kapone32Indeed we are going from an Autocratic gaming platform to having a democratic system based on Steam vs Epic which should be a good thing. Yet users like you blindly exclude it because it is not from the other player in the space.

Jesus, what don't you people understand about how removing a game from the wider marketplace eliminates competition not bolsters it? There is no Steam vs. Epic here and that's the problem. Your comment is completely ignorant of the actual issue. If the Epic store/launcher were actually a compelling value or use proposition for customers, then they should have no problems competing directly with the Steam store, but they can't because they aren't, so they have to pay to artificially limit competition.

kapone32There were games that were released exclusively on Steam for PC and it still happens but now Epic is doing the exact same thing and there are some of the same PC games available on both platforms.

Games that were developed by Valve or owned by them do not count. If they made it or own it, they can sell it however they'd like. Please provide some evidence that Valve has ever preemptively paid for a game to be exclusive to their store when there were other competitive PC store platforms available. If a game ends up on Steam but not GOG, Epic, Origin, Uplay, etc., that is not Valve's doing. Being a Steam exclusive by default is not the same thing as being a Steam exclusive by deal.

kapone32Yes because they didn't have to, there was no one else in the Space so developers had no choice but to use Valve and since it represented DRM everybody jumped on it.



Even if Epic is gaining traction they have a long way to go. I do fully agree with you though. I know if I was a game developer and someone offered me an upfront payment for the right to sell my game I would be stoked. I used Kingdoms of Amulaur in another post as an example of how this would be good.

It was a screw up by Digital Bros/505 Games. They didn't need Epic.

Diverge1) It's not democratic. If it were really democratic, it would be on all stores, and customers would have a choice of buying it wherever they want.
2) I don't blindly follow. I choose Steam because I'm heavily invested in it. It's my platform of choice, and I'm not changing it because I want my library in one place.

Yep, I don't do business with Epic, either. My current stores of choice are Steam & GOG. If games are not released at one of those stores, then I play them "somewhere else". "Epic Exclusivity" ain't getting in my way.

64KThey will defend Epic just like they defended Valve for having their exclusives on Steam 14 years ago but Valve didn't pay other Publishers to make their games exclusive to Steam.

Yeah, but was there any alternative to Steam for digitally distributed games ?

Maximum PC loves EPIC according to one of their articles. Am going to try it since competition is a good thing!

LightningYeah, but was there any alternative to Steam for digitally distributed games ?

At the time. No.

wrathchild_67Jesus, what don't you people understand about how removing a game from the wider marketplace eliminates competition not bolsters it? There is no Steam vs. Epic here and that's the problem. Your comment is completely ignorant of the actual issue. If the Epic store/launcher were actually a compelling value or use proposition for customers, then they should have no problems competing directly with the Steam store, but they can't because they aren't, so they have to pay to artificially limit competition.

Steam has a more than 10 year head start on Epic. "If the Epic store/launcher were actually a compelling value or use proposition for customers". What in your opinion makes it not? Decently priced games, free games, sales, discounts hmmm I think I might be talking about Steam. At the end of the day Epic is the new kid on the block and though they are shaking up the developer space by their offerings there is nothing bad for the consumer in this. Those 6 Batman titles would have cost almost $100 on Steam. So yes as consumers we have more choice and that is always good.

Games that were developed by Valve or owned by them do not count. If they made it or own it, they can sell it however they'd like. Please provide some evidence that Valve has ever preemptively paid for a game to be exclusive to their store when there were other competitive PC store platforms available. If a game ends up on Steam but not GOG, Epic, Origin, Uplay, etc., that is not Valve's doing. Being a Steam exclusive by default is not the same thing as being a Steam exclusive by deal.

I was not talking about paying for exclusive rights nor the 3 or 4 games made by Valve but the fact that games were exclusively released on Steam period. There are still Steam exclusives too, like Total War. There was nothing else, even Origin and Uplay are a result of Steam. Epic is the new player in the game and are doing what any competitor would do when trying to take on the leader in a space. Look at where they are deficit and run with that, it does not make then a bad company in my eyes.

Jesus doesn't have any god damn thing to do with this anyway.

kapone32Decently priced games, free games, sales, discounts

Yet they still have to buy out new games from their competitors' stores. That leads me to believe they aren't compelling. Epic could have just discounted the preorders and paid the developers the discount instead of also requiring exclusivity. That creates a value proposition without shady backroom deals to cut out a competitor. People who are swayed by saving $10 off a preorder would buy it on Epic. People who like getting free games periodically would use Epic for that. But don't tell me there is anything justifiable about completely preventing competition on new game presales and first year sales.

kapone32there is nothing bad for the consumer in this.

The elimination of consumer choice is never good.

kapone32So yes as consumers we have more choice and that is always good.

At this point I'm convinced you're being paid by them. For the umpteenth time, this is not more choice. If I can't get Control anywhere but Epic, that is not more choice, and they've just made the only other choice I have much more clear. I simply won't buy it.

kapone32There are still Steam exclusives too, like Total War.

There is no reason the game could not be released on the Epic store as well as Steam, but users would lose out on the modding community by being on Epic which is ultimately why the developer chose Steam, not Valve making a deal for that.

Paying for investment is better than stealing your clients ideas (as happened in the PUBG case)
They also invested in supporting the Blender foundation with 1.2 m too, just to support free or cheap software and cheap labor

wrathchild_67Yet they still have to buy out new games from their competitors' stores. That leads me to believe they aren't compelling. Epic could have just discounted the preorders and paid the developers the discount instead of also requiring exclusivity. That creates a value proposition without shady backroom deals to cut out a competitor. People who are swayed by saving $10 off a preorder would buy it on Epic. People who like getting free games periodically would use Epic for that. But don't tell me there is anything justifiable about completely preventing competition on new game presales and first year sales.

When you are the new player you have to give customers and suppliers incentives to look at you. For us consumers free games and for the developers security but it is new so it must be bad.


The elimination of consumer choice is never good.

If you really wanted the game you would have got it regardless of platform. You are choosing not to buy the game. All we the consumer see is the platform period.


At this point I'm convinced you're being paid by them. For the umpteenth time, this is not more choice. If I can't get Control anywhere but Epic, that is not more choice, and they've just made the only other choice I have much more clear. I simply won't buy it.

You have exercised your choice to not buy it on the Epic store period. There is nothing different. If i was getting paid by Epic I would not have mentioned Steam or anything else and probably would have a better PC than the one I have now too.


There is no reason the game could not be released on the Epic store as well as Steam, but users would lose out on the modding community by being on Epic which is ultimately why the developer chose Steam, not Valve making a deal for that.

If you were a developer and someone asked you if you wanted X number ($) up front until sales number are reached or we'll put it on our platform period what would you choose? You cannot say that that statement will hold true forever there are still some games on Steam with no workshop support and neither have any idea what Epic intends to do with their platform.

Don't think I am jumping on you I was the exact same way when I first experienced Steam coming from DVDs.

64KDid anyone wonder if Control would sell well? Did the Publisher wonder that as well?

Some deals by Epic fall into this category but Control doesn't imo

I didn't buy it as I am sure others didn't. Nothing is guaranteed.

wrathchild_67If the Epic store/launcher were actually a compelling value or use proposition for customers, then they should have no problems competing directly with the Steam store, but they can't because they aren't, so they have to pay to artificially limit competition.

I wish people would finally figure out this has nothing to do with consumers. This is strictly for the benefit of developers/publishers. Consumers may get a bone thrown to them every now and then but this is strictly for developers to make more money and continue to develop.

64KDid anyone wonder if Control would sell well? Did the Publisher wonder that as well?

Some deals by Epic fall into this category but Control doesn't imo

Well, its not a clear cut money maker. If reviews on launch would have been shit, this could have easily turned into a horror story.

It still is a single player game in a time when multiplayer MTX ridden BS is the easiest way to invest.

Do the naysayers not question that at any time, I wonder... the fact that type of games EGS supports are exactly the games we always say we want more of... yet somehow its bad for us? :confused:

robot zombieSeems like an I scratch your back you scratch mine scenario. Epic gets these big sought after games as a draw to thier growing platform while the studios get protected from the pitfalls of launch periods, which have a history for doing them in for reasons other than the game being bad... usually due to a combo of bad launch/reaction and predatory deals. No more wait and pray for the money to... staff people and make more games/content.

I mean... kinda making the devs/publishers offers they can't refuse. They'd be kinda crazy not to take the money if you ask me. It's not really taking advantage when both parties are in agreement. What epic is offering them is extremely valuable. Make or break money right up front. Huge monkey off of everyone's backs.

I see pitfalls too, though. Why make a game that's good and sells when you can make your money anyway? Now epic is just a stepping stone. Enough of those could bring the whole thing down.

And then there's the obvious element of how things will be when they're fully situated and this all flips around.

I say best of luck to em. A few of my favorite games are on EGS and I hope this really does allow the people behind them enough success to continue bringing us more awesome games.

When it flips... yeah that will be something to see. But I reckon EGS will just take its place in the regular scheme of things. Will they get a big share as a platform like Steam, no, I think Steam has that covered - the community part of it - and I also think Steam has the mod section locked down, though that is easily replicated for EGS exclusives. But I think EGS will keep making money and get a name as the 'premium' game platform while Steam gets lower quality / lower budget and F2P games more readily. Won't be black/white, but close enough (as it is already today, really).

I also think its a tide that even the great Gabe won't be turning around. Steam is oversaturated with nonsense and cutting back on that is a very painful affair for Valve and the userbase. The recent move where they made indie devs less prominently visible on the store will probably bite them in the ass hard - or those devs will move to EGS too if they haven't already.

Its probably too early to say this, but I think Steam is going to get a lot less influential over time, and its a good thing. It now falls to Sweeney to keep EGS 'clean' so it can keep a clear distinction from cluttered mess where no single release can ever get decent exposure. Harsh curating is key.

Vayra86Do the naysayers not question that at any time, I wonder... the fact that type of games EGS supports are exactly the games we always say we want more of... yet somehow its bad for us? :confused:

What I find the most interesting about the exclusivity, is that it isn't permanent. Don't like epic? No problem. Sit down and wait for the next 6 to 12 months. It will be a properly polished game by then.

I am surprised people are so uppity about. From the games I have, you don't even need to use the launcher after it is installed.

I do think though, since the devs are getting guaranteed money, there should be NO drm. This mY be the case as I don't pay enough attention.

moproblems99What I find the most interesting about the exclusivity, is that it isn't permanent. Don't like epic? No problem. Sit down and wait for the next 6 to 12 months. It will be a properly polished game by then.

I am surprised people are so uppity about. From the games I have, you don't even need to use the launcher after it is installed.

I do think though, since the devs are getting guaranteed money, there should be NO drm. This mY be the case as I don't pay enough attention.

Yeah there have been several games/reports about games working just fine with EGS disabled and offline. EGS leaves that bit to the developer, which is great because it also avoids the double DRM scenario.

Thinking of it, it also makes sense wrt their lower price for distribution - they are not maintaining that layer, or perhaps only on request.

JeagerSorry but I don't understand, if you don't reach your goal (here 200k) EPIC will not give you any penny ?

If you expect to sell 500k copies and getting the same deal as the Control devs($60 minus epic's 12.5% cut) they'll fork over 26.3 mil. If the game bombs sells only 375k copies, Epic has already paid for those including 125k unsold copies. Any copies sold over 500k gets split 50/50. I don't see how this is a better deal than what they were getting with valve.

TotallyIf you expect to sell 500k copies and getting the same deal as the Control devs($60 minus epic's 12.5% cut) they'll fork over 26.3 mil. If the game bombs sells only 375k copies, Epic has already paid for those including 125k unsold copies. Any copies sold over 500k gets split 50/50. I don't see how this is a better deal than what they were getting with valve.

I don't believe they get split 50/50. They get split 83/17 or 88/12 depending on engine.

Epic Game Store ?
Nope, Just Nope.

It's incredibile that after all we've seen there's still people ON FORUMS (where there's supposed to be real enthusiast/passionate gamers) that try their hardest to defend Epic using the free games , the regional pricing, and other completely retarded stuff as an excuse, this industry is really headed down and there seem to be no saving it.

Vayra86Its probably too early to say this, but I think Steam is going to get a lot less influential over time, and its a good thing. It now falls to Sweeney to keep EGS 'clean' so it can keep a clear distinction from cluttered mess where no single release can ever get decent exposure. Harsh curating is key.

You hit on something there that jogged my brain... Steam does have a serious problem with their vetting process... well, in a sense they do. On one hand it's a big melting pot and big aggregates are always where the cultural anomalies pop-up - one big point of convergence is always needed and frankly I don't see that changing, nor do I think it has to. But when all you have at the center is a melting pot with a small cluster of copycat outliers, people get disillusioned and sometimes talent just gets devoured. "Cult of the Amateur"... a book by Andrew Keen and also probably a fitting description. Bit of an odd book imo but it works here. With that comes all manner of filth and just poor quality content that you then have to sift through because at some point it becomes all momentum. With both the community and the library, you get enough people contributing to such a big pool and you lose control of its identity. Again, not a bad thing, but not without major drawbacks... namely that it just becomes a big fucking mess. On one hand you have a shining beacon and defacto home to all that is good. On the other, there is a fucking sinkhole with a cesspool at the bottom surrounding the beacon. So it really is both simultaneously.

So that's a real problem. Wading the pool is exhausting sometimes. It would be nice to be able to go in, pick from a smaller variety of surer bets, and continue with life. I think that's not so much an issue with Steam as it is the lack of an antecedent. Let's just say "They get by." regardless, heh. Epic has quickly built a model that is deeply contingent on careful curation... not so much in the sense that they aim to be a source of 'premium' games - it's not their implicit namesake, but rather in the sense that if the quality of the games they select for exclusives is not up to snuff, they go completely under after basically giving all of their capital away. Their survival is dependent on careful curation and favorable negotiations with people who provide stuff on the level necessary for everyone to make out well. They still need to go over well and even more importantly for them, sell well. They've pretty much bet everything on that (which to me says a lot about what they're going for... more on that in a minute.) I think that just so happens to be a pretty good way of keeping them in check... because backing seedy or just crappy games actually has immediate and long-term consequences for them, whereas Steam can keep puffing along no matter what games flood the platform. I wonder if that was a real consideration for them or if it just so happens to serve as an unwitting balancer for their platform. It's pretty unique now that I think about it that way.

It just made me wonder... if maybe by chance they might now gain a reputation for being a bit more cautious picking games to the point where they may continue to do so after their business model moves away from the capital-driven one they have now to something more cyclic and sustainable. Maybe that could be their thing. That in itself would be a pretty distinguishing feature. And one that a lot of people would likely appreciate. Not to mention it would put them in their own category, free to operate as they please without disrupting anything. I really do wonder about their intent there. I think they had to know how they would come off with their tactics, but the place they're trying to get to may not be as disruptive as it seems right now. They sure don't try to hide it well. People accuse them of being shady, but it's really all out on the open. This isn't some backroom shit, it's public knowledge. They're acting like they have nothing to hide, which again makes you wonder what their goal is. If they wanted to take the market by force, they might've considered adopting a little more... 'finesse' lol.

I dunno... just rambling nonsense. I see the potential in them being kind of in their own arena, perhaps serving a niche that's been in need of attention for a while. It would at least be a solid endgame for them... to ultimately settle into a position where they are not directly competing with Steam and don't need to. When you look at it that way, it's easy to conceive that they're taking the only route currently available to that point. Makes more sense to me than one ever beating out the other. People make a lot of comparisons there and bring up the ethics in competition between the two as though it must be one or the other... as though that's what Epic wants it to be about, but what if that's not Epic's goal? I personally don't get that vibe. Sometimes I really don't think it is quite what they want... or if it was, they don't seem to be in much of a hurry on many fronts. As many people have pointed out, it's like they're not even trying to offer anything that would sway you away from Steam. The launcher is so different, they're not as community oriented, they're not concentrating on features. A lot of people ask "why" as though these are things that are no-brainier things that they must do if their intent is to compete. But then, why indeed? You know? Why if they are attempting to compete with Steam are they simply snatching up exclusives and offering essentially nothing but the games themselves? It doesn't make sense if we are to assume the former. To me, it looks like they are attempting to build a library that stands out from the rest. Or at least, that has been their main accomplishment thus far. I wonder if they even care about becoming the next Steam. At least, from a survival standpoint it would be smarter not to fall on dominance to see them through. Very high likelihood of catastrophic failure, there.

Many people assert they're just trying to take a piece of the pie by force and pull the wool over all of our eyes. And maybe that's true. But if it is, they will undoubtedly fail, being that they are still the little guy. It's only a matter of time until they're eaten alive if this is truly all they have in mind. That notion puts them on the wrong side of a power dynamic, when where they really want to place high is on a competency hierarchy. If they can do one or two things really well, they don't have to win the whole damned enchilada to be massively successful. A big part of me can't help but think they choose to pursue the things they do and avoid the rest for a reason. Sure, they're going hard for a piece of the pie right now... that's just a necessity for survival early on... nothing short of aggressive moves will get you there in time. You kind of either take off fast or never make it off the ground in their world. Something tells me they must have their reasons, for what is a pretty strange way to piece together a launcher and establish yourself as a distributor. There must be a larger vision behind what they're doing... that they're probably very wisely not showing right now. I don't know if it's nefarious or not. It may just be that they want to take their piece of the pie and do something a little different with it, but still being in their infancy just can't afford to go there or take those chances. It's all they can do to string-up the heart of what they want to offer.

*shrugs* it's been pretty interesting so far. Gotta hand it to em for really shaking things up. Good or bad outcomes ahead, this was needed and important lessons will be learned. Honestly, I'd be happy to see them turn out as a no-bullshit, feature-light distributor with nothing on offer but good games. Maybe a bit optimistic, but I think that might be what they're ultimately shooting for. Imagine that! A distributor that put their main emphasis on maintaining a tight channel of quality games with good variety. Imagine if somebody did that and made their whole operation all about that and nothing else. That would be pretty sweet. Whether that'll happen, I have no clue lol. I'm sort of reaching here, but I'm nowhere near a conclusion. I think it's still too soon to really make sense of what they're up to just yet. Some good and some bad to it, for sure.

Big grain of salt. But that's the same reason I'm also not jumpy about it. I'm more just, "Hmm... well let them try and we'll see what they do." I'm trying to wrap my head around the ethos in the room when these people decided to go through with everything they have. What would they be thinking about that would make them think it was a good idea and spur them on? People say follow the money... which is like DUHH. But it can never just be about that. You only operate for profit and you ironically wind-up losing it. So to me there has to be more to it than just wanting to take some sales by force. They must have bigger ambitions than that. And to figure those out you have to think less about intent and look more at the outcomes sown... and in more than one way, too! None of these entities exist solely as greed machines. There has to be an underlying identity. A presence to the name. What will that be for Epic?

This is not difficult to see what is going on.

They are working to give developers an alternative place to sell games and make more money. However, that doesn't just happen overnight. In order for games to sell, you need to have buyers. In order to have buyers you need to have games. People likely aren't going to buy games on Epic because people are entrenched with their libraries and don't like change.

Epic needed to provides an incentive to get people to buy games on EGS in order to have a bigger audience to get developers to take the plunge to EGS and hopefully then Unreal Engine. How do you that? Play people against their own selves with exclusives. Will people care enough to have to wait 6 months to a year?

The other thing they needed to do was to show developers that they could be successful on EGS. But how do you get the developers to jump on the wagon when their literal jobs depend on it? Take the risk out of it by paying the developers up front. As other developers see successful launches, terms become favorable for each party.

I'm pretty sure Epic has been planning and researching "gamers" and know exactly who they are dealing with. After watching Steam ram whatever they wanted down developers throats and up "gamers" asses, they figured this wasn't going to be too difficult to pull off.

moproblems99Epic needed to provides an incentive to get people to buy games on EGS in order to have a bigger audience to get developers to take the plunge to EGS and hopefully then Unreal Engine.

Unreal Engine isn't Epic's goal. Making sure good games make it to market and everyone that contributed get their dues is Epic's goal. Developers put years of their blood sweat and tears into games, only to have it release on Steam with a hundred other competitors and get diddly squat for sales and whatever they do manage to sell, Valve runs away with 30% for the pleasure of getting robbed.

EGS confronted these problems with many, simultaneous strategies:
1) Curation: they will not accept shovelware (which is rampant on Steam).
2) 12% share, waiving the 5% UE4 share if you're using that engine: Sweeney sees the industry standard of 30% as stifling.
3) Exclusivity contract: protection against bad launches, helps developers get the game across the finish line, provides a marketing budget for publishers, helps promote EGS.


Keep in mind that Discord launched a game store that matches EGS in #1 and #2...but not #3. #3 is what made EGS a competitive platform in a short timeframe. It's attractive to publishers big and small because Sweeney knows the game market we're in better than Discord. Valve should know better but GabeN is sipping wine from atop his mountain of cash and he couldn't care less what sort of misery the ants below are wallowing in as long as the mountain continues to grow.

FordGT90ConceptUnreal Engine isn't Epic's goal. Making sure good games make it to market and everyone that contributed get their dues is Epic's goal. Developers put years of their blood sweat and tears into games, only to have it release on Steam with a hundred other competitors and get diddly squat for sales and whatever they do manage to sell, Valve runs away with 30% for the pleasure of getting robbed.

EGS confronted these problems with many, simultaneous strategies:
1) Curation: they will not accept shovelware (which is rampant on Steam).
2) 12% share, waiving the 5% UE4 share if you're using that engine: Sweeney sees the industry standard of 30% as stifling.
3) Exclusivity contract: protection against bad launches, helps developers get the game across the finish line, provides a marketing budget for publishers, helps promote EGS.


Keep in mind that Discord launched a game store that matches EGS in #1 and #2...but not #3. #3 is what made EGS a competitive platform in a short timeframe. It's attractive to publishers big and small because Sweeney knows the game market we're in better than Discord. Valve should know better but GabeN is sipping wine from atop his mountain of cash and he couldn't care less what sort of misery the ants below are wallowing in as long as the mountain continues to grow.

You are extremely naive if you think EGS's goal is to give developers more money. EPIC, the same company that abandoned the PC to make console games? EPIC the same company that forced it's employees to work extreme crunch hours? Aside from the clear ethical issues the company has, they are a publicly traded company so in fact their ultimate goal is to make their shareholders as much money as possible, the same as any publically traded company. Steam is a private, it does not need to appease shareholders.

FYI Steam charges 0% for steam keys sold outside the steam store. GreenManGaming, CDKeys, Kinguin. Steam gets 0% for sales on those platform yet still provides steam service for those keys. By allowing the sale of keys on 3rd party marketplaces, steam actively allows other marketplaces to compete with them.

And yes I'm sure PC gamers want EPIC to decide what they can and can't play. No, fuck EPIC and their Apple like walled garden BS. You completely misrepresent steam and are disillusional about EPIC. They aren't here to bring competition to the market, they are here to make $$$. They have never given 2 shits about the PC market besides how much it will fill their wallet.

evernessinceYou are extremely naive if you think EGS's goal is to give developers more money.

It's true. Epic doesn't get paid if developers/publisher can't sell their product.

evernessinceEPIC, the same company that abandoned the PC to make console games?

They made a lot of PC games: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games

evernessinceEPIC the same company that forced it's employees to work extreme crunch hours?

That's systemic to the industry. I can't name a studio off the top of my head that doesn't.

evernessinceAside from the clear ethical issues the company has, they are a publicly traded company so in fact their ultimate goal is to make their shareholders as much money as possible, the same as any publically traded company.

You're wrong. It's private with Tim Sweeney holding >50% stake and Tencent having a 40% stake (one-time investment).

evernessinceSteam is a private, it does not need to appease shareholders.

GOG is public, who is complaining about them? Your argument is moot.

evernessinceFYI Steam charges 0% for steam keys sold outside the steam store. GreenManGaming, CDKeys, Kinguin. Steam gets 0% for sales on those platform yet still provides steam service for those keys. By allowing the sale of keys on 3rd party marketplaces, steam actively allows other marketplaces to compete with them.

Guess what? EGS is the same way. So is GOG. So is Discord. These distributors acknowledge that that the publisher owns the IP so the distributor can't be seen as restricting access to their own IP or their relationship will sour fast.

evernessinceAnd yes I'm sure PC gamers want EPIC to decide what they can and can't play.

What? Either you buy a timed exclusive on EGS or you wait and get it at your store of choice. Why is that a problem?

evernessinceYou completely misrepresent steam and are disillusional about EPIC.

For the record I don't like any of the stores but I am familiar enough with the industry to know that Steam has become cancerous to developers and EGS is providing a solution.

evernessinceThey aren't here to bring competition to the market, they are here to make $$$.

They're doing both. Steam actually reduced their profit share on their big sellers as a direct response to losing business to EGS and everyone jumping on the EGS bandwagon is making more bank than they ever did on Steam.

i like the approach

maker get the money in advance so can fund another project without having in mind the critical part of their businesses- is the game selling well?

is easier to work having the next project funded from the start vs checking how the game sell and waiting incomes from sales drop by drop....

i see it like a compromise even if means that only one store will sale the game; maybe in the future they'll change this and developer can sell on other stores also after reaching a number of sold games f.ex.4-500000 or when sales drop drastically (after the agreed 200000)