I Support Epic Games (about Exclusive Titles)

You may see this as the dark side of Epic games, but there is a light side as well. Epic games is pretty much single handedly responsible for the fact that the high end game engines industry has made itself affordable to indie devs. Becasue they made Unreal Engine available for free, and they even chose to take a much smaller cut than other free engines.

Yes they eviscerated countless smaller game engines in the process, but honestly, many of those were so eccentric that they were really hard to adapt for use to your specific game. And by eccentric I mean Notch level eccentric.

Just for an illustration. CryTek allowed indies to play around wiht CryEngine but you couldn't release anything. Only after Epic released Unreal for free AND SUPPORTED IT WITH AMAZING DOCS AND TUTORIALS did CryTek finally relent and allow CryEngine to be used under similiar licenses, and then consequently Lumberyard was released after that.

So I'm saying, that you are knocking them for something far less significant than the good they are doing. There are so many children in lower economy countries who now have access to the state of art in game engines where they nver would have had that without Epic Games.

To me, Epic Games is synonomous to hope. And these exclusively deals are fine in my view becasue THE DEVS ARE GETTING MORE MONEY FROM EPIC THAN FROM STEAM!!!

I'm not calling you guys irrational or anything, but you should be more supportive of the fact that Borderlands creators are now going to be making mroe money so they can make an even better Borderlands 4, sooner, if they want to.

But as usual you're just all up in your own feelings and not looking at things clearly. @ me. @ me.

Troll thread?

It's going to quickly become a me questioning your intelligence thread since you didn't provide any justification for accusing me of trolling. Can you read? But what quality of response was I really expecting?

I'm split on this. On the one hand, devs can gtfo with exclusivity on PC. PC is an open platform. On the other hand, this puts Steam under pressure (heh). They got lazy af. Now they have to react. So mid-term this should be good for gamers. And devs too.

Just to put my first ost in perspective, maybe some of you don't realize that high end game engines used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to license. This meant that indie devs were locked out of the tier one game engines. And if you were a young developer in some small economy country you had no way to participate.

Now even school children with the skill can make a game in Unreal Engine! Imagine being in a poorer country and only being able to use a modern game engine if you had $200,000 US to spend. It was impossible for most there just like most here.

What Unreal Engine did was absolutely ground breaking. And if the general public understand that they'd understand that Epic's track record shows that they are one of the most conscientous tech companies out there!

This mob mentality is very ill informed about Epic Games.

I mean it's jsut so ridiculous - 'Oh, I have to click an extra thing. I don't wanna.'

Please look at the bigger picture. Having Valve lord it's dominance uncontested is very anti-consumer and Epic is offering you a remedy to that. All I can do is shake my head when people complain about this because the people who do complain aren't even looking out for their own best interests.

What's scary is that people who have such limited perception are actually allowed to vote. Beasue they use the same feelings based self harming non-logic to make decisions about how the rest of the world's business should be conducted.

You can't talk the exclusivity shit away though. Apart from their first party games, Valve never pushed for Steam exclusivity for anything. People are rightfully pissed at Epic for enforcing a closed garden situation on an otherwise open platform. There's literally no advantage for the consumer here.

Epic literaly has an exclusive deal with Sony, they could have been unique and brought first party sony games to PC, but noooooo they had instead bring in the cancerous anti consumer practice of paid exclusivity deal.

It is done for the best interest of THEIR developers, publishers and users. How would other distribution platform compete? Does Epic have over 30,000 games. How would a smaller platform challenge a Dominant market position? It is similar to the concept of Nintendo, without some of its exclusive titles, it would be dead.

It isn't anti consumer practice, I would argue without exclusivity it would only solidify steam market dominance and only benefits exclusively steam users, not epic users or other platforms. Exclusivity set an opportunity cost and an advantage to switch platforms.

There is no reasons to believe consumers can't switch distribution platforms. There is no reason to believe consumers can't be both steam and epic users. They chose not to because it is inconvenient. There is a stronger incentive to compete fiercely to attract users.

With regard to that open garden nonsense, Steam and epic clients are DRM, the correct answer is not to have DRM. People think developers, publishers would agree to that? Do you even need that download client if it isn't also a freaking DRM?

"

deathflower wrote:

It isn't anti consumer practice

Like that you've shown how much of a fool and simpleton you are. It is anti consumer plain and simple.

"

deathflower wrote:

It is done for the best interest of THEIR developers, publishers and users. How would other distribution platform compete? Does Epic have over 30,000 games. How would a smaller platform challenge a Dominant market position? It is similar to the concept of Nintendo, without some of its exclusive titles, it would be dead.

GoG isn't dead, Uplay and Origin aren't dead. What's the difference between them and Epic, well one Chinese overlord for starters and the fact that Epic's only gift to the PC market is FortNite, which the BR bubble will burst and the game will crash hard.

Epic has so little faith in thier storefront that they aren't willing to engage the free market and instead play dirty and buy up a monopoly thanks to Chinese coin purses. GoG doesn't do that, neither does EA and Ubisoft, only Epic.

"

deathflower wrote:

How would a smaller platform challenge a Dominant market position?

By offering more and better features, being cheaper or whatever? You know, the common practices if you want to occupy market share.

"

deathflower wrote:

It is similar to the concept of Nintendo, without some of its exclusive titles, it would be dead.

It's not. As said before, I have no issue with first party games being exclusive. But Epic is doing it with third party games.

"

deathflower wrote:

It isn't anti consumer practice, I would argue without exclusivity it would only solidify steam market dominance and only benefits exclusively steam users, not epic users or other platforms.

Not sure what you're talking about. Without exclusivity the user has free choice where to buy the games. It's the best option for consumers by far.

"

deathflower wrote:

With regard to that open garden nonsense, Steam and epic clients are DRM, the correct answer is not to have DRM. People think developers, publishers would agree to that? Do you even need that download client if it isn't also a freaking DRM?

Having store exclusivity is not even remotly the same as having DRM. The comparison makes no sense.