As someone that has been following Ooblets for awhile (and supports Rebecca and Ben on patreon because this game looks promising and I'm hyped for more game studios working in this genre!), I...
Exemplary
As someone that has been following Ooblets for awhile (and supports Rebecca and Ben on patreon because this game looks promising and I'm hyped for more game studios working in this genre!), I think this is a case of the internet being too big.
The tongue-in-cheek style of writing used in this blog post is pretty par for the course for news about this game, considering the game itself has the same style of humor. But when the blog post leaves the bubble of folks that are already interested and supportive and makes its way to reddit and out on the internet, that context is lost and you're left with a lot of outrage.
I honestly read this as them being upfront around doing this to take off the financial pressure and them trying to look into why the Epic store was disliked and address those concerns (albeit in their typical writing style).
For as negative as reddit/discord/etc are right now, I'm happy that there are folks that are still super supportive and understanding. I can't even imagine what it is like to work on a software project for years, and then in the course of a day have the rage of so many people directed your way for one product decision.
Jesus christ, what a smarmy, patronizing blog post. I don't know why they bothered explaining the deal; everyone realizes how exclusivity deals work. They couldn't have thought that explaining it...
Exemplary
Jesus christ, what a smarmy, patronizing blog post. I don't know why they bothered explaining the deal; everyone realizes how exclusivity deals work. They couldn't have thought that explaining it like everyone who has a problem with it is a kindergartner who soiled their underwear would make backlash against it any more palatable.
Personally, I'd much rather have games available on every storefront, and let users decide who they're going to give their money to based on the features of that storefront, their policies, and their business practices, but I understand that a "your game literally can't be a financial failure" is a pretty hard offer to turn down for most developers.
Nonetheless, implying that your potential user base are entitled, and using the argument of "Well climate change is a worse issue than Epic's exclusivity deals" doesn't seem like a particularly great move from a business standpoint, even if this specific game will potentially be very heavily subsidized by Epic.
Everything else aside, the tone of this post was... a choice. Like, I don't know who thought taking the tone this article did to deliver news would be a good idea but they should really get...
Everything else aside, the tone of this post was... a choice. Like, I don't know who thought taking the tone this article did to deliver news would be a good idea but they should really get checked. This is going to fan the flames from general EGS dislike to an all-out hate-parade on them specifically, just for being so damn condescending.
It's so off, I wouldn't be surprised if even Epic asks them to apologize or tone it down.
Wow, this post is condescending. Honestly, the thing I find most irritating is how they pretend that the Epic store is no big deal. You have to enter a contract to purchase through them. You have...
Wow, this post is condescending.
Honestly, the thing I find most irritating is how they pretend that the Epic store is no big deal. You have to enter a contract to purchase through them. You have to intentionally give up rights. And you give them up to a company nearly half-owned by a Chinese corporation who is hell-bent at increasing customer monitization.
It’s also really disappointing to see folks threatening to pirate a game just because they can’t get it on the game launcher they’re used to. Feeling like you’re owed the product of other people’s work on your terms or else you’ll steal it is the epitome of that word “entitlement” that people use to discuss immature, toxic gamers.
It feels like this post was written specifically for this one subset of people. But to pretend that that is everyone who has problems with these deals is tone deaf at best and insulting at worst.
I'm not well informed on this subject and I'm confused at the insinuations. What does that mean? Is it the terms of service? How can epic have you give up rights, and what rights are those? I just...
I'm not well informed on this subject and I'm confused at the insinuations.
You have to enter a contract to purchase through them. You have to intentionally give up rights.
What does that mean? Is it the terms of service? How can epic have you give up rights, and what rights are those?
And you give them up to a company nearly half-owned by a Chinese corporation who is hell-bent at increasing customer monitization
I just googled it and they have a 40% stake, which is non-controlling. Also, what does "hell-bent at increasing customer monitization" mean? Isn't that every company? I would've thought the allegations towards tencent would be more privacy/potentially giving data to government affiliated company.
Also, is there evidence that tencent is particularly "customer monitization" focused? For the most part in League they've left Riot alone. More than Activision did to Blizzard.
The point of any contract is to restrict your actions. The crazy thing about this world is that you are expected to be OK with signing or otherwise accept these agreements blindly. And that is not...
Is it the terms of service? How can epic have you give up rights, and what rights are those?
The point of any contract is to restrict your actions. The crazy thing about this world is that you are expected to be OK with signing or otherwise accept these agreements blindly. And that is not OK. Companies can basically make you agree to anything. If you took the time to read every contract you have agreed to, you would be amazed at how many times you have signed away your rights to have your greviences against these companies in the court of law.
The sale of the company was largely motivated by their desire for their expertise in monitizing the F2P market in particular. See this video to see what kind of monitization schemes they have used in fortnite as an example. I would also venture to guess that they are the motivator for Epic to open a game store in the first place, to act as another lucrative source of income.
I believe we can hold the games industry to higher standards than the poor behavior Activision is known for.
So is the "contract" the ToS? If that is the case, then The courts agree. There is a legal precedence for terms of service, particularly the long walls of text that you skip through, are...
So is the "contract" the ToS? If that is the case, then
The crazy thing about this world is that you are expected to be OK with signing or otherwise accept these agreements blindly. And that is not OK.
The courts agree. There is a legal precedence for terms of service, particularly the long walls of text that you skip through, are unenforceable.
Additionally, is there some specific issue with the Epic ToS? In some respects, it's pretty necessary, which is why basically every service from Steam to reddit has a ToS.
The sale of the company was largely motivated by their desire for their expertise in monitizing the F2P market in particular.
Is there evidence for this?
I would also venture to guess that they are the motivator for Epic to open a game store in the first place, to act as another lucrative source of income.
Is there evidence for this?
With the prior I have, Tencent is hands-off with the companies they own shares in, even the ones they have a 100% ownership of like Riot. Tim still has majority stakes in Epic, he can still do whatever he wants.
Combining those two priors and I have a hard time believing without further evidence that tencent is behind whatever nefarious deeds Epic is supposedly doing.
Point One: I am talking about Ideals more than anything else. I'm not saying that Epic or Tencent are evil. You are arguing against points I'm not trying to make. The primary idea I am trying to...
Point One: I am talking about Ideals more than anything else. I'm not saying that Epic or Tencent are evil. You are arguing against points I'm not trying to make. The primary idea I am trying to present is that it should not be OK to casually push people into binding themselves with contracts.
Point Two: These types of contracts are not universally unenforceable. If they were, they would not be used. The contents of Epic's Terms of service are not relevant in this conversation; see point one.
Point Three: I am not accusing Epic of being 'nefarious'. I am merely saying they are trying to increase monetization. That, in and of itself, isn't evil. For the most part, I actually like Epic. The only thing I don't like about Epic is the mechanisms in which they monetize Fortnite, but heck, I don't really like how most F2P games are monetized. I feel that they take advantage of children by providing them pseudo-gambling experiences.
Point four: 40% may not be a 'controlling' stake, but it doesn't come without power. With that purchase, Tencent also bought two chairs on the board of directors and also has the power to nominate new members. They have real power to affect the decisions Epic makes.
To reiterate, point one was the most important part of what I was trying to say. I feel like you are trying to undermine that point by attacking everything else I said. This whole exchange has felt like trying to argue with an apologist. You have asked me to give you evidence that cannot possibly exist - I obviously cannot give you a recording of the boardmembers' inner monologues when they were making these past decisions, and these meetings are not subject to public scrutiny.
Well, I'm sorry you see everything I said as so aggressive. As I said in my first response, as someone who has become distant from PC gaming I didn't see what the issues you were pointed out were,...
Well, I'm sorry you see everything I said as so aggressive. As I said in my first response, as someone who has become distant from PC gaming I didn't see what the issues you were pointed out were, and was genuinely trying to see what the issues you brought up were.
For ToS, it's two things I'm confused on: one, every service has a ToS with a bunch of terms that people sign to blindly.
This statement
they pretend that the Epic store is no big deal. You have to enter a contract to purchase through them.
Seems to indicate that this is unique to Epic. So I was trying to see how it was unique to Epic, when you also sign a ToS with Steam or GoG that waives a bunch of rights.
I am not accusing Epic of being 'nefarious'. I am merely saying they are trying to increase monetization.
Actually you said Tencent was pushing them to increase monetization, i.e see
The sale of the company was largely motivated by their desire for [Tencent]'s expertise in monetizing the F2P market in particular.
I would also venture to guess that [Tencent] are the motivator for Epic to open a game store in the first place, to act as another lucrative source of income.
To which I asked, why? What evidence or reasons support this?
Basically, with
the thing I find most irritating is how they pretend that the Epic store is no big deal.
Which implies that it is a big deal, and then listed reasons why it was a big deal, then I asked how those reasons are big deals.
Those reasons, from what I have gleamed, is just that they have a ToS and are 40% owned by Tencent.
You're right, I perhaps didn't word my comment very clearly. Sorry about that. It's sometimes difficult to separate the concepts from the real-world happenings they apply to. I really appreciate...
You're right, I perhaps didn't word my comment very clearly. Sorry about that. It's sometimes difficult to separate the concepts from the real-world happenings they apply to.
I really appreciate that you took the time to break down your thinking for me. It felt like we were both talking past eachother, and it was starting to get really frustrating. Now I get where you're coming from.
I do believe that Tencent is trying to push Epic to be more profitable. Sure, it's entirely out of conjecture, but it's fairly sound; when you buy a stake in a company, you want it to be worth more than what you bought it for. They have the power to affect the company, so it stands to reason that they would want to use that power to increase it's value. That's just the way business is typically run.
For the record, I actually was motivated to quickly look over Epic's license agreements after you brought them up. It turns out that their Epic Store EULA actually has language forcing you to go through Arbitration instead of the courts for any disputes, which I personally think is one of the most egregious breach of human rights broadly allowed in today's modern world. Though in a small point of grace, they explicitly allow you to use small claims court, which is where most disputes for a store should actually go through.
https://twitter.com/perplamps/status/1157734799139721216?s=09 "Gotta quickly address the faked screenshot going around of me supposedly saying 'gamers would be better off in gas chambers'....
"Gotta quickly address the faked screenshot going around of me supposedly saying 'gamers would be better off in gas chambers'. Obviously never said that, and as a Jewish person, this one really hurt to see being spread around.
"It'd help if you could report people spreading it." -@perplamps
I genuinely don't understand the EGS hate. Are people just looking for something to be outraged about? Also, every comment about this blog post I've seen so far reaffirms the "entitled gamer"...
I genuinely don't understand the EGS hate. Are people just looking for something to be outraged about?
Also, every comment about this blog post I've seen so far reaffirms the "entitled gamer" stereotype. You didn't know this game existed twenty minutes ago and now you're boycotting it.
I'm not on the hate-train, in that I don't go out of my way to rage about it in literally every thread about Epic - lest I get lumped in with some of the crazies. However, I have a severe distrust...
Exemplary
I'm not on the hate-train, in that I don't go out of my way to rage about it in literally every thread about Epic - lest I get lumped in with some of the crazies. However, I have a severe distrust of EGS.
I suppose part of it is leftover from incredibly bad memories of PC gaming in the 00's outside of Steam. The competition was either releasing 5-CD games in paper sleeves with CD keys and badly-behaved DRM for games that were poorly ported from consoles, or trying to coax you onto awful digital distribution services that were slow, inconvenient and had lame restrictions like download limits. Steam had some scalability problems around the time of Half Life 2's release, but other than that I always had positive experiences with it and Valve always seemed to make smart decisions with Steam, dragging the rest of the industry kicking and screaming into providing good digital distribution.
You owned your games forever and could download them anytime you wanted. Files were not encrypted or under lock and key, and external DRM was discouraged. The store started out curated, but then they opened the floodgates after developer complaints about not being able to get onto the store, which I maintain was the smart decision at the time, even if it did have some unfortunate knock-on effects. And of course the sales ensured that I never had to pay full price for a AAA game if I was just patient enough. Steam, in my opinion, was a huge net positive for PC gaming, and quite possibly might have even "saved" it.
Having said all of that, I'm not a zealot. I understand that indie developers have to eat, and I don't mind buying games directly from developers, or through a store like itch.io or Humble Bundle, if it will put more money in their coffers. I also personally think that GoG does a better job with fixing up old games. I don't even mind Origin or Battle.net, because those programs are pleasant to use and Origin's refund policy in particular was fantastic and a necessary advancement for digital distribution.
Epic Game Store, distinct from the others, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It does not appear to me that they're competing other digital distribution platforms on any of their merits of their platform, all they have to offer is their enormous warchest and their buying-out of exclusives. When Epic buys an exclusive, there's no net positive to the consumer like when Steam dragged the industry towards digital, or when Origin introduced their refund policy, and that's fundamentally what bothers me, they're trying to "win" marketshare without actually delivering a better product.
There's other stuff that bothers me about EGS too. Their application is a janky jittery mess that is unpleasant to use (by far the worst of the major digital distribution stores), and their social features are lacking to the point that I don't even know the identities of 95% of the people who have sent me friend requests, and can't remember the names of the people I have friended. But that stuff can be fixed in time. It's the fact that they're not competing on the merits of their store is why I have no intention of buying games on their store anytime soon, not even bothering with the freebies.
However, I won't ever blame an indie developer for taking their offer. I'm unlikely to buy their game until it reaches another platform, but I completely understand the thought process. Game development is tough, take the guaranteed money.
There's still a lot of latent dislike and distrust of Epic and the EGS because of how they bought out the digital retail rights of some other high profile games out of nowhere, after Steam...
There's still a lot of latent dislike and distrust of Epic and the EGS because of how they bought out the digital retail rights of some other high profile games out of nowhere, after Steam releases and keys had already been promised.
Of course, as gamers are wont to do, there are a lot of tantrums that go overboard and make the entire thing seem childish, but there are some legitimate concerns to be had with how Epic acquired and bought exclusivity for some titles. Chiefly: is it right for a company to use capital to acquire the exclusive retail rights to something? It disadvantages any new players in the market because they won't have ludicrous capital to match that, and it also destroys any chance of competitive pricing. To date, none of the EGS exclusives have seen sales with the level or frequency as games that are sold on all digital retail stores.
something I haven't seen yet but it's yet another launcher to install and have running in the background for no reason. pretty minor but to some people it's a big deal.
something I haven't seen yet but it's yet another launcher to install and have running in the background for no reason. pretty minor but to some people it's a big deal.
Personally I dislike how many games Epic has "stolen" from Linux. Borderlands and Metro in particular had good and famously amazing Linux support, now both locked on a platform with no Linux...
Personally I dislike how many games Epic has "stolen" from Linux. Borderlands and Metro in particular had good and famously amazing Linux support, now both locked on a platform with no Linux support at all. It's a bit frustrating, but that doesn't have much to do with this game. AFAIK it never planned Linux support, although I imagine it would have run nicely in Proton.
Dunno that I'd say Borderlands has good Linux support. There was a port, but gearbox went back and broke multiplayer for the Linux releases of 2 and TPS over four months ago now, with that...
Dunno that I'd say Borderlands has good Linux support. There was a port, but gearbox went back and broke multiplayer for the Linux releases of 2 and TPS over four months ago now, with that optional HD texture pack. Still no official fix or even an ETA for one. I had to install the windows version of the game and run it through proton.
That aside, I definitely share your concern. Epic bought Psyonix not too long ago, and if they do end up de-listing Rocket League from steam, they won't just be depriving us of future installments in a franchise, they'll actively be un-porting games from Linux. Super frustrating that this is happening just as Linux is approaching viability as a gaming OS, epic wrecking twenty years of hard work as collateral damage in their effort to force their way into the game distribution market.
Man alive, Reddit is eating this post up for the devs not giving them an ice cream cone and hand job for going with Epic. And I get you want to manage expectations and this is not the way to do...
Man alive, Reddit is eating this post up for the devs not giving them an ice cream cone and hand job for going with Epic. And I get you want to manage expectations and this is not the way to do it, but wow that hit a nerve.
Haha yeah, I haven't looked at any of the discussions of it anywhere (and don't want to), but I knew it would be causing some outrage, because the tone of it is pretty condescending and sassy....
Haha yeah, I haven't looked at any of the discussions of it anywhere (and don't want to), but I knew it would be causing some outrage, because the tone of it is pretty condescending and sassy. They're not really wrong about any of it, but it's definitely not the way to get people to understand your side of the argument.
Then again, they've now guaranteed they'll make as much money as they expected to anyway, so they probably don't even really care any more how much it pisses people off.
Sure, for this game. What happens in 3 to 5 years when the devs want to make another game, the EGS is an established platform by then (by all the gods, I hope not) and Epic won't give you any more...
Then again, they've now guaranteed they'll make as much money as they expected to anyway, so they probably don't even really care any more how much it pisses people off.
Sure, for this game. What happens in 3 to 5 years when the devs want to make another game, the EGS is an established platform by then (by all the gods, I hope not) and Epic won't give you any more funding because hey, your last game sold poorly because alienated your audience with an unpopular move that you then justified by being assholes. They also skirt around the issues people have with the store, arguing against (really bad) strawmen in such a condescending tone, that I will go out of my way not buying the game, and I had no idea Ooblets existed beforehand.
This type of zero-stake outrage is exactly what they're talking about. You didn't even know the game existed yesterday, but now you're announcing your boycott of it and coming up with scenarios...
This type of zero-stake outrage is exactly what they're talking about. You didn't even know the game existed yesterday, but now you're announcing your boycott of it and coming up with scenarios where this decision leads to the demise of a 2-person development studio you had never heard of.
I don't like Epic's approach either, but this type of response is what's making developers feel like the outrage doesn't need to be taken seriously.
"Zero-stake outrage" is a great identifier with a lot of utility, and one that I've never heard before. To me, it perfectly captures a specific and frustrating phenomenon that's pervasive in...
"Zero-stake outrage" is a great identifier with a lot of utility, and one that I've never heard before. To me, it perfectly captures a specific and frustrating phenomenon that's pervasive in internet discourse. Is the phrase something you coined?
Apparently! The only google result is my own Tildes user page too. I don't know if "stake" is really the best word for what I mean, but yeah, it's a very big part of the internet right now. You...
Apparently! The only google result is my own Tildes user page too.
I don't know if "stake" is really the best word for what I mean, but yeah, it's a very big part of the internet right now. You can constantly see these giant online mobs that are upset about something, and if you went entirely off the reactions you see online you'd think it was a complete disaster. But then there ends up being almost no impact on the real measure, whether that's movie ticket sales, people buying a product, etc.
The people acting righteous online about it often aren't part of the "audience" anyway, or in a lot of cases they're just doing a kind of outrage performance but still buy anyway. This image is 10 years old now, but it's still such a perfect summary.
Searched for a couple variants online, and it seems to be an unused term. Someone tweeted about "low stakes outrage" but that was the closest thing I could find. I'd argue that "zero stakes...
Searched for a couple variants online, and it seems to be an unused term. Someone tweeted about "low stakes outrage" but that was the closest thing I could find.
I'd argue that "zero stakes disgust" is a more correct term for the effect, but to have zero stakes outrage over "zero stakes outrage" seems kinda self defeating.
I don't know if it's zero-stakes, because the game itself actually appeals to me. If I knew it would've existed, I would've kept an eye on it because I like games like Stardew Valley, Harvest Moon...
I don't know if it's zero-stakes, because the game itself actually appeals to me. If I knew it would've existed, I would've kept an eye on it because I like games like Stardew Valley, Harvest Moon etc.
I'm fairly sure that this is what everyone is waiting for with all these games choosing to go exclusive for a short-term windfall.
What happens in 3 to 5 years when the devs want to make another game, the EGS is an established platform by then (by all the gods, I hope not) and Epic won't give you any more funding because hey, your last game sold poorly because alienated your audience with an unpopular move that you then justified by being assholes.
I'm fairly sure that this is what everyone is waiting for with all these games choosing to go exclusive for a short-term windfall.
Epic posted a statement today in response to this whole mess: Epic’s Statement on Misinformation & Abuse I'm not sure if they're doing anything in particular about it, but this has probably been...
I'm not sure if they're doing anything in particular about it, but this has probably been one of the worst backlashes overall, even though it was a relatively minor game. The developer also made a patrons-only post on their Patreon over the weekend talking about how bad it's been, GamesIndustry quoted most (maybe all?) of it here.
He finally just yelled, “I felt like the film was making fun of me!”
And there it was. All these things that I’ve been talking about. The feeling of “being talked down to” by Holdo. The not wanting Finn to be silly. The ignoring of character arcs, the silly tone, the faux logic arguments, it all adds up into the vicarious way people place themselves into a movie. So they felt attacked by this movie…but it’s not attacking them, it’s attacking qualities of people. It’s attacking toxic masculinity. It’s attacking toxic fandom. It’s attacking all the worst parts of ourselves and asking us to do better.
But to everyone who wants the power fantasy, they can only shout in response, “this doesn’t make me feel the way I want to feel!”
Yes, Epic Exclusives show a naked capitalistic grab for power and marketplace dominance, but that's only because it mirrors and is made of gaming. Steam is a store, not a protocol, not an omnibus, and not a religion that can be blasphemed, and if you cannot stand it existing and withholding it's lovelies from you, wait the g-d year, and leave the devs out of it, because that's a you problem.
Does Epics offer really match the earnings they would have made across all stores? Sure, Epic will pony up the cash for lost sales on this game, but now its eventual followup will have a smaller...
Does Epics offer really match the earnings they would have made across all stores? Sure, Epic will pony up the cash for lost sales on this game, but now its eventual followup will have a smaller userbase to draw from. I think a lot of indie devs are being very short sighted by accepting these deals.
Their next game doesn't have to exclusive, there's not even that part of the risk. Indie dev as a business is such a crapshoot this is honestly a no-brainer. Even if there are some possibilities...
Their next game doesn't have to exclusive, there's not even that part of the risk. Indie dev as a business is such a crapshoot this is honestly a no-brainer. Even if there are some possibilities in which this is harmful for growth overall, the expected value of taking Epic's deal is much higher from a financial PoV. And not only is the EV higher, but the variance is lower.
This game isn't even permanently exclusive, it's a time-limited exclusivity. They'll almost certainly release it on Steam and other platforms eventually too (and maybe even make a second...
This game isn't even permanently exclusive, it's a time-limited exclusivity. They'll almost certainly release it on Steam and other platforms eventually too (and maybe even make a second "mini-launch" out of it). From what I remember seeing so far, I think most of the deals have been a one-year exclusive period, with Borderlands 3 getting a 6-month one.
Of course, their next game might not be exclusive, but that doesn't make up for the free marketing you get from having lots of people who played and enjoyed your first game.
Of course, their next game might not be exclusive, but that doesn't make up for the free marketing you get from having lots of people who played and enjoyed your first game.
As someone that has been following Ooblets for awhile (and supports Rebecca and Ben on patreon because this game looks promising and I'm hyped for more game studios working in this genre!), I think this is a case of the internet being too big.
The tongue-in-cheek style of writing used in this blog post is pretty par for the course for news about this game, considering the game itself has the same style of humor. But when the blog post leaves the bubble of folks that are already interested and supportive and makes its way to reddit and out on the internet, that context is lost and you're left with a lot of outrage.
I honestly read this as them being upfront around doing this to take off the financial pressure and them trying to look into why the Epic store was disliked and address those concerns (albeit in their typical writing style).
For as negative as reddit/discord/etc are right now, I'm happy that there are folks that are still super supportive and understanding. I can't even imagine what it is like to work on a software project for years, and then in the course of a day have the rage of so many people directed your way for one product decision.
Jesus christ, what a smarmy, patronizing blog post. I don't know why they bothered explaining the deal; everyone realizes how exclusivity deals work. They couldn't have thought that explaining it like everyone who has a problem with it is a kindergartner who soiled their underwear would make backlash against it any more palatable.
Personally, I'd much rather have games available on every storefront, and let users decide who they're going to give their money to based on the features of that storefront, their policies, and their business practices, but I understand that a "your game literally can't be a financial failure" is a pretty hard offer to turn down for most developers.
Nonetheless, implying that your potential user base are entitled, and using the argument of "Well climate change is a worse issue than Epic's exclusivity deals" doesn't seem like a particularly great move from a business standpoint, even if this specific game will potentially be very heavily subsidized by Epic.
Everything else aside, the tone of this post was... a choice. Like, I don't know who thought taking the tone this article did to deliver news would be a good idea but they should really get checked. This is going to fan the flames from general EGS dislike to an all-out hate-parade on them specifically, just for being so damn condescending.
It's so off, I wouldn't be surprised if even Epic asks them to apologize or tone it down.
Wow, this post is condescending.
Honestly, the thing I find most irritating is how they pretend that the Epic store is no big deal. You have to enter a contract to purchase through them. You have to intentionally give up rights. And you give them up to a company nearly half-owned by a Chinese corporation who is hell-bent at increasing customer monitization.
It feels like this post was written specifically for this one subset of people. But to pretend that that is everyone who has problems with these deals is tone deaf at best and insulting at worst.
I'm not well informed on this subject and I'm confused at the insinuations.
What does that mean? Is it the terms of service? How can epic have you give up rights, and what rights are those?
I just googled it and they have a 40% stake, which is non-controlling. Also, what does "hell-bent at increasing customer monitization" mean? Isn't that every company? I would've thought the allegations towards tencent would be more privacy/potentially giving data to government affiliated company.
Also, is there evidence that tencent is particularly "customer monitization" focused? For the most part in League they've left Riot alone. More than Activision did to Blizzard.
The point of any contract is to restrict your actions. The crazy thing about this world is that you are expected to be OK with signing or otherwise accept these agreements blindly. And that is not OK. Companies can basically make you agree to anything. If you took the time to read every contract you have agreed to, you would be amazed at how many times you have signed away your rights to have your greviences against these companies in the court of law.
The sale of the company was largely motivated by their desire for their expertise in monitizing the F2P market in particular. See this video to see what kind of monitization schemes they have used in fortnite as an example. I would also venture to guess that they are the motivator for Epic to open a game store in the first place, to act as another lucrative source of income.
I believe we can hold the games industry to higher standards than the poor behavior Activision is known for.
So is the "contract" the ToS? If that is the case, then
The courts agree. There is a legal precedence for terms of service, particularly the long walls of text that you skip through, are unenforceable.
Additionally, is there some specific issue with the Epic ToS? In some respects, it's pretty necessary, which is why basically every service from Steam to reddit has a ToS.
Is there evidence for this?
Is there evidence for this?
With the prior I have, Tencent is hands-off with the companies they own shares in, even the ones they have a 100% ownership of like Riot. Tim still has majority stakes in Epic, he can still do whatever he wants.
Combining those two priors and I have a hard time believing without further evidence that tencent is behind whatever nefarious deeds Epic is supposedly doing.
Point One: I am talking about Ideals more than anything else. I'm not saying that Epic or Tencent are evil. You are arguing against points I'm not trying to make. The primary idea I am trying to present is that it should not be OK to casually push people into binding themselves with contracts.
Point Two: These types of contracts are not universally unenforceable. If they were, they would not be used. The contents of Epic's Terms of service are not relevant in this conversation; see point one.
Point Three: I am not accusing Epic of being 'nefarious'. I am merely saying they are trying to increase monetization. That, in and of itself, isn't evil. For the most part, I actually like Epic. The only thing I don't like about Epic is the mechanisms in which they monetize Fortnite, but heck, I don't really like how most F2P games are monetized. I feel that they take advantage of children by providing them pseudo-gambling experiences.
Point four: 40% may not be a 'controlling' stake, but it doesn't come without power. With that purchase, Tencent also bought two chairs on the board of directors and also has the power to nominate new members. They have real power to affect the decisions Epic makes.
To reiterate, point one was the most important part of what I was trying to say. I feel like you are trying to undermine that point by attacking everything else I said. This whole exchange has felt like trying to argue with an apologist. You have asked me to give you evidence that cannot possibly exist - I obviously cannot give you a recording of the boardmembers' inner monologues when they were making these past decisions, and these meetings are not subject to public scrutiny.
Well, I'm sorry you see everything I said as so aggressive. As I said in my first response, as someone who has become distant from PC gaming I didn't see what the issues you were pointed out were, and was genuinely trying to see what the issues you brought up were.
For ToS, it's two things I'm confused on: one, every service has a ToS with a bunch of terms that people sign to blindly.
This statement
Seems to indicate that this is unique to Epic. So I was trying to see how it was unique to Epic, when you also sign a ToS with Steam or GoG that waives a bunch of rights.
Actually you said Tencent was pushing them to increase monetization, i.e see
To which I asked, why? What evidence or reasons support this?
Basically, with
Which implies that it is a big deal, and then listed reasons why it was a big deal, then I asked how those reasons are big deals.
Those reasons, from what I have gleamed, is just that they have a ToS and are 40% owned by Tencent.
You're right, I perhaps didn't word my comment very clearly. Sorry about that. It's sometimes difficult to separate the concepts from the real-world happenings they apply to.
I really appreciate that you took the time to break down your thinking for me. It felt like we were both talking past eachother, and it was starting to get really frustrating. Now I get where you're coming from.
I do believe that Tencent is trying to push Epic to be more profitable. Sure, it's entirely out of conjecture, but it's fairly sound; when you buy a stake in a company, you want it to be worth more than what you bought it for. They have the power to affect the company, so it stands to reason that they would want to use that power to increase it's value. That's just the way business is typically run.
For the record, I actually was motivated to quickly look over Epic's license agreements after you brought them up. It turns out that their Epic Store EULA actually has language forcing you to go through Arbitration instead of the courts for any disputes, which I personally think is one of the most egregious breach of human rights broadly allowed in today's modern world. Though in a small point of grace, they explicitly allow you to use small claims court, which is where most disputes for a store should actually go through.
https://twitter.com/perplamps/status/1157734799139721216?s=09
"Gotta quickly address the faked screenshot going around of me supposedly saying 'gamers would be better off in gas chambers'. Obviously never said that, and as a Jewish person, this one really hurt to see being spread around.
"It'd help if you could report people spreading it." -@perplamps
holy shit gamers are toxic.
I genuinely don't understand the EGS hate. Are people just looking for something to be outraged about?
Also, every comment about this blog post I've seen so far reaffirms the "entitled gamer" stereotype. You didn't know this game existed twenty minutes ago and now you're boycotting it.
I'm not on the hate-train, in that I don't go out of my way to rage about it in literally every thread about Epic - lest I get lumped in with some of the crazies. However, I have a severe distrust of EGS.
I suppose part of it is leftover from incredibly bad memories of PC gaming in the 00's outside of Steam. The competition was either releasing 5-CD games in paper sleeves with CD keys and badly-behaved DRM for games that were poorly ported from consoles, or trying to coax you onto awful digital distribution services that were slow, inconvenient and had lame restrictions like download limits. Steam had some scalability problems around the time of Half Life 2's release, but other than that I always had positive experiences with it and Valve always seemed to make smart decisions with Steam, dragging the rest of the industry kicking and screaming into providing good digital distribution.
You owned your games forever and could download them anytime you wanted. Files were not encrypted or under lock and key, and external DRM was discouraged. The store started out curated, but then they opened the floodgates after developer complaints about not being able to get onto the store, which I maintain was the smart decision at the time, even if it did have some unfortunate knock-on effects. And of course the sales ensured that I never had to pay full price for a AAA game if I was just patient enough. Steam, in my opinion, was a huge net positive for PC gaming, and quite possibly might have even "saved" it.
Having said all of that, I'm not a zealot. I understand that indie developers have to eat, and I don't mind buying games directly from developers, or through a store like itch.io or Humble Bundle, if it will put more money in their coffers. I also personally think that GoG does a better job with fixing up old games. I don't even mind Origin or Battle.net, because those programs are pleasant to use and Origin's refund policy in particular was fantastic and a necessary advancement for digital distribution.
Epic Game Store, distinct from the others, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It does not appear to me that they're competing other digital distribution platforms on any of their merits of their platform, all they have to offer is their enormous warchest and their buying-out of exclusives. When Epic buys an exclusive, there's no net positive to the consumer like when Steam dragged the industry towards digital, or when Origin introduced their refund policy, and that's fundamentally what bothers me, they're trying to "win" marketshare without actually delivering a better product.
There's other stuff that bothers me about EGS too. Their application is a janky jittery mess that is unpleasant to use (by far the worst of the major digital distribution stores), and their social features are lacking to the point that I don't even know the identities of 95% of the people who have sent me friend requests, and can't remember the names of the people I have friended. But that stuff can be fixed in time. It's the fact that they're not competing on the merits of their store is why I have no intention of buying games on their store anytime soon, not even bothering with the freebies.
However, I won't ever blame an indie developer for taking their offer. I'm unlikely to buy their game until it reaches another platform, but I completely understand the thought process. Game development is tough, take the guaranteed money.
There's still a lot of latent dislike and distrust of Epic and the EGS because of how they bought out the digital retail rights of some other high profile games out of nowhere, after Steam releases and keys had already been promised.
Of course, as gamers are wont to do, there are a lot of tantrums that go overboard and make the entire thing seem childish, but there are some legitimate concerns to be had with how Epic acquired and bought exclusivity for some titles. Chiefly: is it right for a company to use capital to acquire the exclusive retail rights to something? It disadvantages any new players in the market because they won't have ludicrous capital to match that, and it also destroys any chance of competitive pricing. To date, none of the EGS exclusives have seen sales with the level or frequency as games that are sold on all digital retail stores.
something I haven't seen yet but it's yet another launcher to install and have running in the background for no reason. pretty minor but to some people it's a big deal.
Personally I dislike how many games Epic has "stolen" from Linux. Borderlands and Metro in particular had good and famously amazing Linux support, now both locked on a platform with no Linux support at all. It's a bit frustrating, but that doesn't have much to do with this game. AFAIK it never planned Linux support, although I imagine it would have run nicely in Proton.
Dunno that I'd say Borderlands has good Linux support. There was a port, but gearbox went back and broke multiplayer for the Linux releases of 2 and TPS over four months ago now, with that optional HD texture pack. Still no official fix or even an ETA for one. I had to install the windows version of the game and run it through proton.
That aside, I definitely share your concern. Epic bought Psyonix not too long ago, and if they do end up de-listing Rocket League from steam, they won't just be depriving us of future installments in a franchise, they'll actively be un-porting games from Linux. Super frustrating that this is happening just as Linux is approaching viability as a gaming OS, epic wrecking twenty years of hard work as collateral damage in their effort to force their way into the game distribution market.
Man alive, Reddit is eating this post up for the devs not giving them an ice cream cone and hand job for going with Epic. And I get you want to manage expectations and this is not the way to do it, but wow that hit a nerve.
Haha yeah, I haven't looked at any of the discussions of it anywhere (and don't want to), but I knew it would be causing some outrage, because the tone of it is pretty condescending and sassy. They're not really wrong about any of it, but it's definitely not the way to get people to understand your side of the argument.
Then again, they've now guaranteed they'll make as much money as they expected to anyway, so they probably don't even really care any more how much it pisses people off.
Sure, for this game. What happens in 3 to 5 years when the devs want to make another game, the EGS is an established platform by then (by all the gods, I hope not) and Epic won't give you any more funding because hey, your last game sold poorly because alienated your audience with an unpopular move that you then justified by being assholes. They also skirt around the issues people have with the store, arguing against (really bad) strawmen in such a condescending tone, that I will go out of my way not buying the game, and I had no idea Ooblets existed beforehand.
This type of zero-stake outrage is exactly what they're talking about. You didn't even know the game existed yesterday, but now you're announcing your boycott of it and coming up with scenarios where this decision leads to the demise of a 2-person development studio you had never heard of.
I don't like Epic's approach either, but this type of response is what's making developers feel like the outrage doesn't need to be taken seriously.
"Zero-stake outrage" is a great identifier with a lot of utility, and one that I've never heard before. To me, it perfectly captures a specific and frustrating phenomenon that's pervasive in internet discourse. Is the phrase something you coined?
Apparently! The only google result is my own Tildes user page too.
I don't know if "stake" is really the best word for what I mean, but yeah, it's a very big part of the internet right now. You can constantly see these giant online mobs that are upset about something, and if you went entirely off the reactions you see online you'd think it was a complete disaster. But then there ends up being almost no impact on the real measure, whether that's movie ticket sales, people buying a product, etc.
The people acting righteous online about it often aren't part of the "audience" anyway, or in a lot of cases they're just doing a kind of outrage performance but still buy anyway. This image is 10 years old now, but it's still such a perfect summary.
Searched for a couple variants online, and it seems to be an unused term. Someone tweeted about "low stakes outrage" but that was the closest thing I could find.
I'd argue that "zero stakes disgust" is a more correct term for the effect, but to have zero stakes outrage over "zero stakes outrage" seems kinda self defeating.
I don't know if it's zero-stakes, because the game itself actually appeals to me. If I knew it would've existed, I would've kept an eye on it because I like games like Stardew Valley, Harvest Moon etc.
I'm fairly sure that this is what everyone is waiting for with all these games choosing to go exclusive for a short-term windfall.
Epic posted a statement today in response to this whole mess: Epic’s Statement on Misinformation & Abuse
I'm not sure if they're doing anything in particular about it, but this has probably been one of the worst backlashes overall, even though it was a relatively minor game. The developer also made a patrons-only post on their Patreon over the weekend talking about how bad it's been, GamesIndustry quoted most (maybe all?) of it here.
This reminds me of that one take on the Last Jedi by Film Crit Hulk (which I'm surprised they've kept the pseudonym around this long.)
https://observer.com/2018/07/film-crit-hulk-the-beautiful-ugly-and-possessive-hearts-of-star-wars/
Choice part here --
Yes, Epic Exclusives show a naked capitalistic grab for power and marketplace dominance, but that's only because it mirrors and is made of gaming. Steam is a store, not a protocol, not an omnibus, and not a religion that can be blasphemed, and if you cannot stand it existing and withholding it's lovelies from you, wait the g-d year, and leave the devs out of it, because that's a you problem.
Does Epics offer really match the earnings they would have made across all stores? Sure, Epic will pony up the cash for lost sales on this game, but now its eventual followup will have a smaller userbase to draw from. I think a lot of indie devs are being very short sighted by accepting these deals.
Their next game doesn't have to exclusive, there's not even that part of the risk. Indie dev as a business is such a crapshoot this is honestly a no-brainer. Even if there are some possibilities in which this is harmful for growth overall, the expected value of taking Epic's deal is much higher from a financial PoV. And not only is the EV higher, but the variance is lower.
This game isn't even permanently exclusive, it's a time-limited exclusivity. They'll almost certainly release it on Steam and other platforms eventually too (and maybe even make a second "mini-launch" out of it). From what I remember seeing so far, I think most of the deals have been a one-year exclusive period, with Borderlands 3 getting a 6-month one.
Of course, their next game might not be exclusive, but that doesn't make up for the free marketing you get from having lots of people who played and enjoyed your first game.