EGS Official Statement "Epic vs. Google Trial Verdict a Win for All Developers"

[AusWolf]

The only non-timed exclusive that I am aware of is Alan Wake 2 - which is published by Epic themselves. Unlike Alan Wake 1, which was published by Microsoft.

No different than Gran Turismo 7 being a Playstation exclusive.

Timed, or non-timed, it doesn't make much difference in my eyes. Both are scummy practices.

I understand exclusives for hardware platforms, because development and testing takes time. Exclusives for one store when there are others (much better ones) available for the same hardware platform and same OS are a different story.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

(much better ones)

Purely subjective.

Timed, or non-timed, it doesn't make much difference in my eyes. Both are scummy practices.

So if you hate a store that much, why not wait until the exclusive expires? Or just pay for it there (same price) and use a third party launcher if you don't like the UI?

 

[AusWolf]

Purely subjective.

That's why I put it in brackets.

So if you hate a store that much, why not wait until the exclusive expires? Or just pay for it there (same price) and use a third party launcher if you don't like the UI?

I waited for Metro Exodus, but Alan Wake 2 is a non-timed exclusive, unfortunately. Third party launchers are a good idea, but I still need EGS to install the game.

 

[Kapone33]

The only non-timed exclusive that I am aware of is Alan Wake 2 - which is published by Epic themselves. Unlike Alan Wake 1, which was published by Microsoft.

No different than Gran Turismo 7 being a Playstation exclusive.

TW had a game release free on Epic that took months to release on Steam. Control was an Epic exclusive and there are more but to use Gran Tursimo which is sold as a reason to buy a PS and not a PC is not in any way similar to what Epic is doing. Objectively Steam was the market before Epic. GOG has always had it's core users but Steam was the default. To the point where there was no kind of support of any kind on Steam for years.

Epic is not as friendly as they seem either. They have spent Millions arguing their position and refuse to fix the issue that will probably be less successful this year because they can't fix finding your Games after an update. When you look at that vs Steam and across PCs it is a wash. The only thing that Epic has on Steam is free Games as the User experience on Steam is very catered to hands off experience if you want and full mods for Games you like to turn them up to 11. There is no cost from Steam to provide that Workshop support that many of us enjoy either.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

to use Gran Tursimo which is sold as a reason to buy a PS and not a PC is not in any way similar to what Epic is doing.

It is being used as a reason to get you onto the EGS, just like GT is used to get you into the PS economy. Sony isn't making their money on hardware sales.

 

[Kapone33]

It is being used as a reason to get you onto the EGS, just like GT is used to get you into the PS economy. Sony isn't making their money on hardware sales.

Yes but you don't play Sony exclusives on PC (Well a little bit more) but that is not new in the console world vs Sega, Nintendo and Microsoft. Just because we can play Sonic on PC does that mean that we should use it to give Epic a pass even though we can't play Mario. The PC is an experiment on open just look at cases and fans as an example. What Epic did was and is doing an attempt to look better on the Software Mgmt Gaming sector of PC with nuggets for the developers and Gamers to gain market share, but the substance of what Epic has become is more annoying than enjoyable. I cannot deny that there are some cool Games on Epic but I say this in every thread about Epic, until they fix that update no access to Game files issue it will grow. I have over 100 Games on Epic and when I got Windows 11 I gave up on moving 1.5 TB of data across drives for the 3rd time as even if you upgrade your Hardware it can jump at you. That for me is an example of how much these entities care about the end user.

 

[chrcoluk]

They are trying to compete with Steam which has the advantage of being the de facto PC game store, of course they need to do something extra to incentivise users to switch. It's not illegal to use your own money to try to increase your marketshare when you're not a monopoly.

They not even doing the basics, the launcher is a joke feature wise. In an old thread I remember listing features that steam doesnt have they could implement to get users over in a fair consumer friendly way, its simply a choice they have made to try and do it via content exclusivity.

The impression I get from Epic is they trying really hard to get control of developers under their wing, and consumers are treated like they are the horde of bee's that follow the hive that Epic controls.

Your argument would have more merit if they actually were "also" trying to compete on features, support etc.

 

[Assimilator]

Games made by EA, or one of their subsidiaries, being sold solely on the EA store is not the same as a third-party developer signing an exclusivity contract with the publisher who happens to operate a (quite terrible) store for some reason.

Actually it is, because nowadays a "publisher" is mostly just a company that puts up money to allow a developer to make a game. As a result of that investment the publisher gets to impose certain conditions on the developer, and in the case of ActiveBlizz it requires that the games it funds are only released on its store. The only difference is that ActiBlizz owns its developers, but practically that doesn't make much difference to how things work, since the development and publishing sides of the business might as well be separate entities.

I understand exclusives for hardware platforms, because development and testing takes time. Exclusives for one store when there are others (much better ones) available for the same hardware platform and same OS are a different story.

Do you really think that development and testing on PC don't take time and money? Really?

Your argument would have more merit if they actually were "also" trying to compete on features, support etc.

No law says that attempts to compete have to be smart. If Tim Sweeney thinks that dumping a billion bucks of Epic's money into a pit and burning it is a way to get more people to use EGS, he's fully entitled to do so. It's no different from the ad campaigns that cost tens of millions of dollars, yet everybody hates them when they're launched.

And honestly it's probably just due to lack of understanding of the fact that repeat, not new, usage is what makes a product successful. Silicon Valley execs and venture capitalists obsess over the latter "growth" metric because they love to see it increase month-on-month, while ignoring the former one. The thing is, if your product is adding 1 million users a month that's great, but if they all stop using it after 3 months it's really not!

This, BTW, is basically how WeWork got so big, only to implode - they kept showing amazing "growth" numbers, so investors kept throwing money at them, except the truth was that the actual business model was basically fundamentally incompatible with making money. This is not a purely Silicon Valley problem, there are many other companies across many different industries that have been inherently unhealthy for a looong time yet because of "growth" have been able to soldier on until their ultimately collapse.

 

[AusWolf]

Actually it is, because nowadays a "publisher" is mostly just a company that puts up money to allow a developer to make a game. As a result of that investment the publisher gets to impose certain conditions on the developer, and in the case of ActiveBlizz it requires that the games it funds are only released on its store. The only difference is that ActiBlizz owns its developers, but practically that doesn't make much difference to how things work, since the development and publishing sides of the business might as well be separate entities.

Fair point. A sad one, though.

Do you really think that development and testing on PC don't take time and money? Really?

That's not what I meant.

What I mean is, if you have a PS game, you need extra time and money to port and test it for PC. If you have a PC game, on the other hand, sold on X store, it doesn't take any effort to put it onto Y store as well.

No law says that attempts to compete have to be smart.

We actually have laws that say that? It begs a million questions about a million brands besides Epic. But I digress...

 

[Selaya]

[ ... ]

This, BTW, is basically how WeWork got so big, only to implode - they kept showing amazing "growth" numbers, so investors kept throwing money at them, except the truth was that the actual business model was basically fundamentally incompatible with making money. This is not a purely Silicon Valley problem , there are many other companies across many different industries that have been inherently unhealthy yet because of "growth" have been able to soldier on until their ultimately collapse.

you just described the ponzi scheme to the t. congratulations!