Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Toto téma bylo uzamčeno 
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
Yeah, I kinda agree that the whole bribery thing is kinda scummy since most of the time, Epic Games often targets indie game developers that were looking to sell their games on Steam anyways, which IMO wastes the consumer's time because they were hoping to get the game on Steam or GOG, and I feel like it kinda brings out the worst of whoever accepts said bribes, like how the Ooblets devs mocked people for getting angry at the EGS bribe, and I think there was one developer who took an EGS deal and claimed that they could refund kickstarter backers three times over, but obviously they wouldn't.
However, I do think that it's very much possible for EGS bribes to not be completely scummy as per my previous example with Kingdom Hearts III and quite frankly, I think Epic Games' bribery efforts should be more focused towards Japanese games, since developers from that country have their negativity biases towards PC gaming to the point where they'd welcome any sort of ammo they can use to tell PC gamers to go ♥♥♥♥ themselves. I wanna think a well-placed bribe here and there would disallow this.
And as for my Chiv2 example, it's probably gonna be an isolated case because them bribing a high profile game where the competing game on Steam is insufferably bad would be a case of lightning striking twice.
But as of RN, Epic has largely been relegated to me playing Chivalry 2 (Even named my Epic Games Launcher shortcut "Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord Multiplayer") and maybe the occasional Kingdom Hearts III? Iunno, I know it's gonna sit in my backlog for a while even though the times i do play it are enjoyable as all hecc. I think i'll give more ♥♥♥♥♥ about the Epic Launcher if Sweeney remembers to pay for Final Fantasy XVI and Kingdom Hearts 4's respective PC ports or heaven forbid: throw money at the Gundam IP. Hell, I also remember PlatinumGames saying that they're open for acquisitions as long as whoever acquires them won't intrude upon their creative freedom.
At some level all the companies creating/selling/distributing games are alike no matter how they are delivering them. I just don't fool myself into believing one is better or worse than the other when the bottom line is making money. They are all out to keep themselves in business and will do whatever it takes to continue doing so. I guess I don't expect any of them to be perfect.
I don't have an issue with those not liking Epic, Steam, or any other like this. I just wish they would keep it personal instead of bringing it to a forum. This is really about how you feel, not all the facts from all sides ... and certainly not giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. It's cowardly to be honest.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? What fact did I miss? You said this :
Then your next arguments is about how steam exclusive was justified for games that was incomplete (yeah another double standard excuse for steam exclusivity). But the games has been completed and released before exclusive deals were made. Valve just bail them out from bankruptcy.
Even your source were disagree with you lol. No wonder you runaway so fast.
You want real example of how epic help devs to complete their games? Read this :
https://www.newsweek.com/epic-games-store-exclusive-developer-game-1456621
Oh and that doesn't even include the number of early access games that epic supported with exclusivity.
Apparently epic is just like steam back when the company still care about gaming industry.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/axiom-verge-thomas-happ-son-healthcare
For starters, the Epic Launcher has an offline mode of questionable reliability as per the mentioning of some games being always-online. HOWEVER, I can confirm that Crysis Remastered* and Alien Isolation are fully playable from said offline mode.
Kingdom Hearts III and Final Fantasy VII Remake are always-online games (FFVIIR is still always-online on Epic, but not on Steam), so you can't exactly play them unless offline mode is disabled.
*Crysis Remastered originally had an always-online DRM, but this was patched out so as to have parity with the belated Steam release.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/4/22418782/epic-games-store-free-games-cost-apple-trial-arkham-subnautica-mutant-year-zero
Yeah Epic doesn't provide DRM, they just let devs tie the game to client, or add their own DRM, they care less what game devs do to their games for DRM really far as I can tell.
Oh, you sweet summer child. Perhaps you need to look up how activation of third party sold keys used to work prior to 2018.
Nope. Entirely a Steam backend thing. When store region was based on IP address, games could be IP blocked from activation from certain regions, they could also be IP play locked from the same regions. Even when Steam allowed direct gifting of a game to any region, you could wind up with a game you couldn't play until the IP-based play lock timed out.
These blocks still exist today, but are now based entirely on the Steam set store region and not your IP address. Which means if you want to activate a key for a specific region, you need a Steam account with that specific store region set in it.
My region has been dealing with these shenanigans on Steam since Steam first introduced such blocks in the mid/late 2000s. Us old timers from back then know far more about it that any current Steam shill would want you to believe.
An offer of funding in return for timed exclusivity is not the same as bribe and it's that kind of thinking that led to Steam Users harassing the developers of Satisfactory to the point that they had to release a video explaining why they took the deal, And that's what it is, a deal, not a bribe.
And since there are so many indies taking that deal, it must be a remarkably generous deal, a deal that grants them more money (and therefore safety and stability) than the kind of money they can get from kickstarter or Early Access.
The developer gets much needed funding and both Epic games and Steam users (eventually) get a better game because of that money. Nobody is negatively impacted by these deals.
They are a net positive thing, especially for the indie and AA industry.
Another reason why they take the deal, and this is something the Satisfactory devs also mentioned, is that they want to see Epic's far more generous revenue split become the new standard.
Indie developers and big time publishers alike have a vested interest in seeing the EGS succeed because giving Epic 12% of all future sales is much better than being forced to continue giving Steam 30%. And you really want to see EGS succeed if you are developing on UE5, because you get to skip that 5% fee on EGS too. So devs not only get a much better revenue split but they get to use the most advanced game engine for free.