As for Valve using their market supremacy to pressure developers to basically stay exclusives - it is a bit complicated and will take quite a bit of explanation. You might already be familiar with Valve announcing their new revenue split policy just a few days before EGS was announced - https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition The gist of it is that if you make 10 mil USD then the revenue percentage goes from 30/70 to 25/75 and when you make 50 million USD in sales it goes to 20/80. Of course this does not affect everybody but it does effect mostly the biggest games that have a change of reaching those thresholds.
At first it seems like a reward for games that have reached certain degree of success and to an extend it is. On the other hand it means that that as a developer you are incentivized to sell as much copies as possible on Steam. How? Valve is betting on that most of the sales of a certain game will happen on Steam which is true due to their leadership position on the PC games market(estimated 75% market share in 2013 and I would guess that it has even grown since). It is easy to see that a percentage boost from your largest revenue source would far outweigh the benefits of releasing a game on competitive platforms and getting a few more sales there - people might prefer to use an alternative platform over Steam but most would still buy the game on Steam if the game is not available on their preferred platform. As a big company it would actually be financially irresponsible to support other stores where very little of the sales might happen together with Steam(you would need 5% in total sales boost from other stores that would not happen if the game is Steam exclusive to justify that and those are quite a lot). This way the "fear of missing out" on this revenue boost is used to secure at least a timed exclusivity for games on Valves platform until those goalposts are reached.
This move from Valve might be just a ploy to capture even more of the market but it might also have been a preventative strike against Epic based on information that was leaked to Valve prior to the official EGS announcement to make sure that the new fledgling storefront does not have enough games to be supported. And honestly this last part is a bit of a speculation but everything prior to that is based on what we know about Valve's business practices and simple logic and math.
Regarding the VR/Rift part; The article states "“There are no strings attached to those funds. They can develop for the Rift or PlayStation VR or whatever the developers think are the right target VR systems.” I'm not sure I see the negative in that. I mean, incentivizing a title to not be exclusive is a bit of a different discussion then trying to get exclusives. I do see that this money sounds like a loan, and it could be attractive to pay back that loan via a cut of Steam sales, but that reads as a convenience if they choose to sell on Steam and that they can pay back the loan more traditionally if they prefer.
As for the "fear of missing out" exclusivity angle; I mean, EGS' revenue split was a key 'feature' of the platform so I agree that it was likely a move by Valve to try to maintain their market share. That said, the number of copies required to be sold really seemed like it catered to larger publishers, a number who have their own store fronts, and a handful of break out indie titles (unless I am just grossly misjudging avg. indie sales).
This doesn't really seem like the "Steam Bad!" smoking gun though. I mean, they would be negligent if they did not react to a new, significant competitor and the idea that the change enforces an implied exclusivity seems tenuous at best. That's just my take on it though. I get the other point of view and I'm not trying to cheer lead or bash either platform.
Topic aside; Thanks for taking the time to post the links and articulate your view. It gave me another perspective to think about.
Thanks for taking the time to consider another perspective - it is quite rare. I'm not saying that Steam is bad or that Epic is good - just that they are using very similar tactics in order to achieve very similar results from their perspective place in the market - both are paying money to highly popular products in order to ensure that the sales of said products happen on their store. The difference really is that Valve have the market share to ensure that they can do that in a manner that circumvents straight-up exclusivity deals while Epic are extremely open to what they are doing and why they are doing it - they are the new store on the block that is yet to gather popularity and they are doing it by any means necessary.
Nope. Epic could have made a good store, worked to get developers on there (even just offering reduced rates of take, and even better a split reduced rate of take that would benefit both developers and consumers), and treated people well. They didn't. It's really that simple.
Exclusivity being paid for is the newest lootbox/gacha type thing. If we accept it, it will be everywhere. I, for one, do not wish to see 25 stores all buying different exclusives with no benefit to the consumers, thanks.
I'm not really for Steam, just against Epic's choice of how to compete. Quality, good deals, and respect go a long way for me. When I'm not getting that (Steam isn't really great there, but they beat Epic hands down) I'm not really interested in offering my own respect, and far less my fiscal support.
Where possible I still buy direct, although such options are far more limited than they used to be. I do like the idea of competition, but this is simply not the competition we need imo.
P.S. I don't blame Epic for the choice of the developers or publishers, and I can understand that choice in some cases where the guarantee is really a good thing for those developers. That doesn't mean I cannot dislike the base practice of paying for things not to be available elsewhere, nor the snide remarks, nor the poor choices, nor the lack of completely basic features that a 1 person web store has...
cute how they all complain if epic does the same valve did before...
you wanted to play broderland 1 2 or pre sequel? guess what, you had to play it on steam. and no one fucking complained....
they paid the devs for it? or the devs was not interested in working in other places? knowing gear box yeah they are lazy so that is why
This is what Epic's exclusivity deals for cash are leading to. More exclusivity, not less. Valve has to protect their interests and Epic has to protect theirs. Anyone behind this trash is purely anti-consumer.
And using supermarket deals as a reason why this is a good thing is stupid beyond belief. That is precisely the model that we should be afraid of the most. It ends up being FAR more difficult for newer brands to find shelf space.
In other, more fun, news the Epic Store is offering the entire Batman Arkham Trilogy AND Batman Lego Trilogy for absolutely free this week. Don´t be a hater, be a gamer!
/Cheers, Lahnmir
A real gamer would already have these on Steam!
Kidding. Thanks for the head's up.
In this case, the "beef" is a digitally distributed product that would be identical on whichever store front it is distributed on. I'm not sure there is an appreciable difference of quality to speak of there and it would come down to which "local store" provided the better service (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that).
what i'm seeing is epic is the kind who target the hippies and "open minded" people who want to fight the big evil cooporation when defending a bigger state to take care of then, aka don't even know what they are doing
i'm for what is the benefit for me, devs getting a bigger cut don't give me any benefit, waiting for a steam sale who give me 50%+ discount benefit me, with I don't see epic doing anytime soon at least, plus not willing to download another launcher. and the fact epic don't have anything good to sell helps
I agree wholeheartedly, go for that which has more benefits. Epic gives me one or more games for absolutely free every week, SIX even this week, Steam never does so Epic definitely benefits me more on a weekly basis. I also agree that games like Borderlands 3, Operencia, the new Metro, Ashen etc. aren't good games, they are great. See? We can still agree
/Cheers, Lahnmir
yes I could even do so, since I did that on origin too, but I didn't play anyone of then, and I did get free games from steam too and also don't play then lol, so giving "free" games don't make me play it, and I only played one the the line, and when I finished the game I figure out why it was free lol
Origins and Steams free games pale in comparison to the quantity and quality of free games handed out by Epic, and I am pretty sure you are fully aware of that. you don't have to like titles like Batman: Arkham Trilogy, Hyperlight Drifter, Axiom Verge, Mutant Year Zero, Alan Wake etc. etc. but that says absolutely nothing about their quality and the Epic store. I also don't get the "" marks when you say free. These games are truly free, contrary to the 'play it for free this weekend only' deals that Steam runs a lot, those games are "free," the Epic ones are just free.
you don't have to like the Epic store, I don't care, just don't come up with BS reasons.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
bs excuse? like you love to make up for things you like? I will repeat no free games are worth, I don't care IF you belive epic "quality" is better, there is nothing good enough for me, and yes the steam free games and origin free games are still there for me to play, its not free weekend, what I can see is you have a stick so up you can't think on anything else
Comments
And using supermarket deals as a reason why this is a good thing is stupid beyond belief. That is precisely the model that we should be afraid of the most. It ends up being FAR more difficult for newer brands to find shelf space.