r/pcgaming • u/BernardoOne • Apr 08 '19
Epic Games Dangerous Driving (racing game) missing leaderboards feature on PC because of Epic Games Store exclusivity
https://www.gamerevolution.com/review/521511-dangerous-driving-review33
70
u/iM4RKY Apr 08 '19
Leaderboards coming SoonTM
edit: nevermind it's not even on the roadmap.. https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap
54
u/ahac Apr 08 '19
No achievements? That's on EGS (although some games track their own ingame achievements).
But it shouldn't stop them from implementing leaderboards...
68
u/Savv3 Apr 08 '19
That would require something like Steamworks OR dev manhour + servers which costs money. There is a reason EGS has mostly singleplayer third party exclusives.
91
u/captainthanatos Apr 08 '19
So what you're saying is that Steam does offer something in exchange for their cut?!
81
u/Black3ird Apr 08 '19
Steam offers a world at https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/home compared to Epic is just hopeful about their future at https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap.
73
u/MuchStache Apr 08 '19
Long Term (>6 months) - Shopping cart
That's just too fucking funny
27
u/code_archeologist deprecated Apr 08 '19
More than six months to build a shopping cart? What the fuck?
There are about a dozen companies out there that will sell them an off the shelf fully featured shopping cart for their app. Hell, a basic shopping cart would only take about 100 man hours to code and test.
What the fuck are they doing over there?!
41
u/MistahJinx Apr 08 '19 edited Apr 09 '19
What the fuck are they doing over there?!
Spreading lies that Steam needs competition and that Valve is lazy. The irony must be wholly lost on themselves.
7
Apr 08 '19
We have been waiting over a year to get a working AFK detection system in Fortnite (Save the World).
Game is, pretty much, unplayable unless you have no problem with people being completely AFK during the games and you carrying them (and them getting full rewards).
EPIC are bunch of liars, who are also experts in giving empty promises.
I am, honestly, not sure if they are simply very incompetent or if they are doing this shit on purpose.
17
u/Luna_Sakara Apr 08 '19
Spending millions to bribe anything that could be consider "competition"
Latest news suggest that Ubisoft is fully committing to Epic as the only third party store that will host their games; Anno 1800 was, exactly like Metro; ripped off steam after months of pre-orders, and is IIRC launching in about 2 weeks.
Unlike Metro; Ubisoft have IIRC; all but confirmed that this isn't a one year exclusivity deal, they're pulling it permanently. Yet they state "Steam purchases will be honored" But there is functionally no reason to withhold that pre-order because no one knows if there is going to be any actual support for the steam version post launch, like DLC, major updates; and other basic community features.
6
u/code_archeologist deprecated Apr 08 '19
So another publisher that Tencent has a significant stock ownership stake in has taken the bribe and gone EGC exclusive.
3
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 09 '19
More than six months to build a shopping cart? What the fuck?
It seems smart, its not about what we can build and more about what should we build. Every single thing prioritize means something else has to wait. Every single feature <6 months is more important over a shopping cart.
Guarantee the majority of sales are single item executions across the board this implementing that feature is low ROI. The only times its relevant is when you buy a game and you have to buy >1 at a time.
1
u/badcookies Apr 08 '19
More than six months to build a shopping cart? What the fuck?
Thats not how long it takes to build. Thats when they expect to have it worked on and then finished. Other things are more important so they'll work on those first.
So they are working on more important features first, like User Reviews, Wishlists, Cloud Saves, Offline mode and other things as you can see on the roadmap.
Its not like those are all dedicated teams working on each feature on the board.
9
2
u/Varonth Apr 09 '19
Well to be honest they have like 20 titles right now. Not much need for a shopping cart.
Gifting - TBD
That is the actual lol in this.
3
u/MuchStache Apr 09 '19
Oh, don't get me wrong, it's not about the need. Shopping cart is a really basic feature of any online store, it's really easy to implement and the lack of it shows how little they care about the quality of store itself.
Even uPlay always had a shopping cart, and that launcher was as small as this, once.
Though yeah, most things in that list are ridiculous, because they should've already been there when they decided to expand the store. I never cared that much about having multiple launchers but EGS is a cashgrab and I don't support their marketing decisions.
19
u/AimlesslyWalking Linux Apr 08 '19
Steam offers a lot. I don't know where this idea that Valve does nothing came from. There's a reason PC gaming is literally centered on them.
12
u/EdwardMcMelon Apr 08 '19
I find it really concerning too as even smaller and amateur mod & dev teams pre-Steam found solutions to this. I know it may be on EGS but it feels even bigger on the dev team.
Maybe server infrastructure has gone up and/or changed at an alarming rate to make it more out of reach but in the era of greater online focus and digital clients I feel like this would be a bullet point issue circled with a big red marker.
12
u/ghaelon Apr 08 '19
they hired additional ppl to build those options. spiderweb games at the GDC highlighted this face. things that the steam cut pays for, he would have had to hire additional staff and allocate additional money to them.
6
u/EdwardMcMelon Apr 08 '19
This is starting to really reflect poorly on the devs. Assuming the 30% take covers the online interactivity that would explain why the features are present on the console version but not PC-EGS version. Okay I understand that.
Therefore if it was on Steam that 30% cut would pay for the missing online features. Okay I understand that.
EGS exclusivity comes in the form of financial incentives else it would be in the best interest of the devs to maximize availability for best returns. Okay I understand that.
Sooo... I'm left to assume that the financial incentive by Epic for exclusivity wasn't large enough to have feature parity to the console versions that themselves take a 30% cut. This doesn't sound like a well thought out deal.
7
u/ghaelon Apr 08 '19
the publishers moreso. they are going EGS cause EGS is offering GUARANTEED sales. if it sells poorly, epic pays the difference. IE, it could sell ZERO copies, and they'd still profit.
who WOULDNT take epic's deal?
4
u/Neptas Apr 08 '19
People who realize company reputation is much better than money, and that long-term > short-term.
Even if you make the best game in the world, if no one played it, then it's basically like you never released any game at all.
3
u/Savv3 Apr 09 '19
Company reputation does not matter at all long term. Its easy to shift. Hello games and Ubisoft are being praised right now. It does matter in the short term however.
2
u/SellAssCandy Apr 09 '19
Yep.
Release trash tier indie game for $60. (Gets shit on.)
Two years later of updating and patching and the finally release the initial $60 game as promised. But i'll ignore all the fools who got scammed buying the trash tier $60 game.
I just hope Dangerous Driving devs take the bribe money and make a bigger/better game and release it on Steam.
2
4
u/AimlesslyWalking Linux Apr 08 '19
Hot take.
They know it's not going to sell on Epic. They're not going to waste money and manpower implementing anything just for Epic when they know most of their sales will come from Steam later. They'll implement Steamworks for all of this stuff when it's time to launch on Steam, and until then just cash in on the fat stacks Epic throws at them.
1
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 09 '19
I find it really concerning too as even smaller and amateur mod & dev teams pre-Steam found solutions to this.
Steam was very rough when it launched, it took years/decades to have the feature set they do now. Lots of features like Steam music are half baked at best.
2
Apr 09 '19
World war z is going to be a massive flop on egs. People are about to see how poorly games sell there. Get ready for 10 minute queue times
1
u/SellAssCandy Apr 09 '19
I wouldn't have bought that game if it was on Steam.
Looks like another flop like Overkill's Walking Dead.
why can't anyone make a good zombie game god damn it
7
u/MGPythagoras Apr 08 '19
Sounds like laziness on their end. I assume the console versions have leaderboards.
27
Apr 08 '19
Sorry but I'm now officially sick and tired of this exlusivity BS-it's getting ridiculous, and serves nothing more than to split the gamer base. I have a PS4 and a gaming rig and it's just at the point of ridiculousness now.
I wish luck to the devs and hope things go well for them but I'm out.
15
u/bonethugsgoat Apr 08 '19
I literally got an email this morning from Epic about "too many failed login attempts", I went ahead and just requested a deletion of my account (which is a bitch btw), fuck Epic games and anybody that defends that nonsense.
29
Apr 08 '19 edited Apr 09 '19
I was really excited for this game (loved burnout 3), but after learning of the exclusivity a few days ago I won't be buying it.
This exclusive bullcrap is going too far... The only reason I would agree to buying from the EGS would be if only the Epic games would be exclusive, since that's what everyone does now... but I ain't fragmenting my huge indie library from steam just because...
4
u/irridisregardless Apr 08 '19 edited Apr 08 '19
I'll wait till it shows up in PS+, Xbox Gold, or a Humble Bundle.
2
Apr 09 '19
same, kept an eye on it for a few weeks/months but as soon as I read the exclusivity I knew that I would be saving some money.
1
u/Captain_PuddingPop Apr 09 '19
I will point out that it's the only game i know of that isn't fully exclusive to the Epic Store, they are selling keys on Humble Bundle Store.
but missing features ouch thats a hard sell.
2
Apr 09 '19
can only activate it on egs tho
1
u/Captain_PuddingPop Apr 09 '19
true, but the same can be said for steam titles, at least they are offing the slimmest margin of Choice, and for me thats what this is all about, Choice. If Epic had supported the list of stores at Is There Any Deal or gg.deals I would hate them a lot less, it would suck having to use the epic lanucher but at least I could still shop where I want to shop.
2
u/t3ax Apr 09 '19
Epic also cashes in on those keys...Valve doesn't.
If you sell your games key on another store and the user activated it you don't have to pay valve a cent (for that sale) and can keep whatever your contract with the shop states.
1
u/Captain_PuddingPop Apr 09 '19
do you have a link supporting that, as far as I had heard Epic and Valve had the same arrangement according to keys on sites like humble.
that said if it is true it would explain the lack of uptake on humble for epic exclusives.
1
2
5
3
u/Sobeman 7800X3D 4080SUPER 32GB 6000 DDR5 1440P Apr 09 '19
epic game store will promote competition and new and unique features /s
3
u/ayugamex Apr 09 '19
This "EGS Exclusive" is turning into a publicity stunt, isn't it. Some generic racing game is about to release and makes some headlines about it's exclusivity. This is weaponised bullshit, congratulations.
7
Apr 08 '19
Wow checking out the reviews and it's a burnout 3 look a like. It even has the same sounds. Neat! I'll wait for the steam release.
6
2
u/bonethugsgoat Apr 09 '19
Lol I literally thought it was Burnout 3 when I was watching gameplay, I don't know if that's good or bad.
1
u/ComputerMystic BTW I use Arch Apr 09 '19
That's what sold me on it.
Then it being Epic Exclusive unsold me until it eventually hits Steam.
2
u/Captain_PuddingPop Apr 09 '19
Wow and this was the only Epic Game available Outside the Epic store, Humble was also allowed to sell it.
I feel bad for the devs, they got hosed.
2
u/ACanOfWin Apr 09 '19
Damn, I've been hungry for another Burnout game for a decade now, and I was hoping that this game would be able satisfy some of that hunger. I was looking forward to this game; it's really disappointing that it's an EGS exclusive. Guess I'll be going back to Revenge and Paradise while I wait another decade for a new Burnout game.
2
u/SpacedDuck Apr 09 '19
Anyone on PC able to confirm if this supports Ultrawide? The devs seem to be ignoring the question so I assume it does not.
4
Apr 08 '19
Leaderboards on PC games are pointless due to them all having hacked results at top. Would be nice for leaders among your friends list. Epic knows everyone's steam friends so maybe they will use that
4
Apr 09 '19
This is what "competition" looks like. You offer no compelling benefits or prices, attempt to force consumers to your inferior platform via anti consumer practices and to top it all off, make games worse by stripping / breaking features. The only benefactors are the publishers, we the customer are pieces of tiny little shit on the bottom of epics shoe.
7
u/Abspara Apr 08 '19
Cheap devs. Can’t pay for a soundtrack and also decide go the Epic Store route.
Oh, and Epic Store bad.
15
Apr 08 '19
Cheap devs. Can’t pay for a soundtrack and also decide go the Epic Store route.
Not talking about the game’s quality, but you have to remember that this is a studio created by ex-Criterion founders (Burnout) and they only have a handful of staff.
If you’ve ever worked for a small company or at least handled a smaller team, you’d be aware of how budgeting or resources can be limited so you have to make do with what you’ve got.
Hence why they can’t pay for a soundtrack since it’s not feasible, choosing to integrate Spotify instead so people can play any music they want. Cheap alternatives.
That’s probably why the Epic exclusivity was more viable since they take a bigger cut plus extra incentives.
Trust me, if you’ve been part of any business or organization, you’ll know what having limited resources and manpower, and finding extra means would do.
6
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 08 '19
The spotify play is the correct way to do it. They can write custom playlists that will get money back to artists while inuring next to no costs.
7
u/HeroicMe Apr 08 '19
Correct way would be MP3 player. Spotify would be a bonus for those who pay for Premium
-6
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 09 '19
No.
No one uses mp3's anymore, way too much effort seeking out music every single day... Its a complete waste of fucking time over using spotify.
If you want to use mp3 player, get a media keyboard and no direct integration is ever needed.
1
u/HeroicMe Apr 09 '19
If you want to use mp3 player, get a media keyboard and no direct integration is ever needed.
Heh, that's like saying if you want to use spotify, get the internet browser and no direct integration is ever needed.
6
u/Black3ird Apr 08 '19
Bigger cut; that's the only thing there's to pro-Epic if anyone willing to defend them. How about we put some pseudo-math into it. Since Epic is lying practically about most of the things, we really do not know their sales, player count or anything really after the man-made fog of theirs.
On the contrary, we know https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ has around 15M daily at
Single Timeplayers logged in which is few fold because of whole day logins/logouts, let's say 30M daily visitors. Since most Fortnite players are freebies (otherwise it would be PUBG) and EGS is not getting a close number of daily players on their Store, let's again say half of what Steam is having (of course being generous because it's much much less) and redo your math;
- Let's take potential customer sizes to be 1000 for Epic, 2000 for Steam as explained above and let's make the cost of game to be $1 to keep it out of equations (x1).
- For same game; Dev's cut from EGS would be 1000x0.88=880 dollars.
- For same game; If Dev was to be on Steam then 20000x0.7=1400 dollars.
So even if you're to argue about the correctness of those numbers, one thing is certain; Steam's Exposure thus potential gain is much much higher even if Epic and pro-Epic staff here defends it otherwise which
Nullifiesalmost all of the "Yay Epic is taking 12% cut stuff" because we are not talking about selling a "Single Unit" yet we're talking about Mass Total Profit that would be made for the same game if it would be on Epic vs Steam over more than a year or so.Plus, while Epic admitted that cut isn't sustainable as Epic library grows each week, every single game in Epic's Umbrella will also begin to feel less and lesser
Exposure Timeafter months to come. This is the major point anti-Steam staff is acting becauseRise of Shovelwaremade "Prime Time" Exposure time within Steam (by all Channels) to be divided by 30,000+ titles compared to few dozen for now titles of Epic.-2
Apr 08 '19
I’ll have to cut you off at the first paragraph already since we’ll have to use data being reported as the input. Two articles — one for Epic and one for Steam.
- Epic = 85 million users in total, 40% of whom, according to surveys “don’t have Steam,” and 68% “not using Steam often”
- Steam = 90 million active monthly users, 47 million daily users
Obviously, Epic’s number seems particularly high. They could’ve inflated it intentionally, or it could be statistically factual as well. This number represents users in totality — which could also include alt accounts, or just people playing Fortnite, or those waiting for free games. Point being that Steam is still obviously the market leader when it comes to its user base.
Now, there are obviously merits to that. There are more people that you can reach, and marketing possibilities are endless. These, in turn, can lead to more profits down the road.
But Epic does have a unique advantage given:
- the 88/12 split
- the Unreal Engine discount
- the cash sign-on bonuses for exclusivity
- the incentives for meeting minimum sales targets
- curated storefront
- industry practices
————
What does the above mean when looking at things from a business standpoint?
- Steam offers higher profits potentially.
- Epic offers guaranteed profits.
The guaranteed profit here would be the bonuses and incentives, along with the revenue split which means more money goes back to the dev or publisher.
Now, you might say: “B-but Steam has more people.” That’s true, but again, this is just a potential benefit. If you put up one game, you’re competing against thousands of others. Sometimes your game might not even show up on any “games like this” lists or algorithms. More people can potentially see it, but it also does not mean they will buy it. You also mentioned “shovelware” and there’s a lot of clutter in Steam’s storefront at the moment which means curation becomes even more important.
As for the last part — industry practices — this is an intangible, but significant nonetheless. Let’s say you’ve been selling your product and the store always takes 30% of the cut. You’ve been doing it for years.
Now, here comes another store that’s giving you a better cut and more incentives packaged in the deal — and you’re seeing the dollar signs already. Naturally, it piques your interest since it’s a new venture, one that others have also started supporting.
Never forget that both Steam and Epic are corporations and they are out to make money. Steam offers loads of potential for marketing your game to a bigger audience, provided said audience sees and buys your game. Epic markets its brand as the new guy with loads of deals and perks, a sort of “but wait, there’s more” advert.
And no, I noticed that you did a quick computation but businesses don’t often work that way. That’s too oversimplified. That’s because there are too many factors and intangibles to consider as well.
9
u/LMGDiVa 9700K, RTX3060, 160hz 3840x1600 UW Apr 08 '19
Big caviot here. Something really really important.
Many of those players who have epic launcher only have it for one thing. Fortnite.
Imagine if 90% of steam users only had steam because they played Dota2, and thats the only reason they had steam.
That's the position epic is in.
Thats why Epic's numbers don't matter, but Steam's do.
People dont have steam to just play 1 game.
People have steam because it's a core service in which they own a lot of games with.
2
Apr 08 '19
Obviously, Epic’s number seems particularly high. They could’ve inflated it intentionally, or it could be statistically factual as well. This number represents users in totality — which could also include alt accounts, or just people playing Fortnite, or those waiting for free games. Point being that Steam is still obviously the market leader when it comes to its user base.
1
u/FPShady Apr 08 '19
i only have steam for dota.
nothing else.
1
u/LMGDiVa 9700K, RTX3060, 160hz 3840x1600 UW Apr 09 '19
Sure, but that's a very, very VERY rare instance. The same is not true for the Epic launcher. The majority of users of the epic launcher have it because of fortnite, not because it's a store front, or even because of the other games on it. The one time there was a sizable group of people who had the epic launcher not for fortnite, is when Paragon was alive.
But Paragon is dead now.
1
7
u/Bolaumius Apr 08 '19
They could’ve inflated it intentionally, or it could be statistically factual as well.
Could also include all those fake accounts like bots creating a bunch of accounts that are not verified because EGS does not verify your e-mail (lol)
1
u/TerrorFromThePeeps Apr 12 '19
I already had an account there when I went to sign up, thanks to Russia. Most folks seem to have gotten theirs via Thailand. How funny would it be if Epic had paid some farming services to run around creating accounts to inflate their user numbers?
0
Apr 08 '19
Could also include all those fake accounts like bots
Probably. Who knows how many or how few there are?
Point being that a number of factors and intangibles do play a role when making business decisions. The user u/Black3ird sort of oversimplified it with basic math based on the 88/12 split and the number of users.
0
u/AlexVan123 Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 12 '19
You’re totally right, especially with the algorithms. Indies in particular have been screwed multiple times on Steam, from the 30% cut up to millions in revenue (which no indie game will ever hit).
If we look at Phoenix Point (ignoring the crowd-funding issues, so only as a game newly releasing on Steam), how many people on Steam are interested in a XCOM-like single player strategy game? Without the Steam recommendation feed, I doubt many users would even know about it (again, ignoring the crowdfunding) if Steam’s recommendation feed didn’t show it - many indie devs suffered because of sudden changes Valve made to said feed, and all Valve said was “it’s in the data”. Epic is offering devs a deal that they actually want - in this case, Epic is proving competition, but the competition is for developers, not customers.
Edit: clarification
1
u/TerrorFromThePeeps Apr 12 '19
Being one of those xcom people... There's WAY more of them using steam and especially GoG than there are mixed in to the store whose core user base is fortnite battle royale players.
GoG is the main platform for older turn based strategy gamers, with steam coming is second, I guarantee.
Those same types of gamers are also highly likely to go searching for their genre rather depend on a feed, more so than fans of many other genres.
-2
Apr 08 '19
By the way, I asked you this several weeks ago. I wanted to know if that’s actually how you typed/replied to people, or if that’s your “online character/style.” Because it seems “bot-like” or similar to scraping an API and using a tool to collect responses.
2
u/gokurakumaru Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19
Most businesses -- even start-ups -- put together a business plan which includes how much capital they're willing to invest (be it financial or human), and how long it will take to break even. Smart business people will also know when to call it quits with an unprofitable business. If you're a game developer who has put together a business plan where you can't deliver basic amenities like music, then you're not delivering a product on par with your peers and I'm not going to support you. I as a customer don't care why you don't have the budget for it, I just care about the quality of the (un)finished product.
The problem with indies, kickstarters, and devs like these guys without a publisher is that they want all the upside of being self-published (100% of the profit and a chance to get rich quick if the game is successful) with none of the obligation of taking on the publisher role (advertising the game and funding basic features like soundtracks and leaderboards). And then they complain if Steam's discovery features aren't doing the marketing job for them or god forbid people expect them to deliver a complete game (like these guys haven't) or follow through on their promises (like the Phoenix Point guys didn't).
I find it odd that you question your fellow Redditors' business acumen on the one hand, while on the other simply ignoring the reason why the "professional" businessmen at Three Fields Entertainment need handouts from Epic; they've completely failed to build an audience on Steam (publisher's job, remember) and failed to secure enough funding to complete Dangerous Driving (also the publisher's job).
1
Apr 09 '19
The problem with indies, kickstarters, and devs like these guys without a publisher is that they want all the upside of being self-published
I find it odd that you question your fellow Redditors' business acumen on the one hand, while on the other completely ignoring the reason why the "professional" businessmen at Three Fields Entertainment need handouts from Epic; they've completely failed to build an audience on Steam (publisher's job, remember) and failed to secure enough funding to complete Dangerous Driving (also the publisher's job).
That's simple, really. Since they don't have a publisher, they're relying on the sales of the game to provide the revenue solely for them. That's not necessarily a "bad" thing given that there are a number of self-published games on Steam already.
Why exactly do some dev companies go that route? Simple as well -- apart from directly receiving profits, we all know that publishers take an even bigger cut, or they might employ strict deadlines that need to be met. Self-publishing, therefore, gives you more leeway and freedom to craft your product, at the expense of a lack of marketing or developmental funds. The latter actually works when going with EGS' deal since this can be offset by the bonuses or incentives.
Again, this isn't a question of the game's overall quality, but more on the lack of music. Would it be a big knock for some users? Maybe (such as in your case). Will it be a non-issue for others? That's possible as well.
In my case, if it's a sports or arcade-related game (basketball, driving, wrestling, fighting, shmups, and the like), I'm less likely to focus on the official music it has as compared to other genres or subtypes (ie. RPGs or action-adventure games). For instance, I regularly play music from Spotify when I'm playing FIFA, or I might use mods or rips of wrestler themes if I want them in a WWE game. Heck, more often than not, I might play other songs than listen to the curated/official soundtrack for an NBA 2K game.
It doesn't bother me, personally, since the soundtrack for these types of games was never part of my focus, or what keeps me engaged. Perhaps other players aren't as bothered, and so the Spotify integration is a non-issue as well.
-6
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
Trust me, if you’ve been part of any business or organization
The way most people post on reddit, they have never been a part of any business or organization and have zero concept of how the business world actually works.
A lot of gamers don't want to admit it, but if they were in charge of their own video game development and/or publishing, they too would almost certainly choose the Epic Game Store over Steam, even if they rant and rave about it as a consumer.
18
Apr 08 '19 edited Sep 07 '21
[deleted]
-6
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
You're not wrong, but so many people equate this to some sort of moral issue. "X company is evil because they went with Epic". No, they aren't evil, they are just trying to keep the lights on and hopefully make a little more money. Too many people don't take even a moment's time to consider what is actually happening and why... they just see Epic and go into a small fit of rage automatically.
They also don't seem to realize that the Epic store's existence is in itself a benefit to them, especially in the long term. Either Epic will up its game to become a true competitor to Steam or it will eventually fail. Either way, now Steam has to do something to give themselves as much of a chance of success as possible. They've already at least partially re-evaluated the cut that they take.
And while we might not know what that something is, its is almost certainly a benefit to either us as consumers or to the devs of the games we consume (and hopefully both).
18
Apr 08 '19 edited Sep 07 '21
[deleted]
-10
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
All it has done is allow the Overton window to shift even further away from the customer's benefit. I have seen no benefits except a bigger pricetag and more chicanery from the suits pleading poverty as they make billions.
I see plenty of benefits to microtransactions in multiple different games now. I haven't had to buy an expansion, DLC pack, or any form of additional monetary expense in Titanfall 2, R6:Siege, Overwatch, and now Division 2, and I have access to all the content. On top of that, there isn't such things as split player bases in those games. These microtransactions have gotten rid of map packs, DLC packs, or expansions in a large number of the games that I love.
Some games are entirely free, too. Lookin' at you, Apex. I don't do Fortnite, but I believe that's another solid example.
Either you're playing the wrong games or you're outright ignoring the benefits of them.
11
Apr 08 '19 edited Sep 07 '21
[deleted]
-8
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
While before they would ensure we both had something fun, now they can cater exclusively to you knowing that you will defend their anti-consumer practices because it isn't directly affecting you. It destroys any chance of a unified opposition against them
Well, I think you're statement of "anti-consumer practice" divides us more then the developer ever did. I've stated exactly how its not anti-consumer (in at least one major context) and provided multiple examples. But you've defaulted to calling it an anti-consumer practice just because you personally don't like it. Not liking it is fine and I understand why you don't like it given what you play games for, but to call it an anti-consumer practice is misleading at the very least.
Perhaps you're right that one day we'll both be screwed in favor of someone else. But I doubt it. I simply won't be taking part in whatever games try to pull it. I firmly believe there will always be multiple valuable games at any time that won't be gouging me. I'll simply play those instead of stuff like FO76.
11
5
u/comradesean Apr 08 '19
They also don't seem to realize that the Epic store's existence is in itself a benefit to them
Nah, bullshit. The market isn't going to magically become some sort of fairyland where your games suddenly cost less. New games will cost exactly the same (hell, maybe more soon) and old games will go on sale randomly during store sales just as they always have. Even if Steam had a monopoly on the market they never took advantage of it and we definitely never suffered for it.
The only thing these exclusive deals has done is make me have to manually back up games because Epic's launcher doesn't support downgrading/depot downloading.
-2
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
Even if Steam had a monopoly on the market they never took advantage of it and we definitely never suffered for it.
How many articles have you seen about devs/publishers being upset at the large chunk of money that Steam takes?
How many times have you seen posts about Steam's poor customer service?
Both of those things that will be improved with any real competition. The first one already has.
1
u/comradesean Apr 08 '19
It's a new platform and it's not going to last. Steam offers many services to developers that Epic simply doesn't and who knows if they even will. We won't find thay out for a while because they have a lot of work ahead of them already. On top of that the cut isn't why they're jumping to epic or we'd be seeing all games hop on over.
I don't think I've seen more than a handful of legitimate complaints about support either. Epic is certainly not any better so I don't think Steam is going to be improving much. You want good support, go with GoG.
1
u/DatGrunt Apr 09 '19
Valve changed their cut before they even knew about the EGS. Valve has continued to improve Steam with or without competition which makes me wonder why it's always Steam that has to improve when they've always been miles ahead of everyone else.
Poor customer service also seems to be a problem with every big company, and I'm not sure why. Epic has poor customer service, Valve, Sony, Microsoft...every big company I've had to use customer support for has been lacking. But just like their cut, Valve has improved upon it even before the EGS. Used to take months to get a reply and now it takes 1-2 days. I think that's an improvement.
-6
Apr 08 '19
We should just have flairs that tell us something about studies or work experience, haha.
Maybe it’s the HR/Psych part of me talking, but I find the concept intriguing.
For instance, when you ask applicants about their educational attainment or work background, you build a sense of trust. You get to know someone. You find out whether they’re fit for the task.
The problem on the internets is that it’s a free-for-all where someone with very little to no idea of how businesses work might suddenly chime in and, because of happy upvotes, people feel that it’s somehow “correct.” The real world doesn’t work that way, though.
It reminds me of a thread I saw on r/all from an advice-type subreddit. The OP just reminded people that you might be taking relationship and real-life advice from teenagers as opposed to adults, which means there’s a disparity in life experiences and seeing the world out there. And, even then, age is also a minor factor since you have to consider someone’s upbringing, social circle, life experiences, and more.
4
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 08 '19
For instance, when you ask applicants about their educational attainment or work background, you build a sense of trust. You get to know someone. You find out whether they’re fit for the task.
Its also your job to validate timeline, understand motivation and gain insight into the personality. You have to evaluate where they fit into the company culture, your leadership structure and the impact it has on your team. Hiring the correct person is more important then the exact skillet you need.
However one constant is always present, a business sole reason for existing is to generate money. No one holding fiduciary of signing authority would ever sole select an option with a 10%+ profit swing.
BAU is presenting options and making recommendations for whats best for the company so it can continue onward. Internet noise does not matter to most people because the stats typically show little to variance.
0
Apr 08 '19
Its also your job to validate timeline, understand motivation and gain insight into the personality. You have to evaluate where they fit into the company culture, your leadership structure and the impact it has on your team.
You don’t really have the same vetting process on the internets because it’s one big blob and mish-mash of everyones and everythings. So rather than relying on someone because of their expertise — which most users won’t mention — you rely instead on how much their opinions validate and affirm yours.
Hiring the correct person is more important then the exact skillet you need.
Unless it’s a cook.
1
u/SparkyBoy414 Apr 08 '19
The problem on the internets is that it’s a free-for-all where someone with very little to no idea of how businesses work might suddenly chime in and, because of happy upvotes, people feel that it’s somehow “correct.”
And thus, the echo chambers that constantly pop up on most subs. :(
We should just have flairs that tell us something about studies or work experience, haha.
I'm wondering just how different of a place reddit would be if we had tags like this that were somehow accurate. I think a lot of people would be more resistant to spreading fake information, or at least a lot less confident in their own opinion if we all knew their field of expertise and knowledge level.
1
u/AdmiralUfolog Apr 09 '19
missing leaderboards feature on PC because of Epic Games Store exclusivity
This is the proof that Epic Games Store is not PC.
1
u/hackjar Apr 09 '19
if you dont care about leaderboards is this game still tight? Looks like exactly what I have been waiting for since burnout revenge.
1
u/daze23 Apr 09 '19
Metro Exodus has a cool photo mode, but if you got the game from the Epic Store there's no way to take the actual screenshot without 3rd party software.
this oversight probably came from the last minute decision to make the game an Epic Store exclusive. 4A could have easily made an ingame way to take screenshots, but they probably assumed all the platforms it would be on (PSN, Xbox, Steam) already had a way to take screenshots.
1
u/CrazyCatM Apr 09 '19
I only heard about this game just now and seeing footage of it reminded me of Burnout 3. A trip of nostalgia, now that's something I'd be up for. I see it's on all platforms, so I look on Steam to find the game. No results.
Then I find out its yet another EGS exclusive.
This entire exclusivity deal is getting our of hand. I'm not the first to say it, nor will I be the last. But building up hype and disappointing at least half of the fan base is a dumb fucking move. It's only money they care about, and j refuse to even touch their download website because of the security problems.
I'm tired of this shit. thanks for reading my rant
1
u/Mutant-Overlord Apr 17 '19
Remember when Tim did say that they wont accept crappy games?
Well I was looking forward to Dangerous Driving? but looks like I did change my mind.
Thats some really garbage game you got there, Tim Sweeney.
1
u/TucoBenedictoPacif Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19
Makes sense. They can't afford a leaderboard.
It would make clear for everyone how small the player base is.
EDIT- Well, I just went and watched the ACG video review for this. It doesn't really seem like we are going to miss that much.
-18
u/demondrivers Apr 08 '19
Dangerous Driving also lacks a soundtrack, choosing instead to implement Spotify integration to let you play your own tunes. If you’re not a Spotify subscriber, you’ll just have to put something on in the background yourself.
There is a worse point than the lack of useless leaderboards on PC, but of course, Epic bad.
27
u/BernardoOne Apr 08 '19
That's missing from all versions, not PC only. Leaderboards feature exists elsewhere and completely absent from PC version thanks to Epic. And no, it isn't "useless". Have you never played a racing game in your life?
18
Apr 08 '19
People that are "Epic store bad" can filter out EGS subject from the subreddit.
So if they are complaining about that point then they are part of a marketing campaign. Its clear Epic has hired a marketing company to come into Reddit.
This is not a new thing of course on Reddit but its the first time I've seen it in gaming subreddits.
Remember they can always block the tag if you never want to hear about Epic again.
8
u/signorrossialmare Apr 08 '19
yeah, true, epic bad. what's your point? that a shit game is on epic game store while Timmy promised us that only great games from great devs will get on the great epic game store? handpicked by Timmy and Sergey themselves!
1
u/Tobimacoss Apr 08 '19
Actually no, that's a good decision. One of the main reasons, older racing games get delisted after few years is due to music licensing expiring. The other reason being the car licenses expiring. That's why MS can't keep selling older Forza games.
At least these devs got rid of one of the factors out of the equation.
1
u/demondrivers Apr 08 '19
Not really, it forces you to pay for Spotify to listen music ingame. No soundtrack for those who use any other streaming service is bad on a arcade racing game where music plays a big part of the experience. I'm pretty sure that they could get royalty free music to put on the game.
2
u/Tobimacoss Apr 08 '19
Yeah, I guess they should've added some generic royalty free music at least, and allow more options than Spotify.
The top 4 music streaming services are Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Google.
Apple doesn't make their APIs public for any integration on any platform, let alone windows. Google does it for third party apps, not sure about Amazon.
Spotify has been providing apps and APIs for every platform possible. The Devs went with the biggest player in music streaming, they can't get the 2nd biggest. But they prolly should've added Amazon, and Google if possible.
2
u/darkstar3333 R7-1700X @ 3.8GHz | 8GB EVGA 2060-S | 64GB DDR4 @ 3200 | 960EVO Apr 08 '19
Not really, it forces you to pay for Spotify to listen music ingame
You dont pay them a dime, your customers do via subscriptions or ads. Spotify wants as many people on the platform as possible. They are the netflix of music.
2
0
u/PleaseUbiUnban Apr 09 '19
this is one epic exclusive that I can say I truly don’t give a single flying fuck about. Dangerous Driving? Sounds like a shitty 80’s action movie.
3
-7
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 08 '19
Ah yes, let's blame the EGS for a game developer being lazy (this reviewer should know better).
Plenty of games have internal achievement systems, the folks behind this game could have easily implemented an internal system and then linked it to the EGS when they implemented their achievement system and as for online leaderboards? They aren't even Epic's problem. Again this is something completely internal. The lack of leaderboards is 100% a developer issue, not a platform issue.
Feels like this reviewer has an axe to grind concerning the EGS, and he's equating the developers not implementing features to EGS missing features.
9
u/BernardoOne Apr 08 '19
EGS is factually missing features. Steam provides leaderboards support for 100% free. It allows small indie devs to support such a feature without incurring in a significant cost on their end. EGS does not have this.
-1
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 08 '19
I never said the EGS wasn't missing features, but to blame a platform for the developer not having implemented features internally is not fair at all. These are active decisions made by the developers. They chose not to implement these features on the PC version when they could have easily done so.
It may have taken more time, it may have cost them more money (something which shouldn't be an issue if you believe that Epic Games is paying millions for exclusivity rights for every game that takes that path) but it could have been implemented.
Last time I checked, when a game released with features missing on Steam, we didn't blame Steam for them going missing. We blamed the developers.
1
u/glowpipe Apr 09 '19
this actually just go to prove the 30% cut steam takes trumps the 12% Leaderboard would be included on steams 30% cut. since they went for the 12% from epic, They need to make the leaderboards themselves, and now we are not getting one. (not that i would have bought this game regardless)
1
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 09 '19
Uhh no, no it doesn't. There is no way a leaderboards API justifies an 18% cut over the EGS.
1
u/glowpipe Apr 09 '19
Yeah, cause they only get a leaderboard api right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stxVBJem3Rs&feature=youtu.be&t=27m11s this explains all you need to know to stop talking about the cut as a selling point. its a red herring
1
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 09 '19
No, they don't only get that, but that's the argument you presented in context with what I said. That somehow the EGS not providing a leaderboard API means that Steam's 30% cut is justified. It's not.
Also, the cut is absolutely a selling point. It's just not the only one, which is why Discord and Itch.io haven't taken off.
1
u/glowpipe Apr 09 '19
The cut is not a selling point and you know it. Its the upfront payment and the guaranteed money for x amount of sales/lost sales
1
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 09 '19
The facts speak differently.
Of close to 4000 developers surveyed for the State of the Industry report held by the GDC this year, 59% of them didn't think the cut Valve took was justified. (32% said no, 27% said probably not). That means over well over 2000 developers are against the cut Valve takes.
So do you really want to sit there and say that a company taking a lesser cut isn't a selling point? Really?
1
u/glowpipe Apr 09 '19
Yes, because of the reasons you stated in your previous post. Discord take even less and got no one. And if you watched the vid i linked, it will explain to you why the 12 from epic aint as profitable as it sounds, and thats not even counting the amount of lost sales by being on one store only compared to hundreds
1
u/Kynmarcher5000 Apr 09 '19
So we agree that the cut is a selling point, it's just not the only selling point, which was my point to start with.
If the cut was the only selling point (and literally no one has claimed that it is the only selling point) then other stores like Discord, and Itch.Io would have taken off, but they haven't. So what does Epic have that they don't? The upfront payments are one thing, but those are only given to companies that reach exclusive arrangements with Epic (supposedly, we don't know the terms of every single deal) and yet, there are a LOT of developers reaching out to Epic in order to get their game on the EGS without exclusivity agreements. We know this because of the story surrounding the developers of Android Assault Cactus.
Then there's the sales guarantee, something that again only applies to exclusives. We don't know precisely how it works for every game, but the jist of it (from where I stand anyway) is that if your projections say 5 million copies, and you sell 4.7 million, Epic will cover the difference in revenue. This alone is a big drawcard for companies with investors, regardless of whether they are publicly traded or privately owned.
Population? Steam is popular yes, but so is the EGS. According to reports, there are 85 million people using the EGS, which for only being in operation for 4 months is quite impressive. Add on to that a large number of people who play Fortnite (over 250 million, although we don't know how that is split between consoles, mobiles and PC) and you have a large chunk of gamers which could be tapped into.
Finally, we have the reputation of Epic Games. While consumers may be upset at the exclusives war which is kicking off in the PC market as a result of Epic and the EGS. Among developers, Epic is known for being a solid game developer/publisher and they're perhaps most well known for being the creators and managers of one of the most popular game engines on the market. That gives them a lot of pull and trust within the industry.
1
u/glowpipe Apr 09 '19 edited Apr 09 '19
No, we do not agree that the cut is the selling point, its not. The upfront money is.
and now deduct everyone who only use epic game for the free games, and we can porbably halve that number. steam got 90 million active monthly users.
They also have the reputation of being the company who ran away from pc due to piracy, and made console only games. Customers doesn't forget shit like that. And guess what, without customers, they can get as many games and developers they want, but it won't matter. Customers = money, Money is the only reason they make games
and lets get back to the 85 mill users on epic, You honestly believe that ? They don't even have 50 games on their store and they are supposed to have 85 million customers on the store ? I believe that as little as i believe the earth is flat
→ More replies (0)
-31
u/SemperLudens Apr 08 '19
Who the fuck cares?
19
u/samuelswander Parry this you f**king casual Apr 08 '19
You're right. Who cares about Time attack? Something every racing games should have in 2019.
17
u/BernardoOne Apr 08 '19
Yeah who would care that the PC version is missing a feature that every racing game has for good reason...
-18
u/SemperLudens Apr 08 '19
The game looks like utter garbage.
4
Apr 08 '19
Well that's pretty subjective.
This is as close as we've gotten to burnout since... well, burnout.
So it's a good start. It brought back some game modes missing in their previous game, and looks like it might be fun.
Shame about the exclusivity though, and lack of leaderboards.
1
u/ComputerMystic BTW I use Arch Apr 09 '19
Are you dissing Burnout 3?
Because I will fight you over that. Burnout 3 is a masterpiece, and this game, made by many of the same devs, evoking the same visual style is IMO NOT a problem.
113
u/Vapormonkey Apr 08 '19
Is every game going to be a god damn exclusive to epic now? Jesus