Borderlands 3 will be exclusively on the Epic store for the first 6 months

[Aimi]

Just now, nnfancois said:

i just get the free games  on epic so they dont get money lel

Sure they might steal your data, but at least you didn't pay for a game or two!

[Tsuki]

4 hours ago, poochyena said:

Why? Whats the problem with this? There is no difference at all between buying on steam or epic store.

im all for competition. but an exclusivity contract is not competition.

if they want their own games to only be on their platform, thats okay. (ie. fortnite on epic launcher, assassins creed on uplay, mass effect on origin, Overwatch on Battle.net). i dont have an issue with that.  The problem is that they are creating contact(with insanely good benefits), to only sell on their store.   

Image if Newegg paid Corsair to only sell their products on Newegg, not on amazon, or at best buy or frys, or anywhere else, for the first 6-12 months of a products release.

Thats exactly whats happening here, and its bullshit.

 

GoG is an example of good competition. the game in on GoG, and on Steam, i can choose to purchase it wherever i want. if i like all my games in one place and dont want extra launchers, i can get it on Steam. but if i prefer to be DRM free, i can get it on GoG. the consumer is given the choice, with each option having its positives and negatives.

 

Epic is using exclusivity contracts to get games, and sales, instead of making a good platform.  This forces the consumer to use their launcher, rather than giving them the choice. and again, for their own IP's like Fortnite, Infinity Blade, or even Gears of War, that would be fine. Thats their own games and they have that right. Just like only being able to buy Amazon Basics stuff, from Amazon.  No problems there.  But dont do that shit with other devs games. Especially when the only "option" im given, is chinese spyware.

 

 

[alicskysareblue]

4 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

For the moment the only misgivings I have with Epic games is Tencent and by extension the Chinese communist party, which will remain a concern as long as there is potential for access and sway to be held over EPIC.  Couldn't care less if its 'exclusive' to one launcher over another on PC otherwise, nor can I blame devs/publishers for working with a storefront that allows them to get a larger piece of the pie over another.

Do not understand the loyalty to steam people have when shrieking about exclusive non-exclusives like this.  Its on PC.  PC isn't locked out.  Most of the uproar stinks of Valve propaganda making use of useful idiots to charge hills for them and Gabens profits.

for me the exclusivity deal would less of an issue, albit  still annoying, if the epic store had better user security as well as a better return policy.

anyways, i long got tired of borderlands, the only game I really care about is the outer worlds, and i'll just get it on the xbox

[Dash Lambda]

41 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes, ideally, we'd be a proper steam competitor through free and open market forces alone. But that didn't happen. I'd rather Epic store exist then not exist. People will decide with their wallets whether Epic will succeed now.

I'd actually rather it not exist.

 

Competition is generally good, yeah, but what effect exactly is the Epic store gonna have? They, along with most of the other launchers, aren't trying to offer a better product than Valve. They're not trying to compete constructively, they're just trying to control consumers in a way that's beneficial to them.

 

I mean, what advantage does the Epic store have? Their feature set is pathetic, their infrastructure isn't any better, they haven't earned more consumer trust (and the way they're going they probably never will), nothing like that... It's purely monetary incentives for developers.

 

I do think developers deserve as big a cut of the revenue as they can get, and I think it's good that Valve has pressure to give them more. But other than that, the Epic store isn't offering anything except manipulative business practices.

 

Hell, before the Epic store it wasn't any better. One of the biggest reasons EA and Ubisoft made their own was Valve's policy on microtransactions. I respect GOG because they actually try to offer something different (and in some ways better), but they're the weird one...

 

It's like if, instead of making a better product, AMD tried to compete with Intel by buying all the silicon suppliers. Yeah, Intel would be pressured to do something, but... Is that really good competition?

[Brooksie359]

4 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

im all for competition. but an exclusivity contract is not competition.

if they want their own games to only be on their platform, thats okay. (ie. fortnite on epic launcher, assassins creed on uplay, mass effect on origin). i dont have an issue with that.  The problem is that they are creating contact(with insanely good benefits), to only sell on their store.   

Image if Newegg paid Corsair to only sell their products on Newegg, not on amazon, or at best buy or frys, or anywhere else, for the first 6-12 months of a products release.

Thats exactly whats happening here, and its bullshit.

 

GoG is an example of good competition. the game in on GoG, and on Steam, i can choose to purchase it wherever i want. if i like all my games in one place and dont want extra launchers, i can get it on Steam. but if i prefer to be DRM free, i can get it on GoG. the consumer is given the choice, with each option having its positives and negatives.

 

Epic is using exclusivity contracts to get games, and sales, instead of making a good platform.  This forces the consumer to use their launcher, rather than giving them the choice. and again, for their own IP's like Fortnite, Infinity Blade, or even Gears of War, that would be fine. Thats their own games and they have that right. Just like only being able to buy Amazon Basics stuff, from Amazon.  No problems there.  But dont do that shit with other devs games. Especially when the only "option" im given, is chinese spyware.

 

 

I think your analogy isn't quite right. It would be more along the lines of the new AMD cpus only being sold on craigslist for the first 6 months. Because epic game launcher has about as much security as meeting a random stranger for a deal. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Aimi said:

Sure they might steal your data, but at least you didn't pay for a game or two!

it doesn't matter what are they going to steal my phub videos? XD(Jk im upgrading my pc soon anyways)

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, nnfancois said:

it doesn't matter what are they going to steal my phub videos? XD(Jk im upgrading my pc soon anyways)

Nope just all your steam data. 

[kirashi]

5 hours ago, I-r0k said:

Soure

The game will also be available on PS4 and Xbox. This seems to be just Epic trying to gain a better foothold to compete with Steam. Many games are also moving platforms due to the reduced cuts that Epic takes.  I think that I’m not going to buy the game anyway, mostly because I don’t have $60. I do see how this could upset some people thought. What are your thoughts? Is it a good idea to have exclusive 6 month contacts like this?

Cool story; just means I'll be waiting until it comes out on Steam. Why? Because I don't want to forever have to launch 9000 different game launchers because I was unable to purchase the game on a single platform for convenience. I'm not opposed to supporting other platforms, but if I can't move the game to a unified platform later, no deal.

[TetraSky]

Saw this coming a mile away... 2K got tempted with that fortnite money.

 

The more places your game is available to be bought and played from, the better for everyone.

Platform exclusivity is just anti-consumer and frankly, a dumb idea for publishers because pirates will use any excuse possible to not buy a game, since piracy is a distribution/service problem. (and we all know that the EGS is not even on Steam's level in terms of features and what not) 

 

I sure as hell am not going to be using EGS, not after everything we've heard from that store here in the tech news section of the forum.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Nope just all your steam data. 

N-NANI NOT MY STEAM DATA I HAVE OVER 700 HOURS OF GMOD!

[dalekphalm]

47 minutes ago, Suika said:

If we have to be exact, then we can correct that bit to "timed exclusivity agreements with external publishers and developers."

I would agree with that description.

42 minutes ago, Aimi said:

Important difference here is that HL2, Portal, CS:GO are first party. Games like Metro Exodus and Borderlands 3 are third party though, and essentially being bought out to only be distributed on this one platform.

Agreed - the fact that they are first party titles is an important distinction.

42 minutes ago, Aimi said:

Also worth noting that Valve has released console versions of their games, so it's not exactly exclusive to Steam on PC.

That's fair, but some of the paid timed exclusives (including BL3) are heading to console too.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I'd actually rather it not exist.

That's your prerogative. Others - myself included, disagree.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Competition is generally good, yeah, but what effect exactly is the Epic store gonna have? They, along with most of the other launchers, aren't trying to offer a better product than Valve. They're not trying to compete constructively, they're just trying to control consumers in a way that's beneficial to them.

They will. It's simply a matter of time before market forces dictate that Epic has to reach feature parity (or close to it).

 

If, in, say, 2 years time, and they still are lacking all of Steam's major features? Blast em.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I mean, what advantage does the Epic store have? Their feature set is pathetic, their infrastructure isn't any better, they haven't earned more consumer trust (and the way they're going they probably never will), nothing like that... It's purely monetary incentives for developers.

Let's be honest, the vast majority of users would still use the Steam store and launcher, even if Epic was at total feature parity.

 

Having everything in one place frankly I think is the thing people value most out of Steam. All the other features are nice, but they're just icing on the cake.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I do think developers deserve as big a cut of the revenue as they can get, and I think it's good that Valve has pressure to give them more. But other than that, the Epic store isn't offering anything except manipulative business practices.

That's assuming a 12% cut is even sustainable for an e-Store. We'll see in the long run.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Hell, before the Epic store it wasn't any better. One of the biggest reasons EA and Ubisoft made their own was Valve's policy on microtransactions. I respect GOG because they actually try to offer something different (and in some ways better), but they're the weird one...

GoG is very much a niche. Glad they found their place, but not many other stores are going to be able to capitalize the same way.

 

Indeed, EA and Ubi made their own, and people hated them for it. I remember when Origin launched for BF (BF3? BF4? I don't recall which), and people lost their minds because they had to install a new platform/launcher.

33 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

It's like if, instead of making a better product, AMD tried to compete with Intel by buying all the silicon suppliers. Yeah, Intel would be pressured to do something, but... Is that really good competition?

Not really equivalent, but I get the idea you're suggesting.

 

Listen, I don't disagree that exclusives aren't great. But I personally feel that more competition outweighs that.

 

Give Epic a year or two. If they're still around, and popular? Well, they did it. But if people decide that their business practices are no good? The market will decide.

[S w a t s o n]

Well guess I dont need to build a new pc if I'm not playing any games.

 

First they came for Metro Exodus, then The Outer Worlds, now Borderlands 3.

 

Suck a fat one, Epic Games

[poochyena]

2 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Steam has a very friendly system for user-generated content and mods, which can only be relied on for Steam games.

Do you need steam to use those mods? I thought steam simply hosted the mods.

The rest of what you mentioned is extremely minor that would affect very few people.

2 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

there are important features that just won't work

such as?

1 hour ago, Terryv said:

Here's a list of missing features as compared to steam.

You can use both for free though. Its not a this or that thing. Most of those steam features, you don't even need to download the steam client to even use. Very little affect on actually playing games.

1 hour ago, PacketMan said:

Because it's an anti-competitive practice

Its a pro-competition practice. Just look at all these comments of people saying they would never buy from anyone other than steam. This encourages people to use other platforms, allowing companies to compete with steam.

 

1 hour ago, Tsuki said:

Thats their own games and they have that right. Just like only being able to buy Amazon Basics stuff, from Amazon.  No problems there.  But dont do that shit with other devs games.

 

Whats the difference? Amazon doesn't actually make Amazon basics stuff. They just buy the exclusivity of that item, no different than what Epic is doing.

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

Its a pro-competition practice. Just look at all these comments of people saying they would never buy from anyone other than steam. This encourages people to use other platforms, allowing companies to compete with steam.

No screwing over your fans to take some Fortnite money from Epic so the game is exclusive to their store isn't competition at all.

I wanted to buy Borderlands 3, I'm not going to as I'd rather not support publishers that are doing exclusive deals.

[Tsuki]

12 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Whats the difference? Amazon doesn't actually make Amazon basics stuff. They just buy the exclusivity of that item, no different than what Epic is doing.

Its amazon branded though. even if they arent the ones that make it, its their product.

corsair doesnt make their own coolers, they just rebrand them. its still a "corsair product" though.

 

i do appreciate that you ignored every other part of my post though, especially the important ones.  i honestly cant explain the issue to you any better than i already have, and i figured it was pretty clear. the fact that you still dont understand tells me there is no point in continuing the conversation.  you just wont get it. please continue to support an anti-consumer, anti-competitive, spyware application run by the chinese government. 

[IAmAndre]

I don't mind since I never buy a game on release date. Now does it mean that it will be discounted when it arrives on Steam 6 months later?

[Bouzoo]

Seems like people still can't grasp that locking the content on one platform is not CoMpeTiTioN. They aren't competing with anyone except themselves. You want competition? Put it on as many platforms as possible and let people decide? It's probably gonna be Steam 90%+? Then let it be so, it's gonna be their fault when Valve decides to do something stupid and everyone will be *insert shocked Pikachu face here*.

 

I am in favor of Valve logic from 2013:

Quote

This will also apply to third-party titles, Valve’s Anna Sweet told us. “Whenever we talk to third-party partners, we encourage them to put their games in as many places as possible, including not on our platforms," she said. "Because we think that customers are everywhere, and they want to put their games wherever customers are. That would go against our whole philosophy, to launch something that’s exclusive to SteamOS or Steam machines.”

 

[Sparviero]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

Seems like people still can't grasp that locking the content on one platform is not CoMpeTiTioN. They aren't competing with anyone except themselves. 

Competing against yourself? Plenty of competition according to cable companies. 

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, Sparviero said:

Competing against yourself? Plenty of competition according to cable companies. 

Honestly, I am not even sure where to start on bullshit from telco/tv/media companies.

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

2 it is competition just not the competition that you want

First up this is in no way a competition, its just a anti-competitive practice to try and force their way into a market and it wont end well... Secondly, im not the only one who wants this cancer to stop.

[LostElric]

3 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Seems like people still can't grasp that locking the content on one platform is not CoMpeTiTioN. They aren't competing with anyone except themselves. 

Aren't they literally competing with every other digital game distribution platform?  2k and Gearbox never said they weren't going to make the game unless Epic gave them money. They made the game Epic gave them an offer that no other platform was willing to do. Vale, EA,, Ubi, Battle.net all could have made offers to to distribute the game, they didn't. All of these platforms are in it for the money just like any business.

[Bouzoo]

12 minutes ago, LostElric said:

Aren't they literally competing with every other digital game distribution platform?  2k and Gearbox never said they weren't going to make the game unless Epic gave them money. They made the game Epic gave them an offer that no other platform was willing to do. Vale, EA,, Ubi, Battle.net all could have made offers to to distribute the game, they didn't. All of these platforms are in it for the money just like any business.

Since (afaik) no other platforms pays publishers to lock down third party games to their platform no, they aren't. Even freaking Bethesda announced they will publish many of their titles on Steam since it's more profitable.

Since we're talking money, let's say Epic paid 2K $5M (by some calculations people got to number that some small indie studios were paid $2M so I am going with $5M). Let's say it's even $10M. Let's say that launch price is $60 which is probably true (okay, it's $59.99). That's equivalent of 166.666 (7) copies of the game. BL2 sold 8.5M copies in 1.5 years, and is currently sitting at 13M+. That is a ridiculously small trade for pissing off so many fans and in long term, I am gonna bet you an arm and a leg, it will hurt them. 

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, LostElric said:

Aren't they literally competing with every other digital game distribution platform?

Nope:

Quote

Anti-competitive practices are business, government or religious practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

 

Locking games into one store via bribes is pretty much does what i quoted.

[LostElric]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Nope:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

 

Locking games into one store via bribes is pretty much does what i quoted.

They didn't limit or reduce competition from those other digital store fronts. They simply weren't interested in competing. Valve wouldn't have had to offer 6 months exclusive on their platform they could have simply just offered better revenue sharing. They didn't. That is competition and the other platforms didn't bother. Maybe they'll step up their game with the next big release title. So because they didn't compete for the title it is now on a single digital distribution platform for 6 months.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, LostElric said:

They didn't limit or reduce competition from those other digital store fronts

Yes they did because only they can sell some games and no-one else. Pull your head out of the sand....