Steam revived PC as desirable development platform for AA games. So killing PC gaming ?
it was a monopoly. If you didn't release your game on Steam, and therefore accept only a portion of the revenue, your game was doomed. I think they were, in a way, killing PC gaming outside of their platform.
The platform was windows on PC. How were they killing it "outside" of it? Steam is a big reason the PC platform remained relevant. The other big reason is that PCs are entry level electronic equipment for the majority of people, while consoles are luxury devices.
Luxury = opulence, richness, etc. Consoles are cheap, PCs are a lot more expensive and luxurious.
But i don't compare them because they are vastly different.
Sure, windows is the platform for a PC gamer, but Steam became THE platform for gaming on a PC. Steam did revive the interest of both consumers and developers for the PC, at the cost of sacrificing any game that didn't accept Steam's revenue share model.
I don't like digital store exclusivity on PC, but if a newcomer shows up and is tearing the monopoly apart, plus also letting devs get more money for their games, i can't condemn that.
EDIT: also, if the platform was WIndows, everyone would be buying their games on W10 store.
My only issue with Epic is that their store/launcher is objectively inferior to Steam. All it is is a launcher with a friends list. No mod support, reviews, game forums, streaming, family share, none of the community features that valve has built. If it wasn't getting exclusives I wouldn't care one bit but to be forced to purchase products from an inferior platform simply rubs me the wrong way.
All I can do is vote with my wallet as I have done recently by not purchasing anything from them. If they build up their store into something even remotely comparable to Steam I'd have no problems buying games there but they are many years away from being close to that.
Also, as someone who actually owned Fortnite years before the BR mode was even an idea, I've have more attempted account hijackings on their platform than on any website I've ever been registered on. Now that might not necessarily be their fault, but it makes me extra worried about using them.
And here I thought that the point of a game launcher was to launch games. I don't want to spend all day staring at a game launcher. I want it to do its job and get out of the way. More time spent fussing with a launcher means less time playing games.
You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.
As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
Hypocrisy is funny.
More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.
All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.
I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
Again, Steam always had and has exclusives. You're not even trying bro, it's 100% double stands...
"
Steam exclusives? Nice, I LOVE VALVE.
Epic exclusives? Nooo wayyy let's boycott this new store, MONOOOPOLYYYY...
"
Do you even know what monopoly means? Because I'm 100% sure that a new OPTION for developers who may want to pay LESS to share their games in a new platform and ACCEPT a deal of exclusivity is NOT what monopoly means.
In the other hand, you trying to boycott a new store that want to COMPETE with Steam for developers and consumers... Well, that is not a behavior one against monopoly would have. If you want to pick a side, at least be honest about it.
I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.
As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.
For a blatant asset flip, untranslated visual novel that was released long ago in its original language, or shoestring budget indie game that has little hope of ever leaving early access, being hosted for only 30% of little to no revenue is a pretty good deal. That's why Steam is drowning in such things.
For a larger budget game that realistically hopes to make make millions of dollars in revenue, you could create your own launcher and hosting servers and so forth from scratch for less money than the millions that Valve will charge to launch your game. The only reason that such developers even consider selling that game through Steam is that there are a bunch of Steam fanboys who will buy it if it's on Steam but won't buy it if you offer exactly the same game through a different launcher. In that situation, what Valve is getting paid for mostly is not technical services, but delivering their fanboys to your game.
You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.
As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
Hypocrisy is funny.
More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.
All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.
I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
I use Ubuntu. Steam has done a lot to make more games work on Linux and I appreciate that. Epic has been outright hostile to Linux which is strange because you can develop and compile Unreal on Linux. All those exclusives mean games I can't play or don't have reasonable access to. Windows gamers obviously don't really care since they're living in DRM/telemetry central, but it shows how shortsighted people can be when they say Epic exclusives adds choice.
No exclusives ever add choice. That was true with PS/Xbox/Nintendo vs PC and it's true in this situation. They weren't good 'then' and they're not good now.
I like Linux so when I say this I do not mean anything rude by it but caring about Linux is about the same as caring about Mac OS when making or distributing games. I get why a company would ignore it.
I can appreciate that Steam was more inclusive though and in your case then it makes complete sense to rage against the machine in this case.
There's no intrinsic reason why Linux can't be good at gaming. For years, it wasn't good enough for servers. And then it was good enough, and now most servers run Linux. If Valve can standardize things on Linux to the point that it's good enough for gaming, then eliminating Microsoft's OS fees would sure justify a considerable store fee on the games. That's what they're trying to do, and I hope that they succeed and make a ton of money by doing so.
And that Steam itself mostly dies in favor of some open-source game launcher a decade or so later, after Valve has made enough money off of killing Windows to make their investment in making it happen worth it many times over.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.
As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
Hypocrisy is funny.
More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.
All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.
I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
Again, Steam always had and has exclusives. You're not even trying bro, it's 100% double stands...
"
Steam exclusives? Nice, I LOVE VALVE.
Epic exclusives? Nooo wayyy let's boycott this new store, MONOOOPOLYYYY...
"
Do you even know what monopoly means? Because I'm 100% sure that a new OPTION for developers who may want to pay LESS to share their games in a new platform and ACCEPT a deal of exclusivity is NOT what monopoly means.
In the other hand, you trying to boycott a new store that want to COMPETE with Steam for developers and consumers... Well, that is not a behavior one against monopoly would have. If you want to pick a side, at least be honest about it.
You're misusing the word monopoly and contradicting it too.
A monopoly isn't being the most viable, or naturally sole entity. A monopoly is when an entity makes acquisitions and moves to guarantee exclusive control over an industry.
Also if you're claiming Steam already had a monopoly, what purpose would a Steam exclusive have if there wasn't any other competitors?
You have to make your mind up over which it's going to be.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't get it,as someone mentioned earlier, physical copies sold in stores cost more to distribute than 30% from steam. What does Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft take in their console stores? Doubt it's free to list there.
When you list your game on steam, you get free advertisement to millions of players. Just sell your game on you own website if you want. Plenty do that.
Yes, thank god to Epic, their launcher that lets developers decide if people get to rate their games and delete comments anytime they want, love the anti consumerism. The launcher that has half the feature as Steam.
Yet these people comes out crying steam needs competition just for the sake of competition. The best part about this is the assumption that you have to put games on steam in the first place, having your own launcher for a specific game has never been done before apparently.
These devs are willingly putting their games on Steam, and there for accepting that steam takes a percentage of their profit, and then go and bitch about it on twitter.
It's fitting that he likes a launcher with an opt in rating system by the devs, his game on steam is a trainwreck, and I guess he doesn't want people to know that before asking for money.
You say that as if you don't realize that it's possible to have game forums and ratings and so forth outside of a game launcher. While using a site that does exactly that.
I need a microwave, and I need a refrigerator, but I don't need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator. Why would I want the same program to both launch games and have forums about the game? Yes, Steam has game forums, but let's not pretend that their forums are actually good as forum software goes.
The difference is $7.20 on epic and $18 on steam. 100k copies sold on a platform means $1M difference in earnings for the company making the title. A $60 title on epic store would have to cost $75 for the same copy on steam.
If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
you said "probably", so your defense of steam's revenue model is based on information you actually don't know.
I don't know either, but it's definitely not 50%. That would have killed physical games on consoles faster than Steam killed it on PC. Which reminds me, fuck steam for killing physical PC games and forcing DRM.
Yes, thank god to Epic, their launcher that lets developers decide if people get to rate their games and delete comments anytime they want, love the anti consumerism. The launcher that has half the feature as Steam.
Yet these people comes out crying steam needs competition just for the sake of competition. The best part about this is the assumption that you have to put games on steam in the first place, having your own launcher for a specific game has never been done before apparently.
These devs are willingly putting their games on Steam, and there for accepting that steam takes a percentage of their profit, and then go and bitch about it on twitter.
It's fitting that he likes a launcher with an opt in rating system by the devs, his game on steam is a trainwreck, and I guess he doesn't want people to know that before asking for money.
You say that as if you don't realize that it's possible to have game forums and ratings and so forth outside of a game launcher. While using a site that does exactly that.
I need a microwave, and I need a refrigerator, but I don't need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator. Why would I want the same program to both launch games and have forums about the game? Yes, Steam has game forums, but let's not pretend that their forums are actually good as forum software goes.
I would add that it's probably worse to limit your review resources to any single location considering biases and group mentality anyway.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
I'm not sure when the last time I bought a game from a brick and mortar store was. It was probably before Steam even existed. By the time Steam launched, I was generally buying games either by downloading them elsewhere or by ordering a box online and having it shipped.
Valve didn't invent downloading games. What made Steam different from the many online game launchers that preceded it is that Steam would eventually have games from many different developers and publishers rather than just one publisher with a launcher for their own games.
The difference is $7.20 on epic and $18 on steam. 100k copies sold on a platform means $1M difference in earnings for the company making the title. A $60 title on epic store would have to cost $75 for the same copy on steam.
If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
Think of it as a new form of waiting until a while after launch for the game to go on sale so that you don't have to give as much money to the game's developer. Except that instead of you paying less, you pay the same price as if you had bought it at launch, and just more of that money goes to the developer of your favorite launcher.
That's the part that amazes me the most. People are so hell bent on something that costs them nothing to use that they would rather rip off the developer, the one's making the friggin game. People waiting a year to buy it on Steam are cutting a higher percentage from the developer and others are downright talking about stealing it.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
you said "probably", so your defense of steam's revenue model is based on information you actually don't know.
I don't know either, but it's definitely not 50%. That would have killed physical games on consoles faster than Steam killed it on PC. Which reminds me, fuck steam for killing physical PC games and forcing DRM.
Went and looked, accessories use to be 50%, games 15%ish, and consoles and such were supposedly only 2-3%, with rebates to sellers if they had to lower prices from most companies. I also think this may have gone up, since this persons info was personal from owning a store in 2009/2010, and said most companies started using a middle man for games (no ones does stuff for free).
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
How much developers got varied. Bigger companies launching "bigger" games would get a better deal etc. And these deals brought exposure - displays in store, games on shelves etc.
To get an idea though Funcom when it launched Age of Conan got c. 22-24% per copy according to their formal investor results at the time. Distribution in some countries cost a few % more. A typical marker for big company games was c. 30% for a typical bulk purchase deal with no return.
Now a part of the 70% (say) was the fact that distributors would be left holding unsold copies of games if the title tanked, or once interest waned etc. Which resulted in discounting so the average % per game is "always" less. Hence games that would walk off the shelves command a higher %; the distributor might get a lower % but would expect to end up with "zero" stock.
When Steam came along and offered to do the job for just 30% ...... bricks and mortar had a hard time competing. And - obviously - with digital there is no "physical" waste. And Steam had some exclusives as well.
Fast forward and UbiSoft, EA etc. decided to take things further and nurture their own stores; better for them.
And now we have the Epic Store offering to do the job for less. Its the new kid on the block and isn't yet fully functional although there is a toad map for them adding features e.g. Linux support.
Steam succeeded because it charged less; and whilst there was no cost saving to consumers in te short term in the long term developers making more per copy means they can consider a lower target price to recoup costs and make a profit. If things stay as they are there is no reason why Epic shouldn't succeed in the same way. And again in the long term consumers should benefit going forward.
And if people want to pay an extra 18% for some extra frills then maybe Steam could charge for that as a service outside of the cost of the game!
I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
Steam revived PC as desirable development platform for AA games. So killing PC gaming ?
it was a monopoly. If you didn't release your game on Steam, and therefore accept only a portion of the revenue, your game was doomed. I think they were, in a way, killing PC gaming outside of their platform.
The platform was windows on PC. How were they killing it "outside" of it? Steam is a big reason the PC platform remained relevant. The other big reason is that PCs are entry level electronic equipment for the majority of people, while consoles are luxury devices.
Luxury = opulence, richness, etc. Consoles are cheap, PCs are a lot more expensive and luxurious.
But i don't compare them because they are vastly different.
Sure, windows is the platform for a PC gamer, but Steam became THE platform for gaming on a PC. Steam did revive the interest of both consumers and developers for the PC, at the cost of sacrificing any game that didn't accept Steam's revenue share model.
I don't like digital store exclusivity on PC, but if a newcomer shows up and is tearing the monopoly apart, plus also letting devs get more money for their games, i can't condemn that.
EDIT: also, if the platform was WIndows, everyone would be buying their games on W10 store.
I mentioned luxury as something you and other people can do without. People who spend money to buy a console have at least one PC already. Consoles compared to a decent gaming rig is cheaper, but it's also a luxury item, one you can do without. Most people's first electronic device is usually a PC, exactly because it's a multipurpose machine.
Also, why is the microsoft store and windows connected into your mind? PCs have always been open systems, with only the likes of Apple gatekeeping people inside their eco system.
I also don't like monopoly, which is why I don't like Epic's store. Steam was never a monopoly, though the popularity made it an obvious choice for a lot of developers. As far as I'm aware, Steam never forbid developers from distributing in any other store they wanted. The only limitation was that they would be able to match any discounts made to those other stores. Which is the main reason Origin was born.
As far as the Epic "spyware" stuff goes, anyone who both:
1) is upset about the Epic games store spying on its users, and 2) posts all sorts of personal details on Facebook
is an idiot.
If you're going to care about your privacy, then at least cover the big things first. Get off of Facebook entirely. Don't stay logged into a Google account except when actively doing something that requires you to be logged in. Disable location tracking on all apps that don't actively require location tracking in order to work at all. Use DuckDuckGo for your search engine.
If you're already following good privacy procedures elsewhere and are upset about Epic looking at data stored by Steam, then fine. That is a privacy violation of sorts. But don't pick on that while ignoring much bigger privacy violations in your life by companies much less likely to bother to respect your privacy at all.
You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
I'm not sure when the last time I bought a game from a brick and mortar store was. It was probably before Steam even existed. By the time Steam launched, I was generally buying games either by downloading them elsewhere or by ordering a box online and having it shipped.
Valve didn't invent downloading games. What made Steam different from the many online game launchers that preceded it is that Steam would eventually have games from many different developers and publishers rather than just one publisher with a launcher for their own games.
Yes, and companies will maybe have to stop supporting them and go to a competitor, or renegotiate a lower % if they are big enough. Most music streaming services do not carry everything, you have to kind of pick and choose, based on the type of music you listen to, and who you listen to (last time I shopped a service, it was this way, about 2 years ago). Then stuff is always changing. Steam will change, as they get pressure.
I updated percentages on another post, went digging.
I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
Luxury = opulence, richness, etc. Consoles are cheap, PCs are a lot more expensive and luxurious.
But i don't compare them because they are vastly different.
Sure, windows is the platform for a PC gamer, but Steam became THE platform for gaming on a PC. Steam did revive the interest of both consumers and developers for the PC, at the cost of sacrificing any game that didn't accept Steam's revenue share model.
I don't like digital store exclusivity on PC, but if a newcomer shows up and is tearing the monopoly apart, plus also letting devs get more money for their games, i can't condemn that.
EDIT: also, if the platform was WIndows, everyone would be buying their games on W10 store.
I mentioned luxury as something you and other people can do without. People who spend money to buy a console have at least one PC already. Consoles compared to a decent gaming rig is cheaper, but it's also a luxury item, one you can do without. Most people's first electronic device is usually a PC, exactly because it's a multipurpose machine.
Also, why is the microsoft store and windows connected into your mind? PCs have always been open systems, with only the likes of Apple gatekeeping people inside their eco system.
I also don't like monopoly, which is why I don't like Epic's store. Steam was never a monopoly, though the popularity made it an obvious choice for a lot of developers. As far as I'm aware, Steam never forbid developers from distributing in any other store they wanted. The only limitation was that they would be able to match any discounts made to those other stores. Which is the main reason Origin was born.
But you can do without a gaming PC as well, and just get a regular PC for normal use. That makes gaming PC a luxury as well, a more expensive one.
I only mentioned W10 store because you specifically named Windows as the platform, i think that would imply you would get your games directly from Windows (store).
It is true Steam never forbid anyone from releasing their games elsewhere, but it was very clear the devs only had 2 options... release on Steam and sell well, or die outside of Steam because most PC gamers refused to buy anything outside of it. Tough decision.
Comments
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Not sure if you're joking, but consoles are the epitome of the fuckery that EPIC is doing.
The better console/platform doesn't win because the loser is always chasing down exclusivity deals to compensate.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Again, Steam always had and has exclusives. You're not even trying bro, it's 100% double stands...
"
Steam exclusives? Nice, I LOVE VALVE.
Epic exclusives? Nooo wayyy let's boycott this new store, MONOOOPOLYYYY...
"
Do you even know what monopoly means? Because I'm 100% sure that a new OPTION for developers who may want to pay LESS to share their games in a new platform and ACCEPT a deal of exclusivity is NOT what monopoly means.
In the other hand, you trying to boycott a new store that want to COMPETE with Steam for developers and consumers... Well, that is not a behavior one against monopoly would have. If you want to pick a side, at least be honest about it.
For a larger budget game that realistically hopes to make make millions of dollars in revenue, you could create your own launcher and hosting servers and so forth from scratch for less money than the millions that Valve will charge to launch your game. The only reason that such developers even consider selling that game through Steam is that there are a bunch of Steam fanboys who will buy it if it's on Steam but won't buy it if you offer exactly the same game through a different launcher. In that situation, what Valve is getting paid for mostly is not technical services, but delivering their fanboys to your game.
And that Steam itself mostly dies in favor of some open-source game launcher a decade or so later, after Valve has made enough money off of killing Windows to make their investment in making it happen worth it many times over.
I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
A monopoly isn't being the most viable, or naturally sole entity. A monopoly is when an entity makes acquisitions and moves to guarantee exclusive control over an industry.
Also if you're claiming Steam already had a monopoly, what purpose would a Steam exclusive have if there wasn't any other competitors?
You have to make your mind up over which it's going to be.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When you list your game on steam, you get free advertisement to millions of players. Just sell your game on you own website if you want. Plenty do that.
I need a microwave, and I need a refrigerator, but I don't need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator. Why would I want the same program to both launch games and have forums about the game? Yes, Steam has game forums, but let's not pretend that their forums are actually good as forum software goes.
If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
Valve didn't invent downloading games. What made Steam different from the many online game launchers that preceded it is that Steam would eventually have games from many different developers and publishers rather than just one publisher with a launcher for their own games.
It's childish and pathetic, really.
Went and looked, accessories use to be 50%, games 15%ish, and consoles and such were supposedly only 2-3%, with rebates to sellers if they had to lower prices from most companies. I also think this may have gone up, since this persons info was personal from owning a store in 2009/2010, and said most companies started using a middle man for games (no ones does stuff for free).
To get an idea though Funcom when it launched Age of Conan got c. 22-24% per copy according to their formal investor results at the time. Distribution in some countries cost a few % more. A typical marker for big company games was c. 30% for a typical bulk purchase deal with no return.
Now a part of the 70% (say) was the fact that distributors would be left holding unsold copies of games if the title tanked, or once interest waned etc. Which resulted in discounting so the average % per game is "always" less. Hence games that would walk off the shelves command a higher %; the distributor might get a lower % but would expect to end up with "zero" stock.
When Steam came along and offered to do the job for just 30% ...... bricks and mortar had a hard time competing. And - obviously - with digital there is no "physical" waste. And Steam had some exclusives as well.
Fast forward and UbiSoft, EA etc. decided to take things further and nurture their own stores; better for them.
And now we have the Epic Store offering to do the job for less. Its the new kid on the block and isn't yet fully functional although there is a toad map for them adding features e.g. Linux support.
Steam succeeded because it charged less; and whilst there was no cost saving to consumers in te short term in the long term developers making more per copy means they can consider a lower target price to recoup costs and make a profit. If things stay as they are there is no reason why Epic shouldn't succeed in the same way. And again in the long term consumers should benefit going forward.
And if people want to pay an extra 18% for some extra frills then maybe Steam could charge for that as a service outside of the cost of the game!
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Also, why is the microsoft store and windows connected into your mind? PCs have always been open systems, with only the likes of Apple gatekeeping people inside their eco system.
I also don't like monopoly, which is why I don't like Epic's store. Steam was never a monopoly, though the popularity made it an obvious choice for a lot of developers. As far as I'm aware, Steam never forbid developers from distributing in any other store they wanted. The only limitation was that they would be able to match any discounts made to those other stores. Which is the main reason Origin was born.
1) is upset about the Epic games store spying on its users, and
2) posts all sorts of personal details on Facebook
is an idiot.
If you're going to care about your privacy, then at least cover the big things first. Get off of Facebook entirely. Don't stay logged into a Google account except when actively doing something that requires you to be logged in. Disable location tracking on all apps that don't actively require location tracking in order to work at all. Use DuckDuckGo for your search engine.
If you're already following good privacy procedures elsewhere and are upset about Epic looking at data stored by Steam, then fine. That is a privacy violation of sorts. But don't pick on that while ignoring much bigger privacy violations in your life by companies much less likely to bother to respect your privacy at all.
Yes, and companies will maybe have to stop supporting them and go to a competitor, or renegotiate a lower % if they are big enough. Most music streaming services do not carry everything, you have to kind of pick and choose, based on the type of music you listen to, and who you listen to (last time I shopped a service, it was this way, about 2 years ago). Then stuff is always changing. Steam will change, as they get pressure.
I updated percentages on another post, went digging.