Exclusives to me is one of the worst anti consumer activities any platform indulges in, i think its despicable when its done on Consoles, worse when its on PC, if they can't compete in the market and have to 'buy the win' then i'd rather see that platform go bankrupt than ever buy from them, i don't see this as a Steam vs Epic thing, but just regular anti consumerism, there is not a single instance where exclusives, timed or otherwise were ever 'good for the consumer', as for Epic now saying they will stop when Steam adjusts its business model? if true then its little more than PR damage control pretty much of the 'the dog ate my homework' variety. They would be better off just saying they will only be doing the exclusives thing until such time as they have more 'market share' or something, at least it would be believable
Exclusives to me is one of the worst anti consumer activities any platform indulges in, i think its despicable when its done on Consoles, worse when its on PC, if they can't compete in the market and have to 'buy the win' then i'd rather see that platform go bankrupt than ever buy from them, i don't see this as a Steam vs Epic thing, but just regular anti consumerism, there is not a single instance where exclusives, timed or otherwise were ever 'good for the consumer', as for Epic now saying they will stop when Steam adjusts its business model? if true then its little more than PR damage control pretty much of the 'the dog ate my homework' variety. They would be better off just saying they will only be doing the exclusives thing until such time as they have more 'market share' or something, at least it would be believable
It's worse when the exclusive doesn't force you to buy an entirely new piece of hardware?
Stop with the mental gymnastics people. Jesus fucking Christ, now I get where devs and pubs get such low opinions of their bases. /Facepalm
Exclusives to me is one of the worst anti consumer activities any platform indulges in, i think its despicable when its done on Consoles, worse when its on PC, if they can't compete in the market and have to 'buy the win' then i'd rather see that platform go bankrupt than ever buy from them, i don't see this as a Steam vs Epic thing, but just regular anti consumerism, there is not a single instance where exclusives, timed or otherwise were ever 'good for the consumer', as for Epic now saying they will stop when Steam adjusts its business model? if true then its little more than PR damage control pretty much of the 'the dog ate my homework' variety. They would be better off just saying they will only be doing the exclusives thing until such time as they have more 'market share' or something, at least it would be believable
It's worse when the exclusive doesn't force you to buy an entirely new piece of hardware?
Stop with the mental gymnastics people. Jesus fucking Christ, now I get where devs and pubs get such low opinions of their bases. /Facepalm
Absolutely, because the consumers are just plebs who should get with the program, amiright!
Exclusives to me is one of the worst anti consumer activities any platform indulges in, i think its despicable when its done on Consoles, worse when its on PC, if they can't compete in the market and have to 'buy the win' then i'd rather see that platform go bankrupt than ever buy from them, i don't see this as a Steam vs Epic thing, but just regular anti consumerism, there is not a single instance where exclusives, timed or otherwise were ever 'good for the consumer', as for Epic now saying they will stop when Steam adjusts its business model? if true then its little more than PR damage control pretty much of the 'the dog ate my homework' variety. They would be better off just saying they will only be doing the exclusives thing until such time as they have more 'market share' or something, at least it would be believable
It's worse when the exclusive doesn't force you to buy an entirely new piece of hardware?
Stop with the mental gymnastics people. Jesus fucking Christ, now I get where devs and pubs get such low opinions of their bases. /Facepalm
Absolutely, because the consumers are just plebs who should get with the program, amiright!
What? Your post was about anti-consumer practices, but claiming it's better when exclusives mean you have to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase a limited-function piece of hardware as opposed to merely downloading a free piece of software, gives the impression you don't quite understand what anti-consumer means.
Purchasing exclusivity is expensive since they pay the developers up front an amount to compensate for the sales they don't get on Steam or elsewhere. That's the only reason developers are agreeing to Epic store exclusives and it's an awesome deal especially for small developers. The Epic store lower % cut on a storefront that has much lower visibility than Steam is peanuts compared to the cash they're getting for the exclusivity deal.
This is obviously not a long-term sustainable model and the lower % store cut by itself would not be enough for anyone to agree to sell exclusively with Epic.
Sounds to me like they're just looking for a graceful end to the exclusivity that's bleeding Epic money.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Purchasing exclusivity is expensive since they pay the developers up front an amount to compensate for the sales they don't get on Steam or elsewhere. That's the only reason developers are agreeing to Epic store exclusives and it's an awesome deal especially for small developers. The Epic store lower % cut on a storefront that has much lower visibility than Steam is peanuts compared to the cash they're getting for the exclusivity deal.
Being offered that Epic money is absolutely amazing for smaller teams. They are basically being handed success for their game with no risk. So, yeah, they'd have to be total fools to pass up instant "smash hit" money.
When a small studio launches a game, there's a lot of hoping and praying that it'll take off. To have that pressure of "right place, right time" completely removed is just an incredible opportunity.
That financial success and stability certainly beats pleasing the exclusivity-hater crowd any day.
I'd be curious to hear how much money Epic spent in total on exclusives, after it ends. I know it's in the millions for each exclusive. So, it's definitely not sustainable long-term, especially when we consider half of those games probably won't make that money back in sales.
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
And there are people defending this... I just can't believe it.
Are they defending this or do they just not care?
Because I absolutely don't care.
My minimum feature is buying the game and downloading it.
I don't care about friend's lists, curated lists, those stupid little things I get in my steam e-mail that I never open.
Maybe others don't care either?
yeah i don't care, steam, epic, uplay, origin, bnet.. it's all a means to an end for me... i have like 10 different platform launchers on my PC...
I don't run them all at the same time so it doesn't matter, it's ridiculous how emotional and irrational people get about this.
Purchasing exclusivity is expensive since they pay the developers up front an amount to compensate for the sales they don't get on Steam or elsewhere. That's the only reason developers are agreeing to Epic store exclusives and it's an awesome deal especially for small developers. The Epic store lower % cut on a storefront that has much lower visibility than Steam is peanuts compared to the cash they're getting for the exclusivity deal.
Being offered that Epic money is absolutely amazing for smaller teams. They are basically being handed success for their game with no risk. So, yeah, they'd have to be total fools to pass up instant "smash hit" money.
When a small studio launches a game, there's a lot of hoping and praying that it'll take off. To have that pressure of "right place, right time" completely removed is just an incredible opportunity.
That financial success and stability certainly beats pleasing the exclusivity-hater crowd any day.
I'd be curious to hear how much money Epic spent in total on exclusives, after it ends. I know it's in the millions for each exclusive. So, it's definitely not sustainable long-term, especially when we consider half of those games probably won't make that money back in sales.
I only have knowledge of one small game by a small indie studio and that exclusive deal is $25 mil. Something highly anticipated and hyped like The Outer Worlds could easily be in $100s of millions.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think it needs to be said because i think people are misunderstanding the exclusivity deal..
Epic isn't just like.. oh here have a bunch of money congrats.
They agree upon a said amount based off projected sales, obviously their analytical teams come up with an agreeable number between the developer / publisher and Epic.
then if the sales fall short of said number they pay the difference.
So let's say projected agreed upon sales numbers are 50 million, the game sells 34 million worth of copies on epic.. Epic makes up the 16 million dollar difference and an exclusivity period is also agreed upon i'm not sure if thats based off projected sales or something they just come to terms on.
So it's not like Epic is just like, oh hey you might sell 100 million dollars worth of games here is 100 million dollars. regardless it's a good deal for publishers / developers.
they get more money back in their pockets to reinvest in future titles or not, they put up the money to make the game in the first place they deserve some RoI regardless on how you feel on the matter.
the whole "what do i get out of it" is a redundant argument. Because as i said above, you didn't outlay the millions of dollars it costed to develop the game, the publisher did... either by available cash money, investment, leveraging of assets, loans etc... they deserve a nice RoI for their investment of which it's upto them what they want to do with it.
I think it needs to be said because i think people are misunderstanding the exclusivity deal..
Epic isn't just like.. oh here have a bunch of money congrats.
They agree upon a said amount based off projected sales, obviously their analytical teams come up with an agreeable number between the developer / publisher and Epic.
then if the sales fall short of said number they pay the difference.
So let's say projected agreed upon sales numbers are 50 million, the game sells 34 million worth of copies on epic.. Epic makes up the 16 million dollar difference and an exclusivity period is also agreed upon i'm not sure if thats based off projected sales or something they just come to terms on.
So it's not like Epic is just like, oh hey you might sell 100 million dollars worth of games here is 100 million dollars. regardless it's a good deal for publishers / developers.
they get more money back in their pockets to reinvest in future titles or not, they put up the money to make the game in the first place they deserve some RoI regardless on how you feel on the matter.
the whole "what do i get out of it" is a redundant argument. Because as i said above, you didn't outlay the millions of dollars it costed to develop the game, the publisher did... either by available cash money, investment, leveraging of assets, loans etc... they deserve a nice RoI for their investment of which it's upto them what they want to do with it.
No I understand how it works and the time involved. But especially for unproven teams with new IPs that guarantee is a sweet deal. There are very few guaranteed returns in the industry and especially not for indie studios.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Epic makes a lot of money on Engine licensing (Unreal Engine). That is their primary source of revenue.
Valve makes a lot of money on Distribution (Steam). That is their primary source of revenue.
Now, Valve also has an engine, but it was never very high profile, and Epic has Distribution, but it isn't high profile (yet, anyway)...
So let's see...
Epic doesn't mind a bit of storefront revenue, but what they really want to do is sell licensing.
Valve depends mainly on that storefront revenue.
I get the feeling Epic only opened EGS because they saw an avenue: If they can drive down distribution costs, one of two things will happen: A ) more developers will make more games, as their side of revenue goes up and it becomes more profitable to do so B ) Costs to consumers go down, and developers sell more games (these two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, but they probably aren't both going to occur for all titles)
So, in either of those cases, licensing fees go up, and Epic's revenue goes up. At some point, Epic made the decision that the investment into creating the EGS was worthwhile in terms of any revenue the EGS made on it's own, and in additional licensing revenue from Unreal Engine.
If Valve decides to capitulate.... it means more opportunity for Epic's UE to go into more game sales volume, and it puts Steam at a significant disadvantage because Steam would have just voluntarily cut on their primary revenue generator, which makes EGS even more competitive.
Epic has everything to gain by saying that, and it costs them nothing, and it generates a bunch of free press in the process that throws shade at a competitor. Valve would have everything to lose.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
It's buyers who believe that Steam has no competition and refuse to buy games elsewhere that give Steam its huge market shares. If you never bought games on GOG, Itch, Microsoft Store, Uplay, Epic, Origin, etc you are why Steam is at the top (technically, buying from GreenGamingMan isn't a Steam sale either, even if you get a Steam key).
This isn't a lack of competition problem, it's the lack of customers caring about the competition problem.
cute
you only miss one sole thing, a consumer, a normal person, don't give a flying care about competition, they care about 2 things, how easy is for then to use, and price, not many will care about anyone cost, only his cost, hence why most memes are based on steam sales and how much they wallets hurt after it some people care about "feelings" of said company, orthers are jsut damn lazy and other wasnt to keep they digital use to minimum
also teh fact even me who don't have a epic account had to take 4 weeks to delete a damn account someone else created using a old e-mail I don't even use is annoying
I think it needs to be said because i think people are misunderstanding the exclusivity deal..
Epic isn't just like.. oh here have a bunch of money congrats.
They agree upon a said amount based off projected sales, obviously their analytical teams come up with an agreeable number between the developer / publisher and Epic.
then if the sales fall short of said number they pay the difference.
So let's say projected agreed upon sales numbers are 50 million, the game sells 34 million worth of copies on epic.. Epic makes up the 16 million dollar difference and an exclusivity period is also agreed upon i'm not sure if thats based off projected sales or something they just come to terms on.
So it's not like Epic is just like, oh hey you might sell 100 million dollars worth of games here is 100 million dollars. regardless it's a good deal for publishers / developers.
they get more money back in their pockets to reinvest in future titles or not, they put up the money to make the game in the first place they deserve some RoI regardless on how you feel on the matter.
the whole "what do i get out of it" is a redundant argument. Because as i said above, you didn't outlay the millions of dollars it costed to develop the game, the publisher did... either by available cash money, investment, leveraging of assets, loans etc... they deserve a nice RoI for their investment of which it's upto them what they want to do with it.
No I understand how it works and the time involved. But especially for unproven teams with new IPs that guarantee is a sweet deal. There are very few guaranteed returns in the industry and especially not for indie studios.
you're 100% right and as good as the exposure can be from steam.. gamers these days are super weary of what they buy because they keep getting burned.
Epic also has huge exposure, it's like people don't realise fortnite is still one of the most played games in the world even with Apex Legends being out. so not just from a money making point of view but exposure wise, both platforms have huge user bases.
Steam doesn't mean you're gonna make money, at least with Epic you'll get something for your efforts regardless.
Of course steam doesn't have to adapt but why not.. it's better for everyone if they do. Also on a side note to the people saying "it's just more money the publishers and devs get back" right now yeah it is.. but with a higher RoI it might make future titles cheaper because they make more money back consistently. So the change might not happen instantly, that doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
I'm kind of at the point that I just don't really care about the war between steam and epic. Everything has been said already, we're rehashing at this point. I still loathe Epic's security as well as their customer support, so I'm not going to use them. If a game goes epic exclusive, then I'm just not going to play the game. Millions of games out there; I can miss a couple. (Though I would prefer if the holier-then-thou "You need to go to the store front that gives the developers a better shake," would stop throwing shade everyone for that. As the consumers, we're not responsible for going to where it's "fair," for the developers. We use the storefront we feel the most comfortable with, and damned to anyone who judges us for it. Our own comfort-ability takes precedence over supporting others. That's why you don't give a dollar to the guy selling hats infront of the super market if that dollar means you may not be eating that day, or even means that you're only eating ramen that day.)
Valve is going to do valve things, Epic is going to do EGS things. At the end of the day there's going to be two storefronts being shoveled down all of our throats.
Anybody calling a 70/30 split "selfish and greedy" needs to go sit TF down and grow up. So what? 10% difference is your ethical threshold for a publisher that built it's own platform, AND user base... without a game that generated billions of dollars? I seriously hope you children don't listen to ANY streaming music from your smartphones while talking that sh!#. Every developer had the option to do whatever they wanted. IT'S PC GAMING. There's no hardware owner hindering any process. Companies like Gearbox could have simply coded a store tab right into their own website and hooked in additional features into their games. 100% profit.
I'm not saying there isn't room to maneuver around on splits but to make it like it's some battle between the Empire and Rebellion is childish and naive as f#$%. Especially when the perceived "Rebellion" is actually the Empire, and Tom Palpatine Sweeney has revealed himself.
If EPIC wanted to get some wings and halos, why didn't they and other companies form a consortium to build an open source licensed storefront/launcher API for all developers to use and benefit from across the board?
Exactly...
You start off with a very hostile tone as if Gaben paid you himself to say that. Then kill your own hostile rant with the first line of your second paragraph before going all comedy. Then come up with a third paragraph that assumes i am defending Epic for some reason.
I made the comment about "selfish and greedy" so your hostility clearly is towards my post. If not being a blind sheep puts me in need of growing up then i don't know what to tell you.
Look mom! I made it! I'm a paid blind sheep shill for knowing that anywhere above 70% my way on splits is generally decent when dealing with distributors and publishers (on damn near anything).
Also pardon me for being hostile, then having some comedy and then ending it with some logic. I'm crazy like that.
Lastly, it wasn't anything personal as you aren't special (in terms of uniqueness I mean) for saying Steam is selfish or greedy, but if you want to own it, by all means you go!
Let that be a lesson kiddies, you go drum up a consumer base and provide a platform to monetize and market to them; 80/20 or one of the 7 deadly sins.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Cut the BS, Mr Sweeney, and stop trying to sell yourself as a crusader for developer rights. We know it's all just PR to make developers choose your game engine !
You're not going to "force" Steam to do anything by talking at them. Keep buying those multi-million exclusivity deals, that might work if it significantly impacts Steam's revenue.
Perhaps the cost of those deals is more than your stockholders will tolerate though, unless you're showing a profit overall on the Store...
So if you call BS on Epic Game Store and their CEO, and the prices aren't any different between any of the platforms in discussion... you're an entitled sheep.
But if you defend exclusivity nonsense on PC, download every store willy nilly, don't care about features, because devs, and the prices aren't any different between any of the the platforms in discussion... you're what?????
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I've hated stores from the moment steam showed up. The most bullshit thing in the world is to have to install software to install software. The fact that they make 30% for doing NOTHING and you STILL have to pay bills afterward and you're here saying it's bullshit to cry over 30%. You are a shill. End of discussion.
You're not going to "force" Steam to do anything by talking at them. Keep buying those multi-million exclusivity deals, that might work if it significantly impacts Steam's revenue.
Perhaps the cost of those deals is more than your stockholders will tolerate though, unless you're showing a profit overall on the Store...
They will have a plan that they have costed: so much to set the store up, so much to develop it and add features, so much for "exclusive" titles. Worth noting that some of these "exclusive" titles have already been available to buy for up to 2 years. So whilst some of these titles might command "large" sums not all will. Either way Epic will have set a budget. Whether its $10M or $1B doesn't matter, its a sum they have decided to spend.
On the flip side they will have estimated how much revenue they will earn from selling titles over the next, say, 3 to 5 years. And a target for moving into profit.
Are they on track? No idea. This is a long term move though.
I've hated stores from the moment steam showed up. The most bullshit thing in the world is to have to install software to install software. The fact that they make 30 FUCKING % for doing NOTHING and you STILL have to pay bills afterward and you're here saying it's bullshit to cry over 30%. You are a shill. A fucking moron. End of discussion.
[insert shitty gif here for the child to view]
You saying that Steam does nothing is the basis of your personal mental failings not mine. The fact that you have the audacity to call ME a moron while saying that foolishness speaks volumes to how dense and contradictory you are to yourself.
Steam does nothing and Epic does what in comparison? Why are you even apart of the conversation then? 2 companies who do nothing (in your cockeyed view) and a couple percentage points? Please continue.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
No matter what Epic Games do or don't do, i believe that Steam needs to be smart and match the revenue. Steam just doesn't have the ecosystem to justify taking a whole 30% cut, they just have a freaking digital store with servers. They got away with 30% for over a decade because they didn't have competition.
I don't like this situation as much as the next person, but Steam could stop being selfish and greedy, and become more pro consumer.
My opinion.
Steam has everything, developed everything that the PC market currently uses and you just want them to drop their cut cause some dickhead came in to shake the hornets nest?
We can thank Steam for the modding community, we can thank steam for cloud saving, we can thank steam for keeping their entire library downloadable ready, we can thank steam for a social platform for gamers, we can thank steam for discussion boards that devs actually are a part of, we can thank steam for the massive blast of linux supporters, we can thank steam for an influx of VR experiences, we can thank steam for developer curated store pages and fronts, we can thank Steam for massive sales 5-8 times a year, we can thank steam for allowing steam keys to be sold on third party sites which allow even more savings.
In short THEY SAVED AND FIXED THE PC GAMING MARKET THAT WAS GOING DOWN THE FUCKIN TUBE. They deserve everything and deserve to profit from it, why others think otherwise beyond me.
You are missing the point. They did all that and got away with a higher cut because they were the only ones in the PC market doing it. Today, they behave as if they are still the only ones in the PC market. If they don't adjust with the times then they only care about themselves, not the developers and not the consumers.
While true Steam needs to adjust, what Epic is doing is offering an inferior service and "demanding" Steam comply.
I'll say again, I despise ALL gaming platforms for my PC. I use Steam as little as possible and run in "offline mode" when I play any Steam games. I'm currently waiting for Rimworld to arrive at GoG before buying, because I'm done buying through Steam. I'll probably miss out on TES VI, because Bethesda doesn't want to bother selling their own games anymore.
After all is said and done, NONE of these "services" are for us. It is a way to make money for doing very little. As long as we gamers keep buying, they will keep selling. It's the biggest snow-job since we men convinced women to have sex with us without having to wine and dine them first
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Stop with the mental gymnastics people. Jesus fucking Christ, now I get where devs and pubs get such low opinions of their bases. /Facepalm
This is obviously not a long-term sustainable model and the lower % store cut by itself would not be enough for anyone to agree to sell exclusively with Epic.
Sounds to me like they're just looking for a graceful end to the exclusivity that's bleeding Epic money.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
they also have a roadmap of upcoming features
https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap
I don't run them all at the same time so it doesn't matter, it's ridiculous how emotional and irrational people get about this.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
they get more money back in their pockets to reinvest in future titles or not, they put up the money to make the game in the first place they deserve some RoI regardless on how you feel on the matter.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Epic makes a lot of money on Engine licensing (Unreal Engine). That is their primary source of revenue.
Valve makes a lot of money on Distribution (Steam). That is their primary source of revenue.
Now, Valve also has an engine, but it was never very high profile, and Epic has Distribution, but it isn't high profile (yet, anyway)...
So let's see...
Epic doesn't mind a bit of storefront revenue, but what they really want to do is sell licensing.
Valve depends mainly on that storefront revenue.
I get the feeling Epic only opened EGS because they saw an avenue: If they can drive down distribution costs, one of two things will happen:
A ) more developers will make more games, as their side of revenue goes up and it becomes more profitable to do so
B ) Costs to consumers go down, and developers sell more games
(these two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, but they probably aren't both going to occur for all titles)
So, in either of those cases, licensing fees go up, and Epic's revenue goes up. At some point, Epic made the decision that the investment into creating the EGS was worthwhile in terms of any revenue the EGS made on it's own, and in additional licensing revenue from Unreal Engine.
If Valve decides to capitulate.... it means more opportunity for Epic's UE to go into more game sales volume, and it puts Steam at a significant disadvantage because Steam would have just voluntarily cut on their primary revenue generator, which makes EGS even more competitive.
Epic has everything to gain by saying that, and it costs them nothing, and it generates a bunch of free press in the process that throws shade at a competitor. Valve would have everything to lose.
Valve is going to do valve things, Epic is going to do EGS things. At the end of the day there's going to be two storefronts being shoveled down all of our throats.
Also pardon me for being hostile, then having some comedy and then ending it with some logic. I'm crazy like that.
Lastly, it wasn't anything personal as you aren't special (in terms of uniqueness I mean) for saying Steam is selfish or greedy, but if you want to own it, by all means you go!
Let that be a lesson kiddies, you go drum up a consumer base and provide a platform to monetize and market to them; 80/20 or one of the 7 deadly sins.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're not going to "force" Steam to do anything by talking at them. Keep buying those multi-million exclusivity deals, that might work if it significantly impacts Steam's revenue.
Perhaps the cost of those deals is more than your stockholders will tolerate though, unless you're showing a profit overall on the Store...
But if you defend exclusivity nonsense on PC, download every store willy nilly, don't care about features, because devs, and the prices aren't any different between any of the the platforms in discussion... you're what?????
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[insert shitty gif here for the child to view]
On the flip side they will have estimated how much revenue they will earn from selling titles over the next, say, 3 to 5 years. And a target for moving into profit.
Are they on track? No idea. This is a long term move though.
Steam does nothing and Epic does what in comparison? Why are you even apart of the conversation then? 2 companies who do nothing (in your cockeyed view) and a couple percentage points? Please continue.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll say again, I despise ALL gaming platforms for my PC. I use Steam as little as possible and run in "offline mode" when I play any Steam games. I'm currently waiting for Rimworld to arrive at GoG before buying, because I'm done buying through Steam. I'll probably miss out on TES VI, because Bethesda doesn't want to bother selling their own games anymore.
After all is said and done, NONE of these "services" are for us. It is a way to make money for doing very little. As long as we gamers keep buying, they will keep selling. It's the biggest snow-job since we men convinced women to have sex with us without having to wine and dine them first
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR