Phoenix Point - Epic Games Store Announcement

you said:

Is it? Isn't there a difference between - develop a game for me so i can sell it on my store (ea) and here let me give you some money so you can't sell it anywhere else for a while…

Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference, but I don't think either is a problem, or unusual. To stay with the analogy of other creative industries, I think the line is often also blurred - you might get an offer to sign up your current novel, and also a deal to maybe produce two more books for that firm.

What I could imagine happening, if there are more stores competing for game distribution, is that they start to offer the creators more attractive deals to sign with them - as well as upfront payments, perhaps investment in their next game, support with marketing and promotion, and so on. In a way, another sort of blurring, of the line between publisher and storefront. I think that could be very good for the promising indies, which seems to be a focus for Epic.

JDR13 said:

Yet you feel the need to keep dragging it on.

Click to expand...

Well, it was just starting to get fun.

The point isn't that the game is exclusive on Epic store, it's that I pledged the game without to know I would be embarked in a business struggle, and worse to support a side I despise.

It makes me regret my pledge a lot and the refund changes nothing to that. It's a faith and hope act that's been transformed in a puddle of vomit, disgusting, I'll survive, but it's disgusting.

Gollop is now banned forever to any pledging.

you said:

I see it wasn't a purchase when Epic paid money to make the game exclusive on their platform - well then what was it - a bribe ?

Click to expand...

Nothing like that. Once again, they did not pay to get an exclusive. Both sides acknowledged a risk putting the product on the platform as an exclusive.

The exclusivity is set by devs' interest in the smaller cut.

The smaller cut can only express its full potential when the product is released as an exclusive to the platform with the smaller cut.

Released on the same time on Steam and this platform would have meant a split in sales volume like 90/10 and yet. No benefit for devs.

Exclusivity over one year: the demand for the product at full price is channelled toward the smaller cut deal, part of the demand that could wait a bit to expect a discount price is channelled toward the smaller cut deal.
Best way to exhaust the demand for a full priced product.

After one year, release on Steam and its pattern of flash sales, bulk sales to exhaust the demand that does not care much about playing the product and that will buy it if cheap enough.

No bribe, no purchase, nothing. Only devs willing to make the most of a smaller cut deal.

Dasale said:

It's a faith and hope act that's been transformed in a puddle of vomit, disgusting, I'll survive, but it's disgusting.

Gollop is now banned forever to any pledging.

Click to expand...

Grandiloquent. It is the crowdfunded habit to change a contract. On this site, it was dismissed and once again, when people are hit, they cry a river.

SpoonFULL said:

Eurogamer:



And while Phoenix Point's community is shouting loudly on the likes of reddit, Gollop said he hasn't seen significant numbers of backers request refunds.



"We sent an email to all our 47,000 backers on Tuesday informing them about the Epic deal," he said. "The following day we had 1300 requests for refunds. The day after it increased to 1600. We don't anticipate that more than five to six per cent of our backers will actually request refunds in the long run."

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the quote!

ChienAboyeur said:

Grandiloquent.

Click to expand...

That's you who are by writing that, sigh.

ChienAboyeur said:

It is the crowdfunded habit to change a contract. On this site, it was dismissed and once again, when people are hit, they cry a river.

Click to expand...

Change a gameplay contract means nothing, list of features doesn't make a game, it's the gameplay that makes it.

Even buying a game finished is changing many gameplay contracts. You dream of a game from what you read about it, and at release you get something else when you really start to play it

A good example is DOS1, why care they never relaased a dungeon when I had so much fun from the game and never expected it? At the end the balance was positive.

My comment was about my own choice, not an order all pledgers should obey. For me, Gollop bahavior will never change my approach of pledging or not, but myself I ban Gollop to any of MY future pledging. I admit my sentence didn't add much "me" "my" "I", but it was my post, my opinion, not some order to players, sigh.

EDIT:
Pledgers that don't understand that a game pledged could be much less good than they hope or that some features had to be changed, or even could fail get a true release, are naive. The problem in Gollop case is it's not about gameplay but some crap bunisess I hate be involved in and that Gollop never bother ask pldgers their opinion.

I suggest that you pledge some games before comment, you clearly have no clue on pledging.

Not a big deal to me, even though i backed it, as I probably wouldn't of played it for a year or so. My backlog is just too big...

To be honest I sort of feel this way since I will get a gog key after a year; but on principal it seems wrong. Perhaps if they had asked backers before signing the deal or added a preorder clause.... i suspect the pre-order is large enough with backers epic would not have been happy with that approach.

bjon045 said:

Not a big deal to me, even though i backed it, as I probably wouldn't of played it for a year or so. My backlog is just too big…

Click to expand...

Dasale said:

I suggest that you pledge some games before comment, you clearly have no clue on pledging.

Click to expand...

Don't trust a man whose signature says "Backlog: 0"

Someone asked to notify the quartering.

Well ask & you shall receive here is his take on the whole affair.