From the opinion piece:
Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin’ back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.
I know everyone loves Valve, but it feels super weird to be celebrating a monopoly so much and so ferociously. (I know Steam isn’t a technical monopoly. We don’t need to have that discussion)
Gaben is old, and he’s gonna retire. It’ll likely be a lot sooner than anyone here is comfortable with. When Valve gets sold, or even when gaben isn’t in total control anymore, things are going to start changing, and there isn’t going to be a healthy, diverse marketplace to soften that.
There is a very good chance that the PC platform will be a really horrible place because of the lack of consumer choice in which they can purchase and play games.
This genuinely doesn’t get talked about enough. Steam is a private company and Gabe Newell seems to be the de facto “head” of the company, despite its famously “flat” management structure. There is no guarantee a new leader will have the same values or lead the same way. There is ripe opportunity for Steam to become a steaming pile of shit. I don’t know about the exact ownership structure beyond Newell, but unless the employees are far more empowered through things like ownership stake in the company, new leadership could effectively destroy how things currently work at Valve to be replaced by any number of terrible business decisions.
Gabe is old as hell. It’s coming.
Dude, he’s 61. You guys are making it sound like he’s as old as a presidential candidate…
Hopefully they have some sort of transition plan for who will take over when Gabe retires. As long as they hand the reigns over to someone with similar ideas and not some business type they could be fine given they are privately owned.
This genuinely doesn’t get talked about enough. Steam is a private company and Gabe Newell seems to be the de facto “head” of the company, despite its famously “flat” management structure. There is no guarantee a new leader will have the same values or lead the same way. There is ripe opportunity for Steam to become a steaming pile of shit. I don’t know about the exact ownership structure beyond Newell, but unless the employees are far more empowered through things like ownership stake in the company, new leadership could effectively destroy how things currently work at Valve to be replaced by any number of terrible business decisions.
Agreed, further the behavior of valve has to be understood like that of bandcamp before it was sold, an anomaly in a capitalist system that is vastly underperforming and dysfunctional from the perspective of those with money and power. It isn’t, valve is doing great (so was bandcamp) but and I really want to stress this point for the naive gamers here who dont have a very well developed sense of the political realities of capitalism as an ideology (as opposed to some “natural order” of commerce or trade), it doesnt matter if valve is in its most profitable state right now. When it falls under the control of different rich business people it will immediately begin having its heart ripped out, rationality actually comes a lot less into the picture than you think if you believe in economics as a pure science rather than a belief system that uses more math and acronyms than most.
If there arent robust alternatives to valve then, it will be a big step back.
It’s not Steam’s fault if their competitors can’t make a good product. Steam is still the only one with Linux support.
There is nothing exclusive to steam with respect to Linux support. All of the things required for games to run on Linux which valve support are fully open source and even existed before valve got involved. They just threw money at the efforts and turbo charged it (which is great).
All of the things required for games to run on Linux which valve support are fully open source and even existed before valve got involved.
Yes, which makes it even more puzzling that the competitors don’t even try to capitalize on the success of Steam Deck and publish their own store on Flathub, utilizing the very same FOSS technologies to make the games run.
Lol it is literally steam’s fault and they intended to be this way from the very beginning. They intentionally cornered the market with HL2. It’s incredible how people act like this just accidentally happened because valve made a supposedly good product.
Epic is worth 5 times as much as Valve and EGS is still fucking garbage years after it launched. If anything, Valve is the underdog here, yet Steam is objectively better than every other store. It’s not their fault if competing products are trash. Valve is not responsible for UbiSoft being incapable of making software that works as advertised, of for Epic refusing to support Linux.
“This product is worthless because it doesn’t cater to… Let me check my notes… Under 2% of the market and even less if we don’t count the Steam Deck!”
Ok buddy
I really don’t understand this argument. Aren’t you basically pointing out that Steam is better because they cater to a demographic that most companies won’t consider because of the small market size?
that the difference, instead of getting their ass fucked for what ever stupid decision microsoft do, they created their own market, that btw already run faster than the microsoft’s one while windows is getting worse day by day, linux is getting better, an they are doing it in the most pro-user way
Under 2% of the market
more than macOS lol
Caution, though, this same principle applies to the disabled, and soldiers; both groups gaming companies have made many direct attempts to support even if it’s just for a positive public image.
In an ideal world, if Gaben was a real saint, he would turn Steam into a foundation or steward-owned purpose organization before he retires, that can’t be sold.
I’m just glad GOG is surviving. It’s even closer to an ideal of DRM-free games you own. I try to buy from there whenever I can.
Gog is on life support last I checked, it wasn’t profitable and they had to cut headcount dramatically
Steams biggest competition isn’t another launcher, it’s piracy. Gabe is wise enough to know that, if the next guy to take over is a chode they’ll learn the hard way.
Absolutely. I have not pirated a single game since I got steam. Before that it was almost exclusively pirated games. no shops close by, and buying on mail order took FOREVER! and was very much hit or miss… And impossible to return.
I did buy most of the games that i enjoyed, and played a lot. Since i wanted the box on the shelf. but i still played the pirated version. since that was much easier then puling out the book and look at the 5th word on the 3rd paragraph on page 121 for the copy protection. :)
It’s absolutely weird and unhealthy to celebrate it.
Gaben is old, and he’s gonna retire. It’ll likely be a lot sooner than anyone here is comfortable with. When Valve gets sold, or even when gaben isn’t in total control anymore, things are going to start changing, and there isn’t going to be a healthy, diverse marketplace to soften that.
This is it. Look at history and every major company in the past 200 years. Once the shift happens, it all goes to hell. And yet people are still shouting about some “Steam Victory” like wtf?
Meh, I think there are some private companies that manage to remain vigilant in their purpose even as leaders change.
In my opinion, most problems happen the second a company goes public. So I’m just hoping that Valve never chooses to go public and is thus never legally beholden to shareholder interests.
I agree with all your points… but… IMHO some things keeping Steam honest are services like GoG and if course the High Seas, but more than that there’s the plethora of other entertainment options.
This isn’t housing, air, or water. A person can just not play if it’s too much hassle or too costly. If Steam or any given entertainment option isn’t worth using, people just won’t. There’s no shortage of things to do other than play games, much less use Steam for gaming.
I agree that we shouldn’t imagine Steam will never change, nor should we blindly worship or glorify Valve/GabeN. I just think that games and entertainment generally is an arena where market forces actually work to benefit the consumer.
Of course employment practices and company culture is a whole 'nother thing…
There is a very good chance that the PC platform will be a really horrible place because of the lack of consumer choice in which they can purchase and play games.
I agree with the sentiment that Steam will eventually have a shitification, but I remain optimistic because the PC platform is more open than mobile platforms.
GOG and Humble are existing, smaller stores. Microsoft had three stores they use to sell and install games. Half of the FAANG companies would love to get in on this space if an opportunity showed itself. If we get past high interest rates, I can see VCs getting in on this space.
It won’t be pretty and we can support smaller options now. But I don’t think it’ll be horrible.
It is technically a monopoly, you don’t need 100% market share to be considered one otherwise Google wouldn’t be considered a monopoly but it is.
In the Epic trial, Google made some of the same arguments as those used to defend Steam, like the presence of competing stores or the claim that it wins people over by the quality of the product.
Epic’s expert made these relevant points:
Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
Google’s conduct targets competition as it emerges
Google is dominant
And we know who won in the antitrust case. Let’s see what happens in Wolfire et al v. Valve.
Wowww this is crazy misleading.
The difference is that Google’s software is forced onto OEMs without them having any real choice. That Google makes them sign contracts forbidding other default app stores. That Google has secret back room deals with some app developers and not others waiving the store fee, giving them an unfair advantage.
Valve does none of that. Can you point me to valve forcing, say, Dell or HP to pre-install Steam and no other game stores? Or them not taking a cut for some games?
One day, Valve will be under different ownership, and we will regret the time we fought for their monopoly.
That will be a shame for already purchased Steam libraries, but because the PC is an open platform and their “monopoly” is drastically overstated, it might just be the opportunity for GOG to rise up. Or maybe even Epic, if it actually bothers doing better. Valve can’t, and won’t ever be able to completely control where people buy PC games.
You know, as opposed to consoles like Playstation, which, if you don’t like how they are doing business, you just gotta deal with it.
I wouldn’t call it fighting for a monopoly. It’s just that for the last decade people have been doing exactly what everyone keeps saying to do, voting with their wallet. Steam isn’t a clear market leader because people wanted it to be, it’s one because every competitor has not put in the effort to compete but rather chosen to be shitty towards the customer rather than be beneficial to the customer.
I know Steam isn’t a technical monopoly. We don’t need to have that discussion
That’s one way to swat away all criticism about the premise of your comment…
When Valve gets sold, or even when gaben isn’t in total control anymore, things are going to start changing, and there isn’t going to be a healthy, diverse marketplace to soften that.
Considering the fact that Steam is not a monopoly and alternate storefronts continue to exist (Microsoft will not stop selling games individually on their own store even if it’s just an afterthought to GamePass but it’s the same platform as GamePass), there will be alternatives to Steam if Valve turns anti-consumer. There is little actual loyalty among gamers. Just look at Blizzard: At one point their customer base was almost as die hard as Nintendo’s and it took only a couple of years to throw that away. (I noticed it when the audience actually booed at the Diablo Immortal reveal.)
Yep.
People fanboy over Steam endlessly without realizing that with time, it will turn to shit as well.
More competition is good, and maybe Epic is shit today but if their leadership changes then maybe it could actually significantly improve and surpass Steam.
But if it doesn’t exist, then if Steam turns to shit then you’re much more likely to just be stuck with shit.
Well, hold on. Why shouldnt we rely on pirates for preservation?
Valve is the only major PC game store that isnt public. Possibly the only PC store period, tho I dont know that for a fact for the smaller distributors. The private nature is why they currently operate as the best option for users, and the odds of the other stores going private is basically zero. So when valve shifts winds, they will be the end of an era.
Do you expect us to be able to request or rely on public companies to ever do better for game preservation and user to user trade than a private company does? You already arent pleased with valves stance, and there is no indication anyone will ever do better than them.
Who else would ever do better? Pirates are the best option.
Preservation is a joke. Sure, for super old games sold on cartridges it works. But for anything around… 1998 to 2010 or so? Forget it.
Even when you owned the original PC CDs with the box, the game updates are no longer available (Developer might not even exist anymore, site is shutdown). And if you get the wrong DRM like SecuROM you can’t start your game at all. Valid CD key or not (I tried it with Sacred 2, couldn’t get it to run due to the DRM servers being gone. Support from the shop I bought it years ago just gave me a Steam key afterwards, lol). And of course even if you get things to run, the online servers are no longer available, so that limits it to singleplayer games mostly.
Looking back at all the games I bought right now Steam is doing the best job when it comes to actually keep them running. GOG is a good second place. Hell, my PC doesn’t even have a DVD drive anymore, it’s simply not necessary.
Having played on PC for the last ~27 years I really don’t understand the nostalgia. PC gaming back then was a major hassle between physical media, manual game patching (version 1.01a to 1.01b to 1.02 to 1.1 to …) and shitty DRM that barely worked. We can only hope Steam isn’t going down the gutter, but for now they rake in tons of cash and it’s a privately held company so it should be fine.
And they’re probably gonna figure out the account isn’t being used by the original owner and delete it when it’s 120 years old or some shit.
They actually have terms that cover that. You can’t sell or transfer accounts, and upon the death of the owner of each account, the account will be closed and licenses to games revoked. So yes, effectively, they will have accounts with a general “time limit” for existing, although they’re still coming up on the first time they might invoke that, at being a 20 year old service. The oldest people who have bought games on Steam are probably in their 50’s and so they may be facing it soon. As the user base ages, you might see more “end of life” account options. You know, so you can make sure all those anime porn games disappear and your grandkids won’t be dealing with that after you’re dead.
The only reason I support them as a monopoly is because they are the closest thing to an ethical/moral capitalist company around. They are proof positive that treating employees, customers, and vendors fairly can lead to an obscenely strong company with profit margins that the amoral assholes out there looking for every way to shaft everyone to make an extra penny can are envious of.
From what I understand discussing the issue with friends who run game studios and deal with Valve/Steam, the employees pretty much have his mindset from the bottom to the top of the org chart. He has been smart in who he hires and who is promoted so leadership is not a bunch of sniveling money grubbers who will sell out immediately when he retires. 🤞
Newell is only 61, and an avid gamer with a lot of demonstrable business intelligence. I wouldn’t worry too much.
I’m not celebrating a monopoly, I’m celebrating a good platform for consumers. Steam likely knows that if it angers people its monopoly is ripe for a ton of regulation, at least in the European market where PC gaming is huge.
They’ve been hit with an anti trust lawsuit in Europe, lost and didn’t cooperate and instead paid some more.
They offer refunds because they got sued for it.
They’ve introduced more and more ways to monetize whales and to trigger people’s dopamine secretion to get them to buy more games.
Valve is still a company that aims to make profits, it’s not your friend.
I’ve been weaning myself off of Steam for years now.
I only use it at this point for games I’ve already bought and games that are exclusive to Steam, like TF2.
Anything else I just download for free.
Epic bought rocket league and promptly tanked it in favor of their stupid fortniteverse. Maybe steam keeps winning because they’re not actively screwing over their customers.
Rocket League is such an easy slam dunk of a game. The mechanics are so good there should be a family of game modes (like Turbo Golf Racing) that surround the core game mode that have spawned entirely new genres of car games by now. Almost no other video game has a core gamefeel as locked in as Rocket League and honestly Epic should be ashamed Rocket League isnt a household name like minecraft by now.
Epic bought rocket league and promptly tanked it in favor of their stupid fortniteverse.
Sadly Valve is guilty of a similar thing. Valve bought Campo Santo and (at least that’s the public statement) the developers were free to work on whatever projects and chose HL Alyx instead of that new game after Firewatch. Game development gets cancelled all the time and perhaps the new game just wasn’t that good.
There must be more to success than that, because Valve likewise bought Campo Santo, the developer of Firewatch, and now their next game is all but canceled. These companies can’t help but focus on their big money makers at the expense of all else.
All I can find about their next game is called “In the Valley of Gods” which looks like it is still being developed. What game was cancelled? Also how is that the same as buying an IP then running it into the ground so their main IP can get a mildly popular game mode that will likely be forgotten about in a couple months? I’m already bored of rocket racing and I only installed it because a friend kept begging me to play fortnite zero build which I also don’t enjoy.
It is on indefinite hold. It is still being “developed” in the same way Valve won’t confirm or deny the existence or cancelation of Half-Life 2 Episode 3/Half Life 3, but articles I’ve read previously essentially confirm that no one has been working on it for years.
I’ll happily eat my words if the game does come out because Firewatch was a beautiful game that left me wanting more, but Valve’s internal development structure doesn’t really encourage passion projects.
Maybe steam keeps winning because they’re not actively screwing over their customers
Idk, they are kinda screwing over the publishers. But that doesn’t impact the users buying the game, so they don’t care. Which I guess the percentage they take is worth the value they bring, given so many keep selling on steam.
Genuinely curious but how are they screwing over the publishers?
I’m especially curious how that can be true along with the seemingly contradictory conclusion you came to in your last sentence.
It’s just a pretty ridiculous cut for steam. Steam gets 30% of every transaction.
But I was saying that I suppose the extreme cut of 30% must be worth it since so many developers keep coming back to steam. But that also could just be because they have such a monopoly that users don’t want to switch DRMs.
I’m glad steam and gog exist. Both provide an amazing service.
Hard ask for a Linux client when the Windows client is barely functional.
I’m fine with them existing, but if there are clauses preventing publishers from proposing their games both on steam and elsewhere while they can’t make it cheaper elsewhere, I would like these clauses to stop. I read somewhere there are such clauses and these kind of clauses seem very uncompetitive to me and I wonder why they are legal (if they are).
I don’t see a problem with it. Steam provides a ton of service as a marketplace and distributor. The social aspect of steam friends seeing what games you’re playing translates into advertising for your game. They allow for regional pricing adjustments so it’s not about blocking players from poorer countries from affording the game. And they have huge frameworks for digital item trading, achievement management, community discussion, modding and more. Their 30% cut of each sale policy is unilaterally enforced and in line with the fees charged by the VAST majority of other distributors. They don’t make exclusivity deals in exchange for taking a smaller cut, unlike some much less consumer-friendly markets. Their market is completely fair across the board. I think it’s also pretty fair to ask publishers not to push that 30% fee onto the consumer, by requiring the price on Steam to not exceed the price on any other marketplace.
That policy is to the benefit of steam customers, because they can be reasonably sure the steam price is the best price (currently) available. It’s not about exclusivity, it’s about protecting the value that Steam offers to the consumer.
I don’t see how any of that justifies that valve prohibits publishers from selling their games for cheaper on a platform other than steam.
If anything, the 30% cut is significant and if a developer finds a cheaper platform elsewhere, why wouldn’t he also be allowed to sell his game for cheaper there too?
It’s really dubious to see valve try to control developers market strategies on platforms other than steam.
Has that lawsuit gone anywhere? I’ve seen games published on origin and GoG for cheaper then they are on Steam. And Steam will honor developer provided game keys (hence why places like Humble and Green Man can sell games so cheaply). And after trying to research the claims, all I found was reports about the lawsuit existing. It seems like if that was real, there would be more than reports of a lawsuit and contradictory evidence by way of literally being able to buy games for cheaper on other platforms.
Not saying it’s total bullshit, just seems kind of suspect all things considered.
I wish someone would actually link that clause because I’ve searched and I didn’t find it.
I don’t have any, but I see the following: Cyperpunk 2077, which is available on steam, is cheaper than on the developer’s own platform (gog.com), despite both being at 50% off. Is there any incentive for CDPR to sell it more expensive on their platform?
This isn’t really that hot of a take. Steam does keep winning and it’s because of convenience for consumers. Valve also is probably the best of those companies when it comes to not violating rights. I really hope when Gaben passes the torch for valve ownership that it’s someone with his vision and priorities
Steam does keep winning and it’s because of convenience for consumers.
As a Linux user, nothing else comes even close. I can read on ProtonDB if I can expect a Windows game to just work, and more often than not, it does.
GOG is also a great concept, and somewhat Linux friendly, but it doesn’t have the Steam “click and play” convenience.
Epic Game Store however, has been decidedly Linux hostile for some reason??? As I see it, Steam and GOG are for gamers, Epic Game Store is for business. It would be a dark day for gamers, if Epic ever became dominant.
Epic is Linux adverse mainly because of its Chinese investors. They don’t want to open source their spyware.
Why would they have to open source anything? Just because it’s running on Linux doesn’t mean it’s OSS or even F(L)OSS. Steam isn’t open source either.
That makes literally zero sense. If anything Chinese investors would want the open source operating system to be the most popular since the US is becoming more hostile and banning them from stuff more and more. Its why they’re investing in RISC-V development and the US is considering being hostile towards it for “national security reasons”
Steam and GoG are not just free services for gamers either. At their core they are businesses, and they invest significantly to try and make people spend more/get addicted to their services.
I hate this whole idea that some companies are your friend. That just shows their marketing and branding is working on people and blinding people.
I hate this whole idea that some companies are your friend.
It’s not a matter of them being your friend or not, it’s a matter of them respecting their customers, and giving their customers what they want, generating a win-win.
These days most corporations are very happy with the win-lose scenarios, as it maximizes their profits.
Publicly traded companies, which we’ve all learned to hate and not take as our friends, are in no way comparable to Steam which is privately owned. Gabe Newell is in no way forced by shareholders to push for increased profits, the company has no interest in pushing for enshittification unlike VC funded startups.
Valve is also a privately held company, unlike most (all?) of the other big players. Therefore they don’t have the ever present drive and threat of “the line must always go up” to contend with. Valve can do whatever the fuck they feel like, however the fuck they feel like, and as long as they’re bringing in enough revenue to keep the lights on and keep Gabe Newell in Acapulco shirts and Cheetos, or whatever his jam is, there’s nothing anybody can do about it.
They can gamble and release a VR headset or two, and if it’s not a huge success, who cares? There are no shareholders breathing down their necks. They can support the Linux community and if it pisses of Microsoft, or whoever, so what? They want to wait 16+ years before getting around to releasing the sequel to their flagship franchise? There is no boardroom pushing them to slap it together and shove it out the door before Christmas, so they can just do that. Etc.
All true, but Gabe is old and the de facto leader. What happens when he goes? Do employees have stake in the company to make sure the way things work don’t change? Will a new leader want to “shake things up” to be able to “claim ownership” over what is happening at the company? (This is something many many managers do, and it’s bad management, but it’s so so common)
There’s still ripe opportunity for things to go south here.
GOG is also good for consumers, too (in some ways, moreso than Steam, like DRM-free games with install files) but it doesn’t get the same love. I understand why, Steam was already the market leader, has a way more polished product, and GOG really still focused on “what’s in the name” of Good Old Games. Most of their catalogue seems to be focused on older titles, which definitely makes it seemingly more catered to an older, classic gaming audience.
I love the idea of gog but they need to invest in their own store. They need to make a client that’s worth a damn, or make the website work better, or both. I routinely forget that gog exists, if I had a client on my computer with a store that worked I would probably give them more money. Getting old games from gog working on Linux is usually fine but new releases are often a shit show. Lack of steam deck support really kills my willingness to buy from them. I will never enjoy downloading X amounts of 4gb files to run a game, just use a better protocol like BitTorrent or something. I don’t think it’s fair to consumers that the best gog clients are 3rd party, unsupported and receive zero funding from CPR for making gog a usable platform.
I don’t like monopolies, but it’s hard to argue that any other service offers the same value to the end user.
Well yeah, because gog is selling games ethically… That’s great, I think it’s good that they exist, and if I want a specific game I’ll often go to them first
But that’s kind of the limit… They don’t have much power, they advocate against drm and all, but I don’t see them fighting in the courts or the media the way the EFF always leads the charge.
That’s fine - they’re a store, and like a local shop, I’d rather give them my business than a chain
Steam gets so much praise because they’re Walmart, but instead of destroying the local economy, they go out of their way to add value to it and lower the barriers of entry for everyone. They’re a monopoly that goes out of their way to improve the industry they dominate, including by improving competition
They were the company who had people who recognized that they already did all of their ideas and their best bet was to get out of the way for the next generation of developers. The other studios are apparently run by narcissists who still think they are at the top of their game. The world could learn a big lesson from Valve.
It’s not narcissism. It is a rational decision with major upside if you can pull off building your own storefront and launcher. If you can stop paying steam 30 percent of every sale, and have direct access to the user for data collection and targeted advertising, you try to execute. There is a ton of upside for Epic, EA, or Ubisoft to go direct to consumer and not have a middle man (and possibly be the middle man for others).
I’m referring to the young Gen X and elderly Millennials who still run the industry and still think that everything should be full of micro transactions, huge bugs, and DLC with no content. I’m referring to the people who are scared of Baldurs Gate III and claim that nobody can reach that standard. They are still thinking of games as they were 15 years ago but the world has moved on.
This is pretty much what I said would happen in some other threads. EGS came and portrayed itself as a savior or developers, but the cost of solution comes from consumers. They didn’t try to compete in quality of service or features, but spent hundreds of millions on exclusive deals. Who in their right mind would switch from something like Steam where sole focus is the consumer.
Yes, Steam takes a huge percentage but it’s not like anyone is forcing developers to go there. Developers go there because that’s where the people are. And people are there because they get many more benefits for the same or lower price. Steam offers so many conveniences and features it’s hard to list them all. From cloud saves to Proton, chat, family sharing and so on.
Steam Input is another underrated feature, makes use of any controller plug and play.
What’s funny though is that a game was exclusive to the Epic Games Store, the devs of the game recommended to launch the game launcher via steam to use steam input as EGS or game had some controller detection issues lol
But like seriously, it’s 2024, all games should support all controllers natively, without the need for steam input/rewasd/ds4windows etc
While some games do support dualsense and dualshock natively, but they don’t support switch controller?!
While we’re at it can we also have both sets of controller glyphs available on PC for games that released on Xbox and Playstation? My ps5 controller works fine but I still see “press Y to interact” in game
some games do show ps5 glyphs, if the game uses steam input api completely it will show
and some other games show glyphs natively like FIFA/FC 24 and other ps games like spiderman, god of war etc
The games that just let you choose within the options are gold. With GeForce Now, OSX, Moonlight, or 3rd party controllers it is sometimes a total mess to just display as a damn PlayStation or Nintendo controller. I can’t stand the Xbox layout and it is even worse when I get used to playing a game with one layout and then I am expected to use a different one because using X launcher on other system doesn’t see the controller that way.
I can’t help that my brain can’t switch back and forth easily nor mentally remap buttons that clearly say something different when I look down. I have put labels next to the buttons on my 8bit controllers so I can “remember” what the Xbox layout is… The only layout I don’t need labels for is PlayStation.
If Epic had required developers to, say, sell games 15% cheaper (they only take a 12% cut instead of 30%, so the devs would still win out!) then they could have had a really cool argument on their hands. “Look how much Steam costs you as the consumer just from them enriching themselves!”. Then the dearth of features would have been excusable, sure the shop is shit and does ˜nothing but hey, 10% cheaper in return!
Instead, as you say, they wanted to completely brute-force consumers onto the platform by putting their big fortnite money dick on the table, and it backfires and they spent a ton of money on a fat load of nothing.
Plus they’ve nicely trained their consumers that all the EGS client is for is launching it once on Thursdays to get your free game. Not the thing you want customers to associate with your supposedly money-making scheme.
If Epic had required developers to, say, sell games 15% cheaper
Epic cannot do that because
In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . .”
(source)
However, Epic regularly offers coupons out of pocket. Right now you can get 33% off any game above $14.99 or the regional equivalent, as many times as you want, even if the game is already discounted by the publisher. You also get 10% as cashback.
Steam doesn’t allow games to be cheaper elsewhere if they want to also sell on Steam. So the only way Epic can do that is by … (gasp) exclusives.
Pretty anti-consumer of the store that “keeps on winning” if you ask me.
Steam doesn’t allow games to be cheaper elsewhere if they want to also sell on Steam.
How does that work when there is the humble bundle store, and IsThereAnyDeal with a shit ton of stores almost always cheaper than Steam?
That seems to be incorrect, and quite possibly originating from Tim Sweeney.
The only thing I found is that steam keys, which (as a publisher/developer) you get from steam without paying, cannot be sold for cheaper off-steam. The reason for that is obvious, since steam doesn’t get their cut on keys, but they still have to provide the support and infrastructure for those users.
If you have a source on that claim though, I’d love to see it - I tried finding anything else on it once and failed.
So the only way Epic can do that is by … (gasp) exclusives.
Even if your initial premise was correct (the comment from KubeRoot suggests it’s not), you claim that only Epic exsclusives were a way around that is obviously BS. The most obvious way around Steam would be to sell everywhere except Steam, so EGS, Microsoft Store, GOG, EA Origin, Uplay,… and whatever else is out there.
Yeah but while they’re not allowed to be on sale within X time of launch, I’ve seen games be part of variable discount bundles or run coupon systems before. Clearly Steam isn’t investing infinite resources into tracking this, and probably doesn’t actually care for anything but AAA games.
That is assuming the language in the contract even includes such coupon or bundle schemes.
And you can properly UNINSTALL games on steam. Epic is a joke when it comes to this. Have to right click and delete folder contents like it’s a 90s version of hacking a game illegally downloaded. They just need a little key generator with an 80s game sound you can’t mute. I thoroughly hate my experience with epic. Archaic POS.
