However, much as I hate to engage in anything that even resembles victim-blaming, I feel compelled to point out the flaw in this framing of the story: Ooblets' developers are not blameless victims here. Whether knowingly or not, Glumberland picked this fight.
No, they should not be receiving death threats. The people who are forging Discord chat logs and faking videos of Discord chat sessions that never happened, deliberately and for no other reason than to discredit the husband and wife duo that basically are Glumberland, have indeed gone beyond the pale. The level of vitriol on display is wildly disproportionate to both the Glumberlanders' initial offense, and to the Epic Game Store in general. But make no mistake: what Cordingley and Wasser initially did really was offensive, and it's very hard to believe that they weren't aware of that.
Sarcasm is always offensive, if only to the targets of the sarcasm.
That's the whole point of sarcasm: mockery, derision, and, most of all, deeply felt anger. Sarcasm is verbal aggression; even when used among friends, it's the verbal equivalant of play-fighting or rough-housing. When deployed against/towards people you don't know, it's the equivalent of picking a fight. When the late night comics use heavy-handed sarcasm to criticize Donald Trump, they are deliberately trying to cause offense. Their studio audiences may well laugh at the "jokes," but the President of the United States is not laughing, and those comedians damn well know it.
Disrespect is the entire point of sarcasm, and the effective use of sarcasm requires a great deal of skill to come across as even remotely humorous, rather than simply insulting. And the minimal humour of sarcasm is very difficult to convey effectively using text.
Remember the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like them to treat you? Well, if you want the other party to engage with you in a respectful fashion, then you have to open by showing them respect. If you open with sarcasm, which is disrespectful by its very nature, then you shouldn't be surprised when they react with anger. You did, after all, open the discussion by basically picking a fight.
Can game developers have opinions? Of course! Can they, and should they, express them? Absolutely! But as they do so, it is important to bear in mind that tone matters; if you're expressing opinions that you know will be unpopular, or announcing some action you've taken which you know people will be angry about, then you should probably not be quite such a sarcastic prick about it all.
And Glumberland absolutely did know, well in advance, that people would be upset and angry about their EGS exclusivity announcement. They crafted a damn press release about the subject, in which they attempted to preempt every criticism that people would have of their decision. They knew that people would be angry, and they addressed those angry people directly... with derision, and scorn.
Now, at this point Glumberlands' apologists will claim that they couldn't have anticipate just how angry people would be about the tone of that announcement. Maybe, the apologists say, they're just sarcastic by default, and lapsed into an offensive tone without really noticing. This is possible; I'm something of a sarcastic asshole myself, so I can confirm that this sort of thing can, and does, happen.
But there's a really easy way to tell when this has happened: if the targets of your words respond with anger, then you've probably said or written something which provoked that. If you were deploying sarcasm deliberately, then this isn't a problem; far from it, in fact, this is a thumbs up, mission accomplished moment. But if you weren't intending to provoke an angry response, and nonetheless provoke an angry response, then this is the moment for you to take a self-reflective moment to admit that maybe, just maybe, you've fucked up, and should apologize. And it's at this moment that you must, crucially, remember the formula for an effective, sincere statement of contrition.
"I fucked up, and I'm sorry."
The Glumberland team did not apologize. Having thrown lit matches into the tinder-dry underbrush, they then spent days throwing not water, but more matches, responding to actually understandable anger with more anger, and continuing to belittle and condescend to anyone who wasn't entirely supportive of them, of what they'd done, and of how they were doing it. They didn't attempt to defuse things; they escalated, and kept escalating, for days.
When that failed, they then tried to "straw man" their way out of the mess they'd made, saying that people had no right to be upset about Glumberland's offensive behaviour because other things (like global climate change) existed that were worse, which is a little like defending yourself against manslaughter by asserting that manslaughter isn't genocide, and therefore must be OK. Yes, technically, manslaughter isn't genocide, so you premise is accurate, but your conclusions is so ridiculous on its face that it's a non sequitur.
And then Tim Sweeney came along, saw this brush fire already burning, and apparently decided what the situation really needed was a bucket of gasoline.
OMG, is Tim Sweeney a total fucking moron, or just the world's biggest asshole?
The CEO of a publicly-traded multinational corporation, any corporation, is a person of wealth, power, and influence, simply as a result of holding the title. Everything a CEO does in public attracts attention. The small independent developers of Ooblets, a tiny indie game that most PC gamers probably had never heard of, and about whom those gamers probably knew almost nothing, probably wouldn't have attracted nearly as much attention without Sweeney's involvement. They're hardly the only indie developer to take an Epic deal, after all, and others have managed to do so almost without it being noticed.
That Glumberland had started their Epic journey by attacking potential customers, and made their situation worse by continuing to fight with their critics, rather than just admitting that their announcement was rather tone deaf and saying they were sorry they'd done it, was obviously non-optimal, but might not have become nearly as big or as long-lasting a story as it has just on the strength of those elements alone.
But Tim Sweeney, CEO and majority shareholder of Epic Games, went out of his way to attract as much attention as possible to this internet brush fire by making an official announcement on the subject, something that savvy CEOs typically do with significant care and thoughtfulness. Sweeney, true to his own personal style, employed neither care nor thoughtfulness in crafting his official statement, though: "IT WAS AWESOME!"
At this point, containment ceased to be an option; with a huge boost to the story's profile, and a whopping helping of fresh outrage to not only keep the fire burning, but make it burn even hotter, the internet brush fire that Glumberland had started with careless matches was now raging out of control. In fact, as I write these words, it may well still be raging.
Ben Wasser has finally admitted to having misread the room, so to speak, with Glumberland's initial sarcastic comic routine, but his statements are unlikely to have much impact on the firestorm; when you've picked a fight, kept on fighting, and then brought someone bigger into the fracas to help your side in the fight, to then decry the fact that a brawl has broken out can only seem self serving. Nobody from Glumberland has yet issued an actual, sincere apology for their own contributions, here. Nobody from Epic has attempted to walk back Sweeney's ill-considered ALL CAPS outburst. Instead, they're talking, almost exclusively, about how toxic the discourse has become, as if they had bore no share of the blame for that whatsoever.But they do.
If your goal is respectful discourse, then you must open with respect, and not derision.
Glumberland opened with derision, and continued in that same vein for days; and Tim Sweeney's "AWESOME" addition was in no way an attempt to engage anybody in thoughtful, respectful discourse. For Glumberland and Epic to now be complaining about the low level of a discussion which they opened with the lowest form of wit, is pure manure.
About Epic's radioactive brand...
Did you know that Epic Games was the major sponsor of the PC Gaming Show at this year's E3? I'll bet you didn't. Do you know why you didn't? Because the show's hosts, Day[9] aka Sean Plott, and Frankie Ward, two total pros who have sailed though years of ridiculous sponsor shout-outs without batting a eye, never mentioned Epic by name during 2019's show even once. They shouted out "the sponsors," without whose support the show wouldn't be possible, but Epic's name was never spoken.
That, my friends, is some serious brand damage. That is the extent to which Tim Sweeney & Co.'s arrogance, hypocrisy, tone-deafness, and utter lack of regard for consumers has poisoned the Epic Game Store well. And if you, independent developer, choose to go into business exclusively with Epic because they've offered you fat stacks of cash, then that brand damage will transfer to you, too.
Is that fair? Not remotely. Business, however, is rarely fair. If you're going to go into business with Epic, then cost of managing the backlash which results is simply the cost of doing business; you should be planning for this cost, and working it into your calculations when you make your decision about whether Epic's tainted lucre is worth the cost. And if you decide that the cost is worth it, then you should be hiring a specialist to manage the inevitable fallout for you, and have them already in place by the time of your Epic announcement, so that you're not overwhelmed and left in tears for days by a backlash that you really should be able to see coming.
Because I don't see this getting any better for Epic, or for anyone who partners with them. If anything, it's only going to get worse.
Glumberland could have done every part of this better. Rather than sarcasm, their initial announcement should have been straightforward and sincere, maybe even with a touch of humility. Here's the basic outline of what they should have said, and what any future developer planning their own EGS exclusivity announcement should also say:
- We've made a big decision.
- We know that some of you are going to be unhappy about it.
- We understand why you might be unhappy about it. Epic have not always been as sensitive to consumers' needs, opinions, and feelings as they should have been, and the store and client really are pretty bare of basic features.
- Don't tell your potential customers how they should be feeling. Instead, acknowledge their feelings as not only understandable, but, at least to some extent, valid. Add that, while you're confident that EGS's issues will be addressed in the future, that doesn't alter the simple fact that these things are issues now, and you understand if that's a problem for some of your supporters.
- Continue: "However, as a very small studio with very limited resource, we simply cannot afford to pass up the deal that Epic are offering us. This is why." List your reasons for taking the deal. Don't joke about them. You want to convey that this was a big decision, and not made lightly; making light of your reasons for making the decision will fatally undermine your messaging here.
- If you've already listed your game on Steam, or KickStarted your project, you should offer full refunds to anyone who simply can't bring themselves to follow you to EGS. Wish these people well, and remind them that you'll welcome them back into your community if they should change their minds in the future. Thank them for their support of your project up to this point, without which your lucrative EGS deal would not have been possible.
- If people respond to your statement with criticisms of EGS, remind them that you're aware of the consumer-facing limitations of EGS' platform and client, and suggest to them that those questions and criticisms are best directed to Epic Games themselves. Offer to relay any feedback about Epic's store to Epic that you receive, albeit in a summary or FAQ form rather than simply forwarding the messages themselves, because you value your customers' privacy. Don't argue with them about this. You are not Epic Games, and their crappy storefront is not your responsibility; Tim Sweeney is a full-grown man, and can stick up for himself.
Regardless of how you feel about it, piracy has been part of video games since the very early days of the industry, and will continue to be a part of the business for the foreseeable future. Nothing that has ever been tried has eliminated piracy, or even really slowed it down much, and there is no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future. Piracy is going to be part of the reality of doing business in the video game business, so you need to be realistic about why people pirate games.
Regardless of what the ESA may say on the subject, most people do not pirate; of those that do, most also buy lots of games. Yes, there are a small number of people who simply refuse to pay for anything, but in most cases, people only pirate when the asking price of the thing far exceeds its perceived value, or when there are so many barriers to accessing or using the thing that piracy is simply easier that purchasing.
For some people, the Epic Game Store's lack of features and functionality is exactly such a barrier. The EGS still lacks a significant number of basic features, and while they have a road map, they've delivered only 10 items from that road map in the last three months.
 |
| EGS Road Map as of Aug. 7th, 2019 |
Incidentally, the shopping cart, a feature that's absolutely ubiquitous to the online shopping experience? It wasn't one of the delivered items; it's still listed as a long term item, more than 6 months away... unchanged since the list was originally published in May. The Epic Game Store, and the EGS client, are vastly inferior products; expecting customers to use them, and be happy about it, is currently not a reasonable ask.
So, yes, some people are going to pirate EGS-exclusive games rather than deal with Epic's crappy storefront. Those people are mostly not doing this because they feel entitled to a free game; they'd be mostly happy to pay for e.g. Ooblets if the game was being released on Steam as was clearly originally intended:
The problem, as these pirates will doubtless see it, is that they can't purchase the game on their platform of choice: the one with all the features and functionality which are now the industry standard, and expectation which is not at all unreasonable, given that Glumberland had listed their game on Steam. So, how do you respond to this?
Glumberland, as we know, responded to this with scorn: "Nobody owes you the game." Which, while technically accurate, manages to miss the point entirely. Already-irate customers, correctly perceiving the EGS exclusivity as a big ask of consumers with next-to-nothing by way of benefits for them, were rightly incensed by this dismissive tone.
Instead, Glumberland could have (and probably should have) responded with the following points:
- Remember that piracy is illegal. We understand that some of you are very angry at Epic right now, but theft and/or cybercrime is not the best way to express that anger.
- If you must circumvent Epic's store, though, we'd still rather you pirate the game than buy stolen keys off G2A. Please do not support G2A, under any circumstances.
- If you pirate the game, and love it, please think again about supporting the people who made it, so that we can make more games like it.
No, this sort of response wouldn't have satisfied everybody, any more than the announcement outline above would have, but adopting this sort of tone wouldn't have fanned the flames, either. And, having started by taking a reasonable and respectful tone, Glumberland would have had more credibility when calling for reason and respect in the discussion which ensued. At the very least, if would have made it far less likely that the forged Discord chats and other faked statements alleged to have come from the developers would have received much, if any, traction.
You see, lies are much more effective when they can be neatly slotted into an existing narrative, and harder to swallow when the contradict that narrative. If you're been nothing but polite and respectful, others will often swat down the obvious forgeries of you being horrible without requiring your involvement, which prevents the internet mob from forming in the first place. If you started out hostile, though, and responded to understandable anger with more hostility, then any hostile words that someone attributes to you become easier to believe. They're lies, but they're plausible lies, and they tend to live on long after you've debunked them.
The shitstorm will pass, but its stench will linger...
The Ooblets controversy, like most controversies, will eventually blow itself out. That won't happen while the gaming media is determined to keep the story going, of course, especially while so many of them are taking the developers' side against PC gaming consumers, and both Glumberland's and Epic's apparent reluctance to simply apologize for their part in the fiasco will not help matters, but it will happen... eventually.
The problem, though, for both Glumberland and Epic, is that the knock-on effects of this will continue to linger for a long time after the storm itself is largely forgotten. The Epic Game Store was already unpopular, and the discourse around it was already heated, but this episode will only make an already-bad situation worse; the next developer that decides to pull their planned Steam release in favour of the EGS is going to have a very, very rough go of it, a pattern which Tim Sweeney's ham-fisted arrogance is likely only going to exacerbate.
And for Ooblets, the super cute indie game that most people had never heard of prior to this shitstorm... well, this is really the first they've heard of the game, isn't it? Ooblets' and Glumberland's first impression for a lot of potential buyers will be this negative one, and the brutal reality is that you only get one chance to make a first impression. And no, that's not fair, either, but that's business for you.
Will that hurt Ooblets' sales? Probably, although their EGS deal almost certainly included some sort of revenue guarantee (compensating the developer for the expected loss of sales from Steam), so it might not hurt the developers bottom line too much... this time.
But what happens when their game finally does make its way to other platforms? Will consumers be willing to forgive and forget, and buy the game then? Glumberland is clearly betting on the answer being yes, but gamers have been rather more stubborn about this sort of thing in recent years: witness the failures of Star Wars: Battlefront II, or the more recent Anthem. Developers and publishers have relied on consumers being a basically mindless mob for a long time now, but consumers increasingly seem to be wise to the fact that they have the power in this relationship... and are much more willing to punish the big corporations when they're taken for granted.
So, it's a mess, and the worst of this mess could possibly have been avoided by simply talking to consumers like the adults they are (average age: 31), and not like naughty children. It's a crying shame, and there's lots of blame to spread around. Just don't heap all of that blame on consumers' heads. Remember to save some of the blame for them what picked this fight, and who only complained when it became clear that they were losing.