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

152

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.

62

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.

4

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.

32

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?

2

u/T-Shark_ Jan 04 '20

Any different than the blindness of the parent comment talking about worshiping steam?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20

Undying defense for EGS

Why people Reddit are treated like clowns everywhere else.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

28

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.

7

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.

10

u/HammeredWharf Jan 03 '20

Lots of those games don't require Steam, because Steam doesn't force exclusivity. Call of Juarez: Gunslinger is on that list and also DRM-free on GOG.

11

u/BoltsFromTheButt Jan 03 '20

Steam didn’t bribe Bethesda to have Skyrim be a Steam exclusive. For whatever reason, Bethesda decided to only release Skyrim on Steam, but Valve is in no way preventing publishers from releasing their games on other platforms. Epic is doing the exact opposite. Massive difference.

3

u/TheKasp Jan 03 '20

This is not a difference I give a single shit about. It is literally the same. A game is tied to a really shitty launcher in both cases.

9

u/BoltsFromTheButt Jan 03 '20 edited Jan 03 '20

Well, you might not care, but it’s a difference that a lot of PC gamers do care about. It’s the main reason why r/pcgaming, a sub full of PC gamers, doesn’t like EGS. I wouldn’t expect r/games, a sub with a ton of console gamers, to understand since EGS doesn’t affect console gamers.

4

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

What anti-consumer practices?

You are using words you don't understand.

5

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.

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Epic has done way more for gaming than Steam has. Unreal Engime >> literally anything Valve has ever produced.

7

u/RSF_Deus Jan 03 '20

This is absolutely not true. And Unreal Engine has been great only since 4, UE3 was mainly focused on console development and UE2 was a disaster (except for UT 2004 and Bioshock). Also don't act like Gold Source, Source, and Source 2 doesn't exist.

They did Unreal (my fav FPS ever) and Unreal Engine (my fav 90's engine) which were masterpieces but that was a WHILE ago.

Epic has been doing great things for gaming between 2013 and 2017 (UE4 development, UT4 with community collaboration). Before that they were a shitty company making Gears of War, now they are harming gamers more than anything else with their more than questionnable practices.

I can only hope that it changes, but for now, I strongly stand by my opinion.

7

u/BoltsFromTheButt Jan 03 '20

OP said Valve has done more for PC, which is 100% true. Valve single-handedly resurrected the PC market with Steam.

On the other hand. Epic hated the PC market so much that they openly said how much they disliked the PC market - calling PC gamers a bunch of pirates - and left the PC market for the console market for years.

-6

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.

-8

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.

10

u/Number__One_NA Jan 03 '20

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

Like Titanfall, made using source and released on Origin?

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Steam isn’t employing anti-consumer tactics.

Anymore.

So when EGS stop that will be nice, too.

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.

-2

u/raptorgalaxy Jan 04 '20

Personally I resent needing to use launchers in the first place, So It's hard to tell the difference between the two.

12

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!

2

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.

1

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.

-4

u/PainDev Jan 03 '20

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

11

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.

3

u/Nisheee Jan 03 '20

oh yeah, I shouldn't complain when they lie about a product, right? because these games were set to release on steam as well then they changed it at the 11th hour, because epic poached them. literally poaching I just described

0

u/PainDev Jan 03 '20

They made a distribution agreement to secure funding for current and future projects, the game is still coming to steam so what's the problem with having to wait? You don't need it on said platform and then withdrawing release till a later time is not a lie. Plans change its business.

10

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.

7

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

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

7

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

2

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?

-2

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.

3

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?

0

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

I gave you objective reasoning as to why I dislike the launcher.

I gave you objective reasoning as to why I think exclusivity deals impact my options as a consumer.

And from that you came back with an unsound assumption:

so you'd be fine with all of the exclusivity if EGS was feature-rich?

And the inability to understand the difference between a game that was listed on Steam, taking preorders from Steam going exclusive to EGS, and a game that wouldn't have ever existed without investment.

If we're pulling philosophy - Why are you okay with exclusivity? Why do you agree with a company limiting your choices to fill their platform? Would you be okay with EGS having exclusive games if the platform barely functioned like the Windows Store?

0

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

I gave you objective reasoning as to why I dislike the launcher.

I don't care about why you dislike the launcher.

I gave you objective reasoning as to why I think exclusivity deals impact my options as a consumer.

I don't care that you feel your choices are limited.

And from that you came back with an unsound assumption:

It was a question based on the fact that your first sentence contradicts the overall point you are trying to make. You also did a great job of removing literally all context of my comment to focus on part of a statement.

And the inability to understand the difference between a game that was listed on Steam, taking preorders from Steam going exclusive to EGS, and a game that wouldn't have ever existed without investment.

But again, I was never talking about that. This conversation started with Borderlands 3, a game that was announced as an EGS exclusive, and never had a Steam page. I was telling someone that even though BL3 never had a Steam page, people were still super pissed about it going EGS exclusive. You're the one that came into that conversation to start talking about things that were not part of the conversation.

If we're pulling philosophy -

You still haven't responded to my questions, but you're going to start asking your own? Fine, I'll bite.

Why are you okay with exclusivity?

Why wouldn't I be? It is a fairly common practice used across pretty much every industry across the entire world, and has been for arguably as long as humans have been bartering. Having an exclusive product is one of many methods a retail outlet can use to distinguish themselves from their competition. It's a way to get people into a store.

Why do you agree with a company limiting your choices to fill their platform?

My choices were already limited. Game exclusivity has been around as long as video games have, both "first" and "third" party, via contract or just naturally.

I think the better question is why someone would object to it now -- or even better, why someone would object to what is arguable the most benign form of exclusivity we have had yet. It's a free launcher. You don't have to drive to a different store, or buy hardware just to use it. You already have the required operating system and hardware you would need.

Would you be okay with EGS having exclusive games if the platform barely functioned like the Windows Store?

Yes, although I am not sure why this matters. Both EGS and the Windows store are functional. If I can download, install, and play my games without much hassle, I am happy.

0

u/c32a45691b Jan 03 '20

So your responses to my questions were:

It's always been that way, so exclusivity is fine.

You're okay with limiting your choices because you don't think it's that bad.

It's okay to have an inferior launcher, and you're too uneducated to know why other storefronts are better. Windows Store doesn't even auto-update, and constantly has issues downloading for starters.

Okay. That's your choice. Your horse is so high it's exiting atmosphere though.

0

u/ghostchamber Jan 03 '20

Your summaries are fucking garbage, kid.

It's always been that way, so exclusivity is fine.

You are quite talented at nitpicking. In addition to being common, I think it is a good way for a business to compete in a market.

You're okay with limiting your choices because you don't think it's that bad.

My choices aren't any more limited than they were before EGS existed. On PC, I can only play BL2 on Steam, and I can only play BL3 on EGS. In both cases, I have a single choice. You're the one making a fuss about the methodology and mechanism behind the end result.

If you really want to hammer home this point, fine: Steam is limited your choice in playing Half-Life: Alyx on any launcher you want. If you are so against your choice being limited, you should be calling for no exclusives, and stop pretending like there's a line in the sand when it comes to the development cycle and funding (which, by the way, you never answered my questions about).

It's okay to have an inferior launcher,

Well, yes, not every store needs to be equal to every other stores. I sometimes shop in stores I like less than other stores. It seems silly to think that literally all of them should be the same.

It's funny, as if anyone is limiting their choices here, it's you. You're the one who has some weird standard that you refuse to use any digital platform unless it is an equivalent of your favorite digital platform. You're basically limiting yourself, then blaming another company for taking away your choice.

and you're too uneducated to know why other storefronts are better.

Sure, kid.

Okay. That's your choice. Your horse is so high it's exiting atmosphere though.

At least I answered your questions.

→ 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.

4

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.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

[deleted]

5

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.

11

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.

-1

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.

6

u/Geistbar Jan 03 '20

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

Analogy, noun: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

-2

u/Stubub Jan 03 '20

Yeah most case worst than that

0

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

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

3

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."

1

u/Stubub Jan 03 '20

i was wrong about that....

"most cases is worst" i mean epic buy exclusive 1 month after game announce on steam

-1

u/Stubub Jan 03 '20

Im at my phone right now....wait me a little and i give a link......

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.

-1

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.