Epic Games Is Acquiring Psyonix(rocketleague.com)
rocketleague.com
Epic Games Is Acquiring Psyonix
https://www.rocketleague.com/news/psyonix-is-joining-the-epic-family-/
251 comments
> There is value in Steam having competition, but that value diminishes as soon as someone comes along and competes for games instead of users.
Content platforms always compete on availability of content. Steam did the exact same thing early on with Half Life. Look at what's happening in the streaming video space. Look at console gaming.
Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you—they're making Steam accounts because there's a game on Steam that they want to play.
If Epic's store had better features but the same games, existing Steam users would still continue to use Steam, because that's where their existing game libraries are. The only way Epic could compete on features alone is if it were possible to migrate Steam purchases to the Epic Store. Since Valve will never let that happen, Epic has to entice users with exclusive games.
And that could be great for everyone—if it caused games to be made that would otherwise never get developed. Consider how much great content the video streaming wars have produced. As annoying as it is to switch between subscriptions, I'd say TV viewers are winning right now.
The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content—they're paying for existing content to be removed from Steam. My great hope is that this will change in time. Original games take several years to develop, so if any are under way, we wouldn't have heard about them yet. In the meantime, we're getting PC ports of Journey and Detroit, so that's pretty neat!
Content platforms always compete on availability of content. Steam did the exact same thing early on with Half Life. Look at what's happening in the streaming video space. Look at console gaming.
Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you—they're making Steam accounts because there's a game on Steam that they want to play.
If Epic's store had better features but the same games, existing Steam users would still continue to use Steam, because that's where their existing game libraries are. The only way Epic could compete on features alone is if it were possible to migrate Steam purchases to the Epic Store. Since Valve will never let that happen, Epic has to entice users with exclusive games.
And that could be great for everyone—if it caused games to be made that would otherwise never get developed. Consider how much great content the video streaming wars have produced. As annoying as it is to switch between subscriptions, I'd say TV viewers are winning right now.
The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content—they're paying for existing content to be removed from Steam. My great hope is that this will change in time. Original games take several years to develop, so if any are under way, we wouldn't have heard about them yet. In the meantime, we're getting PC ports of Journey and Detroit, so that's pretty neat!
> Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you—they're making Steam accounts because there's a game on Steam that they want to play.
This is just false. Steam has evolved beyond just a marketplace, and I go there because I enjoy the tools they provide. From VR, to family sharing, home streaming, and more.
This is just false. Steam has evolved beyond just a marketplace, and I go there because I enjoy the tools they provide. From VR, to family sharing, home streaming, and more.
Imagine an alternate universe where the Steam client had feature parity with our universe's Epic client, and Epic's client had feature parity with our universe's Steam client. Do you think users would abandon their Steam libraries for the Epic Store, in order to have home streaming?
What's relevant to this discussion isn't what features you like about Steam, but what features cause people to make Steam accounts. In other words, is it actually possible for another player to compete on features alone?
What's relevant to this discussion isn't what features you like about Steam, but what features cause people to make Steam accounts. In other words, is it actually possible for another player to compete on features alone?
You can use both steam and epic simultaneously, there is no need to abandon anything. In your proposed universe I most definitely would be making new purchases on epic wherever possible.
Exclusives of any kind are anti-consumer, whether it is steam doing it or epic.
Exclusives of any kind are anti-consumer, whether it is steam doing it or epic.
>The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content
And Valve is?
And Valve is?
Valve do still develop games, they just focus on maintaining their current games now. Dota 2, CSGO, Team Fortress 2 still gets frequent updates and big enhancements.
There's also SteamVR
There's also SteamVR
Well, they were at one point. But I agree, Valve is no better here.
Didn't they just release a card game with Richard Garfield?
I'm not into games myself, but Valve has done tremendous work for gaming on Linux. That alone is enough reason for me to support them.
I'm not into games myself, but Valve has done tremendous work for gaming on Linux. That alone is enough reason for me to support them.
And this graph should give you an indication of how well this went: https://steamcharts.com/app/583950#6m
Why is that? Did it turn out to be a bad game? As a fan of Magic: The Gathering I was quite interested in it and the concept looked interesting too.
As someone in their exact target demographic - I play Magic Arena and Hearthstone regularly - I think they messed up the business model. I don’t mind paying $50 for a game or $20 for an expansion, but I hate getting nickeled and dimed and I was put off by the fact that if I ended up really enjoying the game there wasn’t a path to continue playing without continuing to pay every time. Felt like gambling not relaxing.
Valve has never been good at building progression systems, and that's exactly what killed Artifact.
You get no rewards for playing the game. If you want new cards, you have to spend money on packs or spend money to enter drafts.
This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems.
You get no rewards for playing the game. If you want new cards, you have to spend money on packs or spend money to enter drafts.
This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems.
> This old fashioned "just play the game because it's fun" mentality is dogma to Valve, but nowadays users want and require the Pavlovian reward systems.
Speaking to the choir I suspect, but god do I hate progression systems.
Haven't played Artifact, but I'm really not convinced by the narrative that Valve is removed from this stuff. TF2 and Counter Strike all have loot and inventory systems of their own. They're basically required in any free to play game.
Speaking to the choir I suspect, but god do I hate progression systems.
Haven't played Artifact, but I'm really not convinced by the narrative that Valve is removed from this stuff. TF2 and Counter Strike all have loot and inventory systems of their own. They're basically required in any free to play game.
Did Hearthstone handle progression better? I believe it's a fairly popular game.
It had an upfront cost (where all the competing card games are F2P) and a cost to play as well as to acquire cards, which put a lot of people off. It is also a more complex game than say Hearthstone, but I think the success of MOBAs proves that complexity is not an inherent barrier to popularity.
I think the most expensive thing I've bought on Steam was Cities Skylines, and that was US$30. I originally got my Steam account to redeem Humble Bundle codes— originally that was the only way to get your games; it wasn't until later on that they started cutting Steam out of the loop and offering their own DRM-free downloads.
Anyway, I wonder how many people are in that position, where they have a giant Steam "library" that's mostly bundle titles and stuff bought on special, that they feel some sense of attachment to, but in reality wouldn't really miss when using a different launcher.
Anyway, I wonder how many people are in that position, where they have a giant Steam "library" that's mostly bundle titles and stuff bought on special, that they feel some sense of attachment to, but in reality wouldn't really miss when using a different launcher.
> I originally got my Steam account to redeem Humble Bundle codes— originally that was the only way to get your games; it wasn't until later on that they started cutting Steam out of the loop and offering their own DRM-free downloads.
For what it's worth, I think your memory is mistaken here, it's actually kind of the opposite—early on, Humble Bundles always offered DRM-free downloads (in addition to Steam keys), and it was only later on that they began selling some games as keys only. As someone who greatly prefers getting naked executables, I was really sad when this happened.
Check out the page for the second-ever Humble Bundle in 2010 (the first doesn't appear to be in the Internet Archive). DRM-Free downloads are listed as a major selling point. Also, you'll note they advertise Linux support, which wasn't supported by Steam at the time. https://web.archive.org/web/20101215101427/http://www.humble...
As an aside, I actually have Steam keys of all the early Humble Bundle games sitting in my account, unredeemed after all these years. I've been thinking I could sell them if I ever needed emergency cash for some reason, but even though it's a common practice, it feels kind of wrong... I have downloaded and played these games, just not on Steam.
For what it's worth, I think your memory is mistaken here, it's actually kind of the opposite—early on, Humble Bundles always offered DRM-free downloads (in addition to Steam keys), and it was only later on that they began selling some games as keys only. As someone who greatly prefers getting naked executables, I was really sad when this happened.
Check out the page for the second-ever Humble Bundle in 2010 (the first doesn't appear to be in the Internet Archive). DRM-Free downloads are listed as a major selling point. Also, you'll note they advertise Linux support, which wasn't supported by Steam at the time. https://web.archive.org/web/20101215101427/http://www.humble...
As an aside, I actually have Steam keys of all the early Humble Bundle games sitting in my account, unredeemed after all these years. I've been thinking I could sell them if I ever needed emergency cash for some reason, but even though it's a common practice, it feels kind of wrong... I have downloaded and played these games, just not on Steam.
All (minus a handful) of the Linux compatible Steam games I have are from Humble Bundles.
I'm skeptical that those unused Steam keys would have much value, given routine Steam sales. I've compiled a list of my Humble Bundle games with unredeemed keys (game names only, not the keys themselves) into a spreadsheet for friends.
I'm skeptical that those unused Steam keys would have much value, given routine Steam sales. I've compiled a list of my Humble Bundle games with unredeemed keys (game names only, not the keys themselves) into a spreadsheet for friends.
Music streaming services do not compete on content which makes them much nicer to use.
Huh, this is actually a good counter-example. I wonder why that is. Tidal tried to compete on exclusives and it doesn't appear to have worked out for them.
Spotify appears to be positioning itself as an destination for exclusive, original audio programs, but those aren't music.
Spotify appears to be positioning itself as an destination for exclusive, original audio programs, but those aren't music.
Maybe because music labels don’t want to cede too much control or it could just be an artifact from the FM era.
> The problem, of course, is that Epic isn't developing original content—they're paying for existing content to be removed from Steam.
It depends on how you're defining "original content". I mean, yes they are paying for games to be Epic exclusive, however Epic released Fortnite, so they do have their own big releases
It depends on how you're defining "original content". I mean, yes they are paying for games to be Epic exclusive, however Epic released Fortnite, so they do have their own big releases
[deleted]
> Ultimately, people aren't making Steam accounts because of the Steam workshop or Steam forums or Steam chat or what have you
As a broad generalisation this is baldly wrong. I use a Steam account and buy things there because the platform has the things that you mention (on top of a multiplayer API that generally works pretty well). If it didn't have those things, I wouldn't use it anywhere close to how often I use it now. A very high percentage of the games on it are also available on other platforms (publisher-specific, GoG, the dev) and those are not materially worse than Steam if you only consider distribution.
As a broad generalisation this is baldly wrong. I use a Steam account and buy things there because the platform has the things that you mention (on top of a multiplayer API that generally works pretty well). If it didn't have those things, I wouldn't use it anywhere close to how often I use it now. A very high percentage of the games on it are also available on other platforms (publisher-specific, GoG, the dev) and those are not materially worse than Steam if you only consider distribution.
> if it were possible to migrate Steam purchases to the Epic Store
Not necessarily migrate, but offer (for free) the same game on Epic if you already have it on Steam; GOG did this for a few games (not that it helped GOG).
Not necessarily migrate, but offer (for free) the same game on Epic if you already have it on Steam; GOG did this for a few games (not that it helped GOG).
GoG does it for a small, rotating selection of titles, which is good. But for it to make a significant difference, they'd need to be able to move a large majority of people's libraries. That's much harder, given the variety of developers and publishers you’d need to strike deals with. I don’t think it’s feasible, sadly.
GOG still does from time to time. I check this weekly: https://www.gog.com/connect
Edit: You can insert some EA keys from Steam into Origin: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Origin-redeemable_game...
Edit: You can insert some EA keys from Steam into Origin: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Origin-redeemable_game...
I wish EA (and other distributors) did something like GOG Connect. IMO I'd be less annoyed if Epic offered something like this for current Rocket League owner in order to keep the userbase as big as possible before they ultimately split it in two.
Exactly, it’s the Netflix problem all over again. Rather than competing on the quality of the platform, they’re just divvying up monopolies and fracturing the customer experience.
A different streaming platform for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Universal, HBO, Amazon
A different gaming platform for Steam, Epic, Origin, UPlay
The real loser is the consumer
A different streaming platform for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Universal, HBO, Amazon
A different gaming platform for Steam, Epic, Origin, UPlay
The real loser is the consumer
Not quite the same though, since Epic and Steam don’t require paid subscriptions to access their content. The only difference now is that you’re buying some of your games from Epic instead of Steam.
As that necessitates trusting Epic after years of shadiness and recently outright lies, it mostly means a bunch of games aren't going to get bought. For me anyway.
> after years of shadiness and recently outright lies
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. By my account, Epic has been among the better game developers for consumers. I wish Fortnite et al didn't use microtransactions—as far as I'm concerned, they always make games worse by building a purchase incentive into the design of the game—but it is free to play, so there's a limit to how much I can complain.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. By my account, Epic has been among the better game developers for consumers. I wish Fortnite et al didn't use microtransactions—as far as I'm concerned, they always make games worse by building a purchase incentive into the design of the game—but it is free to play, so there's a limit to how much I can complain.
Using microtransactions (and the normal vehicles to facilitate those, like random loot boxes) is in itself a shady move. Their target demographic with Fortnite certainly doesn't help them there in my eyes.
The fact that it's "free but if you want you can gamble here and look we made it fun!" actually makes that worse, not better. First it draws you in, then when you're hooked you have more trouble stepping out.
The fact that it's "free but if you want you can gamble here and look we made it fun!" actually makes that worse, not better. First it draws you in, then when you're hooked you have more trouble stepping out.
I have only played Fortnite Battle Royale (like most Epic users I guess), but there are no loot boxes involved, and it feels very different from freemium mobile games. You pay for skins, or you pay for challenges that make the game more interesting, and for which more skins are the reward. That's it. And you can't wear more than one skin at any time, so it doesn't really encourage binge spending.
It's so harmless that even the non-monetary "engagement hacking" by other services feels like a burden in comparison (e.g. Steam's incessant notifications about new crappy stickers - stop stealing my precious time!).
It's so harmless that even the non-monetary "engagement hacking" by other services feels like a burden in comparison (e.g. Steam's incessant notifications about new crappy stickers - stop stealing my precious time!).
Steam microtransactions are built into even meta nonsense like cards you get for playing games. It seems like the obvious worse platform for shady lootboxes and gambling with cs:go as well.
I wasn't talking about these issues as if one party or the other had them and another party did not. I was merely pointing out that the construct itself is shady.
Epic might be one of the only companies doing microtransactions correctly with Fortnite. Fortnite Battle Royale is free to play so it makes sense that they monetize somehow, but there is no randomness to purchases in the game. You buy items you want and you see exactly what you're getting. The paid for version of the game recently switched their lootbox mechanic so that you also see what's in the boxes before you buy them.
Changing loot boxes to try to get ahead of EU gambling legislation is truly an enlightened and pro-consumer action.
The transparent llamas certainly had nothing to do with events in Denmark and Belgium -_-.
The transparent llamas certainly had nothing to do with events in Denmark and Belgium -_-.
I’m not familiar with the legislative landscape you’re referring to, but it doesn’t seem like most of the other major companies have gotten rid of their lootboxes, so Epic is doing something right...
Pushes me to console releases. Can’t justify the PC ecosystem with all the nonsense going on.
Console makers would like you to repurchase your game every 5 years for the new console, if they deem the game fit for re-release.
Whereas I've basically been copying the same DooM 2 install from computer to computer for 20 years.
Whereas I've basically been copying the same DooM 2 install from computer to computer for 20 years.
I think this is going away. I can play (some, and it's growing over time) Xbox and Xbox 360 games on the Xbox One, and if I bought them digitally or still have the original disc, I don't have to pay anything more.
Backward compatibility used to be way more normal. Then it was killed, now it is slowly coming back and we are supposed to be thankful for it. A more cynical mind could be tempted to think of this as a strategy.
cries in registry issues
Same problem there though, they've just been at it longer. Which console do you pick, or do you get all of them?
> years of shadiness and recently outright lies
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
probably the security flaws and lying about stopping exclusives. Tim Sweeney has caused a lot of outrage with his recent statements on press, which pretty much were lies. Can't link since don't have time, sorry
[deleted]
But they are competing on the quality of the platform. What do they have a monopoly on? Being the only place to watch Star Wars or whatever is not a monopoly. They compete on both the quality of the content and the quality of the streaming experience.
If Disney doesn't make much content that I want to watch (and they don't), then I don't have to pay them a dime for anything. If HBO only makes one thing that I want to watch, then I can subscribe for a month and then pay them nothing after that. That's a significant improvement over the previous way of doing things.
Why would it be good for a single company to control distribution of all content?
If Disney doesn't make much content that I want to watch (and they don't), then I don't have to pay them a dime for anything. If HBO only makes one thing that I want to watch, then I can subscribe for a month and then pay them nothing after that. That's a significant improvement over the previous way of doing things.
Why would it be good for a single company to control distribution of all content?
The streaming wars have also effectively ushered in a golden age of TV, as they all compete for the best exclusive content. While annoying, you can switch between them each month instead of paying for all simultaneously.
Epic isn't trying to directly make players' lives better via competition; they're trying to make devs lives better via competition. Their main differentiator there is taking a significantly lower cut of revenue, as well as funding the devs in exchange for exclusivity or timed exclusivity.
I understand the vitriol from many gamers: the Epic Store is a worse experience as a consumer than Steam. But I think that a more-viable funding model for game development is pretty significant: there are plenty of games that just barely eke out enough to keep studios alive/independent, or that almost do but then result in the studio closing or being sold to a megacorp like EA. A 30% cut for what was effectively a hosting and payments processing service was ridiculous, monopolistic behavior, and needed to be shaken up. As such I support Epic's move into the store space: more money for devs means more, and more interesting, games getting made.
Realistically, exclusive deals were the only way Epic could've made that work. For most people, if they could buy a game on Steam, they would, rather than using yet another launcher, and that fact means that Steam would still have most of their monopoly intact. Multiple launchers (and fewer features) is annoying but IMO worth it to get Steam to give a bigger cut to devs (which they immediately started doing after the Epic Store launched, although the Epic Store is still often a better deal for devs).
I understand the vitriol from many gamers: the Epic Store is a worse experience as a consumer than Steam. But I think that a more-viable funding model for game development is pretty significant: there are plenty of games that just barely eke out enough to keep studios alive/independent, or that almost do but then result in the studio closing or being sold to a megacorp like EA. A 30% cut for what was effectively a hosting and payments processing service was ridiculous, monopolistic behavior, and needed to be shaken up. As such I support Epic's move into the store space: more money for devs means more, and more interesting, games getting made.
Realistically, exclusive deals were the only way Epic could've made that work. For most people, if they could buy a game on Steam, they would, rather than using yet another launcher, and that fact means that Steam would still have most of their monopoly intact. Multiple launchers (and fewer features) is annoying but IMO worth it to get Steam to give a bigger cut to devs (which they immediately started doing after the Epic Store launched, although the Epic Store is still often a better deal for devs).
The devs could already get around the 30% cut by selling steam keys to the game on another site, bypassing Valve. Epic also doesn't care about the developers, most of their exclusivity deals boil down to "anyone but Steam", even 3rd party vendors that also take a 30% cut. Steam is also much more than just "payment processing and hosting". The Epic launcher is so devoid of features that players have to come to Steam game forums for support with their games.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/04/why-valve-actually-ge...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/04/why-valve-actually-ge...
I'm pretty sure that some 3rd party vendors, like itch.io, take way less than 30%
And most of those other sites charged high commissions, lacked region locking, and also meant you would get less visibility on Steam due to lower sales on that platform.
As far as I'm concerned as a consumer lacking region locking (as currently implemented at least) is a big positive because I can buy games for friends. Steam won't let you gift games to people in other regions at all which I don't understand - if there's regional price differences shouldn't I at least be able to purchase my gift at whatever the highest price of the two is?
Everything costs something.
Right, but most people would buy via Steam, not the third party site with the keys, as per the link you posted; almost three-quarters of all game sales come directly from Steam. It's also not the case that all "Other" sales are commission-free for the devs; per the article:
> Those keys are often sold on other platforms that take their own cut, which sometimes amount to the same as Steam's (though platforms like Itch.io and Humble Bundle generally take much less).
And at the end of the day, devs are still at the mercy of Steam; you can't just sell your game through keys, because Steam controls key generation and doesn't let you do that. Again per the article:
> Steam also imposes some limits on key generation to prevent developers from essentially piggybacking off of Steam's services while solely selling games directly to consumers elsewhere.
That's why I think the anger re: the Epic Store misses some of the point. Epic's move into the store space almost incontrovertibly caused Steam to lower their take rate: two days after the Epic Store launch, Steam dropped their cut of revenue for games that sold over certain revenue thresholds. If Epic is successful, I imagine Steam's pricing will continue to become more competitive, which is better for devs and better for keeping smaller studios alive and independent.
> Those keys are often sold on other platforms that take their own cut, which sometimes amount to the same as Steam's (though platforms like Itch.io and Humble Bundle generally take much less).
And at the end of the day, devs are still at the mercy of Steam; you can't just sell your game through keys, because Steam controls key generation and doesn't let you do that. Again per the article:
> Steam also imposes some limits on key generation to prevent developers from essentially piggybacking off of Steam's services while solely selling games directly to consumers elsewhere.
That's why I think the anger re: the Epic Store misses some of the point. Epic's move into the store space almost incontrovertibly caused Steam to lower their take rate: two days after the Epic Store launch, Steam dropped their cut of revenue for games that sold over certain revenue thresholds. If Epic is successful, I imagine Steam's pricing will continue to become more competitive, which is better for devs and better for keeping smaller studios alive and independent.
> A 30% cut for what was effectively a hosting and payments processing service
> Multiple launchers (and fewer features) is annoying
You can't claim steam is just a glorified CDN and payment processor in one breath and then complain about the lack of features in other launchers/platforms in the next.
I agree that 30% was steep, but steam provides both devs and consumers a lot of features that everyone now takes for granted (like cloud saves, household licensing, workshop mod frameworks, friends and chat, and much more). The games that move to epic are either going to have to implement these features themselves, depend on epic to provide a framework for it (sentiment seems to be "don't hold your breath", or release without them.
> Multiple launchers (and fewer features) is annoying
You can't claim steam is just a glorified CDN and payment processor in one breath and then complain about the lack of features in other launchers/platforms in the next.
I agree that 30% was steep, but steam provides both devs and consumers a lot of features that everyone now takes for granted (like cloud saves, household licensing, workshop mod frameworks, friends and chat, and much more). The games that move to epic are either going to have to implement these features themselves, depend on epic to provide a framework for it (sentiment seems to be "don't hold your breath", or release without them.
Steam took a 30% cut even when it was just a glorified CDN and payment processor. It's not charging for features, it's charging for its near-monopoly on digital PC game sales.
FWIW, I agree with Epic's stance on chat: Discord is good, use Discord. Steam chat is awful; I effectively never use it, and all of my friends use Discord servers. Epic could build their own chat platform, but for what purpose?
I do agree that there are some sorely-missing other features from the Epic Store, though. But I'm fine with them shipping an MVP to force Steam to offer more-competitive pricing sooner rather than later — which is what happened.
> depend on epic to provide a framework for it (sentiment seems to be "don't hold your breath")
Sentiment amongst whom? Angry gamers? Epic released their 2019 roadmap, it seems fairly reasonable; cloud saves apparently are coming in the next 1-3 months: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/epic-games-store-cloud-sav...
FWIW, I agree with Epic's stance on chat: Discord is good, use Discord. Steam chat is awful; I effectively never use it, and all of my friends use Discord servers. Epic could build their own chat platform, but for what purpose?
I do agree that there are some sorely-missing other features from the Epic Store, though. But I'm fine with them shipping an MVP to force Steam to offer more-competitive pricing sooner rather than later — which is what happened.
> depend on epic to provide a framework for it (sentiment seems to be "don't hold your breath")
Sentiment amongst whom? Angry gamers? Epic released their 2019 roadmap, it seems fairly reasonable; cloud saves apparently are coming in the next 1-3 months: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/epic-games-store-cloud-sav...
The cost of data storage and sending was a lot more in 2003 than it is now. Where costs have reduced steam has just added more and more features for consumers and developers.
I can't think of any "feature" Steam has added since cloud saves that have impacted me. Any feature development seems to be focused on VR (I don't have PC VR, nor room at my PC to use VR) or streaming (I don't want to stream my game to another device, I just want to play on the PC). And in the meantime their client has stagnated, looking identical to how it did a decade ago, and even functioning the same (e.g. the practically nonexistent library curation features). Hell, even their TOTP app is still the same piece of garbage that they originally shipped years ago, not even supporting 5.5" iPhone screens, let alone the iPhone X form-factor.
I just recently went down a nostalgia rabbit hole when the last of RockPaperShotgun's founders writers left the site. The writing on that site was always far and above any other gaming site, so it's a little bittersweet to read about its history at the end of an era: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/the-secret-history-of-r...
In one of those articles, they talk about Gabe and Valve employees giving encouraging words (and opportunities that no other indie site got), which also includes this interview with Gabe right before The Orange Box released: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/11/21/rps-exclusive-ga...
Valve has had a lot of issues since then. Steam went through horrible growing pains. Steam support is awful. Valve hasn't released a game in years. But, they are where they are because they had passion, and a cavalier DIY sensibility.
Whatever Epic is doing, I want no part of. Every press release I've seen from them since opening their store has given me the willies. Gamers can get really passionate about this stuff, but for me it just boils down to my gut reaction. Epic and any company that signs exclusivity deals with them do not get my money. And I bought Rocket League on three different platforms.
In one of those articles, they talk about Gabe and Valve employees giving encouraging words (and opportunities that no other indie site got), which also includes this interview with Gabe right before The Orange Box released: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/11/21/rps-exclusive-ga...
Valve has had a lot of issues since then. Steam went through horrible growing pains. Steam support is awful. Valve hasn't released a game in years. But, they are where they are because they had passion, and a cavalier DIY sensibility.
Whatever Epic is doing, I want no part of. Every press release I've seen from them since opening their store has given me the willies. Gamers can get really passionate about this stuff, but for me it just boils down to my gut reaction. Epic and any company that signs exclusivity deals with them do not get my money. And I bought Rocket League on three different platforms.
> Valve hasn't released a game in years
They've recently (this year or the last) released Artifact, a card game, which apparently didn't do very well.
They've recently (this year or the last) released Artifact, a card game, which apparently didn't do very well.
Epic has plenty of time to work out making their market more compelling, and I'd bet money they're working on mirroring a lot of steam features. They basically already have a Workshop model in place via their Unreal Engine market which also serves to get people making more games in their engine.
Gamers rage a lot, but they don't do much or stick to their guns often, so this strategy will be fine so long as Epic is working to address some issues. A few updates and patches, a few more games people simply must have, and nobody will remember why they raged.
I'm not thrilled with this, but I'm not going to stop playing Rocket League. I'm going to buy Borderlands 3 (and so are all my friends that grumbled about it being a time exclusive, and they'll buy it from Epic because we all want to play right out the gate together). I still remember people raging against Origin - most of them use it for the EA games they swore they'd never play again.
Gamers rage a lot, but they don't do much or stick to their guns often, so this strategy will be fine so long as Epic is working to address some issues. A few updates and patches, a few more games people simply must have, and nobody will remember why they raged.
I'm not thrilled with this, but I'm not going to stop playing Rocket League. I'm going to buy Borderlands 3 (and so are all my friends that grumbled about it being a time exclusive, and they'll buy it from Epic because we all want to play right out the gate together). I still remember people raging against Origin - most of them use it for the EA games they swore they'd never play again.
Epic has HAD plenty of time to work out making their market more compelling. One of the most frustrating things about it is how many YEARS they've had and how little effort has gone into it during this time.
I'm a VR dev by trade and a gamer by (nearly exclusive) hobby. I'm well deep into Epic and always will be. And it makes me angry. They're intelligent guys and the Unreal engine is fantastic, but the anti-consumer decisions they've made over the last few years have been very frustrating.
The ability to search is a particular sore point. Unless you know the exact name of what you're looking for, you're going to be unsuccessful, and the community have been screaming about this for literal years.
I'm a VR dev by trade and a gamer by (nearly exclusive) hobby. I'm well deep into Epic and always will be. And it makes me angry. They're intelligent guys and the Unreal engine is fantastic, but the anti-consumer decisions they've made over the last few years have been very frustrating.
The ability to search is a particular sore point. Unless you know the exact name of what you're looking for, you're going to be unsuccessful, and the community have been screaming about this for literal years.
Can users not just point Google at the site, or are the contents not index able in that way?
>I'm going to buy Borderlands 3 (and so are all my friends that grumbled about it being a time exclusive, and they'll buy it from Epic because we all want to play right out the gate together)
All my friends and I (30+ crowd) are like "fuck that, I got other shit to play" for Borderlands 3 but we all grudgingly used Steam back when CS:Source came out. I wonder if it's an age thing. I know my backlog is years long as this point so waiting 6 months to play it isn't making me lose sleep.
All my friends and I (30+ crowd) are like "fuck that, I got other shit to play" for Borderlands 3 but we all grudgingly used Steam back when CS:Source came out. I wonder if it's an age thing. I know my backlog is years long as this point so waiting 6 months to play it isn't making me lose sleep.
That happened to me too. When I had more time, I was also much more willing to just buy it wherever.
Coming along with getting old is having more things to do instead of video games, like side projects, or board games, or hanging out in person. Personally, starting ~3 years ago much of my video game time started getting replaced with tabletop RPG's as a way to spend time with friends, even online ones. I hadn't ever played tabletop RPG's before that point.
So when several of these games came announced as "not on Steam", my reaction was also "it's ok I can wait."
Coming along with getting old is having more things to do instead of video games, like side projects, or board games, or hanging out in person. Personally, starting ~3 years ago much of my video game time started getting replaced with tabletop RPG's as a way to spend time with friends, even online ones. I hadn't ever played tabletop RPG's before that point.
So when several of these games came announced as "not on Steam", my reaction was also "it's ok I can wait."
I've experienced somewhat the opposite. From 18-30 I had Saturday night AD&D every weekend, then people had kids, got different jobs, moved around, and now getting everyone around a table together is near impossible. We still spend time in person but it's usually one on one for a quick beer or chat on the patio with whoever happened to crop up. I also just have tons more family engagements; nephews and nieces to take out for birthdays, graduations to celebrate, dinner at my wife's parents one weekend, dinner with mine the next, siblings coming in from out of town. When we do get a free weekend we usually travel or go hike. Growing up has killed my tabletop life, but it's still a good life.
Luckily my computer gaming friends still have time for a match here and there, and games that are part of series we really enjoyed(like Borderlands, or Diablo though that franchise doesn't really grab us the way it used to) can usually bring a few of us together at odd times in the evenings. And double luckily my wife loves Rocket League and we usually squeeze a few matches in before we wind down for the evening.
Luckily my computer gaming friends still have time for a match here and there, and games that are part of series we really enjoyed(like Borderlands, or Diablo though that franchise doesn't really grab us the way it used to) can usually bring a few of us together at odd times in the evenings. And double luckily my wife loves Rocket League and we usually squeeze a few matches in before we wind down for the evening.
Yeah agreed. As I've gotten older, my tolerance for putting up with experiences and tactics I don't like has decreased. I dislike Epic attempting to strong-arm me into using their platform while still dealing with ongoing security concerns and adopting anti-consumer behavior, so I won't use them. Just fine to wait and play some of the many other games on my eventual to-play list
Yes, I would love some competition for Steam, but the strategy Epic is using is instead anti-competitive and anti-consumer.
> Epic isn't making a marketplace where I want to spend my money by being better than Steam, they're just trying to make a place where I have to spend money if I want to play certain games. Good luck with that one.
The irony in this statement is kind of ridiculous. You can't play many games without owning a Steam account right now. How is that any different in principle?
Overall, I recognize the Epic Store has some large issues and it definitely deserves criticism, but I just don't see why this shift is such a big deal in the long run. It's a good thing that Valve is getting competition, whose customer support has been a complete joke since its inception and monopoly allowed them to take huge bites from studio profits for years.
I don't believe anyone should be tied to one company's products like we have with Steam and there should never be a monopoly over this kind of stuff; Valve's dominance of the PC gaming marketplace is plain scary. I'm fine with Valve having to prove that people should use their product over the newcomers.
Right now the most frustrating thing will definitely be the split among ecosystems (chat, etc) and feature parity for things like Steam Workshop. That will smooth out over time, but yeah for now that's definitely an annoyance. I think we'll see an intermediary app like Discord fill the social space, just like how XFire used to dominate in the 2000's.
The irony in this statement is kind of ridiculous. You can't play many games without owning a Steam account right now. How is that any different in principle?
Overall, I recognize the Epic Store has some large issues and it definitely deserves criticism, but I just don't see why this shift is such a big deal in the long run. It's a good thing that Valve is getting competition, whose customer support has been a complete joke since its inception and monopoly allowed them to take huge bites from studio profits for years.
I don't believe anyone should be tied to one company's products like we have with Steam and there should never be a monopoly over this kind of stuff; Valve's dominance of the PC gaming marketplace is plain scary. I'm fine with Valve having to prove that people should use their product over the newcomers.
Right now the most frustrating thing will definitely be the split among ecosystems (chat, etc) and feature parity for things like Steam Workshop. That will smooth out over time, but yeah for now that's definitely an annoyance. I think we'll see an intermediary app like Discord fill the social space, just like how XFire used to dominate in the 2000's.
wtf. epic "buys" exclusives. This is something steam has never done. If a developer has their game on steam, they're free to release it anywhere else. Epic has exclusivity contracts
You're phrasing this as if Epic is going around making all these poor developers do their bidding - the developer is agreeing to list their game as an exclusive.
Be mad at the dev for making the choice to host only on Epic Store if you're upset about it - they're aware of the consequences and could have easily gone with Steam instead.
Be mad at the dev for making the choice to host only on Epic Store if you're upset about it - they're aware of the consequences and could have easily gone with Steam instead.
It's often a decision of the publishers, not the devs.
The monopoly store doesn't need exclusives, they're already the monopoly. And back when Steam was first starting out, there weren't competing storefronts that they could demand developers withhold their games from.
> Epic isn't making a marketplace where I want to spend my money by being better than Steam, they're just trying to make a place where I have to spend money if I want to play certain games. Good luck with that one.
Seems to be working ok for EA's Origin store, Battle.net and Mojang though.
Seems to be working ok for EA's Origin store, Battle.net and Mojang though.
Everyone does it because it DOES work, and that's the awful part for consumers.
People forget that Valve made Half-life 2 - at the time one of the most anticipated games ever - a Steam exclusive. It's basically the only way these things can get started.
I don't think anyone has a problem with Epic making their own games exclusive - the problem is that Epic is bribing other publishers and now purchasing developers to create artifical little monopolies which force the consumer to use their product if they want the game.
> I don't think anyone has a problem with
Yes, yes they did. At the time HL2 forced Steam on everyone, it was hated and despised. People forget this. It's how I know Epic will win. Gamers are weak.
Yes, yes they did. At the time HL2 forced Steam on everyone, it was hated and despised. People forget this. It's how I know Epic will win. Gamers are weak.
There customer service queue is literally months long before they probably ignore your request.
Every return I've ever done has been approved and completed in under 2 days. Old Steam Support (Pre-2014ish) was a disaster though, so I can totally understand where you're coming from.
Returns are the only thing they do well. Their support is absolute garbage in every other regard.
[deleted]
They’re known for products that service hardcore gamers. Limited appeal twitch shooters, and face melting new graphics. Not exactly known for their emotional thinking relative to Valve.
Not hard to see similar limited appeal moves to amass popularity with a particular type of eyeball.
Not hard to see similar limited appeal moves to amass popularity with a particular type of eyeball.
Played rocket league for years, really miffed here. At some future point all the steam workshop and custom content wont work for players, so anything there is now DOA.
Splitting the install base effectively across another platform just spits in the eye of people who've bought RL and want to make it easy to see/join their friends. They've had years of problems getting a unified platform going, and its still not nearly as simple and straightforward as using steam friends.
Probably going to ask for a refund on Steam when this game is no longer for sale.
Splitting the install base effectively across another platform just spits in the eye of people who've bought RL and want to make it easy to see/join their friends. They've had years of problems getting a unified platform going, and its still not nearly as simple and straightforward as using steam friends.
Probably going to ask for a refund on Steam when this game is no longer for sale.
Why would you ask for a refund when you've played it for years? Does that time not count? Was it not enjoyable?
Absolutely it counts, and it was enjoyable.
However, if you want to break your game after I purchased it and change the rules of how that license works and dont expect me to possibly change my mind about my decision, think again.
All the money I spent buying decryptors and getting wins/losses/placements and having an account where I could easily tell where all my friends are playing in one place also counts.
When its likely that EGS will get features that I wont (even though I funded the original building of all this) it grinds my gears - the vague announcement from a corporate aquihire is a klaxon shouting about the changes that are in the pipeline.
If Psy wants to say "hey, we'd be glad to move all your stuff over without a hassle" I actually wouldn't really be miffed, but that's not what they came to us with.
However, if you want to break your game after I purchased it and change the rules of how that license works and dont expect me to possibly change my mind about my decision, think again.
All the money I spent buying decryptors and getting wins/losses/placements and having an account where I could easily tell where all my friends are playing in one place also counts.
When its likely that EGS will get features that I wont (even though I funded the original building of all this) it grinds my gears - the vague announcement from a corporate aquihire is a klaxon shouting about the changes that are in the pipeline.
If Psy wants to say "hey, we'd be glad to move all your stuff over without a hassle" I actually wouldn't really be miffed, but that's not what they came to us with.
It sounds like you got what you payed for and have used it for a long time. Did you buy what what was available at the time, or did you pay for what you thought it would be years into the future?
What other goods or services do you expect to use for years and then get your money back? If Spotify removes your favorite artist, do you expect to get money back for the years you already payed for while you listened to that artist?
What other goods or services do you expect to use for years and then get your money back? If Spotify removes your favorite artist, do you expect to get money back for the years you already payed for while you listened to that artist?
I think you are getting confused about how RL works. The continuing payments are decryptors and the rocket pass - this is the "continuing service" that frankly I am not talking about getting a refund on, I got my money for exactly what they promised.
The initial price of rocket league is what I am talking about - and yes, that's where I believe that the contract of violations were broken.
If you change your car's firmware 5 years after its released so it behaves in a way that I cant use it as I have always used it, I might have changed my purchase decision - and in the car example I usually get to accept or decline the change - I cant (obviously) because this has a service component.
The initial price of rocket league is what I am talking about - and yes, that's where I believe that the contract of violations were broken.
If you change your car's firmware 5 years after its released so it behaves in a way that I cant use it as I have always used it, I might have changed my purchase decision - and in the car example I usually get to accept or decline the change - I cant (obviously) because this has a service component.
Was there any promise (contractual obligation) to keep RL servers working for some years?
Give me a break. This is absolutely implied. Else what is the point of investing gaming time in the service developing your identity and game item inventory?
If this were the case, wouldn't anyone just be able to successfully sue essentially any MMORPG that went under?
Yes. The OP is behaving childishly and a prime example of entitlement in gamer culture.
games are enjoyment and people are emotionally invested in things they enjoy, most people don't "get" it i think since every other form of media isn't as commoditized as games(yet). i wonder what kinda entitlement claims will be flying around in the future when disney yanks all their content to their streaming service and puts a nice HBO sized paywall around it.
What happens when amazon kills the last book publisher and then decides to dynamically increase the price of series that people like to read - the next GRRM book is coming out! but it's only on amazon kindle and it's a 100 bucks! chapters are streamed to your device in real time so no taking notes there you pesky pirate.
this is only the beginning, i can see why people are having knee jerk reactions to it
What happens when amazon kills the last book publisher and then decides to dynamically increase the price of series that people like to read - the next GRRM book is coming out! but it's only on amazon kindle and it's a 100 bucks! chapters are streamed to your device in real time so no taking notes there you pesky pirate.
this is only the beginning, i can see why people are having knee jerk reactions to it
Well, they are pulling it from steam. Want to play with your friend that never played? Yeah, you'll need to buy him a copy... on epic's store. And a new one for yourself.
Pulling it from steam is reason enough for me.
Pulling it from steam is reason enough for me.
So far all they've said is they aren't going to sell it on Steam. Any suggestion you won't be able to play with your friend is just speculation.
The PC version of Rocket League will come to the Epic Games store in late 2019. In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers."
Furthermore, Epic clarified that support for Rocket League on Steam will continue even after the game is released on the Epic Games Store and players "will still be able to play Rocket League on Steam with all of the content they've previously purchased, same as always."
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/epic-promises-support-for-r...
The PC version of Rocket League will come to the Epic Games store in late 2019. In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers."
Furthermore, Epic clarified that support for Rocket League on Steam will continue even after the game is released on the Epic Games Store and players "will still be able to play Rocket League on Steam with all of the content they've previously purchased, same as always."
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/epic-promises-support-for-r...
I can’t imagine why Valve would continue to provide services such as Steamworks matchmaking and Workshop content for a game they can’t possibly make any more money from.
Because they'd get bad PR for yanking that stuff? It's not like it costs them a noticeable amount of money to maintain the existing services for a single game for customers who've already purchased it.
Not just speculation, but unimaginably false. Epic even has a completely free online network service that's completely cross platform and for any storefront. I can't picture them not having online work across storefronts.
Why would pulling game sales from Steam affect your ability to play with your friends or make you buy a second copy of the game? They're not blocking network connections from existing copies of Rocket League. This isn't a Sony-like move, where they're siloing off players by platform; they're just switching which game store you purchase new copies from.
You're comparing a product (Rocket League) to a subscription (Spotify). A closer comparison would be how Sony removed the ability to use the OtherOS feature in a firmware update, which could be seen as dealbreaker between buying or not buying the product for some, even after many years owning the product.
I’d call it property damage and would expect full market value in compensation.
This is a simplistic and specious argument. I think owning a game in 2019 (where so much of what is owned is a service, an environment, and a virtual identity within the game's universe) amounts to much more.
So you're saying if you bought a car with smart electronics, then suddenly the manufacturer updates it so that the electronics no longer work properly, you wouldn't take issue? Or how about a credit card with rewards you work toward amassing, then another company buys the company that makes the card and wipes your rewards?
So you're saying if you bought a car with smart electronics, then suddenly the manufacturer updates it so that the electronics no longer work properly, you wouldn't take issue? Or how about a credit card with rewards you work toward amassing, then another company buys the company that makes the card and wipes your rewards?
You're speculating wildly here, and upset at the possibility that Epic will pull Rocketleague from Steam.
Verge reports that Rocket League will be pulled from Steam
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/1/18525842/epic-games-psyoni...
"As a result of the deal, Psyonix says it will have access to more resources to support Rocket League’s competitive e-sports league and, by late 2019, will bring the game to Epic’s PC storefront. After that, Rocket League will no longer be available on Valve’s competing Steam store, though buyers of the Steam version will continue to receive support, which Variety is reporting includes downloadable content, patches, and all other future content. Terms of the deal, including how much money Epic paid to acquire Psyonix, were not made public.
“The PC version of Rocket League will come to the Epic Games store in late 2019. In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers,” reads a press release issued to media at the time of deal’s announcement."
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/1/18525842/epic-games-psyoni...
"As a result of the deal, Psyonix says it will have access to more resources to support Rocket League’s competitive e-sports league and, by late 2019, will bring the game to Epic’s PC storefront. After that, Rocket League will no longer be available on Valve’s competing Steam store, though buyers of the Steam version will continue to receive support, which Variety is reporting includes downloadable content, patches, and all other future content. Terms of the deal, including how much money Epic paid to acquire Psyonix, were not made public.
“The PC version of Rocket League will come to the Epic Games store in late 2019. In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers,” reads a press release issued to media at the time of deal’s announcement."
They will pull it from sale, not make the game inoperable if you bought it on Steam earlier.
Sure, but if you're trying to get someone new to play the game with you on Steam, you may not be able to without buying a separate copy on the Epic Games Store. (I'm hoping they at least let people transfer their Steam copy to EGS, but it's still an extra hurdle for anyone who doesn't already have/want an EGS account.)
In the case of Rocket League, which is crossplay already (steam, xbox, ps4) that shouldn't be an issue.
Hardly, you still cant group cross platform.
Psyonix recently added a "Rocket ID" feature which allows you to add people as friends and party up cross platform.
And how about the ability to purchase in-game items now?
From the Verge article, it doesn't sound definitive, but instead speculative.
> After that, it sounds like Rocket League will no longer be available on Valve’s competing Steam store...
> Here’s the bit that makes it sound like Rocket League’s days on Steam are numbered (bolding ours):
While you're likely right, I haven't seen an official press release that say's it going to be pulled from steam, just that it would only continue to be supported. It's not explicitly called out, so it's left to people to speculate.
My interpretation is Epics PR team purposefully did not explicitly say one way or the other as to Rocket Leagues fate on Steam to
1. Gauge the communities reaction.
2. Allow Epic the ability to make the decision further down the line, including reversing course on the internal decision.
> After that, it sounds like Rocket League will no longer be available on Valve’s competing Steam store...
> Here’s the bit that makes it sound like Rocket League’s days on Steam are numbered (bolding ours):
While you're likely right, I haven't seen an official press release that say's it going to be pulled from steam, just that it would only continue to be supported. It's not explicitly called out, so it's left to people to speculate.
My interpretation is Epics PR team purposefully did not explicitly say one way or the other as to Rocket Leagues fate on Steam to
1. Gauge the communities reaction.
2. Allow Epic the ability to make the decision further down the line, including reversing course on the internal decision.
When you have a beloved product and you announce something potentially concerning you go with some of those concerns up front - the announcement looks like a pretense of all those bad things not being possible while being vague as possible.
I wouldnt say my speculation is wild - its pretty bog standard for video game companies or software companies in general changing hands.
I wouldnt say my speculation is wild - its pretty bog standard for video game companies or software companies in general changing hands.
Minecraft is fully supported on PS4, Switch and iOS platforms, Despite being owned by Microsoft.
It will be pulled from Steam. Epic made their own store recently to compete against steam and they're pushing it aggressively. They've funded new and acquired existing games to be exclusively (re)released in there. They pulled a number of existing titles off from steam, like Borderlands.
This isn't correct, at least not in the country my VPN is in [0]. What is interesting though is that the price is higher than it's been for a while: [1]. Possible skimming of consumers who won't move to Epic if they do pull it, perhaps?
0 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/8980/Borderlands_Game_of_...
1 - https://steamdb.info/app/8980/
0 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/8980/Borderlands_Game_of_...
1 - https://steamdb.info/app/8980/
Push it too agressively and Epic will risk alienating their core customer group: PC Gamers.
For better or worse, Steam is the game store of choice for the PCMR.
For better or worse, Steam is the game store of choice for the PCMR.
Borderlands, Borderlands 2, and Borderlands Pre Sequel all appear to be for sale still on Steam.
> However, if you want to break your game after I purchased it and change the rules of how that license works and dont expect me to possibly change my mind about my decision, think again.
It kinda reminds me how Sony crippled the PS3 otherOS feature after the console was sold. It was deemed a major feature which was stripped away artificially and I understand how someone could be pissed.
It kinda reminds me how Sony crippled the PS3 otherOS feature after the console was sold. It was deemed a major feature which was stripped away artificially and I understand how someone could be pissed.
If I bought a DVD and Disney bursts into my house and takes it, "Did you not already watch the movie? Was it not enjoyable?" is not an excuse. No one would assume as much. I would very much expect my money back.
And if they push out a DVD player firmware so it only works on a brand of DVD player I don't own, I would consider it the same thing.
Breaking something I paid for after the fact means I'm not getting what we agreed upon, and I should get my money back, regardless of whether it was a physical good broken/taken or a digital one.
And if they push out a DVD player firmware so it only works on a brand of DVD player I don't own, I would consider it the same thing.
Breaking something I paid for after the fact means I'm not getting what we agreed upon, and I should get my money back, regardless of whether it was a physical good broken/taken or a digital one.
This is a terrible analogy. Rocket League will still continue to be supported on Steam including new DLC released, just no longer sold to new customers. Nobody is taking anything from you.
And they will continue to support linux as well? I find it terribly hard to believe that they will continue to actively develop their linux client to keep up with future DLC after moving the game to an ecosystem that doesn't support linux.
Stop defending these companies. You are entitled to ownership of something you paid for. It’s not a one-time lease agreement no matter what the software companies want you to think.
I'm not sure you read my comment before responding. You retain your copy of Rocket League and it's supported indefinitely on Steam. Nothing has changed for existing owners.
did you reply to the wrong comment?
They better gift copies to existing Steam copy owners on the EGS if they're going to split the userbase.
They likely won't split the userbase, they'll make multiplayer cross compatible.
Why?
Did you get free DVDs for all each VHS you owned when stores stopped selling VHS tapes?
Did you get free DVDs for all each VHS you owned when stores stopped selling VHS tapes?
It's not uncommon to see gamers entitled to a comical degree.
$20 for years of play time and server resource consumption. Thumbs down!
2,000 hours played? Thumbs down! (see Steam reviews for many examples of this)
Ridiculous.
$20 for years of play time and server resource consumption. Thumbs down!
2,000 hours played? Thumbs down! (see Steam reviews for many examples of this)
Ridiculous.
I stopped playing it when they removed one of the best game game modes - unranked Rumble. For those who don't play it was a silly mode where you got a powerup every ten seconds that had wacky effects on the ball / other players. I had gotten bored of the regular modes and this one was the only one I still enjoyed. They made it ranked which had a lot of downsides that made it unplayable for me.
Is this "gamer entitlement"? I paid full purchase price and supported the devs by buying cosmetics - and they take away my favorite game mode, rendering the game useless to me?
Fuck that. There are so many other great games to play, and life is too short to waste on video games anyway.
Is this "gamer entitlement"? I paid full purchase price and supported the devs by buying cosmetics - and they take away my favorite game mode, rendering the game useless to me?
Fuck that. There are so many other great games to play, and life is too short to waste on video games anyway.
Risk of disabling your car with a firmware patch:
HN up in arms about how you bought your product and it shouldn't be disabled in such a fashion.
Gamers complain about gamebreaking changes / purchase-driving features being removed:
"Gamers are entitled"
Yeah, games seem to be the field where even people who are typically pro-consumer go completely anti-consumer.
HN up in arms about how you bought your product and it shouldn't be disabled in such a fashion.
Gamers complain about gamebreaking changes / purchase-driving features being removed:
"Gamers are entitled"
Yeah, games seem to be the field where even people who are typically pro-consumer go completely anti-consumer.
Well thanks for that knee-jerk reaction instead of having any idea of how much time and money I have put into the game. I'd probably be considered a whale by Psy.
The irony being highlighted there is that you've provided a knee-jerk reaction instead of trying to understand how much time and effort people put into making an enjoyable game for you. Nobody would just assume you're propping the whole company up...
Rocket League pretty much pushed cross-platform play to consoles. How would this split the community when they're pushing in precisely the opposite direction? Why wouldn't they do the same now that they're under Epic Games?
Epic has been buying games away from Steam for a while now, this time they are simply buying the developer outright. There is 0 chance the game remains on steam beyond for anyone who already paid for it, but 0 guarantees of new content after this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>spits in the eye
I really wish the gaming community in general would cool it with the aggressive hyperbole. In no way is a developer being acquired equivalent to someone spitting in your eye.
I really wish the gaming community in general would cool it with the aggressive hyperbole. In no way is a developer being acquired equivalent to someone spitting in your eye.
I don't think the issue is Psyonix being acquired, it's Epic's intentions to remove the game from Steam and potentially stop supporting new features on Steam that people are worried about.
Psyonix has done a fantastic job and created an amazing game and I think most people are happy for them and hope this works out, but it's hard to see the bright side of this as an avid Rocket League fan.
Psyonix has done a fantastic job and created an amazing game and I think most people are happy for them and hope this works out, but it's hard to see the bright side of this as an avid Rocket League fan.
1. Cross platorm parties are already available. Why would it not work for two different clients (steam and epic games)?
2. If you played the game for years you cannot get a refund from Stream
2. If you played the game for years you cannot get a refund from Stream
They say
> In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers.
So it sounds like nothing will suddenly stop working?
> In the meantime, it will continue to be available for purchase on Steam; thereafter it will continue to be supported on Steam for all existing purchasers.
So it sounds like nothing will suddenly stop working?
What is this quote from? Maybe the article link changed, I don't see it in the current post.
Ah sorry, it was from the Ars Technica article[0]. The source is cited as "Epic".
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/epic-acquires-rocket-...
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/epic-acquires-rocket-...
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I've played Rocket League for a long time and I think it's an incredible opportunity for esports. It's exciting, extremely fast-paced, the meta is easy to understand for traditional sports fans, and the skill curve is more forgiving at the lower tier than many games.
If Epic can use its reach and resources to promote larger tournaments and higher stakes for Rocket League as an esport, I think that'd be a win for the game.
If they overrun it with more loot crate/f2p stuff and make the game all about the meta, and just use it as an exclusive for their own platform, that will suck.
Congrats to the Psyonix team though. They seem like genuinely great, passionate devs.
If Epic can use its reach and resources to promote larger tournaments and higher stakes for Rocket League as an esport, I think that'd be a win for the game.
If they overrun it with more loot crate/f2p stuff and make the game all about the meta, and just use it as an exclusive for their own platform, that will suck.
Congrats to the Psyonix team though. They seem like genuinely great, passionate devs.
I will stop playing this game if I have to make an Epic account. Their security is a joke. Some Russian made a fake account using my email address without Epic ever actually verifying that the email address they used belonged to the individual that made the account.
>I will stop playing this game if I have to make an Epic account
Haha
Meanwhile I can’t even update my NVIDIA driver without loging into whatever their GeForce platform thing is now called.
Can’t remember your password? Stuck on old driver
Haha
Meanwhile I can’t even update my NVIDIA driver without loging into whatever their GeForce platform thing is now called.
Can’t remember your password? Stuck on old driver
You absolutely can. The GeForce Experience is not necessary for anything. You can download drivers and install them without having to login to anything. GeForce Experience is just for the convenience of automation and for the extra tools it brings with it...
Forcing login for a simple driver update is borderline malicious and you know it.
Yes there are work arounds, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior in what I'd imagine is their main update delivery mechanism.
Yes there are work arounds, but that doesn't excuse this kind of behavior in what I'd imagine is their main update delivery mechanism.
you can visit
https://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us
and download the driver any time you want, just like it always was. GeForce Experience is mostly for the convenience of receiving automatic notifications and download when a new driver version is released.
https://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us
and download the driver any time you want, just like it always was. GeForce Experience is mostly for the convenience of receiving automatic notifications and download when a new driver version is released.
Same. Currently locked out of my own account due to hackers and support has been a bit painful to deal with.
Not verifying emails is unfortunately extremely common.
That said, if someone made an account using your email, can't you trivially "recover" that account and change the password?
That said, if someone made an account using your email, can't you trivially "recover" that account and change the password?
There are several people in this thread who don't understand a lot about modern PC videogame distribution. Just because "you don't care" or "you don't use" certain of Steam's many features it doesn't mean they aren't important or essential.
Thousands of developers rely on Steam, Epic, GOG, etc. for multiplayer networking/matchmaking features (all digital stores offer this type of service, AFAIK, but it's not the same service). In Steam's case this isn't limited to services provided in-game, but also inviting people or joining people directly through the Steam interface, which is invaluable.
Achievements are not unimportant. Millions of players play for the achievement; they are an essential part of their entertainment. In addition, they provide important metrics for developers, players and researchers.
The Steam Workshop is the best system out there for players to publish and obtain custom content and mods for games integrated with Steam. It's an essential part of several games; they literally couldn't exist in their current form without it.
The Steam Inventory can be used for holding a collection of meta-items provided by games to other games or for trading with other players who own the same game. It's not just used for trading cards. It would for example allow a Pokemon game to exist on Steam with tradeable Pokemon. It's used by SteamVR for allowing games to provide assets for SteamVR homes (not very important, but still quite interesting).
Steam's categorization, organization and search features are not excessive but insufficient. I want more of those, not fewer.
Family sharing is important for me to share some of my games with a small number of people from my family or close friends. GOG also allows me to share my games in this manner, since they are DRM-free.
Steam community pages/forums are often nowadays the best place to interact with developers and find important information regarding issues, upcoming patches, difficult bits of gameplay, and generally other people talking about that problem you just had.
I'm not saying Epic can't do all of this, and do it well. But saying that "all you need in a game store is to buy games" is incredibly naive. Any digital retailer that requires all of these services to be nonstandard and dispersed is doomed to lose.
Thousands of developers rely on Steam, Epic, GOG, etc. for multiplayer networking/matchmaking features (all digital stores offer this type of service, AFAIK, but it's not the same service). In Steam's case this isn't limited to services provided in-game, but also inviting people or joining people directly through the Steam interface, which is invaluable.
Achievements are not unimportant. Millions of players play for the achievement; they are an essential part of their entertainment. In addition, they provide important metrics for developers, players and researchers.
The Steam Workshop is the best system out there for players to publish and obtain custom content and mods for games integrated with Steam. It's an essential part of several games; they literally couldn't exist in their current form without it.
The Steam Inventory can be used for holding a collection of meta-items provided by games to other games or for trading with other players who own the same game. It's not just used for trading cards. It would for example allow a Pokemon game to exist on Steam with tradeable Pokemon. It's used by SteamVR for allowing games to provide assets for SteamVR homes (not very important, but still quite interesting).
Steam's categorization, organization and search features are not excessive but insufficient. I want more of those, not fewer.
Family sharing is important for me to share some of my games with a small number of people from my family or close friends. GOG also allows me to share my games in this manner, since they are DRM-free.
Steam community pages/forums are often nowadays the best place to interact with developers and find important information regarding issues, upcoming patches, difficult bits of gameplay, and generally other people talking about that problem you just had.
I'm not saying Epic can't do all of this, and do it well. But saying that "all you need in a game store is to buy games" is incredibly naive. Any digital retailer that requires all of these services to be nonstandard and dispersed is doomed to lose.
people have gone to ridiculous lengths to get the steam version of their games before.They treat it like a profile page. I don't think this thread realizes that
Is what Epic Games doing with their exclusivity deals legal? It's one thing if they pay a developer to exclusively release on their store, but they are paying developers not to release on Steam, even though it's fine for them to put their game on other stores, like the Windows Store, Humble Bundle, etc. That seems super non-competitive, like if Google paid Microsoft to prevent users from installing Firefox, even if though there aren't any technical limitations preventing it.
The same thing is happening with NetFlix. There are no FRAND rules for this sort of thing, as far as I'm aware. If Congress weren't... well, Congress... they might look at this sort of thing.
Exclusivity arrangements certainly seem like potential trust issues, but Steam is a de facto monopoly, as is Amazon, and NetFlix is the clear leader in it's domain.
Exclusivity arrangements certainly seem like potential trust issues, but Steam is a de facto monopoly, as is Amazon, and NetFlix is the clear leader in it's domain.
There are rules about that. NetFlix funds their own shows so they're typically not forced to make them available. In practice, it's mostly a US only company and they relicense most of the productions to other networks around the world.
For example, NetFlix France is a joke, you couldn't watch any netflix shows because they're not available, they sublicensed to canal (the main paid TV service) with exclusively and are left unable to serve their own TV shows.
The Epic Store (and Steam) are global. That's more than 200 jurisdictions with different rules on anti competitive behavior. They are preventing competition globally and systematically, this has to be breaking some rules somewhere.
For example, NetFlix France is a joke, you couldn't watch any netflix shows because they're not available, they sublicensed to canal (the main paid TV service) with exclusively and are left unable to serve their own TV shows.
The Epic Store (and Steam) are global. That's more than 200 jurisdictions with different rules on anti competitive behavior. They are preventing competition globally and systematically, this has to be breaking some rules somewhere.
Way OT, but, I'm interested in why you and the parent comment are writing Netflix with a capital "F" as NetFlix. I've not seen this in any of their branding or collateral before. Is there a specific reason for it?
Years of writing camelCase code have taken their toll. At least they have for me.
Either that or there is some (justifiable) brand confusion, as there are brands/companies spelled like that: "iPhone", "eBay", "FedEx", "DreamWorks", "HarperCollins", etc.
Either that or there is some (justifiable) brand confusion, as there are brands/companies spelled like that: "iPhone", "eBay", "FedEx", "DreamWorks", "HarperCollins", etc.
Not familiar with the service for the aforementioned reason, the catalogue is a joke here. That spelling seemed more likely to me given all the companies written like that.
That's what I was thinking, it reminds me of the recent EU case where Google got fined for saying that if a phone manufacturer wanted to sell Android with Google integrations (Play Store, Search, etc.), they couldn't also sell Android phones without Google integrations.
In general, you cannot commit antitrust violations against the monopoly player (well, unless you're abusing your monopoly position in a related market, but in that case it's the market where you have the monopoly that gives you the ability to commit the antitrust violations).
That said, the DoJ has in more recent times taken the opinion that anything that lowers prices for consumers is implicitly good and anything that raises prices is implicitly bad and used this as the basis for leveraging antitrust complaints against companies that were not in fact the monopoly. In particular I'm thinking about how the monopoly player in ebooks (Amazon) successfully convinced the DoJ to sue the brand new entrant (Apple) because what Apple was doing was causing problems for Amazon's strategy of artificially pricing books lower than they should be in a fair market (even though what Amazon was doing is literally a monopolistic tactic intended to cement a monopoly and prevent anyone from competing, which leads to raising prices down the road once you're sure the competition is gone, i.e. Amazon successfully convinced the DoJ to use antitrust laws to help Amazon cement their monopoly). But since Epic isn't raising prices for games, that doesn't really apply here.
That said, the DoJ has in more recent times taken the opinion that anything that lowers prices for consumers is implicitly good and anything that raises prices is implicitly bad and used this as the basis for leveraging antitrust complaints against companies that were not in fact the monopoly. In particular I'm thinking about how the monopoly player in ebooks (Amazon) successfully convinced the DoJ to sue the brand new entrant (Apple) because what Apple was doing was causing problems for Amazon's strategy of artificially pricing books lower than they should be in a fair market (even though what Amazon was doing is literally a monopolistic tactic intended to cement a monopoly and prevent anyone from competing, which leads to raising prices down the road once you're sure the competition is gone, i.e. Amazon successfully convinced the DoJ to use antitrust laws to help Amazon cement their monopoly). But since Epic isn't raising prices for games, that doesn't really apply here.
There's a pretty big difference between just releasing a new game on a new storefront, and pulling a game (or games) from an existing storefront so it can be exclusive to that new storefront. Weak approach to "competition" if you have to buy your way to relevancy with zero other value to the customer.
To be fair I have basically zero trust of digital storefronts - for example, Steam will no longer run on my still-very-recent MacBook (OS X 10.10), so I can't play any of the hundreds of games I "own" on there anymore.
To be fair I have basically zero trust of digital storefronts - for example, Steam will no longer run on my still-very-recent MacBook (OS X 10.10), so I can't play any of the hundreds of games I "own" on there anymore.
Isn't steam the reason thousands of windows games work out of the box on mac and linux though? Wine wasn't as awesome as it is now without valve's involvement
Sad news. They have a 50 million (!) player base, 350k+ online right now. That means over a billion USD in revenue, probably way more with crates/keys taken into account.
Unless the cost of their server infrastructure got wildly out of control, why would a company that is raking in cash sell out?
Unless the cost of their server infrastructure got wildly out of control, why would a company that is raking in cash sell out?
Epic has F-You Money.
Epic needs users.
Epic bought publisher of a highly popular game their users.
Psyonix sold out, because at everything is has its price.
Expect Epic to forcibly migrate Rocket League Steam users. They will turn RL Steam into an Epic launcher and all current RL Steam users are suddenly Epic users.
For Psyonix and Epic there is no real downside. If you care about this decision, you're not in their demographic, and probably didn't help them generate their F-You Money.
Epic needs users.
Epic bought publisher of a highly popular game their users.
Psyonix sold out, because at everything is has its price.
Expect Epic to forcibly migrate Rocket League Steam users. They will turn RL Steam into an Epic launcher and all current RL Steam users are suddenly Epic users.
For Psyonix and Epic there is no real downside. If you care about this decision, you're not in their demographic, and probably didn't help them generate their F-You Money.
> If you care about this decision, you're not in their demographic, and probably didn't help them generate their F-You Money
I've bought their game in three different platforms.
I've bought their game in three different platforms.
I interpreted parent comment as "you're not in [Epic's] demographic, and probably didn't help [Epic] generate their F-You Money", as a reference to the money gathered from Fortnite.
Unless of course you are referring to the paid version of Fortnite, but I don't think that's clear from your comment.
Unless of course you are referring to the paid version of Fortnite, but I don't think that's clear from your comment.
He was referring to Fortnite BR, where Epic made their f-you money.
Plot twist: They already sold out. Epic Games was acquired by Tencent in 2012. It's one of the big Chinese companies, like Google in the US.
Tencent owns less than 50% of Epic, FWIW.
Just for clarity, Tencent bought a 40% stake in Epic in 2012 [1]. I don't know if this ownership percentage has changed since then.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-tencent-changed-fortni...
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-tencent-changed-fortni...
Its really time for Steam to respond. Eventually the Epic store will match the features of Steam, and open more broadly to upper-tier Indie games. What will be left on Steam? There has already been a notable lack of launches this year.
Steam needs to halve its 30% commission to 15% for all games, and increase the Steam Direct fee to $2,000 to increase average quality. Developers aren't just leaving because of the high commission, they are leaving because of the deluge of junk launching on the store daily.
Steam needs to halve its 30% commission to 15% for all games, and increase the Steam Direct fee to $2,000 to increase average quality. Developers aren't just leaving because of the high commission, they are leaving because of the deluge of junk launching on the store daily.
Great.. another installer to download. I play RL on the lower (very low) pro levels, I just hope it doesn't spark a wild shift. RL has been pretty solid for it's ESports partners and I hope this only brings good things to come. Psyonix deserves it for all their hard work.
I usually appreciate Steam competition, but the Epic launcher is just bad. I agree with you that RL has been great as an ESport, and I really am rooting for Psyonix here, they do definitely deserve it. If anything, I hope this succeeds in spite of Epic.
Will it remain on Steam and playable on Linux?
It is being removed from Steam (EDIT: rather, staying on Steam for now) for Epic Games Store exclusivity, and EGS does not support Linux: https://twitter.com/Wario64/status/1123674492566372352
EDIT2: "Epic clarified to Variety that continued patches, DLC and all other content that hits the PC version of the game through the Epic Game Store will also appear on Steam for those who already own the game."
https://twitter.com/crecenteb/status/1123690436604960771
EDIT2: "Epic clarified to Variety that continued patches, DLC and all other content that hits the PC version of the game through the Epic Game Store will also appear on Steam for those who already own the game."
https://twitter.com/crecenteb/status/1123690436604960771
That feed makes it clear it if you already purchased it on steam that it will be supported there for forever. Not sure if that also applies to linux though.
What does "supported" usually mean in these cases? Will the Steam version receive the same features as the Epic version, or will the Steam version only receive bugfixes?
I'm not a fan of Epic's store feature and usability-wise already, and I don't feel good about Epic's decision to remove RL from the store on Steam.
I'm not a fan of Epic's store feature and usability-wise already, and I don't feel good about Epic's decision to remove RL from the store on Steam.
They're already talking about using EGS specific features. With their user hostile approach to everything EGS, I doubt you'll keep the same experience on Steam.
Do you have any sources for EGS specific features? I really don't want to speculate because I really want to root for Psyonix here, but this is what I'm afraid of. New maps and queues only being available on the Epic version, being able to purchase/unlock DLC/items on the Epic version only etc.
I think it will have to support same features for multiplayer to work.
I wonder how they're going to deal with Steam Workshop stuff. I guess that's probably just going into the dumpster.
It's worth highlighting that right from the initial launch of the Epic Games Store, they said Linux support was happening (as well as Android).
GOG said the same thing about their launcher (it's been years and never happened). Valve has completely revolutionized linux gaming support and now Epic is buying up existing titles and making them exclusive on their windows-only store.
That's a damned shameful decision, because losing SteamOS/Linux support and Steam workshop for the chance to be on the same platform as a fad game is not really "pro-consumer".
This will kill off the Steam Workshop and community pages I'm sure, from which Rocket League benefited heartily.
Just, bad. Bad.
This will kill off the Steam Workshop and community pages I'm sure, from which Rocket League benefited heartily.
Just, bad. Bad.
Epic isn't putting RL on their store because Fortnite is there, they are building the store to milk consumers, use anti-competitive consumer-hostile business practices, and try to put others out of business because they have effectively infinite money from Fortnite.
I used to be sympathetic to Epic games back when they were developing UE4 as a source available engine and were working on UT in the Linux space. But whatever mindshare begot those intentions seems to have totally dried up - thats not to say Epic was ever a particularly ethical business... from the first Unreal they were pretty run of the mill proprietary games maker selling proprietary engines and running the full gamut of games as a service, exclusives, manipulative game design (loot boxes, achievements, skinner boxes, etc) for over a decade.
Now they are half owned by China, overwork their developers horrifically, and are trying to use mountains of 10 year old kids money to coup the PC game space because the suits want that sweet sweet rent seeking 30% cut of game sales that requires no effort or investment by them through market capture in the long run.
I used to be sympathetic to Epic games back when they were developing UE4 as a source available engine and were working on UT in the Linux space. But whatever mindshare begot those intentions seems to have totally dried up - thats not to say Epic was ever a particularly ethical business... from the first Unreal they were pretty run of the mill proprietary games maker selling proprietary engines and running the full gamut of games as a service, exclusives, manipulative game design (loot boxes, achievements, skinner boxes, etc) for over a decade.
Now they are half owned by China, overwork their developers horrifically, and are trying to use mountains of 10 year old kids money to coup the PC game space because the suits want that sweet sweet rent seeking 30% cut of game sales that requires no effort or investment by them through market capture in the long run.
I'm not sure why I even asked, because no matter what they say, it's not going be accurate, what I want to hear, or within my control. 2 games I've paid for that go against my rule of not buying centralized or DRM'd, Rocket League and 7 Days To Die. 1 now has a very uncertain future. I have 51 games on GOG, all of them work on Linux, multiplayer servers can run on any machine, and I can back up my standalone installers in cold storage. I have no concern any of them will ever be unplayable. I'm sticking to the rule from now on.
Yes.
> Editor’s Note: We wanted to clarify something for you after today’s news: Rocket League is and remains available on Steam. Anyone who owns Rocket League through Steam can still play it and can look forward to continued support. Thanks!
> Editor’s Note: We wanted to clarify something for you after today’s news: Rocket League is and remains available on Steam. Anyone who owns Rocket League through Steam can still play it and can look forward to continued support. Thanks!
I am not sure how I feel about this. So long as I can continue to play without interruption then its all good. However, if they try to force me to pay more I am going to be very upset.
Ok, so multiple, competing app stores for a platform are bad? I'm confused now.
Epic is paying boat loads of money so they don't have to compete, that's the issue. Their store is objectively worse than Steam in almost every way, they know they can't compete, so instead they're throwing money at the publishers and telling customers to suck it up and use their store, or don't play the game.
You think Epic is the only game store that buys exclusives? Sony and Microsoft have both been doing this for many years for their platforms (whereas Nintendo prefers to simply develop their own exclusives instead of paying third parties for them).
Real competition would be able to choose between Epic and Steam. This is not.
The problem isn't the competition, it's the exclusivity. My choice as a consumer is being taken away by Epic by forcing me to use their platform.
I guess I will go against the grain and state that I don't really mind Epic's aggressive foray into the marketplace, it seems like their best bet against incumbents and a prove strategy in the marketplace.
People had the same reaction to Uplay (No exclusive games but you still need to have an account) and Origin (Only way to play EA Games) and while the services still don't compare to Steam they were absolutely hated when they came out and now people mostly tolerate them to get access to the big AAA games (Apex Legends came and went but few people complained about Origin Exclusivity).
I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Steam, the client has become quite bloated with tons of unused / deprecated features and Steam Marketplace feels super scammy full of bots and phishing attempts, and their Chat leaves a lot to be desired but I still use it daily.
Only other services I can think of that has exclusive games and people have a positive / non negative reaction to is the Blizzard one but that has like 8 games in total.
I have read that Epic has no plans to remove the game from Steam so we shall see about that, but I for one am fine with more competition if it means that:
A) Exclusivity deals result in more stability for the devs in terms of receiving large cash inflow
B) Forces both parties to improve their services
People had the same reaction to Uplay (No exclusive games but you still need to have an account) and Origin (Only way to play EA Games) and while the services still don't compare to Steam they were absolutely hated when they came out and now people mostly tolerate them to get access to the big AAA games (Apex Legends came and went but few people complained about Origin Exclusivity).
I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Steam, the client has become quite bloated with tons of unused / deprecated features and Steam Marketplace feels super scammy full of bots and phishing attempts, and their Chat leaves a lot to be desired but I still use it daily.
Only other services I can think of that has exclusive games and people have a positive / non negative reaction to is the Blizzard one but that has like 8 games in total.
I have read that Epic has no plans to remove the game from Steam so we shall see about that, but I for one am fine with more competition if it means that:
A) Exclusivity deals result in more stability for the devs in terms of receiving large cash inflow
B) Forces both parties to improve their services
Kind of a weird acquisition if they don't want them for Fortnite dev, why not just make a publishing deal.
Having two big esport games under their belt is a pretty big deal, as well allows them to consolidate those teams under the same company. Psyonix has a lot of experience with developing an esport and Epic Games might also be looking for help developing Fortnite as an esport.
I think it makes good sense. A lot of the things they used to scale Fortnite to the behemoth it is today could also be used for Rocket League. Fortnite's frequent content updates, game events and their business model, could help Rocket League achieve some of the same success (not that is not already big but Fortnite is another level). They already use unreal so another opportunity to leverage existing talent. Lastly the 250 million Fortnite players might also be interested in Rocket League if it was pushed a little.
Rocket League is mostly about its potential as an esport. Buying everything seems like the straight forward way to handle this.
Epic Games seem to be making a gambit that if they can become a marketplace that has significant market share compared to steam all the bad will will be worth it and people will forget. Since they know this Fortnite thing is kind of a limited windfall. So they are going HARD.
Awesome to see the Epic Game Store continuing to make waves. Hopefully the beatings will continue until Valve stops taxing game developers so hard.
Epic gets a lot of flack for being a fairly simple store at the moment, but Steam's had ten years to get where it is. Competition was sorely needed and we're finally getting it.
The CEO of Epic is a big fan of open platforms and cross-platform gaming and a loud and outspoken opponent of walled gardens. If there's anyone who will move us out of this model as much as possible, it's probably him. But exclusives is the only way to fight the Stockholm Syndrome people seem to have with Steam.
Epic gets a lot of flack for being a fairly simple store at the moment, but Steam's had ten years to get where it is. Competition was sorely needed and we're finally getting it.
The CEO of Epic is a big fan of open platforms and cross-platform gaming and a loud and outspoken opponent of walled gardens. If there's anyone who will move us out of this model as much as possible, it's probably him. But exclusives is the only way to fight the Stockholm Syndrome people seem to have with Steam.
>But exclusives is the only way to fight the Stockholm Syndrome people seem to have with Steam.
Stockholm syndrome?
Epic competed for developers on a more competitive split, but have done little to entice users; their platform didn't have even the barest of (edit:) feature* parity with Steam at launch (or even today), and rather than, say, fund new titles for their platform, they've largely paid for existing or in production titles to not appear on their competitor.
They're competing based on attacking their competitor (and/or users of their competitor's platform) rather than by bolstering the merits of their own platform.
It's a shallow distinction but a fair one for consumers to make. "We have helped create this thing for our users" is different than "We paid to prevent their users from having a thing."
Stockholm syndrome?
Epic competed for developers on a more competitive split, but have done little to entice users; their platform didn't have even the barest of (edit:) feature* parity with Steam at launch (or even today), and rather than, say, fund new titles for their platform, they've largely paid for existing or in production titles to not appear on their competitor.
They're competing based on attacking their competitor (and/or users of their competitor's platform) rather than by bolstering the merits of their own platform.
It's a shallow distinction but a fair one for consumers to make. "We have helped create this thing for our users" is different than "We paid to prevent their users from having a thing."
What do users really need from a platform beyond basic social features and the ability to, you know, launch the game?
I've used Steam chat and voice comms all of about 3 times. Discord is better.
Profile pages and achievements? Couldn't care less.
Streaming? There's Twitch for that.
What I really care about from a platform are the games that are available for it. Valve waved the white flag on that a while ago when they abandoned first party game development.
I've used Steam chat and voice comms all of about 3 times. Discord is better.
Profile pages and achievements? Couldn't care less.
Streaming? There's Twitch for that.
What I really care about from a platform are the games that are available for it. Valve waved the white flag on that a while ago when they abandoned first party game development.
Given that we're talking about a store, a shopping cart is generally a good feature. Wish lists / favorites are a useful QoL feature as well. There's a bunch of things like that where it's hard to believe the Epic games store is being pushed so hard without them.
I don't understand why people are lamenting the lack of features on the Epic game store.
I don't need forums or screen shot galleries or any of that junk from my store. I just want games.
If I want to talk about a game or interact with other people who play the same game, I'll go on reddit.
I don't need forums or screen shot galleries or any of that junk from my store. I just want games.
If I want to talk about a game or interact with other people who play the same game, I'll go on reddit.
Just because you don't use or need those features doesn't mean that everyone feels the same.
Many people use any enjoy the features that steam provides. For example, I enjoy the ability to go to someone's profile and be able to instantly join their game. I enjoy the ability to organize events through events in steam groups. Many people I know use the Steam Workshop to share their fan-made content or the Marketplace to sell their items.
It's not just those features in the client though. Steam also has a number of integrations that developers can make in their games, such as achievements, integrating their multiplayer with steam (allowing for the aforementioned joining via profile), cloud saves, controller support, etc.
Right now Epic is missing many of these features and more. With that being said, what reason do I have to use Epic over Steam besides the fact that Epic has a few exclusives?
Many people use any enjoy the features that steam provides. For example, I enjoy the ability to go to someone's profile and be able to instantly join their game. I enjoy the ability to organize events through events in steam groups. Many people I know use the Steam Workshop to share their fan-made content or the Marketplace to sell their items.
It's not just those features in the client though. Steam also has a number of integrations that developers can make in their games, such as achievements, integrating their multiplayer with steam (allowing for the aforementioned joining via profile), cloud saves, controller support, etc.
Right now Epic is missing many of these features and more. With that being said, what reason do I have to use Epic over Steam besides the fact that Epic has a few exclusives?
>The CEO of Epic is a big fan of open platforms and cross-platform gaming and a loud and outspoken opponent of walled gardens.
That is fundamentally opposed to exclusivity contracts with publishers including when games have already been listed and sold on other stores.
>But exclusives is the only way to fight the Stockholm Syndrome people seem to have with Steam.
It's also a way to insure that some people will never touch Epic.
That is fundamentally opposed to exclusivity contracts with publishers including when games have already been listed and sold on other stores.
>But exclusives is the only way to fight the Stockholm Syndrome people seem to have with Steam.
It's also a way to insure that some people will never touch Epic.
> Hopefully the beatings will continue until Valve stops taxing game developers so hard.
87.5% of Steam's sales in Asia are from over 90 non-standard payment methods (outside of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, PayPal, PaySafe), and Steam Retail Cards cost Valve 10-15% of the sale. Epic either just don't support them, or charge the customer extra. I don't think it's fair to say Valve are "taxing game developers so hard".
https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/appmgmt/gdc2019/slides/gdc_2... (search "Steam Retail Cards") or https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/resources/gdc2019 (full presentation; 35:40)
87.5% of Steam's sales in Asia are from over 90 non-standard payment methods (outside of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, PayPal, PaySafe), and Steam Retail Cards cost Valve 10-15% of the sale. Epic either just don't support them, or charge the customer extra. I don't think it's fair to say Valve are "taxing game developers so hard".
https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/appmgmt/gdc2019/slides/gdc_2... (search "Steam Retail Cards") or https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/resources/gdc2019 (full presentation; 35:40)
A couple of months ago they didn't even support regional pricing. Still doubt they support domestic cards. With so many news on hacks on epic account, I've never heard of abyone being thrilled to create an epic account
Walled gardens and exclusives are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps you're thinking of CD Projekt Red, who have actually been fighting exclusives and walled gardens for quite some time.
Perhaps you're thinking of CD Projekt Red, who have actually been fighting exclusives and walled gardens for quite some time.
CD Projekt Red and GOG is doing some great stuff, I think you'd find Epic is much closer to that than you might imagine.
Epic has stated it will put it's games on Steam if Valve drops their cut down to 12%. Epic probably is a little more pragmatic than GOG on ensuring they operate profitably, with willingness to offer compensation for exclusive launches, allowing DRM (although not offering any of their own), etc. but if you've followed Tim Sweeney or read things he's said going back for years, it's obvious he's one of the good guys. He's a CEO of a large business and has to make moves to actually be successful and profitable, but he is strongly opinionated about what's "right" and pushes Epic in that direction where possible.
Bear in mind, even if Epic wasn't offering incentives for exclusives, it would still be silly for game developers to release on both: Sales on Steam would hurt their sales on Epic, and they profit vastly more from Epic sales.
Epic has stated it will put it's games on Steam if Valve drops their cut down to 12%. Epic probably is a little more pragmatic than GOG on ensuring they operate profitably, with willingness to offer compensation for exclusive launches, allowing DRM (although not offering any of their own), etc. but if you've followed Tim Sweeney or read things he's said going back for years, it's obvious he's one of the good guys. He's a CEO of a large business and has to make moves to actually be successful and profitable, but he is strongly opinionated about what's "right" and pushes Epic in that direction where possible.
Bear in mind, even if Epic wasn't offering incentives for exclusives, it would still be silly for game developers to release on both: Sales on Steam would hurt their sales on Epic, and they profit vastly more from Epic sales.
Steam allows you to sell your game and provide players with steam keys from your own website without taking any cut. So that 30% cut that steam takes gets diluted quite a bit.
Epic does not allow for that level of distribution. It also doesn’t seem like they will.
Your argument about walled gardens also falls apart as soon as you realize that Epic is pushing for exclusivity.
Epic does not allow for that level of distribution. It also doesn’t seem like they will.
Your argument about walled gardens also falls apart as soon as you realize that Epic is pushing for exclusivity.
Your argument about exclusivity is broken when you realize they are literally allowing people to buy games via Humble Bundle.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/03/20/epic-is-bringing-its...
So while it's not 100% the same, it's progression far faster than Steam did when Valve pissed the gaming community off by forcing HL2 players to install Steam.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/03/20/epic-is-bringing-its...
So while it's not 100% the same, it's progression far faster than Steam did when Valve pissed the gaming community off by forcing HL2 players to install Steam.
(Can't read the article from my current location) But will the games be downloadable directly from Humble Bundle, or am I just buying a key to redeem on the Epic Game Store (which is the way most HB game purchases work)? If it's the latter, then it is still exclusive.
> CD Projekt Red and GOG is doing some great stuff, I think you'd find Epic is much closer to that than you might imagine.
Absolutely absurd. Steam fundamentally is less of a walled garden than the EGS feature-wise. All you need to do is look at CD-key activation on the steam store. Both Steam and EGS come with the app-requirement constraint, but only one allows you to redeem games purchased offsite.
Besides "He's a good person and will do good things", what actions show this.
Absolutely absurd. Steam fundamentally is less of a walled garden than the EGS feature-wise. All you need to do is look at CD-key activation on the steam store. Both Steam and EGS come with the app-requirement constraint, but only one allows you to redeem games purchased offsite.
Besides "He's a good person and will do good things", what actions show this.
ohithereyou(1)
> Bear in mind, even if Epic wasn't offering incentives for exclusives, it would still be silly for game developers to release on both: Sales on Steam would hurt their sales on Epic, and they profit vastly more from Epic sales.
That's clearly not the case yet, otherwise Epic wouldn't be investing so much effort into pulling exclusives, including games that already have started taking pre-orders on other platforms (to be fair, it seems like those are being honored)
Making their platform a bit less shit for users might help too. It's not like Steam is a pinnacle of good UX that's impossible to beat. Winning through quality and good support would certainly feel better than the impression of "We can burn money getting into this market, so let's buy stuff people want" they're leaving now.
That's clearly not the case yet, otherwise Epic wouldn't be investing so much effort into pulling exclusives, including games that already have started taking pre-orders on other platforms (to be fair, it seems like those are being honored)
Making their platform a bit less shit for users might help too. It's not like Steam is a pinnacle of good UX that's impossible to beat. Winning through quality and good support would certainly feel better than the impression of "We can burn money getting into this market, so let's buy stuff people want" they're leaving now.
They've released a public roadmap, obviously as more people are on the platform (due to the high profile launches), they're going to be putting increasing effort into improving the platform. Steam has had a long time to improve, and it's still plenty kludgey in certain areas.
I feel people often underestimate the difficulty of going against a monopoly that's been king for over a decade. Multiple avenues are the only way to succeed. I think Epic Store would be DOA without exclusives, regardless of the quality of their launcher.
I feel people often underestimate the difficulty of going against a monopoly that's been king for over a decade. Multiple avenues are the only way to succeed. I think Epic Store would be DOA without exclusives, regardless of the quality of their launcher.
We are talking about the same Epic Games? The ones that abused there position as tech support to get FortNite out the door? The ones that destroyed Silicon Knights? The ones that are 40% owned by TenCent?
I somehow doubt they're on the side of angels.
I somehow doubt they're on the side of angels.
Claiming that Epic Games is to blame for the shutdown of Silicon Knights is a reach. Silicon Knights initiated the fight against Epic Games and lost two court cases against them. They were responsible for their own demise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Knights#Silicon_Knight...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Knights#Silicon_Knight...
Regarding your last paragraph: Epic could put their games on Steam with a 30% price markup. I actually think it would be interesting to see which way users go...
I mean, Metro Exodus is $10 cheaper on Epic than it was on Steam and people are still mad about it. I'm willing to bet people would buy on Steam just because all their other games are on Steam.
I would definitely pay $10 more to have it under the same launcher I've used for a decade. In fact, there's a couple games out recently I've skipped since they decided to release as Epic Store exclusives.
I don't like monopolies, but I like even less having a dozen game launchers/store/accounts.
I don't like monopolies, but I like even less having a dozen game launchers/store/accounts.
And in such, you've proven why Epic is not evil for doing exclusives: There's simply no other way to launch a competitor.
In that respect, Epic is just as evil as Steam, since they don't offer Federation nor the same as support of users of their service as a hosting platform for interaction.
In respect to which platforms are objectively less evil, comparing features and actual interaction with community and developers...
The ONLY way I see Epic as being better is paying developers a larger cut (and as a result some titles selling for slightly less).
Steam is doing more to support /my/ platform (a competitor to Windows), and has done more to further competition in other aspects.
I don't want Discord to be the federation method either, and XMPP ended up failing due to several mistakes and not requiring full Federation and transparent (un-modified, future / client side extension enabling) message passing between end users of different platforms.
In respect to which platforms are objectively less evil, comparing features and actual interaction with community and developers...
The ONLY way I see Epic as being better is paying developers a larger cut (and as a result some titles selling for slightly less).
Steam is doing more to support /my/ platform (a competitor to Windows), and has done more to further competition in other aspects.
I don't want Discord to be the federation method either, and XMPP ended up failing due to several mistakes and not requiring full Federation and transparent (un-modified, future / client side extension enabling) message passing between end users of different platforms.
I agree, I think its a good thing Steam is receiving competition. They have stagnated for a long time with high fees, bad customer service and a bloated drm-filled application.
This isn't competition.
Competition is two stores offering incentives to users to come buy the product from them as opposed to the competitor.
This is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. If Steam were doing similar things, no one would stand for it, and I find it really odd that Epic gets a pass from some people.
As the consumer, I want to be able to choose which store I buy from based on the merits of the store and the deals offered.
Competition is two stores offering incentives to users to come buy the product from them as opposed to the competitor.
This is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. If Steam were doing similar things, no one would stand for it, and I find it really odd that Epic gets a pass from some people.
As the consumer, I want to be able to choose which store I buy from based on the merits of the store and the deals offered.
This comment is very misinformed on so many fronts. I am glad people with more HN points are downvoting this, because I am not really able to.
"Editor’s Note: We wanted to clarify something for you after today’s news: Rocket League is and remains available on Steam. Anyone who owns Rocket League through Steam can still play it and can look forward to continued support. Thanks!"
I can only hope that these kinds of fights lead to a greater analysis of letting major companies have this control over access
Congratulations Psyonix team!
Why did Psyonix want to be acquired?
Why not?
Rocket league is a finished and established product. They also don't seem to have any big plans in the near future. They are totally fine with selling season pass and crats/keys. They don't seem to care about new content in form of gameplay changes, or fixing month old bugs for that matter.
I'd argue that it's the perfect time to 'sell out'. They already won, it is now a good point in time to move on and do something else.
Rocket league is a finished and established product. They also don't seem to have any big plans in the near future. They are totally fine with selling season pass and crats/keys. They don't seem to care about new content in form of gameplay changes, or fixing month old bugs for that matter.
I'd argue that it's the perfect time to 'sell out'. They already won, it is now a good point in time to move on and do something else.
Most likely classical start up cashout.
This seems likely. They began piling on sponsorships when the game became feature-complete and since then the only significant changes have been additional micro-transactions. There is little left to squeeze out of Psyonix in terms of innovation. The acquisition will help drag Steam users kicking and screaming into the Epic Store.
I played a ton of Rocket League and I think there's some non-obvious benefits to Psyonix being acquired by Epic Games that boil down to "Psyonix can be more focused on the core game".
Being acquired by Epic could reduce headaches in these areas:
- Logistics behind eSports leagues.
- Managing server scale, stability and performance.
- Managing platform cross-play.
- Managing publishing across multiple platforms.
I think that the logistical overhead of keeping the lights on is at the expense of Psyonix's ability to provide meaningful content updates and keep the core gameplay fresh.
Being acquired by Epic could reduce headaches in these areas:
- Logistics behind eSports leagues.
- Managing server scale, stability and performance.
- Managing platform cross-play.
- Managing publishing across multiple platforms.
I think that the logistical overhead of keeping the lights on is at the expense of Psyonix's ability to provide meaningful content updates and keep the core gameplay fresh.
$$$
Epic isn't making a marketplace where I want to spend my money by being better than Steam, they're just trying to make a place where I have to spend money if I want to play certain games. Good luck with that one.