What a funny concept. They had a fixed maximum of games they were allowed to sell, did they? So tell me, which identifiable game got DARQ's "spot"? I love the thought that indies might try some notion of "charity abuse" with EGS, even if they weren't approached first. Just lol..
-
-
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Limited man power is the current issue that limits how many games they can get into the store, something that won't be an issue once they get their systems in place for self publishing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
So are you saying that because they didn't accept the charity idea, that spared them the manpower to give someone else a slot? If so, again, what was it? 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Or are you saying they already spent that man power identifying and approaching Unfold Games? Because if so, accepting the charity idea wouldn't have cost that hypothetical other game a slot at all and they had no reason not to do it. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Eisberg Retweeted Tim Sweeney
Tim Sweeney already answered thishttps://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1223107457997664259 …
Eisberg added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
Except the part where it doesn't answer the question. Did the started but failed "case by case" with DARQ count against that limited onboarding ability, or didn't it? That was the question and that tweet does not say.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Eisberg Retweeted Tim Sweeney
Eisberg added,
Tim Sweeney @TimSweeneyEpicReplying to @bogan_gamer @MBGretton and 3 othersTill we have automated self-service for developers, we are choosing the highest priority release opportunities. We prioritize exclusives, free game releases, and the most notable indie and triple-A titles. Some games that make sense as exclusives didn’t make sense otherwise.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
And that still doesn't. You really want to keep this going?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
DARQ didn't make sense as a non exclusive. Really not hard to understand.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
But really hard to justify. A game is either deemed "good enough to be on our store" or not. EGS indirectly told the world it was good enough, and then put a ridiculous condition (that doesn't matter to gamers) on the "opportunity". How is that good for gaming?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It’s not like that. Rather, we chose under 200 games to release in the first year which the team felt would have maximum impact based on a variety of factors. When the store opens up broadly, the criteria will simply become quality based.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @riggedforepic and
Thanks for clarifying. So that list was set it stone, meaning we can put to rest Eisburg's implication that DARQ's "spot" was reallocated to benefit (or harm, depending on interpretation) a different game.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
That isn't what he said at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.