Re: Lies of P, Roboquest - First Thoughts

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:30:52 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 9/27/2024 4:41 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 08:32:44 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
 

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of

>

There's a funny story about Witchfire in that it was originally released
as a full game on Epic as an exclusive, now that the year is up, it's in
early access on Steam!  :)

>
I think that really says it all about Epic Game Quality.

 
It's been frequently reported that many developers use Epic Game Store
as a sort of early-access release, one where they either get an
exclusivity bonus or where Epic takes less of a cut from the sales (or
both). But they consider the version that eventually gets sold on
Steam to be the "real" release; not only will it benefit from a year
of patches and user-feedback, but it's also where they actually make
money because sales on Epic are so low.
 
Which, I suppose, is a good way for developers to do things. If
somebody else wants to pay you while you beta-test, why not take them
up on it? But it does nothing to convince me to buy from Epic. I'm
happy to just wait it out until the final version finally makes it to
Steam or GOG.

>
Oh yeah, I learned about that a month or so ago.  I'm just wondering how
long Epic is going to put up with that.  Of course they don't seem to
have much of a clue, so probably far longer than they should.  Maybe
they even think it's a good thing.  "You could've played the game here
first!" paying for Alpha.

I don't think they have any issue with it per se. The developers
aren't doing anything wrong; they're giving Epic the year-long
exclusive that Epic paid for. And (unless specifically stated) the
release on Epic _is_ the release version. But, like all modern games,
just because a game is released doesn't mean the developers won't keep
working on it; patching it and tinkering with its mechanics as they
get user feedback. It's not as if these patches aren't applied to the
Epic version too; it's just that you don't get the best experience
when the game is _new_ on Epic; thanks to a year of update, it will
always be a far better product when launched on Steam.

The problem lies with Epic Game Store itself: it just isn't a popular
storefront. If Epic isn't making their money back funding the
exclusives, that's on Epic, not the developers. If end-users prefer to
wait until the game gets released on Steam, that's not because of any
malicious planning by the third-party developers. It's not the
developers' fault that end-users have realized that they actually get
a /better/ product if they just wait until the exclusivity period is
over. Honestly, were people to suddenly migrate en masse to Epic and
it magically became the premier digital PC games storefront, I think
developers would be fine with that. But Epic isn't that, and the
developers are have just adapted to the current situation.

How long will Epic allow this? They don't have much alternative, other
than to demand exclusivity in perpetuity ("You can never sell your
game anywhere but on EGS!") or forbid updates, so that the game as
released on Steam is exactly the same as on Epic. Neither would
bolstser Epic's popularity -amongst developers or gamers. Alternately,
Epic _could_ invest in their client and storefront to make it actually
competitive; to make it a destination people _want_ to use the same
way gamers are happy to use Steam.

But so long as they still chase the dream of trying to unseat Valve
from its throne but are only offering a half-assed client, they're
going to just have to accept that the products released on Steam are
going to be better than the same games released on EGS.