joe-h2o

I'm from the UK and Waffle House is one of my very favourite places in the US. A couple of years ago I wanted to get a souvenir and asked if the coffee mugs were for sale. Our waitress said "sure, 5 bucks" and I gladly bought one. I've always wondered if they really are for sale, or if she was just feeling particularly entrepreneurial that evening? - not that I'm complaining! We left $20 on a $15 check either way.

IS THIS ENOUGH QUESTION MARKS FOR YOU AUTOMODERATOR? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????

Second edit: it seems my phrasing about the tip was off. The check was $15, we left $35 in cash on the table. I gave the waitress $5 in cash directly in exchange for the mug.

Yeah, it's a shame. I saw Quill18 play this on his stream recently and it looks right up my alley but I'll have to wait until it comes out on another distribution service in the future.

I did look really cool.

Edit: I guess people really don't like it when you give feedback! Still, it's useful data for developers to have. I'm not going to begrudge them their choice of publisher, but there's a lot of "vote with your wallet!" comments when the topic of the Epic games store exclusives come up. I am stating that voting with my wallet is exactly what I'm doing. I wish the developers the best.

Almost certainly the rear suspension geometry. That looks like a serious winner for improving rear downforce (assuming that rear suspension arm is strong enough!) that will be difficult for other teams to copy quickly, if at all.

Like I said, I don't begrudge them the choices they made, especially when Epic is throwing money around, but it's not tone deaf to say that I won't be buying it. That is useful information to have - direct feedback from potential customers.

In the grand scheme of things, it will likely not make much difference to them, but if they get enough of that feedback, perhaps they will consider releasing on a different platform assuming they are allowed to - Epic is pretty shitty when it comes to using developers in its proxy war against Steam. I assume that the reason we are getting lines like "we're not working on that right now" and "it's not on the roadmap" is because their original deal with Epic likely included specific requirements not to release on Steam since we've seen that before from other developers, but we don't know that for sure. It seems odd that the comments we've heard from the devs on it so far have been pretty flat (rather than encouraging or even a point to some future roadmap).

It's not hard decision for them to make (money and jobs, and I am genuinely pleased they were able to secure funding and release the game), but they have hard data from potential customers. My small lack of purchase isn't exactly going to turn the tide for them, but large numbers of people like me could be, either now or in the future.

I'm not raging at Epic, I'm not raging at the developer, I'm not forcing them to make different choices, I'm not begrudging them a deal that keeps their lights on and keeps people employed, but I am stating that my wallet is firmly closed to anything on the Epic store and will be forever. They made the right choice for them, and it's a shame since the game really does look great.

I don't see it as tone deaf. I fully understand why they did it, and I understand the need for development money, I am just passing on my feedback as a consumer for whatever it is worth. I'm aware that my small sale doesn't compare to keeping the lights on when the developer really needs money, but I figure it's important to pass on that feedback.

Regarding Epic's practices, this developer pretty much lays it out there.

The other reason for Unfold's exclusivity rejection is more interesting, from a platform competition standpoint. According to the studio, Epic "made it clear that releasing DARQ non-exclusively [on the Epic Game Store] is not an option." In other words, the only way for DARQ to get on EGS, at this point, was to sign an exclusivity agreement and stop offering the game on other PC platforms.