6 ms·

> 7. Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to convince devs to not sell in competitor stores. This is kind of a toxic disingenuous spin on store exclusives, no?

Laforet 5y ago
I'm not sure about that. If I had an axe to grind I'd probably write something like "Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to bribe, coerce, directly incite and enable game developers and publishers to abandon previous commitments and break existing contracts, in a concerted effort to make said games not available on certain platforms such as Steam for as long as possible"[0] [0]:Metro Exodus was supposed to be an EGS exclusive for a year but they released it on Microsoft windows store in less than 6 months. We all KNEW what was this fuss really about.
- void_mint 5y ago
  Can you explain how this post is again not just a toxic disingenuous misrepresentation of store exclusives?
  - Laforet 5y ago
    Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts? "Epic Exclusive on PC" does not translate well into "Available anywhere but not Steam".
    - void_mint 5y ago
      ...what? "Epic Exclusive on PC" means not available on Steam But what does that have to with all of the other things you said? You're just saying derogatory comments about store exclusives without saying why you think they're bad.
      - Laforet 5y ago
        Well let's see: Metro Exodus: Originally slanted to release on steam in Feb 2019 with preorders starting in Aug 2018. Publisher suddenly announced the game will be EGS exclusive only 2 weeks head of this date with the explicit promise "Metro Exodus will return to Steam and on other store fronts after 14 February 2020." This turned out to be a bold faced lie as they quietly made the game available through the Windows Store in Jun 2020. Anno 1800: Originally planned for release on Steam and Uplay. Switched to EGS "exclusive" very shortly before release without warning. Still not available on steam to this day unless you have preordered before the switch. Best part of this "exclusive" deal was that it has always been available on PC through Uplay, but gettig it back on steam is a no-no. https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=en https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=... I could go on but after seeing how Epic had behaved in this market for the last couple for years I find it very hard to accept any excuse they make in good faith.
        void_mint 5y ago
        You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. In reality I have no idea what you're talking about and am trying to understand. Just so we're crystal clear. So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
        Laforet 5y ago
        >You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion. It's only natural for other commentators to assume you arrived at that conclusion through your own experiences and research. If your claims of ignorance is genuine, on what grounds are you calling me "toxic" and "misrepresenting" earlier? Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions? >So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior? The other parties have already received their share of backlash but Epic deserves to be singled out as the instigator. It's one thing to pay indie developers a fat sum to bring their titles as a exclusive - nobody should be too upset about that. However, paying an industry heavyweight like Ubisoft to keep Anno 1800 off Steam is different: The latter has nothing to gain from not publishing their games on Steam, if anything they will miss out on some potential purchases put off by the behavior plus the bad publicity. In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      >Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts? disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. this post here is disingenuous in that no one was arguing with the technical correctness of the interpretation. and the above post is disingenuous with describing the situation. There certainly is a difference between saying "Epic blocks game from being submitted on steam" and "Epic signs contract to sell game on EGS". Pretending these have the same connotations is in fact... disingenous.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
speeder 5y ago
No, I was toning down what they did when I wrote that phrase. What they actually did, was bribe developers to screw people that had already paid for their products, in efforts to damage Steam. For example Shenmue debacle: It was kickstarter with the promise it would be on Steam, suddenly it went Epic exclusive, the people that backed on Kickstarter asked for their money back, the dev refused until people started to prepare to sue, even then it was a screwy process. I remember at the time there was 2 or 3 other games the same thing happened, where Epic paid developers of crowdfunded games to literally break their contracts with their backers.
- void_mint 5y ago
  Sorry, in what way is that Epic's fault? Isn't that the fault of the developers? What makes Epic offering exclusive agreements to game studios a "bribe", as opposed to any other financial/contractual commitment?
  - froh 5y ago
    epic money incentives the developers to kick out the original investors (Kickstarter supporters are investors, with rather weak conditions) with no care for what they promised ,yesterday ( "not legally bing nah nah"). the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
    - void_mint 5y ago
      Again, Epic offers money to a game studio and the studio decides to screw over their existing investors and commitments. Why is Epic at fault for this?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      > investors investors assume risk. including losing the capital because of jerks.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
tracerbulletx 5y ago
It definitely is a negative spin. I know people like the convenience of having one store, but Valve isn't entitled to a monopoly and frankly Epic using their Fortnite cash to get as many exclusives as possible to get as many people on their store as fast as possible was their only move when facing a juggernaut. Competition between them will be good.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform. In my case, phoenix point is the final straw that made me REALLY hate epic.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    > There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform. Again, how is this Epic's problem?
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    >buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform contracts take two parties to agree to something.
    - Akronymus 5y ago
      IMO epic is still majorily at fault for that, due to offering the incentive in the first place, either due to incompetence or malice, while also saying that valve is engaging in monopolistic tactics.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
I find it really fascinating that there are people bothered by Epic’s exclusives and not bothered by how the App Store works. Epic paid developers money to get them to release games exclusively on the Epic store. Consumers have access to these games on the roughly same computers that can access other PC games. In other words, consumer or publisher freedom was not materially impacted. Epic’s deals with game developers are effectively subsidies, which save developers and/or consumers money. On the other hand, Apple’s App Store policy makes it impossible for developers to access the iOS market without paying Apple’s tax. Every iOS app is an App Store exclusive, and Apple is not paying developers for the privilege. This costs consumers and developers huge amounts of money and limits their freedom. I recognize the inconvenience of installing the Epic store, but comparing the effects of these two controversial policies reveals how benign Epic’s is.
- Laforet 5y ago
  One certainly can be bothered by both. I can live without sideloading apps but expect some control on the version of app I prefer. Apple's decision to remove the option of backing up apps from the device was the final straw for me to abandon the entire ecosystem and I have not looked back. That said, I really don't think Epic's policy and practice is necessarily benign. Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android? In the past I have bought several consoles to play titles exclusive to that platform and I was not bothered about that. For all I know the game may not even get made without the backing of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, not to mention they were marketed as "Console X exclusive" from the get go. Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games. However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 5y ago
anonymousab 5y ago
No, it's actually quite accurate. In many cases, the games were allowed to be sold on any platform and digital service _except_ Steam. Epic was, quite literally, paying developers to not sell on Steam.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  Accurrate in how Microsoft acquisition literally pays a studio to not sell on Sony, yes.

Laforet 5y ago

I'm not sure about that. If I had an axe to grind I'd probably write something like "Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to bribe, coerce, directly incite and enable game developers and publishers to abandon previous commitments and break existing contracts, in a concerted effort to make said games not available on certain platforms such as Steam for as long as possible"[0] [0]:Metro Exodus was supposed to be an EGS exclusive for a year but they released it on Microsoft windows store in less than 6 months. We all KNEW what was this fuss really about.

void_mint 5y ago
Can you explain how this post is again not just a toxic disingenuous misrepresentation of store exclusives?
- Laforet 5y ago
  Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts? "Epic Exclusive on PC" does not translate well into "Available anywhere but not Steam".
  - void_mint 5y ago
    ...what? "Epic Exclusive on PC" means not available on Steam But what does that have to with all of the other things you said? You're just saying derogatory comments about store exclusives without saying why you think they're bad.
    - Laforet 5y ago
      Well let's see: Metro Exodus: Originally slanted to release on steam in Feb 2019 with preorders starting in Aug 2018. Publisher suddenly announced the game will be EGS exclusive only 2 weeks head of this date with the explicit promise "Metro Exodus will return to Steam and on other store fronts after 14 February 2020." This turned out to be a bold faced lie as they quietly made the game available through the Windows Store in Jun 2020. Anno 1800: Originally planned for release on Steam and Uplay. Switched to EGS "exclusive" very shortly before release without warning. Still not available on steam to this day unless you have preordered before the switch. Best part of this "exclusive" deal was that it has always been available on PC through Uplay, but gettig it back on steam is a no-no. https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=en https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=... I could go on but after seeing how Epic had behaved in this market for the last couple for years I find it very hard to accept any excuse they make in good faith.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. In reality I have no idea what you're talking about and am trying to understand. Just so we're crystal clear. So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
        Laforet 5y ago
        >You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion. It's only natural for other commentators to assume you arrived at that conclusion through your own experiences and research. If your claims of ignorance is genuine, on what grounds are you calling me "toxic" and "misrepresenting" earlier? Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions? >So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior? The other parties have already received their share of backlash but Epic deserves to be singled out as the instigator. It's one thing to pay indie developers a fat sum to bring their titles as a exclusive - nobody should be too upset about that. However, paying an industry heavyweight like Ubisoft to keep Anno 1800 off Steam is different: The latter has nothing to gain from not publishing their games on Steam, if anything they will miss out on some potential purchases put off by the behavior plus the bad publicity. In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    >Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts? disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. this post here is disingenuous in that no one was arguing with the technical correctness of the interpretation. and the above post is disingenuous with describing the situation. There certainly is a difference between saying "Epic blocks game from being submitted on steam" and "Epic signs contract to sell game on EGS". Pretending these have the same connotations is in fact... disingenous.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

speeder 5y ago

No, I was toning down what they did when I wrote that phrase. What they actually did, was bribe developers to screw people that had already paid for their products, in efforts to damage Steam. For example Shenmue debacle: It was kickstarter with the promise it would be on Steam, suddenly it went Epic exclusive, the people that backed on Kickstarter asked for their money back, the dev refused until people started to prepare to sue, even then it was a screwy process. I remember at the time there was 2 or 3 other games the same thing happened, where Epic paid developers of crowdfunded games to literally break their contracts with their backers.

void_mint 5y ago
Sorry, in what way is that Epic's fault? Isn't that the fault of the developers? What makes Epic offering exclusive agreements to game studios a "bribe", as opposed to any other financial/contractual commitment?
- froh 5y ago
  epic money incentives the developers to kick out the original investors (Kickstarter supporters are investors, with rather weak conditions) with no care for what they promised ,yesterday ( "not legally bing nah nah"). the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    Again, Epic offers money to a game studio and the studio decides to screw over their existing investors and commitments. Why is Epic at fault for this?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    > investors investors assume risk. including losing the capital because of jerks.
encryptluks2 5y ago

tracerbulletx 5y ago

It definitely is a negative spin. I know people like the convenience of having one store, but Valve isn't entitled to a monopoly and frankly Epic using their Fortnite cash to get as many exclusives as possible to get as many people on their store as fast as possible was their only move when facing a juggernaut. Competition between them will be good.

Akronymus 5y ago
There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform. In my case, phoenix point is the final straw that made me REALLY hate epic.
- void_mint 5y ago
  > There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform. Again, how is this Epic's problem?
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  >buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform contracts take two parties to agree to something.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    IMO epic is still majorily at fault for that, due to offering the incentive in the first place, either due to incompetence or malice, while also saying that valve is engaging in monopolistic tactics.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

I find it really fascinating that there are people bothered by Epic’s exclusives and not bothered by how the App Store works. Epic paid developers money to get them to release games exclusively on the Epic store. Consumers have access to these games on the roughly same computers that can access other PC games. In other words, consumer or publisher freedom was not materially impacted. Epic’s deals with game developers are effectively subsidies, which save developers and/or consumers money. On the other hand, Apple’s App Store policy makes it impossible for developers to access the iOS market without paying Apple’s tax. Every iOS app is an App Store exclusive, and Apple is not paying developers for the privilege. This costs consumers and developers huge amounts of money and limits their freedom. I recognize the inconvenience of installing the Epic store, but comparing the effects of these two controversial policies reveals how benign Epic’s is.

Laforet 5y ago
One certainly can be bothered by both. I can live without sideloading apps but expect some control on the version of app I prefer. Apple's decision to remove the option of backing up apps from the device was the final straw for me to abandon the entire ecosystem and I have not looked back. That said, I really don't think Epic's policy and practice is necessarily benign. Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android? In the past I have bought several consoles to play titles exclusive to that platform and I was not bothered about that. For all I know the game may not even get made without the backing of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, not to mention they were marketed as "Console X exclusive" from the get go. Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games. However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago

anonymousab 5y ago

No, it's actually quite accurate. In many cases, the games were allowed to be sold on any platform and digital service _except_ Steam. Epic was, quite literally, paying developers to not sell on Steam.

johnnyanmac 5y ago
Accurrate in how Microsoft acquisition literally pays a studio to not sell on Sony, yes.