Tetris Effect will be coming to PC as an Epic Games Store exclusive

Discussion in 'GBAtemp & Scene News' started by Chary, Jul 16, 2019.

  1. Giga_Gaia

    Giga_Gaia GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Sep 12, 2006
    Canada
    Quebec, Canada
    $39.99 for Tetris is far too expensive. It was too expensive when it released on PS4 and it still is too expensive on PC.
     
  2. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    All of this is irrational because it's all in your head. Steam's never been a monopoly, and Valve doesn't even employ the same anti-competitive business practices that you're gladly willing to defend from Epic. There's no censorship on Steam any more, and what little censorship they've historically enforced has been far less restrictive than the competition. And lastly, Steam was not single-handedly responsible for the transition to digital sales on PC. As you've stated, they were just the right player, in the right place, and at the right time. The market was already trending toward the convenience and lower prices of digital, and the PC section at retail stores was already becoming minuscule. That's without even mentioning how much more common piracy was back in the early 2000s, and how many developers shied away from releasing on PC because of it.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 19, 2019
    chaoskagami and Memoir like this.
  3. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    23
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    I don't see how Epic is being anti competitive. If you have a service you can pay, or otherwise incentivise, others to be on it to make its appearance better. This is fundamental business and pretty much how the entire field of intellectual property works. Some people care to have their works on as wide a range of platforms as possible, others might benefit from a measure of exclusivity (be it because they are paid for it, or because it grants them a perception of classiness or whatever) but that is up to them. I fail to see how epic buying in games is any different to a video distributor doing the film festival rounds, watching pilots, reviewing scripts, watching plays... and either buying in stuff there or giving them an editing suite and a camera for a while to polish it up and go from there.

    On censorship then in the past sure they say that now but if you go there once it takes you a while to rid the stink of it, and I have not seen much in the way of a committent to it.

    I am not objecting to downloadable games any more than I was the transition of tapes to cartridges or CDs beyond that. Downloads are fine, commendable even as they allow others to get in on the action that would struggle to do pressings and getting into the retail chain. Not allowing resale of them despite there being no technical hurdle to such a thing is what I object to there, along with the end of store so people getting locked out of games (see the any number of DRM laden stuff going pop, I believe Microsoft is having one right now for their ebook service).

    I already covered monopolies but again they are a monopoly in the same way microsoft is to the OS market, or youtube is in the user driven online video market, or google is in the search market, and we generally understand most things in the modern world to be monopolies -- it is less about sending the boys in should someone attempt to get into your space but more about market share/dominance meaning others have a very hard time doing any kind of growth, and you being able to dictate the tempo* -- and if you are a dev big or small then ignoring steam is considered a bold move (for good reason). It is a crying shame that nobody managed to get it together in time to provide them suitable competition but most monopolies and mergers commissions don't much care if it happens that you are the only one left standing or that you merged/bought you way to such a position.

    *see all the "30% is market standard" stuff people were telling me elsewhere... as if that meant anything.
     
  4. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    I think you do see it, you're just conveniently ignoring it. Throwing piles of cash at a developer to limit a customer's buying options to a single platform is anti-competitive. If Steam had been doing the same all these years, it would indeed be the monopoly you're claiming it to be, and Origin/uPlay/Battle.net/EGS never would've existed because they'd all be outbid for their own IPs.

    How have you not seen a commitment to it? There are tons of adult games of all types available on Steam right now, they aren't in the least bit hidden unless you choose to hide them. OTOH, we haven't heard anything whatsoever from Epic on censorship.

    Again not a Steam-only thing, I've never heard of any storefront allowing resale of digital products. That would require digital products to be priced the same as physical ones, thus removing much of the appeal.

    You're right, it's meaningless because Epic ignores the supposed "problem" of a 30% cut on all platforms except for Steam. They also conveniently ignore the keys system from which Steam takes a 0% cut. In the end, Sweeney is just angry at himself for not seeing the value in the PC gaming market much sooner, and he's chosen Steam as a scapegoat so that he doesn't have to take responsibility for all of his own poor decision-making. Don't be like Sweeney.
     
  5. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    23
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    I am sticking with the video distributor, talent scout, general notions of contracts to use patents, general contracts to be the distributor of [clothing line] and on and on and on analogy here. I can't see epic stumping up some cash to make their offering more attractive by virtue of having more content be something to deem some flavour of anti competitive. Or if it is somehow anti competitive then it is the acceptable aspect of it, which is an odd term to coin but whatever.

    Epic making a committent not to censor would be a nice thing. Until you do some censorship though, much less do it in the position of monopoly...

    If Steam is installed on the vast majority of potential gamer PCs and where vast segments of the market almost exclusively operate then the lack of exposure (which Epic appears to want to address in their deals) becomes a factor. It is somewhat like offering paypal -- they cost a fortune relative to other means and are a horror to work with but if it is what a significant chunk of your (potential) users operate with in a do or die kind of sentiment then you get to consider whether you want to play there, this despite there technically being a thousand other ways you can take payment.

    Steam does not have to do anything here as they are so far ahead as a market leader -- it would be like Microsoft worrying that I am developing an OS and office program myself, which is to say "who?" is probably a perfectly acceptable answer from their otherwise very clued up business intelligence division.

    There have been several services floated with either DRM free offers meaning de facto resale/gifting/disposal of your choice is implied, there have been DRM services wherein you can lend people keys to access the service and thus if that appears in public it is said to be lost and gets revoked, and that it is at all conceivable (never mind trivially physically implemented on current systems -- the whole gifting thing just needs the "is used?" thing turned off). Various courts, including high level ones, have ruled that resale must be an option provided.
    Similarly it would not require prices to match physical ones -- the lack of necessary infrastructure/upfront costs seeing to that one. Chucking something on a pay to play CDN is far far far cheaper than even a modest DVD pressing session, and you are probably going to have a CDN for the updates too.
    It would also solve the "not available for sale any more" problem the same as physical largely has.

    30% for a payment provider and CDN for relatively low size-latency/speed minimal concern but high value product? Seems like a perfectly valid thing to have issue with, and a front to try to compete on. 0% keys might influence the final cost calculation a tiny bit, though if it ultimately boils down to still installing Steam then I don't see how it is all that different as a slip in via the back door and get people using it ploy that you seem to find so offensive.
    I would be kicking myself too if I had enjoyed the position I did and not jumped, and if Steam are the king you take aim at the king if you want to be the big dog.
     
  6. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    The rule of thumb is that if you're going to take a shot at the king, you'd best not miss. Unfortunately for Epic, EGS is nothing but a long series of misses. Exclusivity won't last, and it only makes piracy that much more appealing in the short-term. Beyond that, they've failed to provide any compelling reason whatsoever for PC gamers to change their buying habits.
     
  7. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    23
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    Generally a solid plan. I fail to see why I would begrudge them their shot though.

    On compelling reasons. If they having games others don't, and exposure issues (seemingly addressed) notwithstanding allowing for said same devs (people do seem to care about them) making the games people like a better slice of the pie, maybe also giving some dev assistance from people that can be said to know their shit (presumably then raising the chances of a good game happening) does not count towards compelling reasons then I am not sure what would, other than the "can be installed in a few hours" web scripts (assuming wordpress, Squarespace, wix, Weebly and whatever else, or your publisher*, don't already have something like it ready to roll even quicker), and maybe a "spares the user from having to go fetch joy2key", stuff we were batting around earlier.

    *doing those banners for the reviews I see there is a common script/layout for a lot of those so some publisher seems to have something.

    I can see why some would opt for piracy -- it was noted that general inconvenience of piracy saw numbers of that drop when the likes of itunes and netflix rocked up, or conversely rise when torrents/gnutella appeared to replace XDCC, usenet, FTP and simple web. Closing steam and opening something else, possibly before busting out the wallet to tap numbers off a card into it is quite hard. Whether the ire directed at EGS (I am tempted to bring back the irrational term to the discussion) combined with that will overcome desire to play online, annoyances with modern piracy in many places, Steam Stockholm Syndrome, play the hot new games and support devs making said same I do not know at this point... though traditionally people do seem to go where the content is at.
    On the other hand launch + 1 year so as to get all the DLC and bugfixes is a solid plan these days, and one I have advocated for for many years now, so if all EGS amounts to is more people doing that then I am OK with that too.
     
  8. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    There's no compelling reason for CUSTOMERS to change their buying habits, of course a pile of cash up front is a compelling reason for short-sighted publishers/developers to bite. We'll see how long Epic can even manage to keep this practice going, as its entirely reliant on their declining Fortnite revenue.

    The ire at EGS over releasing half-assed software is justified. Nobody would still be using Steam if it had remained in its 2004 state, and EGS is at least that unfinished. What you call "stockholm syndrome" everybody else calls a desire to keep their game library all in one place, and it's a big part of why many people were willing to buy into digital distribution to begin with. If it all comes down to where the content is at, then vast majority of content remains on Steam, just as the vast majority of customers will remain there.

    I suppose that's a positive way to spin it given the state that many developers choose to launch in. EGS exclusive versions of games are just betas, and waiting on exclusivity to expire will net you superior, more stable, and more feature-complete versions of those same games.

    There's no chance that Steam will adopt this same practice, as Valve sees the obvious risks inherent in it, and the ill will it generates from the gaming community.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 20, 2019
    chaoskagami and Armadillo like this.
  9. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    23
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    If the store I am in does not have the stuff I want then I go to another store, and plenty of people seem to buy into either local shops, shops doing the whale hugging bit or shops doing the fair trade/we treat our supplies nicely bit despite the price or convenience penalty. Usually a better plan than demanding the world conform to me and ending up on https://notalwaysright.com/ or some variation on the theme of "I don't work here lady".

    On half arsed software then I will return to the if it allows me to buy and download (and they do seem to have that right at least) then everything else is gravy. I would extend that to 2004 vintage steam allowing one to search, purchase and download as the only real functions being brought to the modern world if it should still have the library it does.

    If the desire to keep things in one place (and that place is not under the individual's or their agent's control) is the thing that means I have to deal with arseholes like Valve to enjoy PC gaming then roll on the next crash. I would have thought having watched ten thousand servers get turned off over the years then gamers would have been more sensible than that but oh well.
     
  10. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    "Shop local" is not a good analogy since these are both multi-million dollar companies. If the goal is to support ethical business practices, then one would certainly reject Epic with how terribly they treat their employees, and how willing they are to sell out to Chinese interests.

    Yes, multiple times you've stated that you have no problem settling for next to nothing. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of PC gamers demand more than that, which is why Steam continued to grow as it continued to provide more updates and convenient features for users. It's also why EGS has so many of the same features on their "roadmap," despite the fact that the rollout of those features keeps getting delayed.

    PC gamers are indeed quite sensible, and it's for that reason they've placed trust in Valve, a privately-owned company which has continued providing a reliable service for 16 years now. Epic's track record is considerably worse (particularly when it comes to PC gaming), and as a publicly-traded company, they can be bought out at any moment. Thus EGS could be shut down at any moment if the new owners decide to go in a different direction.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 20, 2019
  11. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    23
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    I don't particularly see shopping local as an ethical practice, just one that causes more cost for the purchaser.

    I remain unconvinced that PC gamers demand more from their game shop/DRM system as much as demand it in general. If Epic are adding them then I am still going to wonder if it is appeasement for some inmates running the asylum -- most times I find the customer hasn't got a clue what they really want (Henry Ford's quote about faster horses probably being the more notable in the general populace but the fate of the Tribes games, and general awfulness of the DOTA/MOBA scene probably doing a nice stand in for games).

    We have very different views of public companies, private companies and the nature of DRM systems enacted by each, though in my case "neither afford me any measure of protection" is where I start there.
     
  12. chaoskagami

    chaoskagami G̷̘̫̍̈́̊̓̈l̴̙͔̞͠i̵̳͊ţ̸̙͇͒̓c̵̬̪̯̥̳͒͌̚h̵̹̭͛̒̊̽̚

    Member
    9
    Mar 26, 2016
    United States
    ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
    Can you stop calling steam a DRM system? It's not. Steam API integration functions as a weak sort of DRM, but there are plenty of games on Steam that have an optional dependency on steam_api even being present or don't require steam_api to work, and are functionally identical (sometimes physically, even having Galaxy.dll present) to their GOG counterparts.

    Steam has never enforced any form of DRM on publishers - you can release a game on Steam DRM free and simply use them as a distribution platform for managing and downloading games. This argument on the topic of DRM is therefore misguided. Steam does not force DRM on users nor developers, unlike Epic. Steam leaves it entirely up to developers whether they implement DRM.
     
    Last edited by chaoskagami, Jul 20, 2019
    Xzi and Armadillo like this.
  13. Pipistrele

    Pipistrele GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Jan 21, 2019
    Russia
    Tetris as redesigned by Tetsuya Mizuguchi, with a crapton of playlist-worthy original soundtrack, lots of replay value, ridiculous amount of content, and arguably some of the best visual presentation this gen has to offer. Speaking shortly, I can name many popular games that justify their $40 price tag much less than this one.
     
  14. bunny_wabbit

    bunny_wabbit Member

    Newcomer
    1
    Jan 14, 2017
    Risking a lot by saying this without my tin-foil hat, but at this point I feel like companies know people would rather play a game on PC, so if it goes to console first, their profit will double from PC gamers.
     
Loading...