Do you think Sonata Arctica is a good band?
Respect to the devs for not selling out and keeping their word.
And no no respect to Epic Failure for not wanting to share platform releases.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly yeah, to me epic just looks real bad in this situation. It'd still be a honor to have the game on their platform, but they decided to be children about it
Comment has been collapsed.
They're trying to get people to use their platform. With such little market shares, non-exclusives do not help them with that goal at this point in time.
In a few years, assuming they've weathered the storm and have some market share, then they can compete with Steam on merit alone.
I'm not sure why Epic comes out of this looking bad to you. It's a logical business decision, for them, and for the dev.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are as many of them as there are npc´s in fallout 76
Comment has been collapsed.
Its great they didnt do the exclusive since its been on steam for so long but its disappointing that epic who is all about the devs apparently wont sell that game if its somewhere else
Just looked and not my type of game at all but looks like something I would be willing to watch
Comment has been collapsed.
...And they refused to sell the game on their store as a non-exclusive, lol
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic has an interesting take on negotiation.
It may or may not help them on long term, we will wait and see, but it certainly does not help devs building a fanbase.
Exclusivity, money up front, terrible PR.
Epic doesn't care about these indies,they arent doing devs any favors by bribing them. Apparently indie non exclusives would clutter their library, thats what they think of your game.
And even though this dev, says it's all civil, he made sure to bring that up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently indie non exclusives would clutter their library, thats what they think of your game.
That's the impression I'm getting as well. So far, I've been in the position of "okay, let's hold off and see how things turn out with EGS before investing much into their platform, and let's see if they offer what I'm looking for (as far as features)" -- but not wanting Darq in their library unless it's an exclusive sends a bad (or at least badly worded) message to consumers.
Comment has been collapsed.
All respect to the devs that decided to respect the promises to their fans.
"I thought it was a bad idea to disapoint all those people and prove to the world that my annoucements mean nothing" Good
“I asked them if they would be willing to sell DARQ non-exclusively, and they explained that at this point in time it’s not something they can do"
Comment has been collapsed.
Yah, that's pretty pathetic of Epic. We'll buy an exclusivity deal for your game, but... If you won't make it exclusive, we don't want you here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good of the developer. Think it would actually heart them if they did an exclusive deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seen it the other day. Someone had to be the first to refuse. Game doesn't look like something I'd enjoy, but does look interesting enough in general, let's hope it sells well.
Comment has been collapsed.
they are not the first: https://twitter.com/glassbottommeg/status/1156313931285057536
If you need a little communityboost just say you decline an offer from epic or just say something bad about it and people/gamer will praise you ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
If I said it, I'd just look silly, as anyone knows they'd never asked me lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most telling part is the fact that Epic refused to sell it without exclusivity, once again showing their true colors. They're just bitter industry bullies trying to push their weight around because of all the money Fornite is making them. It's their way or the highway. And people still believe their bs of fighting Steam's fake monopoly or that they're doing it for the devs. Aha, sure Jan.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic are once again proving themselves to be real jerks , it's not the first time they tell a developper that they have to either sell the game exclusivly on their platforme or they Don't at all , they are not only limiting the consumer's choice but the smaller indie developpers as well and they seem to offer their cash only after the game proves to have a lot of potentiel and generate quite alot of enterest amongst gamers and then put the pressure on the developper to either go all for it or not at all
Comment has been collapsed.
Good on them for keeping their word. Not everyone would have done that, but they did.
Speaks positively about their character.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would a sane store refuse to sell such an attractive game? To show all those impudent developers that exclusivity is the only way, otherwise they can go fuck themselves? I mean, this just looks ridiculous business-wise.
Comment has been collapsed.
uhm, this is the right business decision, if a store like Epic wishes to make money. If the game stays on two platforms, obviously people who are interested in it will stay on Steam, thus generating very little profit for Epic. Making it an exclusivity deal is the only way they would get players... not a fan of epic, they should use different strategies maybe.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm really not following your logic here.
If Epic allowed for sale of the game on their platform (non exclusively), then that opens them up to potential buyers, no matter whether or not buyers are more likely to purchase elsewhere, they only gain by making sales. By refusing that, they prevent all forms of profit and playerbase increase through that title.
Exclusivity deals are a way to force the hands of customers to sign up for accounts, in an effort to get them invested in your platform. That has a dual effect of increasing your influx of customers but also temporarily increasing discontent (or permanently if the exclusive you bought out had been advertising through other storefronts or made availability promises you tempted them to break).
By allowing non-exclusive sales, you open the gates for people to willingly participate without being cornered into doing so. Your profits and account sign-ups will be far less, but it is still an increase without also lowering opinion of your platform. When faced with the option of purchasing across different platforms during competing sales, customers will be primarily influenced by price, and secondarily by trust and convenience. Convenience is earned through how invested they are in their account with you, and the features you have available.
Had Epic not framed itself as such a heel, during sales, if their prices were even a little better than alternates on GOG or Steam, a lot of people would buy on the EGS regardless of how centralised the rest of their games are. They would get players and repeat customers just through gradual exposure and competing with sales trends. However, in trying to accelerate their growth with exclusives, and not being more cautious with which titles they picked, they've burned a lot of trust, and hurt their growth through natural migration while gaining through cornering others into it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not an Epic defender or hater. I haven't tried their launcher, nor have I followed the whole Epic store situation. So I don't really have a strong opinion about Epic.
But I think exclusivity is a valid strategy. You need a way to attract new customers. You can do it either with better prices or better features or better something. And free games and temporary exclusives work as a good PR tool.
But you absolutely don't rely on exclusivity alone. You have to be at least on par with other launchers. You can't make a shitty service and hope everyone will buy games from you just because they can't do it anywhere else. Exclusivity is just a temporary means to give you an initial boost.
It's really strange Epic doesn't want to sell games non-exclusively (especially when they're clearly interested in the game). The only thing I can think of is that the cost of maintaining servers for the game are higher than the expected revenue from the sales. Which just means your service isn't attractive to the customers. And no amount of exclusives will fix it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exclusivity is definitely a valid method of laying a foundation of attending customers, though it turns sour when your exclusivity deals are too aggressive (in the example of games advertised through other storefronts that were then pulled, or kickstarter promises). Epic had a great opportunity to be the 'good guy' in a manner vaguely equivalent to GOG, what with their bigger slice given to the devs and the option of (what appears to be) an up-front purchase of an equivalent sum of so many sales.
If there was stronger competition then it would drive all participants to excel against each other in some manner, ultimately benefiting the consumer. Perhaps the aggressive tactics are a natural side-effect of having Valve's platform dominating so much, but when they refuse non-exclusive sales it looks less like a "we have to do this or our efforts will fizzle" and more like a "we don't care, our way or no way at all" kind of stance? Originally, EA's move to create Origin met with a similar situation, where the first reactions were simple change resistance of not wanting another launcher just for exclusives, but was quickly overtaken by concerns for the EULA that asked for non-specific access to your data (with no clarification of the scope). EA had the strong case for having their own storefront and launcher given how popular their owned franchises were, and how sales through Steam were serving pretty much as just donations to another company given that consumers were already completely aware of Mass Effect, The Sims and Battlefield properties.
It goes to show how a few haphazard-seeming decisions and a few PR hiccups can really screw you. When you're a new challenger facing off against a champ in their prime, the last thing you want to do is turn the crowd against you AND get sloppy with your footwork in the opening rounds, heh :P
Still, we can only hope they get themselves in shape. Not gonna hold my breath though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Making it an exclusivity deal is the only way they would get players
In a very contrived and artificial way when it's not your own IP. What Epic doesn't get and probably never will is that the right way to do it would be by making your service better than Steam or that of other competitors. That means implementing more features and perks for customers, and especially offering good support services (which is an area where it probably wouldn't be that hard to best Valve). Lord knows Epic has the capital to pull that off. But instead they are so obsessed with forcing anti-consumer exclusivity deals that the rest goes largely neglected.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering this piece of gaming news is pretty interesting (he tried to put the game in Epic, they said no unless exclusive) I find interesting that multiple "gaming news" usual suspects are very silent about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice to see some people still value integrity over a quick payoff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wasn't aware of the game, but looks cool so I wishlisted it. Kind of disappointing and weird that Epic cared enough to want to make the game exclusive, but not enough that they would put the game on their store.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder if the Epic contracts are written clearly enough to prevent some enterprising dev from releasing a "Definitive Edition" or similar variant on Steam shortly after its Epic debut. If game companies already re-release titles on Steam for consumers to buy again, why not do so with two different platforms...?
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic would probably win a lawsuit if someone did that, because it's a pretty clear example of acting in bad faith
Comment has been collapsed.
DARQ
DSOGaming
One Angry Gamer
DARQ Developer AMA
Medium
IGN
Comment has been collapsed.