Epic Games General Thread - Its time to talk about what the AAA gaming industry does not understand about the PC console.

Hyper Light Drifter, after being advertised to have cloud saves, didn’t actually have it due to technical difficulties and as a result caused the store (no, not the game: the entire store) to crash.

Epic looked into it and said they had a fix after looking into it that they’d release by tomorrow. Come today, they announced that that they won’t actually have cloud saves due to said technical difficulties...despite them advertising it as the only platform to have it for HLD, and now have to try and implement a new stopgap for all of their other games with cloud saves so they don’t crash as well (because apparently that’s been an issue that they didn’t know about until the HLD crash happened).


EDIT: And before you ask: yes, this also includes the games using uPlay’s cloud save workaround as well.
 
Last edited:
Remind again why people actually use Epic games store outside of free games because all is see from is a walking disaster just waiting to impolde and the fact people activly defend it despite the quality of it is just sad.
 
The developer of just-released game Darq did an AMA on Leddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/cqrtpx/ama_im_the_developer_of_darq_and_i_just_released/) where he reveals that Epic came to him with an exclusivity offer which he turned down.

Epic reached out to me right after I released the trailer announcing Steam release date. At that point DARQ was in top 50 most wishlsited games on Steam. I felt going for an exclusivity deal would show that my word means nothing (as I just had promised the game would launch on Steam). Besides, DARQ page was on Steam since November 2018 and a lot of people patiently kept it on their wishlist since them. I thought it was a bad idea to disapoint all those people and prove to the world that my annoucements mean nothing. Epic made it clear that they reached out to me with an exclusivity deal - I politely turned them down before we had a chance to discuss any details (money offered, etc.). I asked them if they would be willing to sell DARQ non-exclusively, and they explained that at this point in time it's not something they can do. It was a polite and professional exchange - I have nothing bad to say. It just wasn't the right fit for DARQ.

Goes to show just how desperate Epic is for exclusives knowing that they can't compete with Steam as a marketplace yet that they turned down his offer.

And props to the guy for not being a scumbag and taking the money unlike other devs (cough, OOBLETS, cough) out there.
Interesting game concept. I'll toss this on the wishlist for now, maybe pick it up later.

Good behavior should be rewarded.
 
reminder that you don't need to download the epic launcher for free games, you could always sail the high seas

Lets be honest, people are getting these free games and never playing them. When you get something like this for free, there's little investment in it. I guarantee they're loading those games up. When the free games stop coming, the Epic launcher will be another icon on their task bar that they've forgotten about.

The developer of just-released game Darq did an AMA on Leddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/cqrtpx/ama_im_the_developer_of_darq_and_i_just_released/) where he reveals that Epic came to him with an exclusivity offer which he turned down.

Epic reached out to me right after I released the trailer announcing Steam release date. At that point DARQ was in top 50 most wishlsited games on Steam. I felt going for an exclusivity deal would show that my word means nothing (as I just had promised the game would launch on Steam). Besides, DARQ page was on Steam since November 2018 and a lot of people patiently kept it on their wishlist since them. I thought it was a bad idea to disapoint all those people and prove to the world that my annoucements mean nothing. Epic made it clear that they reached out to me with an exclusivity deal - I politely turned them down before we had a chance to discuss any details (money offered, etc.). I asked them if they would be willing to sell DARQ non-exclusively, and they explained that at this point in time it's not something they can do. It was a polite and professional exchange - I have nothing bad to say. It just wasn't the right fit for DARQ.

Goes to show just how desperate Epic is for exclusives knowing that they can't compete with Steam as a marketplace yet that they turned down his offer.

And props to the guy for not being a scumbag and taking the money unlike other devs (cough, OOBLETS, cough) out there.

This is revealing for a multitude of reasons:

1) Its either exclusive or nothing. They are not willing to let you sell on their platform if you sell on Steam. This shows that they cannot afford the cut they are currently offering is actually beneficial to small titles. So their narrative goes out the window. If you are a small developer, you have to go exclusive on Epic for it to be worth their while. So this is another admission: These games are not making them a profit.

2) They honestly don't care about their image. If they did this, there would be an uproar.

So, we have some more updates on Epic. Apparently they are applying cloud saves to more games, integrating with Humble Bundle, re-working the game library feature and in the future they are promising to add a time counter how long you've played a particular game. Still no mentions of a shopping cart, also the counter thing was supposed to be implemented back in April I believe.

So they have to manually apply cloud saves to games, not just like on Steam where you can just do it. Oh wow, a time counter. How about a shopping cart? No?

Oh, I know! Regional Pricing. Oh wait, you can't afford that.

Wait, what the absolute shit does this mean? "Oh hey, we really would like you to be on our store, but it has to be a predatory exclusive because you're high on the wishlist on this marketplace we're competing with". I'm very sure this kind of thing is something that EGS doesn't want public. I should contact a few people in the biz i know personally with upcoming titles and urge them to push Epic to give more details before saying no.

It means that if you don't go exclusive and you sell on both Steam and Epic, Epic will lose money with you being on the platform because you're just taking up bandwidth and that minuscule cut they get from your game won't pay for it.

To me, its looking more and more like this 'curation' thing they are spinning is that they have to heavily look at which games to invest in because they cannot afford to have small games with small sales. They are that strapped. The exclusive is worth it to them because they're tying you to the platform, which may make you purchase other games. That's why they did Shenmue. They would have a captive audience completely. Problem is, people who want Shenmue want Shenmue, and with the remasters on Steam...well....they're not likely to stick around Epic for very long.

So I don't think its predatory. I think it is that they're hiding the fact that the low cut they get is murdering them. I mean, the exclusives are predatory due to timing, to maximize profit. As close to release as possible. But at the same time, they can't afford to have you not as exclusive, because their cut wouldn't cover their costs. Think about it, "Oh, we will curate so hard, there won't be crap here!" Why would you want that? You'd want as many games as possible, excluding asset flips and shit. The reason is they have to be very selective in what they sell, because they can't afford to have a huge selection eating into their meager cut on a game that will maybe sell 12 copies. There are games that sell 90 copies on Steam, Steam doesn't much care because its costs are covered. Epic can't afford small games selling small, because I honestly don't think this cut will enable them to cover the costs of running the actual platform.

There's a reason why the cut everywhere else is higher than Epic. Its because the market has dictated that is what is necessary for your storefront to survive and innovate. This 'curation' and 'generosity to developers' is hiding the fact that their minuscule cut is simply not sustainable without a monopoly. Sweeny is right that Epic can only compete with Steam through exclusives and it is solely his doing. The problem is that you have to entirely fund these exclusives while having a barebones store. So you've already chopped your leg off before you entered the race.

In the end, the developer cut was a huge fucking mistake. The writing is on the wall. Tim Sweeny, to be successful, needs to be the only game in town and needs to kill Steam. Otherwise this doesn't work. The problem is they're far too late to even dent Steam. They've got no goodwill left, and if Fortnite goes or there are loot-box restrictions, they're done. They raise the cut they get, they'll look like hypocrites and be pariahed even worse. GoG is going to survive through GoG Galaxy 2.0 and Cyberpunk 2077 and its DRM-Free policy. Steam is there because its constantly innovating and making curation and selection better. What does Epic have to survive? Exclusives. But it is taking less money than both GoG and Steam. I just don't see how this store survives with the way its going without just pumping capital in it until the Chinese have had enough.
 
Sweeny is right that Epic can only compete with Steam through exclusives and it is solely his doing. The problem is that you have to entirely fund these exclusives while having a barebones store. So you've already chopped your leg off before you entered the race.

This is just fucking stupid, though. Look how much money they've spent on these idiotic exclusives. Imagine they'd taken the money from even one of those and invested it in actually having a store and not whatever this godawful monstrosity of a client is supposed to be.

Part of why Steam can have low selling games and not care is that the devs are the ones who do it all. It's all set up so that the devs create the page for the game, upload the game, set practically everything about it up themselves, and then it blends seamlessly into the rest of Steam content and the customer doesn't have to notice anything that's going on behind the scenes.

Valve's only costs are the actual bandwidth, storage space, and other non-costs. The only non-trivial cost is if someone buys it and downloads some several GB file. And if someone does that, they also turn a profit, unless every single sale is a refund or something. And there probably aren't many devs who do that after shit like Sunset catastrophically tanked. Those losers will just get assblasted and fuck off to whatever shitty indie game devs do after they ragequit.

How does it possibly not cost less to just develop an at least functional store than blow immense amounts of money they'll never make back on these dumb exclusives? Teenagers create online stores. If it succeeds you can scale it up. Just hire some middling tier business software guys who make stores for normal shit too. Or disgruntled ex-Valve programmers.

I just completely fail to understand how they can spend this much money and not have an even functional store. The client is a joke. It does practically fucking nothing but, at the same time, is an immense resource hog that slows down even a reasonable computer, locks up for a minute at a time for no apparent reason, and is ugly as puke. This by itself will drive people away.
 
So I don't think its predatory. I think it is that they're hiding the fact that the low cut they get is murdering them.
In my eyes if you pay someone explicitly to not have their game openly available except under the terms you set in contract i.e. exclusivity deals on marketplaces, it's always predatory. These deals were relatively common when the consoles were slowly getting on their legs, and i can hardly believe we've regressed to that point again.

For an example, there's this absolutely fantastic SNES game called Hagane that most people have never heard of. Why? It was a Blockbuster exclusive. There's rumors that it was rental exclusive, but considering the back of the box says it's for sale and rental that's likely untrue. It also happens to have sold extremely poorly for some mysterious reason, and today fetches a wad of cash even for non-boxed non-reproduction copy.

Sneak-edit: Should mention that this is specifically the NTSC version. PAL versions aren't a rarity.
 
Last edited:
The developer of just-released game Darq did an AMA on Leddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/cqrtpx/ama_im_the_developer_of_darq_and_i_just_released/) where he reveals that Epic came to him with an exclusivity offer which he turned down.

Epic reached out to me right after I released the trailer announcing Steam release date. At that point DARQ was in top 50 most wishlsited games on Steam. I felt going for an exclusivity deal would show that my word means nothing (as I just had promised the game would launch on Steam). Besides, DARQ page was on Steam since November 2018 and a lot of people patiently kept it on their wishlist since them. I thought it was a bad idea to disapoint all those people and prove to the world that my annoucements mean nothing. Epic made it clear that they reached out to me with an exclusivity deal - I politely turned them down before we had a chance to discuss any details (money offered, etc.). I asked them if they would be willing to sell DARQ non-exclusively, and they explained that at this point in time it's not something they can do. It was a polite and professional exchange - I have nothing bad to say. It just wasn't the right fit for DARQ.

Goes to show just how desperate Epic is for exclusives knowing that they can't compete with Steam as a marketplace yet that they turned down his offer.

And props to the guy for not being a scumbag and taking the money unlike other devs (cough, OOBLETS, cough) out there.
>claim your store to be for the benefit of devs
>but only if devs refuse to sell their game at any other store

Yeah nah Epic can fuck off with their bullshit claims. It's not beneficial for anybody.
 
The developer of just-released game Darq did an AMA on Leddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/cqrtpx/ama_im_the_developer_of_darq_and_i_just_released/) where he reveals that Epic came to him with an exclusivity offer which he turned down.

Epic reached out to me right after I released the trailer announcing Steam release date. At that point DARQ was in top 50 most wishlsited games on Steam. I felt going for an exclusivity deal would show that my word means nothing (as I just had promised the game would launch on Steam). Besides, DARQ page was on Steam since November 2018 and a lot of people patiently kept it on their wishlist since them. I thought it was a bad idea to disapoint all those people and prove to the world that my annoucements mean nothing. Epic made it clear that they reached out to me with an exclusivity deal - I politely turned them down before we had a chance to discuss any details (money offered, etc.). I asked them if they would be willing to sell DARQ non-exclusively, and they explained that at this point in time it's not something they can do. It was a polite and professional exchange - I have nothing bad to say. It just wasn't the right fit for DARQ.

Goes to show just how desperate Epic is for exclusives knowing that they can't compete with Steam as a marketplace yet that they turned down his offer.

And props to the guy for not being a scumbag and taking the money unlike other devs (cough, OOBLETS, cough) out there.
Darq's dev just released a medium article about this situation. It mainly shits on that aspect of Epic and the fact that they wouldn't take "I just want my game to be on other stores too at least" for an answer. On Twitter he was met with replies of "I will buy your game thanks".

This isn't going to look good for Epic at all.
 
Darq's dev just released a medium article about this situation. It mainly shits on that aspect of Epic and the fact that they wouldn't take "I just want my game to be on other stores too at least" for an answer. On Twitter he was met with replies of "I will buy your game thanks".

This isn't going to look good for Epic at all.

"B-B-But developer reputation doesn't mean anything because Prison Architect had goodwill and look at where that ended up! Social medias, Sweeney, and journalists told me so! So yeah goodwill means nothing! HahahaHAHAHAHa!"

Seriously, the amount of Epic shills currently shitting their pants and trying to save face after slowly realizing that Tim was blatantly spewing bullshit in their faces this whole time is an absolute sight to behold. :story:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Wilhelm Bittrich
the virgin ooblets developer vs. the chad DARQ developer
vich.png

got bored, made a template
 
DARQ dev came in an EPIC fight in a right moment.
Many people saw Ooblets scandal, and here is DARQ, who not only rejects free money from daddy Sweeney, but reveals some details about Epic deals. Emailing devs with exclusivity deal right after steam release announsment is disgusting. It shows how Epic treats devs - as greedy fucks who will sell their ass for a price. They wave some money in front of devs and thats all.
I hope this dev will get good publisity, they decerve it.
 
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
🤔
They essentially amount to a company monopolizing a product. Unless the company actually funded the creation of the game, rather than that just buying out the title at some later stage, it's hard to say that the existence of the monopoly created anything of value.
 
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
🤔
They essentially amount to a company monopolizing a product. Unless the company actually funded the creation of the game, rather than that just buying out the title at some later stage, it's hard to say that the existence of the monopoly created anything of value.
They definitely won't, but as for theoretically if they should, there's only so far it can be regulated. For all the exclusivity deals that exist entirely to screw over the consumer, yeah obviously they need to be banned, but exclusivity is a complicated thing. Exclusivity got grandfathered in because hardware differences used to be way more significant, but they still exist and still have an impact on things. Some games run better on different GPUs, for example. Different stores do exist for a reason, otherwise people would just be selling their game on their own personal website.

Lots of multiplayer games rely on Steam's integrated friends list to work, and making it work on Epic would require programming that small indie devs have no reason to do. Some of the more meta games can rely on the Steam achievements to lead you to content, or perhaps fake an achievement as a part of the game. Or if someone decides to pull a Psycho Mantis and check your library, it'll only work on the stores they programmed it for. These are all edge cases and obviously not the same as a game pulled from Steam because of a contract, but there's no legal way to distinguish them. You'll just end up with people adding these sorts of limited content when they sign an exclusivity deal in order to pass by the legal hiccups of justifying it. Letting the consumers determine what they will tolerate solves the problem just as well as legal action will, and if the consumers don't care enough then they made their own bed anyway.
 
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
🤔
They essentially amount to a company monopolizing a product. Unless the company actually funded the creation of the game, rather than that just buying out the title at some later stage, it's hard to say that the existence of the monopoly created anything of value.
Of course not. But consumers should react as badly to it as they have been lest PC vidya end up as balkanized as video streaming is where you have no idea whether any given movie will end up on Netflix, Prime, Hulu, or any of a dozen smaller specialty sites.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Antique Rice
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
🤔
They essentially amount to a company monopolizing a product. Unless the company actually funded the creation of the game, rather than that just buying out the title at some later stage, it's hard to say that the existence of the monopoly created anything of value.

I think they're probably already illegal, at least the way Epic is doing it, as a form of tortious interference, unfair competition, anti-competitive trade practices, or some other collection of business torts. With how incompetently the whole operation is run, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't talked to any lawyers about it and are doing unlawful things left and right.

I think the main reason Valve hasn't already sued them is they're doing nothing but hemorrhaging money anyway.
 
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
🤔
They essentially amount to a company monopolizing a product. Unless the company actually funded the creation of the game, rather than that just buying out the title at some later stage, it's hard to say that the existence of the monopoly created anything of value.

The idea is that Epic isn't doing exclusivity is 100% bad. The problem is the WAY Epic is doing it. Its poaching crowdfunded games that have been advertised on Steam or the Steam platform, then negotiating behind the scenes, once the customer's money has already been spent, then advertising it on Epic, taking away the choice. Its shady as ever living fuck and you see the DARQ guy as the prime example of this.

Honestly, its desperation combined with underhanded shit. They need massive infusions of cash as soon as possible, so they need them as close to release as they can get. Buying Rocket League with its microtransactions is basically Epic's way to stave off bleeding. The problem is whether the community accepts it or not.

They definitely won't, but as for theoretically if they should, there's only so far it can be regulated. For all the exclusivity deals that exist entirely to screw over the consumer, yeah obviously they need to be banned, but exclusivity is a complicated thing. Exclusivity got grandfathered in because hardware differences used to be way more significant, but they still exist and still have an impact on things. Some games run better on different GPUs, for example. Different stores do exist for a reason, otherwise people would just be selling their game on their own personal website.

Lots of multiplayer games rely on Steam's integrated friends list to work, and making it work on Epic would require programming that small indie devs have no reason to do. Some of the more meta games can rely on the Steam achievements to lead you to content, or perhaps fake an achievement as a part of the game. Or if someone decides to pull a Psycho Mantis and check your library, it'll only work on the stores they programmed it for. These are all edge cases and obviously not the same as a game pulled from Steam because of a contract, but there's no legal way to distinguish them. You'll just end up with people adding these sorts of limited content when they sign an exclusivity deal in order to pass by the legal hiccups of justifying it. Letting the consumers determine what they will tolerate solves the problem just as well as legal action will, and if the consumers don't care enough then they made their own bed anyway.

Reminder: Steamworks is free to anyone that sells on Steam. So if you're a small developer and want to set up multiplayer, you can easily do this through Steamworks. Cloud Saves? Steamworks. With the Epic Store, everything has to be manually done. Reminder, people are bitching about the thirty percent cut, but developers get Steamworks free. Most people don't even know what you get. Here's what you get:
  • Installing redistributables neccessary for your game. No outside downloads.
  • Game Notifications for delivering offline notifications for games that are asynchronous multi-player, IE: Chess
  • Multiplayer. Steam has Matchmiaking and Server APIs to provide dedicated serves that the community can create. Goes both for consumers and developers. Allows any shitty little game to have multiplayer with basically minimum amount of effort.
  • Stats and Achievements
  • 'Enhanced Rich Presence' - Like if I'm playing DotA 2, you can see what mode I'm playing, what character and what level they are. This is available with any game.
  • Steam Cloud. Steam Cloud API to customize cloud saves for any game
  • Steam DRM. No need for added DRM (Even though faggots put Denovo on shit for some reason)
  • Steam Input. Compatability with Xbox, Playstation and all other controllers.
  • Steam Error Reporting. Automatically upload errors of your game after 10 similar ones occur with users if turned on.
  • Steam HTML Service. Enables display and render of HTML-Based Pages directly in a game or application.
  • Steam Inventory. Persistent player inventories without special servers or third party programs.
  • Steam Keys. Generate any key for anything.
  • Steam Leaderboards.
  • Steam Remote Play. You can optimize your game to play on TV, phones or tablets.
  • Steam Overlay with Steam Screenshots. Allows for In-Game DLC purchases.
  • Steam Voice. Automatic voice chat.
  • Steam Workshop. Steam hosted mods and communites.
  • Steam Video. Devs can stream themselves playing their game on their pages.
  • User Ownership and Authentication.
  • VAC Anti-Cheat so you don't have to buy one yourself.
I want to remind you, all of this is free. 'HURR WHY DOES STEAM TAKE 30%' Its because you don't have to do any of the shit above on your own. What the fuck does Epic have? It has to manually put in Cloud Saves. It can't fucking pre-load, which isn't even present on this list because that feature is 15 fucking years old. This is why Steam allows barebones indies to have multiplayer and anti-cheat when they normally wouldn't be able to afford it. So what, you go to Epic and have to do it yourself? So you're going to waste time and money figuring this shit out.

A lot of people are discounting Steamworks, which is a pretty fucking huge deal. I think a lot of devs are going to assume Epic has what basically Steam does behind the scenes and hilariously, they're going to find out they fucking don't. So how is Epic going to lead to quality indies?

Yeah, you get money, but then you have to do the vast majority of the above on your own and at your own expense and time. So what are you really gaining? And then a year later nobody gives a fuck. The only reason people knew about Ooblets was because they were massive faggots.

I think they're probably already illegal, at least the way Epic is doing it, as a form of tortious interference, unfair competition, anti-competitive trade practices, or some other collection of business torts. With how incompetently the whole operation is run, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't talked to any lawyers about it and are doing unlawful things left and right.

I think the main reason Valve hasn't already sued them is they're doing nothing but hemorrhaging money anyway.

Yeah, I just don't get how this is legal. I guess you would have to prove that advertising on Steam and being available for purchase there was somehow a contract. But definetly unfair competition and trade practices. They're using another service like a parasite to build hype for it and the second when it would make the most money, Epic swoops in and tries to buy them out.

I think so too. I mean, look at Epic. They've had not one singular piece of positive press since the store launched. Somehow Sweeny doesn't seem like this is a problem. The real thing I see Valve doing is very slowly clamping down on this sort of practice: IE, if you want to launch on Steam and you have a Steam page up, its going to start being contractual. Not that you can't sell anywhere else, but if your game does get released, it also has to be on Steam. If you want a Steam page, you can no longer be exclusive.

This will fuck over Epic as they can't rely on hype machines anymore. Devs will have to basically put up or shut up. Steam Forums can no longer be used as a support page. If Steam did that, Epic dies. That's basically it. The only way Epic has been surviving is snatching exclusives purposely close to release that were hyped on Steam.

People were wondering Valve wasn't doing anything. You always saw several YouTubers screaming "VALVE MUST COMBAT EPIC". Apparently they've never heard the phrase, "When your enemy is making a mistake, never interrupt him."

The Epic Store is bleeding to death. If it staunches the bleeding somehow, I've got no doubt that Valve has plans in place to rip that wound right open again. I mean, look at it like this: Epic got Shenmue III. Valve has Shenmue I & II. This is exceedingly smart, because Epic doesn't have the Shenmue remastered versions. Steam does. You know what you could do for that exclusivity to run out? Buy I & II, wait the year to pump yourself up for III, then buy III.
 
Should exclusivity contracts be banned or regulated?
Even if absolutely shitty, in the vast majority of cases i'd say you shouldn't regulate if it's in any way avoidable. Regulations always have a lot of collateral damage (see article 13 in EU). It should be something that the public itself pushes against so that it is not encouraged, and the public should be informed why this is the case. It takes quite a push to make those cogs turn, though.
Steam DRM. No need for added DRM (Even though faggots put Denovo on shit for some reason)
It's because it was cracked ages ago and there hasn't been a day when it has stopped a 0-day release. That being said, publishers still do believe DRM will somehow get you more sales, and DRM implanting is a staple of publisher contracts. DRM stopping piracy was only ever really true for a short period of time for a select few really shitty Ubisoft titles that no one really wanted all that much anyway.

The other side is the awful shit that DRM sellers do, and this is in the same vein that GameGuard does (for those that have the misfortune to know what that is). They get a contract with the publisher to provide copy protection (or "cheating prevention" that doesn't fucking work and happens to be a rootkit and a major security risk) for several years at a time with usually a clause that forces them to put in every game that they put out.
 
Last edited:
Back