I could speak of the last opus of Fall Out
I don't have much stake in the Epic Games controversy (I'm just there for free games), but I don't know if bringing up Fall Out 76 is the best way to help your argument. I can understand asking consumers to think from the developers' points of view, but that particular example is closer to why the publishers should think about the customers' points of view. Maybe mention a flop that's more likely to be seen as a good game, like Airscape: The Fall of Gravity. https://www.pcgamer.com/airscape-the-fall-of-gravity-developer-looks-at-why-it-flopped/
Comment has been collapsed.
I was thinking of fall out because it's a game that didn't work while being from a popular series. There are a lot if games that don't work, because they are bad or not. It always leave a big hole in the dev budget, no matter if they are indie or giants.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fallout 76 was a huge mistake by the developer. They went in a very different direction - they saw a potentially very lucrative genre, and tried to adapt their game to that genre. It was a big risk, and if it had paid off, it would have been extremely lucrative.
But the customers didn't want those significant changes, and it backfired.
If Sid Meier's Civilization suddenly came out with a battle royale, it's a huge risk despite being a very popular series. What's next? CoD coming out with a historical grand strategy?
Comment has been collapsed.
This is so true and cannot be overstated enough. With the subscription services being pushed right now (Ubi+ and Microsoft's game pass this year, EA's Origin access, and Google Stadia in a few weeks) I don't know how that will impact the landscape, but I think there's a bubble there that might burst sooner or later. More people are still starting to play games (natural age phenomenon in the "western" countries, and economic factors in China and many other countries), but there is a limit to how much people can play, and how much money they want to spend when they already have so many options (unplayed games in libraries or in their subscription services).
Comment has been collapsed.
Let me cut in here: Square was and is an AA company. It never had the budgets that Ubi, Acti or EA had or have. Contrary to the general belief Square never had a decent management that could adapt to the new market demands.
Telltale is another bad example: the company was an A level company, that over-expanded and had poor management.
Fallout 76 was a clear money grab, a product that most people did not wanted and was released in a poor state. Fans and critics told Bethesda a number of times that they should let go the old Gamebryo engine (you can name its evolutions, but at the core it's the same 20 years old engine and needs to be put down). Instead Bethesda choose to use an engine that was never conceived for online/MP games. So again, poor example, mismanagement and a complete disconnection from what the customers would want to see.
ME:A: completely bad management, plenty of articles pointing to that.
So, no. The examples are bad. They are specific situations where the upper management failed to understand the market. And no, an A - AA - AAA company can't get the excuse that they are going for Epic's money, just to hide their poor management.
In the past, market surveys were conducted periodically and analyzed carefully. In our days, this is a thing that happens rarely. The upper management thinks that they know better what their potential customers may want. Well, they don't. See Fo76 and ME:A.
And no, i am not blaming any indie taking Epic's money, though my guess is that those are all the money they will see from sales. After an year of Epic store, i've expected to see some clear numbers: we've sold X copies for game Y and so on. As you can see: silence. Just remember how THQ Nordic pointed out a while ago that "the vast majority of the Metro Exodus sales happened on consoles". The fact that the client has seen little improvements since launch shows how much Epic cares about its potential customers. Plenty of security breaches shows the fact that any data submitted to the store is not secure.
Also, most indie devs dream big but have no clue how to manage the development process and how to use the money. For more, google for Jeff Vogel's article: I am the cheapest bastard in indie games. It shows EXACTLY what do you need to survive and how you will have to set your goals based on your possibilities. Most of the indie devs dream how to make that one game that will bring them fame and fortune. Few stay around after 2-3 years.
You speak about visibility. Just open the client and see which games are pushed in front: Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines 2, Borderlands 3, the Batman games and mostly the big titles. And this happens when the store has almost 100 games. Imagine what it will happen when there will be more. We will talk again about the lack of visibility, but this time on the Epic Store. As Jeff mentions in the article, in the end you need to come out with something that it's your own. Something that only you can offer. And sorry, but most indie games are just mediocre at best. Many try to emulate other indie games success, making clones of those successful titles. So...forgive me if i am not crying for the indie devs. Again... nothing against them taking Epic's money. It's a sensible business move, just don't make it more than timed exclusive and don't put all your eggs in the same basket.. That is also a sensible business move. And don't antagonize your potential customers, as many indie devs forget that PR exists for a reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is those specific situations / management problems / etc. still have an impact on the company. You cannot lose millions without it having an impact. Whether or not they are responsible of the failure, a lot of companies depend of the success of their previous title to continue to produce game.
In every situation we'll see people that will take the benefit of something while it's not needed, but for some, you have to consider the other angle and not only as a customer.
As for opening the client, I see Untitled Goose Game on top, followed by ReadySet Heroes: Brawls.
PS : All that Epic vs Steam always make me feel like we're back to the 10 years' ago Nintendo vs PlayStation. No solution never will be perfect, we won't ever agree on 100% on everything and there will always be such discussion. It only annoys me to see countless of topics antagonizing Epic or a developer choosing the safety net over jumping without security ^^ .
Comment has been collapsed.
Like i've already stated: i am not against indie devs taking Epic's money. In fact i encourage them to do that. Big companies are a different problem. They tend to blame the customer, a practice that the today's indie devs took at heart, too.
The digital era brought in a different mentality. Before this, the released products had to be near perfect. We had, maybe 1 or 2 expansions (but most of the time we had a complete game and that was that). In our days we are considered milk cows. And guess what: people work hard for the money they spend on games, movies, books and so on. We don't steal them. And we try to spend them carefully.
The digital era was supposed to bring down the pricing. Back in the early nineties 40$ was considered a fair price for an AAA title, thought it was still a big price for most people. Now, 40$ is believed to be a good price for an A title. For a standard (incomplete) edition of an AAA title the price is 70$. For a complete edition you need to spend over 120$. Now... tell me how many people can afford to buy a game right at launch with those prices...Not even the US market isn't happy with such prices. And they still have the highest number of middle-class citizens.
The indie devs are in our days in terms of thousands if not tens of thousands. So, how do they believe that they will stand in the crowd?! Titles like Stardew Valley and the original Mount and Blade are the exceptions. Those people found a niche and went for it hard. Add to that, dedicated modding communities. But many indie devs prefer to put on stores or customers their inability to manage and present their product. Mislabeling, misdirecting the initial customers is something that happens often.
Also, someone compared EA's exclusivity with Epic: that is a wrong idea. The Origin store offers exclusivity only for the games developed by the studios that EA owns or the games that are made via the EA Partner program (Unravel, Sea of Solitude). Which is acceptable. Anything else they have on the Origin store can be found on Steam and GOG. For a company to sell their own games through their own store is relatively acceptable. Not great, but you can understand it. But Epic's approach is plain wrong. Those are not exclusives for their OWN titles.
Comment has been collapsed.
the biggest problem with indie developers is that they might be great creatives, but horrible business people.
You can make the greatest game in the world, but if you can't promote it, you can't sell it, and you can't feed yourself. Or, you can be Digital Homicide and make a profit off of horrible games.
Think of that great two-man team Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Wozniak would just tinker with stuff, and was a great inventor, but, if it wasn't for Jobs, he'd still be tinkering in is mother's basement. Jobs would constantly push Wozniak to sell it, and had a gift for marketing. I think every indie developer should read about Dawn of Man, a little indie game that became a top seller.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course that most indie devs have no business sense and are lost in dreams. But for an indie to commit fully without a safety net, it's foolish.
Let's take the dude that made Stardew Valley. He worked on the game in his free time, while having a steady job to pay the bills. He spent over 5 years developing that game. The game came out on an empty niche on PC (as we had nothing like Harvest Moon since Stardew Valley's release). And it was a sound success.Even better, he had the common sense to find someone to deal with the business side. And he let them to do so until he learned the ropes. The pricing was more than fair at launch for what the game offered ,18.99 euro, and it went down to 13.99 euro which is a great price for the game. It had around 3 million copies sold before being added in a Humble Bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
people are being more and more exigent and want to pay less.
and developers want to charge more while working less (buggy and rushed releases, everything turned into microtransactions, games turned into multiplayer because it's cheaper than building a singleplayer campaign, games simplified to catter to mayorities, etc.).
then their game bombs and it's the customers fault! shocked! :O yay, evil negative-reviewers don't understand out woes, so mean.
if i'm willing to pay $60, then i expect to get a $60 product, not a $20 untested trash that barely works, plus $60 worth of dlc cut from the final product, and $100 worth of microtransactions to unlock skins and game modes.
A single mistake or a series of mistake can lead a big name to be dragged to the dirt or worse
people are tired of being treated like idiots, because the "games are for kids" mentality still exists. if anything, gaming is extremely forgiving (no man's sky? yes, i played it and it's still not a $60 game... not 3 years ago, not now).
developers love to cry how hard is making games, and to be honest, everyone has it hard, a programmer, a sewage cleaner, or a gravedigger.
they are playing the victim because it's the new trend and it's also an excuse for their half-baked releases that try to pass as finished games. stop blaming customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is a $60 game for you ? I think we all have a different definition when it comes to that, I'm sure that your view of a $60 game 10 years ago was probably more forgiving than it is now.
I do agree that quick release, micro transactions and needing a DLC to have the end of the game is a problem. But that's not exactly related to Epic. The giants of the industry tend to sleep on their laurels as they are aware that they will sell anyway, but it's not the case for every developers.
Saying that we're more exigent nowadays than we were before is only the truth not an attack, I too don't want to pay a game only to see it bugged and me to have wasted money for nothing, but 10 years ago I thought differently because the alternative wasn't as vaste as it is now. As said Blando, would they stop releasing days today, we would still have for years and years of gaming before being done that already exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
a $60 game would be borderlands 2 with all its ~48 dlc included on release, or RE7 + its 5 dlc, or Batman Arkham Knight (again, all dlc included) working 100% (excluding some minor bugs that we can expect from complex games), as the $60 preorder should have been. 😅
i could even complain about games like witcher 3 with its 2 dlcs, but the game was so solid those dlc felt like extras, not content cut from the main game. 🤷
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree mostly with Mully, although "But that's not exactly related to Epic. " contradicts your thread title of "Gaming Industry is Tough". I've done programming in school. I know its not easy, spent 5-6hours to just look for an error and alot of times I fail to find them. That's when I realised I do not enjoy that.
As much as I have the understanding I also disagree on the definition AAA or the $60 game. For me AAA is an experience not how much budget a company has. AAA is a game rating not a stock market rating. Recently came across a game called GreedFall, not an AAA company game. Great graphics, game was played out by the streamer I was watching without much or any bugs. Issues it has was more technical, like lipsync, Enemy spawns which the streamer calls Leashing. Somethings a little bit weird however, the overall experience even as a viewer had been excellent. Graphically, story wise and game mechanics.
Some Devs and publishers like Fallout 76, No Man Sky. They dug their own demise with empty promises. There are alot of devs out there that does not even have the pride to fix their game before abandoning.
Games like Dont Starve Together, 7 days to Die, both games I've played hundreds of hours but both selling bellow $25 they both deserve AAA status and a higher retail value. NMS is a good game for what it is but content wise and promises are all broken. Stardew Valley, from a man's passion to a gaming miracle. When the dev(s) do great things, the community knows what to appreciate and how to appreciate imho.
I do feel sorry for Devs/Artists/Writers or any roles other than management in Gaming companies as decision makers make the fall of the company and the industry as a whole. Like Telltale like recent EA games, I am not the slightest interested in those titles they have made in recent years or are making. Having the Big budget to just make the game pretty but without substantial content and more $$$ for further "entertainment".
Won't one get more enjoyment, heartfelt happiness when spend the money on charities that they believe deserve more? I am certainly not damning the Devs, however some of the Devs did take the Epic money and broke the promise of not having a Steam copy or Sold the game 1st on Steam then remove it before launch. As such, how can the consumers not ire on them? I doubt gamers, as we are, are saints or the most forgiving people.
Warmest Regards, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
games turned into multiplayer because it's cheaper than building a singleplayer campaign,
Multiplayer is not that prevalent as it was as a mandatory part of almost any game in the late 2000s, they rather turned games into an MMO grindfest. They'll "continue supporting the game with content for years to come" bullshit games as service, because they - understandably - can't churn out proper DLC / expansion after eachother, so it's just unoriginal content that has to be grindy to fill up weeks and months of gameplay. And people don't have time to live in multiple games at the same time
the "games are for kids" mentality still exists.
They updated that with "games with lootboxes are for kids, amirite? :3"
Comment has been collapsed.
I was also playing 30 years ago, I think people don't realize what they call retro games were made by a very few people, the same way indie games are made today. Sometimes only 1 guy fully developped what was a AAA game for the time. And game sales didn't grow that much since the 80's, the PS4 only sold 3 times more than the Atari 2600, imagine if the developping budget only tripled since E.T.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want an example of pure scam from the 80's, here is a good one to entertain you:
Yep. That's the whole game. With mistakes.
For more fun you can watch this with the subtitles
Comment has been collapsed.
Your link is broken.
But a lot of games from the 80s were little better than the asset flips and shovelware we see today. The difference is most of them have been forgotten. Also back then we didn't have review sites or videos.
Here's a few I've seen over the years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlrAH-4pMfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAtX_UmBx1U
Comment has been collapsed.
I still miss Squaresoft, they were such an awesome company before The Spirits Within movie effectively bankrupt them and they were forced into the Enix deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
life is unfair and always was, i guess?
edit: borderlands 3 made a bunch of money, but it was laggy piece of crap at launch, logic does not work in this industry, if you make awesome game you cant be sure that it will pay off in the end.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't spend all day long worrying about the job and welfare of every other person I come into contact with. I don't have to feel sorry for them (developers), I don't have to forgive them, and I don't have to "understand their sad plight." I'm pretty sure they don't care about me or my life, or even my occupation(s) as a whole, and I sure as hell don't expect them to.
They have a job just like anyone else, and if they're not doing it, I'll take my business elsewhere. Gaming isn't a charity. I'm a customer, they're developers/publishers, and this is a business.
That's how life works.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say anything remotely like gaming is a job. I said it isn't a charity - I don't buy games just so someone else has a roof over their head and food in their mouth, or because I feel sorry for them. I buy games because I enjoy playing games.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a waitress ignores your table for 30 minutes, picks her nose while taking your order, and then brings you the wrong order, does she deserve a nice tip from you? Do you worry that she might starve if you don't leave a 50 on the table? What about a 20? Is that going to be enough for her to survive this week?
Or do you let her know you expect better somehow? It's the same in any business. The customer speaks with his wallet (since we rarely get a voice anywhere else).
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't disagree, but people care too little about everything, not just developers.
I also believe it's a two-way street, and we're seeing a downward trend from both sides of things. Just like the waitress scenario - you get a really good waitress, you don't hesitate to hand over the extra cash. You reward those who deserve it. Developers and publishers could care a little more about the consumer, and perhaps we'd be less hesitant parting with our hard-earned cash.
Edit: To answer your earlier question - I keep buying their games if I loved their game (or even just the way they do business), the same way I keep going to a restaurant if I get great service and food. I should never feel obligated to do so, though, and when I get a poorly made game, I'm much less likely to buy their next.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't really matter how life works
Consider this then: Do you think you would have thegamesthings you love if those who made them died from hunger or died from sickness? ^^)
Umm... man, your comments are consumerism and some wibbly-wobbly feelgood stuff in the nutshell and extremely generic. You can't buy everything in life to support everything, including shit service / products in hoping that "maybe it will be something I love in a few years ^^ ". It's a fallacy on its own because we don't live in the future. If I have to live on the money I MADE in a job until my next paycheck, I think the game industry (or whatever industry, because your statement is just generic) should built on what they ACHIEVED in the past, not payments for promises
.
One of the best thing for the gaming industry was that they convinced people that they are close to the **only industry that deserves to be paid upfront, for promises and promos and for trailers because reasons. It's still a buyer-seller connection, no matter how hard they (and in this case, you too) try to manipulate people about their feelings.
I say this as an occassional Kickstarter supporter, I know how it is to pay for what you want to see. Rogue Stormers was Dieselstörmers before, with vastly different gameplay, looks, promised campaign instead of roguelike gameplay, and animation/detail was also compromised throughout the development. I still paid for something that sounded good. They delivered a completely different, currently ~6/10 game. So I won't give money upfront to them ever again, and became very wary about anyone else, because again - if I can go on with my life and work without money being paid for me before I do my job, the gaming industry can too. If I get fired for making cubes instead of balls, I can deny paying the game industry if they make completely different things that they promised. And I'm more lenient because I want an enjoyable product in the first place,so if it's different than expected and it's good, then it's good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, people throw about money for all kinds of games (many being worthless garbage of assetflips for cards and +1)they don't even have time or will to play. Obviously your 'care' is 'pay', hence we're back at consumerism, and telling people what they should do with their money. They kinda know what makes them happy. It's not expectable for each of us to save all genres of gaming. Good ideas, good games, good developers can be supported but after the end of ths day, supported directions lead devs and the industry. And as I have limited money to begin with, even for giveaways (not for myself, already just supporting something) I choose what to buy. If I have to choose between supporting metroidvania or racing games, my support money goes to where I would love to see more of that thing, simple as that.
You can not care about everything. Especially if half of the things is shit, and care won't pay the bills, so we're talking about actual money.
Comment has been collapsed.
I enjoy your positive comments. Indeed this generation cared too little. That does not mean individuals like ourselves can not hold positive light to situations we see. Keep Beaming that Positive Torch. :D <3
Best Wishes to you and Warmest of Regards~
Comment has been collapsed.
They're doing it. But customers now expect more, and they also pay less for it. Sure as a customer you like to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible. That's only natural. But if you don't think that has an effect, you're just ignoring reality.
Comment has been collapsed.
But developers and publishers now expect more and give less. Sure, as a developer or publisher, they like to earn as much as possible while doing as little as possible. That's only natural. But if you don't think that has an effect, you're just ignoring reality.
See how that works both ways?
Comment has been collapsed.
the way you put it, working for a large gaming company sounds wonderful
Comment has been collapsed.
But developers and publishers now expect more and give less.
Give an example.
For AAA games, they are now more complex and cost more to produce than ever before. They provide cinematic experiences far above what existed in the past. Gamers expect each new game to keep all the good things about the previous one while having better graphics and tweaked systems. And they expect it to cost no more than previous games, regardless of complexity or inflation.
For indies, you get better production values than in the past, but gamers become finicky because they can buy a yesteryear AAA game for $5 on a sale (or get it for free from the Epic Game Store).
Comment has been collapsed.
Give an example.
Day one DLC and micro-transactions within full-priced games are two good examples.
Edit: You seem to have side-stepped completely the major point of my commenting at all in this thread in favor of taking what I said as some blanket statement akin to "fuck the developers!"
Just like the waitress scenario - you get a really good waitress, you don't hesitate to hand over the extra cash.
I plainly and clearly stated I have no problem slinging extra cash at something I feel is worth the extra cash. I have no problem buying games at full price (and very often do), or even pre-ordering if I feel it's a game/developer with a good reputation. But, expecting me to feel some sort of "blanket sympathy" for the entirely of the games industry, when clearly they're not all operating in our best interest as gamers, is expecting a bit much.
Comment has been collapsed.
expecting me to feel some sort of "blanket sympathy" for the entirely of the games industry, when clearly they're not all operating in our best interest as gamers, is expecting a bit much.
This is the important part. I don't want to support the "industry", it is full with studios and games that doesn't deserve it. But I try to rise the amount of money I pay (if I can afford) for games that looks good, so I can play a 5-10€ game pretty soon instead of a year later when it gets bundled. It's surely in the mentality of mine too, but one should be always varied around statement regarding none of something or all of them. ( In this case, full industry. It literally means full)
Comment has been collapsed.
Developer nowadays wasting too much resource/money on graphic aspect rather than gameplay. Then they blame about the increase of costs.
Graphics and effect should not be the top priority of any game.
Gameplay, fun, balance, deep play should put more effort on it so attract more players.
They waste all time and resource to cut the content into small dlc and cosmetic to get more money.
Focusing too much of effect and graphic causing the gameplay become so lag/ performance drop and buggy.
People rather want to play a game that smooth and less bug with average graphic rather than those effect with lag and crash.
Comment has been collapsed.
Developer nowadays wasting too much resource/money on graphic aspect rather than gameplay. Then they blame about the increase of costs.
Don't forget the astonishing marketing costs of a AAA game. Which is purely for sales, not for making a better game that will sell itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gaming industry has been evolving and will continue to evolve, hopefully for the better. I remember paying $50 per game per cartridge/CD/DVD where I had only a handful of games to choose from per month. Now, I have to think a bit if it is over $5 with the amount of games to play.
I don't blame devs for going with Epic for the sure $, but depending on how good the game is, it may be short sighted since most gamers are on Steam. If they have cashflow issues, it might make sense to take the upfront $. Otherwise, even with promise of storefront, imo it isn't a better deal for the dev.
Some $ math: dev % x game $ x units = rev $
If you assume steam gets 5x more sales than epic, this is the result.
Epic 88% x $20 x 100 = $1760
Steam 70% x $20 x 500 = $7000
Comment has been collapsed.
No one argues that gaming industry can be a scary place. I think I remember reading that even a company like CDPR is close to being bankrupt until they release Cyberpunk. However you must remember a major decision like creating a game should never be fueled by just money. Sure, money is a big aspect, after all people have to eat. But, there are other considerations involved as well such as professional pride and the joy of seeing people enjoy your product.
Imagine a set of actors doing a show and even though someone bought out all the tickets, no one shows up. Its not a good outcome because money is only one factor amongst many. In this case, going to Epic results in a net small amount of people seeing your game because Epic's policies are generally disliked by consumers. When these game companies align themselves with Epic, they know that they are disliked for good reasons, but they don't care anyway. Should they really be that surprised that people dislike them by association? Its not as if its a secret that Epic has anti consumer business practices and working with them is just making things worse for consumers as a whole.
Now I will not discount the money aspect and yes, if things are that bad that they feel they will not be able to make ends meet, then sure its perfectly fine to align with Epic. They get their money and people will possibly remember them as companies supporting anti consumers and not purchase their games in the future. Deep silver has a pretty bad name right now, and it will affect the sale of their games in the future. That is the beauty of free choice. It gives you control to make the good and bad choices both.
This is not even accounting for the fact that Epic store is technically a mess. They lack basic features like proper cloud saves. On steam I have never had to worry about losing my saves, which is clearly not the case with Epic. I find that steam overall is a lot more user friendly and interactive for gamers outside the actual game itself. I personally don't care about Epic exclusivity. Its just another anti consumer amongst others like EA, Ubisoft, etc. I am reluctant to purchase games from those companies, just as I will probably avoid purchasing games from Epic. If I have to, I might purchase it from humble bundle to avoid giving money to Epic.
I don't hate companies aligning themselves with Epic, but it does make me less likely to purchase their games in the future if they make big statements about how Epic is a good company fighting against Steam's tyranny like Randy did. I will likely not purchase borderlands or their other games every simply because watching how Randy behaves has put me off him and by extension his company. Consumers have a right to stand up for their ideals. I hate the idea of exclusivity and would not spend any money on games that promote exclusivity. I am perfectly fine with games selling on Epic, and I might even purchase them if its cheaper there, but I will never purchase games that are exclusive to Epic, because it tells me that they are afraid people would rather purchase the games on other storefronts which are more consumer oriented than Epic, so they simply take away the option knowing it is not what their consumers want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Policies such as them aiming at only exclusives and rejecting an indie developer who will not give them exclusivity. Their focus on gaining devs rather than focusing on making their launcher better so they dont have to. Their statement that says when reviews finally does come, it will be enabled on a per game basis by the devs. Very anti consumer decisions overall.
And by consumers I mean gamers who are likely to purchase games.
Comment has been collapsed.
pretty much what Mully said above.
if you have a good product and you are selling it at a reasonable price you will do just fine.
if your game sucks it won't sell well.
if your game is too expensive it won't sell well.
and then there's the greedy fucks at EA trying to screw over absolutely everybody to increase shareholder value by another 0.01%.
all of my favorite and most played games are around the 20 - 30€ mark (full price).
i rarely buy full priced games at release. if i do they are good most of the time but sometimes they really suck (like tropico 6) and i won't be forgetting that anytime soon.
screw you limbic
Comment has been collapsed.
if you have a good product and you are selling it at a reasonable price you will do just fine.
That's not really how it works Not for indies anyway. If you have a decent product and the luck to get traction, you will do fine. If you have a good product but you don't have luck or excellent marketing skills, you will sink.
Comment has been collapsed.
My worry with Epic is that I don't trust them to stay the course. Once they have Steam on their knees, they'll be the big player and they'll do exactly what Steam does: flex their muscles and pressure devs and studios to do what they want.
When they announced, my initial reaction was: competition is always good in any market. But the issues with their client, the outrageous payoffs to studios and their general behavior has now convinced me they are just as bad as Valve. Probably worse.
Meanwhile, I know that the gaming industry is tough. I also know that a lot of studios who are complaining about getting screwed by Valve are also screwing their employees out of decent working conditions and decent wages for their work, with no remorse. I'm pretty sure the money they get from Epic doesn't go around to the people making the games as always.
If Epic's existence provides some alternative that helps indie and small devs and publishers negotiate better with Steam, it's a win-win imo. But I don't trust Epic to "do the right thing". Now with their history.
Comment has been collapsed.
My worry with Epic is that I don't trust them to stay the course. Once they have Steam on their knees, they'll be the big player and they'll do exactly what Steam does: flex their muscles and pressure devs and studios to do what they want.
We share the same sentiment. Given his history, I don't trust Sweeney any further than I can throw him.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll drop the links to how I've been following EGS over the course of time in an unordered fashion, you can be the judge of the situation yourself.
Publishers Pull Their Games From Epic's Store During Its Big Sale I'm sure that's gonna work out pretty well for most of us because game prices aren't of a big deal, right?
Epic Games hit with class-action lawsuit over hacked Fortnite accounts Security breaches are a big no for me, a company that can't guarantee safety for it's users' data shouldn't be running a company
How Fortnite’s success led to months of intense crunch at Epic Games BIGGEST factor for me not to prefer EGS
Epic's Game Store Is Already Locking Down Exclusives I think we know the result of greedy exclusivity from Origin example pretty well
Epic Games Store chief says they’ll eventually stop paying for exclusive PC games Once this is gone, I doubt developers will prefer exclusivity that much, this probably concerns you if you're a game developer considering EGS for long future
Developer claims Epic Games Store access is exclusive or nothing Dev take on the playerbase gamble
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no stake in this debate but viewed the thread out of curiosity. I'm glad I did!
Thanks for posting this reply. I didn't know they were DRM free!
I'd add you to my WL if you weren't already on it as a polite & friendly user. 😉
I'll have to look into making an Epic account so I can take advantage of the the free game promotions. I'd even consider buying there if you don't need the launcher. In retrospect I wish I'd bought the games I have now through GOG or some other site that doesn't have DRM.
I was VERY late coming to the steam bandwagon. (Less than a year ago; for reference)
I was out of the gaming scene for 10+ years as I couldn't afford a decent computer. I finally saved up long enough over those 10-15 years to afford a gaming computer & monitor! 👍🙂
I bought what is for me by far the nicest system I've ever owned & rejoined the gaming scene within the last year. I haven't played anything multiplayer at this point though (I mostly play TBS games). In terms of hardware I acquired a system with I7-9700K, 16GB RAM, NVIDIA RTX 2080, 2x Samsung 970 Pro's (I added those as OS & game drives) & a Acer Predator Monitor (2K IPS 144HZ). I bought the monitor like 3 months before the G-Sync licensing change.🤦♂️ 🤬
Had I known it was coming; I likely would've waited & gone with a 4k. Considering the 300$ price difference that the G-Sync licensing change seems to have made. I can't change the past & had no way of guessing they'd change the licensing out of nowhere after so many years of keeping it the same though.
I'm thrilled with the monitor regardless! I'm not sure a 2080 is even capable of driving 4k at an acceptable frame rate anyways. 😉
I'm very happy to even have a system & am very thankful! Count what blessings one may get! 🙂
If only I could figure out better cooling. I need to decide if I should try adding more fans, lowering the ambient air temperature in the room or anything else I can think of. The 970 Pro's run to hot for my taste. Getting up to the 60's when gaming in some cases. My apologies I digress though & I didn't really weigh in on the Epic question.
I tend to be very effusive in my posts. I just wanted to thank you for your post. I'm going to have to say I don't have a opinion on the Epic issue as I'm not familiar enough with it make an informed decision. I'll have to consider the matter further. Thanks again for your post! 👍
Comment has been collapsed.
That's quite an answer ^^ !
I'm really happy for you to be finally able to game again after so long. I'm also kind of new to the Steam scene (only about a year I began to really get interested in the games there) so the debate Epic/Steam is similar to me as Nintendo/Playstation of back in the day.
While I didn't stop gaming in between, I would just play a single MMO and rarely ever doing single player games for about 10 years.
I play games both on Epic and Steam, never thought that the issues people are having are an actual issue probably because I don't buy games in bulks ^^ ! I do believe that you need the launcher to install the games you want to play, but once installed, you don't need the launcher anymore, so I just install the games when I pick a new one there or when I get the free ones.
This week there are 6 Batman games for free, so maybe you should have a look ? And if you're against the idea to have more launchers, remember that GOG Galaxy 2.0 will sooner or later be out and solve the multi launchers problem :) !
And don't worry about monitor and PC parts, you can change them over years and even have a 2nd monitor if your desk is big enough ♥ !
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed it is. Thus the effusive part. 😉
I've always written a lot though. Maybe it's because I'm Autistic & prefer written communication. I dunno? 🙂
Thanks for the kind words. It's nice being able to game again. Thanks for the information as well. I've never tried 1.0. I signed up for the 2.0 beta just to see but no invite yet. I wonder if I need to use 1.0 to get one LOL.
I've thought of running a 2nd monitor actually. I have an old 720p Sony TV with HDMI I'm considering running as a info panel with CrystalDisk, HWInfo, Etc. up on it. Rather than just on my current monitor in the task bar. A dedicated monitor for info seems like it might be useful off to my left side rather than next to my current monitor. It might be worth it.
Thanks again for the info. I'm off to try & finish this TW: WH2 game I've had going in the background since before the latest expansion. I don't want to close the game & have it update the game & my numerous mods & break my campaign before I complete it. So I've kept it running at the main menu if I'm not actively playing it. So I don't take any chances; until I complete it. 😉
Have a nice week.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sympathetic to the devs that decide to go with Epic, but ultimately I'd prefer that more choose alternative options for stable funding, like crowdfunding campaigns.
Of the game platforms, GOG is by far my favorite. It offers DRM-free games with the same multiplayer features as Steam, etc. And I'm glad that Epic pressured GOG to raise dev share of profit.
But ultimately, I don't understand why Kickstarter, Patreon, and other fan-funding resources are so under-utilized. I love kickstarter campaigns, even if the developer ends up having problems or not delivering. There are lots of creators that I love, and for whom I would gladly back projects just as an excuse to give them money. I think that even indie developers could potentially do well with these resources if they engage actively (for a great example of fan engagement, consider the Twitch stream of Laura Shigihara)
If Square was in a financial squeeze, can you imagine how much money they could get if they started a crowd-funding effort for a new Final Fantasy? Perhaps it still would not be as much as they are used to spending on AAA games, but I think it would be more than enough for a good game. Or consider campaigns by tobyfox or Edmund McMillen. Obviously these are "very well known" indie devs, and even a great developer needs a lot of luck to reach that level of popularity and success. But Edmund recently ran a kickstarter where he raised $2.6 million for a board game (which probably wasn't as appealing as a video game to most of his audience). And Undertale was released after a kickstarter campaign where it raised ~$50k, when tobyfox was relatively unknown. If he runs a campaign for Deltarune, is there any doubt that it would raise >$1 million? And I would think that the production costs would be relatively low (engine already developed, lots of art assets already done).
My point isn't that "developers have it easy" , or that "anyone can make this much money on kickstarter". I appreciate the difficulties of game development, and I generally won't blame devs for their decisions (as long as they aren't complete jerks, like the Ooblets people). It's ultimately okay with me if developers decide to sign with Epic, and that doesn't in itself mean that I won't support them. But I believe and hope that we're moving towards a time when development is funded more by social capital and gratitude, and I hope that people continue to find ways to provide stronger social safety nets for both developers and everyone else (shout out to Basic Income advocates!). There are so many creators that have brought me joy, or who come up with ideas that make me excited, and I'd much rather contribute to people working on something new than pay for some game that's already made.
P.S.: I decided to find a couple of new Kickstarter projects to back after writing this, and went with "Recovery Rebirth" and another that's already been funded. I encourage other people to support more crowdfunding campaigns!
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a safety net like this is something major for indie developers, but not only. Times have changed a lot, people don't want to pay a high price anymore for a game they can easily have cracked, wait for a sale, check prices on different markets (including grey) or wait for bundles which are bond to happen at some point.
I'm playing video games since over 30 years now. We came from very limited choices that allowed a lot of big names to climb up and be known by a lot of people (developers as game series), to so much choice at a low price that it doesn't matter if you have to wait even a year to buy the game you want. Before we didn't have this luxury, we could just buy the game or wait for it to be in a second hand sale and that was it, the alternative was minimal if you wanted to play a good game, the "asset flip" games weren't as prominent than they are now.
This is a very narrow way of thinking of things. You're basically saying
"In the good ol' days people used to pay full price for every shitty game and shut their mouth, but now they demand every game to either be on a deep sale or in a bundle".
This is simply not true.
You may forget that in the past:
What changed all that was Steam sales + Humble bundles:
People nowdays simply feel they are getting more value for the money they pay, so they are willing to pay more money overall for games (as they feel they get more value overall).
It's simple economics: You will earn more money selling 1,000,000 copies for $1 per copy, than for selling 10,000 copies $20 per copy. Especially true in the digital goods market, where there is no cost in producing additional copies.
What will happen if everyone decide to "turn back time" and decide to cancel all sales & bundles for all games?
That's simple:
Comment has been collapsed.
I reread my sentence and I didn't have the same things in mind I think you had while writing your answer. I was specifically thinking of the golden age of consoles, while having a computer at home was limited. I should have precised, my bad.
Now speaking of computer games, I'm with you with what you say at the beginning, that there were more pirating, people were buying less, unsure for the lower price. I believe we could have a look at that, but taking in account the money earned at the time next to the price of a game, I think that overall it would be around the same price. I can't say if that fully digitalized release were already as prominent at the time, but you could buy a second hand game and have the code in working.
There is something in your whole follow suit discussion that you take for granted. For you, Epic store doesn't sell and isn't a success. I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's true that a lot of people here are loudly disapproving the shop, but we're on a Steam specific website and we don't know exactly if the amount of people refusing to buy any game on Epic store is that high.
People displeased by something are always prone to speak about about the problems they faced while they are usually silent when everything goes as expected. That's not something new, it's true everywhere,do having real numbers is complicated.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was actually referring to other things you wrote, for example:
Having a safety net like this is something major for indie developers, but not only. Times have changed a lot, people don't want to pay a high price anymore for a game they can easily have cracked, wait for a sale, check prices on different markets (including grey) or wait for bundles which are bound to happen at some point.
My point being that you say it's hard to be an indie developer because of the abundance of games, bundles and low prices.
But I'm saying there could not have been indie developers (and abundance) in the first place, if not for bundles and low prices.
Before bundles & low prices, any person off the street couldn't just sit down, write a game and expect profit. As he can now.
So no point in blaming bundles & low prices for abundance of games and difficulties of indie developers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh sorry ^^" !
I was also speaking of asset flip and shovel wares games. They do have an impact on indie dev trying to sell an actual game.
As for bundle, I do believe it had an impact both positive and negative, positive because as you said, it helped indies to actually try to develop a game, but negative as well, because we do have low prices expectations. It still blows my mind that I can have a bunch of game for less than $3, I'm 1000% sure that it costed more to the dev to program those, I wonder if they earn any money through that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was also speaking of asset flip and shovel wares games.
I understand. But I see these as the side effect and not the cause. The cause is: It's easier than ever to create & distribute games, so there's a shit ton of crappy games. Or for example: It's easier than ever to create a game review channel on youtube, so there's a shit ton of crappy game review channels on YouTube. So you may say it's hard for a quality channel to stand out and be discovered.
That may be the case. But if there were only good quality game review channels on youtube, it would be that much more difficult to have a game review channel, because your channel would be crap in comparison with all the good ones.
So while it may be hard to be discovered on Steam, I do believe the really good games are discovered nonetheless. RimWorld for example, is a game without any big names behind it, PR or promotion. Yet it has over 1,000,000 downloads (maybe much more, Steam doesn't share that info), just because it was that good it was shared by word-of-mouth.
It still blows my mind that I can have a bunch of game for less than $3, I'm 1000% sure that it costed more to the dev to program those, I wonder if they earn any money through that.
It's not how much money you get per game, as it is how many games you sell. Selling 100,000 for $3 each is much better than selling 100 copies for $50 each.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true, but when you see the sales of the Humble Bundles it never reaches 100k, mostly between 10k and 20k.
I do understand your point of view and how you see things, but isn't it also related to the fact that Steam doesn't care about the game quality and doesn't seem to check if a game is an actual one or just another asset flip ? It sometimes feel like unless another developer claims the product as being a copy of their own, they never take them off their shop.
RimWorld is a good example of indie game which had success, but same as "Untitled Goose Game" which was released lately on Epic, it had an article of Rock Paper Shotgun to support the release and other media speaking of both games.
Did Steam was of any help to Rim World for it to be successful ? Or was it shoved on the a batch of several asset flip games like it was the experience of that indie dev I read about (it's sad I cannot find where is said article, I should have bookmarked it).
When House House explained their decision to move to Epic for the release of Untitled Goose Game, they explained that they were a little company of only 4 people and both Epic offer and the fact they would be on the main page and have exposure could only help them even if it was along 1 year exclusivity.
Now those are only two games, not every game will benefit of Epic offer or Steam main page or even of a review from well known websites. It's not possible to have a blanket opinion on everything, it doesn't work, because indie as big names are in a different situation, treat differently their employees, etc.
I hope I didn't sound like I had a general opinion valid on every situation, it's not the case. There will always be big name trying to suck as much money as they can from the pocket of people, one man studio trying their best and managing to make fantastic games that eventually gets to be known but everybody, one man studio using Steam to post one game a day under a different game with the same concept, the same platform only different sprites and backgrounds.
I still believe that for those who work for it and try to make innovative game deserve to have a safety net and a little more exposure than being thrown in the middle of a queue after 7 identical games like it was part of them. It doesn't mean that people won't abuse the system or that everybody who should have this chance will get it.
I think we actually agree on a lot of things. I'm also very new to steam and bundles and all, so I'm still having sparkles in the eyes seeing that I don't have to pay $60 for a game that will never have any update and maybe will crap my save on one of the last chapter (I'm thinking of you Lion King).
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for late reply.
I think all of us gamers, basically want the same things: To play good games, and to pay as little as possible for them.
And I think we all agree, that for good games to be created, developers need monetary incentives to create good games. They need to know that if they put everything into it and create a good game - it's going to pay their bills and allow them to create other good games.
Our only disagreement is in the way to reach that goal.
I agree that Steam has lots of fake games and asset flips. They're not part of the system, they are the abuse of the system by certain people. Valve is taking actions against them, some might say not enough, but even these actions are getting a lot of backlash from Steam users.
Just look at the negative reaction there was when Steam added a probation period for getting cards in new games, and half of SteamGifts freaked out because they couldn't farm cards on $0.01 games anymore. So it's not that straightforward.
And Epic does indeed pick and choose every single game on their marketplace. And most of it are indeed indie games (as opposed to Origin / EA / or Microsoft store that keep mostly AAA games). I'll give them that.
But it's important to remember that Epic store has around 100 games, while Steam has around 100,000. Even if only 1 out of 100 games on Steam is good, and 1 out of 10 is decent. And 90% are ALL fake games and asset flips (which are completely untrue numbers btw). It's still 10,000 decent games. Not 100.
So for each indie developer that has a game on Epic store, 999 others don't.
So now we have 2 options:
In any case, indie developers don't really get any help from Epic.
If you noticed, the games Epic chooses to fund, are usually games that are already funded by other means, and have a hype and a community. Games that were going to succeed anyway.
It's not that some single-person developed cat dating simulators that are getting funded. It's games like the Metro sequel or the new turn based tactics game by the developer of the original XCOM.
So Epic is not really helping any struggling indie developers here...
Comment has been collapsed.
No problem for the delay!
Actually you said it yourself, not all gamers want to play games, the cards and the XP system on Steam is part of what makes the asset flip games so common. I admit I don't see the point of paying even $0.10 to buy a game just to farm 3 cards that will sell for $0.01 each, game they won't play as it's a copy of 10 others from the same dev under another name they already own, but here we are.
A part of the usual arguments against Epic are, to me, ridiculous, because if you are here to play a game, who cares about cards and achievements. That going with the possibility of writing reviews which is often abused at the launch of a new game, faked by developers using another account to push the positive reviews when needed and 90% of time useless. Not like you cannot comment on a game elsewhere, after all, a lot of people commented about Borderlines III, the fact it's on Epic didn't stop people to share their opinion on this game and others on this platform.
A for helping developers, that's true, Epic chose to be a store which handpick the games added on their platform, not all Indie developers will benefit of their support and there are, fortunately, developers who will manage to pierce on Steam with excellent games such as Undertales, Baba is you or Papers please.
Both on Epic and Steam only a few indie developers will manage to have their games and their concept being unique enough for people to not compare them to another and actually buying the game. Does that mean that Epic deserves some gamers ire because one game they want (Journey for example) had a deal with Epic and not Steam? I mean, if you want to play the game, it doesn't matter where you buy it, and I didn't hear much complains about games being sold first on Discord and added later on Steam.
But I'm side tracking. A little. You're right when your say that Epic is a small store and helps only handpicked Indie developers. I would be them, I would do the same. They aren't giving Monopoly money for the exclusivity, they are taking calculated risk to see if the concept work and I think they are right to do so. Look at the drama a few exclusive is causing, if they had chose to offer even just 100 more exclusive games that people were waiting for right away, it would be even worse.
Not everybody is expecting the same from a game and I guess those exclusivity won't stop the ones who want to play the day of the release to do so. At worse, those waiting to get the Steam version will have the updates and bug corrections at the same time, to me it's win win.
We have to wait more to see how Epic store evolve, they may offer more exclusive and safety nets over time, add a cart to their shop, allowing people to gift games and so on. But I bet that even that is a calculate choice to avoid to resellers.
It is quite possible that Epic store doesn't try to be a rival to Steam by facing them on its most positive and hard to compete with front (lot of games, not buying limit, etc.). If you were to compare that with a strategy game, it would be suicidal to send 100 soldiers attacking a highly guarded fort with 100.000 archers waiting for them. Even if you were giving the best equipment to your soldiers, they would die in front of the colossal amount of archers they are facing.
Instead, Epic may have decided to be a quality games store with limited good games some of them being temporary exclusive to the shop. Both shops will find their buyers and maybe GOG 2.0 will smooth that down and calm people anger by adding its own achievements system and shared reviews?
Comment has been collapsed.
After a discussion between that person and another single man developer (who was really worried about that Steam discussion), they both agreed that no matter what people could think of Epic Store, the exclusive and anything else, what mattered was to allow people to continue to produce games and to have some visibility.
No, what's important is how many people will have the possibility to play your game.
It's better to have a game sold for cheap & in bundles, that 10,000 end up playing...
Than have an Epic-store game that gives you money even if it doesn't sell, with only 100 people playing it.
Sure, short term Epic will give you more money. But long term, when you develop your next game, who's going to want to play it? The 100 people who played your last game?
Epic will not going to be giving away free money forever, everyone knows that.
Either their cash-cow Fortnite is going to lose popularity, and they'll run out of money.
Or they'll gain enough market share to stop paying people for NOT selling games.
Either way, you next game may not get the "Epic money bag" your current game is getting. And then what? Who is going to want to buy a game from a developer who's previous game nobody knows?
Also, soon enough first Epic-exclusive games will start finishing their 1-year exclusivity deal, and reaching Steam & GoG stores.
And 2 things are going to happen:
This will cause non-Epic game sales to spike, and the studios will see they are earning much more money outside of Epic than inside it. (there are no really unknown-indie games on Epic. Only highly anticipated AA indie games, or AAA games).
There may even be an over-compensation, where MORE people will buy the games for not being on Epic store.
So in the bottom line, nothing will change, except that Epic will pay a bit of money without getting anything back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Telltale closed doors because its management was a bunch of idiots who just spent money on licenses but never hired enough people to use them. This is why only a handful of games in the past decade even got a second season.
As for being on the edge:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-02-12-activision-blizzard-sees-record-year-plans-to-decrease-net-headcount-by-8-percent
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/take-two-interactive-earnings-q2-2019.html
Let my heart bleed a bit for the gaming companies being so much on the edge, they report record revenue and profit in the entire 47+ year history of organised video game creation and publishing.
We could set up some charity or something to help the multi-billion dollar conglomerates who do not allow workers to unionise so they can hire them for 60+ hour weeks and lay them off right after that. Or just buy some more lootboxes to ease their financial pain. After all, there is no upper limit on those, even if an entire family saving is spent on a game marketed for 3-year-olds.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's true there are always companies which are doing good and always trying to squeeze milk out of their employees as much as the people buying their products, I don't think the majority of the companies working in the gaming industry have it that easy though :/
I'm against lootbox as much as you are, I have no word for what happened to that family :(
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/Ufd0Z/focus-home-interactive-extorting-its-contracted-indie-game-studios
Already tough and publisher still do something like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
16,284 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AdJ
1,797 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MeguminShiro
23 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Bigshrimp
493 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by sallachim
205 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by carlica
381 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by OsManiaC
54 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by sensualshakti
55 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Axelflox
45 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by sallachim
42 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by Axelflox
4 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by RePlayBe
21 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Bum8ara5h
11 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by venturercatt
718 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by canis39
This was primarily an answer for this topic but became its own thing, maybe that will give you a better insight of what this is whole discussion is about.
A lot of people who like to blame Epic seem to forget that even AAA games and well renowned developers are more often as we think at the edge of closing door. Telltale instantly comes to mind, but did you know that Square Enix almost closed door after FF14 1.0 fiasco and they kept giving a tight budget to Yoshida after the success of 2.0 to be able to continue to produce other games as they had a few less successful releases at the same time, including FFXV ? The giant Square Enix almost closed door. And who doesn't know Final Fantasy, right ?
Having a safety net like this is something major for indie developers, but not only. Times have changed a lot, people don't want to pay a high price anymore for a game they can easily have cracked, wait for a sale, check prices on different markets (including grey) or wait for bundles which are bond to happen at some point.
I'm playing video games since over 30 years now. We came from very limited choices that allowed a lot of big names to climb up and be known by a lot of people (developers as game series), to so much choice at a low price that it doesn't matter if you have to wait even a year to buy the game you want. Before we didn't have this luxury, we could just buy the game or wait for it to be in a second hand sale and that was it, the alternative was minimal if you wanted to play a good game, the "asset flip" games weren't as prominent than they are now.
Not long ago I read some comments an indie developer made about how his game was handled by Steam. I can't remember where it was, I believe it was in the comment section commenting about another Epic release (maybe Untitled Goose Game ? Probably, but it doesn't matter right ?).
They were explaining that their game wasn't on the headline when it was released, that they had to give a larger cut and when it finally appeared in the headlines, it was weeks after the release and only was among a bunch of asset flip games. They explained that making the Epic choice was an easy and good choice for a lot of developers, little and big, because of the safety net they give, the lower cut, the DRM free game and the fact you are certain that your game will be on headline and properly promoted.
After a discussion between that person and another single man developer (who was really worried about that Steam discussion), they both agreed that no matter what people could think of Epic Store, the exclusive and anything else, what mattered was to allow people to continue to produce games and to have some visibility. They also added that Valve having no concurrence allowed them to do basically what they wanted and they were hoping that seeing a possible concurrent would lead them to take better care of their shop both for the customers and developers, lowering the amount of asset flip games, giving a larger cut to developers and maybe a safety net as well.
It's easy for someone who is only gamer to judge the situation for their point of view of customers, but the gaming industry is rough, people are being more and more exigent and want to pay less. A single mistake or a series of mistake can lead a big name to be dragged to the dirt or worse. I spoke of Telltale closure, of Square Enix which almost closed their door, but I could speak of the last opus of Fall Out or Mass Effect Andromeda. We're not anymore at an age where you had to take what you were given and enjoy it at full cost with no alternate option, for developers it's not anymore safe to release a game that is not exactly what we expect from them and since it's so hard for them, it's only understandable that some make the Epic choice to have the opportunity to cushion a part of their cost.
PS : I understand the customers anger for any kickstarter and pre sale situation with sudden switch to Epic Store, no need to speak of that in your comment, it's a very specific situation and that's not the topic.
A request for those who will want to answer to this, please be constructive and think of the gaming situation as a whole and not only your point of view as customer.
Comment has been collapsed.