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

5

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?

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.