Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Epic Games Store - the console war comes to PC

Curratum

Guest
Maybe they're exclusive to Steam because no other platform cares to offer service to Linux
rating_prestigious.png

Steam has more people playing games on Mac than on Linux. This should tell you a lot about why nobody cares about people on Linux.
image.png

Hahaha. No.

In2Bb5a.png
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
My cucks does been preaching against DRM since Mass Effect had a SecuROM activation limit, but history has shown very few people give a damn so there's not much point bringing it up anymore.
Implying Steam's DRM is anywhere near the atrocity that is SecuROM, but that's not my point.

My point is that GOG has been around long enough to be seen as a proper competition to Steam, and if people were truly butthurt about Steam deciding to make their games exclusive to their own storefront AND developers/publishers not making their games available without needing Steam, then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning? I'll be honest here I don't know how GOG started, but the way I see it GOG is literally everything that Steam wasn't (complete, full-on DRM-free products AND a catalog of old games not published on Steam).
And so seeing you cucks applauding Epic's shenanigans and their 'one upping Steam's (((((((((((monopoly))))))))))))' when the reality is they ALSO robbed GOG of a chance to get Day 1 release is just facepalming.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
In both cases devs make those deals because they earn money.
There are no "deals" with Valve to keep games Exclusive to their platform. Devs are allowed and sometimes encouraged to release on other platforms or Stores, or on their own Website or whatever. Your issue is either with the developers only releasing on Steam for whatever reason or with Valve for making such a good service customers are flocking to that developers don't think it's worthwhile to release on other Stores.
 

Silentstorm

Learned
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
885
People have been championing GOG from the very start, at least those who can't stand DRM but also don't mind digital copies since some people refuse to get any game that isn't in a physical form, and GOG fan's attempts have not been that successful, mostly because a lot of gamers really really don't care about DRM to a point where they get genuinely confused seeing people hate clients so damn much.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning?

I've literally been cheering GOG since the very beginning and saying I hate all clients. I don't think you pay attention very well, you just scream "EPIK CUKKK!" and think it's some kind of deep analysis.
 

Silentstorm

Learned
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
885
Heck, there are people who apparently only have Steam accounts to ask for games on GOG, seriously, i have seen quite a few threads on game forums in Steam for indie or the more interesting games that aren't on GOG, and you get threads of people asking the developers to put the game on GOG saying they don't really get anything on Steam, again, making me think they only made accounts to ask developers to use GOG more.

I don't think it ever worked, for example, a game that quickly came to mind, Wild Guns Reloaded, i recall seeing someone asking for the game on GOG, the developer saying it probably won't happen, and sure enough, it's not on GOG, but it's not as if no one tried to get the game on GOG, developers just tend to go for Steam.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
then why are you cucks not championing GOG who's been DRM-free since, what, the very beginning?

I've literally been cheering GOG since the very beginning and saying I hate all clients. I don't think you pay attention very well, you just scream "EPIK CUKKK!" and think it's some kind of deep analysis.
We're both screaming past each others ears here. Did you not notice some dumbfucks like Perkel and the likes keeps parroting Steam monopoly? And did you not notice Dexter's arguments that, perhaps, as I also has been saying over and over again, the problem isn't with Valve/Steam (who are exact opposite of the problem in truth, because they offered such good service in the first place), but with developers and publishers who for some reason didn't release their games anywhere else other than Steam?

But I think I get what other people felt when Valve decided to lock their games on Steam back in 2004. Half Life Alyx has just been released but you need VR. Meanwhile I don't have VR and I don't think I'll get one in foreseeable future, but I understand it's Valve's game and just like with Steam they're trying to pave a path to a market (which, this time happened to already have a size, no matter how small it seems in comparison to already existing ones).

I'm sad, but what can I do? It's not like they bribed a developer/publisher who is halfway through developing their games to exclusively publish their games on their (half-assed) storefront, no matter if only for a year or half.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Steam doesn't have a monopoly, it's a market leader. They aren't the same thing.
If Steam was actively paying developers to exclusively publish on their platform then you'd have an argument. Hmm…
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
We're both screaming past each others ears here. Did you not notice some dumbfucks like Perkel and the likes keeps parroting Steam monopoly? And did you not notice Dexter's arguments that, perhaps, as I also has been saying over and over again, the problem isn't with Valve/Steam (who are exact opposite of the problem in truth, because they offered such good service in the first place), but with developers and publishers who for some reason didn't release their games anywhere else other than Steam?

Valve also didn't create Steam and push Steamworks for altruistic reasons though, let's be honest. They knew the more essential they made Steam to the modern features people wanted, and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have. Trust me I get your argument that it's a different thing, and I agree... and Valve earned that power, which is also important to point out. I've said many times Valve saved the PC at a very tricky point in its history. I get why Epic coming in and throwing money around to try and get into the same position is seen as shitty. However I also think "I just wants games to be available anywhere" is spin-talk for "I want all my games on Steam" most of the time. No one was upset about 90% of AAA PC games being only available through Steam for a decade, earned or not.

The "Valve earned my loyalty and I want all my games in the same place, so fuck you Sweeney" argument is one that makes a lot more sense. We'd still disagree probably, because of the DRM issue and me not liking the idea of one company having so much control, but I respect that position.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have
IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.
 

Sentinel

Arcane
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
6,633
Location
Ommadawn
and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have.
Steam had exclusives because it was the only platform with a DRM option for a very long time. Other stores (like uPlay and Origin) did not accept third parties, which meant that Steam was the only option.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.

I'm talking about stuff the Xbox 360 popularized that Valve brought to PC, like friends lists, achievements, etc. You could put those in the game itself (replayed FEAR 2 recently and it did that) but it wasn't the same as the social media style implementation on the official big services. It's a big reason people want all their games in one place, and a big reason publishers didn't bother releasing games elsewhere. Which again, is fine... Steam worked for those games to be only on Steam. Just don't tell me you're all about games being available on any store if you never cared about them only being on Steam. Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining, as they say.

As for DRM, Steam made DRM people tolerated, yes, for those features. This was all by design, go read Newell's "games as a service" talks from 15 years ago, he lays it all out.
 

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
Being exclusive to Steam is objectively better than being exclusive to Epic tho.
People are so stupid. The main problem with Steam is that it runs like a dog's ass and makes some of your games disappear when you uninstall them. You want to provide an alternative, make a better platform, more friendly, reliable and intuitive. It's that simple. In the long run it will be a battle of attrition. But they will have none of that, instead, they want to force gamers with stupid exclusives that make developers lazy and unproductive. Imbeciles.
 

Sentinel

Arcane
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
6,633
Location
Ommadawn
Yes he lays the philosophy of "piracy is a service problem" all out. That's what Steam is - the service is better than what pirates offer. Steam has stayed true to that.

As some guy said above Steam isn't a monopoly as much as it's a market leader. It just has no competition, no one puts any effort. Not because Valve stops the competition, but because they're either unwilling or unable to compete due to incompetence.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
IIRC everything except the networking API is usable by non steam games. I know epic exclusives have used it for the cross platform input API.

I'm talking about stuff the Xbox 360 popularized that Valve brought to PC, like friends lists, achievements, etc. You could put those in the game itself (replayed FEAR 2 recently and it did that) but it wasn't the same as the social media style implementation on the official big services. It's a big reason people want all their games in one place, and a big reason publishers didn't bother releasing games elsewhere. Which again, is fine... Steam worked for those games to be only on Steam. Just don't tell me you're all about games being available on any store if you never cared about them only being on Steam. Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining, as they say.

As for DRM, Steam made DRM people tolerated, yes, for those features. This was all by design, go read Newell's "games as a service" talks from 15 years ago, he lays it all out.
Maybe if developers didn't make their games exclusive to windows I would care when their game is exclusive to the platform that lets me play windows games on my OS.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Yes he lays the philosophy of "piracy is a service problem" all out. That's what Steam is - the service is better than what pirates offer. Steam has stayed true to that.

As some guy said above Steam isn't a monopoly as much as it's a market leader. It just has no competition, no one puts any effort. Not because Valve stops the competition, but because they're either unwilling or unable to compete due to incompetence.

This is absolutely true. I wish people cared more about DRM free than they do Steam's features, but they don't. I have also said many times that Epic banking on exclusives and freebies long term is retarded. They can get people there with those, but they can't keep them. I'm not sure there's any way to keep them after giving Steam free reign for 15 years.

Maybe if developers didn't make their games exclusive to windows I would care when their game is exclusive to the platform that lets me play windows games on my OS.

Not sure two companies having more power than they should is better than one, but I get the defeatism.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
Valve also didn't create Steam and push Steamworks for altruistic reasons though, let's be honest.
But I, and I believe everyone else who's been called Steam fanboys ITT, never argued that Valve has *any* altruistic reasons. Our point all along is Epic shenanigans are NOT the correct way to compete with the current market leader, let alone slicing a piece of the cake for themselves.

They knew the more essential they made Steam to the modern features people wanted, and the more they gave those features for free to developers as Steamworks, the more natural "exclusives" they would have. Trust me I get your argument that it's a different thing, and I agree... and Valve earned that power, which is also important to point out. I've said many times Valve saved the PC at a very tricky point in its history. I get why Epic coming in and throwing money around to try and get into the same position is seen as shitty.
Meh, if Gaben is here and saw what you wrote here I'm pretty sure he would say something along these lines:


However I also think "I just wants games to be available anywhere" is spin-talk for "I want all my games on Steam" most of the time. No one was upset about 90% of AAA PC games being only available through Steam for a decade, earned or not.

The "Valve earned my loyalty and I want all my games in the same place, so fuck you Sweeney" argument is one that makes a lot more sense. We'd still disagree probably, because of the DRM issue and me not liking the idea of one company having so much control, but I respect that position.
Now you're being dishonest here. Does people pointing out they've prioritized GOG ITT not matter to you? Or the fact that GOG admitted they actually could compete with Steam if they get a chance to Day 1 release games with Steam? And that Epic shenanigans hurts GOG more than it hurts Steam?
There's the matter of GOG not accepting some of more niche games, unfortunately, which pushed some people here away and back to Steam. But that doesn't translate to "I want all my games on Steam" like you've been accusing people who're not okay with Epic's shenanigans ITT.

I get that you aren't okay with launchers and DRM, and I got that the nth time you mentioned it. But what I'm objecting to is your stance that everyone who complained about Epic's shenanigans just 'wants all their games on Steam'. It's not true, and for some reason you just can't accept it.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
But I, and I believe everyone else who's been called Steam fanboys ITT, never argued that Valve has *any* altruistic reasons. Our point all along is Epic shenanigans are NOT the correct way to compete with the current market leader, let alone slicing a piece of the cake for themselves.

My point has always been that I'm not sure what other options they had. Steam has a 15 year head start, 80%+ of the market share and tons of consumer good will. How do you compete with that? Exclusives were probably their only option, and while it would have been better to buy studios and make their own I guess (something people often complain about anyway) they went the faster route. Again, I think it sucks... I want everything on my chosen platform, which ain't Epic... I just look at it from a business perspective and if you want to compete with Steam in 2020 I think you do what Epic has done. Though I still think they'll fail, because Steam is just too big (and their client improvements too slow).

I get that you aren't okay with launchers and DRM, and I got that the nth time you mentioned it. But what I'm objecting to is your stance that everyone who complained about Epic's shenanigans just 'wants all their games on Steam'. It's not true, and for some reason you just can't accept it.

I think for the majority that's the main reason, but not for everyone. Also I'm not mocking people who feel that way either, there's a lot of good reasons to want everything on Steam. I actually firmly believe you have a deeper motivation for disliking the Epic Store. The only problem I remember you and I having with each other is you calling me an Epic cuck for simply trying to objectively analyze their business plan, when I'm not a fan of their platform at all really. Early on a lot of games were DRM free, which was nice, but they put a stop to that. Now it's just all the downsides of Steam without the benefits.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
My point has always been that I'm not sure what other options they had. Steam has a 15 year head start, 80%+ of the market share and tons of consumer good will. How do you compete with that? Exclusives were probably their only option, and while it would have been better to buy studios and make their own I guess (something people often complain about anyway) they went the faster route. Again, I think it sucks... I want everything on my chosen platform, which ain't Epic... I just look at it from a business perspective and if you want to compete with Steam in 2020 I think you do what Epic has done. Though I still think they'll fail, because Steam is just too big (and their client improvements too slow).
Oh, Epic got shit tons of options, that I can assure you. Need I quote every posts suggesting what Epic could've done instead of.... whatever the fuck is this they're currently doing and what actually they planned in long term?
And isn't Epic the ones who once said some things about how PC gaming was failing in early 2000s? You should think about it from that perspective. All these shenanigans they pulled off makes sense when taking their stance in early 2000s into present day context. But instead of realizing their mistakes as early as possible, they opt to get complacent with what they achieved with Fortnight, and then instead of doing it 'the right way', they pulled this shit.
Going by all that, I can say with confidence that whereas Valve didn't made Steam with altruistic reasons in mind, Epic in contrast commit into their actions with not only business perspective, but also a hint of malice, probably rooted in a bit of envy. All those bullshit Sweeney spouted on twitter and gaming journalism :)lol:) articles about helping developers meant to hide the truth that they just want to forcefully take a slice of the pie, either aware or not that the ones who lose the most are GOG and the rest.

The only problem I remember you and I having with each other is you calling me an Epic cuck for simply trying to objectively analyze their business plan, when I'm not a fan of their platform at all really. Early on a lot of games were DRM free, which was nice, but they put a stop to that. Now it's just all the downsides of Steam without the benefits.
I didn't call you an Epic cuck specifically, only the dumbfucks in general. I apologize if you feel that way.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
And isn't Epic the ones who once said some things about how PC gaming was failing in early 2000s?

To be fair it was in pretty hard times, though Epic didn't have to be so douchey about it. Yes, Valve saw the future and the way to "save it" and for that I am eternally grateful. They deserve the success they have gotten as a reward. Doesn't mean I want to put all my eggs in their basket, but I salute them for their service.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Oh, Epic got shit tons of options, that I can assure you. Need I quote every posts suggesting what Epic could've done instead of.... whatever the fuck is this they're currently doing and what actually they planned in long term?

My suggestion for Epic was that they should have done exactly what they're currently doing, except that they should also have committed to giving buyers free Steam keys for their games after the exclusivity period ends.

But people didn't seem to think much of that idea - maybe because it would have actually worked and been popular with normies while still keeping the exclusivity concept. :M
 

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,462
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar


https://www.gameinformer.com/2020/0...hing-partnerships-with-studios-behind-control


Epic Games Announces Multiplatform Publishing Partnerships With Studios Behind Control, Limbo, And The Last Guardian
by Brian Shea on Mar 26, 2020 at 09:00 AM

Epic Games has announced it will publish new titles by Remedy Entertainment, Playdead, and Gen Design as a part of a new multiplatform publishing initiative. According to Epic Games, developers retain 100 percent of all intellectual property and creative control of their work and will benefit from 50/50 profit sharing. Epic also touts it will cover to up 100 percent of development costs including developer salaries, quality assurance, localization, marketing, publishing costs, and more.

Remedy Entertainment is coming off of its award-winning action title Control, which was an Epic Games Store exclusive on PC when it launched in August. Playdead has released two award-winning titles: 2010's Limbo and 2016's Inside. Finally, Gen Design is the studio headed by the visionary developer behind Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, Fumito Ueda. In 2016, the studio worked with Sony to release The Last Guardian.

"[Gen Design], Remedy, and Playdead are among the most innovative and talented studios in the industry, with strong visions for their next games,” said Hector Sanchez, Head of Epic Games Publishing, in a press release. “They will have full creative control, while Epic will provide a solid foundation of project funding and services.”

Next Playdead game to be EGS exclusive?

Major decline.
 

Silentstorm

Learned
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
885
Well...yeah?

Valve has every right to do what they want with their games, much like EA had their own games being exclusive on their client with far less people caring, Epic just has a way of annoying some people more than any other service, but yeah, if Epic pays for everything, they have every right to do what they want with their own games, much like any other other developer, i don't think this was an issue?

Anyways, some decent catches by Epic, Limbo gets that developer some indie cred, Control is a cult hit and getting the guy behind Shadow Of The Colossus is amazing, sure, the guy isn't exactly making best sellers but he has fans and prestige, wonder who else Epic will get?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom