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"?