So now you're saying he exaggerated too low? Leaving aside how senseless that is, it's also not like someone with a history of exaggerating waaay too high. Sensible or not, citing "5,0000" is a poor excuse for what they did to DARQ. How can you honestly justify that?!
-
-
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
They didn't do anything to DARQ other than offer them an opportunity, and offer that still worked in the developers of DARQ favor, so he has Epic to thank for that, he benefited with either answer he gave to Epic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
Of course you'd put a disgusting twist on a poisoned chalice. An opportunity would have been simship, which was offered to AAA games and all Unfold Games got when asking was the middle finger - twice! The second of which saw the other hand giving a middle finger to charity too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Taking DARQ would have only taken a spot away from another developer who would have benefited even more. Taking it on the basis of charity would have done the same thing ,and open it up for more devs to offer the same thing and take those spots away from devs who would benefit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eisberg_Wolf @TimSweeneyEpic and
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..
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
Yes. Any game that goes on the store right now requires significant manual setup time by the store team. The system will be automated later this year.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @riggedforepic and
Thanks again, so as per my previous tweet Eisberg's "Taking DARQ would have only taken a spot away from another developer" was guff.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Eisberg Retweeted Tim Sweeney
Another post for you to readhttps://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1162929077587718144 …
Eisberg added,
Tim Sweeney @TimSweeneyEpicReplying to @TimSweeneyEpic @GrummzWe priorize a small number of games that bring unique value in some way, such as exclusive games, major releases, and key indie titles. Right now we can only accommodate about 10% of the games that developers would like to release on the store, and each criteria adds weight.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 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.