Operencia: The Stolen Sun - Epic Store Exclusive

Originally Posted by sakichop
I wouldn’t call it anti competitive, its just not competitive and I’m not looking at everything as a whole. I’m looking only at epic vs steam.

I understand exclusives when it comes to consoles because there’s hardware to purchase. Many people will buy just 1 console and the difference between them is so slight that the quality of exclusives will sway people one way or the other. Once they have your hardware their locked in unless they want to shell out for a different console.

On PC you just download a client and that’s it. So these exclusives will get epic some sales for sure but its also alienating some consumers and will undoubtedly loose them sales in the future. Also they cant seriously compete with exclusives alone. They need to offer a comparable or realistically steams so entrenched they’ll have to offer a better client or other incentive to keep customers.

Don’t get me wrong they can exist with exclusives. Just like origins , ubi and the others. People will install their clients to play their few exclusive and then buy everything else on steam. If they truly want to compete with steam then they need much more than exclusives.

Anyway, that got pretty long winded but what I’m essentially saying is imo exclusives will give them a short term sales bump but wont give them a competitive advantage in the long run. Also, if they keep doing it the way they are ( yanking games at the last minute) it may actually hurt them in the long run.

I would agree that they would need more than exclusives in the long run, but I'd suggest they are already offering more by taking a much more sensible percentage cut than Steam currently gets away with. Now, one could say that this doesn't offer anything directly to the consumer, but I think, in terms of the market, it means more cash in the coffers of the studios rather than the distributor, and, with the pressure of competition, we'd expect to see some of that re-invested in improving their offer. From a customer perspective, less of the cash being siphoned out by the middle-man is likely to have positive effects, one way or the other.

I think one also has to look at the de facto advantage that Steam has. It's a common pattern to see one company dominating in a new market by being the early bird, and then others trying to find ways to take a chunk of that market. By virtue of getting established first, Steam has a massive installed user base (which, as we see, creates a resistance to switch), and a huge library of products, of which, by default, many are effectively exclusive. It's easy for them to say that every product should be released across all platforms as a matter of "openness", but that's like demanding a level playing field when you're already 1000 points in the lead. Very likely no-one, studios nor gamers, are going to look twice at another platform unless they can find some way to get established. I suspect that Valve would be singing a different song if they were the newcomers facing massive entrenched advantage.

As I mentioned before, I do agree that they are being clumsy with this last-minute poaching from Steam, but then market competition doesn't tend to be pretty, in my experience.

Originally Posted by you
No it is relevant. They do not wish to share profits with a third party company. In the case of Epic they are offering a higher share to developers to encourage the use of the service but in addition they are offering exclusive contracts to prevent other services from selling those games. Anyway it is clear from your comment that we view this differently so I don't think there is much value in this debate since it will just go in circles. You are welcome to view Epic actions as non-anti competitive and I will view them as anti-competitive. It is legal since Epic is not a monopoly but I personally consider it anti-consumer and therefore I intend to not use Epic (as well as other reasons already stated).

Wish I could give more then just a like as I agree with you. I always hated this shit when it happened on consoles, and now I hate that it's happening on the PC in 2019.

Capitalism can kiss my Behind when it doesn't serve or help the consumer. As the practice of exclusivity is very anti-consumer. It's a cancer of the gaming community.

Just my say as these debates always just go in circles anyway. We'll see how sales go to see if this was worth it for the various publishers, and developers in the end.

As wallets and cash speak more then mere words.

Originally Posted by Reiga
And I don't care at all gor how adorable is that guy, appeareances are delusional, and I buy games not 'the guy'

he's not as adorable as you!

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Capitalism can kiss my Behind

I'm all up for that conversation, but that's a whole other ball of wax!

Originally Posted by Ripper
I'm all up for that conversation, but that's a whole other ball of wax!

Well I could of said Ass but I was being considerate.

Anyway one day when historians look back they will shake their heads at how much we allowed Capitalism to destroy in the name of money and free markets.

All hail the mighty dollar.

PS: Socialism is not the answer either it's worse.

Anyway I'm calling it now Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice or Dying Light 2 will be an Epic exclusive. As Epic isn't done throwing away cash for more big name exclusive deals.

Did I miss any other big games this year?

Epic's ideas are highlighting a conflict between the people who make games and the people who buy games. The Steam model creates a buyer's market- devs' ability to generate free keys and sell them to various distributors creates a situation where various retailers are competing and undercutting each other to sell me functionally identical Steam keys. It's great for consumers and is in large part responsible for the insane sales and the fact most players have so many games in their backlogs that they physically can't play them all, ever.

There are loads of problems with Steam, and some of them affect developers in significant ways, I get that. There's certainly demand for what epic is offering. But this demand and the system epic is creating in response goes directly against the interests of the consumers (who are the beneficiaries of the current status quo). So gamers are siding with Steam, because it's basically a foundation of a system that's been benefitting gamers for over a decade (albeit at developer's expense). While Epic is (seemingly) trying to create a system that puts the developers first (at the consumer's expense). This leads to conflict by definition. And I'm not seeing an easy solution here.

Link - https://www.pcgamer.com/metro-exodus-epic-store-steam/

Would love to see the Internets reaction if Obsidian's new RPG became an Epic Store exclusive. Some gamer's already started a thread on the games steam page.

Link - https://steamcommunity.com/app/57865…0540132707479/

Btw this is one of the actions that got MS into trouble. It wasn't that they gave vendors a discount for buying lots of copy of dos; it was that they gave them a discount if they limited sales to a certain % of non-dos/windows machines. Of course in MS case it was a bigger problem because they became a monopoly. Steam is a near monopoly because they were first and their service is pretty good not because the prevent third party developers from using other services.

Starting to not care anymore; if i like the game and goes epicshit exclusive, ill just play the free version, fuck them. Btw wonder what those at discord feel right now, they had like a month? in the spotlight with their new store and then comes epicshit hahaha.

Originally Posted by porcozaur
Btw wonder what those at discord feel right now, they had like a month? in the spotlight with their new store and then comes epicshit hahaha.

I completely forgot about the Discord store.

Guess not having a 4 Billion Dollar nest egg like Epic to buy developers doesn't help. If I remember they also take a larger cut of the pie like steam, but a lesser percentage.

Originally Posted by you
Btw this is one of the actions that got MS into trouble. It wasn't that they gave vendors a discount for buying lots of copy of dos; it was that they gave them a discount if they limited sales to a certain % of non-dos/windows machines. Of course in MS case it was a bigger problem because they became a monopoly. Steam is a near monopoly because they were first and their service is pretty good not because the prevent third party developers from using other services.

What you have to bear in mind is that when a company achieves monopolistic dominance, the state will intervene to try and rebalance the market. That's why we have things like monopolies commissions. Behaviour that would be considered quite normal and legal in a diverse market with lots of competitors, can be ruled to be unacceptable when it's a monopoly trying to prevent any competition. So, in general, a company paying for exclusive deals is entirely normal and legal, but it can be judged to be a problem when a monopoly is trying to extinguish challengers entirely. That's pretty much the definition of anti-competitive behaviour, in a legal sense.

Hadn't heard of this game until now. Watched a video. There's no way in hell I'm skipping this game simply because of the hassle of downloading a new client, this is a Day 2 purchase (I can wait one to day to get confirmation it's not a buggy mess). And if the developer gets a bigger cut than from Steam sales? Even better.

I love the convenience of Steam, but honestly never think monopolies are a good idea, and they're pretty damn close. It's a good thing contenders are starting to demand a piece of the cake.

Originally Posted by Ripper
it can be judged to be a problem when a monopoly is trying to extinguish challengers entirely. That's pretty much the definition of anti-competitive behaviour, in a legal sense.

Valve's total equity: $2.5 billion.
Tencent's total equity: $41.5 billion.

Originally Posted by Moorkh
Valve's total equity: $2.5 billion.
Tencent's total equity: $41.5 billion.

Yes, so that's one large private company, and one huge multinational investment group that owns a minority share in Epic. That really has nothing to do with the regulation of a monopoly. Apple has equity of $107 billion, and they also have an exclusive store with lots of exclusive content. That's a part of how they built their success. But since they do not dominate in a monopolistic way, their seeking of such competitive advantages would not likely be viewed as a concern by regulators.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I would agree that they would need more than exclusives in the long run, but I'd suggest they are already offering more by taking a much more sensible percentage cut than Steam currently gets away with. Now, one could say that this doesn't offer anything directly to the consumer, but I think, in terms of the market, it means more cash in the coffers of the studios rather than the distributor, and, with the pressure of competition, we'd expect to see some of that re-invested in improving their offer. From a customer perspective, less of the cash being siphoned out by the middle-man is likely to have positive effects, one way or the other.

Call me pessimistic but i think any extra money would line suits pockets rather than be reinvested in any positive way for the consumer.

But for what its worth I’d hope you’d be right.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I think one also has to look at the de facto advantage that Steam has. It's a common pattern to see one company dominating in a new market by being the early bird, and then others trying to find ways to take a chunk of that market. By virtue of getting established first, Steam has a massive installed user base (which, as we see, creates a resistance to switch), and a huge library of products, of which, by default, many are effectively exclusive. It's easy for them to say that every product should be released across all platforms as a matter of "openness", but that's like demanding a level playing field when you're already 1000 points in the lead. Very likely no-one, studios nor gamers, are going to look twice at another platform unless they can find some way to get established. I suspect that Valve would be singing a different song if they were the newcomers facing massive entrenched advantage.

As I mentioned before, I do agree that they are being clumsy with this last-minute poaching from Steam, but then market competition doesn't tend to be pretty, in my experience.

True Steams success is largely due to being the only option for many years, but lets not forget they made a significant change in PC gaming when they came on the scene. Things were not so rosy for PC before them. I wont go as far as saying the unified distribution platform and DRM saved PC gaming but imo if it hadn’t happened PC gaming would be far worse off today.

Also while I'll admit steam is a monopoly, its not like its Microsoft with windows.steam doesn’t throw their weight around or try to phase out competition. At least not that I’ve seen. They could easily start buying exclusives but they don’t. We have origins, Ubisoft, discord, epic, gog, Microsoft store, Bethesda and any others i may be missing. So there’s no lack of competition and steam doesn’t really go after them they just keep on doing what they do. Offering a quality experience and trying to improve it as they go.

Personally, I respect that and that’s why i’ll keep using steam for any games that aren’t exclusives.

I’ll reluctantly buy games i want that are exclusives elsewhere because I’m a gamer and I don’t give complete loyalty to any company.

I couldn't care less where to buy this. If it's good, I'll get it whereever the developer/publisher felt it was best for them to release it.

I feel exactly zero obligation to take a political stance against one kind of opportunism over the other. It's all the same to me.

If it was up to me, though, art would never be in the vicinity of money - but it's clearly not up to me, so….

At least GOG is having fun with these conversations again:



The Operencia devs probably feel its already worth it given how much exposure they have gotten from their exclusivity deal. At least they had sense enough to announce it relatively early and didn't pre-sell on Steam.

Oh…just got linked to this thread by a crawler facebook group. Sucks that it's also an exclusive. Well…maybe it's only time exclusive and being released on steam later on.

That's my hope and wish, Kordanor. This game appears to be well worth the wait, so I'll just hope it comes to great old games or steam, eventually.