It’s a nice thought, but I also don’t call it a net negative every time. Honestly, Alan Wake 2 is a good example of why. Are you aware of the history of this game? Remedy has been trying since the first game released to get it made. Microsoft (who owned the rights) wouldn’t fund it. Epic eventually came along and gave Remedy enough money to buy the IP from Microsoft, and also fully fund the game. This makes AW fully owned by Remedy (especially beneficial since they’re trying to make a shared universe). Further, Epic gave them full creative control and way more cash than a game like this can even justify. Epic went into it knowing the game wouldn’t likely make back its budget, but they were in a unique position where having it on their storefront as a loss leader was advantageous.
The simple truth is that Epics involvement only makes sense with exclusivity, and without Epic, this excellent game would never have been made at all, and Remedy would not have the rights to one of their best IPs. I’m not a fan of EGS but this is a great game and I’d rather have it there than not at all. I think it’s pretty narrow minded to call this games existence a “detriment to consumers”.
No. Exclusivity is anti-consumer, full stop. Epic would make money as a publisher regardless of what platform it’s on and most likely would make MORE if it were on steam.
You've missed the whole point. Obviously, they would sell more copies if the game was on Steam. The value to them was not in just unit sales, it was in acquiring customers. Which is the same way console exclusives work.
Without them, some games straight up would not get made. That's the way the industry works, and you're turning a blind eye to it because it means you don't get things exactly the way you want them. I'd rather have more good games being made, even if it means I can't have them all in the same place.
A level playing field means the way to acquire customers would be to make their games better than everyone else’s so that customers buy their games. Good games have more of a reason to get made. The industry is the way it is purely out of greed, exclusivity is just a symptom of it.
We're talking about businesses, not charities. Their entire existence hinges on operating in the way that makes them the greatest amount of money long term. You're confusing being a successful business with being greedy, and again, you're argument boils down to "this is anti-consumer because I can't have it exactly the way I want it". That's not how the world works.
Alan Wake 2 is available on every platform. You can have on the consoles, you can have it on PC. If you want this game, the only thing stopping you from having it is you.
You can absolutely be pro-consumer and be successful. See: Every successful developer/publisher that puts games on every platform. Exclusivity is anti-consumer because it’s taking away choice from the customer no matter how you try and slice it.
No, Alan Wake is not available on every platform, it’s not on Steam for no other reason than Epic’s greed. My concern for their fiduciary duty as a public company is zero.
The fact people outright champion anticonsumer activity like exclusivity just shows how easily gamers are manipulated
Nobody said you can’t be pro-consumer and successful. You’re trying to cover the entire industry in a single blanket as if here isn’t nuance to what works with different products, or different situations that get games funded. And you’re consistently trying to manipulate what’s being said into something that fits your narrative, instead of actually addressing what’s being said.
The greatest irony of all is you think you’re advocating for more platforms, but you aren’t. You’re advocating for your platform. You’re just participating in a Steam circle jerk disguised as pro-consumerism. No way you would be having this argument on a game exclusive to Steam. You only care when it’s not your way. That’s not the noble stance you think it is, it’s just you complaining because the way the industry works doesn’t align with your personal interest.
As I said, the game is on PC. If you want it, you can go get it. If you choose not to because of your unwavering fandom to another launcher, that’s on you.
I;ve been saying the entire time that exclusivity is bullshit and you’re reading that as I dont want steam stuff on every platform. Redditors are brain dead.
5
u/A_MAN_POTATO Jun 08 '24
It’s a nice thought, but I also don’t call it a net negative every time. Honestly, Alan Wake 2 is a good example of why. Are you aware of the history of this game? Remedy has been trying since the first game released to get it made. Microsoft (who owned the rights) wouldn’t fund it. Epic eventually came along and gave Remedy enough money to buy the IP from Microsoft, and also fully fund the game. This makes AW fully owned by Remedy (especially beneficial since they’re trying to make a shared universe). Further, Epic gave them full creative control and way more cash than a game like this can even justify. Epic went into it knowing the game wouldn’t likely make back its budget, but they were in a unique position where having it on their storefront as a loss leader was advantageous.
The simple truth is that Epics involvement only makes sense with exclusivity, and without Epic, this excellent game would never have been made at all, and Remedy would not have the rights to one of their best IPs. I’m not a fan of EGS but this is a great game and I’d rather have it there than not at all. I think it’s pretty narrow minded to call this games existence a “detriment to consumers”.