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

[glass blackbird]

so how fucked is obsidian? feargus probably knew, the snake, but judging by them adding steam achievement, the devs knew around the same time as us. likely they won't get any say nor penny out of this.

TBH Fergus probably wasn't involved in the decision. With Metro it was the publisher doing it behind the devs' back, so it'd be the same here. It's fun to make fun of him and his asinine decisions but it's genuinely not up to him here afaik

 

[jf8350143]

Steam is a monopolistic parasite that takes 30% of every sale, yet you swear to defend it to your last torrent. Fucking sheep.

I don't care who gets paid what behind the scenes when Epic's client is objectively inferior.

It didn't even launch with an offline mode, which was completely unacceptable.

Fuck that, they don't even have a search function when the store launched. They only add it very recently. The company I work for has only 20 employees total and our website has a functional searching feature from day one.

 

[Arnust]

2007 Steam.txt

 

[jf8350143]

Yes, it wouldn't change "nothing". The incentive for accepting an Epic bribe would be reduced. Epic would have to pay more to achieve the same outcome.

If you're worried about business practices, there are other things Valve could do besides paying in cash. Grant games more Steam front page visibility (extremely valuable), for example.

They grant Metro tons of front page visibility, look how that turns out.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

I was planning to start gaming purely on Linux after I upgrade my RIG this summer (def. replace FX8320 with Ryzen 5 3600, probably. replace gtx 970 with 1660 ti too, but it gtx still holds up pretty well, despite being 5 years old already (bought it in november 2014).
I have steam library of 900+ games. I tried some of them on my linux netbook with integrated graphics - and every game except 1 worked fine without any need to even fiddle with configs. That gave me confidence that this will work on pc.

 

[Sigourn]

People are losing their fucking minds over this Epic deal. They are going as far as to say "they are killing PC gaming with exclusivity". That I know of, a game is a game, and a platform is another thing. These people are so retarded as to think "WHY SHOULD WE BE FORCED TO USE EPIC OVER STEAM?". Bunch of retards, you are ALREADY forced to use Steam for A LOT of games. Thousands of them. And people don't seem to give a shit about that because it's papa Newell so it's alright.

Like I said, "the game" is "the game".

• None of this "friendlist" bullshit.
• None of this "wishlist" bullshit.
• None of this "can take screenshots" bullshit (why the hell aren't these already incorporated into videogames? Must be the Steam cancer).
• And more.

If I pay for a game, I want THE GAME and none of the extra bullshit. No "I need to launch Steam to play the game", no "I need online connection to play it", and certainly no "if Steam ever goes down, I'm fucked".

 

[Reinhardt]

If I pay for a game, I want THE GAME and none of the extra bullshit. No "I need to launch Steam to play the game", no "I need online connection to play it", and certainly no "if Steam ever goes down, I'm fucked".

Chinese botnet is another deal. At least it's not steam.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

People are losing their fucking minds over this Epic deal. They are going as far as to say "they are killing PC gaming with exclusivity". That I know of, a game is a game, and a platform is another thing. These people are so retarded as to think "WHY SHOULD WE BE FORCED TO USE EPIC OVER STEAM?". Bunch of retards, you are ALREADY forced to use Steam for A LOT of games. Thousands of them. And people don't seem to give a shit about that because it's papa Newell so it's alright.

Like I said, "the game" is "the game".

• None of this "friendlist" bullshit.
• None of this "wishlist" bullshit.
• None of this "can take screenshots" bullshit (why the hell aren't these already incorporated into videogames? Must be the Steam cancer).
• And more.

If I pay for a game, I want THE GAME and none of the extra bullshit. No "I need to launch Steam to play the game", no "I need online connection to play it", and certainly no "if Steam ever goes down, I'm fucked".

Do you really not comprehend the difference between a developer choosing to only release their game on Steam and a developer being paid to only release their game on the Epic Store?

 

[True Ukrainian]

The developer gets to secure their financial future with one and has to roll the dice with the other?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

People are losing their fucking minds over this Epic deal. They are going as far as to say "they are killing PC gaming with exclusivity". That I know of, a game is a game, and a platform is another thing. These people are so retarded as to think "WHY SHOULD WE BE FORCED TO USE EPIC OVER STEAM?". Bunch of retards, you are ALREADY forced to use Steam for A LOT of games. Thousands of them. And people don't seem to give a shit about that because it's papa Newell so it's alright.

Like I said, "the game" is "the game".

• None of this "friendlist" bullshit.
• None of this "wishlist" bullshit.
• None of this "can take screenshots" bullshit (why the hell aren't these already incorporated into videogames? Must be the Steam cancer).
• And more.

If I pay for a game, I want THE GAME and none of the extra bullshit. No "I need to launch Steam to play the game", no "I need online connection to play it", and certainly no "if Steam ever goes down, I'm fucked".

What you want is the devs releasing their games on GOG and not some shitheads offering even worse service than Steam. Though truth to be told GOG also started becoming shittier after they've started to shove their launcher down everyone's throat.

 

[TheDiceMustRoll]

Steam is a monopolistic parasite that takes 30% of every sale, yet you swear to defend it to your last torrent. Fucking sheep.

Please explain to me, in clear terms, how Steam is not a "market leader" and is in fact, a "monopoly".

Because just from the dictionary:

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." - this is not steam.

This has never been steam. Steam is far from the only digital store, and if the cut they took from developers was so high, why was nobody shilling the Discord store a few months back? They only take 10%. That's much less than epic. Wait, I thought this was about cuts? Are you sure this is about the cut that valve takes? Are you sure this is about valve's "monopoly"?

 

[Thonius]

Member Origin and Uplay?

Both were awful, and Uplay was buggy as fuck.

That's not to say there weren't decent games on there, though.

Why are you using the past tense? Both Origin and Uplay are alive and don't appear to be going anywhere.

The Flight From Steam(tm) didn't start with Epic. It was an inevitability once publishers finally realized that PC gaming wasn't a sideshow and that there was as much money in it as there is in consoles.

Because Origin got exclusives(Battlefield) and nothing bad happened and Uplay(copy of steam) required to play some Steam games(double client, which is inconvenient ). They did not shatter steam grip on anything.

 

[Sigourn]

Do you really not comprehend the difference between a developer choosing to only release their game on Steam and a developer being paid to only release their game on the Epic Store?

Yes, I can tell the difference: the Epic deal benefits the developer. And considering I'm against launchers, period, I prefer them to release their game on Epic.

Because as Gangrelrumbler said:

What you want is the devs releasing their games on GOG

But as he correctly pointed out

Though truth to be told GOG also started becoming shittier after they've started to shove their launcher down everyone's throat.

In the end, everyone is a retard who likes to get outraged. The only thing we genuinely NEED is a digital store that serves to buy games and nothing else. A good digital store. But "a store", nothing else. No specific launchers, no DRM, no nothing. Steam wishlists are a bonus, but to me they mean nothing when they STILL shove their launcher down your throat.

 

[Thonius]

The developer gets to secure their financial future with one and has to roll the dice with the other?

We must secure the existence of our games and a future for steam. :^)

 

[Hellion]

As a principle, having more major online stores fighting for the customers' attention and hard-earned shekels would be a good thing. Simply because this "fight" would entail more and better services and various other privileges offered to customers in order to entice them to use their store instead of their rivals'. Meaning that we, as customers, get to benefit from the competition.

In this case, however, nothing of the sort happens. Epic comes in and provides a spyware-infested platform that offers only a fraction of the benefits and services Steam offers, and instead of enticing customers with good deals and greater services to lure them away from Steam, just says "we paid the developers a lot of shekels so if you want their games you have to get them from us and us only". Meaning that we, as customers, don't really get anything out of the whole deal, other than having to work with a sub-par platform, and at the same time seeing the logic of "exclusivity", which has been for so many years a reason to ridicule consoles, finally come to the PC as well.

It's acceptable for people not to have a problem with the above or, for whatever reason, not really care. But the whole issue so far is quite larger than the simplistic "more stores, better for us yay".

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Do you really not comprehend the difference between a developer choosing to only release their game on Steam and a developer being paid to only release their game on the Epic Store?

Yes, I can tell the difference: the Epic deal benefits the developer. And considering I'm against launchers, period, I prefer them to release their game on Epic.

Because as Gangrelrumbler said:

What you want is the devs releasing their games on GOG

But as he correctly pointed out

Though truth to be told GOG also started becoming shittier after they've started to shove their launcher down everyone's throat.

In the end, everyone is a retard who likes to get outraged. The only thing we genuinely NEED is a digital store that serves to buy games and nothing else. A good digital store. But "a store", nothing else. No specific launchers, no DRM, no nothing. Steam wishlists are a bonus, but to me they mean nothing when they STILL shove their launcher down your throat.

You know GOG, only really tries to get you to install their launcher, for most games it's not mandatory. I think only GWENT requires it from my library.
Also funny you want to support Epic since they "benefit the developers". The developers themselves are the ones who force you to use bloatware bullshit. It's not like Gaben forced them to include mandatory Steam codes in physical releases, devs themselves wanted to have their games "protected" by Steam. Why would you care what benefits the ones responsible for what you hate?

 

[Wesp5]

Please explain to me, in clear terms, how Steam is not a "market leader" and is in fact, a "monopoly".

Nowadays we might have alternative stores slowly emerging, but e.g. Origin was released 10 years after Steam! And while there might have been other stores like Direct2Drive around at the time, guess what, if you wanted to play MP hit Counter-Strike or SP hit Half-Life 2 you had no choice as these were exclusive on Steam! It's pretty much the same thing Epic is doing now, using the player base of Fortnite as the start...

 

[Sigourn]

Also funny you want to support Epic since they "benefit the developers". The developers themselves are the ones who force you to use bloatware bullshit. It's not like Gaben forced them to include mandatory Steam codes in physical releases, devs themselves wanted to have their games "protected" by Steam. Why would you care what benefits the ones responsible for what you hate?

It's a complicated matter because games aren't made in a vacuum. Ideally we would have a situation where the consumer AND the developers are benefitted. In this particular scenario, where I am getting fucked no matter what (as I said, any launcher is a problem) I prefer it to be Epic's because Obsidian will get benefitted. I'm not against developers protecting their games from piracy. But I don't like it when the consumer is fucked as a result, i.e. pirating the game gets you the "better" version of a game since it doesn't have any slowdowns.

What's funny is that piracy doesn't poof out of nowhere. Someone buys the game, cracks it, and makes it available to others. There are the people who pirate their games, and the people who have enabled piracy. And these people have literally no reason to do so, because they already own the game.

 

[Duraframe300]

Please explain to me, in clear terms, how Steam is not a "market leader" and is in fact, a "monopoly".

Nowadays we might have alternative stores slowly emerging, but e.g. Origin was released 10 years after Steam! And while there might have been other stores like Direct2Drive around at the time, guess what, if you wanted to play MP hit Counter-Strike or SP hit Half-Life 2 you had no choice as these were exclusive on Steam! It's pretty much the same thing Epic is doing now, using the player base of Fortnite as the start...

Counter Strike and Half Life are Valve games. Outer Worlds is not an Epic Game.

For example if Outer Worlds was restricted to the MS store from the beginning that would have been a hard pill to swallow BUT an understandable one. This is not the same.

 

[Wesp5]

It's not like Gaben forced them to include mandatory Steam codes in physical releases, devs themselves wanted to have their games "protected" by Steam.

I doubt that. There were other protection means around at the time from SecuROM to SafeDisk and they didn't take 30% cut from each sale! What developers or publisher wanted was to reach the huge CS crowd already forced on Steam so they had to bow to Valve.

 

[Wesp5]

Counter Strike and Half Life are Valve games. Outer Worlds is not an Epic Game.

For example if Outer Worlds was restricted to the MS store from the beginning that would have been a hard pill to swallow BUT an understandable one. This is not the same.

I think we already went over this: Obsidian was bought by MS only after Obsidian already made their deal with Take Two about Outer Worlds. And it does use Epic's Unreal engine which gives another cut if I am not mistaken...

 

[TheDiceMustRoll]

Please explain to me, in clear terms, how Steam is not a "market leader" and is in fact, a "monopoly".

Nowadays we might have alternative stores slowly emerging, but e.g. Origin was released 10 years after Steam! And while there might have been other stores like Direct2Drive around at the time, guess what, if you wanted to play MP hit Counter-Strike or SP hit Half-Life 2 you had no choice as these were exclusive on Steam! It's pretty much the same thing Epic is doing now, using the player base of Fortnite as the start...

No, that's wrong. Half-Life 2 was literally funded and produced by Valve. Valve purchased CS and then spent money + time fixing and refining it.

I have literally no problem with a company making games and putting them exclusively on their platform, which is not what epic is doing.

Epic games is literally going to games that have reasonable hype, dropping a bucket of money on their desks, and buying exclusivity for year. If Epic had funded TOW, if Epic had funded Phoenix Point, etc, I wouldn't care.

See, I wish Nintendo would put their games on PC. But they won't and that's fine, and to facilitate sales of their shitty hardware, they make quality software. If Epic Games was churning out top-tier, 10/10 titles exclusive to their store, fine. Buying temporary exclusivity is not that.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

It's not like Gaben forced them to include mandatory Steam codes in physical releases, devs themselves wanted to have their games "protected" by Steam.

I doubt that. There were other protection means around at the time from SecuROM to SafeDisk and they didn't take 30% cut from each sale! What developers or publisher wanted was to reach the huge CS crowd already forced on Steam so they had to bow to Valve.

You are confusing 2 different things. Games being released on Steam like every other internet store and gamers being forced to install Steam to play their physically purchased games. You can release your game on Steam and not make players install the app just to play their physical purchases.

 

[Duraframe300]

Counter Strike and Half Life are Valve games. Outer Worlds is not an Epic Game.

For example if Outer Worlds was restricted to the MS store from the beginning that would have been a hard pill to swallow BUT an understandable one. This is not the same.

I think we already went over this: Obsidian was bought by MS only after Obsidian already made their deal with Take Two about Outer Worlds. And it does use Epic's Unreal engine which gives another cut if I am not mistaken...

What? Take Two isnt Epic either.

Its not first party.

 

[Dreed]

I ran into a video game developer down the street the other day, with blue hair and a color assorted chihuahua, begging for money to buy a third soy latte from Starbucks™, complaining that Valve only gave him enough money to buy two of those with their mean rates, it was the saddest thing I ever saw

I already gave all my pocket change to the Syrian refugees in the previous intersection, so I didn't have anything for him, but thankfully a nice chinaman gave him enough money to keep on living the Californian lifestyle