X-Com successor Phoenix Point pulls out of GOG/Steam due to Epic payday

[Sparviero]

Well I was looking forward to this game.

[Sovek]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

While I agree with the basics of your argument, goimg it’s [current year] is not a valid argument.

Actually in this case, it is. Steam launched in 2003, thats 2 years before my first custom built computer, back in the old Athlon XP days. Software at that time was simply basic in comparison to todays standards. Now almost 15 years later, we have the tools to make a good platform, but Epic didn't do it. 

 

Instead they have rushed a product to launch for whatever reason that isn't even half baked, any more raw and it would still be moving. If you ask me this like saying you're gonna deliver a 4 piece chicken tender dinner, and hand me 2 freshly killed chickens that still have the feathers and a sack of potatoes and then buying out the local restraunts so you can't simply go there for your promised chicken dinner. 

 

Oh yes, lets not forget its incredible shortcomings. 

 

I mean for petes sake, EGS doesn't include a shopping cart, most social features, and a friggin forum to post issues. And then for TD2, they couldn't deliver on the promise that if you pre-order you got early access to the private beta, nope. Steam at least has a record that they are able to do so. A forum....... in fact, I couldn't find customer support at all. And multiple security breaches, one was from a webpage for its Unreal Tournament 2004........ 

 

And the argument "But they only have a few titles" is not valid for lack of BASIC FEATURES ON A SOCIAL PLATFORM. 

 

I have U-play, Steam, And GoG, its not another launcher issue. Tim Sweeney is slime and a hypocrite, and I will not reward such behaviour. I'll support a dev all day long, but I WILL NOT reward scummy behaviour that has no business on an open platform. You know, kinda like how EA makes pretty bad games and everyone still rushes out and buys their titles. 

[Brooksie359]

On 3/16/2019 at 9:11 AM, Terryv said:

I wonder if Epic truly realizes how much damage their brand is taking with all the controversy going on. That's 2 major releases so far that's produced little besides a shit storm.

 

If it only added to option of an epic key while keeping the choice for Steam and GoG, we wouldn't even be discussing. Let's not for let the terrible way they're going about refunds 

 

I was really looking forward to Phoenix Point, but I won't support a dev that screws over their customers like that.

 

It truly pays to not pre-order.

Yeah I dont get it either. It would be one thing to make deal before promises of release on steam and other platforms but to do it after is just scummy. If a game is exclusive to the epic game store out the gate and everyone is fully aware of that then I would have little issue with that. I would simply not buy it until it went to steam after a year. If they pull something like this where the game was promised on other platforms before an exclusivity deal then I wont buy it ever. I just dont get why epic is doing this tbh. This is only making people angry with them. 

[Brooksie359]

On 3/16/2019 at 9:52 PM, D13H4RD said:

This is one of those cases where I have to vehemently disagree with Sterling.

 

I agree that Steam should clean up its marketplace, specifically from trash alongside games really just designed from the ground-up to incite hatred. A hands-off approach has inherent risks. 

 

However, I disagree that Epic is going to pose much of a risk. The only thing Valve has done in response is basically tweaking their revenue split based on the number of copies sold, where the cut goes down to as low as 20% if you exceed a certain revenue target.

 

What makes or breaks a platform is not just the number of games it has but also the number of users. Epic can dream all day long, but tactics like these aren’t going to result in a mass exodus of users from Steam, not when there is no good reason for users to try the platform out. The multiple criticisms, specifically on how spartan the platform is, doesn’t help.

 

Strangling the marketplace like this is detrimental to the overall market and if anything, is more harmful to smaller players like GoG than Steam.

 

On the flip side, Microsoft, previously (rightfully) criticized for selling their games only on the Microsoft Store, now sells the Master Chief Collection on Steam alongside their own store.

I am just glad that Microsoft is smart enough to know more profit will come if they release it on steam. Honestly I wouldn't have blamed them if they did make it exclusive to the windows store but I am unsure if i would buy it. 

[Brooksie359]

On 3/16/2019 at 10:58 PM, The Benjamins said:

Linux users lost linux support first now they can't even try to run it with steam play.

 

Chinese users can't use the epic launcher in there country now they have to wait a extra year.

 

sounds a bit hard for some users to me.

Not to mention security concerns. If it wasn't for security concerns I would probably have bought the new metro game because I am a huge fan. 

[D13H4RD]

9 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am just glad that Microsoft is smart enough to know more profit will come if they release it on steam. Honestly I wouldn't have blamed them if they did make it exclusive to the windows store but I am unsure if i would buy it. 

At least Microsoft is giving an additional option of where to buy it. Better than only having the Microsoft Store as there's now 2 places where you can get it from. 

 

More options are better in many cases. This one included 

[Brooksie359]

20 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Sure but once again it has a cost to it, you can outcompete them if they're doing that. Buying exclusivity isn't free at the end of the day.

That is extremely naive. If one company has more money than the other then they can eat the cost and still cause the competition to lose market share and its ability to compete. Look at what Intel did to AMD back in the day with OEMs they paid them for exclusivity basically their and just eat the cost to cripple AMDs ability to compete. 

[Brooksie359]

15 hours ago, Suika said:

I don't know if I worded it incorrectly or if you just passed over what I said, but that's literally what I complained about. This bait and switch is scummy and the wrong way to go about it, and one of my objections to the Epic Games launcher at this moment in time.

- Who hasn't tried that argument, though? And exactly how many major competitors have even come close to dethroning Steam? Everyone keeps citing GoG but not every developer is going to be sold on GoG, combined with not every PC gamer defaulting to "I'll go on GoG to buy this game," unlike with Steam. I personally do not know anybody who uses GoG. I have one game on it that I forgot about and never installed, in fact.

- I'm not sure Epic Games would do that, but that's a solid point for any developers or publishers without an in-house engine.

- To go back to my original point, that doesn't exactly translate to "We have a userbase that'll suddenly stop shopping on Steam and rely solely on the Epic Games launcher." It's a fair point, but way too many PC gamers already have it embedded in their heads that Steam is the primary place to buy games, and that idea is exactly what Epic Games is targeting with exclusivity.

- That's an incredibly good point, actually, but I don't see it being a point forever. Right now, Steam has some garbo games covering my front page, but in the future, the Epic Games launcher will be filled with the same garbage unless they want to completely dissuade indie developers.

- Oh, developers absolutely should throw their games on the Epic Games launcher if its free to them and they get a larger cut from it, but back to my point of "Who's going to buy it?" Epic Games is trying to challenge the idea that Steam is the exclusive store for buying PC games by forcing gamers to put it in their minds that yes, you can buy games on the Epic Games launcher. Challenging Steam is far more than building a capable client, it's actually building a userbase that wants to spend money on the client.

 

In a perfect world, building a "better-than-Steam" client is all you'd need, but the problem is more than just having a viable client and games library.

 

At the end of the day, I don't like the Epic Games launcher in its current state, and I'm not going to stand behind a company that keeps forcing developers into this bait and switch, but Epic Games has their reasons for doing this. It's still a bad approach, IMO.

I'm not informed enough to say I can assume what a future with a viable Steam competitor looks like, but I doubt it's all that bleak. I think it'll be annoying, but people will figure out what each client is for. That said, I still don't like what Epic Games is doing here.

I don't think Epic Games is planning on living in their own nightmare world where they have to constantly pay out huge sums to developers just for them to stay on board, their plan is to eventually make money from this situation. This Phoenix Point game may be an instance where Epic Games is near blatantly losing money on the deal from every angle, but want the exclusivity to build up users willing to spend money on their launcher.

 

I really doubt the future is as bleak as you're implying it to be. In fact, I'd argue a future where every publisher keeps trying to push their own game client is more bleak than one where Epic Games convinces people to stop making a new client every time they have a major game launch.

Except Valve wouldn't do that because they're already seeing growth as it is, but if that growth were to halt or reverse, I'm sure they'd start to throw some incentives to developers about pushing games to Steam. Not to mention, Valve has proper fear of internet backlash, Epic Games does not.

 

I'm really tired and tilted over a video game so I probably said something stupid ok, but I'm sure we can all agree that this practice of straight yoinking developers and games planned for launch on other clients is really scummy and unnecessary in the market.

 

I also want to point out, we're talking about free pieces of software, not $400 video game consoles. Some people are comparing the two and, I don't know if the comparison is a fair one.

Using a client with serious security issues isn't exactly free. 

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not to mention security concerns. If it wasn't for security concerns I would probably have bought the new metro game because I am a huge fan. 

The new metro looks nice, but i'd still avoid supporting EGS and their exclusive crap, and their client lacks basic features a platform should have like social features or a chat app and a forum.

23 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That is extremely naive. If one company has more money than the other then they can eat the cost and still cause the competition to lose market share and its ability to compete. Look at what Intel did to AMD back in the day with OEMs they paid them for exclusivity basically their and just eat the cost to cripple AMDs ability to compete. 

Not sure i'd compare it to an anti-competitive case, while Steam has more money and can eat the cost, Epic Games has thrown millions at publishers for exclusive deals when they could be investing into EGS making it decent competition to Steam instead.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The new metro looks nice, but i'd still avoid supporting EGS and their exclusive crap, and their client lacks basic features a platform should have like social features or a chat app and a forum.

Not sure i'd compare it to an anti-competitive case, while Steam has more money and can eat the cost, Epic Games has thrown millions at publishers for exclusive deals when they could be investing into EGS making it decent competition to Steam instead.

If epic games went and paid for every single big title to be exclusive to their platform and disallowed other stores to sell them then I dont see how it wouldn't be. I mean without games a digital store is basically not able to do business just like how if Intel bribes all the OEMs into not buying AMD cpus then it makes AMD unable to compete. If giving people money to not do business with other companies isn't anticompetitive then I dont know what is. 

[Anomnomnomaly]

Epic are not the first and won't be the last company to pull a bait and switch... So here's a little story about ubisoft I had recently.

 

Bought many games from them under the 'delux' item... that contained all game DLC (usually not cosmetics) or the season pass...

 

Purchased a game in the last sale, bought the delux version as I have done before. Install, start the game and immediately notice it's missing all oft he season pass stuff... Now I've not played the game, just gone to the launch screen, and immediately exited after no more than a minute or so.

 

Discovered the bait and switch... they'd moved the season pass into another version of the game that costs even more.

 

Contacted Ubisoft through they 'advertised' channels, inform them of what's happened and ask if I can get the season pass inc for the 'sale' price (with the 20% tokens discount, it was only an extra £8)... hear nothing for 2 weeks, by which time the sale ends and the price more than doubles.... So I start a paypal claim... they ignore it...  Eventually they respond to my original request and say NOPE.. you've played the game and ToS says that means no refunds... Just some muppet reading from the script and not knowing how to, or not being allowed to use common sense and rational judgement,

 

So as I'm in the UK, I start pointing out the sale and supply of goods acts, and the unfair terms in consumer contracts legislation... CS muppet is completely oblivious to those bits of consumer laws... NO REFUND.

 

Send official complaint... it's ignored.

 

Meanwhile paypal are patiently waiting for Ubisoft to respond... they fail... so paypal refund me.

 

I let Ubi know that I've had my refund and can they please remove the game from my account.... they continue to ignore me.

 

I actually wanted them to dispute the paypal claim, because some one really needs to challenge these ToS in court and have the proven to be unenforceable... Something similar happened with steam, and that prompted a change where they now offer unconditional refunds if you've played a game less than 2hrs. Buy refusing to respond to Paypal, I get my refund and they cut off a potential legal precedent being set. Taking them to the small claims court would actually cost around the same as the game would... but I got my refund and they've not bothered to remove the game. If I'd not got my refund... I'd be boycotting Ubisoft too... and finding alternative ways to play their games.

 

TL:dr... Most game publishers are charlatans and will try every underhand trick they can to take your money and give you the finger if you don't get what you pay for..

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If epic games went and paid for every single big title to be exclusive to their platform and disallowed other stores to sell them then I dont see how it wouldn't be. I mean without games a digital store is basically not able to do business just like how if Intel bribes all the OEMs into not buying AMD cpus then it makes AMD unable to compete. If giving people money to not do business with other companies isn't anticompetitive then I dont know what is. 

I misunderstood your post,sorry. The bait and switch after people were promised a pre-order would be available on Steam and GOG is really anti-competitive,and Epic bribing publishers into their platform and disallowing Steam or GOG to sell the games in their stores is a terrible way to compete with stores like Steam or GOG. And this is a good reason why I don't pre-order games.

 

[imreloadin]

LOL at all the people complaining about how the Epic Games Launcher lacks any meaningful set of features. Of course it does as Epic is too busy shoveling all their money to devs to get their shit exclusively.

 

Also, damn...the fact that the devs openly bragged about their deal being so good that they could literally refund everyone and still make a decent profit on it really shows how much Tencent wants access to people's data. And they say the spyware accusations are false...

[mr moose]

On 3/18/2019 at 12:45 AM, Jito463 said:

I'm not sure that's such a good idea.  I've crowd funded many projects, and as much as I'd like to see every project delivered as promised, sometimes the creator needs to modify things in order to make it actually happen.  A ruling like that could stifle and potentially kill crowd funding.  If you have even just a small handful of backers who decide to press the issue, it could tie up the project in the courts and then everyone loses.

 

I would argue if they can't supply what they promise then they should be seeking crowdfunding in the first place.  Leaving things loose like that just makes for a whole system open to abuse or amateurs.

[Jito463]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Leaving things loose like that just makes for a whole system open to abuse or amateurs.

I'd rather a system open to abuse, than one so restrictive that it renders crowd funding virtually inaccessible.

[mr moose]

56 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'd rather a system open to abuse, than one so restrictive that it renders crowd funding virtually inaccessible.

You make it sound like no one is capable of operating ethically under such a system unless the laws are so slack it can be abused.

[D13H4RD]

Here's something for ya'll. 

 

Tim Sweeney recently came out to Twitter to explain why they do exclusivity in the first place. In short, it's to help gain market traction as he believes that features don't help gain traction. 

 

Well, yeah.....sort of. See, my problem with this isn't necessarily the exclusivity itself. It's how it was done. If the EGS launcher was more complete at launch and if their exclusivity deals were signed much earlier in the game's development cycle, I reckon people wouldn't be as salty. But doing it in a way like how Phoenix Point did is, well, quite frankly, scummy. 

 

And no, Sweeney. Developers alone won't decide the battle between storefronts. Both developers and consumers will. A successful storefront can't succeed with only one or the other. It needs both; a large list of developers willing to put their titles on the platform and a long list of consumers who are willing to buy it off said platform.

[jaggysnake57]

17 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

 

Pre-Ordering and Backing a crowdfunding campaign are on 2 different levels, not even close to being the same.

 

A Pre-Order is typically a full price commitment to buy a product in the final stages of development with very low probability of product not releasing

 

A Crowdfunding campaign is a Investment into a project at its early stage of development that is used to "kickstart" its development with a fair chance of failure to reach the market. Other risks include that most are started by unexperielced groups which means time lines may be under estimated, budgets may be underestimated, ect. Also due to the fact the project is in the early stages it is almost certain that changes will happen along the way.

 

Both should be looked at with critical thinking skills to determine weather some one should pre-order or back a porject, but backing a project is 100 times more risky then pre-ordering.

pre order - place an order for (an item) before it is available for purchase.

 

investment - the action or process of investing money for profit.

 

crowdfunding is pre ordering.....you make no money from it therefore no profit therefore its not an investment. just because there is more risk means nothing

[The Benjamins]

2 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

pre order - place an order for (an item) before it is available for purchase.

 

investment - the action or process of investing money for profit.

 

crowdfunding is pre ordering.....you make no money from it therefore no profit therefore its not an investment. just because there is more risk means nothing

I have been part of some crowdfunding campaigns that I received profits from sales of the product. ( Project cars, project cars 2)

 

Backing also is not a order, not all backing tiers receive a product, and if you do receive something it is under the condition that the campaign was successful.

 

And a risk factor that is massively different is a point of difference.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I would argue if they can't supply what they promise then they should be seeking crowdfunding in the first place.  Leaving things loose like that just makes for a whole system open to abuse or amateurs.

I would say this is assuming an ideal world where everything works out. Sometimes unforeseen circumstances or issues can make promises impossible to keep without modifications. I think the distinction in this case is that they 100% could have delivered on their promise but decided against it in favor of profit. 

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You make it sound like no one is capable of operating ethically under such a system unless the laws are so slack it can be abused.

I'm talking about the potential for a small group/groups of backers to tie the project creators hands, what does that have to do with ethics?  Nice attempt at a strawman, though.  I already explicitly laid out my concerns in a previous response to you, and they were not based around ethical considerations.

5 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

crowdfunding is pre ordering.....you make no money from it therefore no profit therefore its not an investment. just because there is more risk means nothing

As @The Benjamins already pointed out, you can crowd fund a project without receiving any reward.  And that's what the tiers are, rewards.  We're not buying an already made and/or nearly finished product, we're funding the development of it.  Development that potentially may never be finished, which is why it's so important to distinguish crowd funding from pre-ordering.  Also, on Fig you can not only back a project, you can also invest in it for a cut of the profits (basically becoming a shareholder).

 

Too many people get into crowd funding not truly understanding what they're getting themselves into, only to later whine and moan because the product isn't arriving on time or is different from what they expected.  I myself have been disappointed in the final product (if it ever even finished at all), but I also recognized that I knew what I was getting into.

 

This case, however, is a completely different story altogether.  This isn't about the final product not meeting expectations, this is about the creator finishing things using the backers money, then stabbing their loyal fans (backers) in the back just for money.  I'm just glad I never backed this creator, I'd definitely be one of those fuming at their betrayal.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would say this is assuming an ideal world where everything works out. Sometimes unforeseen circumstances or issues can make promises impossible to keep without modifications. I think the distinction in this case is that they 100% could have delivered on their promise but decided against it in favor of profit. 

 

The rules apply to everyone,  If you can't do your research and work out what you can and can't afford to promise then it should be spelled out in the funding campaign. 

 

8 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I'm talking about the potential for a small group/groups of backers to tie the project creators hands, what does that have to do with ethics?  Nice attempt at a strawman, though.  I already explicitly laid out my concerns in a previous response to you, and they were not based around ethical considerations.

As @The Benjamins already pointed out, you can crowd fund a project without receiving any reward.  And that's what the tiers are, rewards.  We're not buying an already made and/or nearly finished product, we're funding the development of it.  Development that potentially may never be finished, which is why it's so important to distinguish crowd funding from pre-ordering.  Also, on Fig you can not only back a project, you can also invest in it for a cut of the profits (basically becoming a shareholder).

 

Too many people get into crowd funding not truly understanding what they're getting themselves into, only to later whine and moan because the product isn't arriving on time or is different from what they expected.  I myself have been disappointed in the final product (if it ever even finished at all), but I also recognized that I knew what I was getting into.

 

This case, however, is a completely different story altogether.  This isn't about the final product not meeting expectations, this is about the creator finishing things using the backers money, then stabbing their loyal fans (backers) in the back just for money.  I'm just glad I never backed this creator, I'd definitely be one of those fuming at their betrayal.

 

II don't think you know what a strawman is.   You actually said: " I'd rather a system open to abuse, than one so restrictive that it renders crowd funding virtually inaccessible. "  that literally means you consider it impossible to some degree that people can't start a genuine and honest funding application unless there is room for abuse.   

 

As I said above, if you can't undertake a basic feasibility study and set your goals within reasonable and transparent means like every other form of investment seeking then you are an amateur and should be held liable for your actions.  

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The rules apply to everyone,  If you can't do your research and work out what you can and can't afford to promise then it should be spelled out in the funding campaign. 

 

 

You really are clueless about how development of almost anything works aren't you?

 

There's a reason cost estimates are called estimates. They're based on the best available information at the time they are made, (lets not talk about the wide rnage of methods and tools that are all valid), but many of those factors can be and are subject to change without prior notice or consultation with anyone affected.

 

There's a reason why legal contracts involving large companies with entire teams of expensive highly experienced analysts using highly complex and expensive modeling software, (running on equally expensive hardware), utilizing large well curated, (and thus expensive), databases to draw from still include all kinds of clauses, (usually at a minimum an act of god clause against completely unpredictable events), regarding ability to deliver contractually obligated services and/or goods.

 

Small startups do not have the budgets to employ such analysis teams and very few have the in house expertise to determine things to the required degree of accuracy.

 

Don't get me wrong there are cases of companies going back on promises they are entirely capable of delivering. I don't disagree with that. But what your suggesting would kill 90% of small startups because they wouldn't be able to promise anything that people would be willing to invest in. The reality is as the size of a venture decreases the degree of certainty surrounding it's ability to deliver what it promises is going to decrease. Thats the nature of this sort of thing.

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

You really are clueless about how development of almost anything works aren't you?

 

 

Nope, quite the contrary.

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

II don't think you know what a strawman is. 

I don't know if you realize that you made one, but you did.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

You actually said: " I'd rather a system open to abuse, than one so restrictive that it renders crowd funding virtually inaccessible. "

Yes, and I had already explained my reasons in my very first post in this thread.

On 3/17/2019 at 8:45 AM, Jito463 said:

If you have even just a small handful of backers who decide to press the issue, it could tie up the project in the courts and then everyone loses.

My statement you quoted was acknowledging that people are more than capable of being greedy and abusing the system.  I simply prefer a system where abuse is possible, over one where it's so restrictive that it's virtually impossible for a small time creator to thrive.

 

Hence, strawman.

 

You created a claim that I never brought up (ethics of the creators), and then shot down that claim to prove me wrong.  Textbook definition in my eyes.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

that literally means you consider it impossible to some degree that people can't start a genuine and honest funding application unless there is room for abuse.

Whenever the laws and government get involved, it's never simple.  It always becomes more difficult for the little guy to get a start.  You're suggesting such a situation, I'm stating that I disagree because it would make the process too restrictive.

 

Also, why would the system determine whether the creator was honest or not?  Either they are honest, or they're not.  Rules won't change that (in fact, the dishonest are more likely to find ways around the rules).

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

As I said above, if you can't undertake a basic feasibility study and set your goals within reasonable and transparent means like every other form of investment seeking then you are an amateur and should be held liable for your actions.

Everyone should be held liable for their actions, amateur or not.  The point of crowd funding is that it provides a means for "amateurs" to get a break, by enlisting the aid of others who provide funding to see their project made into a reality.  It's certainly not made for the big guys, who already have the necessary funds for R&D.  Your vision would stifle the ability for amateurs to utilize the power of crowd funding.