Epic paid developers money to get them to release games exclusively on the Epic store. Consumers have access to these games on the roughly same computers that can access other PC games. In other words, consumer or publisher freedom was not materially impacted. Epic’s deals with game developers are effectively subsidies, which save developers and/or consumers money.
On the other hand, Apple’s App Store policy makes it impossible for developers to access the iOS market without paying Apple’s tax. Every iOS app is an App Store exclusive, and Apple is not paying developers for the privilege. This costs consumers and developers huge amounts of money and limits their freedom.
I recognize the inconvenience of installing the Epic store, but comparing the effects of these two controversial policies reveals how benign Epic’s is.
That said, I really don't think Epic's policy and practice is necessarily benign. Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
In the past I have bought several consoles to play titles exclusive to that platform and I was not bothered about that. For all I know the game may not even get made without the backing of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, not to mention they were marketed as "Console X exclusive" from the get go. Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games. However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
If Apple did that, it would be so much worse, because it would exclude developers from half of the market (all iOS devices).
If Epic doesn’t allow your game on their store, you can still sell your game on another store, to be purchased by the same consumers on the same devices. There just isn’t as much harm to be done there, because Epic doesn’t have the power to kick developers off the PC platform.
we saw very different reactions back then. Most of it may have been existing unrest over EA, but I wouldn't downplay the reaction back then.
> However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
I don't see the difference outside of it more immediately inconveniencing you with a title you care about more.
And I don't understand when the contractor became the sole fault over an agreement on 2 parties. I doubt epic is holding people agreeing to terms under duress.
> Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
- if you made an app targeting IOS using native tools (to extract out the argument of "but X framework can target 10 platforms") and it was rejected, you're SOL on what to do with it unless you want to target the jailbreak homebrew market. - If you made an app targeting Android using native tools and it was rejected, you can still sideload it or use a few other stores out there to publish it. - if you made an app targeting Steam and it was rejected, you have the entire windows ecosystem to deploy your app on. Including hosts like Itch.IO if you don't want to spin up your own server.
I see epic just like Steam. It's their rules on what to accept or not. I care less about the rulings than the ability to have a plan B if they decide to not host the app. Which apple has practically zero option of.
I'm sure once Apple had something the PC audience actually cared about, like Hades, that you'd hear the same complaints on Apple.
I understand some of the dislike on EGS, but the "anti-consumer" argument is a very shallow one. I also think it's a bit dishonest for a few others elsewhere to say "they've done nothing the past 2 years", despite having a public roadmap on Trello. Whether it's stuff you personally care about is certainly up for discussion, but they are much more transparent about plans than Valve is.
People can reasonably get annoyed if they get forced to use a non-prefered launcher.
What they actually did, was bribe developers to screw people that had already paid for their products, in efforts to damage Steam.
For example Shenmue debacle: It was kickstarter with the promise it would be on Steam, suddenly it went Epic exclusive, the people that backed on Kickstarter asked for their money back, the dev refused until people started to prepare to sue, even then it was a screwy process.
I remember at the time there was 2 or 3 other games the same thing happened, where Epic paid developers of crowdfunded games to literally break their contracts with their backers.
If you promise PC exclusivity, that doesn't mean Steam. That means PC. You can promise PC exclusivity and then sign with Epic and maintain your commitment to PC exclusivity. Briefly having a Steam page doesn't change any of that.
the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
investors assume risk. including losing the capital because of jerks.
You can't say... But they bribed me. They gave me a deal that was too good so I took it and it wasn't my fault so now I shouldn't have to honor it.
Breaking contracts is a crime, since these contracts are not "that serious", nobody attempted to prosecute devs, but that doesn't make it stop being a crime.
Also I believe in some countries what Epic is doing is called "Tortious Interference with Contract" or something like that. I am not a lawyer though.
But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
What you think would have happened in that case?
EDIT: I will be clear, and stop arguing this point because it is being stupid now.
I am not "angry" at epic, or at anyone.
I am only explaining what I meant on my point above about Epic paying people to not sell on other stores, this is a fact, not a negative and toxic spin, Epic DID pay devs to not sell on other stores, they said that themselves on the trial. I am not "angry" at them for it, or with the devs, I am only saying what happened.
I am not a Valve fanboy, not a Epic fanboy, I am not a fanboy, I don't like Apple disallowing sideloading, but I also think Epic approach to this subject could been done differently (not breaking rules, to start).
No, it doesn't sound at all like what you're bringing up. You can read about what you referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
> But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Again, why aren't you angry at the Shenmue devs instead?
> Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
Epic's agreement didn't say "Break the law to sell exclusively in our store." Epic's agreement said "Sell exclusively in our store." The decision to (potentially) break the law rests purely on the developer.
In my case, phoenix point is the final straw that made me REALLY hate epic.
contracts take two parties to agree to something.
Again, how is this Epic's problem?
[0]:Metro Exodus was supposed to be an EGS exclusive for a year but they released it on Microsoft windows store in less than 6 months. We all KNEW what was this fuss really about.
"Epic Exclusive on PC" does not translate well into "Available anywhere but not Steam".
disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
this post here is disingenuous in that no one was arguing with the technical correctness of the interpretation. and the above post is disingenuous with describing the situation.
There certainly is a difference between saying "Epic blocks game from being submitted on steam" and "Epic signs contract to sell game on EGS". Pretending these have the same connotations is in fact... disingenous.
But what does that have to with all of the other things you said? You're just saying derogatory comments about store exclusives without saying why you think they're bad.
Metro Exodus: Originally slanted to release on steam in Feb 2019 with preorders starting in Aug 2018. Publisher suddenly announced the game will be EGS exclusive only 2 weeks head of this date with the explicit promise "Metro Exodus will return to Steam and on other store fronts after 14 February 2020." This turned out to be a bold faced lie as they quietly made the game available through the Windows Store in Jun 2020.
Anno 1800: Originally planned for release on Steam and Uplay. Switched to EGS "exclusive" very shortly before release without warning. Still not available on steam to this day unless you have preordered before the switch. Best part of this "exclusive" deal was that it has always been available on PC through Uplay, but gettig it back on steam is a no-no.
https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=...
I could go on but after seeing how Epic had behaved in this market for the last couple for years I find it very hard to accept any excuse they make in good faith.
So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion. It's only natural for other commentators to assume you arrived at that conclusion through your own experiences and research. If your claims of ignorance is genuine, on what grounds are you calling me "toxic" and "misrepresenting" earlier? Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
>So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
The other parties have already received their share of backlash but Epic deserves to be singled out as the instigator.
It's one thing to pay indie developers a fat sum to bring their titles as a exclusive - nobody should be too upset about that. However, paying an industry heavyweight like Ubisoft to keep Anno 1800 off Steam is different: The latter has nothing to gain from not publishing their games on Steam, if anything they will miss out on some potential purchases put off by the behavior plus the bad publicity.
In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
Yes, the insanely strong opinion of "recite facts instead of injecting opinion". IE, the original post was a bunch of inflammatory nonsense that wrapped "I don't like store exclusives".
> Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
You may be excited to learn my first post was exactly a question.
> In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation. I'm sorry you do not like store exclusives. I don't think Epic has done anything wrong (as it's just how business works) in this specific instance. We can disagree.
The top comment was diplomatic and mine was not. I'm sorry if blunt words hurt any feelings.
>Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
Instead of refuting the points being raised here you immeidately resorted to calling any critical comment "toxic spin".
>The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
So lemme get this right. We need to have more game stores......by making games available from fewer game stores. If that how competition works?
>I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Agreed. You could have summed up everything in one sentence "Epic can do nothing wrong" and that would probably sound less apologetic.
This is kind of a toxic disingenuous spin on store exclusives, no?