The Outer Worlds goes Epic Games Store-exclusive (also Windows Store)

[Reinhardt]

It's a goddamn free download.

It's a trap. And not even cute trap.

 

[Makabb]

It's a goddamn free download.

It's a trap. And not even cute trap.

It's an old school trap

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Isn't any "painful compromise" a valid point to draw the line? Why would you keep giving money to things that upset you somehow?

If that's how you operate as a consumer, you're not just in the wrong thread, you're also in the wrong subforum. Since when has Obsidian not made their fans cry?

But in summary, the argument right now is not "Steam vs Epic, let's argue about which is better". It may be in the future, but not yet. The argument is "Yes, Epic is worse, but come on, does that really matter? It's a goddamn free download."

Infinitrion installed the Epic client, had his account stolen by the Chinese government, and is now used to shill for the Epic spyware store.
Don't be like Infinitrion, don't install chinese spyware.

 

[Atlantico]

Thanks for example, sensei.

Is this supposed to pass as wit? With nothing to add to what I wrote other than this wet fart, it's hardly a wonder you Steamtards act like manchildren.

Because they lied to me and i don't like to give money to proven liars.

Oh no. They hurt your feelings.

Look, snowflake, I'd have some sympathy if they had taken your money - but "I don't like to give money to proven liars"? Resetera is over there yonder somewhere. I hear they care a lot about how you feel.

 

[RapineDel]

Detractors of the Epic Game Store say "Why should we switch to an inferior launcher? Where's the value to the customer?" And they're right! The Epic launcher is worse, and there is no value to the customer. You're being screwed on the launcher, and you can absolutely refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about that.

But here's the thing. Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises? Before this news, you were apparently considering buying a game with quest markers even though you hate quest markers. One could justifiably ask, why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you? Isn't that a bit silly?

That's why I just don't get the hype. This is the world we live in, folks. And for the record, do I plan to D1P the game myself? No, quite possibly not.

The issue with that comparison is it's not reflective of the gaming reality right now.

The Outer Worlds is the best of a bad lot. Most agree quest markers, average writing and combat designed to appeal to mainstream gamers are quite annoying but there's not much choice. It's not like there's Fallout 1s releasing every month, it's TOW or replaying some old game for the 10th time.

With Epic there is a choice, why inconvenience yourself when piracy is an option? Why support something that will show other publishers and developers that making your game exclusive works?

I think the fact no one really NEEDS The Outer Worlds comes into it as well, sure it looks OK but it's really just a forced attempt to win over some nostalgic old fans and appeal to some gamers who like Mass Effect, New Fallout and haven't gotten much of that this gen. I don't think anyone is incredibly excited about it since it's not an established franchise and it's from a studio who's produced arguably one really good game in nearly 20 years of operation.

Most angry people will likely eventually play the game, a few will compromise and buy it on Epic, more will pirate it and even more will just buy it on Steam one day when it's on a sale. Epic's issue is they're targeting games no one really NEEDS. I think Sekiro would've been a better option for them since there was far more hype surrounding it since it feels like a sequel to Souls/Bloodborne, even though it technically isn't.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

The argument is "Yes, Epic is worse, but come on, does that really matter? It's a goddamn free download."

Is that really an argument or just a defeatist statement? Or just plain old shilling?

Reducing the subject matter to just "downloading another client" and ignoring the greedy, scummy tactics that have been employed, none of which benefits the consumer, is just mind boggling.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think anyone is incredibly excited about it since it's not an established franchise and it's from a studio who's produced arguably one really good game in nearly 20 years of operation.

I don't think that's true at all - people are upset because they were excited. Avellone is right about the game's pitch-perfect debut being ruined.

Most angry people will likely eventually play the game, a few will compromise and buy it on Epic, more will pirate it and even more will just buy it on Steam one day when it's on a sale.

The fate of the Epic Store will be decided by the masses of "normie" PC gamers who aren't as fired up by these controversies as the highly engaged minority on forums and Twitter. Will they agree to install a new client? It's easy to forget how new all of this is - the Epic Store is less than four months old! Sure, Epic are already bragging about Metro Exodus, but we really have no idea what kind of audience is out there for this.

 

[fantadomat]

Feargus gives with one hand and takes with the other

Giving you a dagger in the back with one hand and with the other hand picking your pockets?

 

[Roguey]

Detractors of the Epic Game Store say "Why should we switch to an inferior launcher? Where's the value to the customer?" And they're right! The Epic launcher is worse, and there is no value to the customer. You're being screwed on the launcher, and you can absolutely refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about that.

But here's the thing. Isn't every choice we make in gaming made up of these kinds of painful compromises? Before this news, you were apparently considering buying a game with quest markers even though you hate quest markers. One could justifiably ask, why is the launcher of all things the dealbreaker for you? Isn't that a bit silly?

That's why I just don't get the hype. This is the world we live in, folks. And for the record, do I plan to D1P the game myself? No, quite possibly not.

I personally don't care about the presence or exclusion of quest markers.

Of course if I was ever going to get this at all, there was no way I'd be getting it within the first year, so this doesn't affect my decision in the slightest.

 

[thesheeep]

They have to evolve from that and offer something that can actually compete with Steam feature-wise.

Then why they decided to start from exclusivity and not from features? They have enough money to throw at any shit that catches their eye but not enough to design decent launcher?

First of all, I do think it was a mistake to launch EGS already. They should have worked on it a year more, at least. It is nowhere near Steam feature-wise right now.

However, you are the one who is hopelessly optimistic if you think that just offering something that is better than Steam feature-wise would be sufficient to become a serious competitor.
By now, Steam is so entrenched that you even have fanboys raging wildly at anything non-Steam... The situation is not comparable to the "fresh" market that Steam entered when it was the first of its kind.
Even if EGS was better than Steam in every feature (which is pretty much impossible from the get-go, but let's assume), you'd still need to get both developers and users to use it. Why would they do so? All the user's games are on Steam. Just because of better features? Nah. Won't happen. People are WAY too lazy for that. As a developer myself, while you shouldn't treat your users as idiots, you should also never, ever, underestimate their laziness and habits.
And if the users don't come, the developers won't, either. A lower cut won't be convincing enough if that is a lower cut of no user base. And if the developers don't come, the users won't, either. I'm sure you see the problem.

Paid exclusivity ensures you get developers voluntarily (come on, nobody is being forced at gunpoint to sign any deals), while it also forces users to use your client. Now you have developers and users. Now you can start arguing with your actual store features.
That's why I see this exclusivity as necessary for Epic.

 

[fantadomat]

Thanks for example, sensei.

Is this supposed to pass as wit? With nothing to add to what I wrote other than this wet fart, it's hardly a wonder you Steamtards act like manchildren.

Because they lied to me and i don't like to give money to proven liars.

Oh no. They hurt your feelings.

Look, snowflake, I'd have some sympathy if they had taken your money - but "I don't like to give money to proven liars"? Resetera is over there yonder somewhere. I hear they care a lot about how you feel.

When did you become a obsidian/epic shill? Or maybe it was actually your account that got stolen by tencnet...

EPIC is a terrible platform with the worst business practices that are even illegal in many countries. And anyone that doesn't see it is a lobotomite.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It's very simple. Here are my terms, Obsidian: GOG or CODEX.

Also, watching Infinitron shilling for EGS is uniquely amusing.

 

[Atlantico]

When did you become a obsidian/epic shill? Or maybe it was actually your account that got stolen by tencnet...

Epic can suck a bag of dicks. But so can Steam. I'm not shilling for either of those leeches.

 

[Shadenuat]

Giving you a dagger in the back with one hand and with the other hand picking your pockets?

 

[Reinhardt]

However, you are the one who is hopelessly optimistic if you think that just offering something that is better than Steam feature-wise would be sufficient to become a serious competitor.

So they just decided to offer something that's clearly worse.

"My old master fucked me in the ass with baseball bat. My new master fucks me in the ass with baseball bat too, but instead of lube he uses barbed wire. It really hurts and i think i got sepsis. Competition is good!"

 

[Ismaul]

I mean, in reality there's probably a decent overlap between the group of people upset about Epic-exclusivity and the group of people who would have waited a year before buying the game anyway - at least here on the Codex.

While I'm one of those who doesn't D1P games often, I do regularly make exceptions. The Outer Worlds would've been one.

Now the P in D1P will take a whole new sense, for like the first time in a decade.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

What Epic doing will not make for better customer experience by reducing Steam almost monopoly/being de facto market leader.

Lets say a game is 100% EGS exclusive unlike this 1 year deal. Lets say the market price for such game is at 60 USD.

Now due to being a store permanent exclusive title, it is within EGS capability to raise the price as much as possible due to the product not bring available anywhere else. Or maybe they will require you to use their Chinese OS next like Windows 10 exclusives (which in case of Microsoft they usually own the studio or fully fund the game unlike Epic). And customers cant do jack shit about it if they want the product.

Using capital to deny competition access to certain product is exactly what a monopoly do. In business practice what Epic is doing is very worrisome. I wont mind if the games are funded by Epic. If they say VTMB 2 will be bought and fully funded by Tencent/Epic then I would maybe be very annoyed but ended up buying it.

Steam could probably do similar buyout to crush competitions considering they are for the longest time and still is the biggest store. But they never did.

 

[Orma]

Giving you a dagger in the back with one hand and with the other hand picking your pockets?

Backstab = bulgarian greeting

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I never said that...

You're starting to sound severely schizophrenic. Do you agree with me that epic's action are anti-consumer fuckery or not? I don't care if it's a valid strategy for them or not, no one does and why should they, this is not what's getting people angry.

But again, back to my initial post - fabulously optimistic. I'm sure that anti-consumer tools will be put to rest as soon as we can have a healthy competition. Especially if they prove effective and everyone on the market is made aware of that. That's how rl works. It's not setting a dangerous precedence at all.

It's also funny how you keep mentioning steam fanboys while trying to rationalize actions of someone who doesn't like you and is not interested in hiding it. I'm pretty much as anti-steam as a modern PC gamer can get, took me years (and lots of raging) to start using it. Steam has nothing to do with me being aware that what epic are doing is bs for me as a customer. Why is it something that even needs explaining I don't know.

At some point, you gotta stop pretending that you have any clue about economy, because with every sentence you write, it becomes more and more obvious that you don't.

I hope you, at the very least, have a conscience to realize that just a few posts ago you suggested that a market in which companies spend huge sums of money to make sure they're the only ones with means to distribute certain products might result in lower prices.

Which market that would even be comparable to the games industry (or specifically the PC one), had competition buy their way in and had that result in a worse situation for consumers?

And you're asking me this question as a PC gamer? You do realize how PC market looked before evulll monopoly took over? How we had many different entities in each country "fiercely competing" for the consumer? If not, then check how prices looked then, check the sales and promos, check refunds and customer support, check anything ffs this is not gaming kindergarten class. Or a more concrete example: there was this time when MS was actually dead serious about competing on PC market and paid studios to develop their "exclusives". Which, due to stark competition, cost merely 300% of a typical, brand new "aaa" release (example from my local market), with said aaa baseline already being way too steep for a typical customer. I'm sure as every PC gamer you're perfectly aware of all of this and that's why you're sure that "competition is always good", even if the competitor with current initiative is blatantly anti-consumer and has fuckload of money to back that up.

I am not defending devs like Snapshot and Obsidian for first promising Steam at release, and then switching to EGS for the money. That is a broken promise and thus despicable. But it's the devs/publishers that broke the promise, not Epic.

I don't give a shit about some third rate devs tbh. I care about the bigger picture and I don't like it.

 

[Atlantico]

Steam could probably do similar buyout to crush competitions considering they are for the longest time and still is the biggest store. But they never did.

What competition? The websites that sell Steam keys?

All other potential "competition" are publishers, like EA, Blizzard, Ubi, Bethesda, CDPR etc. which Steam could never get any exclusivity with for obv. reasons. They have their own launchers, their own stores, their own platforms. Where is this mystical competition to Steam?

I'm getting seriously concerned.. does using Steam indoctrinate people? How can this kind of ignorance take root and fester?

Why are people shilling for either Steam or Epic, what is the point? They're both spyware, both leeches, both middlemen which do nothing but skim profit off the top.

 

[Glenda Glenn]

What seems to be inevitable in the future is that every mildly successful developer will want to have their own DRM platform, just like Valve and Epic did, and self-publish their own games. This could be the last opportunity to show a bit of resistance to that, but who am I kidding, you are obviously more than happy to pave the way.

 

[fantadomat]

Giving you a dagger in the back with one hand and with the other hand picking your pockets?

Backstab = bulgarian greeting

Let me give you hug .

 

[Latelistener]

 

[fantadomat]

 

[Sigourn]

It's very simple. Here are my terms, Obsidian: GOG or CODEX.

Retard.

Ban this asshole for encouraging piracy. Infinitron