Epic Games Removing/Removed Unreal Series from Online Stores

[Super Firm Tofu]

Epic Games has announced a list of older games that will no longer be available for sale and are also removing any Epic supported online multiplayer support.

The ones you're most likely familiar with is the Unreal series.

• Unreal Gold
• Unreal Tournament GOTY
• Unreal 2
• Unreal Tournament 2003
• Unreal Tournament 2004
• Unreal Tournament 3

They're already gone from Steam, but GOG still has Unreal Gold, UT GOTY, Unreal 2, and UT 2004 for sale. For how long, nobody knows.

Lots of good gaming memories for me with this series.

The details and a list of the remainder of the games they're killing can be found here:

Epic Games are killing off a bunch of classics like Unreal Tournament

Epic Games announced today they're killing off a bunch of classic games removing them from stores and turning off their online services for retro delights like Unreal Tournament.

www.gamingonlinux.com

Oh, and F Epic

 

[gQx]

you can stop support but at least you must compensate your customers there's a thin line there open to exploits

 

[InVasMani]

This is exactly how I feel about their store front to honest.

 

[eidairaman1]

Epic went stupid after they went fortnite, fortnite looks boring compared to UT GOTY, 2004 GOTY

 

[qubit]

So depressing. Those are some of the best games ever made. I played countless hours of UT and UT2004, in particular.

I don't get why they gave up on the UT series as it was so popular. Why did they abandon that one post UT3 that was under development?

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Why did they abandon that one post UT3 that was under development?

I think they put their focus on Fortnite. I don't think the classic UT fans would put up with micro-transactions, skins, and other ways they try to drain money from their users.

 

[Space Lynx]

I have the Unreal series on GoG and in my Steam Library already, so I am good to go. Don't let the door hit you on your way out Epic!

 

[qubit]

I think they put their focus on Fortnite. I don't think the classic UT fans would put up with micro-transactions, skins, and other ways they try to drain money from their users.

While I've never played Fortnite, from what I've seen of it, it does look like a sort of evolution of UT - one designed to nickel and dime you that I don't care for. Money talks.

 

[Shihab]

Seeing how Epic is going to port the last title to modern online infrastructure, and release it for free (and on competing platforms), I think they are handling this very well. Not id level well, but close enough.
Can't say I'm a fan of delisting the titles.

one designed to nickel and dime you that I don't care for

Way I see it, you get to play game for free, get more content over time for free, and all is subsidized by some teenager's parent charged for their kids' anime cosplay (for a virtual avatar ).

I can't stomach Fortnite (or any of the modern multiplayer games) either, but one can't deny that premium cosmetics are a good (for players) monetization approach. Well, except for how they completely ruin any game's aesthetic quality. But that's just the relatively-old, "ADHD is bad" me talking...

 

[PLAfiller]

you can stop support but at least you must compensate your customers there's a thin line there open to exploits

Oh rly??? I didn't get a dime back when EA pulled back "DS" for Android due to "technical incompatibilities" with newer versions of this OS. I still think it wasn't the right thing to do from their side.

 

[BSim500]

They're already gone from Steam, but GOG still has Unreal Gold, UT GOTY, Unreal 2, and UT 2004 for sale. For how long, nobody knows.

Whether Unreal 1-2 remain in people's GOG / Steam accounts after being removed from the store or not (due to single-player content), this is a perfect reminder of why I'm glad I got the GOG offline installer version of Unreal Gold (and hundreds of other old-school games) backed up locally.

 

[pavle]

Just another washed out name that doesn't mean anything anymore, Epic? What a joke; peddling some stupidity inducing games. Whatever, they've been long gone anyhow.

 

[Totally]

Oh rly??? I didn't get a dime back when EA pulled back "DS" for Android due to "technical incompatibilities" with newer versions of this OS. I still think it wasn't the right thing to do from their side.

I hear but I mean it's EA, that would be extremely out of character for them to do something like that and NOT hose their customers. No one should hold EA to a standard anymore as doing so is just going to lead to disappointment and frustration.

 

[snipe3687]

let's be honest. Epic abandoned the unreal series long ago. It's sad to see a company like Epic go the way of EA.

 

[qubit]

let's be honest. Epic abandoned the unreal series long ago. It's sad to see a company like Epic go the way of EA.

I was gutted when they did that.

The other day I saw a gameplay clip of Halo on a Linus Tech Tips video which looked similar though. Might be worth checking out.

 

[freeagent]

I never got into Fartnite, and neither did my kids. But some of their friends like it enough to buy vbucks.. total waste of money imo.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Multi player sux anyway so good riddance to as many as possible

 

[qubit]

I never got into Fartnite, and neither did my kids. But some of their friends like it enough to buy vbucks.. total waste of money imo.

Fartnite, haha!

 

[evernessince]

Epic went stupid after they went fortnite, fortnite looks boring compared to UT GOTY, 2004 GOTY

Yep, they've done nothing but chase profits since then. They abandoned the PC market during the xbox 360 era to do console exclusives and then came back when PC became the hot thing.

I can't stomach Fortnite (or any of the modern multiplayer games) either, but one can't deny that premium cosmetics are a good (for players) monetization approach. Well, except for how they completely ruin any game's aesthetic quality. But that's just the relatively-old, "ADHD is bad" me talking...

Not all premium cosmetic approaches are good. Just take a look at overwatch 2 for a great bad example. They essentially completely stripped players who paid $60 for OW1 the ability to earn credits towards cosmetics and now all the cosmetics, including those from the first game, are in a shop and many overpriced. I had 160,000 credits which I earned by playing the game that are essentially now worthless.

Not to mention, the free battlepass nets you pretty much nothing. When the game is designed to make you feel as miserable as possible unless you pay, there is something wrong.

At the end of the day, paying up front for a game or having a subscription are still the best payment models. That way the devs make money by making a good game, not by cucking players.

 

[Shihab]

Not all premium cosmetic approaches are good. Just take a look at overwatch 2 for a great bad example. They essentially completely stripped players who paid $60 for OW1 the ability to earn credits towards cosmetics and now all the cosmetics, including those from the first game, are in a shop and many overpriced. I had 160,000 credits which I earned by playing the game that are essentially now worthless.

This isn't an issue with premium cosmetics per se, rather an overhaul of a monetization model and arguably migration between two different titles, in which case Blizzard seemed to have gone out of their way to cater for old players and their investments (and I'm stretching this term way too much here) by letting them migrate their unlocked stuff and maintain some utility (even if limited) to the old faux-currency they've amassed.

As far as the model itself is concerned in OW2, from what I've gathered, it is as I've described it above. Everyone gets to play the game for free, subsidized by some who can't stand anything but garishly textured bunch of verts on the bottom of the game screen or play a week or two to unlock the cool new gun/perk/whatever.

At the end of the day, paying up front for a game or having a subscription are still the best payment models. That way the devs make money by making a good game, not by cucking players.

Determining what's best is up to the consumer. And evidently, the market is at least OK with premium cosmetics. If not with paying for said cosmetics, then for the extremely low barrier of entry.

Any monetization model would require the game to be good in the eyes of the buyer to make money. I doubt most people make a habit of paying for games they don't enjoy, whether buying the physical disk or paying for pretty wig.

 

[evernessince]

This isn't an issue with premium cosmetics per se, rather an overhaul of a monetization model and arguably migration between two different titles, in which case Blizzard seemed to have gone out of their way to cater for old players and their investments (and I'm stretching this term way too much here) by letting them migrate their unlocked stuff and maintain some utility (even if limited) to the old faux-currency they've amassed.

Excuse me but "cater to old players"? No, that is not at all what happened. OW2 replaces OW1, people who bought the original game can no longer play the game they paid for. Being forced into a free-to-play alternative to a game OW1 players paid for to begin with is a joke, let alone implying that OW1 players should be grateful you were allowed to keep your skins when OW2 is basically an update on OW1 and a move to free-to-play that is objectively more anti-consumer.

OW2 is probably one of the most anti-consumer moves I have ever seen in the gaming industry. Gaming companies should not be allowed to update a game players pay an upfront cost for into a free-to-play game, period. If this sort of thing is tolerated, nothing is stopping gaming companies from launching with a price tag and then later making it free to play and placing a bunch of things behind paywalls and changing game mechanics or rewards typical of a free-to-play game. At that point they've robbed you completely of what you originally purchased the game for. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Excuse me but "cater to old players"? No, that is not at all what happened. OW2 replaces OW1, people who bought the original game can no longer play the game they paid for. Being forced into a free-to-play alternative to a game OW1 players paid for to begin with is a joke, let alone implying that OW1 players should be grateful you were allowed to keep your skins when OW2 is basically an update on OW1 and a move to free-to-play that is objectively more anti-consumer.

OW2 is probably one of the most anti-consumer moves I have ever seen in the gaming industry. Gaming companies should not be allowed to update a game players pay an upfront cost for into a free-to-play game, period. If this sort of thing is tolerated, nothing is stopping gaming companies from launching with a price tag and then later making it free to play and placing a bunch of things behind paywalls and changing game mechanics or rewards typical of a free-to-play game. At that point they've robbed you completely of what you originally purchased the game for. Absolutely ridiculous.

Following that logic, Valve's the devil for making Team Fortress 2 free to play - and all I ever got for it was a hat!

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Following that logic, Valve's the devil for making Team Fortress 2 free to play - and all I ever got for it was a hat!

Making a product free to play is not the same ballpark, or even the same country, as forcibly replacing a product with another product (and removing content int he process, I may add).

Now, if Valve released TF3 and forcibly overwrote TF2 installs, THEN it would be the same.

 

[evernessince]

Following that logic, Valve's the devil for making Team Fortress 2 free to play - and all I ever got for it was a hat!

TF2 was still TF2 after it went free to play.

OW2 is not OW1, hence the name. It's not a natural evolution of the original game either, it takes it in a completely different direction.

On top of that, Blizzard drastically reduced OW1 content for years while they were making the content for the OW2 story content (which still isn't out). Blizzard was collecting money for OW1 purchases and lootboxes and instead of investing that into the game, they were putting that their time into content that will go behind another $60 paywall.

Yeah, the two are nothing alike. At the end of the day, OW1 really only received Blizzard's full support for 3 years and then they moved their focus to OW2.

 

[Totally]

As far as the model itself is concerned in OW2, from what I've gathered, it is as I've described it above. Everyone gets to play the game for free, subsidized by some who can't stand anything but garishly textured bunch of verts on the bottom of the game screen or play a week or two to unlock the cool new gun/perk/whatever.

C'mon now, we all know this "big spenders subsidize the game and content" argument is farthest from the truth. It's evident that very little if any money makes it back into the game.

If it were true games would have full single player campaigns with fully fleshed out stories and PvE content that was hinted at by devs and players keep asking for, instead players are presented with a store full MTX with a barebones anorexic multi-player mode attached with carefully metered stream of cosmetics as content updates.

Tl;dr we're getting much less with f2p