Epic Store BUYS Psyonix, Rocket League Developers, Will Remove Rocket League From Steam

exclusive to the Epic launcher
Then the majority of PC releases are suddenly "exclusives": Exclusive to Steam launcher, exclusive to Origin launcher etc.

Using the term in this wrong way, doesn't make any sense. RGO is a multi-platform title and supporting only one distribution method per platform is pretty normal, nothing special.
 
Remus, I assure you I am not toxic. I am a games customer. As a games customer, I don't like what Epic is doing. It has nothing to do with Fortnite, even though I don't like that game and other games in that genre. I have principles, morals and standards. My standards object very strongly when someone, be it a games store owner, games developer, employer, business or even a friend, acts in a way that is underhanded, dirty, scummy, deceitful, unfair and just plain wrong. All of those words describe what Epic is doing.

For years I have heard lots of negativity about EA (Electronic Arts) and yet never once agreed with it. Sure EA are not perfect, I'd even agree they are not exactly fair towards customers. They also have their own game launcher, and when I wanted to play Sims 3, I had no choice but to use their launcher. Not once did I complain. Same with Blizzard when I wanted to play Diablo III. Same with a lot of games I wanted play on Steam (and as I posted above, I wasn't a fan of Steam at first).

But I simply cannot sit here and ignore or look the other way or pretend it's OK, when I see what Epic is doing. I'd rather not play computer games at all than allow what Epic is doing to continue without comment. I can't stop them, but I can express my opinion by not buying anything they touch.
 
Then the majority of PC releases are suddenly "exclusives": Exclusive to Steam launcher, exclusive to Origin launcher etc.
That's not actually true. Most games that I can get on Steam i can also buy from another launcher, such as GoG, etc. The same is true of many titles from the various other launcher storefronts.
 
They are not only supporting it, but also providing / coding infrastructure like the "Steam Runtime", "Steam Input" (for controller support) and "In-Home-Streaming", which make Linux ports viable for developers in the first place. And Valve's newest trick is "Proton" wrapping Direct3D11 to Vulkan running Windows games on Linux with official support from Steam.

tl;dr: SteamOS is a little bit more than just a launcher and a storefront.

While GOG and Humble Bundle happily provide Linux binary packages for download from developers who provide them, you are entirely on your own getting them to run. SteamOS offers an experience much closer to a game console, instead of tinkering for every single game and its launcher. It's in fact possible to migrate your existing Steam library to it and abandon the whole fragmented Windows store launcher mess (including Windows 10's Xbox tie-ins) completely now or at some point in the future. When the Windows 7 life cycle finally comes to an end, this might be where I end up.
You might be interested in this ....


Go on Remus .... justify how this is a good thing for the gaming industry.
 
I've was always been of the idea that Linux would never be a gaming platform.

And history seems to agree with me.

So you telling me that they stopped developing an anti-cheat software for Linux? And that concerns me how?

I guess they just looked at the data and decided it was just not worth it. Nothing new there, but because it involves somewhat Epic, they spin it like an anti gamers conspiracy.

Here are the numbers of total Linux users on steam:


0.86%

But sure! Lets spend some thousands of dollars and dev time on software's for a platform that almost none of our users will need!

Had it been any other company, it wouldn't have gotten so much traction. But hey, if creating controversy out of thin air gives you fun! If you feel so but-hurt that Epic is Steamrolling Valve at their own game to the point that you would abandon gaming altogether, be my guest! But I wonder if you where a gamer to begin with.

You see a few years ago I uninstalled Origin form my PC and applied a no EA games ever again. Like never, ever. Still holding to it. It had absolutely nothing to do with Origin itself.
EA had its own games taken from steam almost the day after Origin released. Plenty of games where concerned, from the sims to Crysis, and Mass effect 3 that was about to be released. And no one ever raised an eyebrow for it. So why so concerned now? My reason to boycott EA has everything to do with business practices that milked the consumers profusely, and killed game companies right and left after they succeeded in sucking every peny worth of them. And that, my friend, is real cause of concern for the future of gaming all together, not what launcher you get to use to launch your games.

Wanna know how Steam got so popular? BECAUSE OF ITS EXCLUSIVES!
Wanted to play Half life 2? You NEEDED to install Steam to run it! Portal and Team fortress 2? Same story! People complained at first, steam was considered an annoyance back then, very buggy, unstable, made the game and the PC crash more than everything. But guess what, people just had to move on, as more and more game companies where adopting Steam en masse. Because if anything, Steam proved a very efficient anti piracy DRM, and piracy back then ran rampant! To the point that gaming companies didn't know what to do anymore. That was real cause of concern for the gaming industry! I can already imagine how "gamers" nowadays would feel about it!

Today's drama is just that, drama, fed by a bunch of youtubers in need of views and likes and that found nothing better than to jump on the Epic hate bandwagon.


Linux as a gaming platform had its shot. It didn't work. Get on with it!
 
Epic is ticking me off, because one of the games coming this year that I really want to play is an exclusive (Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, if anyone is curious which one).

This news further ticks me off....but I already installed their launcher for above mentioned game.

I'm upset, but not enough to fight it or complain loudly because, ultimately, I lost this war long before Epic even had a storefront. When EA games that I wanted to get were on Origin only and not Steam. When UBI Soft made me install Uplay to play their games even when I bought them through Steam. When Blizzard made me install BattleNet. Somwhere in there even Stardock got me to install their launcher. GoG is awesome....I actually installed them because I wanted to....which was a nice change of pace.

My point is...I lost the fight already, with all those other launchers. I don't have it in me to care beyond being annoyed by it now, one new launcher or 6 isn't going to change the fact that I already have more than one, which is all I honestly want.
As much as I hate to use EA and Ubisoft launchers, its not because I fear for my security, I dont agree with the way they do business. Epic, I wont support their rags to riches exclusivity bombing and I dont trust them with any kind of personal information. Not to mention the total lack of a store. All they have is download the game and take your money options. Spoiled by Steam.
 
Here is the roadmap for Epic games launcher.
It should have much of the missing features people complain for before the end of the year.

While I agree when people say that the launcher is barebones, because it is...

I disagree when they say it is not user friendly.

It is as user friendly as it comes, you browse the store, you select your game, you pay for it, you install it, you play it.

If the Epic store is user undfriendly, then Steam must be a real nightmare!
So I should applaud that they launched without any features a decent web store nowadays should have? That is a joke, right? Even Uplay and Origin had more features at launch then the EGS. And mind you, they are calling it a store, not the Epic Games Launcher, in which case the absence of such features would be just fine. For me it is not user friendly, because a month ago I couldn't even search for games. Even if it only has 6 on it why do I have to scroll their webpage for minutes to see what's on offer? Why are there no categories for the games? Why can't I gift games? Why should I be lenient and wait 6-12 months for them to implement basic features that everyone takes for granted?

And yes, Steam is overcrowded and sometimes it's a pain to look for games on it, but once I find it I can look at screenshots, discussions etc about the game, without having to go out of my way of googling it right away. If the reviews are useless, then I investigate further, but I do have an option to see what the unwashed masses think of it at a cursory glance. And I have the option to buy it not just for myself, but for my friends if I so wish. Or I can wishlist it and check back later. I would have none of those features on the Epic store, and I actually care about these more then unfounded theories about the EGS being a commie cover operation.

And no, Epic does not want to be competition, Epic wants to be the last one standing, and that would not be good for anyone involved. I personally will wait for the "exclusivity" period to end, and if those games come to steam, I'll buy it there. If and when EGS gets their act together, and the store becomes something usable from my standpoint, I'll give it another look. But not before then.
 
After steam sold thousands of copies of Metro Exodus and advertising it for years.
Then eso making a supposed under handed buy out from the money grabbers for the title exclusively.
It was never about getting the devs more money.
I was the last person to ever get aboard the steam and origin train.
But Fallout 4 and Dragon Age Inq. The best of both games I had to jump on the wagon.
Eso will never be on my computer.
 
Last edited:
That's not actually true. Most games that I can get on Steam i can also buy from another launcher, such as GoG, etc.
You know this is . The overall majority of PC releases is "exclusive" to Steam. A few hundred indie games are multi-storefront, but this is still the exception, not the rule.
 
You know this is ****. The overall majority of PC releases is "exclusive" to Steam. A few hundred indie games are multi-storefront, but this is still the exception, not the rule.
No, they are not. Show me titles that have an exclusive contracts or details stating that this game will be unavailable on any other platform other than steam for "x" amount of days/months.

Now some game developers may choose to only to release their game on the steam store but valve isn't buying them out and making it exclusive to steam or time gating the release.
 
I'm sorry but if you want to blame someone how about the people that started all this launcher and games in their collection nonsense? I much preferred it when games were just obtainable from whatever source I wanted. Now someone is upset because someone else wants a slice of the pie? Sorry, capitalism doesn't work that way. It doesn't work at all but that's another rant.
 
I'm sorry but if you want to blame someone how about the people that started all this launcher and games in their collection nonsense? I much preferred it when games were just obtainable from whatever source I wanted. Now someone is upset because someone else wants a slice of the pie? Sorry, capitalism doesn't work that way. It doesn't work at all but that's another rant.
Here's a real-world analogy for you.

In the UK we have a transport company called Stagecoach. Now, as in: these days, people have forgotten how Stagecoach started .... but not us, not us ... sorry, wrong franchise :p .

I remember Stagecoach when they started, it was 1987(ish), I know because I was in school. Stagecoach had a few buses, and set up as a bus company in towns and small cities. There were small bus companies in those towns and cities already, so what Stagecoach did was to offer free services. Now people being people and wanting to save money where they could, would use the free service from Stagecoach and not the service from the already established bus company that they had to pay for. I mean, if you can get it for free, why wouldn't you?

Sooner or later, the bus company that was already there, went bust. Not enough people were using their buses, they weren't getting the income they needed to stay in business and running costs still had to be paid. Eventually Stagecoach would become the only bus company in town, quite literally. This was Stagecoach's plan. As soon as they were the only bus company in town, and people had no choice but to use their service, Stagecoach started charging, not extortionate amounts, but not as cheap or cheaper than the company they had put out of business. Anyone who tried to set up a new bus service to take on Stagecoach, got run out town, going bust, just as Stagecoach had done to the previous companies. Then Stagecoach would move to the next town or city and do it all over again. In many places now, Stagecoach is the only bus company available.

Does this story sound familiar at all? It should if you've been paying attention.
Epic only wants one thing, and it isn't to the benefit of the customers, or the developers. Epic wants to be the ONLY dog in the yard.
 
Last edited:
Here's a real-world analogy for you.

In the UK we have a transport company called Stagecoach. Now, as in: these days, people have forgotten how Stagecoach started .... but not us, not us ... sorry, wrong franchise :p .

I remember Stagecoach when they started, it was 1987(ish), I know because I was in school. Stagecoach had a few buses, and set up as a bus company in towns and small cities. There were small bus companies in those towns and cities already, so what Stagecoach did was to offer free services. Now people being people and wanting to save money where they could, would use the free service from Stagecoach and not the service from the already established bus company that they had to pay for. I mean, if you can get it for free, why wouldn't you?

Sooner or later, the bus company that was already there, went bust. Not enough people were using their buses, they weren't getting the income they needed to stay in business and running costs still had to be paid. Eventually Stagecoach would become the only bus company in town, quite literally. This was Stagecoach's plan. As soon as they were the only bus company in town, and people had no choice but to use their service, Stagecoach started charging, not extortionate amounts, but not as cheap or cheaper than the company they had put out of business. Anyone who tried to set up a new bus service to take on Stagecoach, got run out town, going bust, just as Stagecoach had done to the previous companies. Then Stagecoach would move to the next town or city and do it all over again. In many places now, Stagecoach is the only bus company available.

Does this story sound familiar at all? It should if you've been paying attention.
Epic only wants one thing, and it isn't to the benefit of the customers, or the developers. Epic wants to be the ONLY dog in the yard.

And with Epic it's even more sinister, they offer their buses without even installing seats, as they need that space for TENCENT's Big-Brother-is-watching kit.
It's pretty sinister the more i look into it. Steam would have to lose half its features to even be competible with Epic's Sweeney scheme.
 
Here's a real-world analogy for you.

In the UK we have a transport company called Stagecoach. Now, as in: these days, people have forgotten how Stagecoach started .... but not us, not us ... sorry, wrong franchise :p .

I remember Stagecoach when they started, it was 1987(ish), I know because I was in school. Stagecoach had a few buses, and set up as a bus company in towns and small cities. There were small bus companies in those towns and cities already, so what Stagecoach did was to offer free services. Now people being people and wanting to save money where they could, would use the free service from Stagecoach and not the service from the already established bus company that they had to pay for. I mean, if you can get it for free, why wouldn't you?

Sooner or later, the bus company that was already there, went bust. Not enough people were using their buses, they weren't getting the income they needed to stay in business and running costs still had to be paid. Eventually Stagecoach would become the only bus company in town, quite literally. This was Stagecoach's plan. As soon as they were the only bus company in town, and people had no choice but to use their service, Stagecoach started charging, not extortionate amounts, but not as cheap or cheaper than the company they had put out of business. Anyone who tried to set up a new bus service to take on Stagecoach, got run out town, going bust, just as Stagecoach had done to the previous companies. Then Stagecoach would move to the next town or city and do it all over again. In many places now, Stagecoach is the only bus company available.

Does this story sound familiar at all? It should if you've been paying attention.
Epic only wants one thing, and it isn't to the benefit of the customers, or the developers. Epic wants to be the ONLY dog in the yard.
Yeah, that's capitalism. Remember the part when I said it doesn't work at all.
 
Top Bottom