Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

As a publisher, we would like to deliver it to PC users as well, but per our agreement with Vanillaware, we are only releasing on console. In other words, there are no plans to port it to PC currently.

That’s from the game’s producer at Atlus. If the publisher wanted to get a PC port, they would have found the money to do it (or found a third-party to manage the port if Vanillaware wasn’t willing/able). Per the quote, Vanillaware themselves do not want it on PC - nothing about not being able to afford to port it or anything like that. This tracks with how they’ve never released a single game on Windows aside from an MMO they made for Square Enix almost 20 years ago, before they were even known as Vanillaware.

Vanillaware just doesn’t have any interest in PC, and while that’s quite frustrating, it’s their prerogative.

This device is not for sale; it has been developed for Skull and Bones promotion only.

😠

Judging from their history of rapid releases, I’d say this is more a matter of just throwing it out there to see if it sticks because “why not?”

Worst case, it fails, they’re out a little bit of capital, but can just as easily swap it over to Windows and keep selling it that way. Best case, they’ve opened the market up that little bit more for themselves.

There’d almost certainly be a different level of support given to a name-brand OEM who approached Valve to use their OS in a shipping product compared to what Valve’s giving to the community at large.

They clearly don’t think the software’s ready to just be installed on anything quite yet, but if MSI approached them with a fixed hardware platform and said they wanted to ship it with SteamOS, you don’t think Valve would work with them to make that happen?

The actual .exe that installs the game.

I don’t remember but I heard it’s like an aggregator of some sort too, right?

GOG the store is just that - a store. They only sell games that have no DRM at all, which means a couple of things. One, they almost never get AAA games at release (the exception being games developed/published by CD Projekt, as CDP owns GOG), and two, there’s a high likelihood that GOG will offer game versions that are out of sync with or missing features from the same game sold on other platforms (for example, if a game uses Steamworks for its multiplayer, many devs will just strip out multiplayer altogether for the GOG version rather than patching something new and store-agnostic in).

What you’re thinking of with the aggregator is GOG Galaxy, which is their (completely un-required) launcher software. Unlike Steam and EGS, GOG’s DRM-free nature means you can just buy games on their site, download the installers directly, and go on about your business. Downloading games, starting games, etc., is all just done manually. If you want a dedicated launcher software similar to the Steam and EGS clients, that’s what GOG Galaxy is for. And as a value-add, they implemented aggregator features where you can have it pull in your library from Steam, EGS, EA/Origin, Ubisoft, etc., and just view and launch everything from the one spot. I’ve generally found Playnite to be a little better at being a one-stop launcher, though everyone’s mileage will vary of course.

Careful you don’t throw your back out helping them move those goalposts!

So just because it worked out for both parties, that means it doesn’t count?

The claim was that Epic created exclusivity on PC. You seem to be acknowledging my point that Valve did it years before EGS even existed, but then you’re digressing into “BUT IT’S OKAY BECAUSE REASONS!!!1”

Focus. Valve did it before Epic. GOG did it before Epic. Think what you like about the circumstances surrounding all of these, but admit the incontrovertible fact that Epic didn’t start this.

Yes, and Valve was trying to establish their upstart digital store against the big established sales leader by buying exclusive distribution rights to a game they didn’t make…

🤔

Tell me you didn’t click the link without telling me you didn’t click the link.

Darwinia still sold copies through their site.

Straight from the linked forum post:

As part of the launch and Steam’s exclusivity, we will no longer be offering Darwinia as a download option from our site, although it will still be possible to purchase shipped boxed copies. At Valve’s request we will also be removing the demo from our site for about a month.

So, yes, they were still selling boxed copies - because it was 2005 - but Valve made them stop selling digital copies from their own site and even made them take down their own demo.

It wasn’t exclusive.

Again, same quote as above:

As part of the launch and Steam’s exclusivity

Not sure how you’re getting “it wasn’t exclusive” from a post that explicitly says that they signed their game up for Steam exclusivity.

https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203

What do I win?

Darwinia.

And before you even go there, yes, it was a long time ago, no, they haven’t really done it since then. But the discussion here is about whether or not Epic did it first, which they did not. By about a decade and a half.

They brought “exclusives” to PC gaming for the first time.

Please stop with this horseshit. Valve and GOG had both done third-party exclusives before EGS was even a thing. Epic absolutely in no way "brought [them] to PC gaming for the first time.

Yes, they did make them a pillar in their strategy to try to enter a marketplace that was dominated by an 800-pound gorilla - which is a perfectly legitimate approach to take - which neither of the other two did, but they 100% categorically did NOT bring the practice to PC first.

they refused to spend any money on actually improving their fucking game store.

Wow, you’re just full of misinformation on this post. They have constantly been updating their store since day one. No, it’s not on parity with Steam (and it likely never will be), but to just flat out say that they haven’t spent anything on improving it when there has been a steady stream of improvements over the years is ignorant at best and actively disingenuous at worst.

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project <– She is here.

Ackshully, those experts are statistically far more likely to be sitting in an office chair or a gaming chair than an arm chair.

*pushes glasses WAAAAY up nose*

And, hilariously, one of next week’s offerings is the fan-created resurrection of Epic’s own canceled MOBA/TPS hybrid Paragon.

This article almost makes it as if they’re removing stuff from your library

But it doesn’t remotely imply that? Here are the words/phrases it uses to describe what will happen:

• Steam will halt support for macOS 10.13 and 10.14
• existing Steam Client installations on those operating systems will no longer receive updates of any kind, including security updates
• some games will effectively stop functioning on macOS
• The Steam store will stop considering games that offer only 32-bit macOS binaries to be Mac compatible at the end of 2023.

At no point does it say or imply that anything will be removed from your library. In fact, it explicitly says how you can ensure that those games you own will remain playable:

In order to ensure continued operation of Steam and new 64-bit games purchased through Steam, users on these older versions should update to a more recent version of macOS.

Why would they include that if they’re trying to tell people the games will be removed from their library?

Stop fearmongering.

The idiots behind this shit really should have paid more attention in history class.

Oh, they paid plenty of attention. That’s the problem - they’re using it as an instruction manual.

Solid state batteries don’t exist yet.

So you start with this, but then…

provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels

Why do you think we’re magically going to find zero emission chemical fuels but aren’t going to make solid state batteries? I mean, aside from your being a pretty obvious fossil fuel stooge?