Absolutely, that would be ideal.
Think of it on a spectrum. MS is sliding farther towards the consumer friendly side, far from ideal but better than single store exclusivity which was expected since MS wholly owns Halo properties.
I do want games to be on as many stores as possible, with a personal preference of DRM free ones.
How do we know they didn’t? Maybe they didn’t give them money up front but some other perk, like a better share of the sales of Halo then they would a typical game sold on steam? Maybe they made a deal with MS that they would provide more advertising for the Halo game and give it a better spotlight on the market? How is that any different than providing cash upfront for an exclusive?
If you would like to prove Valve is not or is doing the same thing Epic is, go for it. Nothing is stopping you.
Did Steam pay MS for exclusivity? It is also on the MS Store.
Also, awesome! Halo on Steam!!!
I would guess Microsoft had to pay STEAM $100 to get the game on the store. Isn’t that the official policy?
I imagine it went like this:
Epic only invites curated games to their store, so ask Epic why they haven’t invited Halo over.
What are these “curated games” you speak of, they sound special?
I didn’t realize Halo MCC was initially announced to release on the Epic store as an option then Valve came swooping in with their piles of Half Life 2 money and made a minimum sales guarantee to move Halo to Steam at the last minute as a year long exclusive.
That must stink for you and Brad being early Fig backers of the Halo franchise hoping for your promised Epic keys.
And here I am, without my violin.
Man, I hate it when daddy, daddy, daddy, and daddy fight.
Seriously guys, it’s becoming a bit acidic in here.
What I don’t understand is the actual cycle of discussion. It’s something like this
“X game is announced to be exclusive in the Epic store for one year”
Cue 60 posts with arguments and debate around it.
Then, three week later:
“Y game is announced to be exclusive in the Epic store for one year”
Cue the another batch of 60 posts with the same arguments and debate around it.
Literally zero has changed today with respect yesterday. Epic and Steam policies are the same. There is no news here, nothing new that can alter the arguments used before, not even to review them at least.
You have a developer with backers, actual money given to them, who gave a pitch that included Steam and GOG releases who decided that Epic’s money was more important than actually delivering what they promised. That’s kind of new. I mean these guys already did a round of collecting. It’s a new low.
I can see that point as valid. Although they are offering the option to refund people, so I think it should be all right?
They cancelled linux support, too. People still begrudge them that (though only dumb linux assholes).
To some extent that is true.
I think the new pieces are this may be the first backer-funded project that Epic picked up (not 100% sure?). Beyond that there was an “Investment” campaign in Fig that further complicates this deal as I don’t know how investors will be handled.
This makes most upcoming popular backer-funded projects somewhat suspect as to if they will switch to Epic and reneg on backer promises for those with concerns about the Epic store.
Maybe a few other angles I failed to mention.
Edit: Whoops!, @Nesrie already responded, sorry.
That’s just silly. Proton will do a far better job of supporting Linux than they ever could. Oh, wait…
This thread is where I come to get my daily two minutes hate. Where else can I find such a perfect enemy?
The GOP?
No one waited for proof about Division 2.
Fig is a little weird, because it’s got that investment component, but refunds is certainly appropriate. It’s not going to buy them back any good will they just lost though.
Is there anything going to Epic that isn’t exclusive and comes with some sort of guarantee/Epic paid to do it? Thy’re being pretty open about this, well aside from actual numbers.