People will use whatever means to voice their displeasure.
Review bombing is silly, but this is what happens when big companies, with big dollars, big legal teams have big apathetic consumer stances. If you stomp around and do things with impunity the small fries will find a way to respond even if it's merely a moral victory in their eyes.
To sit there and act as if the platform change doesn't effect anybody is obtuse. Clearly it does. Reviews are the voice of the consumer regardless if they're being used as intended or not.
This whole "Epic is doing this to make Steam step up" is bullshit. Feature wise, they have an inferior product, and WAY less experience in the market. Instead of creating a BETTER product and giving consumers a reason to switch and thus legitimately splitting the market share they're undercutting and leveraging exclusives to split the market. It's their right but FFS don't go on like it's some noble cause.
It's no different than Dauntless ripping off Monster Hunter and because they can't compete with the better product they trying to go run and hide on Epics platform. Birds of a feather.
Wake me up when Epic has comparable offerings FOR THE PLAYERS and I can walk my library over to their platform. Until then this is all behind the scenes industry insider f#$kery.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
People will use whatever means to voice their displeasure.
Review bombing is silly, but this is what happens when big companies, with big dollars, big legal teams have big apathetic consumer stances. If you stomp around and do things with impunity the small fries will find a way to respond even if it's merely a moral victory in their eyes.
To sit there and act as if the platform change doesn't effect anybody is obtuse. Clearly it does. Reviews are the voice of the consumer regardless if they're being used as intended or not.
This whole "Epic is doing this to make Steam step up" is bullshit. Feature wise, they have an inferior product, and WAY less experience in the market. Instead of creating a BETTER product and giving consumers a reason to switch and thus legitimately splitting the market share they're undercutting and leveraging exclusives to split the market. It's their right but FFS don't go on like it's some noble cause.
It's no different than Dauntless ripping off Monster Hunter and because they can't compete with the better product they trying to go run and hide on Epics platform. Birds of a feather.
Wake me up when Epic has comparable offerings FOR THE PLAYERS and I can walk my library over to their platform. Until then this is all behind the scenes industry insider f#$kery.
Like I said, how is this affecting you. It changes nothing for you the player. You still have to use a 3rd party client to download the game and you still have to pay full price. Why the fake outrage.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
People will use whatever means to voice their displeasure.
Review bombing is silly, but this is what happens when big companies, with big dollars, big legal teams have big apathetic consumer stances. If you stomp around and do things with impunity the small fries will find a way to respond even if it's merely a moral victory in their eyes.
To sit there and act as if the platform change doesn't effect anybody is obtuse. Clearly it does. Reviews are the voice of the consumer regardless if they're being used as intended or not.
This whole "Epic is doing this to make Steam step up" is bullshit. Feature wise, they have an inferior product, and WAY less experience in the market. Instead of creating a BETTER product and giving consumers a reason to switch and thus legitimately splitting the market share they're undercutting and leveraging exclusives to split the market. It's their right but FFS don't go on like it's some noble cause.
It's no different than Dauntless ripping off Monster Hunter and because they can't compete with the better product they trying to go run and hide on Epics platform. Birds of a feather.
Wake me up when Epic has comparable offerings FOR THE PLAYERS and I can walk my library over to their platform. Until then this is all behind the scenes industry insider f#$kery.
Like I said, how is this affecting you. It changes nothing for you the player. You still have to use a 3rd party client to download the game and you still have to pay full price. Why the fake outrage.
Let's get this straight, for this particular game, people using steam have every right to complain.
It was on steam preorder for months.
Around 2 WEEKS before release it got pulled out.
It was/is one of the most pre order games on the client.
Can't preorder it anymore from steam until 2020.
All boxed copies are all epic keys.
This mean 4A Games knew about this for a long time.
Consumers shouldn't bend over and take it. Just like in Battlefield One, provoking your customers is not something to take lightly.
Was the review bombing excessive? Obviously. Was it effective? Somewhat yes. If nothing was done, what's stopping other's from doing the same crap. They took advantage of steam popularity, then took their product to the cheaper alternative. Don't picture them like they're doing us a favour by making this new game.
They may have taken advantage of Steam to gain traction, but Steam profited from every single sale. You make it sound like a crime, but the relationship was mutual.
You make it sound like being taken advantage off just because you gained a little from it is fine. It might not have been a crime perse, but it's scummy. Something that will surely make steam reflect for stricter regulations on games in their system if it keeps on happening.
Not everyone preorders games anymore. Many wait for reviews before plunging for a purchase. Now that option is exclusive to Epic for a year.
Leaving the Epic exclusivity behind, now apparently a 4A developer is threatening the PC gaming community due to the backlash they're getting. "If you boycott our game, the next one won't release on pc".
Seems like we're getting another battlefield one here. Such arrogance! Without the pc community this franchise wouldn't exist.
Correction, without the books this franchise wouldn't exist.
It is a shame A4Games has to pay for Epic Games and Deep Silver's greedy deals.
I think this one person could have expressed his frustration in a different way that didn't drag the entire development team with him. I've always held A4Games as high as CDPR. A smaller consumer focused European dev team that have made some of the best games in the market with lower budgets/conditions than AAA companies.
It's a real shame this debacle happened, but i 100% blame Epic and Deep Silver, not the developers.
Lastly, while i do support the many consumers complaining about the Epic Store exclusivity after it was already on Steam, i do think that the few people boycotting the game are a bunch of hypocrites. Microsoft and Square Enix did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider for XBox One and everyone waited a year until the PS4 and PC versions released and the game sold better on those platforms a year later. Just do the same here, buy the game a year later on Steam. It will be potentially bug free and have more content by then.
EDIT: i'm personally not giving Epic a cent for anything. I'll get the PS4 version and next year if i want to play more at 60fps i'll get the steam version on sale.
Leaving the Epic exclusivity behind, now apparently a 4A developer is threatening the PC gaming community due to the backlash they're getting. "If you boycott our game, the next one won't release on pc".
Seems like we're getting another battlefield one here. Such arrogance! Without the pc community this franchise wouldn't exist.
Correction, without the books this franchise wouldn't exist.
It is a shame A4Games has to pay for Epic Games and Deep Silver's greedy deals.
I think this one person could have expressed his frustration in a different way that didn't drag the entire development team with him. I've always held A4Games as high as CDPR. A smaller consumer focused European dev team that have made some of the best games in the market with lower budgets/conditions than AAA companies.
It's a real shame this debacle happened, but i 100% blame Epic and Deep Silver, not the developers.
Lastly, while i do support the many consumers complaining about the Epic Store exclusivity after it was already on Steam, i do think that the few people boycotting the game are a bunch of hypocrites. Microsoft and Square Enix did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider for XBox One and everyone waited a year until the PS4 and PC versions released and the game sold better on those platforms a year later. Just do the same here, buy the game a year later on Steam. It will be potentially bug free and have more content by then.
EDIT: i'm personally not giving Epic a cent for anything.
Obviously was speaking about the games success :P
As let's face it, eventough they're fun, they have quite a few bugs, glitches and crashes. I never read the books, I just enjoy the post apocalypse vibe so it was up my alley and I'm glad I gave it a try back then.
As let's face it, eventough they're fun, they have quite a few bugs, glitches and crashes. I never read the books, I just enjoy the post apocalypse vibe so it was up my alley and I'm glad I gave it a try back then.
The redux versions fixed most of the issues the original versions had, both visual improvements, performance and bug issues. I didn't read the books either, i started playing this game thanks to STALKER since some of the original Stalker devs formed the Metro dev studio.
People will use whatever means to voice their displeasure.
Review bombing is silly, but this is what happens when big companies, with big dollars, big legal teams have big apathetic consumer stances. If you stomp around and do things with impunity the small fries will find a way to respond even if it's merely a moral victory in their eyes.
To sit there and act as if the platform change doesn't effect anybody is obtuse. Clearly it does. Reviews are the voice of the consumer regardless if they're being used as intended or not.
This whole "Epic is doing this to make Steam step up" is bullshit. Feature wise, they have an inferior product, and WAY less experience in the market. Instead of creating a BETTER product and giving consumers a reason to switch and thus legitimately splitting the market share they're undercutting and leveraging exclusives to split the market. It's their right but FFS don't go on like it's some noble cause.
It's no different than Dauntless ripping off Monster Hunter and because they can't compete with the better product they trying to go run and hide on Epics platform. Birds of a feather.
Wake me up when Epic has comparable offerings FOR THE PLAYERS and I can walk my library over to their platform. Until then this is all behind the scenes industry insider f#$kery.
Like I said, how is this affecting you. It changes nothing for you the player. You still have to use a 3rd party client to download the game and you still have to pay full price. Why the fake outrage.
Let's get this straight, for this particular game, people using steam have every right to complain.
It was on steam preorder for months.
Around 2 WEEKS before release it got pulled out.
It was/is one of the most pre order games on the client.
Can't preorder it anymore from steam until 2020.
All boxed copies are all epic keys.
This mean 4A Games knew about this for a long time.
Consumers shouldn't bend over and take it. Just like in Battlefield One, provoking your customers is not something to take lightly.
Was the review bombing excessive? Obviously. Was it effective? Somewhat yes. If nothing was done, what's stopping other's from doing the same crap. They took advantage of steam popularity, then took their product to the cheaper alternative. Don't picture them like they're doing us a favour by making this new game.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I do hate that every publisher has to have it's own platform they try to make you install and let run in the background. I especially hate EA's origin service. Then again Steam probably charges too much for their services as a "publisher" when it's a glorified chat program forums and FTP site. There's no win here but the OP's Dev cetainly should have kept his trap shut.
What we need is a visionary (almost) nonprofit game platform like steam that wipes out all the rest and doesn't give incentive to every publisher out there to sprout there own and defeat the convenience factor.
Don't know how many times I have to say this, but ignore my steam signature, I have Uplay, Origin, Discord, and another I can't disclose the name due to NDA.
Given the option I would GLADLY buy it directly from the developer giving them all 100% of the money. Steam and Discord offer you to add games that you haven't bought from them, so buying from x or y makes no difference whatsoever to me.
This has nothing to do with having to install another launcher, and more on what I pointed out above. If they thought doing that wasn't going to get people angry, they were delusional.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
Its all YOU. YOU won, why you not happy? You praised idiots so now they are entitled to do whatever they want.
Previous metro games was small liner story "one and done" type games. They even made remastered versions to squeeze so money.
Its new "AAA" and AAAmazing devs that make these "games" these days ENJOY!
SOTR story can be finished like previous TR game in about 11hrs. (ROTR can be in 8.5) And "new" Resident can be beaten in 7 hrs. I wonder how long new Metro is? :P
I cant imagine myself spending so much money on games that can be beaten in one day/sitting.
P.S. Downvote em, downvote em more...like you do on reddit :P
I personally dont care about any of this so...its really fun to watch. First kids praise em for their lies, then they hate em...when they found out it was lie. And on next game announcement its all repeats.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
Why would the best scenario be Valve's Steam essentially becoming defunct? That's not the best case scenario at all.
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
Why would the best scenario be Valve's Steam essentially becoming defunct? That's not the best case scenario at all.
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
No shit. What do you think is the end game of exclusivity deals? I CLEARLY meant best case for EPIC when greasing palms instead of focusing on their feature set out the gate. I don't understand how someone invoking free market competition isn't seeing how playing the exclusivity game f#$ks the market up for the consumer.
Free market competition that benefits the consumer is when a better product creates a environment for improvement of the product type. Steam is clearly the more feature rich product. That's not even up for debate right now. So what did Epic bring to the table that improves the product type? NOTHING.
That's not the essence of free market competition that's the essence of rigging, and this is how Epic is coming out the gate.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
A non even start is a very dumb move by them,i cannot think with any rationality what their thinking is.SO the only thing i can think of is they are hoping for a scam job,hoping that those buyers will buy a copy for both console to get in early and then again for PC.
"Exclusive" is as poster stated a NON competitive idea that does NOTHING for we the gamer.That is a business move between the two business owners,what we look for as a consumer is better games and better prices.
"oopsie" pfft telll Pewdeepie to get the hell off my ship before i send him overboard and feed him to the sharks.
So a follow up by the publisher says do not take one person's comments as being fact for either 4A games or the publisher.The decision was the publishers alone and not 4A games.So apparently the publisher has a rather large investment into the developer's funds.Publisher claims the game is most definitely in the plans for Metro no matter what another employee says.
Something i read was Steam offers "cloud" and Epic does not,hmm can be a good point.However Epic is now adding cloud save as well and as mentioned cloud save is not automatic at Steam,depends on the developer.As i found out recently ,cloud save is not always the best idea,however it will be an option at Epic very shortly.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Admin of the forum did say it wasn't the official stance for 4A so it's pretty much one developer talking out of his ass. Which honestly 4A should fire because he's purposely goading people (which is a definite no-no for the game) by throwing down a gauntlet that he probably doesn't even have control over.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
Why would the best scenario be Valve's Steam essentially becoming defunct? That's not the best case scenario at all.
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
No shit. What do you think is the end game of exclusivity deals? I CLEARLY meant best case for EPIC when greasing palms instead of focusing on their feature set out the gate. I don't understand how someone invoking free market competition isn't seeing how playing the exclusivity game f#$ks the market up for the consumer.
Free market competition that benefits the consumer is when a better product creates a environment for improvement of the product type. Steam is clearly the more feature rich product. That's not even up for debate right now. So what did Epic bring to the table that improves the product type? NOTHING.
That's not the essence of free market competition that's the essence of rigging, and this is how Epic is coming out the gate.
Because the platforms are competing to improve the market for developers via the support and cut taken. It's not all about you. You're not the only "consumer" in this equation.
And the fear-mongering about what amounts to semantics for you is getting old as shit, like, a week in.
EDIT- your comment about their not focusing on the platform features is also patently false, but do you.
I do hate that every publisher has to have it's own platform they try to make you install and let run in the background. I especially hate EA's origin service. Then again Steam probably charges too much for their services as a "publisher" when it's a glorified chat program forums and FTP site. There's no win here but the OP's Dev cetainly should have kept his trap shut.
What we need is a visionary (almost) nonprofit game platform like steam that wipes out all the rest and doesn't give incentive to every publisher out there to sprout there own and defeat the convenience factor.
Or just to go back to physical media.
Exclusivity doesn't always work, but it is a method to get people to use a platform.
I thought about this problem a while, as I still don't see the outrage from the same perspective as the angry people, yes it was shitty they did it at the last second, yes it was shitty how they responded, and yes it sucks being forced to use a platform you might not want to use.
But thinking about it further, this won't drive sales. I collect physical games, and thinking about that made me realize, a lot of games that were "exclusive" to one store are usually rare as hell and expensive as hell due to not being widely available. If the digital market reflects this same trend, then their game will not do nearly as well as they hope. I really hope this doesn't cause them to follow through with their threat of not developing PC games anymore, but that was just one angry dev.
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
Why would the best scenario be Valve's Steam essentially becoming defunct? That's not the best case scenario at all.
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
No shit. What do you think is the end game of exclusivity deals? I CLEARLY meant best case for EPIC when greasing palms instead of focusing on their feature set out the gate. I don't understand how someone invoking free market competition isn't seeing how playing the exclusivity game f#$ks the market up for the consumer.
Free market competition that benefits the consumer is when a better product creates a environment for improvement of the product type. Steam is clearly the more feature rich product. That's not even up for debate right now. So what did Epic bring to the table that improves the product type? NOTHING.
That's not the essence of free market competition that's the essence of rigging, and this is how Epic is coming out the gate.
Because the platforms are competing to improve the market for developers via the support and cut taken. It's not all about you. You're not the only "consumer" in this equation.
And the fear-mongering about what amounts to semantics for you is getting old as shit, like, a week in.
EDIT- your comment about their not focusing on the platform features is also patently false, but do you.
I courteously ask you simple questions.
Right now beyond software offering, which platform has the better feature set?
Does title exclusivity benefit the consumer?
Is this website for the consumer base or industry "insiders", and developers?
That's pretty stripped of semantics. I challenge you to answer with one word for each.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
This is why I don't get why people keep saying it doesn't effect the players. It shows incredible obtuseness to ignore other factors.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
It has nothing to do with ignoring anything; we're just not losing sight of the forest for the trees.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but again; Epics launcher has inferior featuring offerings. Instead of competing on the feature front and convincing the player base to join that way, they're undercutting and redirecting the resource. If Steam is SO bad, prove it. Prove there's a better feature set. Prove the time investment doesn't matter. Prove the product is better for gamers as well as devs.
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
Why would the best scenario be Valve's Steam essentially becoming defunct? That's not the best case scenario at all.
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
No shit. What do you think is the end game of exclusivity deals? I CLEARLY meant best case for EPIC when greasing palms instead of focusing on their feature set out the gate. I don't understand how someone invoking free market competition isn't seeing how playing the exclusivity game f#$ks the market up for the consumer.
Free market competition that benefits the consumer is when a better product creates a environment for improvement of the product type. Steam is clearly the more feature rich product. That's not even up for debate right now. So what did Epic bring to the table that improves the product type? NOTHING.
That's not the essence of free market competition that's the essence of rigging, and this is how Epic is coming out the gate.
Because the platforms are competing to improve the market for developers via the support and cut taken. It's not all about you. You're not the only "consumer" in this equation.
And the fear-mongering about what amounts to semantics for you is getting old as shit, like, a week in.
EDIT- your comment about their not focusing on the platform features is also patently false, but do you.
I courteously ask you simple questions.
Right now beyond software offering, which platform has the better feature set?
Does title exclusivity benefit the consumer?
Is this website for the consumer base or industry "insiders", and developers?
That's pretty stripped of semantics. I challenge you to answer with one word for each.
Steam, of course. It's also been around a helluva lot longer, and it'd be ignorant to refuse to acknowledge Epic's roadmap for the (EDIT- first article I saw noted these things coming first half, but Epic does not have them scheduled that way) in 2019 (including achievements, cloud save, voice comms, etc.: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-2019-cross-platform-online-services-roadmap) when considering whether this is worth pitchforks and torches, specifically when the pitchforks is for bitching about their deciding to just "grease palms" and not actually look to improve their store to better compete with Steam.
No, it doesn't. Conversely: downloading a free launcher isn't really a detriment worth writing home about, and the exclusive Metro is for one year only. In short: big whoop, imo. If they get worse with their exclusive terms, you'll have full support of my Civil War-era sabre with which to rattle.
This website is for gamers, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the whole picture as gamers. Indeed, we should.
Your challenge is silly, and is just you trying to avoid context to make a context-less (read: disingenuous) point.
Comments
Link by Xasapis: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqq1h9
Review bombing is silly, but this is what happens when big companies, with big dollars, big legal teams have big apathetic consumer stances. If you stomp around and do things with impunity the small fries will find a way to respond even if it's merely a moral victory in their eyes.
To sit there and act as if the platform change doesn't effect anybody is obtuse. Clearly it does. Reviews are the voice of the consumer regardless if they're being used as intended or not.
This whole "Epic is doing this to make Steam step up" is bullshit. Feature wise, they have an inferior product, and WAY less experience in the market. Instead of creating a BETTER product and giving consumers a reason to switch and thus legitimately splitting the market share they're undercutting and leveraging exclusives to split the market. It's their right but FFS don't go on like it's some noble cause.
It's no different than Dauntless ripping off Monster Hunter and because they can't compete with the better product they trying to go run and hide on Epics platform. Birds of a feather.
Wake me up when Epic has comparable offerings FOR THE PLAYERS and I can walk my library over to their platform. Until then this is all behind the scenes industry insider f#$kery.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
- It was on steam preorder for months.
- Around 2 WEEKS before release it got pulled out.
- It was/is one of the most pre order games on the client.
- Can't preorder it anymore from steam until 2020.
- All boxed copies are all epic keys.
- This mean 4A Games knew about this for a long time.
Consumers shouldn't bend over and take it. Just like in Battlefield One, provoking your customers is not something to take lightly.Was the review bombing excessive? Obviously. Was it effective? Somewhat yes. If nothing was done, what's stopping other's from doing the same crap. They took advantage of steam popularity, then took their product to the cheaper alternative. Don't picture them like they're doing us a favour by making this new game.
Not everyone preorders games anymore. Many wait for reviews before plunging for a purchase. Now that option is exclusive to Epic for a year.
It is a shame A4Games has to pay for Epic Games and Deep Silver's greedy deals.
I think this one person could have expressed his frustration in a different way that didn't drag the entire development team with him. I've always held A4Games as high as CDPR. A smaller consumer focused European dev team that have made some of the best games in the market with lower budgets/conditions than AAA companies.
It's a real shame this debacle happened, but i 100% blame Epic and Deep Silver, not the developers.
Lastly, while i do support the many consumers complaining about the Epic Store exclusivity after it was already on Steam, i do think that the few people boycotting the game are a bunch of hypocrites. Microsoft and Square Enix did the same with Rise of the Tomb Raider for XBox One and everyone waited a year until the PS4 and PC versions released and the game sold better on those platforms a year later. Just do the same here, buy the game a year later on Steam. It will be potentially bug free and have more content by then.
EDIT: i'm personally not giving Epic a cent for anything. I'll get the PS4 version and next year if i want to play more at 60fps i'll get the steam version on sale.
As let's face it, eventough they're fun, they have quite a few bugs, glitches and crashes. I never read the books, I just enjoy the post apocalypse vibe so it was up my alley and I'm glad I gave it a try back then.
Nobody gives a f#$% if they want to post it on whatever platform/launcher they want. It's the exclusivity and the timing of it that's the issue.
And for the goofy ass "It's just another launcher/store" perspective some have; for people who value security it's another 2FA key generator. It's another set of ToS and Privacy agreements to be aware of. It's another potential credit info breach risk. It's another set of background processes to be mindful of. If you like collecting launchers/stores, that's your prerogative. Some desire consolidation.
For me personally, having to install yet ANOTHER store/launcher is a good enough reason to ignore a game completely. I can do that without batting an eyelash if it is not something I'm frothing at the mouth to play. I'm still not going to write off folks who are miffed at what @Bloodaxes outlined though.
If the publisher/whoever had such big disruptive nuts why didn't they pick a side in the console wars?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What we need is a visionary (almost) nonprofit game platform like steam that wipes out all the rest and doesn't give incentive to every publisher out there to sprout there own and defeat the convenience factor.
Given the option I would GLADLY buy it directly from the developer giving them all 100% of the money. Steam and Discord offer you to add games that you haven't bought from them, so buying from x or y makes no difference whatsoever to me.
This has nothing to do with having to install another launcher, and more on what I pointed out above. If they thought doing that wasn't going to get people angry, they were delusional.
It's a one-year deal specifically tailored to try and build an initial userbase within the Epic Store to give Valve some competition. Further quotes/actions from Epic have shown they're also putting heavy money and effort into increasing the features of their store to better match and compete with Valve. One title being temporarily exclusive to this free platform as opposed to that free platform seems like a silly small gripe for those of us who see the underlying why: because Epic wants to offer gamers a high-quality digital storefront as an alternative to Steam. Is that self-serving for Epic in that they hope to consistently make money long-term off the endeavor? Your bet your sweet ass it is. But that's a market at work.
And considering I've about had it with wading through bullshit titles that have no real business remaining on Steam's storefront, I'd welcome a comparable storefront that does a little bit of quality curation so I can search the cream of the crop instead of scrambling around in the muck trying to find a gem.
Its all YOU. YOU won, why you not happy?
You praised idiots so now they are entitled to do whatever they want.
Previous metro games was small liner story "one and done" type games. They even made remastered versions to squeeze so money.
Its new "AAA" and AAAmazing devs that make these "games" these days ENJOY!
SOTR story can be finished like previous TR game in about 11hrs. (ROTR can be in 8.5)
And "new" Resident can be beaten in 7 hrs.
I wonder how long new Metro is? :P
I cant imagine myself spending so much money on games that can be beaten in one day/sitting.
P.S. Downvote em, downvote em more...like you do on reddit :P
I personally dont care about any of this so...its really fun to watch. First kids praise em for their lies, then they hate em...when they found out it was lie. And on next game announcement its all repeats.
LOLZ
Are there a bunch of brand loyalists and detractors? Yes. Outside of them, PC gamers are typically all ears for what's the best product to use and making best judgement for their setups. "Just use everything" doesn't cut it for some of us.
So, best case EPIC manages to cut exclusive deals with every major game developer (it would be naive to think they wouldn't if they could), Steam gets smacked off the face of the earth. Then what? Wait for EPIC and it's financial min/maxers to decide to spend resources to improve their feature set? When they already won without them?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Best case is a continued growth in Epic Store user base sparks competition between Epic and Steam that we and devs benefit from. Again, the essence of free market competition.
Free market competition that benefits the consumer is when a better product creates a environment for improvement of the product type. Steam is clearly the more feature rich product. That's not even up for debate right now. So what did Epic bring to the table that improves the product type? NOTHING.
That's not the essence of free market competition that's the essence of rigging, and this is how Epic is coming out the gate.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Exclusive" is as poster stated a NON competitive idea that does NOTHING for we the gamer.That is a business move between the two business owners,what we look for as a consumer is better games and better prices.
"oopsie" pfft telll Pewdeepie to get the hell off my ship before i send him overboard and feed him to the sharks.
So a follow up by the publisher says do not take one person's comments as being fact for either 4A games or the publisher.The decision was the publishers alone and not 4A games.So apparently the publisher has a rather large investment into the developer's funds.Publisher claims the game is most definitely in the plans for Metro no matter what another employee says.
Something i read was Steam offers "cloud" and Epic does not,hmm can be a good point.However Epic is now adding cloud save as well and as mentioned cloud save is not automatic at Steam,depends on the developer.As i found out recently ,cloud save is not always the best idea,however it will be an option at Epic very shortly.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Don't forget to Subscribe or T-Series wins!
And the fear-mongering about what amounts to semantics for you is getting old as shit, like, a week in.
EDIT- your comment about their not focusing on the platform features is also patently false, but do you.
Exclusivity doesn't always work, but it is a method to get people to use a platform.
I thought about this problem a while, as I still don't see the outrage from the same perspective as the angry people, yes it was shitty they did it at the last second, yes it was shitty how they responded, and yes it sucks being forced to use a platform you might not want to use.
But thinking about it further, this won't drive sales. I collect physical games, and thinking about that made me realize, a lot of games that were "exclusive" to one store are usually rare as hell and expensive as hell due to not being widely available. If the digital market reflects this same trend, then their game will not do nearly as well as they hope. I really hope this doesn't cause them to follow through with their threat of not developing PC games anymore, but that was just one angry dev.
That's pretty stripped of semantics. I challenge you to answer with one word for each.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, it doesn't. Conversely: downloading a free launcher isn't really a detriment worth writing home about, and the exclusive Metro is for one year only. In short: big whoop, imo. If they get worse with their exclusive terms, you'll have full support of my Civil War-era sabre with which to rattle.
This website is for gamers, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the whole picture as gamers. Indeed, we should.
Your challenge is silly, and is just you trying to avoid context to make a context-less (read: disingenuous) point.
Something slightly off topic (?). I wish just like Metro 2033, they offered the watch for sale of the newer iterations. Looks cool imo.