this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
198 points (96.7% liked)
Gaming
19728 readers
780 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Development companies, like 4A Games are what people are complaining about when they complain about "Developers." This is different from the programmers or individual game developers who work on the game as people. The words might be conflated, but the company is what's being complained about.
Also, it depends on the game. Metro Exodus was subject to what their publisher wanted to do. The developers behind Phoenix Point, however, received additional funding from Epic to finish their game in exchange for a year of exclusivity. It just depends. Regardless, it kinda just...doesn't matter, right? I mean, it's video games. There are people in the United States who can't afford insulin. A video game being exclusively published for a year via the EGS is, like...the least of our societal problems. And I meant that literally.
And they will share the Steam money with the workers?
That's not really what we were talking about, though. And, to get back on topic, Valve doesn't engage in profit sharing with its workers. You can like a company as much as you want. It's still a company and at its foundation it extracts surplus value from its workers. It exists purely to make money. Like any other company. Any positive sentiment towards it that is not purely an evaluation of the quality of its products and services is misguided and largely a product of public relations, rather than any genuine merit of the entity itself.
Oh, okay, so you mean the company that this guy is talking about where everything was structured like high school cliques?
Or maybe the one in which this transgender employee was referred to by their manager as "it"?
Or maybe you mean the company this former dev talks about where your work space is basically structured so that management can watch your every action at all times?
I mean, it's factually true that they offer the game makers and their associated publishers a much better split than what Valve does. Valve takes 30% off of all purchases. Epic takes 12. Some companies actually get 100% of all profits the first 6 months. You can't say Valve offers more. They might have a better storefront and more users, sure, but those aren't merits of the company itself. It's just merits of a monopoly.
And Valve has always tried to claim that it was "part of the community, rather than standing above it." Which is, of course, bullshit. They're not part of any community. They're a storefront. Their entire purpose is to make money off of other people's labor.
Come on, man, be better than "omg good guy Valve!" It's as shitty a company as any. Don't get suckered into thinking anything else.
You do understand when it says "developers" it's not talking about individual, human developers that sit at a computer and code levels, and instead means "game development companies," right? Also, it's not a "whataboutism" - it's a direct refutation of your argument. Your argument was specifically about Valve being a "good company." I provided evidence that it's not a good company. That's not a whataboutism. A whatabousim would be somebody criticizing Valve and someone else saying "well, what about Epic?!"
Right, but your statements are entirely in response to what you believe Epic's PR statements are saying. Earlier you stated:
This is what you said. You are assuming that Epic has made claims that it helps individual developers (people whose job is to develop games). I don't think this is accurate: I believe that the intent behind Epic's statements is that it aims to help "Game Development Companies."
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Epic, Valve, whomever: they're companies. Loyalty to them is pathetic.
I mean, they have done this. Back when they initiated their marketplace and created paid mods for Skyrim, they basically touted it as a way of allowing artists and content designers to be paid for their work. Valve took almost all the profit from these initiatives. Like, by far almost every single dime. You're just not aware of it because you don't want to be, or haven't been around long enough to see Valve show it's colors as the sleazy corporation it always was.
Okay, but...what about smaller studios that don't have established publishers? Epic Games does offer a developer portal and dev tools for studios to leverage, including self-publishing. It is entirely possible to both be developer AND publisher. Also, Tim Sweeney has said that Epic would gladly stop its exclusivity deals should Valve commit to matching their 88/12 profit splitting: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/epic-boss-says-exclusives-policy-will-change-if-st/1100-6466479/
Quote from Sweeney: "If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam" - note that they included in their verbiage both terms, which as you'll notice is not the same as just saying "developers." They do draw attention to the fact that publishers are among their most prominent business partners.
Look, I'm not saying you can't criticize Epic. Their launcher is terrible. But if you're going to criticize something, do it honestly and while at least moderately well informed.
They aren't whataboutisms because they're explicitly about the topic of discussion. They're evidence against your core argument because your core argument is about a particular conclusion you've drawn and the basis on which you've drawn that. As such, your usage of the term is incorrect.
Sure. I'll provide article links. Just like you did...oh wait.
https://www.gameskinny.com/news/pay-for-skyrim-mods-revenue-for-valve-and-creators-frustrates-pc-gamers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/steam-skyrim-paid-mods/
Relevant part: "By paying for mods and supporting the people that made them, you enable those artists and creators to continue working on their mods and inspire new modders to try their hand in creating new, higher quality items and experiences." - Valve frames their initiative as providing a way for gamers (and it's implied, themselves) to help modders. Takes almost all the money. Classic Valve.
I think the crux of this is that you are reading their advertisement (which is what it is) as them saying "literally every single developer who works with us in any capacity will directly benefit from doing so." This is not what they are saying. They are advertising their platform, specifically towards smaller developers who are going to try and self-publish. They aren't saying they're going to benefit everyone equally. It's a business. If you have a large studio that is attached to a publisher, and that publisher goes with Epic, yeah, they probably aren't going to see any extra money from that. But they weren't going to see any money from that anyway, regardless if their game launches on EGS or Steam. But a smaller developer or indy development studio might benefit from developing their game with Epic's tools and might benefit from the greater split of revenue they get from the EGS. In that case, some developers might materially benefit from that. Others might not. But the point isn't that Epic promises to help each and every developer. They're framing themselves as a better platform for smaller, independent developers to launch on. That's the purpose of those statements. This is fairly obvious purely by way of understanding the context in which those statements are made. You haven't really argued that no one benefits in any way from contracting with Epic. You've only argued that there are some people who wouldn't. But these are not conceptually equivalent.
Okay, cool. You can think he's lying all you want. I would imagine that it makes your position a lot easier to maintain if you refuse to believe new information presented to you that directly undermines your argument.
No, I'm not. You can criticize it for a lot of things. Their launcher is really bad compared to Steam's. EGS has dogshit account security. The EGS fails to account for regional pricing, so it kinda sucks as a functional online store. The lack of community features also hinders user feedback to developers and the financial safety net their contracts create also kind of insulates developers from the need for bugfixes and feature updates, which means that the games on their platform are just generally shittier than they might otherwise be if released on something like Steam. These are all functional criticisms. As far as a business goes, they're not any worse or better than Valve. They're both just businesses and they both functionally operating in order to maximize profit. Your criticisms of Epic as a business are based almost entirely in a sentiment spoonfed to you by capital G Gamers on the internet. You hate Epic and love Valve. Not because of anything they've actually done that hurts you in a meaningful way. But because others hated it and you lack the mental or emotional capacity to actually think for yourself.
Just tragic.
Go outside. Touch some grass. Read a book. Talk to people with real problems.