The Outer Worlds Catch-All

They could always add more worlds/spaces in the worlds via DLC. And maybe we will be able to as well via mods. It is Unreal Engine so easy modding.

Rykin wrote:

They could always add more worlds/spaces in the worlds via DLC. And maybe we will be able to as well via mods. It is Unreal Engine so easy modding.

Pfft. It's way better to suggest that they're being dishonest.

Rykin wrote:

They could always add more worlds/spaces in the worlds via DLC.

Maybe? Now that Obsidian is owned by Microsoft I figure Outer Worlds is only getting a release at all due to a pre-existing contractual obligation. If part of that contract fails to include DLC – and given it's a AA release, not AAA, that could be – then Obsidian is probably a Microsoft studio from here onward and future support beyond patches is doubtful.

Microsoft still gets their cut as the owners of Oblivion though. They continued to support Minecraft on other platforms so you never know (not thinking this will sell nearly as well as Minecraft of course).

I'd much rather have a good variation of smaller, unique areas, than one big area.
Not like it means the game would be small because of it either.

131 Rapid-Fire Questions with co-directors Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky of Obsidian Games. A lot of minor insubstantial questions about The Outer Worlds, as well as minor questions about Fallout and other things. Basically a little tease for Game Informer's cover story, so expect more information to be dropping soon.

Yeah, that video is hilarious.

Great GI feature.

New Combat Gameplay And Details For The Outer Worlds

I'm a little disappointed how much it looks like a Bethesda game. At the same time, with the increasing bugs and every patch breaking the game further, I imagine this is just what a lot of people will be craving for following Fallout 76.

This and the other GI videos have got me way more interested. Smaller areas, highly differentiated companions and play styles, emphasis on replayability rather than length... Alpha Protocol anyone?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'll be happy as long as they're optional. If they're not, then there's a good chance I'll skip the game entirely.

Good news! According to this piece on GameInformer detailing companions, they are. They are making sure the game still feels complete and full even if you skip out on companions, which will all be available to the player in the game's first third.

That’s gonna hurt sales. I guess they're getting enough from Epic and MS to balance it out?

No worries though, their games are so janky at launch it’s better to wait a year for the “beta” to end.

Obsidian games have been relatively bug free in recent time. At least much more so than anyone else making similar games (like Bethesda, Larian, and the Pathfinder dev).

Does the Epic Store accept or display in CAD (Canadian dollars) yet?

PaladinTom wrote:

That’s gonna hurt sales. I guess they're getting enough from Epic and MS to balance it out?

No worries though, their games are so janky at launch it’s better to wait a year for the “beta” to end. :wink:

Metro has sold 2.5x what the previous entries sold on Steam. So perhaps not.

b12n11w00t wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

That’s gonna hurt sales. I guess they're getting enough from Epic and MS to balance it out?

No worries though, their games are so janky at launch it’s better to wait a year for the “beta” to end. :wink:

Metro has sold 2.5x what the previous entries sold on Steam. So perhaps not.

Can't really conclude that based on those numbers. But yeah, it probably wont seriously hurt on its own.

Guess I'll be waiting a year then.That's fine. By the time I get around to thinking about playing The Outer Worlds it'll probably be at least a year old anyway.

A lot of angry people online. I for one am happy to see someone take on Steam.

I hope lots of companies take on Steam. But not like this. I don't want to be their battleground.
Try to compete by being better instead.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

A lot of angry people online. I for one am happy to see someone take on Steam.

I'd rather see them go head-to-head and compete on price. It'll likely be $60 now on Epic, or $60 in a year on Steam. Or how about same price with no DRM on Epic?

Competition should be better for consumers. This is like a console war except we're all on the same gaming platform. My opinion is that you should put your game everywhere the moment it releases. This artificial limitation on digital items seems silly to me.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

A lot of angry people online. I for one am happy to see someone take on Steam.

IMAGE(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OGC.d022d24d6606719a7b7c00a2cb6e2d07&pid=Api&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fmedia.tenor.co%2fimages%2fd022d24d6606719a7b7c00a2cb6e2d07%2ftenor.gif&ehk=lqN07cLwEESyuaQQEp0ZAA )

PaladinTom wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

A lot of angry people online. I for one am happy to see someone take on Steam.

I'd rather see them go head-to-head and compete on price. It'll likely be $60 now on Epic, or $60 in a year on Steam. Or how about same price with no DRM on Epic?

Competition should be better for consumers. This is like a console war except we're all on the same gaming platform. My opinion is that you should put your game everywhere the moment it releases. This artificial limitation on digital items seems silly to me.

Pretty much summed it up for me. Nicely said.

PaladinTom wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

A lot of angry people online. I for one am happy to see someone take on Steam.

I'd rather see them go head-to-head and compete on price. It'll likely be $60 now on Epic, or $60 in a year on Steam. Or how about same price with no DRM on Epic?

Competition should be better for consumers. This is like a console war except we're all on the same gaming platform. My opinion is that you should put your game everywhere the moment it releases. This artificial limitation on digital items seems silly to me.

But no matter where you buy it you are playing it on your PC. It is not like this a PS4 only console launch or something...

The responses to that Twitter post are completely ridiculous. I could take all this angst and concern about competition and exclusivity if any of these people were even half as upset when major releases are exclusive to Steam on PC, but they never are. It's transparently self-serving.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

The responses to that Twitter post are completely ridiculous. I could take all this angst and concern about competition and exclusivity if any of these people were even half as upset when major releases are exclusive to Steam on PC, but they never are. It's transparently self-serving.

Difference is, when has Steam ever made an exclusive deal? If we dont count their own games (back when they made games...), which seems reasonable enough. I'm sure there are some examples I can't think of, but this situation still seems quite new. Are we at 10+ exclusive deals for Epic in a few months?

Not even Microsoft or Sony seems to do that many exclusive deals anymore. They just buy the studios instead I guess.

Anyway, Epic doing bad does not automatically mean Steam is good, or vice versa. Steam just seems really irrelevant when it comes to what Epic is doing here.

karmajay wrote:

But no matter where you buy it you are playing it on your PC. It is not like this a PS4 only console launch or something...

True. But if games are going to cost 10-20% more because of it, that still sucks.
Some people also dislike having lots of 'store programs'. Personally don't care about that part.
Then you got Epic having Online requirement for their DRM, again not much of an issue for me, but I can imagine that being extremely annoying for some people.
PaladinTom is right. We are simply getting a worse deal than if Epic weren't doing this. It is not the end of the world, but it is still a damn shame.

Nevermind. This is silly.

Do we even know that Epic is buying exclusivity or are Devs/Pubs doing it on their own for the better revenue split?

This is the early stages of real competition for Steam. We don't know what they may do to fight back. All I know is if no one showed up to compete then they would do nothing.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm largely just a console gamer. I'm also very much more about "consumer rights" than other folks tend to be. However, I do think people are being a bit naive when it comes to Steam's stranglehold over the PC gaming market and just what it's going to take to properly compete with them. People talk about lower prices and discounts, but the whole benefit to Epic Games for developers is supposed to be that Epic takes a smaller cut. By lowering the prices on the Epic store, not only is Epic making even less money than they already would be, but that bonus cut is effectively pointless if they're selling for less.

Similarly:

Difference is, when has Steam ever made an exclusive deal?

When did they ever need to? PC users gobbled Steam up because 1) All Hail Emperor Gabe, and 2) it was the least intrusive DRM that came with the benefit of being a storefront, a friends list, and a games library tool. It was something unheard of on PC at the time, and it managed to prove useful to PC players. If DRM was the way of the future, Steam was an excellent Trojan's Horse to get PC gamers willing to buy into it.

Next thing you know, if you're a PC gamer, you're a Steam user. Very few stuck with what DRM-free sources they could find, despite the fact that Steam is just another company where, should the company ever go out of business, there's no guarantee you keep any of your games.

Other companies have tried to compete, but Epic is the first one that poses a threat, and they pose a threat specifically because of those exclusivity deals forcing customers to choose their platform. Sure, if they offered better prices on a handful of games some players may migrate, but in reality most players would just stick with Steam because that's where their friends/library are. This kind of thing happens with consoles all the time. Once one game has superior marketshare, you find late comers buying the one with the largest marketshare because that's where their friends all are.

Also note no one is talking about Discord, who has also entered the storefront market. Clearly, not much of a threat to Steam.

It may not be the most "user-friendly" business decision, but given that the worst you have to do is choose between two free storefronts as opposed to, say, two $300+ console systems... yeah, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Worst case scenario is you stop having the programs run in the background so they don't take up PC resource space, and ...that's... hardly the worst case scenario.

Exclusivity may be consumer unfriendly, but monopolies (or near-monopoly) are even worse. Steam may not be a literal monopoly, but they've been close enough to one for a long time. Given that this is, at most, an inconvenience for PC gamers to deal with exclusivity, well... I think it's better in the long run, because this means Valve is now in a position where they have to be accountable.

In the long-run, that's better for everyone.

ccesarano wrote:

PC users gobbled Steam up because 1) All Hail Emperor Gabe, and 2) it was the least intrusive DRM that came with the benefit of being a storefront, a friends list, and a games library tool.

I remember when Steam first rolled around with Half-Life 2, and PC gamers f*cking hated it. And they hated the first games that required Steam that weren't made by Valve. Valve purchased a lot of goodwill with their Crazy Ed's sale prices and giveaways.