next »

[Ordnas]

The art design of Supergiant Games is always the top, but I probably skip Hades, I do not like their games in terms of gameplay: Pyre was a chore to play the same teams again, transistor wanted to be a puzzle and an action game but was mediocre on both, and Bastion was a bit boring.

[J-Snake]

Epic's revenue split might be for the better, but their current tactics seem premature and rushed. The store is launching with bare bones functionality and only a handful of games ("coming soon games" even), as a major company it doesn't leave a good impression. Plus, the smell of exclusivity deals won't make many fans. But they certainly prepare for a long battle. So we will see what the future brings.

[airman4]

The art design of Supergiant Games is always the top, but I probably skip Hades, I do not like their games in terms of gameplay: Pyre was a chore to play the same teams again, transistor wanted to be a puzzle and an action game but was mediocre on both, and Bastion was a bit boring.

Strange :
-Boring cause you do the same stuff , not enough gameplay variation ?
-Not enough combos possibilities
-Not enough different bosses ?
-Too short ?
-Environnment not crazy enough ?
-One character to play the whole time ?
-Not minigames ?

I got to make a thread about that, keeping players and make them not bored is starting to scaring me serious XD

[Ordnas]

I played Bastion a long time ago, I do not remember exactly the details, but I would say issues about enemy pattern, level design too linear and a general lack of "surprises" regarding the game progression.

[airman4]

I see, good input ! i'll keep your notes , thanks

[Oroboros]

Epic's revenue split might be for the better, but their current tactics seem premature and rushed. The store is launching with bare bones functionality and only a handful of games ("coming soon games" even), as a major company it doesn't leave a good impression. Plus, the smell of exclusivity deals won't make many fans. But they certainly prepare for a long battle. So we will see what the future brings.

Kind of like Fortnite's battle royale mode I guess? However I do think that with time this can become a good thing for us indie devs, a better revenue split and curated store is much needed. As of now the Steam store is a bad place to be for most new devs due to ongoing issues. Steam was also terrible when it came out, but in time all the required functionality came to be.

I'm hopeful this will be a good thing in the long run.

[J-Snake]

Kind of like Fortnite's battle royale mode I guess?

If you refer to exclusivity deals then no, I am not referring to Epic's own games. They have exclusivity deals with some indies on there, which isn't perceived well on pc (I am not sure it is just a vocal minority though, but it is found everywhere).

I'm hopeful this will be a good thing in the long run.

It is certainly a good thing when quasi monopolies are faced with some competition. As long as Fortnite is a thing Epic has a chance to generate momentum, but not with the current state of their store.

[Richard Kain]

The kind of functionality that the Epic Store currently lacks is functionality that can be added in the future. As many others have pointed out, Steam didn't start with all the features it currently has. All of those features had to be built up over time. It isn't realistic to expect Epic's store to launch with that kind of parity.

I am a bit surprised by some of their exclusive deals. Not that Epic pursued such deals, that doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm more surprised that some smaller developers were willing to go for such deals. Exclusive releases frequently don't go well for smaller developers. The amount of sales that they give up through such deals are usually much greater than whatever deal a platform holder offers them. I know that I would be very unlikely to go for an exclusivity deal, there are too many options these days.

I think the competition presented by the Epic Store is a good thing, and I wish them well with their efforts. Going forward, I don't think PC game distribution is going to bound to a single system. Steam blazed the trail, but there is ample room for other parties to stake a claim.

[J-Snake]

The kind of functionality that the Epic Store currently lacks is functionality that can be added in the future. As many others have pointed out, Steam didn't start with all the features it currently has.

That is not a symmetric comparison. The situation is different today.

I'm more surprised that some smaller developers were willing to go for such deals.

If Epic puts few millions of dollars in your pocket upfront, wouldn't you be tempted?

[litHermit]

If Epic puts few millions of dollars in your pocket upfront, wouldn't you be tempted?

Did they now? Or is that just random conjecture on your part?

I do agree the situation is way different today than when Steam was starting out. Epic will have to grow much faster than Steam did if they want to be competitive.

[J-Snake]

If Epic puts few millions of dollars in your pocket upfront, wouldn't you be tempted?

Did they now? Or is that just random conjecture on your part?

Yes, they did. Of course no one will tell you the exact numbers, but you can pretty much assume financial stability is guaranteed even when the game fails.

Just found a video stating the obvious, relevant timestamp: 1:30:

[Devilkay]

I do agree the situation is way different today than when Steam was starting out. Epic will have to grow much faster than Steam did if they want to be competitive.

Steam already has a lot of players and their pokets. If Epic Store has few players, it's hard that the developers can make money there. even if the store will have only the 12%

[Schoq]

I do agree the situation is way different today than when Steam was starting out. Epic will have to grow much faster than Steam did if they want to be competitive.

Steam already has a lot of players and their pokets. If Epic Store has few players, it's hard that the developers can make money there. even if the store will have only the 12%

digital stores aren't consoles

[Schoq]

maybe I'm way out of touch with idiot Gamer Culture but I don't think people see specific seller of the games they play as some kind of exclusive investment the same way one might with a several hundred dollars piece of hardware. am I missing something?

[ProgramGamer]

It's a hassle to have multiple game stores/launchers installed on your computers and running at the same time I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[litHermit]

It's a hassle to have multiple game stores/launchers installed on your computers and running at the same time I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've seen these as a reason touted often. It's weird, either people really are invested in their "neatly organized Steam libraries" or it's just a very vocal OCD minority.

Of course no one will tell you the exact numbers... assume

This is basically the only part I'm being contentious about. You're assuming "a few millions", and while that might be in some cases, it's highly doubtful small indies will manage to negotiate such high numbers for their games. Business being business and all.
This in no way makes it a bad deal, mind you.

[Cobralad]

it takes my $1000 pc 5 to 10 minutes to load because of steam, gog and discord, more on my older pc. It still howls from just running gog galaxy on background. Plus passwords, credit card info, friends lists etc. Then add Uplay that opens up when you launch ubisoft games.
Right now its an all-out streaming service war and market gonna claim its victims one way or the other. One digital library is the only logical solution but sin of Adam has doomed us to buy Street Fighter 2 every 5 years.

[litHermit]

Does your PC load all those apps on startup, instead of as-needed?

[Cobralad]

those called "prog-rams" in realm of pc and there are so many i dont know what games i own. They demand updates on launch and stay wasting memory.

[ProgramGamer]

Dude, app is just short for application, which is the subset of programms that have user interfaces. Stop it with the sass.