Tim Sweeney doesn't hold back: if you think the Epic Games launcher is bad, it's because it is
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ah Tim, here we go with the "look how brutally honest we are" schtick. Yeah gamers dislike the launcher, but it's not even about that; it's about your business practices. Did you forget the part where you took the worst pages from the Xbox/Playstation book and tried to build an exclusivity platform on PC? Trying to buy devs with massive handouts and buy users with free games? We remember, Tim. We remember the Metro Exodus launch and the rest. Personally I can't do much more than to deny you every single cent I can, but please be assured I'll be doing that, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I don't even have an account with you to pick up free games because that'd be one more account that legitimizes your shitty platform. Go bankrupt at your earliest convenience please.
-
Ah Tim, here we go with the "look how brutally honest we are" schtick. Yeah gamers dislike the launcher, but it's not even about that; it's about your business practices. Did you forget the part where you took the worst pages from the Xbox/Playstation book and tried to build an exclusivity platform on PC? Trying to buy devs with massive handouts and buy users with free games? We remember, Tim. We remember the Metro Exodus launch and the rest. Personally I can't do much more than to deny you every single cent I can, but please be assured I'll be doing that, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I don't even have an account with you to pick up free games because that'd be one more account that legitimizes your shitty platform. Go bankrupt at your earliest convenience please.
I don't share your frustrations. Games like Control, Alan Wake 2, and Ooblets might never have been made without Epic's funding. The Ooblets developer in particular stated that Epic's funding was crucial for their survival. I think exclusivity is a very fair and normal thing to request when funding a game. Valve does it and people are fine with that.
-
I don't share your frustrations. Games like Control, Alan Wake 2, and Ooblets might never have been made without Epic's funding. The Ooblets developer in particular stated that Epic's funding was crucial for their survival. I think exclusivity is a very fair and normal thing to request when funding a game. Valve does it and people are fine with that.
Maybe it's just me but I can't recall any occasion where Valve said "hey devs, here's a pile of money but you're not allowed to sell your game outside Steam", have any examples in mind?
-
Maybe it's just me but I can't recall any occasion where Valve said "hey devs, here's a pile of money but you're not allowed to sell your game outside Steam", have any examples in mind?
Valve never had to because they established a monopoly so developers did that on their own without Valve paying them. Meanwhile Valve has ripped off the entire gaming industry for its entire existence, charging absurd fees to gamers and developers and you guys are all so bought into their monopoly that you blindly praise them for it.
Gabe Newell is a billionaire. No billionaire earned their money. Every billionaire exploited people for it.
-
Valve never had to because they established a monopoly so developers did that on their own without Valve paying them. Meanwhile Valve has ripped off the entire gaming industry for its entire existence, charging absurd fees to gamers and developers and you guys are all so bought into their monopoly that you blindly praise them for it.
Gabe Newell is a billionaire. No billionaire earned their money. Every billionaire exploited people for it.
Right, and GOG also "had to" purchase exclusive rights to the games on its platform and force DRM. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
-
Right, and GOG also "had to" purchase exclusive rights to the games on its platform and force DRM. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
Oh yeah, let's all repeat the playbook of GoG, first you just have to spend a decade establishing yourself as the only publisher able to get former Soviet gamers to pay for games rather than pirate them, then turn that trust that you built with two third party developers into a storefront selling their classic titles for them for 6 years, then use your established customer base and goodwill to try and transition into being a proper AAA storefront.
Totally viable business strategy /s
-
Oh yeah, let's all repeat the playbook of GoG, first you just have to spend a decade establishing yourself as the only publisher able to get former Soviet gamers to pay for games rather than pirate them, then turn that trust that you built with two third party developers into a storefront selling their classic titles for them for 6 years, then use your established customer base and goodwill to try and transition into being a proper AAA storefront.
Totally viable business strategy /s
Epic has fortnite and the FUCKING UNREAL ENGINE THAT REPLACED THE QUAKE 2 ENGINE FOR BEING USED IN EVERYTHING.
I think they're on an even ground.
-
Epic has fortnite and the FUCKING UNREAL ENGINE THAT REPLACED THE QUAKE 2 ENGINE FOR BEING USED IN EVERYTHING.
I think they're on an even ground.
If you're building a game, and you build it on Unreal engine, so it's handling literally all of the rendering, development tooling, animation engine, game logic engine, etc. etc. you'll pay Epic a smaller percentage than you'll pay Valve for hosting your exe file in cloud storage with some reviews and comments.
Think 5% vs 30%.
-
If you're building a game, and you build it on Unreal engine, so it's handling literally all of the rendering, development tooling, animation engine, game logic engine, etc. etc. you'll pay Epic a smaller percentage than you'll pay Valve for hosting your exe file in cloud storage with some reviews and comments.
Think 5% vs 30%.
Yeah, sure. Epic recieved 5% of basically 90% of games being released from about 2003 to fuck knows when.
-
Yeah, sure. Epic recieved 5% of basically 90% of games being released from about 2003 to fuck knows when.
Yeah, for building most of those games. Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
-
Yeah, for building most of those games. Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
for building most of those games
providing an engine does not build the game.
Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
I'm not defending valve, I'm attacking epic
-
for building most of those games
providing an engine does not build the game.
Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
I'm not defending valve, I'm attacking epic
for building most of those games
providing an engine does not build the game.
Well good thing I said "most" of a game. Go ahead and write your game logic and then tell me how you get it to render graphics on a screen without any engine code.
Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
I'm not defending valve, I'm attacking epic
Yeah, in the context of a discussion about whether or not Valve is overcharging customers.
Jesus Christ, keep up.
-
Yeah, for building most of those games. Valve has recieved 30% for doing fuck all. Why are you so adamantly defending them?
Valve literally hosts petabytes of game data and allows any user to download them at any time. That's not nothing, data storage is very expensive, and users are charged nothing for it. They provide a service to not only the customers, but also the developers. Steam has so many backend features that allow devs to skip so many networking steps that can otherwise be a huge nightmare. Not sure why you think they are literally just a webpage that has a purchase button next to a game.
-
Valve literally hosts petabytes of game data and allows any user to download them at any time. That's not nothing, data storage is very expensive, and users are charged nothing for it. They provide a service to not only the customers, but also the developers. Steam has so many backend features that allow devs to skip so many networking steps that can otherwise be a huge nightmare. Not sure why you think they are literally just a webpage that has a purchase button next to a game.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Valve literally hosts petabytes of game data and allows any user to download them at any time. That's not nothing, data storage is
No, it's really not. Azure and AWS storage is dirt cheap, especially if it's cold storage and you can have a second or two delay when retrieving the file. If it was expensive, they wouldn't be the most profitable tech company per employee.
Steam has so many backend features that allow devs to skip so many networking steps that can otherwise be a huge nightmare.
No, it doesn't. It provides a small handful of APIs around friends and matchmaking, which Xbox and Epic also provide for half the fees, in addition to the generic Azure and AWS versions.
Not sure why you think they are literally just a webpage that has a purchase button next to a game.
I'm a software engineer whos built both an app store and 3d rendering engines. I know exactly how little work it took Valve to build Steam and how much work it took Epic to build Unreal.
They are not remotely comparable. Gamers are just lemmings who love Valve cause everyone loves Valve and talks about Valve, when in reality Valve has overcharged and ripped them off for decades.
-
Maybe it's just me but I can't recall any occasion where Valve said "hey devs, here's a pile of money but you're not allowed to sell your game outside Steam", have any examples in mind?
Valve purchased the rights to Counter-Strike in 2000, transitioning it from a community-made mod to a retail product. Similarly, Day of Defeat, initially a third-party Half-Life modification, was acquired by Valve, leading to a standalone retail release in 2003. In the case of Dota, Valve hired the mod’s lead developer and secured the intellectual property rights, culminating in the release of Dota 2 in 2013. These games remain exclusive to Steam.
