I am really wondering how these companies are getting out from under Epic after taking the bribe and it seems to suggest not all is good in Epic exclusivity. I was wondering with Exodus showing up on game pass but with more and more appearing on games pass…it makes you think. Maybe it something you have to agree to get on XBOX/PC but that seems strange.
Remember, we had made our arrangements with MS to be on Game Pass before Epic. Our contract with Epic allowed for that.
Interesting, so the Epic exclusive isn’t actually about being on the Epic store exclusively…just not on the biggest competitors stores. IIRC there are legal issues with sort of thing.
No legal issues for us. No.
None for you, but for Epic
There arent any ‘legal’ issues with Epic either unless you think MS is going to go after Epic for… what exactly?
Certain agreements like the ones it now appears Epic has entered into are illegal on the basis they are anticompetitive.
Someone who produces a product is perfectly entitled to decide where they sell their product.
That literally makes no sense on multiple levels
- As we’ve already seen Epic doesn’t dictate/mandate exclucivity as many games are on Epic but on other platform even Steam
- Exclucivity isn’t anti competitive otherwise how is literally every console maker on the planet not apparently breaking ‘anti-competitive’ laws
- If a company gives you a bunch of money and makes that money have restrictions, that also is not an anti-competitive move. Console companies already do this inorder to make console games exclusive to their platform otherwise a game dev is losing out on money from other platforms and thus needs to be compensated for that loss of revenue
- “I dont like something” doesn’t make it anti-competitive
- Your bizarro land logic would mean you should really be suing GOG for the fact that Diablo 1-2 is only available on GOG
No but the agreement Snapshot Games has with Epic is. As far as the agreement appears it’s not an exclusivity contract but instead is more commonly known as a “Group boycott” contract.
Those are illegal. An exclusivity agreement is legal, that’s the sort where you make an agreement with a developer to sell a game on your store and your store only. A “Group boycott” agreement is one where the agreement stipulates you will not sell on a specific store (in this case - Steam). Those are most definitely not legal and fall right into anti-trust laws in the US (see: Refusal to deal).
As there is increasing evidence (See Metro:Exodus, Outer Wilds) that the core stipulation of any agreement with Epic is “You cannot sell on Steam” these agreements are looking more sketchy by the second.
You are incorrect. Our agreement with Epic is for exclusivity. However, our agreement with MS predates the agreement with Epic, so dispensation was added for Game Pass.
Technically speaking your stated intent to bring the game to Steam could also be seen as legally binding (Frontier found out that such statements are legally actionable) yet apparently you had no issue discarding that particular option. Something tells me that this “Dispensation” was at Epics good graces as opposed to Microsoft’s demand. This becomes particularly credible as an argument when looked at in the light of games like Metro: Exodus mystically becoming available on the PC MS store despite being in a similar alleged “exclusivity” deal such as your own.
The only way to know for sure would be to examine a sample copy of the contract that the developers who have been bound by EGS’s terms and conditions have been required to abide by but I’m guessing you won’t be too forthcoming with a sample version of your contract (minus the specifics and numbers that would fall under confidentiality clauses).
In the original Fig campaign, the description for the product states “Digital copy of Phoenix Point” and doesn’t specify a platform. We said in our FAQ that we would be on Steam and GOG, as that was the plan at the time.
Yes, I know what was stated. But what you stated and what you did were two completely different things
Like I said, the only way to know for sure how truthful you are would be to see a sample of the EGS agreement that goes to any given developer who is signed up to this exclusivity thing and get a feel for exactly what they ask for in exchange for their money.
Until I see definitive proof to the contrary, my theory - whilst based on circumstantial evidence (and interview comments like this one) - looks a damn sight stronger than your claim of “You’re wrong but you’ll have to take my word for it”
Now question arise if Snapshot is obliged to debunk someone’s theories.
You said they were ‘legally obligated’ to provide a steam key. Since the campaign did not say they would they aren’t legally obligated to do so. You’re conveniently dancing around your own premise.
And you’re not party to said agreement so you and such contracts are confidential for a reason. In fact breaking the confidentialy of said agreement is a breach of contract. So you basically are asking for proof that you know no one can provide and then using that as a basis to think ‘you are so smart’
Yes lets quote an article yet provide little to no context about what you’re babbling about right? The article says literally nothing about MS and Epic other than “Epic is pursuing a strategy and we are pursuing a different one” which shows… again literally nothing that you purport.
The nonsense of “my theory is right because you wont provide me evidence that I full know you cannot provide” is just a bucket full of hypocrisy.
Let him dream theories of conspiracy.
But paraphrasing title of this thread: This whole “Epic deal outrage” and all those threads and videos has made me wondering. Really.
Developers decided to create a game. Game that many players await with their fingers crossed. They started crowfunding and they promised something. People put their money with good faith in the project without certainity if the whole thing will work. Process of development took nice chunk of time and money. Project was delayed 2 times, but the team was working hard to create the game. They decided to change some promises because they were no longer profitable or feasible for creation with available resources. Every time devs have noticed the public about the change letting people to refund (they were not oblidged to do that in the crowdfunding project - maybe just the pre-orders). And recently when the game launcher (repeat those last two words for more clarity) has changed people get mad to the point where they threatened the developers with legal actions and created false narratives to lower credibility of developers. Some even wished them (the developers) to burn in fire… People are really so hateful and stupid? Geez. We have got quite reasonable explanations why all the changes were made. Even with the Epic store switch, so what do you want more?
Game will be finished and released! YEAH! Praise the God, Allah, Buddha or other spirits. You will have XCOM successor (better or worse, but still successor with many new interesting mechanics). You have many options
- You are not fine with Epic, so just wait a year to get it more complete on the platform of your choice.
- Or refund and buy it at lower price at some sales that year later.
- Maybe you are really displeased with some “shady” move in your opinion? So take your money and go do something else with it and forget about the project in which you are probably not so interested.
But stop that bullshit / nonsense / gibbering about illegal actions, fraud, disloyalty to the WHOLE(?) fanbase etc etc.
I love it when people don’t read what I write but instead read what they think I write and then create straw men to attack.
This part is provably true. Frontier were not willing to offer any form of a refund after they decided to make the game fully online despite stating categorically that the game could be run in full without needing any offline connection. In the end, it required a Letter Before Action but Frontier decided that they did not want to set a UK caselaw precedent and backed down as a direct result.
I asked for a sample agreement. That’s one which does not contain any confidential details. But hey, keep going.
I’ll help you then -
“GOG has some specific rules that they set, as does Epic right now, about what games we can put [on them], what other stores they can be available in.”
Now I know GOG’s rules, namely DRM free. GOG doesn’t have an issue with games being on Steam at the same time. So by deduction we can rule GOG out from the whole “has issues with stores that games can sell in”, that leaves Epic. Would you like to take guesses at what Epic’s policy is?
Also, nice try with the Metro:Exodus thing (yes, that landed in my mailbox), but I’m guessing you deleted that when you realised your mistake
YOu know full well even ‘sample’ agreements like that are under NDA. But yeah keep asking for ‘stuff that you know can never be released and when its not then my irrational conspiracy theory is true’
I like how point A “gog sells DRM free games” has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with B "but yeah lets make illogical conclusions. But yeah I wonder how that whole Diablo exclusivity thing is going. Or like you know when GOG was selling ‘old games’ that were hmmm only available on GOG. But yeah you know we can ‘draw illogical nonsense conclusions by randomly connecting two unrelated things’
You might want to take off the tin foil hat. Its cutting off the circulation to yoru brain.