EGS, DARQ good enough for an exclusivity deal, Not good enough for a non-exclusive.

[Acidbaron]

Article

The developers were approached days before the launch, the 30th of July. Something we could argue is a questionable move as this would be a move to hurt steam with us gamers just being collateral to snipe a game from them last minute.

They refused the offer stating; "Pulling the game off Steam a few days after Steam release date announcement would forever ruin the credibility of my studio. I would like for my customers to have confidence that my word means something, especially when making announcement as crucial as release date/platform."

Now we can argue this might be a publicity move to give the game more exposure although they would have obtained quite a bit of money regardless of their sales according to this statement; "Turning down the Epic exclusivity offer might have been a foolish decision in the short term, considering the amount of money that might have been involved. When thinking long term, however, this was an easy and obvious decision to make (in my case)."

Since the offer was turned down Classic wow developer Mark Kern that it is not okay to strong arm companies into an exclusivity deal in this tweet.

"Okay so...the devs of DARQ were approached by Epic for an exclusivity deal. They turned it down, but the Epic refused to put them on the store...if true, that's not right. :/"

Sweeney replied back, and take a moment to realize that this is the person who keeps proclaiming to be doing this to support developers and giving them a larger cut than mean ol' evil Steam!

"Hi Mark, we’re still in the early, hand-curated days of the Epic Games store where we can only accommodate a small number of releases. See the launch announcement:https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/b...ic-games-store …"

Tweet link
And like that suddenly EPIC is not open for business any more for any indie development studio that doesn't sign an exclusivity deal with them.

Hate to say i told you so, @Edge-

Edit: Reddit thread where the question was asked to DARQ's developer can be found here

AMA Transcript;

I'll bite, why reject Epic?

If you can disclose, what was their offer?

"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."

If you can read this correctly, you'll see that it is Sweeney himself that made the bogus claim that the game wasn't good enough, not the developer, Sweeney's own twitter account issued that statement you can read that a few paragraphs above when in communication with Mark Kern.

[Arrashi]

But EPIC is supporting devs guys ! Also something something grants.

[Yunru]

The most recent epic store exclusive game that i tried doesnt even have a passeable mouse controls. I have a felling that every bad and unfinised game will end up there.

[Acidbaron]

The most recent epic store exclusive game that i tried doesnt even have a passeable mouse controls. I have a felling that every bad and unfinised game will end up there.

That is even worse considering Tim Sweeney just stated that they can only "hand curate" them at this point. Guess approval by hand means if they sign yes on the deal or not.

[qwerty123456]

I think everyone knew Epic wasn't doing this for the devs long ago.

I hope exclusivity ends up biting them in the ass. If I'm a game dev and I know Epic will give me money why would I put my game on their store if they don't give me money when they stop doing exclusives. They need new games more than I would need the Epic store when they have multiple competitors.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

a company pushing scummy tactics is scummy? who knew.

[Super Kami Dende]

EGS being Trash assholes?

Who woulda thunk amirite guise

[Wondercrab]

Imagine if they tried to compete with Steam by funding their own exclusives and building a quality digital platform rather than haphazardly throwing their money around and strongarming devs while continuing to ignore all the things that would actually make consumers want to pick their platform over Steam.

[Tech614]

So if they declined the deal why mention it at all?

Oh, that's right. They're trying to get free publicity for their game and hoping the "egs is evil" crowd buys their game. Sorry to say that crowd likely has no interest in their game at all. No one knew what the game was before this, and everyone will forget what it is a day after reading this head line.

I mean nice try on the devs part I guess /shrug.

Imagine your "gotcha" moment for Edge is a developer salty they didn't get the offer they wanted so trying to buy good will from a crowd that isn't going to buy their game anyways lmao.

[Acidbaron]

So if they declined the deal why mention it at all?

Oh, that's right. They're trying to get free publicity for their game and hoping the "egs is evil" crowd buys their game. Sorry to say that crowd likely has no interest in their game at all. No one knew what the game was before this, and everyone will forget what it is a day after reading this head line.

I mean nice try on the devs part I guess /shrug.

It was asked on an AMA, they did not make a statement on Twitter.

The reply on twitter was to a wow classic developer.

It is publicity but only due to EGS calling the game not good enough for a non exclusive deal.

[Vespian]

Edge is always on the side of the developers, for no better reason than herself being one. There's no point in trying to change that. Any thread with the classic consumer vs developer debate, you know from the start where Edge stands. On one side I respect the fact that she sticks to her guns and doesn't automatically just ride the waves, but on the other hand when faced with utter truths and realities, she would defend the undefendable with strawman arguments until it just dies down.

She will be here explaining how they are obviously correct for limiting access to the platform as it is still growing yadayadayda. It's all pointless drivel. Just let her be. We understand the truth of the thing, that's enough. I'm just happy these boards, so far, have not descended in just banning everything that's not in agreement with their personal taste, even though many threads have been closed in the past where heated arguments were used as an excuse to quickly get them off these boards. It's still relatively open.

On the subject. They are obviously using it to their advantage and sadly it actually is a positive that they remember their promises to their customers, even though it should be the only thing that matters. With so many developers breaking their promises, it's actually a selling point to stick to what you're doing.

As someone that's assuming that the EGS is not going anywhere and we'll have to face reality, I've been using it for a month or two now, mostly just gathering the free games and I personally feel that it's not as unfriendly to the user as some claim it is. Not sure about the refund policy, because I haven't had to use that yet, but personally I don't mind not having a forum. To me Steam is one big clusterfuck of indie spam with the most stupid recommendations every single day. I might have accidentally touched a game that had the erotic tag in the past and I had to manually turn off the tag to stop the incredible amount of recommended cheap sexgames. In that light, EGS is an improvement.

[Tech614]

It is publicity but only due to EGS calling the game not good enough for a non exclusive deal.

It's public because they knew it would draw attention to a game that otherwise has none lmao.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's public because they knew it would draw attention to a game that otherwise has none lmao.

So they faked the AMA?

[Tech614]

So they faked the AMA?

Imagine thinking AMAs aren't marketing for small developers.

Not sure where you're getting the "faking" strawman from, but you definitely have no idea how AMAs work or why small devs do them if you're claiming it wasn't to draw attention to their product.

Oh and normally I would always be on the side of the devs, but not a dev who is trying to bait the EGS boogey man outrage crowd into supporting their game lmao.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Imagine thinking AMAs aren't marketing for small developers.

Not sure where you're getting the "faking" strawman from, but you definitely have no idea how AMAs work or why small devs do them if you're claiming it wasn't to draw attention to their product.

Asking a question isn’t a straw man.

You are saying that the info is only out for publicity so that must mean they faked the AMA and no one actually asked a question about epic.

[Edge-]

Edge is always on the side of the developers, for no better reason than herself being one.

I'm actually not, and have never claimed to be. I just work with them.

More on-topic: ...ok? I'm not sure what the "gotcha" mention was all about, I've never said EGS didn't have problems or Epic approach was 100% putting consumers first.

Indie devs are looking to score some points by responding to an EGS question saying they didn't want the money, good on them.

But hot damn do I still think that folks in general take the EGS way too seriously and have way too much emotion for the minor inconvenience of needing to use another storefront on the same platform without all the features that Steam and others have.

Asking a question isn’t a straw man.

You are saying that the info is only out for publicity so that must mean they faked the AMA and no one actually asked a question about epic.

It's totally fair to point out that they likely answered that question for purely marketing/PR reasons to get a boost given the very vocal EGS hate.

That's not a bad thing mind you, that's smart marketing on their part if they didn't take the timed exclusive payout. But they very likely intentionally answered that question specifically to point that out and get a nice PR bump.

[SinR]

Never heard of Darq, looking into it really don't wanna play it

[Rennadrel]

I think everyone knew Epic wasn't doing this for the devs long ago.

I hope exclusivity ends up biting them in the ass. If I'm a game dev and I know Epic will give me money why would I put my game on their store if they don't give me money when they stop doing exclusives. They need new games more than I would need the Epic store when they have multiple competitors.

I mean, it's obvious that they aren't actually playing these games before selecting them for their store. Sweeney is a hypocrite, and ultimately it boils down to it's either Epic exclusive or it isn't. Hopefully more devs stand up and tell them to fuck off.

[Acidbaron]

Imagine thinking AMAs aren't marketing for small developers.

Not sure where you're getting the "faking" strawman from, but you definitely have no idea how AMAs work or why small devs do them if you're claiming it wasn't to draw attention to their product.

Oh and normally I would always be on the side of the devs, but not a dev who is trying to bait the EGS boogey man outrage crowd into supporting their game lmao.

You don't side with the developer because you find exposing the practice to be worst than the actual practice taking place, strange logic but to each their own.

I don't agree with that notion but to each their own.

Take note that epic only uses this bully practice with small indie developers. You are also greatly overestimating the impact this statement will have, we are talking about a product that still gets sold easily even when people know the abuse overworked developers are put through.

If the goal was money, he would have accepted the deal as epic guarantees a certain amount regardless of sale numbers.

EDIT: I stand corrected, first night shift of the week has had my reading impaired some what. The developer did NOT claim the game wasn't good enough, read the AMA transcript added in the OP, it was Sweeney himself that claimed the game wasn't good enough to pass for the hand curated non exclusive check. After the exclusive deal was turned down.

So the victim blaming, if i dare call it that is completely incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm actually not, and have never claimed to be. I just work with them.

More on-topic: ...ok? I'm not sure what the "gotcha" mention was all about, I've never said EGS didn't have problems or Epic approach was 100% putting consumers first.

Indie devs are looking to score some points by responding to an EGS question saying they didn't want the money, good on them.

But hot damn do I still think that folks in general take the EGS way too seriously and have way too much emotion for the minor inconvenience of needing to use another storefront on the same platform without all the features that Steam and others have.



It's totally fair to point out that they likely answered that question for purely marketing/PR reasons to get a boost given the very vocal EGS hate.

That's not a bad thing mind you, that's smart marketing on their part if they didn't take the timed exclusive payout. But they very likely intentionally answered that question specifically to point that out and get a nice PR bump.

The reason I tagged you was because last time we had this discussion you argued that EPIC was for indie developers, I disputed that and found it simply a fake smoke screen, a false justification to snipe games.

At least I'm glad you agree that epic is anything but consumer friendly.

As for emotional, my point is simple I remember when dlcs first came and special game editions, everyone said that it was just a minor thing. Years later we know better and I forsee a similar ugly development from epic, yes it's another browser but what about your user data, what about the pricing they'll control exclusively which is only marginally favourable for Americans and worse for the rest.

Emotions have little to do with this, for me it's another company trying to do something that will end up negatively, or do you not think that in some way they will try to regain what they lost on exclusives and freebies?

Remember that nothing is ever truly free.

- - - Updated - - -

Added in the reddit thread of the AMA in the OP.

[turboether]

Well, at least more people than the dev's families and serial AMA'ers will know that this game exists, I guess. Silver linings.