Saturday, February 2nd 2019

Metro Exodus Developer Discusses Boycott of the PC Platform for Sequels over Steam Review Bombing

Update 2: February 5th, 2019: A post on TwitLonger from the official @MetroVideoGame handle has looked to bring a more positive outlook to this whole scenario, in an attempt to bridge the gap between a lone developer's sentiment and the entire 4A Games studio. The post follows:
The recent decision to move Metro Exodus from Steam to the Epic Game Store was made by Koch Media / Deep Silver alone.

The recent comments made by a member of the 4A Games development team do not reflect Deep Silver's or 4A Games' view on the future of the franchise. They do reflect the hurt and disappointment of a passionate individual who has seen what was previously nothing but positive goodwill towards his work turn to controversy due to a business decision he had no control over. We respectfully ask that any and all valid feedback over this decision is directed at Koch Media / Deep Silver, and not the developers at 4A Games.

The future release strategy of the Metro series lies with Koch Media / Deep Silver. Our decision to partner with Epic Games was based on the goal of investing in the future of the series and our development partner at 4A Games. We have every intention of continuing this franchise, and a PC version will always be at the heart of our plans.
The entire handling of this issue has seen wrong turns of hand on all parts involved, the way this particular editor sees it (my, Ravenlord's, sole opinion and not TPU's, so as to avoid a Metro-style situation here), whether it be Valve, 4A Games, the lone developer who made the initial comments, and yes, the particular users in the Metro community that reacted too passionately, inflamming what was already a sticky situation. I, for one, will never see the justice in extrapolating one "wrong" move as a reason for bringing down either the trust or confidence in a whole team of people working hard to bring their creative vision to life. But I suppose gaming is like a relationship, in a way. You can read the original story below.

The whole Metro Exodus saga has been getting uglier as we get closer to launch date. We had reported earlier this very week how Metro Exodus had jumped over to the Epic Games Store for a timed exclusive through February 2020, with Valve and THQ Nordic putting out statements on this move. The move was clearly an unpopular one, and arguably for valid reasons too, but this then led to the mob turning against Metro 2033 and Metro: Last Light by leaving an extreme number of negative reviews on the respective Steam store pages.
We do not agree with this behavior, but neither do we condone what happened next. A user by the handle scynet on the Russian Gameinator forums claimed to be one of the developers on the Metro game franchise, and expressed disappointment, and even anger at the review bombing ongoing. Perhaps emotions took over, when he then effectively threatened that the Metro series would not come to the PC platform again, and be a console exclusive, should this behavior continue and also if PC gamers in turn decide to not buy Metro Exodus as a result of the move from Steam to the Epic Games Store. We will note here that (a) the identity of said person has not been confirmed to be an actual developer for the game, and (b) such decisions are usually in the publisher hands. Regardless, both parties are not showing their best here, and hopefully cooler heads will prevail soon.

[Update: Feb 3, 2019: TechPowerUp user birdie has provided what appears to be the most accurate translation at this time, which can be seen past the break.]

An English translation by a native Russian (TechPowerUp user birdie) is seen below.
I've watched the shit storm that gave me contradicting impressions. On the one hand, Steam withdrawal was dubious, no one before us has done this so abruptly (as far as I know). This is new and and it could have caused resentment. And also this move makes it necessary to install the Epic launcher, so it could have inconvenienced certain gamers, and caused resentment.

On the other hand a reaction of the certain category of players ("torrents" only and likewise [he meant those who pirate games]) is hardly adequate. I've got the impression that people didn't really want to play and they have been waiting for a reason to pour out bile. It turns out that we (the developers) have toiled over for years trying to create something extraordinary but a certain category of players believes that our work isn't worth two minutes of installing a new game launcher. Naturally, it's their life and right, but why do they care about Metro at all? Obviously, they are not interested. I can only say that they've never been our players, they are not interested in our work, and as a result, for example, I'm not interested in their opinion. What's the point of me (and not only me) listening to their opinion?

But! Let's take a deeper look at the situation. Someone says that having shit on Metro Exodus and other games of the series has made the world a better place and put the greedy developers in their place. For that, I can only say that, at the worst scenario if all [PC] players boycott the game, then future games, if they get released at all, certainly won't be for PC. Will it be for the better or worse, is up to you. Personally, I will be sorry for devoted fans. But it won't change my appreciation of the work done by me, my friends and co-workers. I'm absolutely certain that almost everyone who is smearing us on the internet is not capable of the tiniest part of the work already done, and I hope, is yet to be done. Which means they are totally unaware of what they are talking about.

One extra thing. Despite the fact that during development I've finished every level of the game countless times, I still love playing Metro. I've completely finished previous games of the series several times and right now when we are putting the finishing touches to the game I'm going to finish it once more. For me it's already a tradition when I finish the game right before its release. It allows to evaluate the work we've done. What am I talking about? I remember the words of Prof [some nickname presumably - no idea who this person is] which I've heard straight from him several times and also on the Internet: you must create a game for yourself, so that first and most you like it yourself. And only now I'm starting to fully understand that - no smartass will make me doubt the work we've done. And there always will be the dissatisfied.
This does not seem as feverous as initial translations make it out to be, however the underlying tones are still applicable to the same bottom line. We also are more confident now that the original poster is a verified employee of 4A Games, and likely a developer on Metro Exodus as well. He/she is no doubt passionate about the work put in to the game, and ideally recognizes that the deeds (however undeserving the review bombing of past games may be) of some members of the PC gaming community does not speak for everyone. At the same time, this does not mean that 4A Games/Koch Media/THQ Nordic/Epic Games Store are all blameless in this debacle either, just that here too the work of few is affecting the rest adversely. Sources: User 'scynet' on Gameinator Forums, TwitLonger
Add your own comment

283 Comments on Metro Exodus Developer Discusses Boycott of the PC Platform for Sequels over Steam Review Bombing

#201
Prince Valiant
lexluthermiester said:
Or people actually do what they say. Example, I have one installed client; Steam. But I buy most of my game titles on GOG. I rarely use Steam.

While I try out all the other client platforms, it is done only to see what their like and how they work so that I can render an informed opinion. Haven't said that, beyond the scope of being inquisitive, they were swiftly deleted from my test system. Most people don't go to those measures and just don't use what they don't like regardless of how good a game is.


Completely agree!

That all start with your system when it boots up and stay running in the background. That's a bit more than a "slight inconvenience" as it can kill system resources.
I know I do. It's sad that people think not accepting poor business practices is a bad thing.

If everyone could grow a spine and say no then we wouldn't have to deal with platform clients anymore.
Posted on Reply
#202
Patriot
Prince Valiant said:
I know I do. It's sad that people think not accepting poor business practices is a bad thing.

If everyone could grow a spine and say no then we wouldn't have to deal with platform clients anymore.
I enjoy the option of a launcher but dislike being forced to use one, which is why I "Put-up" with GOG secondary to steam.
Game Library management is a lot easier with Steam and GOG, not requiring physical media.
I don't miss the days of CD binders. Always on DRM? bad, having to use launchers, bad, features some of them bring, Good.
The problem is, Epic launcher brings all of the bad with none of the good.
Metro is not a game that is going to get played from the couch and latency is important so in this instance.
Big game mode, streaming between computers and VR are not as important.

That said, I am still choosy of where my data goes...and Epic has not been trustworthy in its short history.
I agree, I don't think anyone is boycotting the game, just the Epic launcher... so good luck on sales numbers till exclusivity ends.

I bought the first two and loved them and then they re-released and supported linux, they were headed in the right direction, this is a misstep.
Posted on Reply
#203
lexluthermiester
ne6togadno said:
invalid argument.
Completely valid point. See below..
ne6togadno said:
steam, origin, upaly, gog galaxy, battlent launcher (havent tried epic launcher yet) all have the option "start when pc start" that can be disabled.
But not everyone knows that option is there or how to use it. Half the time when people bring their PC's into my shop it's due to their system running slow because a crap ton of things are starting with Windows and they have no idea that they can turn it off. I have to show them how and remove crap that isn't needed.

Patriot said:
I don't miss the days of CD binders.
I actually do miss those days. But I never used binders. I have bookshelves with all of my movies, games and music, perfectly organized.
Patriot said:
Always on DRM? bad, having to use launchers
Agreed.
Patriot said:
features some of them bring, Good
While it's easy to see that some people enjoy them, not everyone cares.
Patriot said:
I bought the first two and loved them and then they re-released and supported linux, they were headed in the right direction, this is a misstep.
Again, agreed!
Posted on Reply
#204
phanbuey
sepheronx said:
Except modern Ukraine is really a construct of what was given by the USSR
I'm Ukrainian (born and raised - left Ovrutch when I was a teenager) and I wouldn't say that... I think it's a result of people trying to make a quick buck... Lots of crime, lots of corruption, brain drain, wasted potential. Everyone that can leave does - it's really bad there now; we don't even go back because it's too dangerous.

Ukraine was actually really well off when the USSR broke up (Gorbachev was part Ukranian) when the borders were drawn they got alot of the Russian production capacity and ability to mine raw materials. It all went to waste.
Posted on Reply
#205
CrAsHnBuRnXp
DeathtoGnomes said:
us? you got a frogger in your pocket? Speak for yourself. I dont mind, but I'm a Gamer at Heart. I buy a game not a launcher.
Unfortunately these days, you get both. Id rather have 1 launcher to rule them all.
Posted on Reply
#206
sepheronx
phanbuey said:
I'm Ukrainian (born and raised - left Ovrutch when I was a teenager) and I wouldn't say that... I think it's a result of people trying to make a quick buck... Lots of crime, lots of corruption, brain drain, wasted potential. Everyone that can leave does - it's really bad there now; we don't even go back because it's too dangerous.

Ukraine was actually really well off when the USSR broke up (Gorbachev was part Ukranian) when the borders were drawn they got alot of the Russian production capacity and ability to mine raw materials. It all went to waste.
My family left in 1930 from Lviv Ukraine. Prior to Soviet Union, Ukraine wasn't really Ukraine tbh. Novorussia was a thing and consisted of eastern Ukraine while west is more of former Polish territory.

As for current structure, you got that right. Cant say I am surprised tbh of what happened to Ukraine. US saw an advantage by using the Banderists to stir trouble and eventually take the country. Now? Well, religious freedom gone out the window, political freedom out the window, raised utilities, death threats through a Canadian hosted website towards people who are sympathetic to eastern Ukraine, etc. But that is neither here nor there regarding this topic so I will keep it at that.

What a hot mess. I don't blame A4 games leaving.
Posted on Reply
#207
64K
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Unfortunately these days, you get both. Id rather have 1 launcher to rule them all.
I think we are going to continue to see other Publishers chipping away at Steam's dominance with their own stores. Epic is so determined to get people on their store that they are giving away a free game there every 2 weeks for the rest of this year and they are even paying other Publishers to make their new game exclusive to the Epic Store. We will probably have many more launchers in the future.
Posted on Reply
#208
sepheronx
64K said:
I think we are going to continue to see other Publishers chipping away at Steam's dominance with their own stores. Epic is so determined to get people on their store that they are giving away a free game there every 2 weeks for the rest of this year and they are even paying other Publishers to make their new game exclusive to the Epic Store. We will probably have many more launchers in the future.
At that point I will just jump back to console.

Last thing I want is all these launchers.
Posted on Reply
#209
phanbuey
64K said:
I think we are going to continue to see other Publishers chipping away at Steam's dominance with their own stores. Epic is so determined to get people on their store that they are giving away a free game there every 2 weeks for the rest of this year and they are even paying other Publishers to make their new game exclusive to the Epic Store. We will probably have many more launchers in the future.
I mean once that Fortnite money runs out, they will have to adjust. Free games are nice and all but it's like taking accepting a free candybar in prison - in the long run it probably isnt worth it.

If you think Facebook is bad with privacy. Just wait for Epic... it will be Epic.
Posted on Reply
#210
Dimi
If a game doesn't launch on Steam or occasionally Uplay, i don't buy it. Simple as that.
I didn't even activate my overwatch & destiny 2 humble keys on whatever launcher they use. I don't care.

I was really looking forward to playing Rage 2 and Doom Eternal but no Steam = no buy.
Posted on Reply
#211
king of swag187
imagine having to strong-arm (bad) exclusives to your platform to be "competitve", and having a terrible design (not even a search bar) all the while sending your users data back to the chinese government
Hah!
imagine
Posted on Reply
#212
RuskiSnajper
So we have a 360 degree loop around the discussion and when we talked about corporations, and now reflecting back to the opinions of "One launcher for all" it's kinda not what benefits the consumer. In this system under this idea of endless growth, pure profit driven culture and the stock market casinos where competition is required for anything civilized to come out of it ... isn't it better to have more launchers, isn't that more diversity, like having more GPU manufacturers instead of just two.

Intel is coming to the game, but at what price, Raja Kuduri had left AMD for that to happen, so what if AMD sinks now or later? There won't be any more of them, it would still be only 2. So nothing happened, one guy moves to diff company, old company goes bust, same story goes on.

So you (supposably) want diversity on one end, but then on the other end you want one launcher to rule them all? That's called double-standards boys and girls. It looks like this "inclusiveness/tolerance" thing is just a big trick, their opinion changes based on what suits them in a particular time and area. If you're supposably "tolerant" , then you have to tolerate Metro being on another store, you would have to tolerate the exclusivity too, right ???

Even tho the allegations against Epic Games Store are quite worrying, the 40% Tencent ownership and the data flowing to chinese govt doesn't sound very well for a new launcher entering the field.
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/am18zn" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">pcgaming/comments/am18zn</a>

That said, you can be well assured that all your Steam Data is vaccumed by the NSA anyway if it isn't by Tencent.

What's the point tho, well, all of the understanding is, there's many points, but ofcourse the relevant point here is that Steam just because it is established doesn't mean it is all that good, Gabe Newell was a MS guy and he apparently got the blueprint of the world 15-20 years ahead (it's not that hard tho), it just took some time for the ARPANET to be deployed in lots of places around the world and when the bandwidths were high enough it started working, he's no genius, betting on such a huge risk on Steam so early outside of the for-profit culture is just not a coincidence, not something any stock market player would ever do, UNLESS you have strategical foreknowledge.

If Valve was some fan favourite enlightened pro-consumer saint, they wouldn't be so silently exploiting the market dominance, well, they (corporations in general) usually telegraph it in various interviews/trade shows, which is not actually some good hearted advice, it's BRAGGING, but it's not like they tell you in your face "We will be your second parent for the next 20 years, our nose will be all over your room even your underpants, all your base is belong to us." even tho it's taking place.

If Valve truly was some fan favourite enlightened pro-consumer saint, they would be doing a lot more WITHOUT THE NEED OF A COMPETITOR OR COMMUNITY TO FORCE THEIR HAND, they would be doing a lot more against swatting, they would be creating a integrated steam game-timer with reminders for playing too long, reminders to take breaks, they would be promoting all kinds of healthy lifestyle things, they wouldn't promote toxic sugary drinks and snacks, educating about the dangers of sedentary lifestyle, playing games for long periods.

Infact the most unhealthy part about playing games is sitting down and not moving and thus not breathing much oxygen for long periods of time, second is the eyestrain and bad light spectrum from LEDs (artificial light) including flicker rate (look for non-PWM-dimmed monitors, with DC-dimming)

So if they want to be all inclusive, which is what google is doing, they have to also be your parent and your doctor and your fitness trainer and your friend and your car and your bicycle and your phone and ... your government? Well that's what it leads to doesn't it. Are you sure they're going to do ALL of these things for you for FREE all in your benefit exactly how you want? Do you even know if something is in your benefit that they offer you?

So will we see it one day? - "Steam GameTime" - Reminds you to unsquish your nerves in your butt after sitting for so long playing CSS.
Posted on Reply
#213
phanbuey
RuskiSnajper said:

So you (supposably) want diversity on one end, but then on the other end you want one launcher to rule them all? That's called double-standards boys and girls. It looks like this "inclusiveness/tolerance" thing is just a big trick, their opinion changes based on what suits them in a particular time and area. If you're supposably "tolerant" , then you have to tolerate Metro being on another store, you would have to tolerate the exclusivity too, right ???
Dude - you can have all the launchers you want. Just don't force people into it. Sell on the epic store for $40, and sell on steam for $60 because they're shites who take 30% -- simple as that.

Sell everywhere, anywhere, and let the customer make the choice. I would rather have my data vacuumed up by the NSA than the NSA, China, and everyone who hacked the Bethesda launcher (every 14 year old with a computer). Forcing people to go somewhere to buy a videogame, so that we now need 8 launchers to play our games is completely unnecessary and hurts the developers by shrinking their market for absolutely no reason.

That's why people love 'platforms' like GoG and Steam; they don't FORCE you to buy from them. You can buy from anywhere.

Origin, Bethesda, Epic are all hated for the same reason.

I don't even mind Ubisoft's or Rockstar's launchers because while they do launch in the background, they don't dictate where I do business or split my games library and force me to keep 5 contact lists of different friends online; and they quit after im done playing the game.

That's tolerance. Easy.

#3 is complete bullshit on that post. Exclusivity in this case props up shitty launchers like Epic, because the market CAN'T decide which platforms are the best, they HAVE to go somewhere. It's basically monopoly; the opposite of competition. And now you're tying the performance in sales of a GREAT work of art, to that of a horrible launcher. So guess who suffers? The people who least deserve it.

I think people are most angry about this game because it's going to be a great game. The sales are going to hurt for no reason.
Posted on Reply
#214
moproblems99
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Unfortunately these days, you get both. Id rather have 1 launcher to rule them all.
Do you feel the same about CPUs? What about GPUs?
Posted on Reply
#215
Shambles1980
moproblems99 said:
Do you feel the same about CPUs? What about GPUs?
rather retarded question there as the performance changes on those and you have to re buy them. but yea 1 perfect cpu and gpu would be better
Posted on Reply
#216
moproblems99
Shambles1980 said:
rather retarded question there
I thought monopolies were evil like most big, bad corporations?
Posted on Reply
#217
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
#2 on that list is terrible. The developers that need financial relief are the small ones that will never sell $10 million worth. I doubt Steam with that offer would even be attractive to Activision, EA, or Ubisoft because they're committing to 30% not knowing if they'll ever hit $10 million in sales. They'll just stick to their own distribution platforms where they can keep virtually all of it.

And let's give those numbers context:

~$80 million and Epic is about half of Steam.

If your game made $100 million on Steam, you only keep $77 million. Conversely, you'd keep $88 million at Epic. $11 million translates to a DLC getting made for the game that wouldn't have on Steam.

Flip it over: why the hell does Steam need to keep $23 million for running and maintaining some servers and a few code monkeys to create software updates? $19 million of that probably goes to GabeN's retirement fund, $3 million probably goes to taxes, and $1 million goes to servers/bandwidth/staff.

I take Steam's offer as an insult.
Posted on Reply
#218
Patriot
FordGT90Concept said:

If you look at what Tim Sweeney said, it is very possible that Metro Exodus wouldn't even exist without Epic Games committing monies to help develop, market, and publish it. If there is, in fact, an exclusivity agreement between Epic Games and A4 Games, then Epic Games is more than a distributor (like Steam), it's a publisher too. Think of Metro Exodus like Unravel for Origin/EA. Independent games that are published by a larger company and a requirement for that is exclusivity to the Origin/EA market on PC.

Here's a VERY important quote from Tim Sweeney:
I have been advocating this for years and it's something blockchain technology can make possible. There needs to be an open infrastructure for game distribution which all distributors participate in (build servers and add them to the network, get paid for servicing users on the network). The entire network acknowledges your right to software and so long as there as at least one participating, it will be honored. If Sweeney is on the verge of making this a reality then more power to him.
I would definitely be for an opensource torrent like distribution network... would still need X amount of seeds from vendors to kick off the chain.

Steams marketing is mainly to its own users of which there are 67M monthly active 33M daily active. I will agree that they could do more on the marketing side if they want to "earn" that 30%.
Metro does seem to have taken in a lot of external money, (nvidia for rtx support) and now EPIC paying them for exclusivity. I have less issues with EPIC paying them for exclusivity than I do for their retraction from steam after months of advertising and pre-ordering. Pre-orders pay the bills too. There is a lot of this that is... out of sight behind valve and epic doors. Perhaps there was an attempt to reduce that 30% number before leaving, we don't know.

4a is taking a big gamble here... EPIC is currently kiddo daycare keeping screechers from the rest of online gameplay...
I have no desire to give Epic my personal info... they currently have shown they do not deserve it.





Vayra86 said:
[That graph] @Patriot posted up there... it contains every Steam feature so that it can put lots of red boxes next to the other stores... but it lacks a crucial security item like 2FA. That alone speaks volumes. This is 10 year old temper tantrum level of argument. It is a lazy customer argument, it is a short-sighted customer argument. Nobody cares about 75% of the features on that list.
rtwjunkie said:
Only an insecure person who needs masses of “friends” (yeah, we both know they aren’t actual friends) to feel good, would accuse someone who happens to like single player games of only liking them because they have no friends. It was totally uncalled for.
I love single player games, I also have a group of 15 people that I grew up with that have lans twice a year and play online every thursday night.
Having fragmented launchers is a bitch. And the point stands, just because he doesn't care about community features enabling online friend play doesn't mean it isn't important to others.
You comment assuming someone doesn't have any real friends is just as uncalled for as mine. :P

lexluthermiester said:
I'd respond, but what I was thinking has already been said..
Have to agree here. Very uncalled for. Though I have to say the graph is kinda cool. And it seems mostly accurate.
Context is important.

True Uncalled for, was a kneejerk to the uncalled for and inaccurate dismissiveness of a very accurate graph.
Dismissing facts because they don't support your view and personally attacking someone is going to get a retort.
Lots of kneejerks lets get back on topic.
Posted on Reply
#219
64K
Patriot said:

4a is taking a big gamble here... EPIC is currently kiddo daycare keeping screechers from the rest of online gameplay...
I have no desire to give Epic my personal info... they currently have shown they do not deserve it.
From what I understand 4A Games has no choice in the matter. Koch Media and Deep Silver are the ones who chose to make Exodus a Epic Store exclusive for the time being. Despite all the outcry over this and people saying they won't sign up for an account on Epic, I suspect that most will. I will wait for it to hit Steam though. Epic is going to have to prove that they will keep their store up and well maintained and that the store will be secure before I buy anything there.
Posted on Reply
#220
Patriot
64K said:
From what I understand 4A Games has no choice in the matter. Koch Media and Deep Silver are the ones who chose to make Exodus a Epic Store exclusive for the time being. Despite all the outcry over this and people saying they won't sign up for an account on Epic, I suspect that most will. I will wait for it to hit Steam though. Epic is going to have to prove that they will keep their store up and well maintained and that the store will be secure before I buy anything there.
I have the epic launcher because when it first came out it was for the unreal alpha as a dev demo.
Based on their security practices, they don't and won't ever have my CC info.
Posted on Reply
#221
Vayra86
RuskiSnajper said:
So we have a 360 degree loop around the discussion and when we talked about corporations, and now reflecting back to the opinions of "One launcher for all" it's kinda not what benefits the consumer. In this system under this idea of endless growth, pure profit driven culture and the stock market casinos where competition is required for anything civilized to come out of it ... isn't it better to have more launchers, isn't that more diversity, like having more GPU manufacturers instead of just two.

Intel is coming to the game, but at what price, Raja Kuduri had left AMD for that to happen, so what if AMD sinks now or later? There won't be any more of them, it would still be only 2. So nothing happened, one guy moves to diff company, old company goes bust, same story goes on.

So you (supposably) want diversity on one end, but then on the other end you want one launcher to rule them all? That's called double-standards boys and girls. It looks like this "inclusiveness/tolerance" thing is just a big trick, their opinion changes based on what suits them in a particular time and area. If you're supposably "tolerant" , then you have to tolerate Metro being on another store, you would have to tolerate the exclusivity too, right ???

Even tho the allegations against Epic Games Store are quite worrying, the 40% Tencent ownership and the data flowing to chinese govt doesn't sound very well for a new launcher entering the field.
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/am18zn" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">pcgaming/comments/am18zn</a>

That said, you can be well assured that all your Steam Data is vaccumed by the NSA anyway if it isn't by Tencent.

What's the point tho, well, all of the understanding is, there's many points, but ofcourse the relevant point here is that Steam just because it is established doesn't mean it is all that good, Gabe Newell was a MS guy and he apparently got the blueprint of the world 15-20 years ahead (it's not that hard tho), it just took some time for the ARPANET to be deployed in lots of places around the world and when the bandwidths were high enough it started working, he's no genius, betting on such a huge risk on Steam so early outside of the for-profit culture is just not a coincidence, not something any stock market player would ever do, UNLESS you have strategical foreknowledge.

If Valve was some fan favourite enlightened pro-consumer saint, they wouldn't be so silently exploiting the market dominance, well, they (corporations in general) usually telegraph it in various interviews/trade shows, which is not actually some good hearted advice, it's BRAGGING, but it's not like they tell you in your face "We will be your second parent for the next 20 years, our nose will be all over your room even your underpants, all your base is belong to us." even tho it's taking place.

If Valve truly was some fan favourite enlightened pro-consumer saint, they would be doing a lot more WITHOUT THE NEED OF A COMPETITOR OR COMMUNITY TO FORCE THEIR HAND, they would be doing a lot more against swatting, they would be creating a integrated steam game-timer with reminders for playing too long, reminders to take breaks, they would be promoting all kinds of healthy lifestyle things, they wouldn't promote toxic sugary drinks and snacks, educating about the dangers of sedentary lifestyle, playing games for long periods.

Infact the most unhealthy part about playing games is sitting down and not moving and thus not breathing much oxygen for long periods of time, second is the eyestrain and bad light spectrum from LEDs (artificial light) including flicker rate (look for non-PWM-dimmed monitors, with DC-dimming)

So if they want to be all inclusive, which is what google is doing, they have to also be your parent and your doctor and your fitness trainer and your friend and your car and your bicycle and your phone and ... your government? Well that's what it leads to doesn't it. Are you sure they're going to do ALL of these things for you for FREE all in your benefit exactly how you want? Do you even know if something is in your benefit that they offer you?

So will we see it one day? - "Steam GameTime" - Reminds you to unsquish your nerves in your butt after sitting for so long playing CSS.
The irony though. Reddit rant, gets massive upvotes, and ends it with 'I'm going to play Anthem open beta' (an exclusive game through Origin, the second most shitty launcher on the planet after Epic). Hmm nuff said :)

Patriot said:
I would definitely be for an opensource torrent like distribution network... would still need X amount of seeds from vendors to kick off the chain.

Steams marketing is mainly to its own users of which there are 67M monthly active 33M daily active. I will agree that they could do more on the marketing side if they want to "earn" that 30%.
Metro does seem to have taken in a lot of external money, (nvidia for rtx support) and now EPIC paying them for exclusivity. I have less issues with EPIC paying them for exclusivity than I do for their retraction from steam after months of advertising and pre-ordering. Pre-orders pay the bills too. There is a lot of this that is... out of sight behind valve and epic doors. Perhaps there was an attempt to reduce that 30% number before leaving, we don't know.

4a is taking a big gamble here... EPIC is currently kiddo daycare keeping screechers from the rest of online gameplay...
I have no desire to give Epic my personal info... they currently have shown they do not deserve it.









I love single player games, I also have a group of 15 people that I grew up with that have lans twice a year and play online every thursday night.
Having fragmented launchers is a bitch. And the point stands, just because he doesn't care about community features enabling online friend play doesn't mean it isn't important to others.
You comment assuming someone doesn't have any real friends is just as uncalled for as mine. :p


Context is important.

True Uncalled for, was a kneejerk to the uncalled for and inaccurate dismissiveness of a very accurate graph.
Dismissing facts because they don't support your view and personally attacking someone is going to get a retort.
Lots of kneejerks lets get back on topic.
The point isn't that I don't use it, the point is that there are alternatives that were around fár longer than Steam was, and they work well. There are also newer alternatives. Regardless, if you have a tight group of buddies, you can bring them to a medium other than Steam. And if you can't, I would consider that a BIG headscratcher at the very least.

As for 'you don't have any friends'... completely offtopic IMO. I'm looking for the nuance here. And its been a 360 around the issue - yes, its shit they drop it as an exclusive shortly prior to launch, yes, you and I may have preferred linking it through Steam, but beyond that... the arguments people draw into this topic are hilarious to me. Things we've never heard of, people suddenly care about. That is what struck me the most about your list - not the fact that Epic is an inferior store. Because, again, I won't deny that. But I also feel its just that: a store. I only need to go in there, and out again, as quickly as possible. I'm not there for a store, I'm there for what it sells.

As for security leaks... Let's see. Sony had a massive leak in the PS3 days. Nowhere do we see massive boycot activity like we do here. I can name you another half dozen examples of well known companies with leaks that people actively kept using (people in this very topic) and never worried about. Also, and I cannot stress this enough:2 Factor authentication. Use it. And none of this needs to be a problem.

As for history: I think people misunderstand that they are not buying an Epic Games Store item. They are buying a game license, that is pushed across the counter by Epic Games Store. Legally, you have every right to reclaim that license from 4A/the publisher should anything go south.

There are no problems here, just the ones people use as oil to fuel the fire. It is exactly as the supposed developer says: If you prefer playing Steam rather than 'our game', why should we listen to your wishes as a customer? What he didn't say but implicitly meant was: you were never going to buy this game anyway, and if you did, it would've been on your budget bin list. And it is what I also sincerely believe: this game will sell itself, the vast majority doesn't give a flying hoot about this at all, because Epic is doing just fine right about now. They are supporting a massively popular online game. Their brand is rock solid and a bit of Reddit noise won't change that.

The spin into 'Chinese government takeover' is best of it all, really. Wow. Next level :D Tencent doesn't even own a majority share. And to top even that off, the last 1.5 page went in-depth on the Russia Ukrainian conflict which is just about 100% unrelated. And as for sharing personal data, you've got GDPR these days so its not something a random company casually tends to do. The potential height of the fine alone can amount to over twice the difference between Epic and Valve's fee.
Posted on Reply
#222
Arumio
RuskiSnajper said:
So we have a 360 degree loop around the discussion and when we talked about corporations, and now reflecting back to the opinions of "One launcher for all" it's kinda not what benefits the consumer. In this system under this idea of endless growth, pure profit driven culture and the stock market casinos where competition is required for anything civilized to come out of it ... isn't it better to have more launchers, isn't that more diversity, like having more GPU manufacturers instead of just two.

///
Say it to Apple
Posted on Reply
#223
Shambles1980
i dont get the "monopolies are bad" so "its good epic get 100% exclusive" argument..
If epic has 100% exclusive access to a game they have a monopoly on that game, so how can you argue that its a good thing then but a bad thing that steam is used by more people??
i actually dont think steam has any "exclusive only on steam *AAA* Games" (although i could be wrong)
so in this monopolies are bad argument Epic is the bad guy trying to make a monopoly.

genuinely don't think some people understand monopolies.

now as i stated i do think steam need to step up and do better for devs/publishers.
And i dont care about the other launchers i just don't use them.. But have no issues with them existing if others prefer them.
Which i think is the issue in general..
if you want to make a launcher then it needs to be able to add all my games to it and not need to launch a different launcher to start my games.
Who ever manages that Will be the launcher i use..
If epic makes their launcher read my steam library add all my steam games (and non steam games i added via cd key from the dvd box) And can launch them without also launching steam 1st Then il use the epic launcher. That wont happen so il stick with steam until it does. (better the devil you know)

as for the exclusive to epic thing... thats just a forced monopoly. its 100% anti consumer and not something i approve of.
If you want to sell the game for £10 less on epic launcher than you do on steam thats fine by me. I can understand that due to the difference in steam fees. But il probably pay the £10 more because i dont want extra launchers.
If you want to try and force me to use a launcher to play your game then im just not gonna play the game, it really is that simple.

in general i don't like or approve of exclusives. whether thats on a console or pc or in this case a launcher.

i used to play forza on a 360 and i bought the console. a ffb wheel a gold sub and for what?? to play 1 game 1ce a week online. so i ended up selling the 360 and i dont bother with consoles any more.
Do i miss out on exclusives because of it?? sure do i care?? not really no..
If you want me to buy your game you sell it where i will buy it. if not its obviously no loss for you, and its no loss for me either.
Posted on Reply
#224
64K
Shambles1980 said:
i dont get the "monopolies are bad" so "its good epic get 100% exclusive" argument..
If epic has 100% exclusive access to a game they have a monopoly on that game, so how can you argue that its a good thing then but a bad thing that steam is used by more people??
i actually dont think steam has any "exclusive only on steam *AAA* Games" (although i could be wrong)
so in this monopolies are bad argument Epic is the bad guy trying to make a monopoly.

genuinely don't think some people understand monopolies.

now as i stated i do think steam need to step up and do better for devs/publishers.
And i dont care about the other launchers i just don't use them.. But have no issues with them existing if others prefer them.
Which i think is the issue in general..
if you want to make a launcher then it needs to be able to add all my games to it and not need to launch a different launcher to start my games.
Who ever manages that Will be the launcher i use..
If epic makes their launcher read my steam library add all my steam games (and non steam games i added via cd key from the dvd box) And can launch them without also launching steam 1st Then il use the epic launcher. That wont happen so il stick with steam until it does. (better the devil you know)

as for the exclusive to epic thing... thats just a forced monopoly. its 100% anti consumer and not something i approve of.
If you want to sell the game for £10 less on epic launcher than you do on steam thats fine by me. I can understand that due to the difference in steam fees. But il probably pay the £10 more because i dont want extra launchers.
If you want to try and force me to use a launcher to play your game then im just not gonna play the game, it really is that simple.

in general i don't like or approve of exclusives. whether thats on a console or pc or in this case a launcher.

i used to play forza on a 360 and i bought the console. a ffb wheel a gold sub and for what?? to play 1 game 1ce a week online. so i ended up selling the 360 and i dont bother with consoles any more.
Do i miss out on exclusives because of it?? sure do i care?? not really no..
If you want me to buy your game you sell it where i will buy it. if not its obviously no loss for you, and its no loss for me either.
The only exclusives that Steam has are the games developed by Valve and Steam is the original source of having exclusives. Origin has exclusives but I think they are only games published by EA. Other publishers have exclusives on their sites as well. I think what caused the uproar in this case is that Epic paid some other publisher to make their game a timed exclusive on the Epic Store. Also Exodus was available on Steam for pre-order for a while and so Valve thinks it's unfair to pull it at this point.

Unless Exodus bombs, which I think is unlikely, we will see Epic doing more of this in the future.
Posted on Reply
#225
Countryside
Bombarding negative reviews on a older Metro games just because the new game will be released on a other platform is just stupid and childish.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment