Those are first-party games. Valve doesn't demand exclusivity on any third-party games. They believe in developers selling their games on multiple stores/platforms demonstrably more so than Tim Sweeney claims to. In fact I think the only thing Valve requests is some level of pricing/discount parity and the 30% they don't get from key sales is exempt from that.
They still compete on exclusivity for the sake of the argument. It's not like the popularity of steam is solely based on its features.
Well I don't understand the relevance of such an argument here. Even the player counts for the two games you mention is a tiny fraction of Steam's overall user size. The vast majority are clearly using Steam for games other than, or much more than just Valve's.
That sounds like something that actually launched less than a year ago, and that died in less than 3 months:
"Digital storefronts should be about shopping around, not feeling like you HAVE to go steam because it has features that other stores dont."
EGS is the first store to compete on the dev/pub facing front, though. The fact that they take less of a cut and offer a less crowded storefront makes them effective competitors in this area. It also makes them very unpopular for consumers, but they still successfully managed to make a dent in steam's third party game market share.
That is exactly how steam works right now. You can release your game on steam and sell it on any store you wish. You get to choose how much you want to give away on any copy sold outside steam. You can even keep 100% if you so choose! This is 100% free for every developer and valve themselves encourage developers to put their games on as many stores as possible (where valve gets a 0% cut).
You were saying there's no real competitor for steam. I pointed out that EGS is competing in a very real way with steam, but not on the user-facing side.
I dont really play my PC that much, so im not really devoted to any one launcher. Steam, origin, itch, gog, its all the same to me.
Your the only one.
Considering with everything they do and what they offer including not taking a cut on keys, they are not getting the full 30% cut all the time.
Consumer-facing aspects are not the only "valid" way to compete in a market. The players will care about this because it means they'll have to go on other stores to play certain games. Steam used to be the one-stop shop for ALL games, and nowadays it feels like there's a distinct lack of huge AAA blockbusters, for example. The decisions Valve makes on the business, publisher/dev facing side do have an effect on the end consumer. In this context, the decision to keep the cut at 30% while also having an increasingly worsening visibility problem.
Is it though? Epic's strategy appears to be an attempt to buy up PC gaming, but they simply can't afford to buy everything: people are still using other launchers on PC and for new releases. The dent they've made thus far is largely stirring up trouble and annoying people.
They are competing very much on the developer/publisher/business side. Just having Borderlands 3 is a massive deal that will have measurable effects going forward, much more than just irritating forum warriors.
Will it though? Borderlands 3 comes to Steam six months later so the exclusivity is fleeting. I think Halo and Destiny coming to Steam could have a much larger impact going forward to be honest.
6 months wouldn't be a big enough deal to cause players to buy a different console, but since EGS is free and there are no real barriers of entry, I do think it would make a big impact.
There's definitely going to be many that won't abstain from using EGS for Borderlands 3, but given the size of Steam's user base I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers be much more impressive when it arrives there despite having been out on another store/launcher for those six months. I can see many of them who will get it on EGS but wanted it on Steam demanding free activation keys too (seen that happening before with other games when they arrive on Steam). Epic really needs permanent exclusives to make this strategy work I think but (thankfully) they likely can't afford that either. I mean, how come they only managed six months for B3 where as many other, smaller games got a full twelve months?
Well, you can blame publishers for wanting more revenue, but you can also blame Valve for riding their quasi-monopoly and 30% cut for too long, making the prospect of competing stores too enticing. As the de facto lead platform on PC, they have a responsibility for the "health of the platform" not only towards their direct consumers but also to content producers as well.
Yeah it's becoming increasingly harder to see who is playing who at this point.
That thought had crossed my mind as well.
Didn't Sweeney confirm that all PC BL3 players can play with each other regardless of store?
Is there really a lack of AAA blockbusters though? Let's see
I agree with them. You going to be disrespectful to me as well?
Agreeing with utter nonsense?
The whole thing. Everyone should stop baiting platform wars, it's against the rules.
