didn’t do the exclusivity deals, there is no way on this planet that people would randomly decide to give it a try over Steam.
this isn't true at all

literally having better features would make people switch to your client given the choice, it wouldn't be random and they'd want to do it, because of those great features they can now use

the problem is that takes effort and actual investments, plans, vision etc and that's too hard so I guess we just throw money around

having all the same games as everyone else and adding some sort of loyalty discount or free 5 bucks for every 50 spent alone would get tons of people to use it. you know something people would like, they could do, and steam doesn't have
 
Nov 16, 2017
1,914
You are 100% wrong.
The way to benefit consumers, is to fund actual new games as exclusives. Like Tetris 99.

i am going to assume you are just being ignorant, rather than being dishonest. Because the classic way to get Exclusives is to MAKE them. You can even just pay to get an old IP, like Bayonetta 2 for Nintendo.

Moneyhatting is NOT desirable. Instead of spending money making a game that would otherwise not be made, you spend that money to take the game away from other stores. That is generally a horribly bad way to do things for the consumer. And in general, it is also a horrible financial end to the company that Moneyhat. This is why these days MS and Sony mostly do exclusive marketing deals instead.
I'm sure you people would be complaining if Epic funded the Supergiant game anyway.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,372
I'm sure you people would be complaining if Epic funded the Supergiant game anyway.
Nope. If a company funded a game, they are free to decide where it could be sold. Nintendo is the linchpin that ensures this. No one is complaining that Nintendo doesn't let Bayonetta 3 be multiplatform. And there is Bloodborne for Sony.
Basically it only take seconds to prove you wrong.

Don't make things up just because you want to believe in false claims.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,807
I'm sure you people would be complaining if Epic funded the Supergiant game anyway.

Would I have prefered to have it on Steam ? Sure.
But if they actually funded it, no, I'd have no saying. Because they would've been bringing something on the table: Money to make a game happen. Here though ?
They're paying a game that's already been done and ready for release (in this case early access) to be delayed elsewhere.
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
765
Not the first time they lie blatantly to consumers. Here's their "justification" for going EGS only
"We’ve never launched a game into Early Access before, and our players have come to expect complete, self-contained games from us ever since Bastion’s debut in 2011. With Hades, we knew we really wanted to create a game we could develop in partnership with the community, and from talking to the folks at Epic, we realized their store would be the perfect place to conduct our latest experiment."

Anybody with a brain knows this is a lie. There's zero community outreach or communication features on the store. In fact, the Devs are taking feedback and user outreach... Using their own Discord.
You know, the same Discord that has a store? If their dumb excuse made any sense, they would be Discord exclusive instead.
Could Discord have provided a comparable platform? I don't see how.

Both of these are addressed. It is entirely possible that Epic was the best all around mix of platform, update support, and community engagement options. That's an internal thing and if Supergiant saw value there that is entirely up to them to decide.

The problem shouldn't be "this developer partnered with Epic because it was in their best interests, depriving us of a game for a few extra months". The problem is when there is a misrepresentation of the business dynamics at play here.

I think a lot of companies partnering with Epic, and Epic's launcher, would be taking far less flak if they were just open with what they were doing.

For Supergiant the message should be - we're a small studio, Pyre didn't sell as well as he'd hoped, with Hades on Epic we have financial security. While the userbase is smaller we also are being given a larger podium to show the game off to that reduced audience through early access and will bring the full game to everyone we can when it is complete.

For Epic the message should be - we're looking to aggressively compete with Steam but without the defacto monopoly Steam has enjoyed for the last decade. That requires us to pursue differentiation, i.e. exclusives. Our intent is to offer a store front for those who don't care about or actively don't want the community elements of Steam but do want a more curated content experience. Yes, we're trying to buy our way into the market. This is how a new entry into an established market gets started.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,014
He's 100% right and a lot of the people crying in this thread about muh steam aren't seeing the big picture. Epic is doing literally the only thing that could ever possibly work to create a viable competitor to Steam, and I think that's a good thing. Over the short term, I understand that free game launchers are expensive and not everyone can afford more than one, so the consumer is being seriously harmed here, but ultimately I think having more major storefronts is going to be better for everyone over the long run.
Can you actually articulate why it will be better for everyone instead of parroting a meme?
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,711
Imagine if Walmart paid Kelloggs an absurd amount of money to be the only place where they can sell Frosted Flakes because "competition". No one would buy that reasoning.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,946
Well Greg ain't wrong. He's talking about the platform being good for competition, not his game specifically. Just because Epic's gamestore hasn't matched all Steam's features doesn't take away from that fact. Not all good competition is necessarily as good as the pre-existing options. The consumer will at the end of the day determine who survives.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,885
He's right and I'm happy for them.
Imagine if Walmart paid Kelloggs an absurd amount of money to be the only place where they can sell Frosted Flakes because "competition". No one would buy that reasoning.
Either people would just buy different cereals or they would shop at Walmart to buy Kelloggs. This kind of stuff is already common. If it's that big of a deal to you, then simply buy different cereals. For a while, Mountain Dew Baja Blast was only available at Taco Bells. It worked in creating something to draw people in.

Retailer exclusive items are nothing new.
 
Last edited:

BernardoOne

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,287
Could Discord have provided a comparable platform? I don't see how.

Both of these are addressed. It is entirely possible that Epic was the best all around mix of platform, update support, and community engagement options. That's an internal thing and if Supergiant saw value there that is entirely up to them to decide.

The problem shouldn't be "this developer partnered with Epic because it was in their best interests, depriving us of a game for a few extra months". The problem is when there is a misrepresentation of the business dynamics at play here.

I think a lot of companies partnering with Epic, and Epic's launcher, would be taking far less flak if they were just open with what they were doing.

For Supergiant the message should be - we're a small studio, Pyre didn't sell as well as he'd hoped, with Hades on Epic we have financial security. While the userbase is smaller we also are being given a larger podium to show the game off to that reduced audience through early access and will bring the full game to everyone we can when it is complete.

For Epic the message should be - we're looking to aggressively compete with Steam but without the defacto monopoly Steam has enjoyed for the last decade. That requires us to pursue differentiation, i.e. exclusives. Our intent is to offer a store front for those who don't care about or actively don't want the community elements of Steam but do want a more curated content experience. Yes, we're trying to buy our way into the market. This is how a new entry into an established market gets started.
Discord actually has community engagement options. It's literally what the Devs are using right now lmao. Meanwhile there are ZERO of these features on Epic store.
The Devs lied. End off.
 
Oct 28, 2017
401
The most disheartening thing about all this is seeing studios I really admire adopt these views. Either I don't get it or they don't give a damn about a sane PC market.

Doesn't change my view of their work but please, just stop with the canned PR.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,705
China
He's 100% right and a lot of the people crying in this thread about muh steam aren't seeing the big picture. Epic is doing literally the only thing that could ever possibly work to create a viable competitor to Steam, and I think that's a good thing. Over the short term, I understand that free game launchers are expensive and not everyone can afford more than one, so the consumer is being seriously harmed here, but ultimately I think having more major storefronts is going to be better for everyone over the long run.
This is not "free" and you as a dev should know that the best.

Chinese gamers cant buy the game.
Epic doesnt support some regional currencies, so the games are more expensive in some regions (and cheaper in others).
Consumers wont have cloud saves.
Consumers cant play it on Linux.
Consumers cant even get achievements (like people who can play Metro Exodus on Steam have cloud saves, achievements and even Steam trading cards).

If the game would be on Steam I could easily stream it to my mobile phone and play it on bed.

Honestly, I am not sure why devs themselves always talk shit about the consumers, saying they are toxic, just because they expect something they got accustomed to.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,175
I agree with Supergiant here. Competition is good. If stores have to fight for your investment and attention that just leads to a better product. I'm tired of steam just running things. Epic shaking things up is nice.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,549
Yeah, a lot of people here side with the people, looking at their own benefit. "I'm not getting benefit from this sort of competition, so it must be BAD". I'm just happy to see devs getting more benefits in this rotten industry.
Ideally, developers and customers should be on the same side. But if they're not, as is the case here, it goes without saying that people will support their own interests. It can't be a business on one side and passion on the other.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,372
Well Greg ain't wrong. He's talking about the platform being good for competition, not his game specifically. Just because Epic's gamestore hasn't matched all Steam's features doesn't take away from that fact. Not all good competition is necessarily as good as the pre-existing options. The consumer will at the end of the day determine who survives.
You are confused. Competition is not the goal. Competition is the means to provide better consumer choice. So if you moneyhat, you decrease consumer choice. That goes against the purpose of competition and thus, is literally not competition.
Competition: Open a new store that sells cakes. Compete with old stores head on by trying to make better cakes.

Moneyhat: Open a new store, and bribe all the bakeries so no other store in town is allowed to have cakes. The number of options decreased rather than increased.