I almost want to see Valve/Steam starting to moneyhat even more 3rd party devs into exclusivity than Epic Store, just to see the cheers about Steam making "competitive" moves.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market
- Thread starter GhostTrick
- Start date
By offering a better service. You know, actually doing the hard work.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's a better situation from developers while a net detriment for consumers. The game is either the same cost or higher in every single region (including the US, read the OP) and the storefront is missing a ton of features for consumers.
Now Epic needs to start trying to compete for consumers.
By offering publishers bigger moneyhats, you mean?
Last edited:
Nobody would cheer that shit. Thinking people would misses the entire point of concern.
Last edited:
That's my point, sarcasm and all. It's really strange to see a good amount of people swallowing timed exclusivity and higher prices for 99-100% of the world. US included, since no key resellers with cheaper prices for consumers exist atm for Epic Store (correct me if I'm wrong).
I can only imagine the backlash if Steam started doing it with 3rd party games, especially first, as a preventive measure for other digital stores to get going via limiting their library. Thankfully, the chances Steam would stoop to this level are pretty low if non-existant.
Last edited:
Firstly, I feel like we're talking past each other. I posted an anecdote about my lack of choice when a publisher unilaterally forced players to install Steam to run their games and related it to this issue and connected it to Epic attempting to gain marketshare with similar tactics. I noted for example the 10 year difference. Back then it was about getting the launcher, these days it's about funneling people into a storefront. At the end of the day, it's about gaining market share with both tactics. Because I bought hundreds of games after migrating to Steam because of Civ5. Epic is trying to do the same, in 2019 instead of 2009. Epic is hoping for the same results by getting people into their storefront to buy the games.
Slightly different arguments, situations, but the same general outcome. Funneling users to one platform.
A new entrant cannot afford the luxury because Epic is LTTP.
Yes, because there's a 10 year time gap, but the purpose is the same. See my explanation above.
Full disclosure, I posted an anecdote to point out how Steam grew in the early 2010s through similar tie-ups. People in the community were super pissed they had to install Steam to play a game. Some refused to purchase the game because of it. Sound familiar?
Last edited:
Microsoft did the same with their business in the 90's, didn't stop people from stating Microsoft had a monopoly.
It's only going to get worse until some publisher loses their shirt and then everyone goes back to steam. Although technically it's not as bad as the media industry with $12 subscriptions basically making cable a better deal.
The thing is that the steam install is not just an arbitrary launcher or drm thing. There's alot of important stuff in there. I'm on linux and it's the same thing but more dramatic. It furnishes alot of tech that helps games run. It's like an extension of the os platform.
This would be interesting for the drama but it would be bad for the PC market overall. Last thing the PC market needs is more fragmentation.
I'm only speculating here but I do think Valve will start putting some restrictions on store pages for Steam. For example, a publisher that has a store page up on Steam has to commit to a Steam release 3 to 6 months before release to keep the store page active. This way you avoid the scenario of a publisher taking advantage of Steam for marketing and then pull the rug out a couple weeks before release like Metro Exodus.
You arent saying anything beyond some weird "the ends justify the means" bs and an outright lie about valve buying civ v exclusivity.
I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're 30+, do you remember anything at all from the court cases? Because if you do, then you know invoking "buh Microsoft" here is absurd.
This all started with me relating an anecdote on how Steam got its claws into me and lots of others, and at the time there was controvery about the mandatory nature of Steam for Civ5. Lots of people claimed they refused to purchase the game.
I see the similarties, that is all I am saying. I have for example not spoken about Epic being right or wrong about forcing other resellers out, because frankly I have no interest in their store but I understand as a late party to a digital world dominated by Steam they had to do something. Simply being an exact replica of Steam probably wouldn't work. Just as Steam had to do something to get people into their store in 2009 when physical was still king.
Steam evil, must pay higher prices for less features and monopolize the market because EGS good.
Microsoft actually had a monopoly. Some would say its still has. I'm compelled to conclude that's why people stated they had a monopoly.
And lest we forget their aggressive behavior throughout that era. A litany of offenses culminating in a dramatic antitrust event. I'm amused that you would suggest 90's microsoft as a parallel.
N
Nah, its dem competition cause Steam is evil and we need one store to pay for exclusivity. Thats how the competition thingy works.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be so sure unless you work there in upper management. Never underestimate a corporation and their desire to compete.
Your similarity is so nebulous, so irrelevant to everybody in this topic, that it's laughable. These situations are only similar in the vaguest way possible - both epic and valve at one point tried to expand their market in some way - which is especially dumb to bring up in this topic because your point comes with the caveat that we must completely ignore the downside from a consumer perspective: the very thing this topic is about. You're coming into this topic to say, "but if you completely ignore the point of this topic, and look at it solely from a corporate machine's perspective, better market is better market!"
Good job?
I think you could have said this many posts ago and I would have been fine with it. Yelling at me in all caps and large font really was uncalled for, but you know it happens. I was typing on mobile initially and didn't have time to write a long post. So I apologize for not being more clear initially.
I'm fine with it if you think my anecdote only offers passing similarities.
I'd submit that buying 3rd party store exclusive is antithetical to the strategy that has taken steam so far. I don't see why they would deviate from it.
The point of the caps was to specifically refute your specious claim that Valve paid for Civ V exclusivity, which you still have not owned or admitted was a false premise (based entirely on the misconception I clarified in my big bold post that you chose to take offense to instead of internalizing).
Well it is exclusive to Steam in the sense that you need to go through them to play the game. In 2009 that was very radical. As the digital market developed since 2009 The publisher chose to sell extra keys outside steam because well they can and because Steam doesn't care as long as they get their cut. Those keys would still have to be redeemed on their store, not Epic's or GOG.
That's because they have a virtual monopoly. In 2009, Steam was pretty much the only place to get the game digitally for a long time.
I acknowledge the time difference makes a comparison difficult, but the tactics are quite similar, in my mind. If you disagree, fine, whatever.
It's NOT exclusive to the steam store.
You don't know what a monopoly is.
This isn't true.
In reality, the tactics aren't similar at all.
I don't have to involve valve at all in any part of my consumer transaction.
...but they have no upper management.
Anyhow Valve thinks it is better off by competing in this way, they always aim for a open marketplace. Whether it is by never offering money for exclusivity, the free distribution of Steam keys or allowing interchangable controllers and VR devices.
Edited my post for clarity. I looked in 2009 for other options. Maybe some shady reseller sold some keys, but I certainly didn't find it. Ended up buying it physical.
Steam does not get a single cut from any key ever sold. They are provided 100% free of charge to developers and publishers, who are able to sell them on any marketplace and take whatever cut they can earn from those storefronts. Valve still foots the bill for the bandwidth for delivering the game and also sees no kickback for the tools used by 2K to build features into the game that utilize Steam's functionality.
This is just wrong. It's not illegal but it should be imo. It reminds me of what Apple Music did to position themselves against Spotify with exclusive albums and shit, although that situation is worse since Apple gets a cut out of Spotify's subscriptions that are made through the app and Apple is already is the richest corporation in the world. They could take Spotify out of business whenever they want. I don't know how Epic and Valve compare but I think the later has earned their market domination with fair competition against other stores just like Spotify has.
this woud mean toxic response, which is what everyone is fearing from epic's doing
edit: this was sarcasm? whatever tf
I love kej's posts but i hate when he gets himself banned so krej i wish you would simmadown 😗 .
And speaking of a good read, Gestault i think you tapped out a great one, here:
I think these are good, grounded points to consider on this topic. I'm hoping a couple more people go over this post.
Thanks for clarifying this point. I always thought Valve made money off of keys sold offsite.
Steam was well established and popular in the PC market for many years before Civ V even hit, which had a lot to do with why it was a Steam exclusive game. It's not even a good argument from that stand point... Just because you were late to the party in 2010 doesn't mean everyone else was or that it was some tactic by 2K to increase the Steam install base
To be honest, I dont see how my posts differ from any of the average post in this thread. Steam "monopoly" bad, EGS monopoly good.
When a person is clearly walked through why the "Steam is monopoly" argument is irrational, the person falls back on actual EGS monopoly is needed because its needed and competition.
Then somebody points out that hey, check this out: before the deal, the game was sold on 5 stores, now its sold in 1 store. Is this not a monopoly?
Then 20 more posts come that start with the first premise rinse amd repeat or, they start to rationalize how somehow having less competition is good because.. it somehow.. is more competition?
Last edited:
Apple gets a cut of subscription revenue? How does that work? Does apple get a cut of Netflix subscription revenue from their app? Seems odd.
Yeah they do that is why some companies don't allow people to setup subscriptions through the store anymore and redirect them towards their website.
Yeah Apple takes a cut of everything. I use the Vudu App on my Apple 4kTV and you can't buy or rent any movies from the app itself. You get told to go to the vudu website instead. You can only watch movies you have in your account.
I'm not sure if it has changed recently but at some point the subscription price on the ios app was higher to cover for Apple's cut. I think that now they've made it so that when you subscribe it takes you out of the app and onto the browser.
It's kind of crazy that they do it that way but it benefits them greatly. It also benefits customers and competing stores and game publishers greatly. It benefits everyone. It's an incredibly strong tactic for that reason. Openess always beats closedness, in the end.
Steam only fits the first of those pillars. You can buy third party steam games from dozens of other stores for much cheaper prices than the steam storefront sells them for (see the discussion on this page regarding steam keys).
Epic Games Store currently fits all three.
I haven't seen any rational defence of this. I have no idea why people feel the need to defend it either. Just bizarre
Arguably it doesn't fit the first either depending on what you mean by platform. PC, yes, but in regards to OS many Steam games let you play on Windows, MacOS, and Linux (and with Proton they're doing a -lot- to make Linux gaming more available). Not to mention Steam Link streaming and such if you want to count being able to play your games on your phone or other devices.
For those just joining us:
- Epic is moneyhatting publishers and developers to distribute the PC version of their games through the Epic Games Store for a period of one year
- This kind of 'competition' is foreign to the PC gaming space and most core PC gamers are against it
- Epic should compete by offering a better service to customers or producing original content instead of trying to force customers to use its store
- The fact that this moneyhatting practice is accepted in the console space doesn't mean that PC users are obliged to accept it too
- It's not 'just another launcher'. Steam offers a variety of services that many people consider important. Epic offers almost none of these.
- Epic, publishers and developers have the right to make those deals but customers also have the right to voice their opposition to them and vote with their wallets
- Epic is moneyhatting publishers and developers to distribute the PC version of their games through the Epic Games Store for a period of one year
- This kind of 'competition' is foreign to the PC gaming space and most core PC gamers are against it
- Epic should compete by offering a better service to customers or producing original content instead of trying to force customers to use its store
- The fact that this moneyhatting practice is accepted in the console space doesn't mean that PC users are obliged to accept it too
- It's not 'just another launcher'. Steam offers a variety of services that many people consider important. Epic offers almost none of these.
- Epic, publishers and developers have the right to make those deals but customers also have the right to voice their opposition to them and vote with their wallets