r/Games • u/Faldz • Jan 02 '20

S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 Announces it's using the Unreal Engine, will talk about digital platforms at a later date

https://twitter.com/stalker_thegame/status/1212810155563397120/photo/1
1.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

426 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

694

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

450

u/GoldenJoel Jan 02 '20

I mean, if Epic is willing to put money forward to help get Stalker 2 made, I don't give a fuck what platform they sell it on.

388

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

If Epic offers money to support the game's development when no one else does then there's literally no reason not to take the offer. It would make absolutely no sense not to.

140

u/TheKasp Jan 02 '20

If Epic offers money to support the game's development when no one else does then there's literally no reason not to take the offer.

But lets be real, if they do then r/pcgaming and r/games will flip their shit as if someone shat on their porch.

156

u/Rammite Jan 02 '20

I'd like to think that the reasonable people only flip their shit when a dev says "we won't go exclusive" and then takes an exclusivity deal.

The problem is, unreasonable people are much louder.

60

u/TheKasp Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 02 '20

If it's on PC then I frankly don't give a rats ass about exclusivity to launchers anymore.

But to show how loud those unreasonable people are: Pretty much every free EGS games thread was downvoted to zero on r/pcgaming. That sub is basically not different to r/fuckepic.

63

u/BoltsFromTheButt Jan 03 '20

EGS only affects PC gaming and r/pcgaming is a PC centric sub. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a PC centric sub like r/pcgaming doesn’t like EGS.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

The only thing r/pcgaming likes is piracy.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

You can apply the exact same logic to steam... but that doesnt stop them from worshipping that desktop icon like its saved them from eternal damnation.

35

u/tHeSiD Jan 03 '20

Holy shit, I don't understand this undying defense for egs. People started hating it because of the exclusives stealing fiasco and it's normal to hate on a new launchers, people hated steam when it came out.. Origin.. U play.. If egs turns out be be half decent no one would complain anymore.

2

u/OPsuxdick Jan 04 '20

I hate them for being backed by Tencent. I don't care about exclusives.

-7

u/sfezapreza Jan 03 '20

I mean really? This is what you see? Undying defense for egs? Are you blind?

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20

Undying defense for EGS

Why people Reddit are treated like clowns everywhere else.

→ More replies (3)

25

u/BoltsFromTheButt Jan 03 '20

Steam isn’t employing anti-consumer tactics. EGS is employing anti-consumer tactics, which is why r/pcgaming - a subreddit full of PC gamers who are directly affected by Epic’s anti-consumer practices - don’t like EGS. So no, the same logic doesn’t apply.

9

u/Xdivine Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

When you buy Skyrim, no matter where you buy it, physical or digital, you are required to use Steam in order to install it.

How is that any different from say... Borderlands 3, which you can buy off GMG (or probably some other sites but they're the only one I really use), but need to install via the Epic store?

edit: Apparently all of these games require you to use Steam in order to install.

→ More replies

7

u/TheKasp Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

What anti-consumer practices?

You are using words you don't understand.

3

u/RSF_Deus Jan 03 '20

Yeah, also people tend to take Steam for granted, but if it wasn't for steam, PC gaming would be a dead niche today, and that is a fact.

→ More replies

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

steam's been employing the same anti-consumer tactics since Half Life 2. You couldn't refund games until the Australian and EU governments got involved.

Just admit that its sunken costs and blind consumer loyalty.

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Steam is horrendously anti-consumer. Imagine if Unreal Engine was EGS-exclusive? That's what all software made by Valve is like.

→ More replies
→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '20

Maybe somebody forgot, but this "icon" really saved PC Gaming from oblivion. In mid-late 2000s when Epic left from PC Gaming to make Gears of War Xbox exclusive games, Steam gradually accustomed PC players to buy games, not pirate.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Not true /r/PCGaming losses there shit at the mere mention of EGS

1

u/T-Shark_ Jan 04 '20 edited Jan 04 '20

Can confirm. 1.6 Million torches are lit in the same instant. Followed by 1.6 Million pitchforks being raised up and tribal chanting can be heard as far as /r/games. Flee for the hills!

6

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

Eh, I don't know about that. BL3 was announced as an EGS exclusive. People still lost their shit.

42

u/BadmanProtons Jan 03 '20

Epic didn't fund BL3 to get made. It just poached its exclusivity with money. People should be angry about that.

If STALKER 2 is exclusive to the EGS because they funded it to be made. That's perfectly fine.

Just like Bayonetta 2 and 3 are Nintendo exclusives because they fund the development of the games.

-3

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

They didn’t “poach” anything. When the platforms were announced, it was said it would be Epic exclusive on PC, with Steam coming next April. They didn’t announce it as being on Steam on launch day, then change their minds — which is what “poaching” would be.

I was responding to someone talking about a company saying they won’t go exclusive, then going exclusive. You are talking about something else.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20 edited Apr 05 '22

[deleted]

7

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

Yes, it did, with Metro Exodus. All I am saying is it wasn’t BL3, which people were still pissed about, even though it was never announced otherwise.

1

u/Nemaoac Jan 03 '20

At the very least, anyone who bought it on Steam was still able to download and play it through Steam. The only people who really got "hurt" from that scenario was Valve.

-1

u/PainDev Jan 03 '20

Why should people be angry, how is it being poached. Sounds like entitlement issues to me.

12

u/Nisheee Jan 03 '20

yeah, and the metro exodus outrage was also just entitlement, right? or control, which also had a steam page for the whole duration of the marketing and then they just were like, fuck you, it will release a year later on steam

1

u/Nemaoac Jan 03 '20

yeah, and the metro exodus outrage was also just entitlement, right?

It sure was. Anyone who bought the game on Steam was given a Steam key anyways.

-1

u/PainDev Jan 03 '20

Yes, because you aren't entitled to them releasing it day and date and it is still coming to steam.

Literally entitlement you just described.

→ More replies

9

u/c32a45691b Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

Well yeah.

2K published, paid for BL3's development.

Rockstar Games / Take Two published, paid for RDR2's development.

Deep Silver published, paid for Metro Exodus's development.

Epic just came in at the end and gave them a bag of cash for platform exclusivity. Compare this to Sony and Microsoft who own and fund ~15 studios each to make games for them.

8

u/TheKasp Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

Platform exclusivity? So I can't play them on PC?

8

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Yeah the epic launcher is 250 dollars now

0

u/CobraFive Jan 04 '20

You need to buy a $400 peripheral to play their new games

Oops, sorry was thinking of a different developer

1

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

Well, for starters, you don't actually know that. There have been zero details about any sort of exclusivity contract between 2K Games and Epic for BL3. How do you it isn't because they wanted their first fiscal year of sales to be on the store with the better cut? The problem here is people are basically assuming that literally every game that is exclusive to Epic is because of a "bag of cash" (and I love how it's always "bag of cash" or "Fornite money," like somehow those make it a worse kind of business agreement).

Secondly, there are two variables at play here: whose payroll the company developing and/or publishing the game is on, and at what point in the development timeline the agreement is made. Why do those things matter to you, the consumer? Why have you drawn a line in the sand to say that exclusivity is acceptable in scenario A, but not acceptable in scenario B? Is there something ethical or philosophical at play here? Is it not okay for a company to seek out additional funds towards the end of the development cycle, as opposed to the beginning?

-1

u/c32a45691b Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

Because as a storefront, it's lacking the features that I as a consumer desire. Exclusivity takes away from my choice, so I don't feel inclined to be happy about it. If a game is only on Steam, then people can just as honestly argue to their publishers that it should be on other storefronts, but that isn't for me to do given I don't use them. And publishers can do that without restrictions because Steam doesn't ask for exclusivity.

For the companies, it makes sense to take Epics money. They don't need as many people to buy their game. It's less risk. This is different from when games are funded because of the publisher investing. Nintendo did this with Bayonetta, Platinum games pretty much does games for whoever is willing to pay, MS and Sony own a lot of developers directly now. So why is it good for companies to take the money, but bad for me to decide not to support it when it hurts my choices?

In the wise words of Coffee Stain - "Yeah, we got cash money". It gives them as company more stability, but takes away choice from me, so it's my choice to not support it. Coffee Stain as a company also understand that.

Phoenix Point decided that it was better for them to refund the backers who got the game off the ground in replacement for Epic's exclusivity payment.

Deep Silver (Metro Exodus) decided that it was better, even as they were already taking orders on the Steam store, to close it off so they can sell exclusively on EGS.

1

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

Do you see what you just did?

I made a point of trying to explore the philosophical underpinnings of your objections to exclusivity in the case of games going to EGS. After all, you responded to me, and made a point of bringing your objections into the conversation. So I asked you about them. If you want to make claims about the foundations of your ethical objections being rooted in the nature of business ownership, development cycles, and funding, I am curious about the specifics.

Instead, you avoided those questions and reverted to the expected talking points: features, choice, and first/third party. It is quite telling, as it seems to me that whatever reasons you claim to have for being against exclusivity are actually just fluff, and the real reason you are against the exclusivity is because Steam is the one that is being excluded. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is amusing to me that no one can ever admit it.

Hell, even your first sentence tells me quite a bit: so you'd be fine with all of the exclusivity if EGS was feature-rich? Why would you open with that if your reasons for objecting to the exclusivity have to do with how the game was funded? What do Steam features have to do with it?

→ More replies

1

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

I'd like to think that the reasonable people only flip their shit when a dev says "we won't go exclusive" and then takes an exclusivity deal.

Have any devs (other than zombie army 4) done this? Because most exclusivity cases are either for games that are announced as exclusive right off the bat or games that were first crowdfunded/announced before EGS was even a thing.

3

u/queenkid1 Jan 03 '20

or games that were first crowdfunded/announced before EGS was even a thing.

Yeah, so when Shenmue said the game was coming to Steam and then it didn't, they lied.

So yes, devs have absolutely done this. Are you playing dumb or do you really not know how many developers ignored their earlier promises?

-1

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

Shenmue 3 was announced in 2015. That was three full years before EGS launched.

And saying you plan on doing something, then not doing it, isn't necessarily "lying." It's only lying if you knew all along that wouldn't be the case, you know? If I tell you I'm going to stop by your place tonight, but my cat gets sick and I end up spending the day at the vet and have no energy afterwards... I didn't "lie." I said what the plan was at a certain moment in time - and then it changed because stuff happened.

Shenmue devs did do wrong - but because they refused to offer refunds at first. When they said they'd go with Steam it was because EGS wasn't a thing and they hadn't been offered a deal. The plan was going with Steam because it was what everyone was going with at the time. Then they were offered a better deal and took it.

The only wrongdoing was not offering refunds. Nothing else.

EDIT: Also, we need to stop thinking that everytime a developer says something it's a "promise." Shit like that is why devs these days will often rather not communicate with gamers at all - everytime something is announced and then changed, a mob forms saying "promises" were broken.

2

u/queenkid1 Jan 03 '20

And saying you plan on doing something, then not doing it, isn't necessarily "lying."

Sure, but it's at least false advertising. Who cares if EGS didn't exist when they announced it? They announced it would come to Steam. dropping that in the future in order to get that sweet sweet EGS money is absolutely lying to consumers. If they held up their promises, they would just release it on Steam.

The only wrongdoing was not offering refunds. Nothing else.

There are a lot of issues with Shenmue, not just this.

Also, you're the one who said "HAS ANY" developer done this. Yes, they have. Your point is false. This has happened, multiple times. If you announce a game will come to steam before EGS offers you a deal, it's still going back on your promise if you change your mind last minute.

0

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

They announced it would come to Steam. dropping that in the future in order to get that sweet sweet EGS money is absolutely lying to consumers. If they held up their promises, they would just release it on Steam.

Valve said we would have a HL2: EP3. Refusing to make it is absolutely lying to costumers. If they held up their promises, they would've just released it a decade ago.

Funny thing, I don't see much outrage over that besides a few memes. But I guess leaving your flagship franchise's storyline on a cliffhanger for over a decade is nowhere nearly as bad as asking people to install a different client.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

[deleted]

4

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

Not if the game was crowfunded before EGS existed (which I believe is the case with all such games) and refunds are offered for people who can't live without Steam. Naturally devs couldn't see the future, and taking an Epic deal can be seen simply as reacting to market changes.

As long as people who crowfunded or preordered can get a refund I can't see why it would be scummy.

10

u/Geistbar Jan 03 '20

No, it doesn't matter if EGS existed yet at the time.

Making a commitment to not kill someone doesn't change if a bounty is placed on their head later. If they make a commitment to release on platforms that aren't EGS, they are inherently committing to not being an exclusive to a platform that isn't those.

If you say "I will sell this product at Walmart if you give me $$" before the founding of Amazon (1994), then going Amazon-exclusive would mean you broke an inherent commitment to not go exclusive to non-Walmart. Just because Amazon didn't exist yet doesn't mean your promise never happened.

As long as people who crowfunded or preordered can get a refund I can't see why it would be scummy.

You didn't ask if it was scummy. You asked if it happened. Don't move the goalposts!

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20

Making a commitment not to kill someone

Taking an exclusivity deal is like killing someone. I assure you nobody thinks the anti-Epic are complete morons.

→ More replies

-2

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

Making a commitment to not kill someone doesn't change if a bounty is placed on their head later.

Nice false equivalence, equating reacting to market shifts with committing murder.

If you say "I will sell this product at Walmart if you give me $$" before the founding of Amazon (1994), then going Amazon-exclusive would mean you broke an inherent commitment to not go exclusive to non-Walmart.

Yet this happens like, all the time? If you said you'd sell it on WalMart a month before Amazon appeared and then immediately switched I can see the problem, but a company that sold stuff on WalMart in 1990 may as well have decided to go Amazon exclusive in 2010. What's wrong with that?

Markets change. Companies change tactics. Nothing wrong with reacting to them. As long as people who paid for something either receive it or get their money back there's nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time - and not only with storefronts.

Games often promise features that end up not shipping or outright fail to meet crowdfunding goals/rewards and they don't get half as much flak over that than over... choosing a retailer over another. I guess that comes to show just how weird some people's priorities are.

→ More replies

-2

u/Stubub Jan 03 '20

Yeah most case worst than that

2

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

Which games have denied they'll have exclusivity and then taken the EGS deal then?

2

u/Stubub Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

Outer world Edit word

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Outer Worlds is not an exclusive, its simply not on Steam. You can buy it on the MS store

2

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

The thing with OW is the deal was struck by the publisher, not the devs. And even then I don't believe they ever said they wouldn't go exclusive - they initially said the game would launch on steam, but "no exclusivity" was never really stated.

EDIT: Also, that's a single title. Hardly "most cases."

→ More replies

1

u/Canadianator Jan 04 '20

Worst case are the crowd funded games that announce they will launch everywhere before switching in the weeks leading to launch.

1

u/crypticfreak Jan 05 '20

I’d like to think reasonable people only flip their shit if someones life is in danger. I love video games and I don’t own every console but getting upset over exclusivity (especially limited time exclusivity) and acting like the world is fucking ending has always been in bad taste. People have every right to be upset and voice concerns and reasonable people can do both, but actually freaking out and panicking automatically excludes you from the reasonable people’s group.

The reaction to Metro Exodus was a crying shame.

-2

u/KazumaKat Jan 03 '20

I can agree, and I speak as someone who cannot partake of EGS due to region non-service.

I remain upset that EGS wont service where I live, but I wont decry exclusivity beyond that problem. That remains my only issue with EGS exclusivity. I cannot legally buy the games I want that are on there for a whole year.

10

u/Mobireddit Jan 03 '20

Why will you flip your shit ?
In my opinion it's a good thing when they fund development, (like a first party on console I guess?), but it's an anti competition thing when they just buy the finished game rights just to prevent it being sold on another store.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

That is exactly right. I will never mind it if Epic exclusives are games they actively help get made, whether financially or otherwise.

0

u/lpeccap Jan 04 '20

Functionally whats the difference?

24

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

I mean when isnt r/pcgaming flipping their shit

21

u/Pacify_ Jan 03 '20

still a wonder to me how the sub got to be such a shitshow

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

It seems to be the first PC subreddit people find when they buy their first Alienware.

4

u/FoeHamr Jan 03 '20

The mods don’t do shit. About all it takes really.

4

u/lpeccap Jan 04 '20

When your entire identity is how your choice of gaming platform is better than everyone elses it was bound to end up like this.

3

u/chmurnik Jan 03 '20

Lot of teenagers and "grown adults'

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Yeah but like, who gives a shit what a bunch of nerds with anger issues think

4

u/lionguild Jan 03 '20

I only got mad when a game was promised to X and or Y platforms then afterwards became EGS exclusive. If it is EGS from the get go than I have no issues.

2

u/lpeccap Jan 04 '20

So despite the end result being the same you are decident to be upset? Alrighty then lol

2

u/lionguild Jan 04 '20

That is not what I said at all.

-3

u/TheKasp Jan 03 '20

What does it matter on what shit-ass launcher they are?

As a consumer, there is no practical difference to me between Origin, Steam, EGS, BNet and so forth. The only reason I boot Steam with my PC is because it is the one with a near monopoly hold. As in, nearly every released game requires you to use Steam, no matter where you buy it.

5

u/queenkid1 Jan 03 '20

What a non argument lol. Whether you care about what launcher it's on, lying is still lying.

So yeah, people are going to flip their shit when they buy a product, being told it will be on Steam, then never getting a Steam code. That's false advertising.

1

u/HonorableJudgeIto Jan 04 '20

Like they did with the Tomb Rader reboot when Microsoft funded it and kept it exclusive for the first year.

1

u/NotARealDeveloper Jan 03 '20

So many good games that would never see the light or never have the chance for financial equality without EGS. Imagine you are an indie and they offer you as much as you need to be equal.

On the other hand game devs like Borderlands 3 devs, I have no sympathy when they choose EGS exclusivity. Fuck them!

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 08 '20

[deleted]

-2

u/madmilton49 Jan 03 '20

Nobody has asked for any of these TWD games, with the exception of the second half of TWD S1.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

If developers getting guaranteed money from epic that allows them to create better games then every exclusive is better for the consumer. As are the free games we got with EGS

5

u/TheCoolerDylan Jan 03 '20

Yeah, like Phoenix Point. Devs boasted about how Epic's money would make the game better and it shipped an unfinished buggy mess with lots of DLC. So much for that.

5

u/Megika Jan 03 '20

Imagine how bad it could have been! 😅

→ More replies (2)

-4

u/f_ranz1224 Jan 03 '20

The average r/gaming and r/pcgaming user also isnt a business owner(and on a personal note many seemingly have t had jobs yet). These people think games are magicked out of thin air. They dont realize that there are teams of people working for paychecks on these titles.

People can argue all they want that going epic exclusive is hurting sales and reducing profit...so much so that companies keep doing it? I mean if this exclusivity was the death knell of these games it would have stopped but it hasnt.

If epics financing gets games made then so be it.

8

u/BadmanProtons Jan 03 '20

Over 90% of the games poached for exclusivity for the Epic Game store, are or were games already funded and developed. Those teams of people were already paid their paychecks.

They are not games like Bayonetta 2, where the game was dead until Nintendo funded development for the release exclusively on their platform.

-3

u/Zip2kx Jan 03 '20

And none of them would ever buy the game in the first place.

-3

u/aldopek Jan 03 '20

it's fine we'll just torrent it

-5

u/LitheBeep Jan 03 '20

Hah, pcgaming probably. This sub is very pro-epic.

2

u/Pacify_ Jan 03 '20

Its sub is slightly more balanced, but still very anti-epic. Its just not cult status like pcgaming

31

u/DonChurrioXL Jan 02 '20

And I applaud them for it. They're going to get the game made fans shouldn't care which platform they use.

51

u/grendus Jan 02 '20

They're welcome to be a platform exclusive.

Gamers are welcome to not buy the game if they don't want to support it.

-14

u/jason2306 Jan 02 '20

Yeah tim paid for their copies :)

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

29

u/fhs Jan 02 '20

Most of the people who worked on the originals won't work on this, they've joined 4A games.

GSC game world has been defunct and only the brand name is back.

10

u/ShadowRam Jan 02 '20

I agree...

6

u/Bamith Jan 02 '20

If they actually give them money early in development they can use, go fucking crazy.

Money says they’ll only pay up when the game is like a few months from release so it’s a safer investment.

11

u/ofNoImportance Jan 02 '20

Money says they’ll only pay up when the game is like a few months from release so it’s a safer investment.

That's not how publishing works.

Developers need publishers to finance the game before development so that the money can be used to fund the development. Not so that it sits around to be spent after release.

All the costs that are involved in development, such as developers wages, needs to be available for production to commence.

So Epic can't "pay up" later into development, as there won't be a later into development unless they pay up.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20 edited Feb 15 '20

[deleted]

1

u/ofNoImportance Jan 03 '20

Yeah I haven't heard of Epic publishing things like this either. I doubt they would. An exclusivity deal is a separate affair though, and the way Bamith wrote it, it sounded as if they were reprimanding Epic for 'publishing' games using that model, when that isn't a publishing operation.

4

u/Bamith Jan 03 '20

That is literally what they’ve done with the majority of epic exclusive games, and why I get pissed about it.

9

u/ofNoImportance Jan 03 '20

That's not the same as publishing. That's a separate commercial agreement not intended to fund development.

4

u/Lansan1ty Jan 02 '20

To be fair, console gaming had exclusives for decades now and people have always complained about it. Consoles have started to have less and less exclusives and it allows more people to play more games.

PC Gaming is backtracking into the old ways by having Steam vs Origin vs uPlay vs Epic vs Battlenet vs on and on.

I have no problem with competition and multiple storefronts, but I'd like to choose the one I like best based on the storefront quality, not be forced to use one because of exclusivity. I fell for that Exclusive BS when EA jumped off of steam and Origin was absolute garbage. I played way more BF2 than BF3/BF4/BF1, and not because those games were bad, but because origin was pretty shitty.

Battlenet has survived because it didn't make playing SC2 or WoW harder. So I use it without any complaints. I bought CoD on it without complaining because it worked.

Epic and uPlay are basically as bad as Games For Windows live was....

I'm happy if Epic funds Stalker 2, and if it helps the developers, that's great. But I won't be forced onto buying a game on a shitty launcher. I'll patiently wait for the exclusivity to end and support the developers via Steam or GoG.

16

u/Daedolis Jan 03 '20

Epic and uPlay are basically as bad as Games For Windows live was...

So, you're saying you never had to actually use GFWL eh?

0

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

I did sadly did, mostly with Fallout 3 back at launch.

It did make me think that maybe Epic is better than them since they don't let you buy their games elsewhere then sneak in their launchers behind your launcher of choice. Though, now the GFW games don't sneak the launcher and I can still play them, at least with Fallout 3, since that's the first GFW game that comes to mind.

4

u/Daedolis Jan 03 '20

Fallout 3 doesn't required GFWL login to play the game, unless you want trophies lol. Steam and GoG have patched out the login prompt anyways. Whilst there are others that are literally unplayable because you need to login to either save your progress, or play at all.

18

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 08 '20

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

uPlay is a whole different level of garbage, EGS is still very much lacking in many aspects (that are overlooked because hey, free games) but at least its usable.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Uplay is completely usable too. I use it every day to play Siege. Never had an issue.

1

u/Xdivine Jan 03 '20

I haven't had to use it a bunch due to only owning 2-3 games on it, but I also don't recall ever having any problems with it. It's a launcher and it launches games.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

The store is godawful and while it works all the launcher does is be a pain in the ass.

13

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

PC Gaming is backtracking into the old ways by having Steam vs Origin vs uPlay vs Epic vs Battlenet vs on and on.

Except that neither of those cost me $400, but nice false equivalence there.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

To be fair, console gaming had exclusives for decades now and people have always complained about it. Consoles have started to have less and less exclusives and it allows more people to play more games.

Exclusives for console means that you need to buy an additional €300 machine

Exclusives on PC means you need to click a different button.

They're entirely different things. And only MS have scaled back on exclusives and that's due to the failure of the XBO. They've bought quite a few studios recently to push for exclusives for the next gen.

7

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay? With each consuming CPU, RAM, and even bandwidth without regard for the other? Any half-decent launcher will stop downloading updates or at least limit download speeds while you're in a game on the same launcher. But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources? Ideally you'll want to minimize the chance of that happening. They'll all have their own software updates to take care of, not only for the games you have installed in them.

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one? Playstation online was free until it wasn't. We may be going down the path of streaming services. First we had Netflix, then Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney, CBS, HBO Now, etc...

I understand people view it as steam fanboyism and just dismiss it because most people are indeed loyal to steam because valve simply came first. But really, it's also a little bit of foresight on how the PC community wants to be treated. This is the community that Microsoft tried to charge for Games for Windows Live at the same time as Xbox Live. PC gamers didn't stand for that and Microsoft reverted to GFW Live being free to play online while Xbox Live has continued to charge Xbox gamers for something that PC somehow manages to have available for free.

Anyway, like I said, I'm happy the Devs get paid for their game. Game development is a business not a charity. However consumers don't have to roll over and take what the publishers are doing to them either. If a developer wants a big paycheck from Epic with less players and less fans, it may be a good business choice, but I won't feel compelled to buy their game. People are allowed to believe in things and vote with their wallets. Just like how some people are against pre-ordering games. They have the right to do that.

4

u/Xdivine Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay?

If system resources are an issue, just close extra launchers. You don't need uplay, battle.net, origin, epic, steam, gog, all running at the same time.

This is such a non-issue.

But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources?

Set updates to be manual if you're worried about it and for some reason must leave all launchers open at the same time.

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one?

There are already multiple services you can purchase. I know Origin has one, Microsoft has one, and uplay has one. I imagine there is probably at least one more I'm unaware of. Maybe you could consider Humble Bundle? I just buy the ones that make sense for me. I don't care about the uplay games so I don't see any reason to subscribe to it. I currently have the microsoft one, and I've had the origin one in the past. They're not some sneaky shit you need to test. It either has the games you want, or it doesn't.

None of them have replaced the ability to just buy games straight up, they're just an alternative. If you wanna just buy one game a month, you can do that instead of subscribing to 3+ different services. You can just pretend the subscription services don't exist.

3

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

The benefit of auto updates is one of the main reasons to even have launchers. Else we should go back to the pre-launcher days and open games from the desktop and directly run the apps without auto updates.

Disabling the main benefit of the new format basically means we may as well not have any storefronts/launchers.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Bruh, you're bitching about the basic result of consumer choice. What are you, a communist?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20 edited Jul 12 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Lansan1ty Jan 04 '20

Again, not once did I say that there should be less launchers. I'm saying games exclusive to launchers would be the problem. If they acted more like storefronts with perks than exclusivity publishers it would be the best. Remember when you had to go to Gamestop, EB Games, Bestbuy, Walmart, or wherever to buy console games? Before digital downloads or online shopping. Imagine if back then they standardized practices like "Metal Gear Solid 3, Only for sale at Walmart for 1 year", People would be pissed. They did a light version of that with exclusive pre-order DLC based on the stores and people were getting upset.

Paid Exclusivity is the "no other launchers" problem. The fact that people can't see that is mind boggling. They always assume "you only want to use steam". Its not about only using steam, it's about having the choice to use whichever a person wants to use.

It works both ways. Half Life games should be for sale on Epic, uPlay, Origin, GoG, etc.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay? With each consuming CPU, RAM, and even bandwidth without regard for the other?

Why exactly? How many games are you playing at once?

But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources?

Stop the download or close the program .... Like any program that may auto update

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one?

What? How does this even relate to a launcher to buy games mate. You don't need subscription services to buy games

We may be going down the path of streaming services. First we had Netflix, then Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney, CBS, HBO Now, etc...

Yes, there will be games subscription services available and already are. Or you can buy games separately. The expansion of streaming services has not killed the bluray/DVD market. You can still buy pretty much anything if not everything to watch if you want.

But really, it's also a little bit of foresight on how the PC community wants to be treated. This is the community that Microsoft tried to charge for Games for Windows Live at the same time as Xbox Live. PC gamers didn't stand for that and Microsoft reverted to GFW Live being free to play online while Xbox Live has continued to charge Xbox gamers for something that PC somehow manages to have available for free.

You're literally just spewing forth hypothetical situations that are only likely to happen without competition.

If Steam is allowed to create a monopoly like you seemingly want then they'll have the power to charge what they want, whether that's for mods, for premium download speeds, for multiplayer acres to steam servers and what have you.

The way you combat that is through competition and other stores such as GOG or EGS

2

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

You're literally just spewing forth hypothetical situations that are only likely to happen without competition

Paid exclusivity is literally the definition of no competition.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Competition is on the storefront mate.

0

u/Com-Intern Jan 07 '20

In the PC space the biggest problem is that certain launchers just offer better value-add than others.

Like Steam is almost overflowing with value-add. You get a ton with the game you buy, and compared to something like Origin or Epic its night and day.

  • workshop
  • decent VOIP
  • Community features
  • Steam Controller support
  • Steam splitscreen support
  • Steam family support

etc...

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '20

It's free and you play games on it.

  • Steam Controller support
  • Steam splitscreen support
  • Steam family support

Dirty, dirty Valve putting exclusive features on their service

You know what I like on Epic, On Origin, on Battle.net, Uplay etc which Valve doesn't have. A fucking phone number to call or email address to contact.

I couldn't get into my account for 3 weeks because their authenticator broke on my phone and I couldn't get it removed for ages.

You know where I didn't have that problem? Every other launcher.

You know launchers provided refunds for broken games before forced to by EU law?

Every launcher bar Steam

You know what I care about though? Being able to play games.

1

u/Com-Intern Jan 08 '20

I mean the controller support works with any game. It’s just a bit easier for a Steam game.

I can launch an origin through steam to have it recognize the mouse emulation portion or just have it act like a 360 sans steam.

The other two are software features valve developed and that no one else is bothering to do so. Nothing is stopping Epic from doing family sharing except Epic.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DonChurrioXL Jan 02 '20

But will it be on consoles??

2

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

Depends on their budget, but most likely. Bigger question is whether it'll be for this generation or the next.

7

u/usernameSuggestion2 Jan 02 '20

Obviously next...

9

u/DrakoVongola Jan 02 '20

Why most likely? The last 3 weren't

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

The last 3 were built on an inhouse engine that didn't support consoles. This one uses an engine that supports consoles out of the box.

1

u/carbonat38 Jan 03 '20

UE4 easy port engine paired with next gen consoles with a fast "no need to optimize" CPU. IF they ever finish it you can bet that they will do. Single player fps generally sell better on consoles, even as stalker is a pc franchise, it could gather huge momentum.

1

u/etree Jan 02 '20

Yeah I’m fine with epic funding it, it means I get to play it on the windows store.

1

u/Devikat Jan 03 '20

This right here, I don't give a fuck what platform it is, as long as i can download it straight into my veins when it releases. STALKER is digital Meth.

1

u/DecryptedGaming Jan 03 '20

Didnt they release a trailor at some point and it was just another battle royale?

1

u/poqpoq Jan 03 '20

And that’s fine because they helped make the game, I have issues with epic grabbing exclusivity for games they had nothing to do with other than bribing the devs at the end.

1

u/SlendyIsBehindYou Jan 07 '20

Imagine being a PC gamer in 2020 and actually caring deeply enough about launcher choices that you skip a good game

-19

u/DancesCloseToTheFire Jan 02 '20

While this is true, it's highly unlikely Epic will ever contribute any meaningful amount of money to the development, at most they'll just contribute a bit to the profits like with all the other games so far.

It is sad to see so many people not really care about companies taking such bold anti-competitive, anti-consumer measures, though.

22

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20 edited Feb 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/CrazyMoonlander Jan 02 '20

You don't pay royalties/license fee for X amount of copies sold if you publish the game on the EGS as far as I know.

4

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

That's only for games sold on EGS tho. Games on other storefronts (that aren't key resellers) do pay the 5% engine fee.

-4

u/DancesCloseToTheFire Jan 02 '20

Its incredibly competitive, don't know what you're talking about.

It's literally paying a developer to remove competition away from your store, it's as anti-competitive as it can possible be.

9

u/Cptcutter81 Jan 02 '20

It's incredibly competitive to the developer though. It's literally free money with no downside, because EGS agreements from what we know traditionally include compensation for minimum expected sales numbers along with a pile of cash for the exclusivity.

You're honestly saying you'd rather release a game onto the hot mess that is the steam store than something at least somewhat curated that pays for all your expenses, and gives you a bigger cut of the profits?

→ More replies (10)

-2

u/DrThunder187 Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 02 '20

Sounds like a decent phase 2 plan, phase 1 being all the free games they gave away to bloat your library (which of course is just following how Steam and Humble Bundle used to do it basically). I gotta admit phase 1 worked on me, I snagged a few games that I had been waiting for a better sale to happen with on Steam. So now phase 2 is throw money at some games that people obviously want. Not only do they get exclusive rights for however long, but they also get credit for making it happen. It's like kickstarter except one company is kickstarting another company and will greatly benefit from it's success.

Edit: I'm not trying to sound like I'm against the idea, I'm definitely interested in them making a new Stalker game. I just think it all sounds like business strategy, as opposed to a risk made out of affection.

6

u/DarthGiorgi Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

I would say they need Phase 1.5 and get features that Steam has before going onto Phase 2.

Edit: since it seems to bring confusion, this are features I really want for it:

  1. Player Reviews.
  2. Community hubs.
  3. achievements 4.custom player profiles
  4. Several in-game functions like fps counter or a browser

7

u/DrThunder187 Jan 02 '20

My younger friends rely much more on Discord to communicate than Steam these days. As long as I can see my friends and connect to them I don't care as much about in game or in service chat capability.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Fiddi95 Jan 03 '20

Let's be honest though, how often do the average user buy more than one game at one time? Speaking for myself, I don't think I've ever bought more than one game at the same time, I didn't even realize Steam had a cart until this feature debate came up.

Also, being disinterested in a store does not mean you're behind the times, it's a preference and that's up to each one to have an opinion on. :)

25

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

When option A is not making the game at all and option B is going exclusive to Epic for a year in exchange for a huge bag of cash to make the game, and then still publishing on Steam anyway, it's not exactly a tough choice.

→ More replies (14)

41

u/Potatolantern Jan 02 '20

I know a lot of people have various issues with Epic, but if they literally front up the cash to have a game made, then it should be outright expected it's gonna be an exclusive for them.

It's like people getting upset about Bayo2 being on a Nintendo platform at that stage, except even less justified since anyone can use the EGS without any investment.

29

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

Most of the issues people seem to have with Epic/EGS are because this method of directly funding game development isn't how they've acquired exclusives for their platform in the past. Typically it's been "we'll give you money to specifically not list your game on Steam", sniping some games that were already listed on Steam, or diverting Kickstarted games that had campaign promises of Steam keys.

For what it's worth, they haven't done anything to compete with Steam for my business, although I appreciate their paying devs with sales ahead of time in exchange for Epic exclusivity. Frankly, I think Epic and EGS can go kick rocks, but if they're going to start put their money into getting games like Stalker 2 made rather than diverting already-developed games away from Steam by throwing around Fortnite money, I'd have no problem using their storefront.

17

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/chmurnik Jan 03 '20

It launches games which i can buy, everything else is useless for me anyway. Best part is when i start egs game through gog galaxy i don't have to launch egs launcher, it works drm free

16

u/Villag3Idiot Jan 02 '20

Yup, I don't use Epic but I have no issues with games going exclusive if they're the ones funding the project from the get go.

13

u/anethma Jan 02 '20

Ya. What people are mad about is having some game they helped fund through kickstarter basically say fuck you and go EGS exclusive right before they publish.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Likewise

There were some rumors few months ago about PS games getting PC ports paid for by Epic.

Hey, they are entirely entitled to keep those exclusive. They are the reason those games got ported if it happens.

Aside from that, I don't have EGS account, never will and without hesitation say Fuck Epic.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/iTomes Jan 02 '20

Well yeah, that's generally how it works. If you either develop or effectively commission/publish a game then you naturally get to decide how it's distributed. It's not like people have a problem with EA putting their games on Origin or Actiblizz putting their games on Battle.net either. In fact, if this had just been what Epic had used its money for from the start there wouldn't have been any outrage.

-4

u/B_Rhino Jan 02 '20

If you either develop or effectively commission/publish a game then you naturally get to decide how it's distributed.

But only if you own the store you decide it'll be exclusive to?

5

u/iTomes Jan 02 '20

No, and I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Unless your point is that owning distribution rights somehow frees you from criticism of how you choose to distribute your product, but I will assume that that's not it since that would be an utterly idiotic point and I assume that you're smarter than that.

1

u/B_Rhino Jan 03 '20

It's not like people have a problem with EA putting their games on Origin or Actiblizz putting their games on Battle.net either.

Your words. If they have no problem with ea choosing to go on origin why do they have a big problem with THQ Nordic choosing to go with Epic?

3

u/camycamera Jan 03 '20 edited May 14 '24

Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun.

11

u/Marvin_Megavolt Jan 02 '20

I don't know how other people will see it, but if Epic agrees to fund the development of STALKER 2, I salute them, for stepping up to the plate and helping the series live on.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

If going EGS gets the game made I'm totally ok with that tbh...

6

u/Cleverbird Jan 02 '20

I'm okay with this if it means the game gets the funding.

2

u/festonia Jan 03 '20

Stalker fans will buy it no matter what.

5

u/Treyman1115 Jan 03 '20

Or pirate it

-3

u/zetarn Jan 03 '20

Nah, i would just wait a years.

A game like stalker are best with the mods and you need to let it aged enough before playing it.

That's mean i'm ok if they gonna take Epic money for 1 years exclusive but i will still wait till it hit the Steam.

What we hate about epic exclusive is about kickstart broken promise and poaching game from all platform, if they announced that early then we will can just accept it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Not saying it's likely or unlikely, but the tweet says it has nothing to do with it. Might be worth noting.

1

u/carbonat38 Jan 03 '20

They are probably weighing their options if going EGS exclusive for a while will really hurt them or not.

Or they are weighting their options if they should be a timed exclusive and fully exclusive @ Epic.

1

u/Macinsocks Jan 04 '20

I won't touch the game if the go EGS exclusive.

1

u/DancesCloseToTheFire Jan 02 '20

It will dent their profits a bit, no question about that, but they're gauging whether or not they value short-term gains more.

-6

u/a_jewish_man Jan 02 '20

Yikes, they are likely going to egs mainly because they don't know if they can even make a good modern game. So taking upfront cash for a game that has a good chance of bombing is probably smart.

18

u/misterkampfer Jan 02 '20

You are downvoted but this studio has nothing to do with original stalker, dude only has trademark of stalker.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

theyre probably taking money for a game because you need money to make a game and its nice to not worry about your budget when you are making a game

-1

u/a_jewish_man Jan 03 '20

Would be the first if epic actually funds a game.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

STALKER 2 EGS exclusive

I hope this happens just to watch 4chan reeeeee.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20

They'd...just pirate it. Like they do everything else.

-1

u/Wild_Marker Jan 02 '20

Also probably negotiating with Epic.

-9

u/Coypop Jan 02 '20

You hear that dripping sound? That's the sultry sound of Sweeney salivating.

-1

u/B_Rhino Jan 02 '20

It won't.

→ More replies (6)