Friday, April 26th 2019

Epic's Tim Sweeney Says They'd Stop Hunting for Exclusives if Steam Matched Epic Games Store in Comission Rates

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has come out with an interesting commitment: that EPIC would stop hunting for exclusives in the PC platform is Steam were to match them in their 88% return to developers for each game sold. Being a developer themselves, Epic games have certainly looked into creating their own storefront as a way to escape the clutches of Steam's cut in the digital, PC distribution market (a move that had already been done by the likes of EA and Ubisoft, if you'll remember). A commitment to stop hunting for exclusives (and thus segregating the PC games offering across different platforms) is a clear indicator of Epic's mission with the Epic Games Store: to bring back power and returns to developers such as them (while taking a cut from the profits for themselves, obviously).

Check out after the break for the full content of Sweeney's remarks regarding their Games Store and the problem with Steam. I, for one, don't see much of a problem with virtual segregation of games across multiple PC-bound platforms - one of the strengths of PC gaming is actually the ability to install multiple applications that increase functionality, after all. But if the end game of all of this is simply to give more back to developers and Epic's move facilitates that by forcing Valve's hand in matching them for fear of drying profits - then so be it.
If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam.30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, publishers, and everyone who relies on those businesses for their livelihood. We're determined to fix it and this is the one approach that will effect major change.

Such a move would be a glorious moment in the history of PC gaming, and would have a sweeping impact on other platforms for generations to come.
Then stores could go back to just being nice places to buy stuff, rather than the Game Developer IRS.

The key "no major strings attached" points are: games can use any online systems like friends and accounts they choose, games are free to interoperate across platforms and stores, the store doesn't tax revenue on other stores or platforms (e.g. if you play Fortnite on iOS+PC)…

More "no major strings attached": if you play the game on multiple platforms, stuff you've bought can be available everywhere; no onerous certification requirements. Essentially, the spirit of an open platform where the store is just a place to find games and pay for stuff.

Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 25, 2019
Source: DSO Gaming
Add your own comment

224 Comments on Epic's Tim Sweeney Says They'd Stop Hunting for Exclusives if Steam Matched Epic Games Store in Comission Rates

#176
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF. I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...

Vayra86 said:
So, the free games don't appeal or apply to you. But that still does make them free of charge giveaways, and last I checked that was not a bad thing. It was not enough to lure you into EGS, all good.

Blind to shitty business practices? No, I categorize them differently, I think I've been repeating that quite a lot in this topic, the only difference of opinion we have (which is fine...) is that I don't see how these practices are all that shitty for the customer. There are no customers losing out on anything, except perhaps their key unlocked through EGS when it should have been Steam (the pre orders). That is inherent to the risk you take when you pre-order - the fine print clearly reads 'subject to change' as to what it gets distributed through and in the very same way you have a right to cancel the purchase until the product is delivered. After all, you purchased the product and the product is the game. Not the storefront. If that were the case, you'd have lost your right to reimbursement the moment EGS signed the deal.

See, there is just law to protect you here and regulation on the marketplace to do the same, plus customer rights you can easily throw into the mix should anything go wrong. But it doesn't really matter. Maybe you just don't like Sweeney's face, and that alone can be sufficient reason to avoid EGS. All that I ask from people who partake in this discussion is to call things what they are and stop dragging in nonsense to make a point. Especially when the better half of that nonsense is already debunked. Trying to paint EGS as the evil company with underhand business practices is just simply, utterly and blatantly wrong. And there have been countless examples (free games just being one of them, and only a very minor one) already of the presence of EGS having a positive influence on the marketplace.

All I really ask is for people to open up to that a bit more. Just being able to recognize that this is about many shades of gray rather than a black and white good/evil 'Steam vs EGS' battle. And again, we may not like every decision every company makes all the time, such is life. If one misstep is enough to have people boycot a whole store, and if you are truly consistent about that (the majority here, is certainly not, proof everywhere), it won't take very long until all you can play is Minesweeper.
None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.
Posted on Reply
#177
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Epic Games Launcher was originally created to deliver the UE4 dev kit and keep it updated on developer's systems. They added store features to it, I believe, as plugins for UE4. Then they added games for sale through it.

Epic isn't going to get rich off of 12/17% revenue share. The exclusives are a lot of risk for Epic which is why Sweeney said they can't afford to do them forever and reaffirmed that by saying Epic probably wouldn't be doing them if Steam's revenue share wasn't so oppressive.
Posted on Reply
#178
moproblems99
INSTG8R said:
Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF. I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...


None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.
Well, it got you to install it didn't it? Also, nothing any company does anywhere at any time is for anything else other than to con you into buying/using their product/service. So what point are you making?
Posted on Reply
#179
Razrback16
The thing for me on EGS just keeps coming back to the exclusives. To me, that's not competition, that's just bribing a publisher to only sell an item at your store and nowhere else and to me, that's very anti-consumer and as a result I'll never do business there.

What EGS needs to do is give customers a legitimate reason to do business with them. Other people mentioned free games, which is one incentive. A bigger one, to me, would be to simply sell items cheaper there. If a AAA game goes for $60 on Steam and GOG, maybe EGS can try to sell it for $50 and entice people with that - that would be honest competition. Another way would to build a better platform than Steam / GOG, but from what I hear EGS is a LONG ways from there. Either way, paying a publisher a bunch of $ to only sell it at your store isn't competition. That's just admitting that you can't come up with a way to entice customers in a legit manner, and as a result have to bribe publishers in order to get business. That's a strategy that, IMO, will likely be finite as the $$ is going to run out at some point.
Posted on Reply
#180
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Yeah, I don’t really care about the shoddy storefront, which as @64K has provided examples of numerous times, they have already made improvements and have very specific timelines for added features. I haven’t even partaken in the free games.

Why I went there is for Metro: Exodus, which is fantastic. Also they have Control and The Sinking City on May 14, two other games I want to play now. It’s not anti-consumer. It’s the store I needed to go to to buy what I wanted. I do the same thing in real life, because not all physical products are available everywhere. It takes me even less effort to go to a different digital storefront.

I don’t even pay any attention to the launcher. I use it to play, then shut it down. Incidentally that is my exact practice with Steam, Uplay, and Origin. Heck @lynx29 had to ask me on TPU why I was never on Steam. The answer is I get in to play, then get out. Playing games is something I don’t want to be interrupted on, so social features are a distraction from the business at hand.
Posted on Reply
#181
Vayra86
INSTG8R said:
Blah blah you’re just splitting hairs as justification at this point. I’ll admit to having EGS installed for Edith Finch. But that was before Metro and all that’s followed. Didn’t care much for EGS as a platform then either. Again free games equates to nothing more than more bait to entice people to their terrible DSF. I’m glad you’re all so easily swayed by some free games to use a sub par anti consumer practicing DSF...


None of this for CONSUMERS! It’s to pad Tim’s shitty Fortnite Launcher... we are getting NOTHING from thIs other than forced low rent DSF with AAA games locked behind exclusivity as bait. This ISN’T about Steam it’s about Tim’s shitty practices to make me try to use his shitty DSF. If Tim started putting games on his platform for $40 Instead $50 your argument might actually hold weight. But he’s not so you don’t have a valid argument.
I think its been explained very well how EGS benefits consumers, did you not read? (Note: you did not - or it didn't stick) Its not very hard, either, there is 18% more budget to put towards content. 'But evil publishers -' No - that was also explained earlier. FordGT90Concept also pointed out many examples to you personally of pro-consumer and pro-developer moves coming out of EGS. And I then followed up with an observation on how you casually threw those examples aside or considered them irrelevant, contradicting YOURSELF no less than one comment after the first. You just now did the same thing: free games are 3rd rate and only serve as bait, when there are thousands of reviews on most of those games that tell you the opposite is true.

You either don't want to read or you are selectively blinded by your opinion... This is not splitting hairs. This is having a discussion. Don't keep moving the goal posts when you get replies that don't sit well with your stance, just grow up a bit and admit there might be more sides to a story. You know, maybe we'll get somewhere then?
Posted on Reply
#182
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Razrback16 said:
A bigger one, to me, would be to simply sell items cheaper there. If a AAA game goes for $60 on Steam and GOG, maybe EGS can try to sell it for $50 and entice people with that - that would be honest competition.
Publishers set the price, not Epic Games.

Razrback16 said:
Another way would to build a better platform than Steam / GOG, but from what I hear EGS is a LONG ways from there.
If you're only goal is to get and play games, mission accomplished. All of the crap Steam does is of little value for most gamers (trading cards, achievements, matchmaking, VAC, overlay, etc.).

Razrback16 said:
Either way, paying a publisher a bunch of $ to only sell it at your store isn't competition. That's just admitting that you can't come up with a way to entice customers in a legit manner, and as a result have to bribe publishers in order to get business. That's a strategy that, IMO, will likely be finite as the $$ is going to run out at some point.
That's the environment we're in. If you want to rock the Steam dominance boat, you got to hit it with a wave. Publishers aren't going to take a risk on a new platform unless the platform makes it worth their while. Exclusives do that. Imagine a market where Steam doesn't exist, EGS wouldn't have much incentive to offer exclusives.
Posted on Reply
#183
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Vayra86 said:
I think its been explained very well how EGS benefits consumers, did you not read? (Note: you did not - or it didn't stick) Its not very hard, either, there is 18% more budget to put towards content. 'But evil publishers -' No - that was also explained earlier. FordGT90Concept also pointed out many examples to you personally of pro-consumer and pro-developer moves coming out of EGS. And I then followed up with an observation on how you casually threw those examples aside or considered them irrelevant. You just now did the same thing: free games are 3rd rate and only serve as bait, when there are thousands of reviews on most of those games that tell you the opposite is true.

You either don't want to read or you are selectively blinded by your opinion... This is not splitting hairs. This is having a discussion. Don't keep moving the goal posts when you get replies that don't sit well with your stance, just grow up a bit and admit there might be more sides to a story.
Not moving the goal posts you just like talking in circles with some “point” that isn’t even a point. There’s. NOTHING pro consumer happening here publishers are getting the win fall not us and if you think we are I feel sorry for you. Like is said when the games $40 Instead of $50 then you can spout your long winded nonsense about it benefiting us. It’s not and I don’t ever expect it too, but live in your fantasy world where Tim Sweeney is looking out for you...

moproblems99 said:
Well, it got you to install it didn't it? Also, nothing any company does anywhere at any time is for anything else other than to con you into buying/using their product/service. So what point are you making?
I’ll be honest I didn’t actually like Edith Finch I’m really not missing anything.
Posted on Reply
#184
Razrback16
FordGT90Concept said:
That's the environment we're in. If you want to rock the Steam dominance boat, you got to hit it with a wave. Publishers aren't going to take a risk on a new platform unless the platform makes it worth their while. Exclusives do that. Imagine a market where Steam doesn't exist, EGS wouldn't have much incentive to offer exclusives.
Not dead set on Steam, although it is my preferred storefront. I'd probably go GOG if not Steam. Bottom line, the games should be available at a variety of storefronts to give people choices.

Edit - oh and p.s. on the pricing, that's what I'm talking about - the publishers & EGS should simply work together if they prefer EGS as the platform - let EGS sell the game cheaper as incentive. Publisher makes more money since it's a bigger cut, but people still have a choice. I see Ubisoft do this with their UPlay store where they'll have sales on UPlay but the game will be full price on Steam as incentive to push people to Uplay. No reason publishers can't do that on EGS as well.

Limiting the options, IMO, is absolutely anti consumer and as a result EGS will keep getting all kinds of negative publicity. It is what it is, though, guess we'll see what happens long-term.
Posted on Reply
#185
Vayra86
INSTG8R said:
Not moving the goal posts you just like talking in circles with some “point” that isn’t even a point. There’s. NOTHING pro consumer happening here publishers are getting the win fall not us and if you think we are I feel sorry for you. Like is said when the games $40 Instead of $50 then you can spout your long winded nonsense about it benefiting us. It’s not and I don’t ever expect it too, but live in your fantasy world where Tim Sweeney is looking out for you...
So the only way you measure competition is price? That is what you're saying here.

I measure competition differently. I measure it by the variety of content we can access. The ways we can access it. The number of parties involved and whether that is a healthy number or not for competition. No single company, not Valve/EGS/Any publisher likes to compete only on price. So they find other ways to compete. A big one in that is called 'USP'. A USP for EGS is exclusivity. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

Competition is already pushing EGS into a continued improvement of their - and I do agree - 'shitty' storefront. It doesn't have much or do much, there is a lot to win there. I don't care about most of it, but the difference is clear to see. Nobody is contesting that. In the same way, nobody is contesting the argument that (timed) exclusives are not the ideal choice. I don't either. But it is quite a stretch to go from 'less than ideal' to 'anti-consumer'. I have yet to hear a single argument to support the idea that consumers were actually losing anything here. No babies were harmed in the process of EGS's launch, no publishers went broke, no devs got laid off, and no games were lost to anyone. Well, except for that minority that prefers a boycot over a purchase.

By the by, I could give two flying *(!@)! about Sweeney. I think the man is a worse PR-man than anything Microsoft has put on stage in its lifetime. The man should hire someone for these public outings.

FordGT90Concept said:
Keep in mind that Epic Games is in a unique position: they have an engine that is used by AAA and indie alike; EA, Activision, and Ubisoft doesn't let indies touch their engines. Bethesda licenses idTech engine but there's no takers in the indie market (high cost of entry indies can't afford), only AAA and mostly their own studios. Epic Games also doesn't have a large game library to push their own store (unlike the aforementioned publishers). Epic Games sees the struggle and weakness in indie while also the fragmentation of the market coming from AAA (EA has been Origin exclusive since 2013, Activision is starting to go Battle.net exclusive Bethesda tried Bethesda Launcher exclusive with Fallout 76). Epic Games saw the cause of this for big and small publishers alike: 30% revenue share. And so Epic Games Store came to be...sending shockwaves through the market, but uptake on their store was slow because change is hard; hence, exclusives to encourage publishers to take a leap of faith to a small platform while at the same time encouraging good games (which are struggling to get financing) get finished and polished.
See, here is a man that understands a marketplace and its dynamic. Take note.
Posted on Reply
#186
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Keep in mind that Epic Games is in a unique position: they have an engine that is used by AAA and indie alike; EA, Activision, and Ubisoft doesn't let indies touch their engines. Bethesda licenses idTech engine but there's no takers in the indie market (high cost of entry indies can't afford), only AAA and mostly their own studios. Epic Games also doesn't have a large game library to push their own store (unlike the aforementioned publishers). Epic Games sees the struggle and weakness in indie while also the fragmentation of the market coming from AAA (EA has been Origin exclusive since 2013, Activision is starting to go Battle.net exclusive, Bethesda tried Bethesda Launcher exclusive with Fallout 76). Epic Games saw the cause of this for big and small publishers alike: 30% revenue share. And so Epic Games Store came to be...sending shockwaves through the market, but uptake on their store was slow because change is hard and Steam already countered to keep AAAs on Steam ($10m/25%, $50m/20%); hence, exclusives to encourage publishers to take a leap of faith to a small platform while at the same time encouraging good games (which are struggling to get financing) get finished and polished.


Razrback16 said:
Not dead set on Steam, although it is my preferred storefront. I'd probably go GOG if not Steam. Bottom line, the games should be available at a variety of storefronts to give people choices.
You're under no obligation to do any business with EGS as a consumer. It's not like EGS is your only supply of food or some other essential. Fundamentally, it is the publishers intellectual property and they make the decisions where it is sold and for how much. Bitching about EGS and publishers taking an EGS exclusivity contract accomplishes nothing except filling forums with pages of drivel. It's not going to change (because *contract*--legally binding agreement) so just wait until the exclusivity ends and buy it wherever you please. The game should be more polished by that point so you're still benefiting by waiting. Just have some patience.


In the grand scheme of things, EGS is good.
Posted on Reply
#187
Razrback16
FordGT90Concept said:
You're under no obligation to do any business with EGS as a consumer. It's not like EGS is your only supply of food or some other essential. Fundamentally, it is the publishers intellectual property and they make the decisions where it is sold and for how much. Bitching about EGS and publishers taking an EGS exclusivity contract accomplishes nothing except filling forums with pages of drivel. It's not going to change (because *contract*--legally binding agreement) so just wait until the exclusivity ends and buy it wherever you please. The game should be more polished by that point so you're still benefiting by waiting. Just have some patience.


In the grand scheme of things, EGS is good.
Definitely disagree on EGS being good due to the exclusivity stuff, and discussion is a good thing, even if you don't agree with some opinions. People voicing their viewpoints when they don't like something a business is doing is largely positive as it gives valuable feedback on how consumers feel. I do agree on the games being better on Steam by the time they release due to patching and the like. I'll just play the games elsewhere at launch and if they're good, I'll consider buying them later on Steam or GOG.
Posted on Reply
#188
moproblems99
INSTG8R said:
I’ll be honest I didn’t actually like Edith Finch I’m really not missing anything.
Doesn't matter if you liked it. It served its purpose.

EDIT: You say that it doesn't benefit consumers but I would like to know what damage it has done? Who's dog or grandmother did it kill?
Posted on Reply
#189
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
moproblems99 said:
Doesn't matter if you liked it. It served its purpose.

EDIT: You say that it doesn't benefit consumers but I would like to know what damage it has done? Who's dog or grandmother did it kill?
Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...
Posted on Reply
#190
moproblems99
INSTG8R said:
Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...
But what damage has exclusivity caused? I guess I'll need to answer my own question. It hasn't caused any damage. None. It has no benefits for consumers and it has no damages. The game is available for sale and purchase. If you don't want to play Epic launcher then you can play Steam when it is released. This is the whole point. It is mountain out of a mole hill. These exclusive deals don't have any benefits nor do they have any damages with regards to consumers.

This is purely for developers and not consumers. Get used to things not benefiting you all the time.

I suppose I should say and to make money for Epic. After all, you don't work for free do you?
Posted on Reply
#191
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
INSTG8R said:
Um exclusivity? This isn’t a console...we are seeing nothing benefiting us as consumers or gamers. Subpar DSF, lack of choice, Deals benefiting publishers, where’s any of that positive for the consumer? I’ll wait...
As far as the publishers are conserned, that matters not to us. DSF allows people to go in and play the game after buying. Features have already been added from their promised timeline, with more to come, for those that need to do more than play a game on a launcher. Plenty of choice.

Going to another digital store requires literally minimal effort. I go to different digital stores for the different digital games only accesible at specific ones with a lot less effort than I go to a specific store IRL that is the only seller of a product I want. So no loss at all on any of this for any consumer, really.

Just say you are comfortable with Steam and that would be much easier to understand, instead of these other factors that literally don’t matter.
Posted on Reply
#192
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
moproblems99 said:
But what damage has exclusivity caused? I guess I'll need to answer my own question. It hasn't caused any damage. None. It has no benefits for consumers and it has no damages. The game is available for sale and purchase. If you don't want to play Epic launcher then you can play Steam when it is released. This is the whole point. It is mountain out of a mole hill. These exclusive deals don't have any benefits nor do they have any damages with regards to consumers.

This is purely for developers and not consumers. Get used to things not benefiting you all the time.

I suppose I should say and to make money for Epic. After all, you don't work for free do you?
Great! So then me not supporting what I consider anti-consumer/anti-choice is completely justified. It is damaging because it does nothing to help anyone but Epic. Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable. This is just poaching to boost Epics numbers.

rtwjunkie said:
Just say you are comfortable with Steam and that would be much easier to understand, instead of these other factors that literally don’t matter.
I have ALL the other DSFs on my computer don’t for one second thing this is pro Steam...
Posted on Reply
#193
moproblems99
INSTG8R said:
It is damaging because it does nothing to help anyone but Epic.
I am a loss as to what you are expecting. No company (and most people) do anything if it doesn't help their bottom line. Seriously, what were you expecting? If they weren't making any money on this would it change the situation? Would you be ok with it?

INSTG8R said:
Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable.
Depends on how successful this is.
Posted on Reply
#194
Vayra86
INSTG8R said:
This is just poaching to boost Epics numbers.


I have ALL the other DSFs on my computer don’t for one second thing this is pro Steam...
It is poaching! You keep repeating that, but nobody is contesting it... The only thing being contested is the anti-consumer bit. You still fail to go deeper on that point. Explain how your rights and privileges have been damaged by EGS. Beyond that, it is simply a business decision, one you may or may not like. But anti-consumer, it is not.

Note, its a business decision also for the publisher. The publisher takes a serious risk putting a game on EGS alone. That exclusivity is a gamble in true form. That doesn't happen just for a bag of money that could otherwise be earned with a wide/open launch. It happens, because interests align in terms of the task Sweeney's set for EGS in the market.

In other words, time to boycot a whole lot of publishers while you're at this EGS topic.
Posted on Reply
#195
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
INSTG8R said:
Tim’s 12% is a limited time offer...
It is not. 12% for UE4 games and 17% for non-UE4 games indefinitely. The only thing limited is the exclusives. They're high risk for Epic Games and Epic Games doesn't get paid anything extra because of it (they stand to lose a lot). EGS looks at the game and decides how many copies they think will sell at what price for the exclusive period. They take that number times the aforementioned rates and offer it to the publisher. If the publisher signs the contract, a check is written and handed over and the contract is enforceable. The publisher doesn't get any money from Epic Games until that presales amount has been exceeded. Publisher gets the benefit of 12%/17% cut immediately and thereafter.

INSTG8R said:
...there’s a reason the rest of the industry is 30%(that includes consoles) because it’s profitable.
So is slave labor. Doesn't make it fair.
Posted on Reply
#196
moproblems99
FordGT90Concept said:
So is slave labor. Doesn't make it fair.
Ouch lol
Posted on Reply
#197
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Vayra86 said:
It is poaching! You keep repeating that, but nobody is contesting it... The only thing being contested is the anti-consumer bit. You still fail to go deeper on that point. Explain how your rights and privileges have been damaged by EGS. Beyond that, it is simply a business decision, one you may or may not like. But anti-consumer, it is not.

Note, its a business decision also for the publisher. The publisher takes a serious risk putting a game on EGS alone. That exclusivity is a gamble in true form. That doesn't happen just for a bag of money that could otherwise be earned with a wide/open launch. It happens, because interests align in terms of the task Sweeney's set for EGS in the market.

In other words, time to boycot a whole lot of publishers while you're at this EGS topic.
Well go ahead, Put up or shut up! Who else should I be boycotting?
Posted on Reply
#198
phanbuey
I think epic games tried to do something good in a legitimately awful way. I actually liked their store and enjoyed the UT beta i was playing -- uninstalled as soon as they started exclusives. Ill stick to steam, MS and uplay - once they stop exclusives, ill jump back on.

I think (hopefully) Tim Sweeney is starting to realize just how much of his customer base he alienated with that garbage.
Posted on Reply
#199
xenocide
"Valve should move to our current unsustainable business model so we can stop throwing money at publishers."

Sure thing Tim.
Posted on Reply
#200
NRANM
xenocide said:
"Valve should move to our current unsustainable business model so we can stop throwing money at publishers."
Whether the business model will be unsustainable, only time will tell, since it hasn't been attempted yet. It might indeed fail miserably, but maybe they can make it work.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment