Borderlands 3 is Timed Exclusive to Epic Game Store on PC

[Mirage 24,136]

Gamers for presidents!

We'll just make our own shit...

Oh wait, that's how crap like Epic started...

[Lucartini 104]

How DARE THEY! This is an insult to gaming everywhere.

THE ONE UPSIDE OF PC GAMING is NO BULLSHIT LIKE THIS. No console wars, no "PC VS PS4 and Steam VS Epic" BS.

I hope this game gets more pirated than Spore!!!

[Anneal 2,194]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:03 PM, TheTaZe said:

Oh, another game I won't play.

To be fair, timed exclusives and exclusives in general are just anti-consumeristic and only serve to drive people towards a certain platform for the maximum profit.

 

On 4/4/2019 at 9:43 AM, Kyoshi said:

I am purely a console gamer, but I will still fully say this; Epic needs to do us a favor and go fuck themselves entirely. Ever since Fortnite became the most overrated trash on the planet, Epic has grown an ego the size of Jupiter. They get all this money so they think they can make a gaming storefront, but missing the vast majority of features of its main competitor. Their solution in the meantime? Purely anti-consumer practices like this, creating 'timed exclusives' in the PC market. I HATE when the big 3 does this kind of stuff and I will protest it here too. It does nothing for anyone. They don't even have a CART SYSTEM on their store yet and won't for possibly another 6 months, yet they can freely throw all of this money around for timed exclusives? Trash. Nothing more. Epic is pure garbage.

 

On 4/6/2019 at 6:36 AM, Lucartini said:

How DARE THEY! This is an insult to gaming everywhere.

THE ONE UPSIDE OF PC GAMING is NO BULLSHIT LIKE THIS. No console wars, no "PC VS PS4 and Steam VS Epic" BS.

I hope this game gets more pirated than Spore!!!

I'm sorry, but...how is this anti-consumeristic? If anything this is encouraging competition. No one batted an eye when you had to pay an extra $300 for a PS3 console to play Halo 3. This kind of exclusivity is common in other industries as well; you can either get Comcast or AT&T, Sprint or TMobile, Apple App Store or Google Play. Now Epic Games Store may be lacking in several aspects, but if there is one thing that is plain and simple, it's that something is making companies like Obsidian, Gearbox, or 4A Games flock to Epic Games Store over Steam. Instead of complaining about how "Fortnite BAD, Epic Games BAD!", maybe Valve should take a good look at themselves and see what they're missing. And it's simple: profit margins for game companies. 

And pirating? That's utterly ridiculous. I can understand boycotting but pirating over gamer outrage is just plain dumb.

[Celli 4,332]

On 4/7/2019 at 4:47 PM, Anneal said:

I'm sorry, but...how is this anti-consumeristic? If anything this is encouraging competition. No one batted an eye when you had to pay an extra $300 for a 360 console to play Halo 3. This kind of exclusivity is common in other industries as well; you can either get Comcast or AT&T, Sprint or TMobile, Apple App Store or Google Play. Now Epic Games Store may be lacking in several aspects, but if there is one thing that is plain and simple, it's that something is making companies like Obsidian, Gearbox, or 4A Games flock to Epic Games Store over Steam. Instead of complaining about how "Fortnite BAD, Epic Games BAD!", maybe Valve should take a good look at themselves and see what they're missing. And it's simple: profit margins for game companies. 

 

It does not encourage competition at all. Strong-arming exclusives is anti-consumer as hell, encouraging competition would be making it available on several PC platforms at once. Also, it's nothing like console exclusivity, because Microsoft funded Halo 3, Epic games had ZERO hand in making Borderlands 3, or The Outer Worlds, or Metro:Exodus. They simply paid those publisher millions to hold it hostage on their launcher. Which I will remind you has a fraction of the features Steam does. It is incredibly anti-consumer.

[Guest]

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

I'm sorry, but...how is this anti-consumeristic? If anything this is encouraging competition.

This is literally the opposite of encouraging competition. Buying exclusivity is literally ELIMINATING competition. As @Celli so elegantly put: the "competition" is inferior, yet we are being forced to do business there. This is literally FORCING business, not encouraging it.

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

No one batted an eye when you had to pay an extra $300 for a PS3 console to play Halo 3.

What?

Halo 3 was an Xbox 360 exclusive. I also don't even understand your point at all.

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

This kind of exclusivity is common in other industries as well;

I am going to assume your above post meant to say XBOX and not PS3, and here's the issue with that comparison: the game was a first party game made by the hardware makers. They didn't go behind closed doors and make a deal to basically restrict the market. It also was because aging hardware can't perform as well, so having to buy a new system to play new games is a bad comparison.

 

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

you can either get Comcast or AT&T, Sprint or TMobile, Apple App Store or Google Play.

Another bad example because on those stores, I can buy most of the same products, I am not FORCED to go to one store. I actually get a choice.

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

Now Epic Games Store may be lacking in several aspects,

It's lacking more than that, and it's also putting spyware on people's computers to gather illegal data.

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

but if there is one thing that is plain and simple, it's that something is making companies like Obsidian, Gearbox, or 4A Games flock to Epic Games Store over Steam.

Yes there is something: greed.

Epic Games is offering them big paydays to do so.

On 4/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, Anneal said:

Instead of complaining about how "Fortnite BAD, Epic Games BAD!", maybe Valve should take a good look at themselves and see what they're missing. And it's simple: profit margins for game companies. 

This has nothing to do with Fortnite.

This has everything to do with the fact that the practice is anti-consumer and this shit is NOT going to encourage steam to fix their shit. This is about how not ONLY is the practice anti-consumer but Epic Games IS IN FACT A BAD COMPANY, WORSE THAN VALVE. Epic is harvesting data from its users ILLEGALLY and is owned by a Chinese company that will more than likely exploit that data. There is spyware in their store software.

They are lacking TONS of BASIC features. This is not a matter of people taking jabs "unfairly" at Epic Games, it's a matter of people are annoyed that instead of making their store purely "appealing" to developers they are more or less offering bribes to force people to be forced to deal with them.

[Anneal 2,194]

18 minutes ago, Celli said:

It does not encourage competition at all. Strong-arming exclusives is anti-consumer as hell, encouraging competition would be making it available on several PC platforms at once. Also, it's nothing like console exclusivity, because Microsoft funded Halo 3, Epic games had ZERO hand in making Borderlands 3, or The Outer Worlds, or Metro:Exodus. They simply paid those publisher millions to hold it hostage on their launcher. Which I will remind you has a fraction of the features Steam does. It is incredibly anti-consumer.

That is one biased list. I acknowledge that Epic GamesStore is severely flawed compared to Steam, but exclusivity is generally a result of competition. Nobody complains when you can play phone apps on the App Store but not on Google Play, or when you can play games on a regular PC but not on a Mac or Linux (where developers usually make a deliberate choice to not support those platforms). I honestly don’t see the point of complaining about store exclusivity, you can just get it for free and not have to pay $300 for a new console. Not to mention that multiple games have been exclusive to a company’s store before, and nobody seems to have a problem with playing Overwatch or WoW on Activision-Blizzard’s launcher.

Also, it’s a bit strange how people were hating on Valve over Artifact just recently and yet they totally change their mood when they suddenly get a new competitor.

[Celli 4,332]

Another thing, steam's revenue split sounds bad on paper but that 30% goes towards steam features and improvements. Epic's 12% cut is selling them at a loss so they charge users a fee on top of the games they sell on the store. Meaning the consumer loses out even more.

2 minutes ago, Anneal said:

That is one biased list. I acknowledge that Epic GamesStore is severely flawed compared to Steam, but exclusivity is generally a result of competition. Nobody complains when you can play phone apps on the App Store but not on Google Play, or when you can play games on a regular PC but not on a Mac or Linux (where developers usually make a deliberate choice to not support those platforms). I honestly don’t see the point of complaining about store exclusivity, you can just get it for free and not have to pay $300 for a new console. Not to mention that multiple games have been exclusive to a company’s store before, and nobody seems to have a problem with playing Overwatch or WoW on Activision-Blizzard’s launcher.

Also, it’s a bit strange how people were hating on Valve over Artifact just recently and yet they totally change their mood when they suddenly get a new competitor.

That list is literally 100% factual.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Anneal said:

but exclusivity is generally a result of competition

Not inherently true.

Most exclusivity comes from companies using shady practices to ELIMINATE competition.

5 minutes ago, Anneal said:

Nobody complains when you can play phone apps on the App Store but not on Google Play,

Actually, people do, but I highly doubt we can compare mobile phone games to full-fledged AAA titles.

6 minutes ago, Anneal said:

or when you can play games on a regular PC but not on a Mac or Linux (where developers usually make a deliberate choice to not support those platforms).

That's a multi-layered issue.

In actuality, people DO get upset over less support for other platforms, but the reality isn't that they want games to be exclusive to PC as a platform but there are often technical issues in making stuff work on multiple platforms.

8 minutes ago, Anneal said:

I honestly don’t see the point of complaining about store exclusivity,

Because if we don't complain we are silently accepting the eroding of our rights as a consumer. Companies are relying on people like you who "don't care enough" to tell those who care enough to "stop complaining about it" so we all accept getting screwed over and let it become "the norm". Then when it is "the norm" people will bitch about it, but not realize that they could have prevented it if they gave a damn when it was happening in the first place. As it has happened MANY TIMES.

10 minutes ago, Anneal said:

Not to mention that multiple games have been exclusive to a company’s store before, and nobody seems to have a problem with playing Overwatch or WoW on Activision-Blizzard’s launcher.

Because those games are made by those companies? They are not being bribed to do so?

Also people DO complain about that.

Remember: Valve actually sells their games on Origin. That's 10x more consumer friendly.

10 minutes ago, Anneal said:

Also, it’s a bit strange how people were hating on Valve over Artifact just recently and yet they totally change their mood when they suddenly get a new competitor.

You can criticize Valve but still see the areas where they are doing better than their "competition". I don't see how that is strange.

[Anneal 2,194]

1 hour ago, Celli said:

Another thing, steam's revenue split sounds bad on paper but that 30% goes towards steam features and improvements. Epic's 12% cut is selling them at a loss so they charge users a fee on top of the games they sell on the store. Meaning the consumer loses out even more.

That list is literally 100% factual.

I’m not saying it is false, just that it is biased. You can be factual but biased towards a certain idea or ideology and that list is meant to paint EGS in a bad light by deliberately emphasizing it’s negative traits (Chi-Com Spying and Security Breaches) and Steam’s positive traits. Therefore the list is rather subjective and clearly written by someone who dislikes EGS and not someone who is objectively reviewing the two platforms. 

1 hour ago, Key Sharkz said:

Not inherently true.

Most exclusivity comes from companies using shady practices to ELIMINATE competition.

Actually, people do, but I highly doubt we can compare mobile phone games to full-fledged AAA titles.

That's a multi-layered issue.

In actuality, people DO get upset over less support for other platforms, but the reality isn't that they want games to be exclusive to PC as a platform but there are often technical issues in making stuff work on multiple platforms.

Because if we don't complain we are silently accepting the eroding of our rights as a consumer. Companies are relying on people like you who "don't care enough" to tell those who care enough to "stop complaining about it" so we all accept getting screwed over and let it become "the norm". Then when it is "the norm" people will bitch about it, but not realize that they could have prevented it if they gave a damn when it was happening in the first place. As it has happened MANY TIMES.

Because those games are made by those companies? They are not being bribed to do so?

Also people DO complain about that.

Remember: Valve actually sells their games on Origin. That's 10x more consumer friendly.

You can criticize Valve but still see the areas where they are doing better than their "competition". I don't see how that is strange.

I still dispute that. Furthermore, there was never any competition to begin with when Steam was the biggest online platform for PC gaming by a long shot. I would call that a monopoly, no matter how benevolent Valve appears to act. 

And I’m not nearly as outraged about this because this is making a mountain out of a molehill. EGS is free to download, and people are overblowing the “Chinese company spyware” conspiracy to new levels (though admittedly, EGS has some very shoddy security). This isn’t even full on exclusivity; you can play the game on Steam over time, and for some games there other options (console or the Microsoft Store). If we wanted to talk about anti-consumerism there are bigger fish to fry. 

 

[Celli 4,332]

14 minutes ago, Anneal said:

and people are overblowing the “Chinese company spyware” conspiracy to new levels

No they aren't.

https://www.technadu.com/epic-games-supplying-user-data-to-chinese-government/53113/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/a9lntx/ubisoft_needs_to_stop_with_this_always_online/

Tencent literally sells your data!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-dataprivacy/data-dump-china-sees-surge-in-personal-information-up-for-sale-idUSKCN1L80IW

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Celli

[Guest]

Just now, Anneal said:

I’m not saying it is false, just that it is biased. You can be factual but biased towards a certain idea or ideology and that list is meant to paint EGS in a bad light by deliberately emphasizing it’s negative traits (Chi-Com Spying and Security Breaches) and Steam’s positive traits. Therefore the list is rather subjective and clearly written by someone who dislikes EGS and not someone who is objectively reviewing the two platforms. 

I'm sorry but how is lacking basic features showing a bias? This is literally the definition of "objective". They literally made a comprehensive list of features and put them side by side. The fact that it makes EGS look bad pretty much means... EGS is lacking in many areas. It's not in any way saying steam is good or EGS is bad, it's literally just showing them side by side. The list even criticizes Steam by pointing out some of its negative features.

Sorry, but saying something negative doesn't inherently make something "bias", not when you provide evidence and facts to back it up and in this case... Their case is pretty strong. The list does, in fact, point out the facts.

2 minutes ago, Anneal said:

I still dispute that.

Dispute what?

3 minutes ago, Anneal said:

Furthermore, there was never any competition to begin with when Steam was the biggest online platform for PC gaming by a long shot. I would call that a monopoly, no matter how benevolent Valve appears to act. 

Origin, uPlay, GoG, Direct2Drive, itch.io, Windows store, Humble Store, I can go on.

Valve does not have a monopoly. The fact that they have a lot of traffic and a lot of games prefer to release on them though is because developers see the value of releasing on Steam. It's because they voluntarily want their games on steam and are not being bribed with exclusivity contracts to do so. If Epic Game Store was so "good", why do they need to BRIBE developers to be exclusive to them? Literally buying exclusivity is the number one way to BECOME a monopoly.

Valve has never purposefully inhibited other stores from getting any games. They are openly not trying to control the market, people are CHOOSING them. People are not "choosing" Epic Games, they're being forced into it. That is a monopoly in the making.

7 minutes ago, Anneal said:

And I’m not nearly as outraged about this because this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

This is literally the attitude that big corporations count on. People telling those standing up for their rights to "stop making a big deal out of it", so they can get away with it. This is not making a mountain out of a molehill, it's standing up for our rights as consumers so we don't have to subject ourselves to getting screwed over even more in the future than we already are right now. If we blindly and silently allow this to happen, it's going to get worse.

Don't believe me? Look at all the trends in gaming that have become "the norm" from 2000 to now.

We used to pay $60 for a game and that was it, we got the whole game.

Now we have to pay $80 for the "deluxe" edition to get "all" the content, another $50 for the DLCs, another $10 for the micro-DLCs, any microtransactions that content is locked behind, amiibos to unlock parts of the game, SECOND season passes, etc.

They also want to eliminate our right to resell or buy used games for cheaper so they can force us to pay full price for the digital version forever, we are not allowed to even stream our games now unless the developer says we can, backing up copies of our games is restricted, we are being sold collector's editions WITHOUT THE GAME IN THEM, our right to review games is being threatened, if we don't pre-order we get content cut from the game, and worst of all, now we are being FORCED to use a platform that has actual spyware on it.

 

The reality is this "molehill" always seems to turn into a mountain. In case you aren't paying attention, in business there is a little thing called "conditioning". Businesses work hard at slowly and gradually introducing anti-consumer practices. They do so in small little bites so you can think "well this isn't THAT bad", and they give it some time, then give you another little bite, then another, then another. They slowly get you used to getting screwed over little by little until we end up where we are now.

 

20 minutes ago, Anneal said:

And I’m not nearly as outraged about this because this is making a mountain out of a molehill. EGS is free to download, and people are overblowing the “Chinese company spyware” conspiracy to new levels (though admittedly, EGS has some very shoddy security). This isn’t even full on exclusivity; you can play the game on Steam over time, and for some games there other options (console or the Microsoft Store). If we wanted to talk about anti-consumerism there are bigger fish to fry. 

 

Apparently being hacked multiple times despite only existing for a few months is "no big deal", when you're handling people's credit card info, home addresses, etc.

Also just because there are "bigger fish to fry" does not mean we should turn a blind eye.