Support NeoGAF

[Nikana]

It isn't because setting up your own store and website is not only costly (Factorio also has their own site to hold mods), it's also risky because of resellers, people buying your game with stolen credits card and then requesting a refund. If you have your own store you'll be losing money every time someone does this, if it's on steam they'll handle it for you.

Makes sense. Thanks for the info.

I would say those are some strong points for steam/Valve. But I have to assume that's not for every game?

Let me ask a better question I think. To me it sounds like there isn't any synergy like a Movies Anywhere style account that lets you buy on any platform you like and use the content how you see fit.

If this was adapted and whichever store got the transaction got the cash, but you could use the content on any platform, would people be happier?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm well aware of what Valve has done for PC gaming. But I expect more from them given the position they have. They have been slacking on the games department front at least for 8 years.

Fair enough. It's not like they haven't been working on stuff, though. They've made a ton of shit internally, but just never brought anything to completion. That's the kind of company they are. They don't need to and will not release anything that doesn't satisfy their (possibly ridiculously) high quality bar.

 

[JLB]

Its called hypocrisy OP. Its bullshit always and in any case. But there will be people crafting arguments to defend this shit, somehow.

 

[Aion002]

Because people for some reason are loyal to the conglomerate they prefer and I just have no clue why. Look at Sony for with all of their new game announcements for instance, I noticed one big theme which is timed exclusivity and the lack of outrage and even misinformation spread through gaming sites regarding these releases. You see people championing the fact that a large portion of gamers have been locked off from a game knowing that they would not be happy with this outcome if the shoe was on the opposite foot and would have initiated full mob mentality if it was another company.

My question would be why does any company get positive feed back for these timed exclusives when in the long run it just hurts consumers. I do however feel it's less of a problem on pc than console as people don't have to buy a new PC to download games on the epic store.

Bugsnax (Timed exclusive)

Deathloop (Timed exclusive)

Ghostwire: Tokyo (Timed exclusive)

Godfall (Timed exclusive)

Goodbye Volcano High (Timed exclusive)

JETT: The Far Shore (Timed exclusive)

Kena: Bridge of Spirits (Timed exclusive)

Little Devil Inside (Timed exclusive)

Oddworld: Soulstorm (Timed exclusive)

Project Athia (Timed exclusive)

Solar Ash (Timed exclusive)

Stray (Timed exclusive)

I think that other than Deathloop and Ghostwire (yeah... I don't get why Sony wants them or why Bethesda needs Sony) and Project Athia, that is a S-E game, so is probably coming out in 5 years for everything (remember Versus XIII?), we can't really say that Sony money hatted those games.

All of them are new IP's from new or smaller studios and probably needed support from someone. In Godfall, both Sony and Epic are helping out publishing.

And this is fine (unless someone has info that Sony paid them to not release those games on Xbox and Nintendo), it is normal.

See, small studios most of times need help and if one huge companie offers help (in good terms) they will agree with it, MS is doing that with Scorn, for example and other games.


In the PS4 gen, for example, Nioh was in development hell since the PS3, Sony came in and helped them publish it, now we already have 2 Nioh games and Koei Tecmo is not a new or small studio, but still... They needed help.

 

[RedVIper]

Makes sense. Thanks for the info.

I would say those are some strong points for steam/Valve. But I have to assume that's not for every game?

Let me ask a better question I think. To me it sounds like there isn't any synergy like a Movies Anywhere style account that lets you buy on any platform you like and use the content how you see fit.

If this was adapted and whichever store got the transaction got the cash, but you could use the content on any platform, would people be happier?

What do you mean "use" the content on any platform? Factorio doesn't have DRM, it doesn't need a platform to be used.

 

[cartman414]

Strike that. itch.io does have an app.

Why is no one else talking about it even after the killer $5 charity bundle?

 

[BDubsLegend]

I haven't read a good reason for the difference yet.

 

[MP!]

its sort of a double standard whenever it comes to sony

 

[SentientStone]

Epic is a dishonourable wumao unlike our noble consoles, didn't you get the memo?

 

[Zekra Dezivad]

I don't know, people still don't like it but I think people don't like Epic more that the actual practice.
Also, Steam and EGS aren't platforms, are just clients for the same platform and it seems harder to justify an exclusive if you already have the pc version but you refuse to release were an user actually plays. However it's also true that the PC gamer is very very habitual (i hope this is english lol)

 

[Guilty_AI]

They're both technically ok from a capitalist point of view, but they're also both shitty for the end-costumer.

The reason why Epic store gets more hate lies in the way they did it, like pulling a game from steam just a few weeks before release even when it was already available for pre-order, specifically targeting games that were most wishlisted on steam, or being misrepresentative of the whole picture in regards to the digital store scene for the sake of painting a narrative of sorts. It honestly came off as rather agressive and scummy from their part, and felt naturally off putting.

Then there's also the fact that the PC community tends to be far more critical in terms of shitty companies practices. They're the most vocal about DRM matters for example, they also lashed out at MS when they tried to implement paid online gaming. It probably has a lot to do with how PC gaming revolves around the idea of an open platform.

 

[sol_bad]

I think op needs to clarify a bit more about what he is actually talking about. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to exclusivity.

On the console side you have games that are made and published by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo themselves, the development studio is owned by the parent company. These games are one of the most important things to a company that makes console hardware, it's generally what helps sell units. I know people will say "but what about MS, they release their games on PC and Gamepass!!!". Let's be honest here, if MS' first party games were selling as many copies as what Sony and Nintendo were selling they wouldn't be going down this path, they wouldn't need to.
If Epic owned any developers and had their games released exclusively on the Epic game store there would be no uproar by the majority of PC gamers. I was perfectly fine buying a game by EA on the Origin store as the games were made by them and it was the only place to buy them. Same with Ubisoft and their digital store front.

Then you have exclusives where Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft does not own the development company but they like the idea of the game (or the idea of an IP they own) and they fund the production of the game or provide advertising support for the game. Again, I think these games are fine to have exclusive as they are footing the bills. Again, if Epic would fund these games from the get go there wouldn't be an issue at all for the majority of PC gamers. Same goes for EA and Ubi.

Then you have exclusivity bought titles, meaning that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft did not help fund the game or advertising. They literally paid money to make the game or DLC exclusive to their platform. This is basically a dick move and is not ok. This is almost what Epic are doing now and it is also a duck move.

No Man's Sky is a bit confusing for me, I know that Sony had some sort of financial stake in the game but I'm not exactly sure what it was. If they helped fund the game than everyone else who loves and plays the game (on platforms other than Sony) should actually be happy that this was allowed to happen. I they only covered advertising costs, see my second paragraph but again everyone should be happy that the game was allowed on other platforms. Sony were a bunch of dicks for allowing the advertising that did happen for this game though, that's on them IMO!

Something that Epic were doing was "stealing" games away from other PC platforms. As mentioned these are games from Kickstarter and games that were close to release. This is akin to a game being advertised for PS4, Xbox and Switch and then 2 weeks before release Sony pay a massive sum to keep the game on their console and then EB Games etc having to tell gamers that they can't get the game on their chosen platform anymore. DICK MOVE all around.

Finally we have third party games by developers that only target a single platform without any financial benefit from the platform holder. It's wholly their decision and this is OK if they decide to do this as they don't have the resources for multiple platforms or they deem certain platforms not worthy of their time. If developers on PC were choosing the Epic store on their own accord without Epics intervention this would also be ok as it's what the developer wants. Unfortunately we know this isn't true as pretty much every Epic exclusive game has openly admitted that their is a deal in place with Epic.
So Epic = DICK MOVE ALL AROUND

Bugsnax (Timed exclusive)
Deathloop (Timed exclusive)
Ghostwire: Tokyo (Timed exclusive)
Godfall (Timed exclusive)
Goodbye Volcano High (Timed exclusive)
JETT: The Far Shore (Timed exclusive)
Kena: Bridge of Spirits (Timed exclusive)
Little Devil Inside (Timed exclusive)
Oddworld: Soulstorm (Timed exclusive)
Project Athia (Timed exclusive)
Solar Ash (Timed exclusive)
Stray (Timed exclusive)

Are you sure these are all timed exclusive? Do you have a source for this?

 

[IDappa]

I think that other than Deathloop and Ghostwire (yeah... I don't get why Sony wants them or why Bethesda needs Sony) and Project Athia, that is a S-E game, so is probably coming out in 5 years for everything (remember Versus XIII?), we can't really say that Sony money hatted those games.

All of them are new IP's from new or smaller studios and probably needed support from someone. In Godfall, both Sony and Epic are helping out publishing.

And this is fine (unless someone has info that Sony paid them to not release those games on Xbox and Nintendo), it is normal.

See, small studios most of times need help and if one huge companie offers help (in good terms) they will agree with it, MS is doing that with Scorn, for example and other games.


In the PS4 gen, for example, Nioh was in development hell since the PS3, Sony came in and helped them publish it, now we already have 2 Nioh games and Koei Tecmo is not a new or small studio, but still... They needed help.

I agree that if small devs need financial backing a timed exclusivity deal is definitely in their best insterest and I am fine with that, also if Devs in financial need I'm also fine with. If it means a Devs goes under or a game is a timed exclusive I would pick the latter.

However as you pointed out when it comes to bigger games and companies such as deathloop, godfall, ghostwire that do not necessarily need financial help you cannot help but point out the bias in the gaming community. PlayStation have really pushed timed exclusivity hard this gen and to an extreme that should be very troublesome for all of us. When you're being withheld a game or DLC 12-24 months later it should be a cause for concern and not applauded because it's the company you may like best doing it.

Edit- with a quick look online I did find this?. Not sure what your thoughts would be on this. To be fair they stated they ran into some problems but I don't think it's insane to question if Sony money hatred this one.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2...then_switch_winds_up_as_a_ps5_timed-exclusive

 

[Aion002]

I agree that if small devs need financial backing a timed exclusivity deal is definitely in their best insterest and I am fine with that, also if Devs in financial need I'm also fine with. If it means a Devs goes under or a game is a timed exclusive I would pick the latter.

However as you pointed out when it comes to bigger games and companies such as deathloop, godfall, ghostwire that do not necessarily need financial help you cannot help but point out the bias in the gaming community. PlayStation have really pushed timed exclusivity hard this gen and to an extreme that should be very troublesome for all of us. When you're being withheld a game or DLC 12-24 months later it should be a cause for concern and not applauded because it's the company you may like best doing it.

Edit- with a quick look online I did find this?. Not sure what your thoughts would be on this. To be fair they stated they ran into some problems but I don't think it's insane to question if Sony money hatred this one.

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2...then_switch_winds_up_as_a_ps5_timed-exclusive

As many of you know, we originally hoped for an all platform, concurrent release but for many reasons which we learned the hard way, this just was not possible.

I think that this "learned the hard way" part makes pretty clear that they had to make a deal with Sony to make the game happen.

But yeah.. It's pretty scummy from Sony in cases like Deathloop and Ghostwriter. Bethesda probably didn't have enough faith in those games, so Sony tossed some sure money at them and got those deals... It is disguting in my opinion and people should criticize them for it. I personally won't buy those two games.

While I do think that in Little Devil Inside case, Sony might have saved the game.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I've never had an issue with it.

 

[IDappa]

I think op needs to clarify a bit more about what he is actually talking about. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to exclusivity.

On the console side you have games that are made and published by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo themselves, the development studio is owned by the parent company. These games are one of the most important things to a company that makes console hardware, it's generally what helps sell units. I know people will say "but what about MS, they release their games on PC and Gamepass!!!". Let's be honest here, if MS' first party games were selling as many copies as what Sony and Nintendo were selling they wouldn't be going down this path, they wouldn't need to.
If Epic owned any developers and had their games released exclusively on the Epic game store there would be no uproar by the majority of PC gamers. I was perfectly fine buying a game by EA on the Origin store as the games were made by them and it was the only place to buy them. Same with Ubisoft and their digital store front.

Then you have exclusives where Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft does not own the development company but they like the idea of the game (or the idea of an IP they own) and they fund the production of the game or provide advertising support for the game. Again, I think these games are fine to have exclusive as they are footing the bills. Again, if Epic would fund these games from the get go there wouldn't be an issue at all for the majority of PC gamers. Same goes for EA and Ubi.

Then you have exclusivity bought titles, meaning that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft did not help fund the game or advertising. They literally paid money to make the game or DLC exclusive to their platform. This is basically a dick move and is not ok. This is almost what Epic are doing now and it is also a duck move.

No Man's Sky is a bit confusing for me, I know that Sony had some sort of financial stake in the game but I'm not exactly sure what it was. If they helped fund the game than everyone else who loves and plays the game (on platforms other than Sony) should actually be happy that this was allowed to happen. I they only covered advertising costs, see my second paragraph but again everyone should be happy that the game was allowed on other platforms. Sony were a bunch of dicks for allowing the advertising that did happen for this game though, that's on them IMO!

Something that Epic were doing was "stealing" games away from other PC platforms. As mentioned these are games from Kickstarter and games that were close to release. This is akin to a game being advertised for PS4, Xbox and Switch and then 2 weeks before release Sony pay a massive sum to keep the game on their console and then EB Games etc having to tell gamers that they can't get the game on their chosen platform anymore. DICK MOVE all around.

Finally we have third party games by developers that only target a single platform without any financial benefit from the platform holder. It's wholly their decision and this is OK if they decide to do this as they don't have the resources for multiple platforms or they deem certain platforms not worthy of their time. If developers on PC were choosing the Epic store on their own accord without Epics intervention this would also be ok as it's what the developer wants. Unfortunately we know this isn't true as pretty much every Epic exclusive game has openly admitted that their is a deal in place with Epic.
So Epic = DICK MOVE ALL AROUND




Are you sure these are all timed exclusive? Do you have a source for this?

Just a bit of googling will get you there if you have a look, Sorry I don't really have the timeto link all of those games.

However I will link a couple things



Unfortunately this YouTuber doesn't link his sources but just linking for you just so you don't think it's just me.

Game Originally Planned For Wii U, Then Switch, Winds Up As A PS5 Timed-Exclusive

It's having quite the journey

www.nintendolife.com

Say what you will about the obnoxious EXCLUSIVE or TIMED EXCLUSIVE flair Microsoft does for their events at least they're honest about it, imo it's a bit shady of Sony to push this type of info it the background forcing people to dig for the info. I guess that is marketing.

 

[genesisblock]

"Paying online is not OK for PC, but fine for Sony and Microsoft?". Same argument.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Epic should do more of it. Steam has been fleecing PC gamers for years with no exclusive content. So much so that a large portion of the hardcore master race have become console exclusive beggars. That's a telltale sign of unhappy consumers tired of generic multiplats.

No one, absolutely no one is forcing developers to take Epic's money.... NO ONE. Developers take the safe money to guarantee their survival which is a net positive. Developers well fed = more games. If you want a specific exclusive game at launch or at all; go and use the Epic Game store. It's as easy and simple as that. You don't even have to buy a new console like on the console realm.

What's anti-consumer and selfish is to sit on a pedestal and claim you're owed access to any and all games, including console exclusives and that all games should come to your platform of choice (and client of choice aka Steam) just cause you think your $30-40 matters more than any other financial consideration. Never has this fake argument gotten so far as to practically call for a monopoly pro-consumer.

How about instead of begging Sony/MS or Epic to stop exclusivity, you all beg Nvidia, Intel and Steam to release some damn exclusives... oh that's right - dead end. You chose what platform to invest money and what companies to reward hardware wise and client wise. If you're left wanting content, instead of bitching about other platforms (to which you have not significantly invested in), beg and demand of those who're not satisfying your needs.

 

[IDappa]

U

I think that this "learned the hard way" part makes pretty clear that they had to make a deal with Sony to make the game happen.

But yeah.. It's pretty scummy from Sony in cases like Deathloop and Ghostwriter. Bethesda probably didn't have enough faith in those games, so Sony tossed some sure money at them and got those deals... It is disguting in my opinion and people should criticize them for it. I personally won't buy those two games.

While I do think that in Little Devil Inside case, Sony might have saved the game.

Unfortunately we will never know, however I would assume if they did save the game it would be easy good press for them if they shared that detail. Which is why I am sceptical.

You might be right about bethesda, ghostwire does look like a very different type of game which they could consider to be not as appealing to the masses and deathloop looks like a very dishonored esk type of game with time loops sprinkled in which may be hard to market?

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Depends. If you're paying to rope stuff off (RotTR) then that's shit. If you're paying for something to be made that no-one else will fund (B2) or co-funding production (new SH) then that's okay.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Steam has even more loyal following than sony and ms.

Pc was always far more fragmented than consoles with individual companies forcing you into their launchers.

But everyone wants to use steam.

 

[Keihart]

meh, i think it's ok either way.
I mean, the only real open platorm it's GoG sometimes, and PC it's not an "Open Platform" as some like to say, the platform it's really the launcher that keeps your games, so you have to bend over for them.

 

[Keihart]

Different market the gaming platform on PC isn't tied to a sole entity you dont even need windows to play games you have linux,ubuntu,steam os,Ios. Pc has multiple store fronts and multiple distributors no one person owns anything steam is less a store front and more of an open internet data base for games were you can do anything you want. And thats before we talk about emulators and other side piece of software that is 100% open source.

Epic is a propriety gaming company that is locking stuff to there store origin was the same but unlike origin Epic is selling your info out to the Chinese communist party. Epic's store is unusable, the rootkits hidden in there store front raise legality eye brows and the fact that they just steal exclusive deals and lock them on a store front behind other shady practice is disgusting.

MS,Sony,Nintendo,Steam,GOG arent like epic in the slighest even Origin and Uplay aren't like that the fact that Epic is backed up by the CCP and Tencent is reason alone not to touch that store with a 10ft pole.

Tell me more about the great experience of gaming on IOS and Linux
The only reason still anyone mains windows are probably games.

 

[Alexios]

I mean, the people who care about the former (and would really care a lot less if Epic's service was on par with Steam and other platforms so that they don't feel they miss out on shit when a game does go Epic exclusive for no reason other than Fortnite money which is not a sustainable business factor long term) don't really have a stake in the latter to care, especially when "console exclusives" come to PC anyway regardless of that deal. But yes, lotsa people have spoken against the idea of 3rd party exclusives on console too. Of course not the fanboys of the platform that did get this or that hot title, they love it, until it happens for another console and then they cry foul again, haha. Are you 12? First time gamer? Weird you've not seen any of it if none of this is the case.

The situation on PC is like, if games are ice cream flavors and types and you have your favorite local ice cream shop with a beautiful environment, nice relaxed atmosphere, great staff, sparkling clean at all times, clearly borne of the business owner's passion for ice cream, what it stands for, and foresight on how ice cream lovers can enjoy it best, down to making awesome special ice cream utensils of his own just for that purpose, and the ice cream manufacturers organically choose them in that area because they're so popular and awesome and passionate about ice cream and they see how all the people love going there so they distribute their ice cream there to reach your local community who loves that store. But there are still various smaller ice cream joints around doing their own special thing that people go to even though they're far from perfect, their heart is in the right place and was even inspired by the other business. Then some shady character sees that success and thinks he can get by just by paying off this or that ice cream manufacturer for a flavor or two to only be sold there thinking they can force people to come by their shitty dirty store that just himself and his family run while being super rude to everybody and never cleaning shit or providing any decent service or environment. And then you have people comparing the former to the latter because hey it's just the same, one store vs another, it's fair competition, one store shouldn't get all the customers no matter how much better it is vs all the other jack asses trying to exploit and force the hand of ice cream lovers with those deals instead of providing an equally awesome store, in their own ways and not as a mere copy cat, that people, customers and manufacturers will enjoy.

Makes sense. Thanks for the info.

I would say those are some strong points for steam/Valve. But I have to assume that's not for every game?

Let me ask a better question I think. To me it sounds like there isn't any synergy like a Movies Anywhere style account that lets you buy on any platform you like and use the content how you see fit.

If this was adapted and whichever store got the transaction got the cash, but you could use the content on any platform, would people be happier?

That's how Steam works, they're not exclusively sold on Steam but any number of other sellers the developer/publisher chooses for no extra charge, while still taking on the actual distribution cost as the games are downloaded/supported on Steam just the same as if bought on it. Yet another reason people prefer Steam for how they handle things vs Epic. Basically people often talk about how this or that game is "steam exclusive" as a counter argument while not counting all 3rd party sellers the game can be bought from and how in Steam's case it happens organically as the best choice, for all it offers for developers and publishers - who know how to use it, not some random ignoramus or paid off shills that spread misconceptions - and also for gamers that make that worth it financially on actual market terms, actual sales, not because Valve offered some extra millions.

Edit: lol, munkee below me literally just used that sad excuse for a counter argument I point out above, how predictable and just as pointless with no substance as ever, spot on avatar choice at least!

 

[ResilientBanana]

Pc is an open platform

consoles are closed platforms

Epic wanna turn pc into console. Thats why

Meanwhile, everyone is all good with all games ever only being on steam.

 

[rofif]

Not the same. Imagine you would have 4 separate stores with logins on PS4. It's a separation within platform

 

[theclaw135]

To many, the PC is effectively synonymous with Steam. Those people disregard if not persecute PC games they have to play anywhere other than Steam.
I mean if a 3rd party wants to run their own store, that's their prerogative and they shoulder any consequences.

Anyhow, Steam has its own forms of exclusivity. Either a game is only sold on Steam's store, or no matter how or where you buy the game it must activate on Steam.

Not the same. Imagine you would have 4 separate stores with logins on PS4. It's a separation within platform

Consoles don't allow competing stores. Epic exclusivity may be derided, but at least companies are given the choice.

 

[llien]

Your dignity

My dignity tells me to avoid that "Apple cut" software store, starting with S.
GoG also cuts 30%, but at least games are yours forever with no DRM bullshit.

 

[DavidGzz]

Only fanboys like this practice.

 

[Kumomeme]

different situation perhaps?
both sony and nintendo didnt have more than one of this services

while for pc users there is steam, epic store etc and from my understanding, user might need end up to subs more than one of these store services compared to sony and nintendo.

exclusives on playstation and nintendo console is tied to platform, while these tied to different online store services despite everyone had windows pc.

 

[turtlepowa]

I hate timed exclusives. Nobody has an advantage with it.

 

[chamber79]

More competition the better, the Epic has no way to catch up to Steam if they didn't use those tactics since Steam has a virtual monopoly. There is really hardly any incentive for anyone to try out other platforms since it seems Steam and Valve are so revered by PC gamers.

 

[theclaw135]

Whether an exclusive is justified or not is subject to the circumstances around why it's exclusive:

If the platform holder wants to make their own games, then that's fine (1st party titles)

If they want to commission an external studio to make a game specifically for their platform, then that's also fine (2nd party titles)

If an external publisher/studio want to make a game on just one platform, either because the audience doesn't exist elsewhere or to minimise costs, thats good too (3rd party titles)

If a platform holder is simply paying for a game to not be released on one or more other platforms, or adding timed/full exclusivity clauses to their contracts when agreeing to allow sales on their platform, then that's bollocks, as well as an anti consumer and underhanded way to conduct business.

It's easy to forget that. A smaller studio may only have the resources to support one platform.

Besides, contract terms are confidential. We rarely ever have access to documents substantiating how much money changed hands. (or perhaps some other unlikely incentive was used)

 

[ZywyPL]

It's an anti-consumer practice, no matter who does it.

 

[the_master]

Exclusivity deals can help fund projects. That is the best part about any exclusivity.

 

[20cent]

Devs/Publishers are to be blamed then, it is natural for a shop to want the most consumers.

 

[mejin]

PC is an open platform as long as Steam has the monopoly. Anyone who tries to be a competitor is roasted.

PC has as much fanboys as in the console space.

 

[theclaw135]

Exclusivity deals can help fund projects. That is the best part about any exclusivity.

True, and it's certainly possible to sweeten the offer with technical or marketing help.

 

[adamosmaki]

different markets. Also the problem is when a game is announced it will be released on steam you expect it to release there and not pull out the last moment because Epic payed them

 

[Griffon]

Exclusivity is shit no matter the platform.

Imagine if I couldn't watch the Bluray box of the Lord of The Ring trilogy because I'm not using a Sony machine.

Games are just games, you should be able to play on any machine of your choice.

 

[PaintTinJr]

To many, the PC is effectively synonymous with Steam. Those people disregard if not persecute PC games they have to play anywhere other than Steam.
I mean if a 3rd party wants to run their own store, that's their prerogative and they shoulder any consequences.

Anyhow, Steam has its own forms of exclusivity. Either a game is only sold on Steam's store, or no matter how or where you buy the game it must activate on Steam.



Consoles don't allow competing stores. Epic exclusivity may be derided, but at least companies are given the choice.

To your last point, I would say games at the point of inception are a creative endeavour and so when consoles have unique hardware, the best examples of bought exclusives (eg MGS4 or Gears, etc IMO) evolve tightly around the unique target hardware, yielding different results.

The PC doesn't have unique hardware (with a customer base with that hardware) so the process isn't creatively improved by keeping a game off other systems (IMO).

Given I view all single player games (worth playing) as an attempt at art, in an ideal situation all games of that type would target just one of a few sets of unique hardware - a single canvas - but I know that isn't a popular view of wanting games by masters; rather than business of games everywhere by painter and decorators.

 

[Griffon]

I could care less what Epic does/doesnt do. Their launcher will forever only be on my PC for Unreal game development. I wish that didnt require their launcher, but it does, so its there out of necessity. So when they buy exclusives it just means I will not be playing them (unless on Console too). Will I care if I miss a mig game? Maybe.... but Ill live.

Compile it from Github, no Epic Launcher needed.

 

[The_Mike]

I was one of the few who defended Epic's move.

Was? Now I'm curious, what changed your mind?

 

[Starlight Lotice]

OP, I hope you are not part of the 50 Cent Army telling us to install Chinese Spyware or else!

Epic are effectively under the CCP and despite the rubbish they say, they ARE going to listen to their Masters when it comes to trying to buy into the Market, and then start installing all sorts of Spyware when you have their games on your PC.

Unless Epic truly are independant of the CCP clutches, I will not install nor get their Free games.

Same reason I will never play FortNite or use TikTok. Kids will realise too late.

As for exclusivity, it sucks but if the Publishers are paying for it, then I can't really complain as it is their money.

 

[Verchod]

Epic store is a STORE, not a platform.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Look, there are a few things you don't do on NeoGAF.

You don't ask Brap if he knows who his dad is and you never, ever question Sony exclusivity.

The resulting drama ain't worth it.

 

[Whitecrow]

LMAO at the anti-consumer practice comments.

Games are made by magic, and devs have always the choice to publish the game for every platform they want, of course.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I use to think I understood the issue with Epic getting exclusives but I don't understand the issue with Epic at all when I think about it.

You have a PC that is the hardware, they have a store that sells software that runs on your PC if you have to needed CPU/GPU/RAM set ups to run them.
Valve has a store had one for decades, does the same thing.

Both work on your PC. Oh right my achievements?

This is like a Netflix vs Hulu vs Amazon Prime problem all over again ain't it?

 

[theclaw135]

I use to think I understood the issue with Epic getting exclusives but I don't understand the issue with Epic at all when I think about it.

You have a PC that is the hardware, they have a store that sells software that runs on your PC if you have to needed CPU/GPU/RAM set ups to run them.
Valve has a store had one for decades, does the same thing.

Both work on your PC. Oh right my achievements?

This is like a Netflix vs Hulu vs Amazon Prime problem all over again ain't it?

The Epic store itself is more barebones than particularly bad. Its main complaints are lacking features like a shopping cart.

Epic's business practices on the other hand have been loony at times. Metro Exodus was pulled from Steam after preorders commenced!

 

[kruis]

Epic store is a STORE, not a platform.

This.

Exclusive games on Xbox and PS means you have to spend hundreds of dollars on an additional games console in order to play a specific game.

Excluive games on Steam, Uplay, EpicStore, etc means you have you have to install a free, additional games launcher on your PC.