• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[RUMOR] Red Dead Redemption 2 to be revealed as an Epic Games Store Exclusive

Kadayi

GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
7,594
6,065
985
theconclave.net
PC Gamers are still waiting for RDR1...
I do think this is a notable point. I realise that RDR2 is a prequel of sorts, but either way lack of the original in the market place will likely have an impact.

It's almost assuredly going to be an Epic games exclusive considering it's 2K.
I wouldn't be remotely surprised. I think Take 2 is going to move all their titles to EGS going forward, assuming the numbers hold up.

However, I'd be surprised if RDR2 is a permanent exclusive unless Take 2 plan to buy into Epic in some fashion and become a stakeholder in EGS.

Not counting Halo MCC, Epic is pretty much grabbing EVERY major title. This is crazy.
You have some amusing delusions.

One more reason for Valve to develop Half Life 2 Episode 3 and Half Life 3. 😃
I think you over-estimate how much pull that franchise has now. It's been over 12 years since HL2:EP2 most people have moved on.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
2,297
960
1,245
Because publishers doesn't have a choice on consoles. Sony and Microsoft manufacture their consoles. They can either swallow the 30% cut or make their own console.

PCs are open platforms. You can't or shouldn't expect 30% to be the industry standard there.
PC publishers and developers have always had a choice. They could have avoided Steam for maximum profits. But they chose Steam.

*EDIT*
To add to my point, they could have avoided Steam and kept with only selling their games at physical stores where they probably make less money per sale and spend more money on printing and production of physical goods.

They could have spent time and money on building a store on their own web site so people could buy direct from them.

But everyone chose Steam. Now if everyone chose Steam, seems like everyone has pretty darn happy and comfortable with a 20-30% cut.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
9,450
2,794
800
Straw man alert. Do you really think that's why people are objecting to what Epic are doing? And given many of the people objecting buy games on multiple stores including gog and key resellers, are you sure you're correctly characterising the opposition? Or is this just some teenage girl "omg h8rz" level bullshit?

Issue 1 is competition. Being on 1 store means less competition than being on several stores.

Issue 2 is the Chinese ownership. Data is being misused and will continue to be misused.

Issue 3 is Tim Sweeney going against his previous distaste for Microsoft trying to create a similarly anticompetitive environment.

Issue 4 is precedent. If Epic succeed, everyone will do this shit, and thus games on pc will become more fragmented and competition will suffer even more.
It's not really a strawman. Long before exclusivity was announced. PC gamers went up in arms about multiple launchers. It was 100% pure crybaby snowflakism. To be fair, having all games under 1 launcher is more convenient, but the whining was just ridiculous and it was just embarrassing to see all these Steam sycophants.

As for exclusivity, I am not a fan of it, but you never saw any whining about Steam when it was a monopoly. How many games can only be gotten on steam? That argument works both ways. Many games for many years were and still are exclusive to Steam. I won't go crazy about Epic having exclusive content either especially since it's only for a short time. Epic having exclusive content is no different than Sony and MS making exclusive games for their systems.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
9,450
2,794
800
I think you over-estimate how much pull that franchise has now. It's been over 12 years since HL2:EP2 most people have moved on.
Valve is going to need exclusive content at some point. The armor has been chinked and they will not be able to rely on Steam as their only source of revenue. I was bound to happen eventually, as all middle men eventually get pushed out.
 

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,004
4,485
510
It's not really a strawman. Long before exclusivity was announced. PC gamers went up in arms about multiple launchers. It was 100% pure crybaby snowflakism. To be fair, having all games under 1 launcher is more convenient, but the whining was just ridiculous and it was just embarrassing to see all these Steam sycophants.

As for exclusivity, I am not a fan of it, but you never saw any whining about Steam when it was a monopoly. How many games can only be gotten on steam? That argument works both ways. Many games for many years were and still are exclusive to Steam. I won't go crazy about Epic having exclusive content either especially since it's only for a short time. Epic having exclusive content is no different than Sony and MS making exclusive games for their systems.
You seem to be conflating two groups though, as PC gamers are not one single blob. A group does exist, for sure, that has a rule of not buying if it requires a different launcher, or not buying anything that isn't steam or a steam key. I call those people idiots. The single-launcher thing is a non-issue these days with the likes of PlayNite (https://playnite.link/) if that's really bothering people. Or the WIndows start menu also works.

As for exclusivity -again we're calling to random selections of people and saying they represent the voice you're arguing against and I'm not sure that holds true. I'm not sure Steam has, for most of its life, had a monopoly (other than the initial brief period of 'exclusives' when Steam was the only means to play Half Life 2, which saw endless complaining because Steam was at that time awful), when one considers the ability to buy cheap keys on other stores to redeem on Steam. That gives consumers choice. When GOG came along it offered something genuinely different with DRM-free content, as well as an extensive library of old games. Wonderful. I can half understand EA going and making the Origin store, it's their own games, I'd rather they didn't do this shit but it's their own games on their own store which is vastly different to moneyhatting 3rd parties to use your store exclusively.

Similarly, I'm not thrilled but I'm less bothered about Epic acquiring the Quantic Dreams ports, if they funded them being made in the first place, which appears to be the case here. It's something we wouldn't have got, but now we have, and that's nice. Personally I'll wait for Steam/Gog as I don't want the client on my machine, but that's just my preference.

Now your point about the exclusivity being for a short time - thing is that for most AAA games the first wave of sales is the biggest. Sure, some have a long tail (see GTA 5) but for the most part the game is released, the public buys it at full price, maybe even pre-orders it like idiots, and it's out there. Personally I'll be waiting out the exclusivity, but I do worry that some gamers will be distracted by the shiny shiny and do something that is not in their best interests by buying on Epic. That said, that's their choice and freedom is only truly freedom if people have the opportunity to make mistakes. I do however wish gamers would be a bit cleverer - they've let so much slide in recent years that we've gone from full price full game to full price half game + microtransactions and exploitative game design, but that's a rant for another day.
 

Mattyp

Member
May 29, 2017
1,027
1,027
410
Funny, but the game is the dullest I've played this generation you wont be missing anything. Go play RDR1 instead.
 

Kadayi

GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
7,594
6,065
985
theconclave.net
Valve is going to need exclusive content at some point. The armor has been chinked and they will not be able to rely on Steam as their only source of revenue. I was bound to happen eventually, as all middle men eventually get pushed out.
I don't disagree, but I've long maintained that Steam should have been spun off as its own venture a long time ago as a separate business from the Development Studio. I can't imagine that Valve as an entity stays afloat solely off of their game sales and Microtransactions in Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2 and Artifact versus the revenue from Steam. The Steam cash flow I would say has irrevocably damaged them in terms of their actual hunger as developers, which I'd say can readily be evinced by the gradual decline on the Studios ambitions in terms of end product. Whilst Valve we're coming late to the card game party with Artifact, everyone else was looking to the success of PUBG and thinking 'I'll have me some of that' It's not like they don't have the tech for it. Apex Legends is using the Source Engine (albeit modified by Respawn) after all.

Honestly, at this juncture, I'd cut the development studio loose with a decent War Chest and let it sink or swim on its own merits.




With a smaller team fully focussed solely on Steam, not only would they be able to concentrate wholly on building a better client and adding and refining features on a more regular basis, but they'd also be able to look at better rates for developers and incentives.
 
Last edited:

JareBear

Gold Member
Nov 5, 2016
11,361
14,047
780
I don't care where (just far)
I can’t argue with people who found it dull. I can’t argue with people who say most people didn’t even finish the first game’s SP. I, and most people I’ve asked, stopped around the time we got to Mexico.

GTA this isn’t.

That being said, I wouldn’t go as far to say “you’re not missing anything.” Especially on PC where mods can provide QoL improvements
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
715
569
415
If it came to the PC and was easy to MOD that would improve gameplay it would be amazing.
I agree that in some ways is worse than the first game, posted my impression in the official thread. But the game do a lot of things very good Imo. The gameplay loop might be slow paced but not necessarily boring.
 
Last edited:

JareBear

Gold Member
Nov 5, 2016
11,361
14,047
780
I don't care where (just far)
I agree that in some ways is worse than the first game, posted my impression in the official thread. But the game do a lot of things very good Imo. The gameplay loop might be slow paced but not necessarily boring.
Boring is completely subjective, though.

For what it’s worth, I mostly enjoyed it, though I was overall disappointed.
 

Larxia

Member
Jan 25, 2018
361
420
265
France
www.flickr.com
I thought competition was good? I mean this was always the argument for exclusives in console space.

What a mess.
Except it's not a healthy competition here, they are not trying to provide a better service for consumers, they are only trying to create a new monopoly by buying every possible exclusives they can, using the Fortnite and Tencent money, forcing people to join their service only because of exclusives and nothing else.
On PC a service should have something else than exclusive to offer to be better than another.

And they don't even intend to enhance their store that much, I even heard in a podcast that apparently when asked about why the epic store didn't have much features, like reviews, filtering, or whatever, Epic said that they don't see a point in this, because modern gaming doesn't need such features and only social media / youtube videos will make a player decide what game to play, because the young gamers (that they brought with fortnite) only care about what's trendy, what's popular on youtube.
I see this as a pretty terrible future for the industry personally, if all new young gamers grew up in an environment like this, no one will have personal taste and there will be space for only a few very popular titles and nothing else.
 

Croatoan

Gold Member
Jun 24, 2014
3,182
376
695
Please let it be so

I have no horse in this race, I just like to watch the world burn
I could care less too but the anti EGS people are so dishonest and obnoxious I want to see their steam world burn out of spite.

It would make my day if Sweeny or Tencent bought valve and forced them to make HL3 while shutting down steam. Oh it would be delicious.
 
Last edited:

Elcid

Member
Jul 27, 2018
1,022
1,116
520
That's okay. I wasn't going to buy it anyway!
Exacts. Rockstar Games are shit. I don't know why people hype them up so much. Every time I've caved and bought one I regret it one hour in. Gameplay is always abysmal. Characters walk like they're stuck in molasses and the shooting is always stiff.
 

Kadayi

GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
7,594
6,065
985
theconclave.net
For what it’s worth, I mostly enjoyed it, though I was overall disappointed.
I'm always interested in Rockstar games from the technical perspective as feats of engineering (GTA V is impressive, especially, given you can move between the characters swiftly) but I've never been particularly taken or wowed with either the gameplay, storytelling or characterisation side of things.
 
Feb 9, 2018
1,799
2,611
390
I'm always interested in Rockstar games from the technical perspective as feats of engineering (GTA V is impressive, especially, given you can move between the characters swiftly) but I've never been particularly taken or wowed with either the gameplay, storytelling or characterisation side of things.
Red Dead 2 is a technical marvel. Graphics, sound and voice acting are out of this world. They just forgot to attach a fun game that controls well.
 

Belmonte

Member
Nov 6, 2018
416
521
325
Almost everyone has Steam and Valve games fans definitelly use Steam. A Half Life 3 would be great but everyone interested in it probably already have a Steam client. I have.

The core of the problem is the 30% tax. Steam is better than Epic store in every front (for now, at least) but the 88/12 split is too good for the devs and publishers to ignore, specially big publishers who knows their game would attract players regardless of store.
 

SonGoku

Member
Aug 16, 2018
3,778
3,559
560
Except it's not a healthy competition here, they are not trying to provide a better service for consumers, they are only trying to create a new monopoly by buying every possible exclusives they can, using the Fortnite and Tencent money, forcing people to join their service only because of exclusives and nothing else.
It wont do them any good If all they do is buy exclusives without actually offering a better service. Once they stop paying for exclusives what's the incentive for people to choose their store? or are they just hoping people will forget steam exists?

That's why i see it as a good thing epic entering the fold to shake things up even if i don't like the company and their policies.
The core of the problem is the 30% tax.
I thought they already lowered this for AAA games.
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,004
4,485
510
Personally I have no hate boner for rdr2, I'm interested in it, and I've enjoyed much of rockstar's output, from lemmings through all the GTA games except 2 and 3 which weren't great. If it goes timed exclusive I will wait, and I'll get it patched, cheap and with a healthy mod scene. If it's a non timed exclusive, oh well, I'll treat it like a console release and accept I won't get to play it, like rdr1. Of course this could all be crunchy horse testicles so until we know this is all speculative bullshit anyway.
 

Shin

Member
Feb 4, 2013
4,344
2,065
760
Random question you can add games from all other stores that support Steam API to Steam and therefor EGS is excluded from that list?
In other words is PC now like the console space where you're locked in an eco-system and your games can only be used on EGS or Steam+the rest?
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
2,297
960
1,245
Thanks for the information, this changes a lot! So Epic would need to spend some serious money for this rumor to be true.
Indie devs have already commented and admitted that they have been paid by Epic and paid quite a hefty amount.
As for the larger publishers, there is no doubt that they have also been paid. Steam has over 90 million users, Epic also has about 90 million users but only 50% of them have Steam installed. So to go from 90 million potential customers to 45 million potential customers, there has to be some monetary gain.

And I say 45 million potential customers on Epic because, well, if you're a PC gamer you buy your games on Steam, GoG or you pirate.
If you don't have Steam but use GoG, you won't be enticed to use Epic for purchasing games as their system is worse and more draconian than Steam.
If you don't have Steam but pirate, you won't be enticed to use Epic because you don't pay for games period.
 

ipukespiders

Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,379
2,058
1,300
I don't care about RDR2 but...

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

SonGoku

Member
Aug 16, 2018
3,778
3,559
560
Thanks for the information, this changes a lot! So Epic would need to spend some serious money for this rumor to be true.
In the spirit of full disclosure, epic still holds a 8% advantage (80% vs 88%)
Now whether that 8% makes up for steams established user base is the big question.

But yeah something as big as RDR2 exclusivity had to be costly (assuming the rumor holds any truth)
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,004
4,485
510
Indie devs have already commented and admitted that they have been paid by Epic and paid quite a hefty amount.
As for the larger publishers, there is no doubt that they have also been paid. Steam has over 90 million users, Epic also has about 90 million users but only 50% of them have Steam installed. So to go from 90 million potential customers to 45 million potential customers, there has to be some monetary gain.

And I say 45 million potential customers on Epic because, well, if you're a PC gamer you buy your games on Steam, GoG or you pirate.
If you don't have Steam but use GoG, you won't be enticed to use Epic for purchasing games as their system is worse and more draconian than Steam.
If you don't have Steam but pirate, you won't be enticed to use Epic because you don't pay for games period.
I'd be curious to know where those numbers come from. I'd also say that 90 million Steam users might not offer the same revenue as 90 million Epic users. Consider Steam users already have their credit card details stored and have made purchases anyway so they trust the store, for the most part. Does that follow for Epic or are most of the accounts Fortnite players who might not even have credit cards and people there to snag the freebies? It's the difference between organically grown user count and artificially inflated user count.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
2,297
960
1,245
An article from PC Gamer about Steam current users, notice how they mention it's people actively using Steam and not registered users.
https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-now-has-90-million-monthly-users/
Numbers come directly from Steam here.
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/1697194621363928453

Anarticle about the data that Steam serves it's customers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-delivered-15-billion-gigabytes-of-data-in-2018/

An article from PC Gamer about Epic, notice how they say registered users rather than active users. It's actually 40% that don't have Steam. Numbers come from Epic at GDC this year.
https://www.pcgamer.com/40-percent-of-epic-games-store-users-say-they-dont-have-steam/
 

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,211
874
725
32
Norway
An article from PC Gamer about Steam current users, notice how they mention it's people actively using Steam and not registered users.
https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-now-has-90-million-monthly-users/
Numbers come directly from Steam here.
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/1697194621363928453

Anarticle about the data that Steam serves it's customers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-delivered-15-billion-gigabytes-of-data-in-2018/

An article from PC Gamer about Epic, notice how they say registered users rather than active users. It's actually 40% that don't have Steam. Numbers come from Epic at GDC this year.
https://www.pcgamer.com/40-percent-of-epic-games-store-users-say-they-dont-have-steam/
40% that don't have Steam? And they`re telling us like that's a good thing for them?
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,923
1,971
565
Norway
Hmmm, thinking about it I'm surprised Take 2 hasn't done a push for a digital storefront. They could easily get a lot of people to the platform with the Rockstar Games alone. They would just need to develop a storefront with similar features as Steam and *bang* instant success.
 

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,004
4,485
510
Hmmm, thinking about it I'm surprised Take 2 hasn't done a push for a digital storefront. They could easily get a lot of people to the platform with the Rockstar Games alone. They would just need to develop a storefront with similar features as Steam and *bang* instant success.
Maybe they figure they're making enough from Rockstar to not need to do that - or maybe they've seen how Valve lost the hunger to make games and don't want to go down that road.. or maybe they just didn't think to do it yet.
 

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,211
874
725
32
Norway
Hmmm, thinking about it I'm surprised Take 2 hasn't done a push for a digital storefront. They could easily get a lot of people to the platform with the Rockstar Games alone. They would just need to develop a storefront with similar features as Steam and *bang* instant success.
Yeah, that seems like a logical thing to do when the entire PC community is pissed off about too many launchers. I don't think it worked out for Bethesda, since they first announced Fallout 76, Rage 2 and the next Wolfenstein as Bethesda Launcher exclusives.

Anyway, Take-Two recently said that creating their own online store is very unlikely.

https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/take-two-store-epic-game-store-steam-1203130426/
 
Last edited:

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,923
1,971
565
Norway
Maybe they figure they're making enough from Rockstar to not need to do that - or maybe they've seen how Valve lost the hunger to make games and don't want to go down that road.. or maybe they just didn't think to do it yet.
But they'd be able to make even more and they have a lot of pull in the PC space with their franchises. Since it's their IPs, it's far more acceptable to keep your games exclusive. Just imagine the pull of the Rockstar games, of Civilization, of XCOM, of Borderlands (as we see), of Bioshock. All of these have great pull in the PC market in my opinion.
It's not like Rockstar aren't making the games irrespective of Take Two's actions to establish a storefront. Diversification, by also extending to a storefront, allowing more money for their own games as well.

I imagine they've likely thought about it, but perhaps they are waiting it out, trying to see Epic's push and whether it'll open the floodgate and then swoop in. Edit: Although as per the article @Gamezone put out, it doesn't seem like they are.

Yeah, that seems like a logical thing to do when the entire PC community is pissed off about too many launchers. I don't think it worked out for Bethesda, since they first announced Fallout 76, Rage 2 and the next Wolfenstein as Bethesda Launcher exclusives.
The problem is always a storefront that gives all the features you'll find on steam. Of those, Fallout 76 has the most pull and we all know how that ended up. The important thing is at least being able to match Steam and even better, to do better.
 
Last edited:

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
7,211
874
725
32
Norway
But they'd be able to make even more and they have a lot of pull in the PC space with their franchises. Since it's their IPs, it's far more acceptable to keep your games exclusive. Just imagine the pull of the Rockstar games, of Civilization, of XCOM, of Borderlands (as we see), of Bioshock. All of these have great pull in the PC market in my opinion.
It's not like Rockstar aren't making the games irrespective of Take Two's actions to establish a storefront. Diversification, by also extending to a storefront, allowing more money for their own games as well.

I imagine they've likely thought about it, but perhaps they are waiting it out, trying to see Epic's push and whether it'll open the floodgate and then swoop in. Edit: Although as per the article @Gamezone put out, it doesn't seem like they are.



The problem is always a storefront that gives all the features you'll find on steam. Of those, Fallout 76 has the most pull and we all know how that ended up. The important thing is at least being able to match Steam and even better, to do better.
Epic`s roadmap looks good though.
 

TheUsual

Member
Dec 10, 2009
2,448
171
810
If this rumor is true, I doubt Epic at this point even had to pay money (edit: or not as much as we think) to get it. As the rumor says, Epic wouldn't get a cut from the DLC (probably RDRO microtransactions) and that could be good enough. Keep the 88/12 split at the point of sale for the game and that's it. Take 2 has a good idea on RDRO microtransaction spend from the PS4 and XBO user base and project that with a potential PC user base it could pull. Long tail probably pays off.
 
Last edited:

Diddy X

Member
Jan 7, 2018
379
239
265
If this rumor is true, I doubt Epic at this point even had to pay money (edit: or not as much as we think) to get it. As the rumor says, Epic wouldn't get a cut from the DLC (probably RDRO microtransactions) and that could be good enough. Keep the 88/12 split at the point of sale for the game and that's it. Take 2 has a good idea on RDRO microtransaction spend from the PS4 and XBO user base and project that with a potential PC user base it could pull. Long tail probably pays off.
Yep, I seriously have no idea of these kind of things but it sounds like a pretty good deal.
 

Jayjayhd34

Member
Oct 22, 2018
134
74
210
The guy came back said Mario oddesy is coming to pc so yeah not happening yet, probably won't till next gen version will' come out.


'' It's me again. Famous 4chan leaker. So i got some great news, and not so great news. Super Mario Odyssey will be announced for PC on the 9nd of May at 22AM PST (California). The bad news, it will be exclusive to the Epic Games Store. It will not get a Steam release, this is not a time exclusive deal. The reason being is Nintendo made a deal with Epic, allowing Nintendo to take full profit on DLC released for the game.''​
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
41,556
4,353
1,630
If this rumor is true, I doubt Epic at this point even had to pay money (edit: or not as much as we think) to get it. As the rumor says, Epic wouldn't get a cut from the DLC (probably RDRO microtransactions) and that could be good enough. Keep the 88/12 split at the point of sale for the game and that's it. Take 2 has a good idea on RDRO microtransaction spend from the PS4 and XBO user base and project that with a potential PC user base it could pull. Long tail probably pays off.

There's LITERALLY nothing stopping Rockstar from putting RDR2 on both the Epic Store and Steam. So why would any business person only put it on EGS (and not get moneyhatted) when the same game can increase your total sales on PC?
 

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,004
4,485
510
There's LITERALLY nothing stopping Rockstar from putting RDR2 on both the Epic Store and Steam. So why would any business person only put it on EGS (and not get moneyhatted) when the same game can increase your total sales on PC?
And this is what gamers want. Release on both stores, and any others while they're at it. The more the better.