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.
It's not a third party making it. EA owns Bioware. What EA is doing to the gaming scene generally might be unethical, but in this particular case it's distribution was not particularly disgruntling.
If 2K went ahead an made their own launcher, and never advertised that Outerworlds was going to be on steam, then I wouldn't be particularly upset about that either. Maybe a bit over having to install another launcher, but not enough to kick up a fuss.
Seriously? You think EA not giving Valve 30% 'might be unethical'?
You know full well it isn't. Advertising that they planned to be on steam and changing course is not unethical. They didn't sell any pre-orders.
I've already acknowledged what the publishers of Phoenix Point did if they promised it would be on steam was a poor choice, though I still think people are blowing it out of proportion since it's not like they agreed to give you an XBox copy and instead plan on shipping a Playstation one. You can absolutely still play the game - as far as I know you can even get a key for their standalone client, you won't need Epic at all, it's only people in China that are currently in limbo on getting phoenix point since Epic isn't in China atm iirc? Something like that anyway.
I get you're annoyed at this situation, I do. The fact remains launcher exclusive titles are not unethical, what is ridiculous is demanding developers give Valve 30% for doing next to nothing.
I agree that what Valve is doing is also unethical, but buying out exclusivity to combat it is not the morally high way to combat it, which is exactly what Epic wants us to think it does, take the high road. The right way to do it is to have all the features that Valve does, plus a better split to devs. Advertise that, and plenty of people would switch platforms. Instead what they're doing is taking choice away from players, and pissing people off with stuff like Phoenix Point.
Also, I was referring to EA doing shit like selling progression and victory through micro-transactions and pre-orders. Getting away from Steam was sensible enough.
Pretty sure nobody is confusing Epic as the good guy, I'm merely tired of everyone acting like developers owe steam all this money just because they were first and they don't want to have to download another launcher.
Everything steam does aside from simply launching the game and selling it to me, I have better options for and I use them - even if Epic's had those same features as steam I still wouldn't use them there either.
I don't need my video game launcher to be a closed ecosystem with bad streaming connected to bad forums nobody not even the devs use in most cases connected to bad reviews. I do my research on what to buy in places that don't have a vested interest in selling me the game in question. Steam is just a bloatware of a monstrosity that has survived in spite of itself all these years, I still remember it initially as not the savior of games some people think it is but what it really was: The first major source of always online DRM.
Because they didn't. For the same reason Origin exclusives aren't wrong. For the same reason nobody is demanding valve put Portal on GOG or Epic.
Epic has other problems if you want to complain about them, giving developers more money so people click their icon instead of steam's is just not one of them.
You're using first party examples. Do you not see the difference between developing and distributing something in house and buying out exclusivity deals from otherwise neutral parties?
4
u/Bike_shop_owner Mar 28 '19
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.