For a lot of devs and publishers, the decision to publish something on the EGS is fundamentally contrasted to having a similar rollout on Steam. not sure what your argument here is, or what you think the "trick" is
-
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.
Waypoint+ |OT| "Fuck Capitalism, Go Home"
- Thread starter Mezentine
- Start date
They're not the only two storefronts and Epic buying exclusivity isn't just hurting Steam, it's hurting the smaller storefronts also. Epic wants to make it about Steam because Steam is "the bad guy" and that overlooks them also kicking the little guys too.
Don't you mean Epic? I don't recall any labor issues coming out of Steam lately (most of the buzz that comes out around Valve is mostly the inefficiency of their flat structure) while Epic is funding its exclusives by grinding the Fortnite team into the ground for rapid-fire content updates.
Either way, the thing that's annoying about how it was discussed on Waypoint is it fell back on being framed as Steam vs Epic as it normally is. Problem is Epic buying exclusives keeps those games away from everyone else, not just Steam. GOG operates on marginal profits and they provide a unique service for those who don't want their games ridden with DMCA protections. EGS exclusivity means no Outer Worlds on GOG for the first year, even though that game is VERY MUCH perfect for GOG's primary audience.
I've just gotten into FFXIV in the last five months, and I've enjoyed ramming through all the content out there to this point. There's a lot to like, and I think Austin would probably dig it if he got to that point. They've done some fascinating stuff in each expansion, and it does an impressive job moving past the limits of the exceptional destined hero trope of the base game.
But also, I totally get the fear, because I only jumped into FFXIV when I did because
And as great as the highs were across the three-hundred-ish hours I've spent to get here, the opportunity cost looking back is kinda huge. It's hard to ask that of anybody.
One point about Steam they bring up all the time is how bad the discoverability has gotten. And I always wonder what they think it should look like.
The reason it has become so hard to get noticed on Steam is simply that the amount of (good) games being released on the platform has gotten bigger and bigger and promotional space is limited. Having had a succesful game in the past will barely help you here.
Now, the way Epic does business is that they basically only make deals with developers with a profile. You are either well known already, had hits in the past or your game has gained traction for whatever reason. Surely that can't be the way to solve the problem? That's just a filter that makes it much harder for newcomers to have their breakthrough.
I have the feeling they have a bias towards the Vlambeers or Kleis of the world. Maybe because that's who they get to talk to the most, who knows.
The reason it has become so hard to get noticed on Steam is simply that the amount of (good) games being released on the platform has gotten bigger and bigger and promotional space is limited. Having had a succesful game in the past will barely help you here.
Now, the way Epic does business is that they basically only make deals with developers with a profile. You are either well known already, had hits in the past or your game has gained traction for whatever reason. Surely that can't be the way to solve the problem? That's just a filter that makes it much harder for newcomers to have their breakthrough.
I have the feeling they have a bias towards the Vlambeers or Kleis of the world. Maybe because that's who they get to talk to the most, who knows.
I like itch.io; I've published games on itch.io; I think it serves a valuable need and I hope it finds greater and greater success. I don't think there's a path to meaningfully raising the bar for how devs are treated by way of competition that doesn't implicitly pressure other storefronts along Steam, and I think that pearl-clutching about the fact that EGS isn't somehow competing with solely Steam is a little myopic about how marketplaces and industries develop.
I've heard this line about how EGS is artificially making Steam out to be "bad", and I think it's also very out of touch with the reality of publishing games. Steam is both bad and necessary for very many developers. EGS, as-is, actually does meaningfully resolve a lot of problems with Steam that impact developers' abilities to make a livelihood. it isn't all rhetoric. listen to what devs publishing on EGS via exclusivity deals are actually saying about their experience
Waypoint recognizes and has talked at length about the extreme precarity of being a indie/mid-tier developer in today's industry, as benj says EGS actually has some material incentives that can help with that via a better revenue split and often an exclusivity payment (or a Sweeney bribe if you prefer)--so why would they just go with the EGS:bad::Steam:good binary that some here seem to want to hear from them?
That's fair, and I definitely think all the storefronts need to improve. I just disagree with storefront exclusives as a solution to that because they're a shitty anti-consumer practice and one that the games industry has managed to more or less avoid outside of store exclusive preorder bonuses/collectors editions.
I also think you are somewhat intentionally putting words in my mouth, I never said that Steam wasn't bad just that Epic would rather people focus on that more than any other harm they're causing. Competition is good, Epic's better revenue split is hopefully something that other storefronts are pushed to adopt but paying for storefront exclusives is just an incredibly scummy practice when it comes to the consumers. Especially if you don't want to support Epic's shitty labour practices on top of that.
I'd rather skip both and buy elsewhere but Epic took that choice away, so instead I just don't buy games that are exclusive to it 🤷♀️
I don't think anyone is saying that?
well that's a big bummer. i hope they do some more thinking about this, but it's also not surprising for someone like austin to look at gamers being upset and handwave it away, which may be the right thing to do 90% of the time, but there are exceptions. But like, you really don't need to look very hard to see how the EGS situation is leading to a worse pc gaming space for everyone, but mainly for consumers.
And it's not an Epic vs Steam thing. That's a distraction that Tim Sweeney is very good at fronting like it's the main event. It's frustrating whenever complaints about EGS lead to someone going "but Steam".
No. If they do, chances are they'll probably wait til the fourth comes out.
Actually I disagree about one thing. Tim Sweeney is not doing a good job of presenting this as 1v1 fight because much of what he says is obvious, disingenuous horseshit (but yet people are buying into it nonetheless so maybe he is).
what is "anti-consumer" about exclusivity deals? is the material cost to the consumer greater than the aggregate cost of numerous devs being forced to shutter because they are incapable of keeping the lights on in an industry in which steam defines the standard? or of steam's total hegemony impacting trends in game development, such that devs have to design their games with things like Steam discoverability, user reviews, Steam discussion forums, and Steam's summer sales actually dictating the game they make because of how important they are to a game's success? how on earth does anyone straight-facedly call an exclusivity deal "anti-consumer" but not apply that same term to Steam's hollowing-out of an entire industry. I don't think anyone would use "anti-consumer" to describe "I have to buy my game on a different storefront" if they spent half a minute actually thinking about what a single-storefront future looks like, especially if Steam is that storefront
It was pretty suprsing and disappointing to see them so dismissive to be honest. Especially in regards in their arguments to Shenmue 3. As in "why would you be upset and not buy it when you've been waiting for this game for 16 years" when the easy answer to that is if you've waited that long whats another year.
In what way does Steam hollow-out an entire industry. The only real argument I see that ever holds any water is about discoverability which is true for any mature medium.
You're answering your own question. It's anti-consumer because it takes away choice and the consumer better be happy with whichever is the one storefront because they have no recourse, whether that store is Steam or EGS.
Again you're putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions about my views on Steam for some reason, despite me being pretty clear that I also avoid using it. It's genuinely pretty gross that you keep just claiming I support shit when I have said I don't.
Just because Steam is also anti-consumer doesn't mean Epic's anti-consumer actions are alright. Trying to force users onto your launcher despite it lacking features compared to the competition is unequivocally anti-consumer. Yes, so is what Valve does.
Discoverability; the impact of user reviews on intentionally niche experiences; the absolute predominance of wishlisting and its effect on the need for prerelease marketing; Steam's effectively-unappealable, unilateral decisions on what to delist; the rigid expectation that devs will maintain their discussion forums and the backlash if they do not; the privileging of institutional knowledge about how to "maintain a Steam page"; the user reviews working to legitimize criticisms of devs failing to live up to some arbitrary user expectation (e.g. twitter accessibility) so long as the review patterns fall outside recognizable "review-bomb" formats; the poor revenue-sharing; reviews' aggregation by recency disproportionately punishing devs who choose not to release dlc/content for their game after release. There's more. A lot of devs have talked about it. Look into it.
That is an incredibly short-sighted definition of anti-consumer and one that is deeply out of touch with what the material reality of the alternative would be for consumers.
Right but they're developer concerns, not mine. I'll take it as it is now and get stuff like Rpgmaker games with cloud saves against the epic store or how steam was a few years back.
EGS offers no improvement to the status quo for consumers. On the contrary.
That's why many hate it and i don't see why that's some super difficult thing to understand.
If Epic had put 1/10th of the rescources they've put towards exclusives into their client they wouldn't get half the shit they are getting. As is, consumers are supposed to cheer for a marketplace that doesn't even have basic things like a shopping cart.
That's why many hate it and i don't see why that's some super difficult thing to understand.
If Epic had put 1/10th of the rescources they've put towards exclusives into their client they wouldn't get half the shit they are getting. As is, consumers are supposed to cheer for a marketplace that doesn't even have basic things like a shopping cart.
You asked how Steam impacted an industry, specifically. I answered your question. Your response is that my answer addressed how Steam impacted the industry, but didn't address how Steam impacts you.
How is that any different than your own misgivings over Steam's impact on the industry due to being large enough it's the de facto primay PC storefront?
Because the context is talking about how steam is anti consumer. Your argument is basically about discoverability but stuff like RPG Maker games and VNs aren't even going to get a chance with a company like epic. Even with Valve is was a process which took like a decade to get those kind of games on steam in any kind of meaningful way. You can't get any less discoverable than literally not being on the platform.
EDIT: in fact I tried to see if theres any rpgmaker games or VNs of epic but I can't because they don't seem to have any categorisation or tags.
Dude, if you are going to keep being disingenuous then I'm tapping out of this.
anyway, far be it from me to spend any more time arguing with people who think EGS is self-evidently net-bad for consumers (let alone devs). suffice it to say that those of you who are disappointed that Waypoint isn't taking a simpler stance on the whole EGS thing: it is, as is always the case with this stuff, more nuanced than a simple stance would allow for. Waypoint understand, better than a lot of people in this thread, that an entire industry's ability to support a diverse ecosystem is substantially bound up in there existing meaningful pressure upon, and alternatives to, Steam for developers consumers. EGS has many bad elements, but this situation is not uncomplicatedly bad.
the effect of hegemony is that it seemingly forecloses the possibility of alternativity; that is what's at the heart of defenses of the status quo in general and in this case. people who think Waypoint should simply condemn EGS aren't "seeing through the bullshit," they just built a home for themselves on the first opinion that came to mind.
the effect of hegemony is that it seemingly forecloses the possibility of alternativity; that is what's at the heart of defenses of the status quo in general and in this case. people who think Waypoint should simply condemn EGS aren't "seeing through the bullshit," they just built a home for themselves on the first opinion that came to mind.
Just because they didn't condemn EGS with the fury of a thousand dying suns like ERA does doesn't mean they were being handwavy. They touched on the legitimate beefs people have and areas where Epic's approach's needs reform. It was probably the most fair & objective discussion I've heard on the topic yet.
This is trueNobody wins when the Epic Game Store vs. Steam discussion comes up.
Nobody.
Nobody wins when the Epic Game Store vs. Steam discussion comes up.
Nobody.
We need the Eva podcast to unite us.
You know what else forecloses the possibility of alternatives? Exclusives.
Caping for EGS on an anti-Steam basis is some real "Death to the old king; long live the new king!"
The storefront conversations just aren't interesting to me because the real questions about which force dominates in a complicated system simply aren't answerable. You gotta do science with numbers that aren't available to consumers (or any one person, probably) and also answer questions about effects so attenuated you can't detect them.
Epic haven't shown any inclination to support a diverse ecosystem though! They literally want the existing market, not a more diverse or expanded one. They might be a force for expanding it when all the kids with epic account go into game buying age but thats in the future and isn't reflected in any of their current actions. On the podcast they didn't address anyones concerns beyond acknowledging steam is its own ecosystem which some people are invested in.
Do you (or anyone else here) remember when they had that discussion? I don't really want to comment again without listening, but this is certainly not how I remember it.
Pretty sure it was the email segment of the Jet Lag Radio Future ep. as Rob was out. It wasn't the most comprehensive discussion, but for once I didn't feel overwhelmed with a bunch of personal preferences/biases/baggage which always seem to color EGS discussions.
yeah that poster is full of shit, despite the big words.
People HATED Steam at first. You know how it became the dominant force? By being a solid platform. And it's not even a fuckin' hegemony or monopoly or whatever. There are exclusive games on other platforms. There's Origin. There's Uplay. There's GOG. There's Humble. Steam has never gone after exclusives. Some of the biggest game of all time - LoL, WoW, obviously Fortnite - have never been on Steam. The notion that Steam has been a negative force for PC gaming is ahistorical nonsense. Of course not everything they touch turns to gold, there are plenty of issues with the platform and the company. But if you're gonna turn criticism of EGS into a Valve versus Epic thing, Epic still loses on every conceivable front.
Pretending Epic is offering some great alternative that's going to introduce genuine competition, and it's not just trying to put a chokehold on the market, is some real contrarian horse shit.
I guess my thing with the whole EGS stuff is that I do not understand why so many people are so worked up about it. I absolutely get that the store could be a lot better and that it lacks a lot of features Steam has, among other issues. I get that exclusivity can be various degrees of a problem, and that it can be frustrating that Epic is seemingly trying to force its way into being a bigger storefront without actually being as good as its competitors.
But there are reasons why people make exclusivity deals. My feelings on them can certainly vary based on the situation, but generally speaking I can understand why devs/publishers would take that money. I think Epic should be a lot more tactful about their approach (ex: did Shenmue really need a year long delay even if you decided to require one?) and how they talk about these things. But I just can't see it as a thing to be passionately angry/annoyed about, at least as a general thing that is happening.
Similarly... "anti-consumer" often feels like a weak shorthand even when it's for a legitimate criticism, personally. If you go with that as the overall focus of your complaints, I think it becomes very easy for personal/petty complaints to get included alongside the more serious ones. To me it comes across as a buzzword that obscures what you actually mean - which may be a very strong point - and it's often hard for me to determine if people using it have some amount of broader context in mind? If that makes sense?
I think they've said they will wait for the last one to be out, which...
well, maybe if they attend a screening; otherwise...
But there are reasons why people make exclusivity deals. My feelings on them can certainly vary based on the situation, but generally speaking I can understand why devs/publishers would take that money. I think Epic should be a lot more tactful about their approach (ex: did Shenmue really need a year long delay even if you decided to require one?) and how they talk about these things. But I just can't see it as a thing to be passionately angry/annoyed about, at least as a general thing that is happening.
Similarly... "anti-consumer" often feels like a weak shorthand even when it's for a legitimate criticism, personally. If you go with that as the overall focus of your complaints, I think it becomes very easy for personal/petty complaints to get included alongside the more serious ones. To me it comes across as a buzzword that obscures what you actually mean - which may be a very strong point - and it's often hard for me to determine if people using it have some amount of broader context in mind? If that makes sense?
I think they've said they will wait for the last one to be out, which...
well, maybe if they attend a screening; otherwise...
I don't know about the exclusives in general, but the crowdfunding thing really bugs me. Crowdfunding doesn't seem that popular on this forum, but I'm a pretty big fan of the concept and have backed a lot of projects. There have been some failures, but overall it's been a really positive experience for me and I personally think Epic is doing real damage to the concept in general when they buy backers. Maybe I'm wrong and it won't make a difference in the long term, but it just feels that way to me.
It also doesn't really help that Tim and Sergey seem like the worst possible spokesmen for a platform (when dealing with consumers).
Player One Podcast and Radio Free Nintendo have had timestamps for years. It's not that difficult to do and I doubt that outlets that don't do it aren't because it's hard, but because they just don't want to.
I miss Danielle so I'm glad she's back for this one.
It sounds like Danielle is on this episode, which is good because I missed her last episode:
Meanwhile, over here on my phone:
Meanwhile, over here on my phone:
Last edited:
They're curtailing users' freedom, and subverting the rights of developers and publishers to maintain a direct relationship with their customers.
The specific problem here is that it's locked down, it's impossible to download apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the store.
In my view, the store, should, must and will, die as a result of industry backlash. Gamers simply cannot trust the platform so long as they give evasive, ambiguous and sneaky answers to questions about the future, as if it's a PR issue. This isn't a PR issue, it's an existential issue.
Their intentions must be judged by their actions, not their words. Their actions speak plainly enough: they are working to turn today's open PC ecosystem into a closed, controlled distribution and commerce monopoly, over time, in a series of steps of which we're seeing the very first.
Oh, sorry, that was Epic's Tim Sweeny talking about UWP and the Windows 10 store. Huh. Weird.
He is of course right. The history of the PC is open-ness. It is, at it's core, an open platform.
It's why you can run any of 17 versions of Windows or 372 flavours of Linux.
It's what allows the PC to support a million different places to buy and download games. Any developer can run their own website, their own store. There are no barriers.
It is a fundamentally different ecosystem to the various console closed-gardens.
The Epic Games Store's approach, of buying up 3rd party exclusives, is totally antithetical to the entire history of PC gaming.
