It's been nine months since "Alan Wake 2" came out, and it still
hasn't made a profit.*

Which is odd, since the game was one of Remedy Entertainment's
fastest-selling titles, and the long-awaited sequel to a beloved game.
It received generally favorable reviews, even if most agree it wasn't
quite as good as the first game. It should have put Remedy into the
black on day one. What went wrong?

Well, exploding development costs probably didn't help (a problem
faced by developers across the industry) but I think the biggest
problem is that Remedy -thanks to their publishing deal with Epic-
limited the release to Epic Games. The game still isn't on Steam, and
there have been no publicly announced plans on when -or even if- it
will ever make it that platform. The last we heard was on the matter
was that the Epic Games store exclusivity deal would be for "a long
time". There are so many comments by fans that are along the lines of,
"well, it looks interesting and I want to play it, but I think I'll
wait until it's on Steam".

Epic probably hoped "Alan Wake" would drive more people to its
platform; that "Alan Wake" might be a showcase game for its digital
storefront, sort of like "Half Life" was for Steam. But it doesn't
seem to have worked out too well for either Epic or Remedy.
Indications are that most of the sales of the game were on consoles;
PC gamers apparently weren't convinced to switch platforms. And now
Remedy is paying the price.

Which is a real shame, since I /like/ Remedy. Partly, it's because of
their history (they're born from the demoscene, with their founding
members coming from FutureCrew!) but mostly because I like their
games. They're a mid-tier developer that produces top-tier games. You
can see their demoscene ancestry in their games, though; their
products tend to push the envelope in terms of technology, and the
focus on artistry tends to trump both gameplay and monetization (The
Scandinavian influence is pretty obvious too).

But this focus on product over sales has probably cost them; it's no
wonder they've had to rely on publishers like Microsoft and Epic to
fund their games development. But Remedy's deal with the latter may
run the company into the ground, and that would be a loss to the
industry as a whole. Presumably at the time the bargain with Epic was
struck, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe Remedy
should have known better.

Numerous developers have reported that there is a significant spike in
sales once their exclusivity deal with Epic has ended. PC gamers see
the Epic storefront as a negative, not a benefit, and have repeatedly
shown a willingness to patiently wait it out until the game shows up
on other digital marketplaces. I'm not sure why Remedy thought their
game would be any different.

Of course, you could argue that people like me -folk who refuse to buy
the game on Epic- are the real problem; that if we really care about
supporting quality games (and the developers who produce them) we
should just pony up and buy "Alan Wake" regardless of what platform
it's on. But I just don't like doing business with Epic, and that
-unfortunately- means no sale. But were the "Alan Wake 2" on Steam,
I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

But Remedy is, sadly, stuck with their current publisher and that
publisher has said, "No Steam release for this game", even if it costs
the developer its much-needed success. At the time, the deal probably
looked pretty good, but I bet Remedy is regretting that partnership
now.

* so says this article
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/horror/alan-wake-2-hasnt-turned-a-profit-6-months-after-release-and-theres-no-steam-release-in-sight-but-remedy-says-its-in-control/

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:v2196j588fn93kb3s9t9f3uirtehms41ej@4ax.com:

>
> Numerous developers have reported that there is a significant spike in
> sales once their exclusivity deal with Epic has ended. PC gamers see
> the Epic storefront as a negative, not a benefit, and have repeatedly
> shown a willingness to patiently wait it out until the game shows up
> on other digital marketplaces. I'm not sure why Remedy thought their
> game would be any different.
>
> Of course, you could argue that people like me -folk who refuse to buy
> the game on Epic- are the real problem; that if we really care about
> supporting quality games (and the developers who produce them) we
> should just pony up and buy "Alan Wake" regardless of what platform
> it's on. But I just don't like doing business with Epic, and that
> -unfortunately- means no sale. But were the "Alan Wake 2" on Steam,
> I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
>

I resolved never to do any business with Epic when they knobbled a game I had already pre-
ordered on Steam. I waited a year, it came out on Steam, and I bought it.

Mark.

On 6/8/2024 11:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> It's been nine months since "Alan Wake 2" came out, and it still
> hasn't made a profit.*
>
> Which is odd, since the game was one of Remedy Entertainment's
> fastest-selling titles, and the long-awaited sequel to a beloved game.
> It received generally favorable reviews, even if most agree it wasn't
> quite as good as the first game. It should have put Remedy into the
> black on day one. What went wrong?
>
> Well, exploding development costs probably didn't help (a problem
> faced by developers across the industry) but I think the biggest
> problem is that Remedy -thanks to their publishing deal with Epic-
> limited the release to Epic Games. The game still isn't on Steam, and
> there have been no publicly announced plans on when -or even if- it
> will ever make it that platform. The last we heard was on the matter
> was that the Epic Games store exclusivity deal would be for "a long
> time". There are so many comments by fans that are along the lines of,
> "well, it looks interesting and I want to play it, but I think I'll
> wait until it's on Steam".
>
> Epic probably hoped "Alan Wake" would drive more people to its
> platform; that "Alan Wake" might be a showcase game for its digital
> storefront, sort of like "Half Life" was for Steam. But it doesn't
> seem to have worked out too well for either Epic or Remedy.
> Indications are that most of the sales of the game were on consoles;
> PC gamers apparently weren't convinced to switch platforms. And now
> Remedy is paying the price.
>
> Which is a real shame, since I /like/ Remedy. Partly, it's because of
> their history (they're born from the demoscene, with their founding
> members coming from FutureCrew!) but mostly because I like their
> games. They're a mid-tier developer that produces top-tier games. You
> can see their demoscene ancestry in their games, though; their
> products tend to push the envelope in terms of technology, and the
> focus on artistry tends to trump both gameplay and monetization (The
> Scandinavian influence is pretty obvious too).
>
> But this focus on product over sales has probably cost them; it's no
> wonder they've had to rely on publishers like Microsoft and Epic to
> fund their games development. But Remedy's deal with the latter may
> run the company into the ground, and that would be a loss to the
> industry as a whole. Presumably at the time the bargain with Epic was
> struck, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe Remedy
> should have known better.
>
> Numerous developers have reported that there is a significant spike in
> sales once their exclusivity deal with Epic has ended. PC gamers see
> the Epic storefront as a negative, not a benefit, and have repeatedly
> shown a willingness to patiently wait it out until the game shows up
> on other digital marketplaces. I'm not sure why Remedy thought their
> game would be any different.
>
> Of course, you could argue that people like me -folk who refuse to buy
> the game on Epic- are the real problem; that if we really care about
> supporting quality games (and the developers who produce them) we
> should just pony up and buy "Alan Wake" regardless of what platform
> it's on. But I just don't like doing business with Epic, and that
> -unfortunately- means no sale. But were the "Alan Wake 2" on Steam,
> I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
>
> But Remedy is, sadly, stuck with their current publisher and that
> publisher has said, "No Steam release for this game", even if it costs
> the developer its much-needed success. At the time, the deal probably
> looked pretty good, but I bet Remedy is regretting that partnership
> now.
>

I feel that Obsidian's Outer Worlds was done wrong by doing the Epic
Deal as well. Though it was available to play through MS's subscription
service before it was released to Steam. Another thing that probably
hurt them.

I did buy it on Epic, they've made some goodwill with all the freebies,
but the exclusivity sucks, and their client/website still sucks after
all the money they've thrown on it. It's better than it was as far as
functioning as intended, but I haven't seen any improvements in UI and
features that I've noticed.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 08/06/2024 19:10, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> But Remedy is, sadly, stuck with their current publisher and that
> publisher has said, "No Steam release for this game", even if it costs
> the developer its much-needed success. At the time, the deal probably
> looked pretty good, but I bet Remedy is regretting that partnership
> now.

I've heard that sentiment from a few sources that an exclusive deal with
Epic looks good on paper but the reality is the game just gets 'lost' on
their store=front.

I don't really follow games news so for me if it's not on Steam I
probably won't hear about it. Of course it doesn't help that I have an
aversion to giving any money to Epic!

On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 14:10:35 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>It's been nine months since "Alan Wake 2" came out, and it still
>hasn't made a profit.*
>
>Which is odd, since the game was one of Remedy Entertainment's
>fastest-selling titles, and the long-awaited sequel to a beloved game.
>It received generally favorable reviews, even if most agree it wasn't
>quite as good as the first game. It should have put Remedy into the
>black on day one. What went wrong?

They released a shit game that's a boring walking simulator compared
to the previous games.

Putting it on Steam would have subjected it to lots of user review
comments, which would have hurt sales even more. If Epic even has
implemented these comments at all (I'm not that familiar with the Epic
launcher as I only use it to claim occasional free games), they are so
far out of sight that not many users will see them.

So if you have a shit game that you know is shit, it's wise to keep it
off Steam and where people are silenced.

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:13:40 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 08/06/2024 19:10, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> But Remedy is, sadly, stuck with their current publisher and that
>> publisher has said, "No Steam release for this game", even if it costs
>> the developer its much-needed success. At the time, the deal probably
>> looked pretty good, but I bet Remedy is regretting that partnership
>> now.
>
>I've heard that sentiment from a few sources that an exclusive deal with
>Epic looks good on paper but the reality is the game just gets 'lost' on
>their store=front.

I've read similar. To the point that (at least some) Indie developers
don't really consider the Epic games exclusive a 'real' release for
the game, but an extended 'early access' for which Epic is paying
them; a way to keep the lights on while they bring the game up to
their hoped-for standards and actually release it on Steam. Epic is
purportedly very poor on promoting games, and the audience just isn't
there. The release on Epic isn't something they really expect to make
money on; it's not where the profit comes from.

But that's not really the case with "Alan Wake II". It is, after all,
not just released on Epic Games Store, but actually /published/ by
Epic Games themselves. As such, the exclusive makes sense -for Epic,
at least- in the same way that "Portal" or "Left4Dead" being exclusive
to Steam makes sense. It's a big-name game designed to push Epic's
storefront.

It makes less sense for Remedy, though. Given the cost of the game's
development, it was probably a necessary sacrifice, the same way that
they had to make a deal with Microsoft to get the original "Alan Wake"
out the door. That game was locked to the XBox 360 for years before a
PC release was authorized. Without the influx of cash from Epic, it's
quite possible that "Alan Wake 2" might never have been finished. So I
get the allure of the exclusive. But it was based on the idea that PC
gamers would rush to buy the game /despite/ it being on EGS, and the
evidence is that just isn't happening.

And with the game being almost 9 months old, it seems unlikely it ever
will. What excitement there was around the game's release has been
diluted by almost a year's worth of new releases. The video games
industry is fast-moving, and yesterday's games are quickly forgotten.
I mean, until I brought it up, how many people here even remembered
that "Alan Wake 2" had been released at all?

Which is a tragedy, because I /like/ Remedy's games. But they're a
mid-tier studio, and extremely vulnerable to the twists of fortune.
They release maybe one game every two or three years; the profits from
the last game are all that keep the company alive to make the next
product. Big-name publishers can weather a flop because they have the
resources. Even Indie studios can survive a failure more easily,
because their overhead is so much less. But the mid-tier studios are
often one bad game from closing. And "Alan Wake 2" might be that bad
game.

>I don't really follow games news so for me if it's not on Steam I
>probably won't hear about it. Of course it doesn't help that I have an
>aversion to giving any money to Epic!

Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.

On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Which is a tragedy, because I/like/ Remedy's games. But they're a
> mid-tier studio, and extremely vulnerable to the twists of fortune.
> They release maybe one game every two or three years; the profits from
> the last game are all that keep the company alive to make the next
> product. Big-name publishers can weather a flop because they have the
> resources. Even Indie studios can survive a failure more easily,
> because their overhead is so much less. But the mid-tier studios are
> often one bad game from closing. And "Alan Wake 2" might be that bad
> game.

Or you get bought up by some behemoth and get closed down to make the
balance sheet look better. Those well 'deserved' bonus payments have to
come from somewhere.

On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
> broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
> Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
> forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.

That's certainly my attitude, the days when I just had to have a game
are long gone. It's the same with all the freebies they give out.
There's some that I look at and wouldn't mind playing but as yet nothing
that I've thought I want that so much that I'll sign up with Epic.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:45:00 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
>> broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
>> Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
>> forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.
>
>That's certainly my attitude, the days when I just had to have a game
>are long gone. It's the same with all the freebies they give out.
>There's some that I look at and wouldn't mind playing but as yet nothing
>that I've thought I want that so much that I'll sign up with Epic.

I have an account with them and grab the games, but I don't actually
play any of them on Epic. I like to think that, somehow, I'm costing
Epic money by doing so. ;-)

Epic burned a lot of goodwill with gamers with how it handled the Epic
Game store and I don't think it ever will fully recover from that
blow. It was bad enough that it was seen as an unnecessary product
that existed only for Epic's benefit. And it didn't help that Epic had
made a number of anti-PC gaming decisions and statements in years
previous. Badmouthing Valve, who was -fairly or not- seen as the
darling of PC Gaming didn't help either. But then locking games behind
years-long exclusivity contracts (and not backing down when it was
clear how unpopular this move was) was the final straw.

AFAIK, the Epic Game Store remains an unprofitable money-sink. The
latest estimates I've seen say it isn't expected to start seeing
positive revenue until 2027 (about five years later than originally
anticipated). A lot of that pain could have been avoided had Epic not
gone into the market so bullishly, or had shown some more appreciation
for their consumers.

On 11/06/2024 20:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:45:00 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
>>> broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
>>> Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
>>> forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.
>>
>> That's certainly my attitude, the days when I just had to have a game
>> are long gone. It's the same with all the freebies they give out.
>> There's some that I look at and wouldn't mind playing but as yet nothing
>> that I've thought I want that so much that I'll sign up with Epic.
>
> I have an account with them and grab the games, but I don't actually
> play any of them on Epic. I like to think that, somehow, I'm costing
> Epic money by doing so. ;-)
>
> Epic burned a lot of goodwill with gamers with how it handled the Epic
> Game store and I don't think it ever will fully recover from that
> blow. It was bad enough that it was seen as an unnecessary product
> that existed only for Epic's benefit. And it didn't help that Epic had
> made a number of anti-PC gaming decisions and statements in years
> previous. Badmouthing Valve, who was -fairly or not- seen as the
> darling of PC Gaming didn't help either. But then locking games behind
> years-long exclusivity contracts (and not backing down when it was
> clear how unpopular this move was) was the final straw.
>
> AFAIK, the Epic Game Store remains an unprofitable money-sink. The
> latest estimates I've seen say it isn't expected to start seeing
> positive revenue until 2027 (about five years later than originally
> anticipated). A lot of that pain could have been avoided had Epic not
> gone into the market so bullishly, or had shown some more appreciation
> for their consumers.
>

Part of what pees me off about Epic is the way they've tried to portray
themselves as the pro-PC games guys who are been bullied by the likes of
Valve and Apple. Do they really think that consumers are in general that
stupid*.

Their approach also seemed rather simplistic in that they used giveaways
and exclusives to get people to their store front but their really
wasn't any incentive to stay there. Why would I switch from Steam?

*The impression I get is that a lot of top executives really do think
that I've done really well so I must be intelligent, our customers have
done no where near as well so they must be stupid as should be treated
accordingly.

On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:44:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 11/06/2024 20:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:45:00 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
>>>> broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
>>>> Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
>>>> forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.
>>>
>>> That's certainly my attitude, the days when I just had to have a game
>>> are long gone. It's the same with all the freebies they give out.
>>> There's some that I look at and wouldn't mind playing but as yet nothing
>>> that I've thought I want that so much that I'll sign up with Epic.
>>
>> I have an account with them and grab the games, but I don't actually
>> play any of them on Epic. I like to think that, somehow, I'm costing
>> Epic money by doing so. ;-)
>>
>> Epic burned a lot of goodwill with gamers with how it handled the Epic
>> Game store and I don't think it ever will fully recover from that
>> blow. It was bad enough that it was seen as an unnecessary product
>> that existed only for Epic's benefit. And it didn't help that Epic had
>> made a number of anti-PC gaming decisions and statements in years
>> previous. Badmouthing Valve, who was -fairly or not- seen as the
>> darling of PC Gaming didn't help either. But then locking games behind
>> years-long exclusivity contracts (and not backing down when it was
>> clear how unpopular this move was) was the final straw.
>>
>> AFAIK, the Epic Game Store remains an unprofitable money-sink. The
>> latest estimates I've seen say it isn't expected to start seeing
>> positive revenue until 2027 (about five years later than originally
>> anticipated). A lot of that pain could have been avoided had Epic not
>> gone into the market so bullishly, or had shown some more appreciation
>> for their consumers.
>>
>
>Part of what pees me off about Epic is the way they've tried to portray
>themselves as the pro-PC games guys who are been bullied by the likes of
>Valve and Apple. Do they really think that consumers are in general that
>stupid*.
>
>Their approach also seemed rather simplistic in that they used giveaways
>and exclusives to get people to their store front but their really
>wasn't any incentive to stay there. Why would I switch from Steam?

Which, ultimately, was Epic's biggest sin. Their client offers nothing
over Valve's, and the inertia of switching just wasn't worth the
effort. They've tried desperately to overcome this; it's what the
weekly freebies are all about, after all. They want to build up
everybody's library on Epic because one of the biggest reasons to stay
on Steam is "that's where all my games are".

But Steam still has a vastly superior storefront, and innumerable
features such as home streaming, the workshop, forums, voice chat (and
a solid gambling infrastructure)... given the choice, gamers prefer to
PLAY their games on Steam. And so when it comes to actually BUYING a
new game, they buy it where they're going to play it: Steam.

Epic's attitude -their savior of PC gaming messianic complex, their
exclusives, their picking fights with their competitors- would all be
ignored if they actually invested in creating a client that gave
players what they wanted. Its lackluster feature-set was barely
forgiveable when it was released in 2018 (after all, unlike Valve,
they didn't have to trial-and-error their way into finding out what
worked; they could have just copied Steam). Six years later, the EGS'
lack of feature-parity with Steam (or even UPlay!), much less offering
anything innovative is beyond embarassing. It's an insult to their
customers.

>*The impression I get is that a lot of top executives really do think
>that I've done really well so I must be intelligent, our customers have
>done no where near as well so they must be stupid as should be treated
>accordingly.

The unfortunate fact of the matter that we as customers ARE that
stupid. "Company X does horrific thing" rarely results in more than a
brief outrage before people go back to buying their products again
(assuming they even stopped whilst moaning about it). Rarely will
consumers actually follow up with a proper boycott, and video-gamers
are the least scrupled of the lot.

So, "Do Evil Thing", that may or may not be followed by a meaningless
non-apology is all you need to keep the money flowing in. Customers
almost never expect more, and will happily swallow any bullshit thrown
their way. And, no, I'm sure I'm just as guilty of this sort of idiocy
as the next. So I'm sure that it is hard for executives NOT to believe
their customers are morons. We sure act like idiots.

On 12/06/2024 16:05, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> *The impression I get is that a lot of top executives really do think
>> that I've done really well so I must be intelligent, our customers have
>> done no where near as well so they must be stupid as should be treated
>> accordingly.
>
> The unfortunate fact of the matter that we as customers ARE that
> stupid. "Company X does horrific thing" rarely results in more than a
> brief outrage before people go back to buying their products again
> (assuming they even stopped whilst moaning about it). Rarely will
> consumers actually follow up with a proper boycott, and video-gamers
> are the least scrupled of the lot.
>
> So, "Do Evil Thing", that may or may not be followed by a meaningless
> non-apology is all you need to keep the money flowing in. Customers
> almost never expect more, and will happily swallow any bullshit thrown
> their way. And, no, I'm sure I'm just as guilty of this sort of idiocy
> as the next. So I'm sure that it is hard for executives NOT to believe
> their customers are morons. We sure act like idiots.

Unfortunately yes and you used to see a lot of it on the WoT forums. The
worst ones were those who'd actually defend the companies actions. One I
remember was a tank that was sold as you unique in the release Founders
Pack (there was a rather infamous interview of the CEO selling the
idea). Several years later they sold it for real money. I though that
was a really crappy think to do but there were lots of players whose
attitude was who cares, I want that tank. That they were giving the
green light to WG to treat their customers crappy didn't seem to occur
to them. So it didn't take long before the other two 'unique' tanks (one
horribly overpowered) were put on sale.

Then there was what wasn't quite stupidity but more naivety. So release
an overpowered tank for sale, the money floods in and so do the
complaints. Remove it from sale and make a corporate speak apology. Nine
months later put it on sale again and when people said, but you said you
never sell it again. Oh no WG said, we said we'd never put it on general
sale again this is a special Xmas sale which is different.

The other recent big story is whether microsoft gamepass is killing the
industry, and whether xbox as a whole has lost it's way.

rms

On 6/15/2024 6:53 AM, rms wrote:
> The other recent big story is whether microsoft gamepass is killing the
> industry, and whether xbox as a whole has lost it's way.
>
Did it ever have a way to lose? Microsoft has the reputation it has for
a reason.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:45:00 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/06/2024 23:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Same. Again, it doesn't help that Epic doesn't really do much to
>>> broadcast its exclusives. And many people, they hear a game is on
>>> Epic, they go, "Oh, well, I'll just wait until its on Steam", and then
>>> forget the game exists until it arrives on Valve's platform.
>>
>>That's certainly my attitude, the days when I just had to have a game
>>are long gone. It's the same with all the freebies they give out.
>>There's some that I look at and wouldn't mind playing but as yet nothing
>>that I've thought I want that so much that I'll sign up with Epic.
>
> I have an account with them and grab the games, but I don't actually
> play any of them on Epic. I like to think that, somehow, I'm costing
> Epic money by doing so. ;-)
>

You're not costing them money as such, but you make them spend money
they don't earn. So nearly the same.
So far I have paid exactly once for a DLC in the Epic store because I
would have had to buy the full game on Steam instead and I didn't think
it was worth it.
On the other hand multiple games I did actually pay for on Steam as well
so I could play them with the DLCs, making Epic into a glorified demo
disc vendor for me.

It didn't help that their store dragged down the performance of my old
machine something fierce.
> Epic burned a lot of goodwill with gamers with how it handled the Epic
> Game store and I don't think it ever will fully recover from that
> blow. It was bad enough that it was seen as an unnecessary product
> that existed only for Epic's benefit. And it didn't help that Epic had
> made a number of anti-PC gaming decisions and statements in years
> previous. Badmouthing Valve, who was -fairly or not- seen as the
> darling of PC Gaming didn't help either. But then locking games behind
> years-long exclusivity contracts (and not backing down when it was
> clear how unpopular this move was) was the final straw.
>
> AFAIK, the Epic Game Store remains an unprofitable money-sink. The
> latest estimates I've seen say it isn't expected to start seeing
> positive revenue until 2027 (about five years later than originally
> anticipated). A lot of that pain could have been avoided had Epic not
> gone into the market so bullishly, or had shown some more appreciation
> for their consumers.
>

Ha, the old "walmart in germany story, huh"

rms <rsquiresMOO@mooflashmoo.net> wrote:
> The other recent big story is whether microsoft gamepass is killing the
> industry, and whether xbox as a whole has lost it's way.
>
> rms
>

are people actually using gamepass? I only ever bought a single game
from microsoft (on their digital storefronts at least) and that
was Minecraft