Chazore said:
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. |
K.
SW-5120-1900-6153
