4 ms·

No, I do not consider that to be strong arming. I consider that to be baiting. As my post says: it's unclear to me which tactic was used with which developers,

No, I do not consider that to be strong arming. I consider that to be baiting. As my post says: it's unclear to me which tactic was used with which developers, or how those contracts influenced the promises developers made to preorder customers. We don't know mostly because those contracts are secret.

hellotomyrars 6y ago
Sure, we don't know all the details but we do know this: The developers agreed to the deal. If that meant they had to do something shitty (Like not-provide steam keys to backers who paid for that during a crowdfunding campaign), you should be upset with the developers. They made a promise and then they went back on it. I don't think it's fair to hold Epic's feet to the fire because a developer took the money. If someone offers you a lot of money to break a promise (and you take it), this is a reflection of your character. Epic didn't make anyone do anything. They made the choice.
- ivanstojic 6y ago
  I think this is an age old question that's been discussed thoroughly. If somebody offers you a lot of money to do something immoral, and you chose to accept it that makes YOU immoral. It also should cast a shadow on the person offering you the deal because they too know what they are asking of you is immoral. I don't think anyone in this deal is acting in the best interest of users. Some of these options may be better than others for indie devs.
theaustinseven 6y ago
I think you still have to clarify what makes baiting bad here. If I hold a sale in my retail store, is that baiting? Is that bad? I don't think so. In this scenario, much of the uproar that happened was developers breaking promises, and the blame for that being placed on Epic as well. Epic merely offered better deals(in the form of a better revenue split) and cash offers to developers that are notorious for being poorly funded. I don't see how this is a bad thing. In fact, I'd make the argument that there being more competition in the PC video game marketplace is a good thing that will benefit the consumer.
nolok 6y ago
There has been no strong arming whatsoever. If you believe there was, then provide any hint of proof of it. There have been good deals for developpers, and good deals that developper shouldn't have taken but still took despite their previous engagements to their funders, but Epic literally had no position to strong arm anyone into anything, and they didn't bait anyone - no one signed then realized "oh damn, I didn't think money for exclusivity meant money for exclusivity !". Epic just said "hey look at this bag of money, I give it to you if you put your game here".

hellotomyrars 6y ago

Sure, we don't know all the details but we do know this: The developers agreed to the deal. If that meant they had to do something shitty (Like not-provide steam keys to backers who paid for that during a crowdfunding campaign), you should be upset with the developers. They made a promise and then they went back on it. I don't think it's fair to hold Epic's feet to the fire because a developer took the money. If someone offers you a lot of money to break a promise (and you take it), this is a reflection of your character. Epic didn't make anyone do anything. They made the choice.

ivanstojic 6y ago
I think this is an age old question that's been discussed thoroughly. If somebody offers you a lot of money to do something immoral, and you chose to accept it that makes YOU immoral. It also should cast a shadow on the person offering you the deal because they too know what they are asking of you is immoral. I don't think anyone in this deal is acting in the best interest of users. Some of these options may be better than others for indie devs.

theaustinseven 6y ago

I think you still have to clarify what makes baiting bad here. If I hold a sale in my retail store, is that baiting? Is that bad? I don't think so. In this scenario, much of the uproar that happened was developers breaking promises, and the blame for that being placed on Epic as well. Epic merely offered better deals(in the form of a better revenue split) and cash offers to developers that are notorious for being poorly funded. I don't see how this is a bad thing. In fact, I'd make the argument that there being more competition in the PC video game marketplace is a good thing that will benefit the consumer.

nolok 6y ago

There has been no strong arming whatsoever. If you believe there was, then provide any hint of proof of it. There have been good deals for developpers, and good deals that developper shouldn't have taken but still took despite their previous engagements to their funders, but Epic literally had no position to strong arm anyone into anything, and they didn't bait anyone - no one signed then realized "oh damn, I didn't think money for exclusivity meant money for exclusivity !". Epic just said "hey look at this bag of money, I give it to you if you put your game here".