The Outer Worlds goes Epic Games Store-exclusive (also Windows Store)

[Reinhardt]

It will be good for developers, because those stores need to compete for them.

Buying exclusivity is not "competing".

And it will be good for players, because those stores need to compete for them as well.

But they don't compete. You don't have choice where to buy new Obsidian game.

 

[thesheeep]

and I fully expect it become much better over time

But why?

How about you read the rest of the statement? If the store doesn't improve, people won't stick to it and buy any games on it. Other than exclusives. But exclusives cost them money, they won't be able to pull that off for many titles forever. Epic loses money by doing these exclusivity deals, but it does so for getting potential customers. If those potential customers don't like the store, they won't buy from it (but from Steam instead).

It will be good for developers, because those stores need to compete for them.

Buying exclusivity is not "competing".

It is exactly that. When they bought those developers, they won the competition with Steam - mostly as Steam didn't even bother to make counter offer.
The word competition doesn't include any definition that would imply you can't buy yourself advantages.

And it will be good for players, because those stores need to compete for them as well.

But they don't compete. You don't have choice where to buy new Obsidian game.

Of course I do. I can either buy it on release on EGS, or a year later on any store. My backlog of games to play is so long, I'm actually more likely to do the latter...
There will also no doubt be games that appear on both stores - not every game on EGS is going to be an exclusive.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You just went full strawman (who the hell ever wrote or thought that exclusivity on PC has anything to do with buying different consoles and what does it have to do with anything?) and wrote a lot of plain stupid stuff. Lower prices as a result of exclusivity wars? Lol.

The relevant part is that if you believe that the "competition is always good and anticonsumer entity will turn super cool as soon as their anticonsumer campaign brings success and it will be good for the consumer in the end" then yeah, take a look at the console market. The competition there has literally been called "wars" since forever, they're fighting tooth and nail for the customer, no quarter given, yada, yada. I'm sure this means that the console games are good, cheap and diverse, compared to 100% open PC with no competition and evil monopoly, right?

Riiiiiight.

Following console templates can only end badly and anyone who wants to deny you one of the biggest advantages of PC as a gaming platform is not your friend. This is as obvious as obvious things can be.

And there's more than that. What stops devs who readily accept cash upfront instead of providing the widest possible audience to their games from forgetting about it as soon as the the money is in their pockets and they notice that it's not selling all that well? Releasing buggy games and dropping support has not been a problem at all, what's the worst that could happen.

And again, in your quest to appear like a cool and level headed guy you accidently forgot to actually mention what's good about all that. Something tangible, that actually happened or is likely to happen based on similar scenarios and that benefits the gamers? Anything?

Lastly, the fact that you rationalize stuff like datamining with ironic and funneh quips does not stop them from being genuine concerns for people.

 

[Reinhardt]

If the store doesn't improve, people won't stick to it and buy any games on it.

People like you will jump on any dick they see.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

"Just a launcher"... Nope, it's a method of DRM tied to an account, which can easily be taken away from you at anytime. As if this isn't bad enough, sometimes it's DRM within a DRM, such as in the case of games protected by Denuvo. Not to mention this "just a launcher" is pretty much a spyware, if not a malware. So, you pay the full price for a game that is basically rented out and it comes with spyware.

 

[Arulan]

I see I'm not the only one waiting a year to avoid Epic Game's bullshit.

 

[Reinhardt]

"Just a launcher"... Nope, it's a method of DRM tied to an account, which can easily be taken away from you at anytime. As if this isn't bad enough, sometimes it's DRM within a DRM, such as in the case of games protected by Denuvo. Not to mention this "just a launcher" is pretty much a spyware, if not a malware. So, you pay the full price for a game that is basically rented out and it comes with spyware.

This is not competition we want, but competition we deserve.

 

[Atlantico]

As a consumer it is Not My Problem.

Yes, as a consumer you're allowed to be and act like an utter retard. Go right ahead.

Obsidian put themselves in this situation and if they can't get out of it then it's their fault.

They got a publisher, they got the game financed, everything is working as intended, there is no situation (except in your mind).

"Going forward they won't require you to install chinese spyware to buy their games! Thank goodness they've graced us with their product and are so gracious as to allow us lowly peasants to buy it!"

The Epic store can be skipped entirely - it's not an Epic exclusive game, it's sold on the Microsoft store as well.

But they don't compete. You don't have choice where to buy new Obsidian game.

Yes you do have a choice - the Microsoft Store also sells the game. This isn't an Epic exclusive, no matter how much Steamtards sperg over this, that doesn't change that fact.

"Just a launcher"... Nope, it's a method of DRM tied to an account, which can easily be taken away from you at anytime. As if this isn't bad enough, sometimes it's DRM within a DRM, such as in the case of games protected by Denuvo. Not to mention this "just a launcher" is pretty much a spyware, if not a malware. So, you pay the full price for a game that is basically rented out and it comes with spyware.

Yeah, Steam is pretty invasive.

 

[thesheeep]

You just went full strawman (who the hell ever wrote or thought that exclusivity on PC has anything to do with buying different consoles and what does it have to do with anything?) and wrote a lot of plain stupid stuff. Lower prices as a result of exclusivity wars? Lol.

I just assumed you were jumping on the argument (which many DO make, believe it or not) that this means PC store exclusivity will be like console exclusivity.
If you were trying to make a different point, maybe you should have explained it?

The relevant part is that if you believe that the "competition is always good and anticonsumer entity will turn super cool as soon as their anticonsumer campaign brings success and it will be good for the consumer in the end" then yeah, take a look at the console market. The competition there has literally been called "wars" since forever, they're fighting tooth and nail for the customer, no quarter given, yada, yada. I'm sure this means that the console games are good, cheap and diverse, compared to 100% open PC with no competition and evil monopoly, right?

You assume a dozen things that are untrue, and imply a dozen more that don't even bear correlation. There is so much nonsense in this statement that I'm simply not going to bother.

And there's more than that. What stops devs who readily accept cash upfront instead of providing the widest possible audience to their games from forgetting about it as soon as the the money is in their pockets and they notice that it's not selling all that well? Releasing buggy games and dropping support has not been a problem at all, what's the worst that could happen.

If that happens, people are going to stop putting money down for titles/devs like that.
Why would you ever buy a title from a developer that has already shown they drop support for their game before it is done? Devs can pull stunts like that once or twice before people will start smelling the fish.
You could make the argument that now devs get a free "first shot". Which is true, but they would be a tad bit stupid to not make the best of it, don't you think? Game development isn't really something you do once and then never again.

And again, in your quest to appear like a cool and level headed guy you accidently forgot to actually mention what's good about all that. Something tangible, that actually happened or is likely to happen based on similar scenarios and that benefits the gamers? Anything?

I did all of that, not my problem that your reading comprehension sucks or you chose to ignore it because you don't believe that's what will happen.

If the store doesn't improve, people won't stick to it and buy any games on it.

People like you will jump on any dick they see.

You know, when you're out of arguments and ad-hominems is the only communication you have left, it is usually wise to not communicate at all. Will just make it obvious to anyone that you have no clue what you are talking about...

"Just a launcher"... Nope, it's a method of DRM tied to an account, which can easily be taken away from you at anytime. As if this isn't bad enough, sometimes it's DRM within a DRM, such as in the case of games protected by Denuvo.

So... just like Steam, then?

Lastly, the fact that you rationalize stuff like datamining with ironic and funneh quips does not stop them from being genuine concerns for people.

Not to mention this "just a launcher" is pretty much a spyware, if not a malware. So, you pay the full price for a game that is basically rented out and it comes with spyware.

Yup, genuine concerns for an ever-shrinking minority of tinfoil hats.
Who nobody gives a fuck about, neither Steam nor Epic nor the majority of gamers.
This "outrage" is a storm in a teacup. Deal with it.

 

[Reinhardt]

Yes, as a consumer you're allowed to be and act like an utter retard.

Thanks for example, sensei.

You know, when you're out of arguments and ad-hominems is the only communication you have left, it is usually wise to not communicate at all. Will just make it obvious to anyone that you have no clue what you are talking about...

Fuck off, you are not my sensei!

 

[thesheeep]

Fuck off, you are not my sensei!

Rude.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

So... just like Steam, then?

In a way, yes, but it's worse. However, what Epic and its partners in crime display here is nothing but pure greed and scummy business practices. If you wanna ignore that and support them now, then you shouldn't complain in the future when things get much worse.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You assume a dozen things that are untrue, and imply a dozen more that don't even bear correlation.

As opposed to what? Openly suggesting that exclusive games offer any sort of advantages for the consumer over an open market and that blatantly (they fucking publicly call you, a gamer, names on open channel social media) anti-consumer entity will turn pro-consumer because of wishful thinking and carebear magic?

If that happens, people are going to stop putting money down for titles/devs like that.

Ah, the "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument, we just solved all the internet discussions in one fell swoop. There's nothing wrong about offering bribes to turn games into advertisements first and games second and markets cannot be spoiled by coercing mass consumer to accept shit and be happy about it through spending enough money. That never happened, I swear.

I did all of that, not my problem that your reading comprehension sucks or you chose to ignore it because you don't believe that's what will happen.

You did nothing of the sort. And no one will blame you, because there's not a single thing that actually happened irl that brought any trace of value for the customer.

 

[Infinitron]

Detractors of the Epic Game Store say "Why should we switch to an inferior launcher? Where's the value to the customer?" And they're right! The Epic launcher is worse, and there is no value to the customer. You're being screwed on the launcher, and you can absolutely refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about that.

But here's the thing. Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises? Before this news, you were apparently considering buying a game with quest markers even though you hate quest markers. One could justifiably ask, why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you? Isn't that a bit silly?

That's why I just don't get the hype. This is the world we live in, folks. And for the record, do I plan to D1P the game myself? No, quite possibly not.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises?

In other words, you know that you've been exploited and you still continue to pay for it. Don't you ever think that at some point you should draw the line?

 

[Makabb]

why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you? Isn't that a bit silly?

Yes it is a dealbreaker, because before steam there was no launchers and you would just buy a game and didn't give shit about any of that, soon other companies might want to create their own 'shops' and we will be left with 20 launchers which have 'exclusives' [which is already party happening with EA, Ubisoft etc], and you will need to install 10 launchers which install other 3rd part shit on your pc which is snooping on you.

It's just too much fucking hassle, at this point i will not buy those games.

 

[Reinhardt]

Detractors of the Epic Game Store say "Why should we switch to an inferior launcher? Where's the value to the customer?" And they're right! The Epic launcher is worse, and there is no value to the customer. You're being screwed on the launcher, and you can absolutely refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about that.

But here's the thing. Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises? Before this news, you were apparently considering buying a game with quest markers even though you hate quest markers. One could justifiably ask, why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you? Isn't that a bit silly?

That's why I just don't get the hype. This is the world we live in, folks. And for the record, do I plan to D1P the game myself? No, quite possibly not.

Because they lied to me and i don't like to give money to proven liars.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

One could justifiably ask, why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you?

It isn't "just a launcher" you imbecile. Seriously just stick to newsposting.

 

[Infinitron]

Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises?

In other words, you know that you've been exploited and you still continue to pay for it. Don't you ever think that at some point you should draw the line?

I'm suggesting that the line be drawn where it makes the most sense. I mean, in reality there's probably a decent overlap between the group of people upset about Epic-exclusivity and the group of people who would have waited a year before buying the game anyway - at least here on the Codex. But like I said, everybody's entitled to his own judgement.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises?

In other words, you know that you've been exploited and you still continue to pay for it. Don't you ever think that at some point you should draw the line?

I'm suggesting that the line be drawn where it makes the most sense. I mean, in reality there's probably a decent overlap between the group of people upset about Epic-exclusivity and the group of people who would have waited a year before buying the game anyway - at least here on the Codex. But like I said, everybody's entitled to his own judgement.

I think drawing the line at installing chinese spyware is a perfectly fine place to do it.

 

[Makabb]

So in the end, it might be said that 'steam' is the evil one that started this trend of the launchers, but we live in a world where in the end 'someone' might have started this 'shop' trend anyway, so atleast Steam and Gabe Newell is the most benevolent of what we have seen so far.

Steam is lesser evil, but if I had a choice, I would be buying games like we used to in the 90's, I would go to my local shop and get a copy of a game without any DRM.

At this point GoG might be the best deal, because with GoG you actualy OWN the game, and not rent it like it other 'launcher-shops', but GoG has mainly old games and a few new indie title releases which does not make up for the majority of AAA gaming.

 

[thesheeep]

You assume a dozen things that are untrue, and imply a dozen more that don't even bear correlation.

As opposed to what? Openly suggesting that exclusive games offer any sort of advantages for the consumer over an open market and that blatantly (they fucking publicly call you, a gamer, names on open channel social media) anti-consumer entity will turn pro-consumer because of wishful thinking and carebear magic?

You know, if you gotta build strawmen, at least you have to let me tear them down instead of doing it yourself
I never said that exclusivity itself has advantages for the consumer. I see exclusivity more of a necessary evil, as nothing else will be able to make a platform grow enough to compete with Steam. And so far, nobody has brought up anything that would disprove this theory.
Also, I already explained that Epic won't be able to gather users only via bought exclusivity forever. That's just not a sustainable business model on its own on PC. They have to evolve from that and offer something that can actually compete with Steam feature-wise.
Hard to tell for how long they will keep up this exclusivity stuff, but I do expect it to be a few years. If you take that amount of cash into your hand, you're in it for the long run. And what are they going to do this whole time? Not improving their store? Not improving their developer features? Do you honestly think exclusivity is the be-all-end-all strategy here for Epic?

Oh, and look, Valve has just gone public with their overhaul of the Steam client with first screens. What a coincidence, at this time. I'm sure it couldn't be that they started actually improving their long-neglected monopoly software once a serious contender was on the horizon.
Mark my words, some time from now, Valve will also announce a lowered cut for developers on Steam. Big titles already have something lower than 30% (via oh-so-shady deals), they'll just have to also lower that for smaller developers. If they don't, and EGS remains successful, they'll be in trouble.
Even if EGS should ultimately fail (unlikely, but possible), I'm certain that at the very least, the pressure on Steam will have lead to an improvement of that platform.

If that happens, people are going to stop putting money down for titles/devs like that.

Ah, the "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument, we just solved all the internet discussions in one fell swoop. There's nothing wrong about offering bribes to turn games into advertisements first and games second and markets cannot be spoiled by coercing mass consumer to accept shit and be happy about it through spending enough money. That never happened, I swear.

At some point, you gotta stop pretending that you have any clue about economy, because with every sentence you write, it becomes more and more obvious that you don't.
Which market that would even be comparable to the games industry (or specifically the PC one), had competition buy their way in and had that result in a worse situation for consumers?

Also, just to make that clear: I am not defending devs like Snapshot and Obsidian for first promising Steam at release, and then switching to EGS for the money. That is a broken promise and thus despicable. But it's the devs/publishers that broke the promise, not Epic.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises?

In other words, you know that you've been exploited and you still continue to pay for it. Don't you ever think that at some point you should draw the line?

I'm suggesting that the line be drawn where it makes the most sense.

Isn't any "painful compromise" a valid point to draw the line? Why would you keep giving money to things that upset you somehow?

 

[Makabb]

Also Steam supports Linux(native launcher) and has created Proton (Wine+dxvk+esync in one), which they actualy paid money to create, so Steam is more pro gamers.

So yea, Steam is the only 'launcher-shop' I will ever use, the 2nd is GoG where you just buy the installer(which you own) and don't need a launcher on GoG at all, and that's all.

 

[Reinhardt]

They have to evolve from that and offer something that can actually compete with Steam feature-wise.

Then why they decided to start from exclusivity and not from features? They have enough money to throw at any shit that catches their eye but not enough to design decent launcher?