They brought "exclusives" to PC gaming for the first time.
Please stop with this horseshit. Valve and GOG had both done third-party exclusives before EGS was even a thing. Epic absolutely in no way "brought [them] to PC gaming for the first time.
Yes, they did make them a pillar in their strategy to try to enter a marketplace that was dominated by an 800-pound gorilla - which is a perfectly legitimate approach to take - which neither of the other two did, but they 100% categorically did NOT bring the practice to PC first.
they refused to spend any money on actually improving their fucking game store.
Wow, you're just full of misinformation on this post. They have constantly been updating their store since day one. No, it's not on parity with Steam (and it likely never will be), but to just flat out say that they haven't spent anything on improving it when there has been a steady stream of improvements over the years is ignorant at best and actively disingenuous at worst.
Which games did valve pay to be exclusive to steam?
And before you even go there, yes, it was a long time ago, no, they haven't really done it since then. But the discussion here is about whether or not Epic did it first, which they did not. By about a decade and a half.
Darwinia still sold copies through their site. Steam didn't even support macos or linux back then yet the game did and that was how you got those versions. It wasn't exclusive.
Tell me you didn't click the link without telling me you didn't click the link.
Darwinia still sold copies through their site.
Straight from the linked forum post:
As part of the launch and Steam's exclusivity, we will no longer be offering Darwinia as a download option from our site, although it will still be possible to purchase shipped boxed copies. At Valve's request we will also be removing the demo from our site for about a month.
So, yes, they were still selling boxed copies - because it was 2005 - but Valve made them stop selling digital copies from their own site and even made them take down their own demo.
It wasn't exclusive.
Again, same quote as above:
As part of the launch and Steam's exclusivity
Not sure how you're getting "it wasn't exclusive" from a post that explicitly says that they signed their game up for Steam exclusivity.
As you said, it was 2005. Physical sales were the norm.
I like how they ignore that it saved the company and Valve didn't reach out to them to make demands. Introversion was about to go out of business, were on benefits ("on the dole"), and their deal with Valve saved them.
But that's exactly the same as paying for Borderlands 3, a huge fucking game whose company wasn't about to go out of business is exactly the same.
Darwinia was eventually released in March 2005, but despite a strong opening weekend, sales soon slipped too low to sustain the company. Within six months, the developers were back on UK government benefits until November, when they contacted Valve "on a whim"[10] to try to set up a digital distribution deal on their Steam platform. Valve responded enthusiastically and, following a 14 December 2005 online launch, digital sales, which exposed the game to a new, global audience, kept the company going through to the release of their third game, DEFCON.
I found elsewhere that said they only sold 6000 copies before contacting Valve, but I can't verify that it's true.
Yeah, exactly the same as massive games with huge followings like Borderlands 3. /s
So just because it worked out for both parties, that means it doesn't count?
The claim was that Epic created exclusivity on PC. You seem to be acknowledging my point that Valve did it years before EGS even existed, but then you're digressing into "BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE REASONS!!!1"
Focus. Valve did it before Epic. GOG did it before Epic. Think what you like about the circumstances surrounding all of these, but admit the incontrovertible fact that Epic didn't start this.
Valve had a company reach out to them that was about to go out of business for a game most people had literally never fucking heard of.
Epic's entire business plan was reaching out to companies and paying companies millions for exclusive rights to properties that were guaranteed money-makers.
I'm sorry, but they are different things, especially when Valve has never done it again. Sorry I don't subscribe to your fucking pedantry.
Also, to be clear on the differences, Valve didn't reach out offering to pay for a massively popular upcoming game, which is what Epic does as a business model. They had a company that was about to fail reach out to them, and they made an exclusivity deal with them, but Valve did not pay them for this deal. If you really fail to see the difference between those two things, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, and Valve was trying to establish their upstart digital store against the big established sales leader by buying exclusive distribution rights to a game they didn't make...
🤔
Exclusive distribution rights how? The physical edition wasn't just a steam code, otherwise I'd agree with you.
Since you are being a bit nitpicky here: The people you replied to did say „exclusives“ and „games“, so…
Careful you don't throw your back out helping them move those goalposts!
How was it exclusive if it was available to purchase in two separate places? Maybe if your comment had a qualifier like "digital download version exclusive" it could be considered correct
Based on the other poster above, it was the Darwinia devs who reached out to Steam. So Darwinia isn't a particularly good example either.
What's your point though? Every one of Epic's exclusivity deals is done with the consent of the game publisher. Does it matter who makes the offer? Do we even know that there aren't cases of publishers reaching out to Epic?
Does anyone know how to permalink a post on Lemmy? Anyway, here's what Snot said:
Also, to be clear on the differences, Valve didn’t reach out offering to pay for a massively popular upcoming game, which is what Epic does as a business model. They had a company that was about to fail reach out to them, and they made an exclusivity deal with them, but Valve did not pay them for this deal. If you really fail to see the difference between those two things, I don’t know what to tell you.
Gamers and developers benefit from the developers being paid rather than not being paid for the same thing.
A large chunk of steam games can't be brought elsewhere.
Are we pretending publishers not bothering putting their games on every storefront is the same as paying publishers to not put those games on competing storefronts?
The end result is the same for the consumer.
Intention matters too.
Not to me. I just want to play games. Already have multiple launchers. Doesn't make a difference.
The end result is the same for the consumer.
It really isn't.
In one case a publisher is choosing to publish where the customers are. If consumers don't like that service they are free to publish somewhere else
In the other case a company is trying to force consumers to use their service, instead of providing a better service that they would want to use.
Either way you install a client and play a game. Already have a few so it doesn't really matter.
Steam was literally forced on those who owned a physical copy of Half-Life and wanted to play it. The dominant position has nothing to do with the service offered by Steam. It was dominant when it barely had any features. GOG competing with it on features and in fact offering the bonus of DRM-free games hasn't improved its market share of about 0.5%.
No one is upset about having to use EGS for Fortnite. Their own games that they develop themselves they can do what they want with.
Epic: We would love to have you on our service
Dev: I'm not interested in exclusivity
Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service
Having more options for their customers makes their service better, but Epic isn't interested in being a better service.
Dev: I’m not interested in exclusivity
Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service
If anything, the example you brought up proves the opposite. Darq is on Epic and its developer even took money from Epic to make it free, so there is no grudge even past the dev's publicity stunt.
Their attempt to strong arm an exclusivity deal failed and at some point they relented and put the game on their store.
If they had just hosted in on their service at the same time in launched on Steam it would have been better for their customers and more profitable for Epic. But they are more concerned about trying to force exclusives than do what is better for their customers, even if it loses them money.
That’s not an exclusivity deal.
All the same to me. I have to install a specific client to play a game.
For real, Steam literally took off because they made HL2 exclusive to it. It doesn't matter that it's a first party game, the effect and intent was identical. They could've made it generally available but chose not to. They forced people to use their proprietary product to install a game.
It's crazy how many people shill for valve on Reddit and lemmy when they've already done most of the shit Epic gets accused of.
Please stop with this horseshit. Valve and GOG had both done third-party exclusives before EGS was even a thing. Epic absolutely in no way "brought [them] to PC gaming for the first time.
Yes, they did make them a pillar in their strategy to try to enter a marketplace that was dominated by an 800-pound gorilla - which is a perfectly legitimate approach to take - which neither of the other two did, but they 100% categorically did NOT bring the practice to PC first.
Wow, you're just full of misinformation on this post. They have constantly been updating their store since day one. No, it's not on parity with Steam (and it likely never will be), but to just flat out say that they haven't spent anything on improving it when there has been a steady stream of improvements over the years is ignorant at best and actively disingenuous at worst.
Which games did valve pay to be exclusive to steam?
Darwinia.
And before you even go there, yes, it was a long time ago, no, they haven't really done it since then. But the discussion here is about whether or not Epic did it first, which they did not. By about a decade and a half.
Darwinia still sold copies through their site. Steam didn't even support macos or linux back then yet the game did and that was how you got those versions. It wasn't exclusive.
Tell me you didn't click the link without telling me you didn't click the link.
Straight from the linked forum post:
So, yes, they were still selling boxed copies - because it was 2005 - but Valve made them stop selling digital copies from their own site and even made them take down their own demo.
Again, same quote as above:
Not sure how you're getting "it wasn't exclusive" from a post that explicitly says that they signed their game up for Steam exclusivity.
As you said, it was 2005. Physical sales were the norm.
I like how they ignore that it saved the company and Valve didn't reach out to them to make demands. Introversion was about to go out of business, were on benefits ("on the dole"), and their deal with Valve saved them.
But that's exactly the same as paying for Borderlands 3, a huge fucking game whose company wasn't about to go out of business is exactly the same.
Via Wikipedia about Introversion Software:
I found elsewhere that said they only sold 6000 copies before contacting Valve, but I can't verify that it's true.
Yeah, exactly the same as massive games with huge followings like Borderlands 3. /s
So just because it worked out for both parties, that means it doesn't count?
The claim was that Epic created exclusivity on PC. You seem to be acknowledging my point that Valve did it years before EGS even existed, but then you're digressing into "BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE REASONS!!!1"
Focus. Valve did it before Epic. GOG did it before Epic. Think what you like about the circumstances surrounding all of these, but admit the incontrovertible fact that Epic didn't start this.
Valve had a company reach out to them that was about to go out of business for a game most people had literally never fucking heard of.
Epic's entire business plan was reaching out to companies and paying companies millions for exclusive rights to properties that were guaranteed money-makers.
I'm sorry, but they are different things, especially when Valve has never done it again. Sorry I don't subscribe to your fucking pedantry.
Also, to be clear on the differences, Valve didn't reach out offering to pay for a massively popular upcoming game, which is what Epic does as a business model. They had a company that was about to fail reach out to them, and they made an exclusivity deal with them, but Valve did not pay them for this deal. If you really fail to see the difference between those two things, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, and Valve was trying to establish their upstart digital store against the big established sales leader by buying exclusive distribution rights to a game they didn't make...
🤔
Exclusive distribution rights how? The physical edition wasn't just a steam code, otherwise I'd agree with you.
Since you are being a bit nitpicky here: The people you replied to did say „exclusives“ and „games“, so…
Careful you don't throw your back out helping them move those goalposts!
Show one Valve exclusive.
https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203
What do I win?
How was it exclusive if it was available to purchase in two separate places? Maybe if your comment had a qualifier like "digital download version exclusive" it could be considered correct
Based on the other poster above, it was the Darwinia devs who reached out to Steam. So Darwinia isn't a particularly good example either.
What's your point though? Every one of Epic's exclusivity deals is done with the consent of the game publisher. Does it matter who makes the offer? Do we even know that there aren't cases of publishers reaching out to Epic?
Does anyone know how to permalink a post on Lemmy? Anyway, here's what Snot said:
Gamers and developers benefit from the developers being paid rather than not being paid for the same thing.
A large chunk of steam games can't be brought elsewhere.
Are we pretending publishers not bothering putting their games on every storefront is the same as paying publishers to not put those games on competing storefronts?
The end result is the same for the consumer.
Intention matters too.
Not to me. I just want to play games. Already have multiple launchers. Doesn't make a difference.
It really isn't.
In one case a publisher is choosing to publish where the customers are. If consumers don't like that service they are free to publish somewhere else
In the other case a company is trying to force consumers to use their service, instead of providing a better service that they would want to use.
Either way you install a client and play a game. Already have a few so it doesn't really matter.
Steam was literally forced on those who owned a physical copy of Half-Life and wanted to play it. The dominant position has nothing to do with the service offered by Steam. It was dominant when it barely had any features. GOG competing with it on features and in fact offering the bonus of DRM-free games hasn't improved its market share of about 0.5%.
No one is upset about having to use EGS for Fortnite. Their own games that they develop themselves they can do what they want with.
The issue is when Epic approaches other developers, especially those that have already announced a Steam release, and try to get exclusivity out of them: https://medium.com/@unfoldgames/why-i-turned-down-exclusivity-deal-from-the-epic-store-developer-of-darq-7ee834ed0ac7
Epic: We would love to have you on our service
Dev: I'm not interested in exclusivity
Epic: then we have no interest in having you on our service
Having more options for their customers makes their service better, but Epic isn't interested in being a better service.
If anything, the example you brought up proves the opposite. Darq is on Epic and its developer even took money from Epic to make it free, so there is no grudge even past the dev's publicity stunt.
Their attempt to strong arm an exclusivity deal failed and at some point they relented and put the game on their store.
If they had just hosted in on their service at the same time in launched on Steam it would have been better for their customers and more profitable for Epic. But they are more concerned about trying to force exclusives than do what is better for their customers, even if it loses them money.
That’s not an exclusivity deal.
All the same to me. I have to install a specific client to play a game.
For real, Steam literally took off because they made HL2 exclusive to it. It doesn't matter that it's a first party game, the effect and intent was identical. They could've made it generally available but chose not to. They forced people to use their proprietary product to install a game.
It's crazy how many people shill for valve on Reddit and lemmy when they've already done most of the shit Epic gets accused of.