Sonic Superstars Is Being Refunded On Steam Over Epic Games Store Login : pcgaming

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 44 points 1 year ago

If a game I'm interested in does this it'd be a deal breaker. Not because of the extra login but because I absolutely hate Epic's MO in running their store. I can get behind EA, Activision & co. making their own stores and deciding to not sell the games their studios develop on Steam. Fair enough, they make it so they can choose where to distribute. But Epic forcing exclusivity through monetary payments is introducing a cancer I will never support.

[-] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I'm very confused by what problem you're describing.

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 11 points 1 year ago

Epic is paying devs to only distribute on their Store, they are not competing with a better product, they're trying to compete with deeper wallets. Because of this I try to boycot as many games as I can that have even the resemblance of a connection to their store.

Beyond that I don't trust Epic, their store practice has shown them to be plenty untrustworthy and so I see their "free" Epic Online Service and instead of being happy about a good cross-platform online service I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[-] ursakhiin@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago

I'm not really paying attention, is it more than games that are using unreal engine?

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 4 points 1 year ago

Their store? I dunno but a lot of games on their got a upfront payment to only be on that store. If the devs choose to limit themselves to one store, fair enough. But I have a very deep problem with them receiving payment for it. Because suddenly the game isn't "who can attract the most customers/devs via the best platform" but instead "who can pay the devs the most". Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which of the two leads to better store fronts (case in point: even EA, etc. abandon their store exclusivity regularly because customers refuse to use inferior stores/launchers and want to stay on steam)

[-] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

I'm mostly asking because they originally attracted devs using Unreal by waiving the license fee for the engine if they sold the game on their store.

I honestly just don't pay that close of attention to release dates for most games anymore, so I just end up buying on steam when I see it anyway.

[-] Maximilious@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Epic pays producers for store exclusivity is what he has an issue with I think. I'm personally just waiting for this game to go on sale like all Sonic titles do (and most other games I buy), and the exclusivity window will also likely be closed by that time.

[-] bilb@lem.monster -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But that's not what happened at all with this game. I don't get it. The complaint seems very minor. The game uses epic for cross play features- so what? A lot of games use third party accounts for this.

[-] cmeow@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Valve did it before with Darwinian: https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203 when they were relatively new to launchers.

[+] Kichae@lemmy.ca -10 points 1 year ago

But Epic forcing exclusivity through monetary payments is introducing a cancer I will never support.

You... You know developers and publishers aren't being forced to accept payment in return for exclusivity, right?

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 11 points 1 year ago

Yeah, so? Do you think that changes anything? "Oh yeah, wow. Nevermind if they are volunatrily doing this thing I absolutely disagree with and consider harmful to the market"? The devs accepting the money doesn't change a thing.

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, so?

So, it makes this a bizarre statement:

But Epic forcing exclusivity through monetary payments...

And it makes you sound like a ridiculous child.

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How? Epic is using money to force exclusivity, it's only natural that the devs accept if they throw enough money at them, can't fault them too much for accepting. Point is the exclusivity is not a natural market effect, it's artificially forced into existence by means of burning piles of money. If Epic stopped paying devs for exclusives tommorrow, I can guarantee you would not see a single 3rd party dev going Epic exclusive. If they bound their Online Services to their Store then maybe some would take the offer. But the vast majority of devs would go back to Steam, even if it meant retooling the game for Steam's Online Service.

If a supermarket chain comes into a city and starts to undercut the competition by subsidising the losses from other stores, that is not a natural monopoly forming. It's a company forcing out the competition. Now Steam is by no means in such a position but it does not change Epic's actions. They are acting in a manner where it is clear they care little for a better developer experience, nor for a better customer experience. They want marketshare. Should Epic manage to snatch the monopoly crown from Steam before they run out of money to throw at exclusives I guarantee you they will start hiking up their revenue cut as mich as possible and lock down their services to be store bound. It's the same old playbook that has been ruled illegal in every other industry but because the gaming industry is currently a natural monopoly no laws against the rpactice exist.

[-] deur@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

You are a moron

[-] kadu@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

If it's in any way related to Epic, I'm not touching it.

[-] resketreke@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

I've been reading a few of the negative reviews, and people often complain about the price too. They find the game too expensive for what it offers. High price + adding Denuvo last minute without warning + trying to force people to log into EOS = Sega shooting themselves on the foot stupidly, IMHO.

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Well, at least they're not forcing you to install and run the Epic Games Store on top of Steam. Not like, say, fucking Star Wars Squadrons forcing Origin.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Ugh, origin and Ubisoft and a few others.

I'm going to be surprised if blizzard Activision games, when they appear on Steam, doesn't require you to login to battlenet.

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If only we could use origin still, it was actually decent. EA decided to make a new, and much worse launcher, a very logical decision ofc

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dang, as a Sonic fan I was kind of looking forward to this game. Now I'm not getting it. Denuvo = Refundo.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

People should do this.

But unfortunately, this isn't a problem that Steam can address and it's fully under the responsibility of the game.

If Steam banned external launchers, a lot of games would need to retroactively fix itself. And I can also see future lawsuits as making it appear as non-competitive.

It'll be great for the a average gamer though.

[-] Mini_Moonpie@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

Agree that they can never fully address it, but it would be nice if they made it easier to block publishers and developers (who do not have a publisher or dev page set up, like Sega) and filter on things like "Requires 3rd-party DRM" that appear in the gold boxes in the Steam UI. Currently, I follow multiple curators who flag games for things like Denuvo. But, it would be nice to have that built into the filters and store preferences, when the info is available. If users could easily filter out bad actors, then it might discourage the bad behavior. Valve might not do any of that because it would probably strain their business relationships. So, I don't know.

[-] cmeow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

No chance, doing that would discourage devpubs from distributing on Steam.

[-] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I wish steam would say something like, "all games released on steam after Jan 1 2024 must include a direct launch option" or something similar

[-] Wahots@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago

Trying to play "cross launcher" games is such a mess with friends. It breaks social features, which makes joining on friends much more difficult....especially if people bought it on different launchers.

[-] cmeow@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the devs' responsibility, not different shops. I can easily play compatible crossplay games easily with my friends as long as the devs develop it from the ground up.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Wheres my Fall Guys refund?

[-] big_slap@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

extremely disappointing. was looking forward to picking this up soon and playing it on my deck :/

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

OP, appreciate you using archive.org. The gamer and all their sister sites pay their writers dirt to churn out as many posts as humanly possible. There's extremely little research.

[-] Mkengine@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Additionally the article sounds not very factual, the author seems a little butthurt that some players dare to stand up for themselves.

[+] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[+] Dasnap@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 5 points 1 year ago

I heavily disagree. There is no "free" service, ever. Steam does not offer their Online Services for "free" they offer them with the expectation that it will bind more sales and users to steam than to other platforms. If Epic is offering their Online Service to be used for free but require a login you can do the math on how "free" that service actually is. Besides no one is guaranteeing that Epic won't turn around and monetize this service once it becomes popular, forcing a shutdown on less popular games anyway.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

Epic using Steams own MO, you love to see it.

PC Gaming