Epic Games is de-listing and stopping sales of old Unreal titles

[Rachael]

They made calculations and determined this would save them money - and more often than not, they are more right than we are because they have a dedicated team of analysts who look at the data especially with regards to company expenditures for supporting the product - I am not sure if they are in this case actually correct, but the calculation is usually a short-sighted calculation with the idea of increasing short-term gain.

[AmissaAnima]

They've should've honestly calculated how it's going to effect their company in the future and not in the current date in time, So i completely agree with you that they made a short sighted calculations in this case.
While i personally don't use Epic games for a couple of personal reasons it's sad to see them making these types of choices.

[Rachael]

That's simply not how corporations work. The "long game" for them is to maximize profit in the short term and deal with the consequences later, often in underhanded and dishonest ways, for both. Whatever loss you think they will get from this - they likely thought of it too and figured it was something they could take.

I'm not justifying this. I'm just pointing out that the problem is more the rules by which the machine abides, more than the actions the machine takes to follow them. You're focusing on the symptoms of the problem and ignoring the cause.

And if you think that part of the point that I am making is that corporations strip away your humanity - you'd be right. Look at what it did to Tim Sweeney. This is a textbook case of what happens when you get rich, and all you can think about is getting even more rich. You ignore the comforts in life, and the sentimental value of the things in it - it's legitimately a mental illness. Not saying it happens to everyone - but it certainly seems to happen to more people who do get rich than it doesn't.

[Graf Zahl]

They are just counting on most gamers being dumb sheep and in that they are right.
It's the same when I warned about the consequences of HL2 being released with its hard DRM in 2004. Even here in the commumity it was shrugged off, everybody bought (or better rented) the game anyway and showed the producers that limiting gamer freedom is the right way to go. And everything that came afterward had the same cause.

So, bottom line: you brought this onto yourself with almost two decades of inaction. Even though this isn't about DRM per se, the underlying cause is the same, i.e. a customer base that has proven over a long time that it doesn't care about shit business tactics as long as their short term needs are being served, so they can be rest assured that such a dick move won't affect their future business.

[KynikossDragonn]

They are just counting on most gamers being dumb sheep and in that they are right.
It's the same when I warned about the consequences of HL2 being released with its hard DRM in 2004. Even here in the commumity it was shrugged off, everybody bought (or better rented) the game anyway and showed the producers that limiting gamer freedom is the right way to go. And everything that came afterward had the same cause.

Steam as a "DRM Platform" never really worked well as DRM whatsoever. There's a lot of third party titles on the Steam storefront that can run mysteriously without Steam itself running in the background, let alone installed. I don't recall if it was also like that around the time Valve started actually letting third party titles onto the Steam storefront itself rather than just all of their GoldSrc/Source Engine stuff only.

I think the worst is when you get something on Steam and, instead of the vendor using Steam itself as a DRM (as in you literally must have Steam running and Steam must launch the game), they instead force you to use their own thing despite having bought the game through the Steam store.

I can just as easily play Half-Life 2 without Steam if I really wanted to, infact I would have to if I wanted to go back and experience the game as it was since 2004, since Steam's enforced update system meant not being able to roll back the graphics HL2 used to have before the Orange Box release.

So, bottom line: you brought this onto yourself with almost two decades of inaction. Even though this isn't about DRM per se, the underlying cause is the same, i.e. a customer base that has proven over a long time that it doesn't care about shit business tactics as long as their short term needs are being served, so they can be rest assured that such a dick move won't affect their future business.

Most of Epic's current customer base never even *heard* of Unreal or Unreal Tournament. They're all hooked on Fortnite, and that's what Epic has focused on ever since.

I'm not part of the demograph any modern "AAA Game Studio" cares about. I certainly didn't want things to be this way either.

We could always try and continue the legacy of the Unreal series, even if it's on a different engine entirely.

Isn't that what you basically did for GZDoom, honey? And also dpJudas' strange project to "emulate" Unreal Engine 1.

[sinisterseed]

I honestly don't get why they would deliberately damage their income.

Considering their age, probably because:
- They're not even profitable anymore, and since Epic's focus is elsewhere nowadays, it probably makes no sense to keep selling them, as they're hardly making any profits in the first place.
- It's not really about profit. The way I'm seeing this action, like I said on the first page, is as an attempt to erase their own history. It's as if they want people to forget they ever made those games to begin with. So in an attempt to erase it, they're taking them off every store, leaving people with only two options: Buying them from a reseller (which, due to lack of commercial availability, will likely have their prices skyrocket soon), or just turn to the seven seas. It won't stop the demand for them, but since they probably think only of gains, that's probably a net negative for them, for a few nostalgics or retro gamers.

It's odd to see a company treat the franchise that put them on the radar like this, but then, we live in interesting times.

They are just counting on most gamers being dumb sheep and in that they are right.
It's the same when I warned about the consequences of HL2 being released with its hard DRM in 2004. Even here in the commumity it was shrugged off, everybody bought (or better rented) the game anyway and showed the producers that limiting gamer freedom is the right way to go. And everything that came afterward had the same cause.

So, bottom line: you brought this onto yourself with almost two decades of inaction. Even though this isn't about DRM per se, the underlying cause is the same, i.e. a customer base that has proven over a long time that it doesn't care about shit business tactics as long as their short term needs are being served, so they can be rest assured that such a dick move won't affect their future business.

I'm sorry but all this talk about DRM makes zero sense to me.

Even without DRM, they would simply stop making copies and take them off the market, so I'm hardly seeing the connection, especially since this affects potential new customers to begin with, existing owners are not affected. I think opposing bullshit such as Denuvo which affects the performance of the games negatively in most cases and doesn't stop piracy, or DRM over DRM (as in, game's on Steam but also requires a Cockstar social account, EA, Xbox or Uplay to play and it downloads that client upon installation, too), is a far, FAR worthier endeavor.

Like it or not, digital distribution services are here to stay, for both practical reasons and conveninence, so wishing them to go away and return to "the old ways" of installing games from CDs (which would now take like 5 blu-ray discs), is just screaming at the air. These days are never coming back, so stop longing for a bygone era.

I think the worst is when you get something on Steam and, instead of the vendor using Steam itself as a DRM (as in you literally must have Steam running and Steam must launch the game), they instead force you to use their own thing despite having bought the game through the Steam store.

I can just as easily play Half-Life 2 without Steam if I really wanted to, infact I would have to if I wanted to go back and experience the game as it was since 2004, since Steam's enforced update system meant not being able to roll back the graphics HL2 used to have before the Orange Box release.

This is also nonsense.

It's up to the developers to keep branches with the old version of the game available if they really wanted to, like Capcom did with the RE remakes after the RTX update, neither Steam nor Valve enforces anything here at all, and updates can be disabled (unless you uninstall, in which case of course it will download the updated version). Even then, unless there's crippling issues, keeping an old version more often than not does not make sense if it's basically unsupported by both developers and modders alike. In this particular context this is especially true, as the 2004 version cannot be used to play mods, and besides, the updated version has just improved visuals, some different effects, an updated HDR implementation, plus better subtitle font scaling and proper 4K and controller support, in addition to community features such as achievements. But otherwise it doesn't differ in any significant way from the original release.

Also, Source mods require either owning the games, or the SDK Base 2013 to properly enjoy (or an additional game), so Steam is a must either way. But, for the nostalgics who really want the 2004 experience back, your best bet is Cvoxalury's 2004 mod, which reverts all notable changes to their original state, minus the engine itself and its quirks, done by one of the lead developers of Dark Interval. It's a standalone HL2 mod, not a map pack of any kind or similar despite the name.

https://www.moddb.com/mods/half-life-2-2004-pack

[dpJudas]

I think you read too much into this. I doubt they are trying to "erase history" - they simply don't care and decided it was administratively easier for them to de-list the games. That way they would never have to hear about them again. Seems a lot of people don't realize those running AAA game studios aren't gamers. They are here for the money. In Epic that means Fortnite and licensing the Unreal Engine. Everything else is more or less irrelevant to them. Especially some old game series that stopped making money a long long time ago.

[sinisterseed]

I think you read too much into this. I doubt they are trying to "erase history" - they simply don't care and decided it was administratively easier for them to de-list the games. That way they would never have to hear about them again. Seems a lot of people don't realize those running AAA game studios aren't gamers. They are here for the money. In Epic that means Fortnite and licensing the Unreal Engine. Everything else is more or less irrelevant to them. Especially some old game series that stopped making money a long long time ago.

Depends on how you interpret it, but generally yes, that's also one of my points.

Epic has long stopped caring about Unreal, it isn't profitable for them and even less so it not being a popular series nowadays, if the cancelled UT reboot was any indication, just like the Jazz Jackrabbit series. People caring for these franchises are not even part of their audience, much less target demographic. Epic only cares for their exclusive deals, Unreal Engine, and Fortnite these days, so as far as they're concerned, Unreal belongs to their past, as much as that may annoy the fans of the series.

[Graf Zahl]

They are just counting on most gamers being dumb sheep and in that they are right.
It's the same when I warned about the consequences of HL2 being released with its hard DRM in 2004. Even here in the commumity it was shrugged off, everybody bought (or better rented) the game anyway and showed the producers that limiting gamer freedom is the right way to go. And everything that came afterward had the same cause.

Steam as a "DRM Platform" never really worked well as DRM whatsoever. There's a lot of third party titles on the Steam storefront that can run mysteriously without Steam itself running in the background, let alone installed. I don't recall if it was also like that around the time Valve started actually letting third party titles onto the Steam storefront itself rather than just all of their GoldSrc/Source Engine stuff only.

That may be or may not be - but it is still where the shit started and others could see what kind of abuse players would swallow so they gradually tightened the screws.
Had players not been this stupid and boycotted Steam, we wouldn't be in the current situation.

Just look at the music industry. Their DRM scheme failed because customers did not accept it. Apparently music listeners are not as brain dead as gamers.

[Graf Zahl]

I think you read too much into this. I doubt they are trying to "erase history" - they simply don't care and decided it was administratively easier for them to de-list the games. That way they would never have to hear about them again. Seems a lot of people don't realize those running AAA game studios aren't gamers. They are here for the money. In Epic that means Fortnite and licensing the Unreal Engine. Everything else is more or less irrelevant to them. Especially some old game series that stopped making money a long long time ago.

In all honesty, we do not know the sales numbers. But it's weird seeing this while other old games get remasters to extend their shelf life.

[Rachael]

Apparently music listeners are not as brain dead as gamers.

I think this is a massive over simplification of the issues that surrounded Steam, the game industry, and the music industry, at the time of Steam's formation. It's really not as simple as that, at all.

At the time of Steam's formation, music was incredibly easy to reproduce - even if you had the best DRM on the music it was easy to get a 3.5mm line-in cable and re-record CD audio even if somehow the CD was locked down and encrypted. The music industry was too busy trying to shut down Napster to take advantage of an emerging marketing trend at the time that Steam was well positioned to ease itself right into. That, and then there was also the *massive* debacle known as Sony's XCP which actually installed malware on people's computers; Sony got way too overly aggressive, and this put an extremely sour taste in a lot of people's mouths regarding music DRM. There was a lot of outrage and lawsuits relating to this issue and I think the damage caused by that is still being reckoned with to this day.

The gaming industry simply did not suffer anything this egregious, and to my knowledge still hasn't yet, and that is why I think DRM for games is a lot more tolerated. Also, as bad as it might have seemed at the time, Steam was in a better position to take advantage of two important marketing trends emerging at the time: the popularity of digital distribution, which was in fact more convenient because you no longer had to wait in line at a store (if they even had a copy of your game, which Steam was always guaranteed to have if they sold it), as well as the emergence of indies that would never have seen the light of day if not for Steam's more democratic nature to game developers due to the ability to actually host way more titles than a traditional store, on the count of never having an actual physical limit on shelf space. This itself increased Steam's value, which was similar to how Amazon did.

Yes - the limits to gaming DRM has been tested repeatedly, I can think of a few good examples - like the launch of Spore, the prevalence of Denuvo (oh my god, UGH), and worst of all arguably the launch of Stadia (which thankfully, has rightfully failed, as it was doomed to do from the start) - but none of it crossed the line, none of it did anything remotely as bad as Sony XCP did. Nothing fucked up your computer that badly. (Mind you some games have some really invasive DRM, and it's terrifying, but even so - even the worst of it, it just simply never got as widespread as much as XCP did)

This is also why the movie industry was also able to sneak DRM into DVD's, and even worse into the Blu-Rays that came later: none of the DRM was anywhere near as harmful as Sony's XCP. With Blu-Rays it's just encryption with revokeable keys - as bad as that is, and yes it's bad - that's still not as bad as installing a rootkit without the user's knowledge. Mind you - on millions of computers. If we had actual accountability in this world, the Sony corporation would be dead just on that stunt alone, with its executives still paying through their nose for all the damage they caused.

[Graf Zahl]

This is also why the movie industry was also able to sneak DRM into DVD's, and even worse into the Blu-Rays that came later: none of the DRM was anywhere near as harmful as Sony's XCP. With Blu-Rays it's just encryption with revokeable keys - as bad as that is, and yes it's bad - that's still not as bad as installing a rootkit without the user's knowledge. Mind you - on millions of computers. If we had actual accountability in this world, the Sony corporation would be dead just on that stunt alone, with its executives still paying through their nose for all the damage they caused.

Copy protection is not DRM. With these media you still own what you buy and can resell it. With games you pay a premium and essentially have nothing,

Regarding music you are also mixing up these things. XCP was a disaster for sure, but the actual problem in the beginning was to sell copy protected digital music files. Yes, they were ridiculously easy to get around but the overall reception of these offerings was lukewarm at the very best. and ultimately failed miserably.

And yet, gamers just dismissed it and bought into the shit when it appeared on their radar - because HL 2 was a must-have title.

[Player701]

I don't think Steam is necessarily bad. For one thing, it's convenient because it made it way easier to buy games legitimately in my country (NB: I mean the time soon after it first appeared - right now it's a bit more complicated) instead of resorting to piracy in various forms, plus your game version is always up-to-date, so no need to search for and apply patches manually. And yes, there are a lot of titles (mostly indie) sold on Steam that do not actually require it to run. And if you're paranoid, you can always switch to offline mode and use it for as long as you want, but then you obviously lose auto-update functionality.

Having said that, I still generally oppose any and all kinds of DRM. Steam is more like a necessary evil these days because I have a lot of games there (and as usual, not enough time to play through them all). There is also a viable alternative: GOG, which does not have any DRM at all. If a game on Steam has third-party DRM (e.g. Denuvo), that's a big no-no for me. However, it usually gets removed after a while, and then I will buy the game, provided I'm still interested in it.

[sinisterseed]

I don't think Steam is necessarily bad. For one thing, it's convenient because it made it way easier to buy games legitimately in my country (NB: I mean the time soon after it first appeared - right now it's a bit more complicated) instead of resorting to piracy in various forms, plus your game version is always up-to-date, so no need to search for and apply patches manually. And yes, there are a lot of titles (mostly indie) sold on Steam that do not actually require it to run. And if you're paranoid, you can always switch to offline mode and use it for as long as you want, but then you obviously lose auto-update functionality.

Having said that, I still generally oppose any and all kinds of DRM. Steam is more like a necessary evil these days because I have a lot of games there (and as usual, not enough time to play through them all). There is also a viable alternative: GOG, which does not have any DRM at all. If a game on Steam has third-party DRM (e.g. Denuvo), that's a big no-no for me. However, it usually gets removed after a while, and then I will buy the game, provided I'm still interested in it.

Plus you get Workshop support, community hubs (well, before they became a toxic cesspit, anyway... ), achievements, plenty of social features (if you care), and so on. But by far the biggest selling point is the huge library it has.

My only gripe with it is similar to yours, that being DRM over DRM, either in the form of Denuvo (or kernel level anti-cheat, good luck if expecting that shit to ever touch my machines), or just Denuvo and similar nonsense, which has demonstrably failed repeatedly to do what it set out to and just negative affects the games. And, in other words, I can't relate to the rancid attitude towards Steam as a whole at all.

[wildweasel]

As much as I absolutely sympathize with the distaste towards DRM, I still feel like Steam, GOG, et al are preferable to what we used to get with physical releases. I say, look at where the physical game marketplace is right now, for games that were always physical, i.e. anything released before 2004. Copies of games for pre-XBox 360 game consoles (especially if Nintendo made them) and pre-online PC games have ratcheted up to insane secondhand markup in recent years. Sure, these games haven't been forcibly removed from the market the way a good number of digital releases have, and as long as the media is well cared for, it'll always be playable and they can never take away the license. But if I wanted to buy that copy of Duke Nukem 3D without putting up with the digital marketplaces, I'd be paying almost three times what its original MSRP was. And that's no way to maintain an inclusive and accessible library of games.

And that's notwithstanding whether I can actually find that copy in the first place. Duke 3D is popular and in demand. If I wanted a copy of something more obscure than that, like say... 7 Colors by Infogrames, good luck.