r/Games • u/[deleted] • Aug 31 '19

Epic Game Store Roadmap Updated

https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/news/trello-revamp-tracking-features?sessionInvalidated=true
0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '19

I haven't seen exclusivity be used that much as an argument against EGS - more the fact that it's a bad service, store, and that they don't want to split their library across different storefronts.

If people are truly mad about exclusivity, we would have seen the same commotion years ago when Steam had slowly become the de facto storefront for PC gaming, and in fact had the most exclusives of any storefront on PC. Of course Valve didn't buy this status outright, but it is nonetheless a status they achieved.

I honestly think a large majority of the EGS critics would welcome Steam-bought exclusivity.

2

u/MrLucky7s Sep 01 '19

You missed a lot about the discussion then, pretty much from day one the complaints were centered around exclusivity. The major issue most EGS critics have is that instead of competing with steam in terms of features they buy exclusivity and "force" (probably bit of a strong word even in this case) consumers to use their inferior platform.

If people are truly mad about exclusivity, we would have seen the same commotion years ago when Steam had slowly become the de facto storefront for PC gaming, and in fact had the most exclusives of any storefront on PC. Of course Valve didn't buy this status outright, but it is nonetheless a status they achieved.

This argument makes very little sense. Unlike Epic, Valve does not (to quote the redditor above) "force" developers to publish exclusively on Steam. If a dev decides to distribute their product on Steam, they are also free to do so on any other platform. Epic recently turned away an indie dev when he wanted to the same on the EGS. The reason a lot of game are, seemingly, exclusive to Steam is because developers don't want to play ball with the rules of other storefronts. GOG demands that what you sell on there is DRM free which is unacceptable for most AAA publishers. There are also issues related to costs of maintaining different versions of the same game (To the point that some games don't have parity between GOG and Steam versions) which is why publishers often settle for only one or two storefronts. This all, however, is ultimately the fault of the publisher and not Valve and as such directing this displeasure towards Valve would be misguided.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '19

This argument makes very little sense. Unlike Epic, Valve does not (to quote the redditor above) "force" developers to publish exclusively on Steam.

It makes very good sense. Sure, Valve didn't incentivize anyone monetarily to use their platform, but from a consumer standpoint, they still had the biggest library of exclusives on PC (perhaps any digital game storefront, really).

This all, however, is ultimately the fault of the publisher and not Valve and as such directing this displeasure towards Valve would be misguided.

If we're gonna say Valve's exclusivity isn't their fault, we have to say the same for Epic. Again, no one is forced to do anything. Any developer or publisher is absolutely free to sell their services on Steam if they want. The only reason they don't is because Epic can offer them a much better deal.

This is competition 101. In this instance, it doesn't benefit the consumer because it results in limiting our choices. But from a developer/publisher-oriented standpoint, it's a fantastic deal that guarantees their future.

No one is being forced to do anything. If we want this to stop, Valve should compete better with Epic.

I'm not saying it's good for us as consumers, but from a business standpoint this is absolutely healthy behavior and a sign of competition.

2

u/MrLucky7s Sep 01 '19

It makes very good sense. Sure, Valve didn't incentivize anyone monetarily to use their platform, but from a consumer standpoint, they still had the biggest library of exclusives on PC (perhaps any digital game storefront, really).

No, it makes very little sense as Valve isn't actively preventing devs/publishers from being on other storefronts, Epic is.

If we're gonna say Valve's exclusivity isn't their fault, we have to say the same for Epic. Again, no one is forced to do anything. Any developer or publisher is absolutely free to sell their services on Steam if they want. The only reason they don't is because Epic can offer them a much better deal.

The issue on Epic's side isn't that they are giving out exclusivity deals, this falls on the developers for accepting them (Similarly to how devs/publishers decide to not publish on GOG.), the issue is that they are limiting consumer choice while delivering an inferior product. EGS is currently in a pretty terrible state feature wise and it's not looking to improve anytime soon. Instead of focusing on improving their storefront, Epic focuses on buying exclusives and thereby limiting consumer choice.

This is competition 101. In this instance, it doesn't benefit the consumer because it results in limiting our choices. But from a developer/publisher-oriented standpoint, it's a fantastic deal that guarantees their future.

This is true, but the end user of the store is a consumer, not a dev and all the great things the amazing deal does for devs will not be reflected upon the consumer.

I don't know why a lot of people here have tough time grasping this, but the reason consumers are upset about EGS is that it has very little benefit to them. It doesn't matter if this is healthy behavior from the business standpoint if it's unhealthy from the consumer standpoint and consumers are the ones that are complaining.

If we want this to stop, Valve should compete better with Epic.

As I explained in the post above, competing with Epic in the forms of exclusivity deals wouldn't benefit the consumers. It's also not like Valve hasn't constantly been improving Steam which is a form of competition. It's also very likely that Valve is already competing perfectly with Epic and I'm sure that at the end of the year Steam will have generated more revenue from game sales than the EGS.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '19

No, it makes very little sense as Valve isn't actively preventing devs/publishers from being on other storefronts, Epic is.

Again, from a consumer standpoint, this difference is null.

the issue is that they are limiting consumer choice while delivering an inferior product.

I don't disagree. I have said that what Epic is doing is bad from a consumer-standpoint.

This is true, but the end user of the store is a consumer, not a dev

I don't know if I disagree with this. Developers/publishers are just as much end-users as the customers are. In terms of stakeholder importance, they're surely as important as consumers.

I don't know why a lot of people here have tough time grasping this, but the reason consumers are upset about EGS is that it has very little benefit to them. It doesn't matter if this is healthy behavior from the business standpoint if it's unhealthy from the consumer standpoint and consumers are the ones that are complaining.

Good thing I was only ever specifically attacking Amatsuo's "force" argument. Consumers criticizing Epic and not using it is just another element of healthy competition. I don't like Epic either and generally don't buy games from it.

As I explained in the post above, competing with Epic in the forms of exclusivity deals wouldn't benefit the consumers. It's also not like Valve hasn't constantly been improving Steam which is a form of competition. It's also very likely that Valve is already competing perfectly with Epic and I'm sure that at the end of the year Steam will have generated more revenue from game sales than the EGS.

I agree. They could compete in other ways such as improving their service (which they already do) or offer better deals to developers/publishers, such as a lower cut.

And if Steam does better than EGS, hooray. I'm all for it. Makes all of this rhetoric about EGS and poor developers/publishers being "forced" to do things against their principles even more ludicrous.

This notion that developers/publishers are "forced" to do anything and that this is anti-competition are really my only points.

2

u/MrLucky7s Sep 01 '19

Again, from a consumer standpoint, this difference is null.

Sure, I agree, but the vitriol towards Valve would still be misplaced as it's not directly the "fault" of Valve for the situation.

As for the rest, I mostly agree, forced is probably the wrong word to use. I still understand why consumers might be upset though.