If it's just the developer's choice to only release on one single platform or for one single platform (Like Game Freak and Next Level Games with Nintendo, for instance, despite being independent studios), then who are we to judge them? However, buying themselves the exclusivity, even just a timed one, is a shitty move and has nothing to do competition, apart from avoiding it.

You know. So you're okay with the platform it is on if it is a very good game or "best games of all times". I seem to remember a certain game called Shmayonetta 2 that turned out to be one of the best games this gen. Did things change? My issue is that before you were arguing very much so against exclusivity because of one certain company, and now you condone a company that outright buys up exclusives (let alone save them from development hell). Surely you see why this bothers me right? 

True, but cutting off all those who ain't having it on EGS would be a dick move. Microsoft handled that a lot better after they bought Minecraft. Imagine it being locked to Windows store and Xbox only

I remember the outcry here about the Wii U games on the Switch being forcing the players to buy a game twice, and yet I haven't seen this come up here. Unless you can simply copy your serial number, that's exactly what it amounts to.

RL isn't exclusive to a single platform and it's also a way better game, so i don't get that comparison. As I said, I'm a bit more lenient for different PC platforms because PC itself is not a closed platform and even if you're bound to a certain launcher you still have tons of choice of how you want to play the game. That isn't the case with console exclusives because they completely lock you in, not only on software but hardware as well. A game switching to a different store on PC doesn't automatically make it unplayable for me, like games that become exclusive to consoles.

Console exclusives are just way way worse than PC exclusives because they are just so much more restrictive. And I still don't condone exclusivity of any kind. It's a terrible practice. If RL switches over to Epic and I can take my progress with me literally nothing changes. RL has always been exclusive to a single platform on PC. There is literally nothing changing for me if the transition is done properly. Why would I be against it when nothing is changing for me? Again, I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the change and I'd rather have it if RL is on both platforms, but I will accept the change, firstly because nothing changes and secondly because Steam.

All things compared, making a game that's already on basically all platforms switch to a different launcher is absolutely nothing compared to games that are made exclusive to just a single platform. You must understand the completely different levels of scumbag we're talking about here.

So does epic owing the studio and its IPs now prevent anyone that had previously bought the game on steam from playing it? Like has it somehow autodeleted from your steam library or just won't work anymore?

Or is it only going to mean anyone wanting to buy it now will have to buy it from the epic store?

Anyways, just know its going to get worse. Eventually, EA will start doing what EPIC is doing. As will steam too. You can't support and champion the open nature of the PC market then start whining when you see just what being open truly means. You are lucky Epic doesn't do something like say if you use the unreal engine to make your game you can only release said game on PC if its on their store.

Seems like they backed away from what the original Press Release stated.

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/epic-promises-support-for-rocket-league-on-all-platforms-no-announced-plans-to-pull-it-from-steam

Which is the better result - why make it exclusive when you can sell it on more than 1 store.

Most of it comes down to two things - (1) common sense, and (2) not panicking and freaking out. 

You are reacting off of impulse and emotion, and refusing to look at it objectively. This is proven by the emphatic language you are using to argue. Take a step back.

What, exactly, is the harm in the first place? It's minorly annoying to use a different launcher and to be required to have purchases aggregated through a different entity, but the games don't require the launcher to run, and you can back up your files to physical media to save for posterity, so even if the EGS goes belly up and all your purchases are lost (highly unlikely - more likely that either Epic or the EGS itself will be purchased by another retailer before anything is actually lost), you can still permanently keep everything.

The EGS is annoying, for sure, due to its security concerns and its poor design, but like I said, you can bypass it entirely if you want, once you have the games installed.

The only certain harm at all is minor inconvenience.

Meanwhile, financially benefiting the developers is inarguably beneficial for gamers. Especially indie devs. More money = more resources to either develop more games, or better ones. Or both. None of those things are guaranteed in every situation, but "not guaranteed" is far from "not likely". 

Additionally, the argument that we already get quality is also ignorant. Fine, we're getting good stuff. But how's about better? Give a good developer more money and - hey whaddaya know! He can do more! Before Netflix opened up for original content, we were limited to content that the major networks were willing to pay for and fit into their limited timeslots. Many fantastic shows were canceled because networks were limited in what they could air. Once Netflix opened up for original content, though, Netflix and all the other streaming services became avenues for content distribution without getting actual broadcast airtime, and there are TONS of quality shows and movies that we get now that simply wouldn't have gotten the time of day ten years ago.

This is in absolutely no way any different. 

For years, devs (especially indie ones) have complained about the high cut that Valve took, but because Steam has been the only major non-first-party platform (see: not Origin, not UPlay, not Battle.Net, etc) to release games through, many devs have seen it as their only viable option. Maybe Valve does provide valuable resources and services that are paid for with that 30% cut. But maybe some devs don't want those services. Maybe they just want to release their damn games and be able to make money off of them. 

No, I don't like the EGS by any means. No, I don't plan on buying Borderlands 3 through it. But you know what? They've specifically said they'll stop aggressively chasing exclusivity if Valve reduces their mandatory cuts. You don't have to agree with their tactics. You don't have to like them. But you can't sit there and say that the welfare of gamers is being ignored.

Oh boy.Here we go.

Well, I know how you work Chazore, how single minded you are in your opinions, so I will avoid writing long essays about the topic at hand just to avoid spending up to one hour writing these replies.I

There's no reason to believe that the same thing couldn't happen one day to PC as well just like we see on consoles ... 

One could very well contemplate the possibility of a conflict of interest arising if Tencent buys out the remaining shares of EPIC from Tim Sweeney or other big game publishers and soon after they enter the graphics hardware market by designing their own lines/series of graphics chips! What are you going to do in that case then if you're forced to buy Tencent designed hardware regardless to obtain a good experience for ANY games using future iterations of Unreal Engine ? 

The PC platform is not as open as you may think it is. Us gamers often don't get a choice on which OS or CPU architecture they can choose as we're going to be indefinitely tied to Windows and x86 for high-end gaming. Being "cross-platform" is a give and take thing. For low-end projects, it's more of a give since the barrier for entry to the lowest common denominator small. For high-end projects, it takes more often from the project rather than adds benefits to it since it's more of a nuisance to support lower common denominators. I don't know if many high-end PC gamers realize this but by promoting a walled garden of hardware elitism they are implicitly encouraging exclusivity when aren't aware of it ... 

In theory, there's nothing preventing a vertically integrated monopolistic scenario like I potentially outlined above with Tencent from providing a better experience exclusive with them from a purely technical perspective ... 

Originally, it was said that they were going to have the game pulled from Steam, meaning new consumers wanting to buy it on Steam, would not be able to as it would be sold exclusively on EGS. Thankfully, Basil's post seems to have further clarified that this will now not be the case (assuming Epic saw the backlash this soon).

I don't think EA is really all that bothered, seeing as how they've ran their own storefront for years now, and largely focus on their own games and their own engine, while at the same time working with the licenses they have bought/been given. EA has had the biggest and worst rep for years now, so them pulling an exact replica of Tim's plans will simply just backfire entirely. EA doesn't have the clout that Tim has, let alone the company itself. Epic have Unreal engine, one of the most widely used engines out there, while EA has their own studios using just Frostbite, and not much else, along with many studios out there not using EA's engine either. Last I checked, EA didn't even demo reel and advertise their engine for use for all devs, at least, not on the same level Epic has been doing the past few years. 

No, I can champion an open nature, but I cannot abide by one man who simply wants no competition and no being second best. This is a man that wants his store to be *the* store, not *A* store.

Oh, I imagine Epic will, if given more than enough leeway and more power. Again, give a man power and watch them go wild with it. (trust me, you wouldn't want me with any sort of power).

Good news none the less. Selling the game on multiple storefronts is the better option. It'll now be down to who can provide the best service with the game, instead of it just being locked to one store, and siphoning off users from another client. 

I honestly think the whole "full of emotion, calm down" followed by the idea that you think you're not at fault logically, is close to being a tad bit laughable. 

I have been looking at it objectively since the moment this deal was announced. I am fully aware of just what exactly has transpired and what is to come following the deal. The "freak out", part was Epic simply having the gall to follow up after a recent threat, while trying to come off as some "hero" to the PC side of the industry.

I've no steps to take back here. It's been a day since the first post was made, and I still look at it the same as I did before then, just as you'll see it from your end from here till the end of time.

"what is the harm in the first place?".

Well, going by your "objective" view, it'd be "no problem", so really, not much else needs to be explained if you cannot see the issue that's been raised by other people, as well as myself. 

I feel as if you don't really care about convenience in general, but I imagine if you do care, you'll argue some level that's "objective" to care about, rather than the inconvenience that others are feeling they have lost by this deal, or will lose going forward. 

"Meanwhile, financially benefiting the developers is inarguably beneficial for gamers."

Please explain to me on just how this benefits me as a gamer, specifically. I want to know how one side of the industry taking a cut, gives me a PC gamer, a great deal of a benefit to me, not to a dev, but to me. Without using trickle down economics please. Leave that at the front door.

"Additionally, the argument that we already get quality is also ignorant."

Bold words, coming from someone who assumes to be non ignorant of let's just say, nearly anything out there (because let's just assume you're as wise as ever, since you're trying to come off as such). The fact that we've had good and amazing games for decades, thanks to user reviews, media reviews, general press and awards, does in fact show and tell us that, yes, we have had great games for years on end. Look back at the 80's and the like, we've had heaps of bad games as well. i'm not going to ignore the fact, that nearly every platform in existence, has also had it's fair share of both good games and junk, but to assume that we've had "non" better games, until this supposed rev cut, is just purely absurd and I won't even bother to challenge that, because it's already bonkers of an assumption to make.

"But how's about better?"

I ask the AAA industry that on a yearly basis, and yet here we are, with £50-65 games, complete with season passes and MT's. DO tell me as to how that is somehow a better deal for me as a gamer, to have to pay even more, for what amounts to a game that's short, containing bugs, and a skinner's box design.You'd think that having a few hundred million dollars, if not a billion, would allow for your company to I dunno, not fuck up a game, to do as much QA testing as possible, rather than say I dunno, tossing your game out early access, while hiding it under "pre-order early release".

I've seen it for years, and you cannot tell me that more money=a better game, because a better game entails many an aspect, one of them being a less buggy experience, as well as another for being more polished. We just had a release from Sony with Days Gone, and I'm seeing bugs left and right. What about the QA?, what happened to their premium paid for QA?.

Like I get that you're trying to come off as "objective" and containing some form of wisdom, but I honestly do not for a second, believe that you think tossing more money into a bottomless pt, will somehow make things better, because I just look at Africa mate. I look at Cancer research, I look at the years spent, on tossing money into pits left and right, and not seeing an insane amount of progress being made, that shows the amount of money put in, was triple the effort given in return. 

Just look at games that were backed over the years like MN9 for one such example. Look at the money and backing that game got, and look at the state it ended up in. This is about money btw, not "oh those devs were up their own arse", no mate, no post moving for this one. It's about the "more money", and nothing else. 

More money, doesn't automatically mean everything will become magically all great and wonderful. What matters is how it's used, when it's used and who it's used by, with decent if not professional levels of control with said money and the knowledge to go with it. That isn't wisdom either, that's "common sense". 

"many devs have seen it as their only viable option"

Have you ever once thought as to why exactly?. Have you taken a look at EA, at origin, or perhaps Uplay and Ubisoft, as well as beth.net and their client. Blizzard, you dshould know by now, have been stuck in their own bubble for a very long time, so the indie devs not complaining about them becomes moot, because they don't support indie devs, they don't even make any moves to publish indie games on their storefront. When was the last time Ubisoft or EA pushed for this?. I'm aware of the tiny, tiny, tiny recent backing EA has done for a tiny, tiny few indie devs, but that's where that ends.

Has EA or Ubosift shared their resources with many devs, in the form of API's, let alone networks the way Valve has?. Check on the Hat in Time dev, that's recently just been one of the first to make use of Valve's new network API 2.0: https://support.hatintime.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021915254-How-was-Online-Party-achieved-

I'd like to know on the other companies doing such a thing, besides Epic and Valve.

"But maybe some devs don't want those services. Maybe they just want to release their damn games and be able to make money off of them."

That's what I've been saying in regards to launching a client, with damn features I've been wanting since day 1, but hey, Tim seems to assume to know what I want as a gamer, but who cares about gamers right?. Just because you can live without certain features, doesn't automatically mean we all will/can. 

You know you're in for a treat, when someone decides to belittle you and claim they know better, but also saying they don't want to write an essay, but then end up writing one anyway, going back entirely on their word.

In short:

I'll be cutthroat honest. If you're going to call me single-minded, it means you've already decided on how to approach me from here on out. Because you think that approach isn't single-minded, but one that is somehow viewed as a "better" approach, just tells me that you've less chances of believing that you've any wrong doing from your own end. If you want to approach me the same exact way from here on out, I wouldn't bother, because now I know how you view me, so why should I even bother listening to whatever it is you have to say?.

If you want me to actually listen and take in what you have to say, maybe don't resort to the "you're ignorant" quip. it'd go a long way in getting me to try to understand your pov.

I doubt that's going to happen though, based on your bolded part, because you've already determined how you'll view me from here on, and there is no changing that, unless I'm to agree with you, which isn't happening anytime soon.

RL isn't exclusive to a single platform and it's also a way better game, so i don't get that comparison. As I said, I'm a bit more lenient for different PC platforms because PC itself is not a closed platform and even if you're bound to a certain launcher you still have tons of choice of how you want to play the game. That isn't the case with console exclusives because they completely lock you in, not only on software but hardware as well. A game switching to a different store on PC doesn't automatically make it unplayable for me, like games that become exclusive to consoles.

Console exclusives are just way way worse than PC exclusives because they are just so much more restrictive. And I still don't condone exclusivity of any kind. It's a terrible practice. If RL switches over to Epic and I can take my progress with me literally nothing changes. RL has always been exclusive to a single platform on PC. There is literally nothing changing for me if the transition is done properly. Why would I be against it when nothing is changing for me? Again, I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the change and I'd rather have it if RL is on both platforms, but I will accept the change, firstly because nothing changes and secondly because Steam.

All things compared, making a game that's already on basically all platforms switch to a different launcher is absolutely nothing compared to games that are made exclusive to just a single platform. You must understand the completely different levels of scumbag we're talking about here.

Sorry but no. It's not about RL perse, but supporting a platform which buys up many exclusives in order to gain users to its shitty store application. So it defeats the purpose of what you're trying to say. Besides, it comes down to one simple choice: Do you support exclusivity when a game is brought from development hell in order to even be playable, regardless of platform. Or do you support a company that buys up exclusives, perfectly fine games, that were going to come out on a multitude of platforms but now they're not. It's a simple choice.

I'll make it even simpler, so there is no confusion: Is Nintendo saving a game that wasn't going to come out a more scumbag move than Epic buying up games for exclusivity that were gonna come out elsewhere before.

You are assuming that everything was fine with RL. You are assuming that they didn't desperately need additional funds to keep the game running. News flash, they do. The esports are getting less and less popular while the user base is getting smaller. They're desperately trying to monetize the game in new ways constantly. They sold the company. Yes, that sounds like a game that is in tip top shape. Nintendo and Epic are both businesses. They buy things and then try to sell them for a profit. They're doing the same thing, so stop trying to paint one of them as a hero and the other as a villain. They're both doing very bad things to games, except that Nintendo is doing way worse things to them. That's why they are the bigger scumbags in my book.

There is no difference between releasing a game that's unplayable or not releasing a game at all. I mean, am I able to play Bayonetta 2 now that it was "saved"? Nope. So they might as well not have released it at all. They took a game that was previously released on all platforms, bought it and forced it onto their own platform. So the exact same thing Epic did except that Epic isn't robbing it from every other platform too which they had all the power to do so. Just stop comparing console exclusivity with PC launcher exclusivity, it's simply not the same and the former will always and in every form be more egregious than any PC launcher exclusivity will ever be.