Jump to content

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

Humbug
11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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

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

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.

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.

That doesn't make it a strawman.  A strawman is where you attack an argument that is not made, I only attacked an argument you actually made.

 

11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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).

I never said the system should determine that.  I said that their should be judicial precedence in this because it has not been tested yet.

11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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.

 

You are conflating who it is for,  I don't care about size, if you want to source funding for a project then you are the one that needs to do the research and make sure you are only promising what you can deliver,  amateur or not.   If you are going in willy nilly hoping people will give you enough money without actually researching your product then you should be held liable to the same extent as any other business seeking investment.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

A strawman is where you attack an argument that is not made

Oh, you mean like claiming I said that creators couldn't be ethical unless they were free to abuse the system?  That is literally what you claimed, and it isn't even remotely what I wrote.

4 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.

You tried to tie my statement about a free system (a.k.a. one that's open to abuse) to a claim that people couldn't be genuine or honest.  You interpreted something from my comment that wasn't there, than tried to counter my statements based on your faulty interpretation.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I only attacked an argument you actually made.

No, you actually didn't.

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I never said the system should determine that.  I said that their should be judicial precedence in this because it has not been tested yet.

And I - once again - said that if the judicial system gets involved, it will make it more difficult for creators because a small group of backers could decide to argue with the creator over changes and tie up a project.  That was my only argument, nothing about ethics or honesty.  That was all you.

 

Your argument was based on a faulty premise, it happens.  Accept that and move on.  I know I will be.

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't care about size, if you want to source funding for a project then you are the one that needs to do the research and make sure you are only promising what you can deliver,  amateur or not.

And I agree with you, but plans change.  Sometimes a promise made turns out to be too costly to deliver on, or they have to scale it back because there's too many issues involved.  It can be frustrating as a backer to see that happen (believe me, I know), but that doesn't mean we need the courts to get involved.  The only time courts should be involved is in obvious cases of fraud and deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I only attacked an argument you actually made.

That’s definitely not true.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Oh, you mean like claiming I said that creators couldn't be ethical unless they were free to abuse the system?  That is literally what you claimed, and it isn't even remotely what I wrote.

What you actually wrote:

 

19 hours ago, Jito463 said:

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

You are literally saying you would rather see a system that can be abused than one restrictive to actually use.  That  strongly indicates you believe in order for the system not to be abused some people won't be able to use it.  Pointing out that That is not a strawman argument.  If a system has to be abuse-able in some way to be usable then the only conclusion you can draw is that some people have to be able to abuse the system in order too use it.

 

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You tried to tie my statement about a free system (a.k.a. one that's open to abuse) to a claim that people couldn't be genuine or honest.  You interpreted something from my comment that wasn't there, than tried to counter my statements based on your faulty interpretation.

No, you actually didn't.

And I - once again - said that if the judicial system gets involved, it will make it more difficult for creators because a small group of backers could decide to argue with the creator over changes and tie up a project.  That was my only argument, nothing about ethics or honesty.  That was all you.

 

Your argument was based on a faulty premise, it happens.  Accept that and move on.  I know I will be.

And I agree with you, but plans change.  Sometimes a promise made turns out to be too costly to deliver on, or they have to scale it back because there's too many issues involved.  It can be frustrating as a backer to see that happen (believe me, I know), but that doesn't mean we need the courts to get involved.  The only time courts should be involved is in obvious cases of fraud and deception.

 

What faulty premise?

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That’s definitely not true.

I've pointed it out twice now.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

You are literally saying you would rather see a system that can be abused than one restrictive to actually use.  That  strongly indicates you believe in order for the system not to be abused some people won't be able to use it.  Pointing out that That is not a strawman argument.  If a system has to be abuse-able in some way to be usable then the only conclusion you can draw is that some people have to be able to abuse the system in order too use it.

I've already pointed out three times why this is a flawed interpretation of what I wrote.  I'm tired of explaining it to you.  You're so obsessed with proving that you're right, you're seemingly not even reading what I'm writing.

 

I guess third time wasn't the charm, in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I've already pointed out three times why this is a flawed interpretation of what I wrote.  I'm tired of explaining it to you.  You're so obsessed with proving that you're right, you're seemingly not even reading what I'm writing.

 

I guess third time wasn't the charm, in this case.

I said I would like to see all fund seekers held to the same account, you quoted me and claimed you'd rather a system open to abuse than accessible.

 

From there you are trying to argue that I am straw manning because I pointed out that your response to me can only conclude that you think some people have to abuse the system in order to use it (especially in context of my original post which you quoted). 

 

It appears you have forgotten the context within this discussion started.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I said I would like to see all fund seekers held to the same account, you quoted me and claimed you'd rather a system open to abuse than accessible.

 

From there you are trying to argue that I am straw manning because I pointed out that your response to me can only conclude that you think some people have to abuse the system in order to use it (especially in context of my original post which you quoted). 

 

It appears you have forgotten the context within this discussion started.

I think your whole argument is sorta flawed. This is a case where they were able to deliver on their promise but actively decided not to. I believe all projects seeking funds should be held accountable for such acts rather than holding all projects accountable if they are unable to meet their goals. You also state that you understand how development works and yet say that they should do their research first to make sure that they can reach their goals. If you think that people not being able to reach a goal is simply because they didn't do the research you clearly don't. The amount of times in engineering where you do exactly what you set out to do exactly how you set out to do it in the time frame and budget you set out to do it in is few. This system was setup for people who dont have the resources to get funding in other methods so mostly small time players. Your suggestion for requirements would make it impossible for the platforms intended audience to actually make use of it. It's pretty clear this wasn't a case of them being unable to keep a promise but rather choosing not to so I am unsure why you are so hung up on the whole feasibility thing tbh. Alot of their backers even said they wouldn't be that upset if this was a required move to be able to finish the game. What made alot of people upset was the fact that they could have completed the project without the extra money from epic but they still decided to take the epic money and break their promise to investors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think your whole argument is sorta flawed. This is a case where they were able to deliver on their promise but actively decided not to.

The particulars of this case don't really effect the message in my post.

 

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I believe all projects seeking funds should be held accountable for such acts rather than holding all projects accountable if they are unable to meet their goals.

That's the same thing.   There is no difference between not meeting a goal because I was too ambitious/not smart enough and not reaching a goal because I changed my mind.  

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You also state that you understand how development works and yet say that they should do their research first to make sure that they can reach their goals.

Yes, when you seek for investment there are 3 three you need to do, one is the research (feasibility studies), business plan, risk assessment.  These should be available to investors.  If they are and things go wrong (doesn't really mater why), then the investor was properly informed. However if you start a go-fund me and promise a walking robot, only promote the idea and don't provide any further investor relative information (i.e feasibility or risk assessment), then you have nothing to defend your self, you promised a product and didn't outline any conditions.

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you think that people not being able to reach a goal is simply because they didn't do the research you clearly don't.

You make it sound like I am claiming that is the only reason.

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The amount of times in engineering where you do exactly what you set out to do exactly how you set out to do it in the time frame and budget you set out to do it in is few. This system was setup for people who dont have the resources to get funding in other methods so mostly small time players.

I don't care what the system was specifically set up for, the laws should still apply to everyone and the concept that some needs to be exempt form laws (open to abuse) in order to make it work means they likely don't have a viable proposition from the onset.

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Your suggestion for requirements would make it impossible for the platforms intended audience to actually make use of it.

What was my suggestion? I believe it was simply that all fund seekers should be held to account under the same laws as every other fund seeker.

 

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's pretty clear this wasn't a case of them being unable to keep a promise but rather choosing not to so I am unsure why you are so hung up on the whole feasibility thing tbh.

 

Because as I said earlier, feasibility data is what tells investors you have done your research and your claims are within reason.  People don't understand that a feasibility study does more than just justify a product, it also helps to protect a fund seeker because investors can't argue they weren't informed of the particulars.

 

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Alot of their backers even said they wouldn't be that upset if this was a required move to be able to finish the game. What made alot of people upset was the fact that they could have completed the project without the extra money from epic but they still decided to take the epic money and break their promise to investors. 

 

I understand that, how does that change what I have said?

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Steam/Epic stuff is the dumbest gamer feud I have seen in a long time. They are both free, this is not worth caring about. Like I played Metro Exodus last week, had to get Epic for that, took a whole 5 minutes to download and make an account. There is no meaningful difference. 

 

 This is the dumbest of dumb gamer arguments. It literally costs you nothing to have both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

This Steam/Epic stuff is the dumbest gamer feud I have seen in a long time. They are both free, this is not worth caring about. Like I played Metro Exodus last week, had to get Epic for that, took a whole 5 minutes to download and make an account. There is no meaningful difference. 

 

 This is the dumbest of dumb gamer arguments. It literally costs you nothing to have both!

The argument isn't about cost, but that they were promised a version on GOG or steam. now they get a tied down version on a platform they paid not to have.

 

The bit in bold is important because as much as you may not care about platforms, some people do and specifically paid because they didn't want it on any other platform other than GOG.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

The particulars of this case don't really effect the message in my post.

 

That's the same thing.   There is no difference between not meeting a goal because I was too ambitious/not smart enough and not reaching a goal because I changed my mind.  

Yes, when you seek for investment there are 3 three you need to do, one is the research (feasibility studies), business plan, risk assessment.  These should be available to investors.  If they are and things go wrong (doesn't really mater why), then the investor was properly informed. However if you start a go-fund me and promise a walking robot, only promote the idea and don't provide any further investor relative information (i.e feasibility or risk assessment), then you have nothing to defend your self, you promised a product and didn't outline any conditions.

You make it sound like I am claiming that is the only reason.

I don't care what the system was specifically set up for, the laws should still apply to everyone and the concept that some needs to be exempt form laws (open to abuse) in order to make it work means they likely don't have a viable proposition from the onset.

What was my suggestion? I believe it was simply that all fund seekers should be held to account under the same laws as every other fund seeker.

 

Because as I said earlier, feasibility data is what tells investors you have done your research and your claims are within reason.  People don't understand that a feasibility study does more than just justify a product, it also helps to protect a fund seeker because investors can't argue they weren't informed of the particulars.

 

 

I understand that, how does that change what I have said?

Not being able to fulfill a projected goal you told people you were shooting for when they invested because it wasn't feasible is different then not doing so because you changed your mind. If you think they are the same then there is 0 point to this conversation because we will never agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

This Steam/Epic stuff is the dumbest gamer feud I have seen in a long time. They are both free, this is not worth caring about. Like I played Metro Exodus last week, had to get Epic for that, took a whole 5 minutes to download and make an account. There is no meaningful difference. 

 

 This is the dumbest of dumb gamer arguments. It literally costs you nothing to have both!

I love the metro games and would have 100% bought it if it was on a different platform. The security issues are to big for me to create an account for a game even if I it is one I really want to play. I would rather wait a year and keep my stuff secure. And if you think that epic games doesn't have security issues then you obviously dont know about the huge amount of hacked accounts that were hacked and sold for their fortnite skins. Not only that but the epic games store disallows Chinese users and is less compatible with other operating systems. On top of all of this they just said screw you to all of the people who invested in their game and decided to break their promise because epic would give them more money. That leaves alot of funders feeling used and lied to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not being able to fulfill a projected goal you told people you were shooting for when they invested because it wasn't feasible is different then not doing so because you changed your mind. If you think they are the same then there is 0 point to this conversation because we will never agree. 

I never said they were the same.  What I said was I think all kickstarters/gofundme applications should be held to the same account as any other financial/investment contract. 

 

EDIT: I see the confusion, when I said they were not the same, The reason is one is through intentionally not presenting the funder with all the information and the other is through ignorance,  neither of which are acceptable reasons to be exempt from liability. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

This Steam/Epic stuff is the dumbest gamer feud I have seen in a long time. They are both free, this is not worth caring about. Like I played Metro Exodus last week, had to get Epic for that, took a whole 5 minutes to download and make an account. There is no meaningful difference. 

 

 This is the dumbest of dumb gamer arguments. It literally costs you nothing to have both!

Quote from me in another thread

Quote

Much of the disdain comes from Epic securing third-party titles that were originally slated to arrive on platforms like Steam and GoG at launch and advertised as such before suddenly announcing the exclusivity deal.

 

If it’s console exclusives arriving on PC with the help of Epic’s deals (and these games weren’t slated to launch on Steam until after), then we’re in a totally different goalpost. 

I don't think people would be as pissed if the game was announced as a limited-time Epic exclusive from the get-go.

The Workhorse (AMD-powered custom desktop)

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | GPU: MSI X Trio GeForce RTX 2070S | RAM: XPG Spectrix D60G 32GB DDR4-3200 | Storage: 512GB XPG SX8200P + 2TB 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Compute | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro

 

The Portable Workstation (Apple MacBook Pro 16" 2021)

SoC: Apple M1 Max (8+2 core CPU w/ 32-core GPU) | RAM: 32GB unified LPDDR5 | Storage: 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD | OS: macOS Monterey

 

The Communicator (Apple iPhone 13 Pro)

SoC: Apple A15 Bionic | RAM: 6GB LPDDR4X | Storage: 128GB internal w/ NVMe controller | Display: 6.1" 2532x1170 "Super Retina XDR" OLED with VRR at up to 120Hz | OS: iOS 15.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

This Steam/Epic stuff is the dumbest gamer feud I have seen in a long time. They are both free, this is not worth caring about. Like I played Metro Exodus last week, had to get Epic for that, took a whole 5 minutes to download and make an account. There is no meaningful difference. 

 

 This is the dumbest of dumb gamer arguments. It literally costs you nothing to have both!

The crux of the argument for me is about the freedom to choose my platform. I don't want another monopoly in the game industry. When Epic's store was announced, I figured it would be a good thing that would create healthy competition for Steam. What they're doing now is just shifting the problem.

 

Whenever possible, I'll happily choose GOG over Steam because it's DRM free and ostensibly will let me install the games which I bought even if GOG would ever shut down. If Steam is down, I can't play any of the games I legally bought through their storefront.

 

Not only is Epic taking the choice away from gamers to "vote with their wallet", but they're demanding that we put a lot of trust in their servers to remain online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2019 at 7:45 AM, 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.

In both examples you are willingly giving money to an individual/company in advance before the product is available for review by a third party.

 

It's exactly the same. Both are equally as stupid only with different terms.

What does windows 10 and ET have in common?

 

They are both constantly trying to phone home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hellion said:

In both examples you are willingly giving money to an individual/company in advance before the product is available for review by a third party.

 

It's exactly the same. Both are equally as stupid only with different terms.

no just no.

 

crowd funding is to help a person or group gain the funding to develop the product, a pre-order is so you get a mostly finished product as soon as possible.

 

also again you can back a crowd funding campaign with out the promise of getting anything in return.

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

also again you can back a crowd funding campaign with out the promise of getting anything in return.

That's called charity.

What does windows 10 and ET have in common?

 

They are both constantly trying to phone home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

also again you can back a crowd funding campaign with out the promise of getting anything in return.

Or more accurately, you can back it knowing the odds of success aren't good, but it's worth the gamble to you individually.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Hellion said:

That's called charity.

exactly so its not like pre ordering is it.

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×