Support NeoGAF

[TheUsual]

I used to be on the bandwagon to hate the Epic Game's Launcher and their store, but in the end, it just makes you seem petty. It's like the modern day version of console wars. I don't care what you do with your money, you do you.

As for the Oddworld team: Good for them and they must have a good PR team. I'm not buying the game (just not a fan of the Oddworld games), but I wish them luck and hope they make the game they want to make for the fans and for themselves.

I pretty much feel the same. If they help fund it from the onset: can't be too mad.
Epic poaching games right before releases on other stores for exclusivity still irks me big time.
At the same time, if its a game I want to play now, fuck it I'll get it. If I feel I can wait, I'll wait.

The big thing for me is cloud saves and that's slowly rolling out.

 

[mcjmetroid]

How do you know they are being honest?. Were they looking for funds or something?.

Why else do you think they would take the deal?
They literally said they did it for the money.
I believe them because it's obviously true.

 

[Ban Puncher]

 

[Herr Edgy]

I pretty much feel the same. If they help fund it from the onset: can't be too mad.
Epic poaching games right before releases on other stores for exclusivity still irks me big time.
At the same time, if its a game I want to play now, fuck it I'll get it. If I feel I can wait, I'll wait.

The big thing for me is cloud saves and that's slowly rolling out.

This is a take I can respect. It's nuanced, it explains how you feel about some things while at the same time respecting the situations of people involved, and in the end it's about the games, as it should be.

I just want to add that deals like these might not always help much with the funding of the particular game the contract is made for, but definitely for future releases, post release support etc.
It would suck big time if an unheard of indie dev released a unique gem that wasn't successful enough and the dev going into the triple A market help make the next Anthem instead of making a sequel or putting another unique spin on a different genre.

 

[Katsura]

Two things I don't understand with today's gamers:

"I won't buy it cos it's only a digital release and I wanted a hard copy."
"I won't buy it cos it's on PC but not on the digital store I wanted"

The first one is probably because people prefer to own rather than rent their games. Mind you, i buy all my games digitally because of the convenience, but i get the sentiment

As for the second one, there are several reasons. One, the epic launcher is made with Electron. Electron is essentially an (outdated) build of the Chrome browser and a server running locally. That makes it not only an incredible resource hog but also a massive attack vector for malware. It's a horrible solution and the sooner Electron disappears, the better. Two, Epic has already displayed less than stellar ethics on a couple of occasions, among other being caught leaving spyware in their launcher that could potentially spy on users Steam activity. That is beyond unacceptable. Third, i dislike how they're bribing devs for exclusivity. It's one thing in a case like this, but bribing devs to screw kickstarter backers or preorders is disgraceful. They should use some of that money to implement basic features such as forums, user reviews etc. It seems to me their launcher and store is made for the devs, not the users

As far as this game goes - I can't really object to the devs doing it when they announce it in advance and aren't screwing over people who help crowdfund the game. I wouldn't have bought it whether it was on Steam or not though so it doesn't affect me

 

[PhoenixTank]

I get it in this case and wish Oddworld Inhabitants the best. Given the pace of development and updates I'm not hugely surprised that they're taking the money. Has happened way way before release which is more in keeping with other accepted practices too. I'd be heartbroken to see Soulstorm not come to pass.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Ridiculous. People act like Oddworld Inhabitants owe Steam something for no reason other than the fact Steam merely exists, whilst they do literally owe Epic for helping finance the game.

Uh no, it isn't about owing Steam, it is about giving consumers---some of whom are no doubt loyal fans---choice.

While I don't blame the dev for taking Epic's financing, pretending that they did this to make a game that was already significantly along the development path and otherwise wouldn't have been the game they wanted to make is quite frankly either a) bullshit and/or b) evidence of poor project planning.

"Hey guys, let's make this game. Oh wait, we don't have enough money. Let's make half of this game and hope we win the lottery before we have to release it."

When in reality it went something like this, "If you exclusively distribute via our platform we'll give you this fat check today." Fat check today almost always wins in that scenario.

And like I said, I don't blame them for taking the check. I do think they look silly trying to sell it as anything other than what it was.

 

[lukilladog]

Why else do you think they would take the deal?
They literally said they did it for the money.
I believe them because it's obviously true.

How is obviously true that they wanted the money "for the project"?.

 

[Nero_PR]

Th

Fair enough. Got no problem with that. I fully expect every dev to trot that line out now though......

"So, Sam, why did you decide to make GTA6 an Epic Store exclusive?"

They wanted to make an epic game . Sorry for the dad joke.

 

[Geki-D]

Uh no, it isn't about owing Steam, it is about giving consumers---some of whom are no doubt loyal fans---choice.

EGS launcher is free. The choice is exactly the same.

While I don't blame the dev for taking Epic's financing, pretending that they did this to make a game that was already significantly along the development path and otherwise wouldn't have been the game they wanted to make is quite frankly either a) bullshit and/or b) evidence of poor project planning.

"Hey guys, let's make this game. Oh wait, we don't have enough money. Let's make half of this game and hope we win the lottery before we have to release it."

When in reality it went something like this, "If you exclusively distribute via our platform we'll give you this fat check today." Fat check today almost always wins in that scenario.

And like I said, I don't blame them for taking the check. I do think they look silly trying to sell it as anything other than what it was.

The game doesn't have a release date. We don't know how far along it actually is in development. We don't really know when OWI struck this deal, we can only assume it was recent because it was announced this week but that doesn't really mean the deal was made yesterday.

 

[mckmas8808]

"We wanted money to make the game bigger"

Okay. I can respect that.

Isn't that every dev's reason though?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Isn't that every dev's reason though?

Not all devs go this route. Plus, I still believe in (some) artistic integrity where a dev may choose not to go with a publisher or platform because they believe it would compromise their vision/intention for the game. Money is always a part of it, but it might not always be the main driver of a decision.

 

[Geki-D]

Isn't that every dev's reason though?

Even just "We wanted money" is a perfectly valid reason. Companies, and most people in general want to make money. Unless you're a serious hardline anti-capitalist who just doesn't believe in the notion of collecting capital.

 

[Woo-Fu]

EGS launcher is free. The choice is exactly the same.

Bullshit. The customer experience isn't the same with both platforms. Epic themselves admit this and said they're not even going to try to make a launcher/storefront as good as Steam. Instead of making a better platform for the consumer they're going to purchase exclusives so that the consumer doesn't get to choose a better platform. That's just business, but let's not pretend we're swapping out an Emperor for Mother Theresa when it comes to Valve vs. Epic. Valve had it, Epic wants it, end of story.

The game doesn't have a release date. We don't know how far along it actually is in development. We don't really know when OWI struck this deal, we can only assume it was recent because it was announced this week but that doesn't really mean the deal was made yesterday.

If you're comfortable believing they received funding from Epic before they had a project plan, then so be it. I'm not. If you're comfortable believing that they laid out the spec for the game based on having funding from Epic, then so be it. I'm not. The release date is early 2020 and gameplay was shown as early as May. If partnering with Epic made the game possible they should have led with that, from day one. It would have been more credit for Epic and more understanding from their fans. The simple fact that they didn't do that tells me that isn't how it happened.

And again---for the last time---I recognize how attractive this sort of financial security is, particularly to an independent developer. What I'm not comfortable about is developers pretending that they're doing this for the fans---although admittedly if they go bankrupt that isn't going to help the fans either.

 

[mcjmetroid]

How is obviously true that they wanted the money "for the project"?.

What else have you got?

 

[Geki-D]

Bullshit. The customer experience isn't the same with both platforms. Epic themselves admit this and said they're not even going to try to make a launcher/storefront as good as Steam.

So? Some services are generally better than others. Doesn't mean all inferior services shouldn't exist. The big difference between them in this case is that Epic give money and assure a certain return on their sales. Whilst Steam just sits on it's ass dreaming about the days it was the only gig in town. These are amazing anti-free market arguments. By the time EGS came about Steam pretty much had a monopoly. Epic have to do what they could to exist in the space Steam practically owned. People who are made about Epic paying devs pretty much just want the Steam monopoly to continue whilst EGS either doesn't exist or is forced to be happy with the few scraps Steam lets them have.

If you're comfortable believing they received funding from Epic before they had a project plan, then so be it. I'm not. If you're comfortable believing that they laid out the spec for the game based on having funding from Epic, then so be it. I'm not.

And again---for the last time---I recognize how attractive this sort of financial security is, particularly to an independent developer. What I'm not comfortable about is developers pretending that they're doing this for the fans---although admittedly if they go bankrupt that isn't going to help the fans either.

Games don't set out their funding in stone and stick to that. With extra funding things can be added, adjusted and upgraded in production. When a game gets pushed back for extra polish, yeah, that costs money.

 

[mckmas8808]

Even just "We wanted money" is a perfectly valid reason. Companies, and most people in general want to make money. Unless you're a serious hardline anti-capitalist who just doesn't believe in the notion of collecting capital.

So, would you happen to know what other devs have said in the past? Because gamers usually don't get devs a pass like they are here for some reason.

 

[Fuz]

Uh no, it isn't about owing Steam, it is about giving consumers---some of whom are no doubt loyal fans---choice.

Yeah... cool. Cool cool cool cool cool cool cool.

What about when steam was the only platform for certain games? I think I've missed the outrage... I might have been distracted.

 

[Geki-D]

So, would you happen to know what other devs have said in the past? Because gamers usually don't get devs a pass like they are here for some reason.

No idea but I'm pretty sure Epic themselves have come out and said they pay the devs. I guess people are mad because other devs tend to try and sugar coat it whilst here they're outright saying it was for money? Either way, no matter how many other devs have said some BS reason, they're still getting money from Epic they don't from Steam and that's a perfectly valid reason to go EGS exclusive whether the devs want to admit it or not.

 

[johntown]

So? Some services are generally better than others. Doesn't mean all inferior services shouldn't exist. The big difference between them in this case is that Epic give money and assure a certain return on their sales. Whilst Steam just sits on it's ass dreaming about the days it was the only gig in town. These are amazing anti-free market arguments. By the time EGS came about Steam pretty much had a monopoly. Epic have to do what they could to exist in the space Steam practically owned. People who are made about Epic paying devs pretty much just want the Steam monopoly to continue whilst EGS either doesn't exist or is forced to be happy with the few scraps Steam lets them have.

You throw the term monopoly around a lot but I don't think you know the definition. You act like Steam does nothing and offers nothing and somehow Epic is some savior of PC gaming. What Epic does is the opposite of free market competition. They are the ones in fact creating monopolies on certain games. People use Steam because it is the best digital service for PC gaming......not because it is their only option.

 

[Geki-D]

People use Steam because it is the best digital service for PC gaming......not because it is their only option.

For a long time it was practically the only option and was, by far, so big that any other service didn't stand a chance. Also nothing Epic does is anti-free market and I never said Steam was either.

 

[Fuz]

Epic themselves have come out and said they pay the devs

PUBLISHERS

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I hesitated between set myself on fire, or not buying the game, guess what I choose ?

Buy the game and set yourself on fire?

I just won't be buying Soulstorm since I am voting with my wallet. It's one thing to be on different platforms, I encourage that, but it's another to sign exclusivity agreements with a scummy company.

Epic a scummy company? How short Is your memory? Can you remember what Epic and Tim Sweeney did for PC gaming in the 90's and console gaming (Mainly xbox and UE3) in the 2000's or does that not count now because you have to install a different set of software on the SAME PC you have Steam et al installed on.

Unbelievable.

 

[johntown]

Also nothing Epic does is anti-free market and I never said Steam was either.

Okay, so please explain how having some games exclusive to one store is free market? That seems like the opposite of free choice as you only have one option on where to buy the game is you are on PC.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

i have to side with the dev this time. his last game almost drove the company bankrupt. it didn't sell well at all, he had to do this!

 

[IsaOfTheWorlds]

Can anyone actually enlighten me as to why it's so bad for games to release exclusive on the Epic Games store? It's been happening with GOG and Itch.io for long enough and nobody's had an issue until Epic.

 

[Herr Edgy]

Can anyone actually enlighten me as to why it's so bad for games to release exclusive on the Epic Games store? It's been happening with GOG and Itch.io for long enough and nobody's had an issue until Epic.

Because gamers feel like someone is going to take away their toys. Exclusivity is fine if it happens 'naturally' but the moment a company gives incentives for exclusivity (on a free launcher...), that's a step too far!

Probably the same weird kind of obsession that many Americans have with guns. The parallels are oddly in place. Instead of arguing numbers, positives and negatives it usually comes down to 'but muh freedom!!', too... (if anyone feels offended by this because you don't feel like you are this kind of person, consider that this is probably not directed at you)
I'd love to see some studies about this, although it will never happen.

 

[Shifty]

How is it an assumption that if you don't buy a game based on the fact alone that the devs entered an exclusivity agreement with a subpar launcher (that you can actually use to play games, contrary to popular belief) you'd rather have the dev go under than give Epic Games or the devs a bit of money? If you would have otherwise supported the livelihood of the developer by buying their games, then you are literally choosing your principles about free game launchers over the continued existence of the devs. Tell me where I'm wrong here?

Calling someone petty and whiny for stating their opinion is certainly an assumption of character.

And saying "Epic's money had better be enough because I'm not giving them any more of mine" does not translate into "I want the dev to go under". That's hyperbole. A more accurate simplification would be "Let them sink or swim without me".

And even if it wasn't hyperbole, who are you to tell other people how to spend their hard-earned cash? The guy isn't telling you how to spend yours, merely expressing his stance and saying that he'll hold to it.

I am trying to sell consumers that the minor inconveniences they get by using EGS over Steam allow the devs to prosper. Something that I, as a gamer, as a consumer, have an active interest in. Don't you?

Sure, I want to see developers prosper and be able to make quality games. The increased revenue share is a positive, but it has to be weighed against the negative that is fragmenting the PC platform.

I'm not really bothered by the minor inconveniences focused around the EGS app itself- having to download another launcher, it lacking certain features compared to Steam, etc. Those arguments, while valid, are just garnish in comparison to bringing things like platforms wars and ecosystem lock-ins to the PC.

That is also not shifting the goalposts as this is a direct argument as to why the negativity is out of line. We were discussing EGS and exclusivity agreements, I'm pretty sure that providing an argument as to why consumers dealing with a worse launcher is not done out of spite, and actually helps their interests even if there are some disadvantages involved, is relevant to the topic.

It's shifting the goalposts because you're taking a consumer-side opinion and re-framing it into the business perspective in order to attack it, rather than addressing it in its original context.

There's no expectation that a consumer should unquestioningly accept fiscal decisions that are a detriment to them. Yes, there are some benefits, but acting as if it's 'out of line' to form your opinion from a consideration of both the positives and the negatives is ridiculous.

So far I haven't encountered anything from EGS-critics other than "the store is worse" and primarily "I hate being forced to use EGS".

Both valid arguments to make, though on the surface level they're not that big in comparison to the bigger picture that is ecosystem fragmentation. I think you see a lot of these because they're easier to latch onto and argue the case for.

When the advantages for developers and indirect advantages for consumers (more devs developing games and/or taking more risks in terms of game design due to better secured funding) massively outweigh the disadvantages for the consumers (where most people complain more about the princinple and morality than anything else, because evil Epic Games 'bullies' small and upcoming indie studio Valve), then yes, I want to see receipts from anyone who claims to be a professional developer making money directly off his games yet thinks that livelihoods of their colleagues are worth less than his superior morality when it comes to game launchers.

Saying that slightly better-funded devs massively outweighs the disadvantages that you perceive to be based in moral posturing makes me think you, like many who argue so vehemently against anti-EGS opinions, don't have a solid grasp of why people don't want to see it succeed.

Take me for example- I don't want to see PC inherit the console platform war circus, confirmation-biased fanboys and all, because Tim Sweeney and co wanted to make some extra cash. I acknowledge the benefit of better-funded developers and would be lauding Epic for it if that's all they were doing, but the sheer aggressiveness with which they've been moneyhatting games for exclusivity makes it apparent that Epic's priorities are profit first, then big publishers, then indie devs, and then in dead last- paying customers.

Same goes for you. Not trying to discredit anyone, rather, I want to have a proper discussion. And that isn't possible with people who might be lying. Additionally, it wasn't me who brought this up. He tried to give himself more credit by mentioning how he used both the launcher and is developing a game himself. I merely responded by questioning it.

Whether anyone is lying about being a developer or not doesn't matter, because the fact that they may (or may not) be a developer in the first place is immaterial to whether their take on Epic's business practices is valid or not.

All he did was frame his argument as "I've used it since it was just an unreal launcher because I'm making a game", there was no "and therefore I'm right".

If you are an indie dev developing your game while risking a lot and you can still say that EGS is 'evil' and how another free launcher 'fragments the PC community', then props to you for having such strong misplaced beliefs.

I don't think you're in a place to be calling anyone's beliefs 'misplaced' given how tenuous your argumentation has been so far.

The DARQ developer comes to mind, he seems to have pretty solid belief in his ability to build a brand without selling out to Epic.

And, more's to the point, this indie developer you're painting a picture of is a strawman, and a mighty specific one at that. You're acting as if everyone you argue with should hold themselves to the standards of this fictional person who sounds like they're the head of a studio that's in financial dire straits and personally responsible for keeping the doors open, lights on and employees paid. Newsflash: That is not representative of everyone in the indie game industry, even less so everyone outside of it.

As for that: the devs do support Humble Bundle. Additionally, if the question is: "Why Epic when Humble takes even less of a cut": it's not just about the cut but the exclusivity cash, too. Humble doesn't offer that. Do you think developers wouldn't jump ship to Humble if they would literally secure the dev's continued existence? It's irrelevant to the discussion, no matter if it was targeted at me or other indie devs.

Where's the part that says Oddworld: Soulstorm will be releasing on the humble store?

As for the rest, iunno. That goes back to the "any true indie dev would take the money" which I'm kinda done with addressing at this point.

Because gamers feel like someone is going to take away their toys. Exclusivity is fine if it happens 'naturally' but the moment a company gives incentives for exclusivity (on a free launcher...), that's a step too far!

So pray tell, what happened to "I want to have a proper discussion"? It's disingenuous misrepresentation of arguments like this that perpetuates the shitfight that these threads inevitably become.

If you're incapable of understanding that idea, might I suggest that you fuck off elsewhere until you've learned what it actually means to have a "proper discussion"?

 

[Katsura]

Because gamers feel like someone is going to take away their toys. Exclusivity is fine if it happens 'naturally' but the moment a company gives incentives for exclusivity (on a free launcher...), that's a step too far!

Probably the same weird kind of obsession that many Americans have with guns. The parallels are oddly in place. Instead of arguing numbers, positives and negatives it usually comes down to 'but muh freedom!!', too... (if anyone feels offended by this because you don't feel like you are this kind of person, consider that this is probably not directed at you)
I'd love to see some studies about this, although it will never happen.

I'd like to see some studies on fallacious posts on the internet. They could start with you. You want a valid reason for Epic being shit? Epic launcher is build on Electron, which is an outdated version of Chrome + server + what ever outdated libraries they use. That's a huge security risk since older exploits are easily available because they're already patched on the newest version of Chrome. On top of that, Electron based applications use a disproportionally amount of ram for what it does. Electron is shit and so is any application built on it

 

[Shifty]

Epic a scummy company? How short Is your memory? Can you remember what Epic and Tim Sweeney did for PC gaming in the 90's and console gaming (Mainly xbox and UE3) in the 2000's or does that not count now because you have to install a different set of software on the SAME PC you have Steam et al installed on.

Unbelievable.

So doing good stuff some ~20 years ago makes it cool for them to roll up and start nicking kickstarters, pressuring devs into exclusivity with "EGS is not open to titles that simship at this time (unless you have AAA money)" and leaning on Steam functionality for VR games that they've bought exclusivity for?

Don't make me laugh.

 

[Herr Edgy]

Shifty
Honestly, if you can't be bothered to properly adress my points and only claim 'that's not how it is' (state of indie devs, and yes, that is the norm for indie devs), put words in my mouth (me claiming "you'd rather have the dev go under to upkeep your launcher principles" versus "you want the dev to go under"), bringing up strawmen arguments such as "who are you to tell me what to spend my money on" (which would invalidate the entire discussion to begin with, why bring it up if you can't handle it?), the misattribution of my own arguments ("moving the goalposts" because I'm bringing arguments of another perspective to the table that the poster obviously didn't consider or care for, which is either ignorant or actively dishonest; as if that somehow invalidated the argument, because apparently, an argument can't be valid due to it not being 'in the original context'), bringing even more strawmen to the table because somehow if a game appears on Humble or not somehow matters (I just told you, if Humble went for exclusivity deals for stacks of cash then they'd be on Humble instead of EGS; but they aren't, so they don't. Convenient to ignore).

You are further misframing the argument by citing devs who didn't sign the deal, because that matters.. somehow? I don't think anyone is arguing that devs have to take the deal. People such as me are arguing that taking the deal is totally acceptable and should not pose a hinderance for consumers. Good for the DARQ developer! I don't care whether games are on Steam or on EGS. Now, actual arguments please?

I would love to have a sensible discussion, but it doesn't seem to be possible with you. I wonder what the difference is between an EGS critic here in this thread whom I could see eye to eye with, and you?

Maybe their frame of discussion is reasonable and doesn't sacrifice facts for feelings. That your main concern seems to be 'fragmentation' is laughable at best. But you don't need to bother responding, this is taking too much of my time and frankly, it's going to waste if you can't even be bothered to adress my points honestly.

EDIT:

I'd like to see some studies on fallacious posts on the internet. They could start with you. You want a valid reason for Epic being shit? Epic launcher is build on Electron, which is an outdated version of Chrome + server + what ever outdated libraries they use. That's a huge security risk since older exploits are easily available because they're already patched on the newest version of Chrome. On top of that, Electron based applications use a disproportionally amount of ram for what it does. Electron is shit and so is any application built on it

Hah, don't take it too seriously. I suspect some kind of statistical link but that doesn't mean that I think every person is the same.

Also, good on you, that's a valid argument against EGS! But weren't we talking about the exclusivity deals? Or is this just you telling me why you don't like EGS? Thanks? I doubt EGS is as unsecure as you make it sound though.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

So doing good stuff some ~20 years ago makes it cool for them to roll up and start nicking kickstarters, pressuring devs into exclusivity with "EGS is not open to titles that simship at this time (unless you have AAA money)" and leaning on Steam functionality for VR games that they've bought exclusivity for?

Don't make me laugh.

Where's the proof that they are doing any of that?

A company with deep pockets is offering a financial guarantee to a small company. In turn the smaller company gives exclusive rights, usually timed and not indefinite, to Epic.

Where's the problem?

To not play a game you enjoy because of a company's politics or ethics,which don't alter or change the game, ala EA mtx, is madness. Not only is it madness , it's also something the gamergate and feminist crowd were crowing about.

Is the game good? Then play it.

 

[Katsura]

Shifty
Honestly, if you can't be bothered to properly adress my points and only claim 'that's not how it is' (state of indie devs, and yes, that is the norm for indie devs), put words in my mouth (me claiming "you'd rather have the dev go under to upkeep your launcher principles" versus "you want the dev to go under"), bringing up strawmen arguments such as "who are you to tell me what to spend my money on" (which would invalidate the entire discussion to begin with, why bring it up if you can't handle it?), the misattribution of my own arguments ("moving the goalposts" because I'm bringing arguments of another perspective to the table that the poster obviously didn't consider or care for, which is either ignorant or actively dishonest; as if that somehow invalidated the argument, because apparently, an argument can't be valid due to it not being 'in the original context'), bringing even more strawmen to the table because somehow if a game appears on Humble or not somehow matters (I just told you, if Humble went for exclusivity deals for stacks of cash then they'd be on Humble instead of EGS; but they aren't, so they don't. Convenient to ignore).

You are further misframing the argument by citing devs who didn't sign the deal, because that matters.. somehow? I don't think anyone is arguing that devs have to take the deal. People such as me are arguing that taking the deal is totally acceptable and should not pose a hinderance for consumers. Good for the DARQ developer! I don't care whether games are on Steam or on EGS. Now, actual arguments please?

I would love to have a sensible discussion, but it doesn't seem to be possible with you. I wonder what the difference is between an EGS critic here in this thread whom I could see eye to eye with, and you?

Maybe their frame of discussion is reasonable and doesn't sacrifice facts for feelings. That your main concern seems to be 'fragmentation' is laughable at best. But you don't need to bother responding, this is taking too much of my time and frankly, it's going to waste if you can't even be bothered to adress my points honestly.

EDIT:

Hah, don't take it too seriously. I suspect some kind of statistical link but that doesn't mean that I think every person is the same.

Also, good on you, that's a valid argument against EGS! But weren't we talking about the exclusivity deals? Or is this just you telling me why you don't like EGS? Thanks? I doubt EGS is as unsecure as you make it sound though.

The Epic launcher being an insecure, spying piece of borderline malware does tie in to why I refuse to buy anything on the Epic store and why i dislike Epic exclusives. As for me overplaying the insecurity of elektron -

New Fortnite Vulnerabilities Put 80M Player Accounts At Risk

With some 80 million players and generating more than $3 billion in profit for Epic Games last year, you'd think Fortnite would be a pretty secure place to play. You'd be wrong according to researchers who have uncovered vulnerabilities that made player account takeovers child's play.

www.forbes.com

Google discloses vulnerability in Fortnite launcher that allowed possible malware installation

Fortnite has skipped the Google Play store for its Android release, but its avoidance of the securities offered by Goog…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Green Man Gaming Blog

www.greenmangaming.com

Fortnite had a security vulnerability that let hackers take over accounts

An unsecured page for Unreal Tournament from 2004 came back to haunt Epic Games.

www.cnet.com

Fortnite Battle Royale gamers at risk after data breach, experts say

Players of the popular game Fortnite Battle Royale could be on the hit list of hackers who reportedly infiltrated the email accounts of an estimated 800,000 users two years ago.

www.clickorlando.com

 

[Herr Edgy]

The Epic launcher being an insecure, spying piece of borderline malware does tie in to why I refuse to buy anything on the Epic store and why i dislike Epic exclusives. As for me overplaying the insecurity of elektron -

Thanks for the links! I only saw the 4th one so far. Yeah, I can totally understand why someone would be sceptical if there were recent security breaches. Are they directly related to Electron though?
I'm pretty sure that whatever framework you'd be using you would some security risks if not accounted for by security experts.
I am not trying to downplay that issue, it's important that Epic takes security seriously, but an honest question, do you avoid Steam too?

Because a quick google search also turns up several security breaches for Steam, like the following:

An Exploit Left Millions of Steam Users Vulnerable for the Past 10 Years

A security researcher found a serious vulnerability that allowed hackers to take control of a Steam user’s computer.

www.vice.com

Steam vulnerability reportedly exposes Windows gamers to system hijacking

The researcher was asked not to disclose the bug but did so anyway.

www.zdnet.com

Security researcher publicly releases second Steam zero-day after being banned from Valve’s bug bounty program

A Russian security researcher, Vasily Kravets, has found a second zero-day vulnerability in the Steam gaming platform, in a span of two weeks. The researcher said he reported the first Steam zero-day vulnerability earlier in August, to its parent company, Valve, and tried to have it fixed before...

securityboulevard.com

Some of these are pretty recent, too.

 

[KungFucius]

Console gamers: damn these exclusives. If I want to play them I have to buy different platforms.

PC gamers: damn these exclusives. I can use the same PC or laptop, but geez I have to run a different launcher. I have no problem running dosbox or an emulator to play old games, but man.... switching back and forth between Steam and EGS is insanely tough. Even if devs get a bigger cut of sales and financial help from Epic so they dont go broke, I would rather have it all on Steam and keep supporting the PC store with probably 95% of the market

Pretty much, Based on them not being cunts like Apple and Valve demanding 30% via market power extortion, I would prefer them on principle. I don't get why so many people here like cunts. They must be the kind of shitty people who would fuck you over as hard as they could for a few dollars more.

 

[Katsura]

Thanks for the links! I only saw the 4th one so far. Yeah, I can totally understand why someone would be sceptical if there were recent security breaches. Are they directly related to Electron though?
I'm pretty sure that whatever framework you'd be using you would some security risks if not accounted for by security experts.
I am not trying to downplay that issue, it's important that Epic takes security seriously, but an honest question, do you avoid Steam too?

Because a quick google search also turns up several security breaches for Steam, like the following:

An Exploit Left Millions of Steam Users Vulnerable for the Past 10 Years

A security researcher found a serious vulnerability that allowed hackers to take control of a Steam user’s computer.

www.vice.com

Steam vulnerability reportedly exposes Windows gamers to system hijacking

The researcher was asked not to disclose the bug but did so anyway.

www.zdnet.com

Security researcher publicly releases second Steam zero-day after being banned from Valve’s bug bounty program

A Russian security researcher, Vasily Kravets, has found a second zero-day vulnerability in the Steam gaming platform, in a span of two weeks. The researcher said he reported the first Steam zero-day vulnerability earlier in August, to its parent company, Valve, and tried to have it fixed before...

securityboulevard.com

Some of these are pretty recent, too.

Electron is particularly bad because it wraps an entire web browser (that contains almost as much code as all of Windows 10), then adds the NodeJS (another massive framework) plus what ever external libraries they use. It's a gargantuan mess of code and when ever a new version of Chromium releases, in order to update the Epic launcher to the newest browser version, they have to wait for Electron + libraries to support that version and then patch it in. Since Chrome is the most popular browser by a large margin, there are lots of exploits in the wild for hackers to work with. Steam also has a Chromium based browser component but they at least had the sense to trim the parts that weren't relevant, making it harder to exploit

I would honestly prefer a return to the days before Steam. I have never been 100% on board with launchers but at least Steam adds a lot of QoL features for it's users in the form of forums, user reviews etc. Gabe's philosophy was that piracy was a quality of service problem - that if you delivered all this functionality, users would buy their games on the platform and he was right. In that regard, i see Epic as a massive step backwards

 

[Alan Silvestro]

Won't buy, thanks devs.

 

[lukilladog]

Epic a scummy company? How short Is your memory? Can you remember what Epic and Tim Sweeney did for PC gaming in the 90's and console gaming (Mainly xbox and UE3) in the 2000's

They made their games for the money so Pc gamers owe them nothing, and from their own mouth, they abandoned Pc gaming in favour of consoles some time ago. When Gabe had faith, Tim thought pc gaming was long lost to piracy.

Also they didn´t change the Unreal engine terms and pricing until actual competence from other engines like Unity hit their revenue. They are not pro-dev as they say, and evidently not pro-user, all they care is about the money. I wont say they are scummy because of that, but they are scummy for trying to compete by way of making the competence worse using quasi-monopolistic practices, aka artificially driving waay up the capital other companies need in order to be able to compete. These things are costing hundreds of millions, and Tencent has the deepest pockets, so we cannot support the richest company dictating "competence" on their own terms, it´s counterproductive for the market and the consumer. And you know, even if they stop the exclusives at some point, they will get back at them as soon as they see their position compromised, the time to stop them is now.

 

[KyoZz]

Calling someone petty and whiny for stating their opinion is certainly an assumption of character.

And saying "Epic's money had better be enough because I'm not giving them any more of mine" does not translate into "I want the dev to go under". That's hyperbole. A more accurate simplification would be "Let them sink or swim without me".

And even if it wasn't hyperbole, who are you to tell other people how to spend their hard-earned cash? The guy isn't telling you how to spend yours, merely expressing his stance and saying that he'll hold to it.


Sure, I want to see developers prosper and be able to make quality games. The increased revenue share is a positive, but it has to be weighed against the negative that is fragmenting the PC platform.

I'm not really bothered by the minor inconveniences focused around the EGS app itself- having to download another launcher, it lacking certain features compared to Steam, etc. Those arguments, while valid, are just garnish in comparison to bringing things like platforms wars and ecosystem lock-ins to the PC.


It's shifting the goalposts because you're taking a consumer-side opinion and re-framing it into the business perspective in order to attack it, rather than addressing it in its original context.

There's no expectation that a consumer should unquestioningly accept fiscal decisions that are a detriment to them. Yes, there are some benefits, but acting as if it's 'out of line' to form your opinion from a consideration of both the positives and the negatives is ridiculous.


Both valid arguments to make, though on the surface level they're not that big in comparison to the bigger picture that is ecosystem fragmentation. I think you see a lot of these because they're easier to latch onto and argue the case for.


Saying that slightly better-funded devs massively outweighs the disadvantages that you perceive to be based in moral posturing makes me think you, like many who argue so vehemently against anti-EGS opinions, don't have a solid grasp of why people don't want to see it succeed.

Take me for example- I don't want to see PC inherit the console platform war circus, confirmation-biased fanboys and all, because Tim Sweeney and co wanted to make some extra cash. I acknowledge the benefit of better-funded developers and would be lauding Epic for it if that's all they were doing, but the sheer aggressiveness with which they've been moneyhatting games for exclusivity makes it apparent that Epic's priorities are profit first, then big publishers, then indie devs, and then in dead last- paying customers.


Whether anyone is lying about being a developer or not doesn't matter, because the fact that they may (or may not) be a developer in the first place is immaterial to whether their take on Epic's business practices is valid or not.

All he did was frame his argument as "I've used it since it was just an unreal launcher because I'm making a game", there was no "and therefore I'm right".


I don't think you're in a place to be calling anyone's beliefs 'misplaced' given how tenuous your argumentation has been so far.

The DARQ developer comes to mind, he seems to have pretty solid belief in his ability to build a brand without selling out to Epic.

And, more's to the point, this indie developer you're painting a picture of is a strawman, and a mighty specific one at that. You're acting as if everyone you argue with should hold themselves to the standards of this fictional person who sounds like they're the head of a studio that's in financial dire straits and personally responsible for keeping the doors open, lights on and employees paid. Newsflash: That is not representative of everyone in the indie game industry, even less so everyone outside of it.


Where's the part that says Oddworld: Soulstorm will be releasing on the humble store?

As for the rest, iunno. That goes back to the "any true indie dev would take the money" which I'm kinda done with addressing at this point.


So pray tell, what happened to "I want to have a proper discussion"? It's disingenuous misrepresentation of arguments like this that perpetuates the shitfight that these threads inevitably become.

If you're incapable of understanding that idea, might I suggest that you fuck off elsewhere until you've learned what it actually means to have a "proper discussion"?

This

 

[strange headache]

And saying "Epic's money had better be enough because I'm not giving them any more of mine" does not translate into "I want the dev to go under". That's hyperbole. A more accurate simplification would be "Let them sink or swim without me".

^This

The Oddworld developers decided to put their own financial gains over the consumer interests of their audience. That's fine and certainly understandable. At the same time, I'm making use of my own liberties by staying loyal to my consumer interests and simply decide to not buy their game. I wish them well, but if the developers have the right to protect their interests, so have I.

No harm, no foul, it's only fair.

 

[abstract alien]

I'm not sure why they even needed to address something so obvious, but I guess that's the age we live in.

 

[mayhemking]

Kind of annoying but damn that gameplay looks slick...

 

[oagboghi2]

This is a take I can respect. It's nuanced, it explains how you feel about some things while at the same time respecting the situations of people involved, and in the end it's about the games, as it should be.

I just want to add that deals like these might not always help much with the funding of the particular game the contract is made for, but definitely for future releases, post release support etc.
It would suck big time if an unheard of indie dev released a unique gem that wasn't successful enough and the dev going into the triple A market help make the next Anthem instead of making a sequel or putting another unique spin on a different genre.

Oh please, fuck off with your respect. As if that means a damn thing.

The oddworld devs are not entitled to consumers cash. If exclusivity harms them financially, that is their fault. It is not the fault of the customer.

 

[Gargus]

I understand they all go epic because they want more money and that's fine. But I won't buy it because I don't use epic and I doubt I ever will.

Aside from the usual reasons everyone complains about the epic store that I agree with in some form or another i simply don't want yet another game launcher. I have blizzard, gog, and steam and that's all I will have. I don't want to fragment my games even more, don't want more launchers to deal with, and i don't have the time to catch up on the games i have as it is so the last thing i want is to get games I don't quite have time to play on a platform I'm not interested in. If their game showed up on a steam sale I'd probably get it, but I won't buy it any other way.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I have Origin cause of Sims, I have Battle.net cause of WoW, I have uPlay because it just showed up one day when launching a steam game. For me the epic store mostly comes down to "meh", nothing on there worth installing yet another launcher. These are just marginal indie games that, if they were on steam, I might buy on a steam sale and never play. Now I will never buy them, because I will never see them on sale, which saves me money, so thanks Epic!

 

[93xfan]

What an odd world we live in.

 

[Later Alligator]

couldn't they just get the guaranteed sales $$ via a kickstarter or something like that? keeps everyone happy that way

or is Epic offering that much money for an exclusive?

 

[jadefire66]

Do people actually refuse to buy from EGS if it's a game they want to play and it's exclusive to EGS? If yes, are you going to pirate it or not? Or just get the console version?

 

[Kadayi]

Maybe people, rather than crying because Epic give devs a good deal, should be angry at Steam for not stepping up their game.

How exactly is Steam supposed to compete with Epic basically bankrolling indie devs for a year?

Do people actually refuse to buy from EGS if it's a game they want to play and it's exclusive to EGS? If yes, are you going to pirate it or not? Or just get the console version?

They're only timed exclusives. After a year the developers can sell their games anywhere, and Steams too big a market place to ignore in that regard.

 

[Enjay]

let's see how the cry babies spin this one.

Not enough people care about oddworld.