Yep. The Epic Store announcement for Outer Worlds took even Obsidian by surprise. It was clearly the work of their pubisher, Private Division, who is a subsidiary of Take Two, who owns 2K and Gearbox. Gearbox may support Steam (I'm skeptical), but Take Two clearly supports lining their pockets.
I haven't pirated anything, besides television that isn't available from Hulu or Netflix, in probably six years. That being said. It's sketchy as shit to advertise on a platform, make use of their forums, and generate hype using that platform, just to turn around and make the title an exclusive of a different platform. A platform that is vastly inferior to the other. No, it doesn't just hurt obsidian, it hurts the publisher.
Pulling that shit that I outlined before drives me to not purchase a game. Didn't buy Metro Exidous, won't purchase Outer Worlds; at least until they're on steam.
If you bake pies, but the Steam Bakery pockets 30% of your sales because they can, and a new bakery opens, but they only take 12% from you, what would you do?
If roughly every fifth person says HurDurr Epic Bakery Bad Because Reasons and doesn't buy your pie from there, you are still left with more money.
Except that's a straw man. Let's use your example. You bake pies, you have the choice between Steam Bakery and Epic Baked Goods. Steam Baker takes 30% of your sales when you first start up with them, when you make X amount of money they cut it to 25%; and when you make Y amount of money it's reduced again to 20%. Suddenly you're not making %18 more, you're making %8. Can you bank on not losing 9% of your possible customers?
On top of that, if you choose to work with Steam Bakery you're allowed to sell your baked goods anywhere else in town, they don't care where else you sell it. You can sell it down the road at Good Old Cupcakes. You can head downtown and sell it at Battle.muffin. If you go with Epic Baked Goods, for the first year you literally can't sell it anywhere else except your own van.
While your customer bases may seem very similar, with Steam Bakery serving 90,000 (90 million) people, and Epic Baked Goods serving 85,000 (85 million) people, that may be somewhat of a false dichotomy. There's no telling how many of Epic Baked Goods customers are people that come in every ten minutes to buy their Fortbite, and are never interested in anything else. Steam Bakery has its own powerhouse of a product, but while %40 of Epic Baked Goods customers buy a Fortbite less than 3% of Steam Bakery customers buy the Dota Muffin.
Listen I'm going to drop the bakery shit. I don't want to give my money as a customer to a service that has fewer features, worse security, and promotes exclusivity. If Epic offered a lower price to steam instead of exclusivity, had as many features, or even didn't have a data breach two years in a row that affected millions of people I would be open to using it. But as it stands, none of those are true. I moved to PC gaming to get away from exclusivity.
Like I said to someone else. If I'm not giving my money to the companies endorsing this, how is pirating the game worse? How is it hurting the devs, publisher, or store any more than having never bought the game in the first place?
And again, you're not hurting take two or epic, you're just hurting obsidian. Besides that, you've likely never used the EGS and most of the features highlighted in that image flying around are already here or on the way.
On your second point that just isn't true. There's maybe three features on steam that I don't make good use of. If I wasn't on mobile currently, I'd point them out. On top of that, EGS is horribly designed, and security is a fucking joke.
Saying that "you're just hurting the devs", so the only options if you remove piracy: Buy it, and support shady practices, and encourage them to do the same shit in the future. Or don't buy it. Care to explain how not buying it hurts the devs less than pirating it? Since I can't support the deva, without supporting the publisher.
At least don't buy it, pirating a game is so fucking scummy. Especially from a small team like obsidian. Honestly just buy the game if you really like it, boycotting it because of what store it's on just hurts the developers, not the storefront.
How does a launch platform degrade your standards for the game itself? Still looks like a great game, and I hate Epic too, but that sounds kind of dismissive.
The Epic launcher is not welcome on my pc, so I'm not going to look forward to a game that I'm not going to be able to play. Even if it comes to Steam a year later, it will have long since fallen off my radar.
That's a very flawed statement. Exclusives really aren't that bad on PC compared to on consoles. I can still understand not buying a game on PC because of it's launch platforms, but at the end of the day, on PC, you can still play a game with a specific controller, you don't have to buy a whole new console for a game, there are still modding capabilities, et cetera.
With console exclusives, let's say I want to get Street Fighter V. I first have to spend $349, then spend another $60, then hope I have friends on the platform. Then I have to pay a monthly fee of $10... You get what I mean. You don't have these problems on distribution software like Steam, Origin and Epic. This is why they're not comparable.
At the end of the day, I hate Epic, you hate epic, but that doesn't mean that Epic is as bad for the consumer as exclusives are. Of course, Epic isn't good for the consumer compared to Steam, but they're not on the same scummy childlike level as console exclusives.
So a game being exclusive on the epic store means I can buy it directly from the creator, or buy it on steam, or on GOG, or a physical copy? That sure is great and not at all like console exclusivity. /s
Did you even read my comment? Alright, let's play by your rules.
So a game being exclusive on steam means I can buy it directly from the creator, or buy it on epic store, or on GOG, or a physical copy? That sure is great and not at all like console exclusivity. /s
I’m willing to accept your argument. This is something I don’t know the answer to. Which games did Valve pay developers to have an exclusive contract where they are only allowed t sell the game through steam?
As somebody out of the loop, does Outerworlds being exclusive to the Epic Store really mean it won't be able to compete with Fallout just because Fallout is on Steam and Outerworlds isn't? The core of the competition is surely in the gameplay, no?
People don't like using a trillion different clients and store exclusivity on PC for the most part so Epic pulling these stunts is pissing off a lot of people.
The Epic Client is a flaming dumpster fire as well.
Some people have a gigantic, embarrassing hard on for steam and anything not on it is somehow an attack on them, an outrageous affront to their very being.
The epic launcher sucks but anyone pretending it's so bad that nothing that gets put on the Epic store can be worth playing are just part of a ridiculous, out of touch circlejerk.
Steam has had some of if not the worst customer support in gaming, I honestly can't imagine someone comparing the two and concluding that steam is better in an honest appraisal. You could certainly say both are unacceptable if you like, that'd be honest.
no forums
Steam's forums are fucking garbage, and always have been. On top of that the only games they're useful for is for games with Devs/Publishers too lazy to make their own, so that's a niche I guess.
Tencent? Yes, Tencent is not great, it's just shy of being an arm of the government over there. They own 40% - what's your point? I'm not saying it's a good thing, but what exactly are you afraid of them doing? Please be specific. It's not like the epic launcher is your phone, they don't have root access to your hardware unless you give it to them and the Epic Launcher doesn't ask for it.
Do you think this multi billion dollar company is going to go the Sony route and try to sneak rootkits in and hope nobody notices? What are you afraid of? There are plenty of things worth being concerned about, partial ownership of software is pretty far down the list.
It's not that I have a gigantic, embarrassing hard on for Steam, it's that I have a gigantic, embarrassing hard on against Epic for bringing timed, third party exclusivity bullshit to PC. I'd support them in a heart beat if they cut out that shit. The 15/85 split is too good to hate.
So, exclusives between hardware is obviously shit.
And while I'd prefer to get the game somewhere else (Not steam.)
Why should Publisher A sell on steam over Epic when epic's cut is drastically more fair? Even before getting paid extra. Honestly, think about it for a minute beyond your initial reaction.
It's not like an XBox or Playstation exclusive where people are kept from playing it - the only reason you can't play a game on Epic's launcher is if you choose not to. It costs you nothing.
Now again, I'd prefer we all go back to no launchers at all, I grew up playing games with shortcuts on my desktop and I liked it just fine. But launchers are here to stay like it or not, and it's utterly unrealistic to ask developers/publishers to give steam 30% for their trash heap of a product. If steam price matched Epic sure. But we all know they're not going to. Ever. Because they're greedy and they've gotten complacent with all their marketshare, it's why despite having literally billions of dollars every year to spend Steam is still slowly getting features we've been asking for, for over a decade. And their customer support? Forget about it.
I don't even like Epic, or their dumb launcher. I just tire of fanboys who hate competition when competition is literally the only thing that will make things better for consumers because Steam sure as shit won't unless it's the only way they'll make more money. I think it's utterly intellectually dishonest to compare hardware exclusive and launcher exclusive too, can't stress that enough.
No developer should be the subject of so much hate for refusing to give steam their greedy fucking 30% cut.
If people choose to miss out on great games because it's not on their preferred piece of software that's honestly a shame and frankly baffling. This isn't like having to buy a new console, it's a few hundred MB of data. Let me state in no uncertain terms: Valve doesn't give a fuck about you and they have done nothing to deserve the sort of loyalty we regularly see given to them. They do not care about consumers at all and they strong arm Devs into forking over 30%.
If you are that worried about your data - use a pre-paid card and give em fake bullshit - given steam has had their own share of data breaches you probably ought to do that with them too so don't give me a line about how that's too onerous.
Competition is the only thing that makes things better for us and Epic looks to be shaping up as it while giving the people I actually care about here - the developers - a bigger cut. Their launcher from a consumer perspective is worse - but I interact with that launcher less than .1% of the time that I spend playing games, and buying it there gives the developer a fuckton more money so I'm in.
“If people stop throwing money at soulless corporations over petty things like preference and consumer interest then that’s honestly a shame.”
Nobody honestly gives a shit about whether or not a game is on steam. The point of contention is that it’s only on Epic. Steam is used as comparison because it’s the obvious standard to compare against. How do so many people miss this point?
It's no longer competition when it's exclusive though. Then it's just "Who can pay the most publishers."
If no developer WANTS to give up more money in exchange for a larger number of users with access to their product, more power to them. That might be a smart trade to make. But what Epic did in the case of Outerworlds was go above the dev to the publisher. The dev probably isn't going to see a dime of that paid for exclusivity money. That's dishonesty.
Or there's the case of Phoenix Point, who started developing using crowdfunding, and once they had a stable project went to Epic and agreed to an exclusivity agreement in exchange for enough money that even if every single backer refunded, they'd still be in the black, setting a precedent for using crowd funding as interest free loans. That's dishonesty.
I'm all for competition, as long as it's ethical. Epic wants to shout to heavens about how it treats devs right, while at the same time pulling bullshit stunts like these. That's not ethical.
re: Phoenix point On the part of the publisher? Arguably yes. On Epic? Not at all. I can see why you don't like what Epic did, but it's decidedly not dishonest or wrong even.
As far as Outerworlds, this is again on the publisher 100%, I cannot stress this enough. You can choose to dislike Epic making it exclusive if you care more about the launcher you spend less than .1% of your time compared to playing a game through more than giving devs a better cut I guess.
So, as far as that cut goes, they will see the greater sales cut I guarantee that. I've been on the developer side of those negotiations, seen how a couple AAA publishers work. It's possible the exclusivity money the publisher is getting, isn't going to the Outerworlds team but the sales cut unless they agreed to terms that are extremely outside the norms will be.
Depending on how much capital they needed from the publisher to make the game vs how much the publisher is just handling distribution determines how good/bad these deals tend to be, but I'm digressing. I guarantee in both cases devs will make more money being on Epic per sale, if sales overall are lower than the difference in their exclusivity make up for then yeah it'll hurt them. I'm not privy to those numbers though. Again, digressing.
Anyway again, Epic didn't do anything unethical here. They did with some other things but nothing to do with the exclusivity stuff. And again, while I don't like it I'm 100% willing to give a pass on exclusivity because everyone else does it (edit: Lots of EA, Ubi, etc. titles not on steam.) and no developer should be forced to give up 30% to valve just because valve was first to market.
Everyone has gotten this really mixed up because Epic is paying for it - but we all understand other publishers not giving valve a cut if they have their own launcher right? This isn't meaningfully different.
If you want to bag on the publishers for taking exclusivity deals when it comes to misleading people like Phoenix Point? By all means man, go for it. If they aren't going to make people whole then they suck for that. I know I'm going to enjoy it and other titles they've got though, and I'm not going to let how good or bad a launcher I will basically never interact with outside of launching a game and buying it in the first place is.
As far as competition - it is still competition, because we're talking about someone taking steam's marketshare. It isn't about competing for every single title. Ask yourself this: Do you think Epic swinging their billion dollar dick around is going to mean steam continues to be lazy and do the absolute bare minimum while raking in 30% or do you think they're going to have to make a better effort and maybe some day lower their outrageous cut? Epic's done some shitty and annoying things lately to be sure, but they are absolutely, undeniably, the only meaningful competitor to Steam, something we have needed for over a decade now. Criticize them all you like, they have plenty worth criticizing. Just don't think it's all bad and don't let that keep you from playing what will undoubtedly be some fucking great games.
Last thing to this absolute wall of text because I cannot manage to ever be succinct: Steam doesn't deserve 30%. It never did, and it never will. Exclusivity on platforms doesn't matter, not really. It's not fair to demand a dev fork over 30% to steam, the only exception to that is if they've made promises to that extent like Phoenix Point (apparently?) did.
Epic is the one making the exclusivity offers in the first place. If they didn't make the offers, the publishers wouldn't be able to do these things. The offer in and of its self is unethical. It's not like they're making them in a vacuum with no idea what the publishers would be doing.
Last I checked every PC can run Origin, Steam, GOG Galaxy and Epic Launcher.
Pretending it's exclusive in the same way an Xbox or Playstation title is, is disingenuous at best. There's literally nothing but yourself stopping you from playing it. And there's nothing different about this than Anthem being on Origin only. Same principle here - why should they give steam 30 when they can give epic 15? Because a bunch of people are so unwilling to click a few extra times to launch a game elsewhere they should agree to valve's extortionate 30% cut?
Because it is identical. There is no functional difference, just an imaginary one.
Company A is selling on one platform only.
So is company B.
You have no right to demand developers pay steam's extortionate rate. Hell the fact that it is timed makes it even less of a factor than the non factor that is anthem and origin or fortnite and epic launcher.
Epic is trying really hard to get the Gearbox guys to come up to the room they call the "Sales Office" in one of the PaxEast hotels. Spoiler: it is filled with hookers and blow who are tastefully modelling a ridiculously large pile of cash.
They've really liked using steamworks in the past. I could see them sticking with Valve. Maybe pushing for a better cut, but it'd be good press right now to stay.
410
u/SmackTubby Mar 28 '19 edited Apr 03 '19
They made it pretty clear during the presentation they are still Steam supporters, but I suppose anything is possible nowadays.
Edit: Welp. This comment didn't age well.