Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I like how Obsidian is just hiding from the beep-storm this decision stirred up amongst its fans.

 

/sarcasm

No benefit to engaging with people angry about it.

 

 

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either. 

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I like how Obsidian is just hiding from the beep-storm this decision stirred up amongst its fans.

 

/sarcasm

No benefit to engaging with people angry about it.

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either.

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

What are they supposed to say exactly?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's not competition, which would be clear if proper free market economics was taught anymore.

 

Steam has the links share of the market and will reap the most sales simply because they've been around the longest, people are too invested in their terrible service, and also makes more money from Green Man Gamig and Humble.

 

GoG is not competitive with Steam and never will be. The only things GoG has going for it is that you actually OWN your games on it and all of those games are DRM free. Theres no reason for a Steam Drone to go around using GoG.

 

By having exclusive games, EGS is a totally competing. They are offering a reason to use their service over Steam, besides being DRM free and allowing you to OWN any games purchased on it. GoG tried this with Throbebreaker and within a month of launch it was released on Steam, which is why GoG is not competitive.

Ideally, competition should benefit the end customer.

 

Epic Games IS competing against Steam, but in a way that makes things worse off for individual gamers. Restricting the choice of platform that a game can be purchased on to a platform that lacks a multitude of features that Steam has is objectively bad for individual gamers.

 

It may be a form of competition, and certainly the fact that many people have a huge number of games already on Steam and are in no hurry to fracture/split their libraries with another launcher is a large roadbloack to Epic to try and compete on a level playing field, but the way to solve that roadblock should be to make the Epic Launcher objectively better to use than Steam.

 

In other words, to make gamers WANT to switch over by offering better pricing, a better user experience, etc. rather than FORCING them to by holding a metaphorical gun to their heads. "Use our launcher or don't get to play (fill in the blank) game."

 

Simply buying up exclusives is the easier route to go, certainly, but it's not the way to win friends and influence people among ordinary gamers IMHO.

With Steam having a monopsony, mostly being the sole provider, on PC games Epic is trying to gain a foothold through exclusivity. They already have a better product in that you actually own the games you purchase, no DRM, and offering free games; they just lack the user base.

 

Steam forces DRM and you are basically "renting" every single game you've bought, and Steam also has exclusives (Total War, previously Bethesda, the Civilization series, etc).

 

If the end result changes any of Steams anti-consumer policy then this is great, if it doesn't then hopefully EGS will take over.

 

 

The Steam monopoly doesn't exactly hurt the end customer though. 

 

If people were actually that upset about Steam's current service, then you'd likely see a lot more support for other platforms. But for the most part, people tend to like Steam and GOG and range from indifferent to hostile to competitors like Origin, Uplay, Battlenet and so on.

 

There is a sense out there I think that Steam has gotten complacent and not improved as much on their shortcomings as they should, but it still remains a pretty superior platform relative to, say, Epic, as a feature comparison shows.

 

uDqkEPo.png

 

Most notable example: mod support. The Outer Worlds is EXACTLY the sort of game that benefits the most from mod support and it's now going to be exclusive to a platform that does not have that feature.

Edited by nocoolnamejim
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like how Obsidian is just hiding from the beep-storm this decision stirred up amongst its fans.

 

/sarcasm

No benefit to engaging with people angry about it.

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either.

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

What are they supposed to say exactly?

 

 

"explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled..."

 

Some of this for instance. 

 

Like, for example, "Because of this extra cash infusion, here is the additional things we're going to be able to put in the game without charging" or anything close to that.

 

Essentially, show how this benefits ME, the customer, rather than just YOU, the company who has just taken something away from me for your benefit while giving nothing back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I like how Obsidian is just hiding from the beep-storm this decision stirred up amongst its fans.

 

/sarcasm

No benefit to engaging with people angry about it.
Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either.

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

What are they supposed to say exactly?

"explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled..."

 

Some of this for instance.

 

Like, for example, "Because of this extra cash infusion, here is the additional things we're going to be able to put in the game without charging" or anything close to that.

 

Essentially, show how this benefits ME, the customer, rather than just YOU, the company who has just taken something away from me for your benefit while giving nothing back.

Yes, because Obsidian is clearly getting a cash infusion seeing as they are self publishing this game...oh...wait...

 

Private Division made the deal, Private Division profits from the deal, Obsidian is clearly at fault.

 

Woe to humanity since this mindset is popular.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I like how Obsidian is just hiding from the beep-storm this decision stirred up amongst its fans.

 

/sarcasm

No benefit to engaging with people angry about it.
Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either.

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

What are they supposed to say exactly?

"explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled..."

 

Some of this for instance.

 

Like, for example, "Because of this extra cash infusion, here is the additional things we're going to be able to put in the game without charging" or anything close to that.

 

Essentially, show how this benefits ME, the customer, rather than just YOU, the company who has just taken something away from me for your benefit while giving nothing back.

Yes, because Obsidian is clearly getting a cash infusion seeing as they are self publishing this game...oh...wait...

 

Private Division made the deal, Private Division profits from the deal, Obsidian is clearly at fault.

 

Woe to humanity since this mindset is popular.

 

 

I assume that there is a revenue split between developer and publisher.

 

It is not unreasonable to assume that Obsidian is getting a portion of the revenue from the deal that Private Division made. I could be wrong.

But if I am, then that right there would be a great thing for Obsidian to say. "We are not receiving any additional revenue from the decision our publisher made to be a timed exclusive and were not involved in the decision making process towards granting the exclusivity deal."

 

Transparency goes a long way. I don't know, and you don't know, how much or even IF Obsidian profits from this decision or was involved in the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Had epic cut prices (from their own pocket)..

 

Had steam cut prices from their own pocket... maybe publishers wouldn't be queuing up to leave? Publishers set prices in any case, that's always the excuse when Steam 'has' to implement regional pricing or whatever.

 

Amazing how many easily reversible arguments there are.

 

 

oh and Steam does not and never had a Monopoly, whoever thinks they have/had is pretty braindead.

 

 

Legally all that is required is significant market control, not 100% control. 

 

As mentioned previous, monopsony is the more accurate term, but most aren't familiar with it and in common usage Steam has a monopoly. Companies usually get done for monopolistic behaviour rather than being monopolies anyway, most MS or Google products done for monopoly behaviour aren't literal monopolies since there are alternatives.

 

 

You don't seem to understand what the word competition means. Competition would mean Epic, Microsoft, Steam, GOG, etc a sell the game and the customers decide which store/launcher is best. Purchasing exclusivity rights is the opposite of competition.

 

 

If that's your definition we don't have competition now either, since most games are steam exclusive. For some reason those don't get cyber Inghimasi waging ejihad on them though.

 

 

Its not. Tencent has been involved in multiple scandals based on tracking user data. Also it does not only include friendslist as it looks at a file on your pc where ALL your personal steam info is stored.

 

 

And if that data is private and important then steam ought to be encrypting it rather than leaving it exposed. If it's a concern because EGS reads it then it's a concern that it's there in the first place as any program could read it. Just another steam issue they've never got around to fixing, I guess.

 

 

 

The Steam monopoly doesn't exactly hurt the end customer though.

 

lol

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because Obsidian is clearly getting a cash infusion seeing as they are self publishing this game...oh...wait...

 

Private Division made the deal, Private Division profits from the deal, Obsidian is clearly at fault.

 

Woe to humanity since this mindset is popular.

No one forced Obsidian to partner with Private Divison.  That was a business decision on their part and as a result they are culpable (at least in part) for the consequences of that partnership.  Rhetorically speaking, you don't just get to wash your hands of something because you hired someone else to do it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either. 

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

Still is no benefit, is just going to have to deal with jackals not interested in anything they have to say explaining their decision. You overestimate the players here.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Given obs' lengthy history of bad publishing deals (and inability to create lasting relationships, despite kickstarter AND fig), I see no reason to absolve them of blame.

 

 

So, because they've had bad history you think they can decide which store their game will be sold? When they are owned by Microsoft and the publisher is basically Take-Two.

 

In which universe do they have much say in the matter? Because I sure as **** don't see them having any voice on the matter. They will do as they are told to do.

 

 

 

They had the say on who they sold themselves to. They had the say on who they chose as a publisher.

 

Microsoft and Take-Two are not companies that nobody has ever heard of before. Obsidian CHOSE to put themselves under that pair of thumbs.

 

I believe the point Voss was making is that when a company makes bad decisions on whose control to put themselves under time and time again it becomes less easy to have a lot of sympathy for being "forced"(?) into those bad decisions, and after a certain point, they share the responsibility.

 

A decade after the fact, people still try and excuse Bioware for bad things that happen by claiming it's all EA's fault. Less people buy that as time goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either. 

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

Still is no benefit, is just going to have to deal with jackals not interested in anything they have to say explaining their decision. You overestimate the players here.

 

 

Politely, I disagree.

 

It's short term pain, no doubt. But I view it similarly to the backlash that CDPR experienced when they announced that Cyberpunk2077, previously marketed as having a choice between third and first person perspective, would instead be all first person.

 

There was a backlash. A large one. Their forums were pretty unpleasant. But CDPR representatives were there taking the heat, explaining their reasoning and I suspect people walked away feeling that they had at least been heard and their concerns listened to.

 

Even if their decisions could not be changed at this point, just the act of making the effort goes a long way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually a good thing TOW is coming to steam a year later. By that time, all the bugs will be ironed out and the game will be exponentially cheaper. It seems like the Epic Store is basically beta-testing the game

 

who knows, and i don't thing so.

if we're lucky it will be a bit cheaper(10-20%) and only for the first week after that it will be full price again.

that's just my two cents when it come to games, coming back to Steam after that one year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's short term pain, no doubt. But I view it similarly to the backlash that CDPR experienced when they announced that Cyberpunk2077, previously marketed as having a choice between third and first person perspective, would instead be all first person.

 

There was a backlash. A large one. Their forums were pretty unpleasant. But CDPR representatives were there taking the heat, explaining their reasoning and I suspect people walked away feeling that they had at least been heard and their concerns listened to.

 

Even if their decisions could not be changed at this point, just the act of making the effort goes a long way.

 

 

That's not the same situation though, since CDPR both made the 1st person in C2077 decision and was also explaining it. Here two different companies are involved, and you want the one that didn't make the decision to explain it- which may not even be possible, depending on what the publishing contract says.

 

It's extremely unlikely that Obsidian is anything less than extremely disappointed in the situation, but it would be very difficult for them to say that publicly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's not competition, which would be clear if proper free market economics was taught anymore.

 

Steam has the links share of the market and will reap the most sales simply because they've been around the longest, people are too invested in their terrible service, and also makes more money from Green Man Gamig and Humble.

 

GoG is not competitive with Steam and never will be. The only things GoG has going for it is that you actually OWN your games on it and all of those games are DRM free. Theres no reason for a Steam Drone to go around using GoG.

 

By having exclusive games, EGS is a totally competing. They are offering a reason to use their service over Steam, besides being DRM free and allowing you to OWN any games purchased on it. GoG tried this with Throbebreaker and within a month of launch it was released on Steam, which is why GoG is not competitive.

 

 

Ideally, competition should benefit the end customer. 

 

Epic Games IS competing against Steam, but in a way that makes things worse off for individual gamers. Restricting the choice of platform that a game can be purchased on to a platform that lacks a multitude of features that Steam has is objectively bad for individual gamers. 

 

It may be a form of competition, and certainly the fact that many people have a huge number of games already on Steam and are in no hurry to fracture/split their libraries with another launcher is a large roadbloack to Epic to try and compete on a level playing field, but the way to solve that roadblock should be to make the Epic Launcher objectively better to use than Steam.

 

In other words, to make gamers WANT to switch over by offering better pricing, a better user experience, etc. rather than FORCING them to by holding a metaphorical gun to their heads. "Use our launcher or don't get to play (fill in the blank) game."

 

Simply buying up exclusives is the easier route to go, certainly, but it's not the way to win friends and influence people among ordinary gamers IMHO.

 

 

Ideally, competition should benefit all, not just consumers or the "Industry"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It's short term pain, no doubt. But I view it similarly to the backlash that CDPR experienced when they announced that Cyberpunk2077, previously marketed as having a choice between third and first person perspective, would instead be all first person.

 

There was a backlash. A large one. Their forums were pretty unpleasant. But CDPR representatives were there taking the heat, explaining their reasoning and I suspect people walked away feeling that they had at least been heard and their concerns listened to.

 

Even if their decisions could not be changed at this point, just the act of making the effort goes a long way.

 

 

That's not the same situation though, since CDPR both made the 1st person in C2077 decision and was also explaining it. Here two different companies are involved, and you want the one that didn't make the decision to explain it- which may not even be possible, depending on what the publishing contract says.

 

It's extremely unlikely that Obsidian is anything less than extremely disappointed in the situation, but it would be very difficult for them to say that publicly.

 

 

To an extent, I agree. The degree of control that Obsidian had over this decision is unclear. (Another thing that they could just come right out and say though isn't it?)

 

I do get where you're coming from, but I also have kind of come to the conclusion that "the developer isn't responsible" has just gotten to be to easy of a crutch over the years.

 

Shadow of War adds microtransactions and a grindy end game? That's not Monolith's fault. That's all Warner Brothers.

 

Payday 2 adds microtransactions years after the game was sold after explicitly promising, in no uncertain terms, that they wouldn't? That isn't on Overkill. That's all the publisher.

 

Bioware sells itself to EA and gets progressively and progressively worse? It's all EA's fault.

 

Etc. etc. There are dozens of examples.

 

Bottom line: Either negotiate better contracts or choose better publishers! When you've been around as long as Obsidian has been, along with it's rather checkered past with publisher choices, then it becomes progressively harder to just handwave away that it is all the publisher's fault. Do better negotiating contracts or do better sticking up for yourself.

 

Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice comes out tomorrow. So far all of the reviews look amazing. It's being published by Activision...one of the worst offenders where publishers are concerned. But From has been able to insist on certain things not happening.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That's not competition, which would be clear if proper free market economics was taught anymore.

 

Steam has the links share of the market and will reap the most sales simply because they've been around the longest, people are too invested in their terrible service, and also makes more money from Green Man Gamig and Humble.

 

GoG is not competitive with Steam and never will be. The only things GoG has going for it is that you actually OWN your games on it and all of those games are DRM free. Theres no reason for a Steam Drone to go around using GoG.

 

By having exclusive games, EGS is a totally competing. They are offering a reason to use their service over Steam, besides being DRM free and allowing you to OWN any games purchased on it. GoG tried this with Throbebreaker and within a month of launch it was released on Steam, which is why GoG is not competitive.

Ideally, competition should benefit the end customer.

 

Epic Games IS competing against Steam, but in a way that makes things worse off for individual gamers. Restricting the choice of platform that a game can be purchased on to a platform that lacks a multitude of features that Steam has is objectively bad for individual gamers.

 

It may be a form of competition, and certainly the fact that many people have a huge number of games already on Steam and are in no hurry to fracture/split their libraries with another launcher is a large roadbloack to Epic to try and compete on a level playing field, but the way to solve that roadblock should be to make the Epic Launcher objectively better to use than Steam.

 

In other words, to make gamers WANT to switch over by offering better pricing, a better user experience, etc. rather than FORCING them to by holding a metaphorical gun to their heads. "Use our launcher or don't get to play (fill in the blank) game."

 

Simply buying up exclusives is the easier route to go, certainly, but it's not the way to win friends and influence people among ordinary gamers IMHO.

With Steam having a monopsony, mostly being the sole provider, on PC games Epic is trying to gain a foothold through exclusivity. They already have a better product in that you actually own the games you purchase, no DRM, and offering free games; they just lack the user base.

 

Steam forces DRM and you are basically "renting" every single game you've bought, and Steam also has exclusives (Total War, previously Bethesda, the Civilization series, etc).

 

If the end result changes any of Steams anti-consumer policy then this is great, if it doesn't then hopefully EGS will take over.

 

 

The Steam monopoly doesn't exactly hurt the end customer though. 

 

If people were actually that upset about Steam's current service, then you'd likely see a lot more support for other platforms. But for the most part, people tend to like Steam and GOG and range from indifferent to hostile to competitors like Origin, Uplay, Battlenet and so on.

 

There is a sense out there I think that Steam has gotten complacent and not improved as much on their shortcomings as they should, but it still remains a pretty superior platform relative to, say, Epic, as a feature comparison shows.

 

uDqkEPo.png

 

Most notable example: mod support. The Outer Worlds is EXACTLY the sort of game that benefits the most from mod support and it's now going to be exclusive to a platform that does not have that feature.

 

 

people who say something like that, have absolutely now clue at all what it takes to have/get/let something like Steam(even with all it's problems) run and work all the time.

that's why most lauchers/stores do not even come close to Steam(even with all it's problems)... it is very expensive.

the only ones really complacent after all the years, are the Customers, who know nothing of keeping a site like steam running, and even Devs/Publishers who could have, all together, pressured Steam to lower it's cut of 30%.... they did not...

 

 

just my 2 cents.

Edited by MDMAisGOOD
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

people who say something like that, have absolutely now clue at all what it takes to have/get/let something like Steam(even with all it's problems) run and work all the time.

that's why most lauchers/stores do not even come close to Steam(even with all it's problems)... it is very expensive.

the only ones really complacent after all the years, are the Customers, who know nothing of keeping a site like steam running, and even Devs/Publishers who could have, all together, pressured Steam to lower it's cut of 30%.... they did not...

 

 

just my 2 cents.

 

 

I did include the feature comparison between Steam and Epic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing on Steam here. But there IS a belief out there that Steam has not innovated as much as they could/should because they have not had to.

 

One example for me personally is in customer support. They lack any sort of phone number for people to call to get customer support. Admittedly that could get expensive, but it sure would have helped with a recent situation I had. (Long story. I'll spare the details.)

 

But for a company that made an estimated $4.3 billion dollars in revenue in 2017, the ability to speak to a live person if necessary seems like something that could be invested in as an improvement to their service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

people who say something like that, have absolutely now clue at all what it takes to have/get/let something like Steam(even with all it's problems) run and work all the time.

that's why most lauchers/stores do not even come close to Steam(even with all it's problems)... it is very expensive.

the only ones really complacent after all the years, are the Customers, who know nothing of keeping a site like steam running, and even Devs/Publishers who could have, all together, pressured Steam to lower it's cut of 30%.... they did not...

 

 

just my 2 cents.

 

 

I did include the feature comparison between Steam and Epic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing on Steam here. But there IS a belief out there that Steam has not innovated as much as they could/should because they have not had to.

 

One example for me personally is in customer support. They lack any sort of phone number for people to call to get customer support. Admittedly that could get expensive, but it sure would have helped with a recent situation I had. (Long story. I'll spare the details.)

 

But for a company that made an estimated $4.3 billion dollars in revenue in 2017, the ability to speak to a live person if necessary seems like something that could be invested in as an improvement to their service.

 

 

hehehe, i thought as much and i didn't get you wrong.

we have a discussion here in this thread, and that was just my broken english.

sorry if it looked like an attack, it wasn't my intention.  :)

 

yeah, i guess they should even in this day and age(or especially?), but i'm lucky enough to never had the need for such a customer service.

so i would not know how good or bad they are in that department  :/

Edited by MDMAisGOOD
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh I dunno about that. It may not be PLEASANT to engage with angry people, but having a presence, explaining as much as they can how the decision happened, maybe noting what additional features gamers will get in the game as a result of the extra cash infusion going exclusive means down the road, showing understanding of why not everyone is thrilled...

 

Going radio silent isn't the worst kind of damage control that can be used (that would be, for example, Diablo Immortal's "Don't you guys have phones?"), but it's not exactly optimal either. 

 

Right now, it's pretty clearly understood what the benefit to Obsidian and Take Two is, but the benefits to the customers are less clear.

Still is no benefit, is just going to have to deal with jackals not interested in anything they have to say explaining their decision. You overestimate the players here.

 

 

Politely, I disagree.

 

It's short term pain, no doubt. But I view it similarly to the backlash that CDPR experienced when they announced that Cyberpunk2077, previously marketed as having a choice between third and first person perspective, would instead be all first person.

 

There was a backlash. A large one. Their forums were pretty unpleasant. But CDPR representatives were there taking the heat, explaining their reasoning and I suspect people walked away feeling that they had at least been heard and their concerns listened to.

 

Even if their decisions could not be changed at this point, just the act of making the effort goes a long way.

 

 

Not really a like for like comparison.  Also am not of the belief they can do anything in the end anyway, so will be a fruitless exercise, at least in terms of usable things.  Not sure many would leave feel more content than before as "they listened to us" as their inability to do anything will also affect what they can say.

 

So no need to be the usual online snarky about a company being radio silent.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Steam having a monopsony, mostly being the sole provider, on PC games Epic is trying to gain a foothold through exclusivity. They already have a better product in that you actually own the games you purchase, no DRM, and offering free games; they just lack the user base.

Steam forces DRM and you are basically "renting" every single game you've bought, and Steam also has exclusives (Total War, previously Bethesda, the Civilization series, etc).

 

If the end result changes any of Steams anti-consumer policy then this is great, if it doesn't then hopefully EGS will take over.

 

You don't know what you are talking about:

 

1) Steam has DRM-free games: https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games

 

2) It is publishers who push the DRM crap, and they do it on EGS as well Metro Exodus for example uses Denuvo: https://www.epicgames.com/store/de/product/metro-exodus/home

There is only one store that is arguably better in regards to DRM and that's GOG[1]. This is also why so few AAA titles are available there. Go figure.

 

3) You don't own EGS-Games, you are merely granted a license. Like you said, basically "renting": https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/eula

 

4) Total War, Bethesda Games titles Civ etc. are not bought exclusives. They aren't games Valve snatched away from other platforms at the eleventh hour. Those games were published on Steam because that's where the players are.

 

[1] Even GOG has games with DRM'd multiplayer: https://www.gog.com/forum/star_wars_battlefront_ii/i_have_had_enough_of_gogs_pushing_of_their_drm_platform/page1

Edited by physicalist
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, first off **** EPIC and **** whoever made this deal.

 

The people who are on EPIC's ####### as in steam had a "monopoly" first, they didn't.  Heres the difference between epic and steam "monopoly".

EPIC pays devs/publishers a sack of fortnite bucks to ONLY sell the game on their ****ty launcher and nowhere else.

Steam doesn't pay anyone to ONLY sell on their platform, devs/publishers CHOOSE to ONLY sell on their launcher and can chose to sell on there AND on another right away or whenever they chose to without asking permission from steam.  

One platform IS paying and forming a monopoly and getting praise to "fighting Steam" while the other just provided A platform while there were many others and devs/pubs CHOOSe to ONLY sell on it and people blamed steam when instead they shoulda blamed the people making/marketing the game instead for not going to the many other platforms.   Is this getting into people's heads now?  The difference?

EPIC isn't doing competition, they are stifling it and bringing back yarr harr and a bottle of rum.  Metro which they showed off with bogus numbers of sales compared to last one  also (gasps) became the most pirated game recently.  Like record amounts.  Anyone praising EPIC and bitching at steam for their practices are being hypocritical and coming off as not so bright.  

 

Also **** the windows store and just a warning for all who buy it off there, do NOT expect to mod your game.  Windows checks the files before launching and if it changes, it won't launch.  Also another thing is whatever is in your library, if you expect to continue playing them then you will have to make sure you get windows 11, 12, 13, etc when they come out because the games won't work on older versions of windows.

 

 

Huge Obsidian fanboy but since i won't be buying off epic or windows store, hopefully i will remember this game a year+ from now.  Doubt it though, hopefully Obsidian will raise hell otherwise keep taking ques from bethesda with the anger induced silent treatment and enjoy that money they getting from EPIC and hopefully spend it wisely because that good arma they raised with gamers just went down the ****ter whether its their fault or not.

 

 

sigh, this was the only game i was excited about and i gotta wait another year because i have no idea when cyberpunk 2077 is being released.  If that game is released before Outer Worlds comes to steam, HAHAHAHAHAHA ahh yeah, i don't think anyone will remember it especially if its full price.  

Edited by redneckdevil
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...