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:

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

[+] brawleryukon@lemmy.world -15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.