"No Steam No Buy" an explanation about competition, launchers, storefronts and monopolies on PC.

[Hamlet Machine]

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about another launcher in the market because I'll not use more than for one or two games (like uplay for AC or Origin for Titan fall 2 or the dreaded Microsoft store for Gears 4).. And that is because, as you said it, I have the other 90% of my library on Steam, I don't want it to be scattered, it's m'y digital shelf and I don't want to have some games in the attic and the others in the bassement, and I'll likely continue to use it as my main launcher primarily for that reason, and, because of features and friends... Because of that, I am annoyed by this new trend of launcher exclusive games. For instance, Ashen is a game I am interested in and was going to buy on Steam but I ended up using a gamepass trial code and I am playing it on Xbox. I'll buy it eventually because the game is good and I like to collect games but I'll buy it on Steam, and at a discount.
So that being said, indeed, I don't have a personnal vendetta against Epic, I understand that as business there aren't many means to compete and to attract new users.. bought exclusivity is one of them. I don't wish for them to fail and maybe it'll be good for compétition but I know that I won't use their launcher or storefront if i can't get the game activated on steam.

 

[C.Mongler]

You basically say that because steam is good and has a lot of features refusing to use anything else is not fanboyism, which it is. For example Xbox one has a ton of great features atm, such as back compat, but if there was a game I wanted on PlayStation and refused to buy it or a PlayStation because it wasn't Xbox... well.

Click to shrink...

You initially acknowledge actual utility has some value when it comes to choosing an ecosystems, but then throw it out the window in your analogy. Your analogy as stated is just blind fanboyism, but it's not the case OP making. They're saying something more akin to: you have the option of buying a game on either console, but you really enjoy being able to use remote play on your Vita, and you also really enjoy theater mode in PS VR, so you choose to buy a game on the PS Store over Xbox because of these QoL features that aren't in the other ecosystem. While the usefulness of those additions in my example may be a bit more subjective than something far more grand and universal, such as cloud saves, they are a tangible consideration that a consumer can (and IMO should) make when deciding where to build their library. It seems disingenuous to me to hand-wave them off as "fanboyism" or "marketing" as it seems like you're inclined to do here.

Maybe fanboyism isn't the correct word, but definitely brand loyalty / stubbornness / obstinance.

Click to shrink...

I would say it isn't the correct word, but I'm not sure those other options are any better. Yes, if you're not interested in purchasing things elsewhere because you just loooove Steam for Steam's sake, sure, but for a lot of us there's a lot of utility that comes with using Steam that Epic and others don't yet provide (and for some features, never will).

 

[Shinjica]

Are people basically okay with Valve being the de facto monopoly launcher (it's not a monopoly, but let's not pretend like it's not close) without any significant competition? Do people really want to just trust them to never abuse that position of extreme power?

I get people liking and preferring Valve being the standard, I just get concerned with the vitriol that people display when anyone makes move to try and cut in on that market.

Click to shrink...

Reread the OP and ask yourself what monopoly is

 

[Alexandros]

In addition to GhostTrick's excellent post, I would like to say something to any developers that might be reading this thread.

Most customers understand that game development is hard and risky and indie development even more so. Customers also understand that developers might make some tough decisions in order to ensure their company's survival or achieve greater financial gain. It is your right to make whatever decisions you think are best for your business.

That said, you also have to understand that gamers are not your friends, they are your customers. They also have the right to evaluate the product that you're offering in its entirety, including available platforms and pricing, and decide to buy it, wait for a sale or skip it entirely.

 

[Deleted member 28076]

This OP is a godsend, thank you GhostTrick.

 

[Crayon]

I love consoles so I'm not even that mad about the exclusive wrangling. I understand its ugly, but I'm used to it. It's a jungle out there.

But these launchers that don't do shit in terms of user facing feature or quality of life ugh. Like ... DO SOMETHING.

Have a fuckin idea or something. Alongside some basic handy stuff, try to think of something you can do better than steam. Look at gog and itch: they don't even sniff at the features of steam but they have their own ideas and are generally welcomed! Because yes it's worth giving up a bit of convenience for variety, competition, and new ideas.

Over the last week, I've read a hundred arguments that there is "no point", or its "not enough" or "too haaaaaard" or whatever to make a better product than steam.

And believe it or not, that's the prevailing wisdom in some corners. Look at this asinine premise for an article about "how to compete with steam" on gamasutra:

Even if every aspect of your service is better than Steam's in every possible way, you're still up against the massive inertia of everybody already having huge libraries full of games on Steam.

Click to shrink...

I mean... Too bad we'll never know, right? A company flush with experience, cash, and engineers like epic shouldn't even try, right? Everyone wanna be steam but nobody wanna put in the work. Would it be too much to at least launch with half the features? A quarter of the features?

If you want a warmer greeting from pc gamers, why don't you try to: DO. SOMETHING.

 

[ezodagrom]

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about another launcher in the market because I'll not use more than for one or two games (like uplay for AC or Origin for Titan fall 2 or the dreaded Microsoft store for Gears 4).. And that is because, as you said it, I have the other 90% of my library on Steam, I don't want it to be scattered, it's m'y digital shelf and I don't want to have some games in the attic and the others in the bassement, and I'll likely continue to use it as my main launcher primarily for that reason, and, because of features and friends... Because of that, I am annoyed by this new trend of launcher exclusive games. For instance, Ashen is a game I am interested in and was going to buy on Steam but I ended up using a gamepass trial code and I am playing it on Xbox. I'll buy it eventually because the game is good and I like to collect games but I'll buy it on Steam, and at a discount.
So that being said, indeed, I don't have a personnal vendetta against Epic, I understand that as business there aren't many means to compete and to attract new users.. bought exclusivity is one of them. I don't wish for them to fail and maybe it'll be good for compétition but I know that I won't use their launcher or storefront if i can't get the game activated on steam.

Click to shrink...

This.

Though, I wouldn't mind other launchers much if they handled it like Ubisoft, having their games also available on Steam but still attached to their launcher, but the games sold on other 3rd party stores activate on their launcher instead of Steam.

 

[Sloane]

How good, realistically, would another launcher have to be in order to get people to use that instead of Steam? To overcome the mindshare and inertia they have on their side? I would argue it would have to be impossibly better in a way that is unlikely to ever happen.

If you want Valve to be pushed, at all, or there to be significant competition, exclusives are basically the best option at this time. Sure, if Valve was like 40% of the market maybe a better launcher could hurt it, but the amount of inertia on its side means there's not many better ways to compete with them.

I'm not saying you have to like it, but that's what it is.

Click to shrink...

But how would Epic get people to keep using their store in this scenario? If the launcher is worse, won't people just buy the exclusive on Epic's store because they have no other choice and keep buying everything else on Steam? I don't see how that's competition, it's "forcing" people into using something they apparently don't want to use.

Competition would be creating a launcher that's at least as good as Steam (which isn't totally unimaginable; Steam has its flaws), offer better prices (should be possible considering Epic's lower cut), and make people WANT to use your store.

 

[bbq of doom]

So nothing can ever be better than something else? If a store doesn't accept refunds or leaks your data or doesn't allow you to uninstall its launcher, it's not arguably worse?

Click to shrink...

You're missing the point entirely.

It being "better" isn't an objective quantification, it's a subjective valuation based on your own needs/wants, perception, and inherent biases.

Here's a simple example based on my own wants/needs/desires. I love DOOM. DOOM Eternal is likely going to be on that horrific Bethesda store/launcher. Will that stop me from playing DOOM Eternal day 1?

Nope, not a shot in hell.

More generally speaking, there are always questions directly/indirectly related to the economic choice that could glean more information about an individual transaction and one's subjective valuations. For example:

1. By what measure is something better?
2. What is it better than?
3. How is it better?
4. Why is it better than something else?
5. If it is better, is it better "enough" such that you choose it in a given transaction?
6. If it is better, but it's not necessarily better "enough", what is "enough" for you?
7. If it isn't better, is there a circumstance in which you would still "prefer" it?
8. If the answer to 7 is yes, why?

There's a book by Dan Ariely called "Predictably Irrational." I highly recommend reading it--or any similar book about human behavior--to gain a bit more insight into how this all works on a personal and group level. This stuff really is eye opening IMO.

(It's also available as a PDF, IIRC.)

 

[Hasseigaku]

Yes, I explained why:
"But the problem the competition we have right now doesn't adress these valid criticisms. In fact, all the competitors so far, including Epic, are only looking to have THEIR tiny monopolies. Most of them have been around for years, nearly decades and they're still dangerously lagging behind in term of features. Origin still has no controller support. Battle.net still uses REGION LOCKED friendlists. Epic's client, which has been around for more than 3 years already (only their store released a few days ago, with barebones storepages). Windows Store is in a sorry state. Heck, Bethesda launcher is broken. "

Click to shrink...

I get that no competitor has really stepped up the plate, which is disappointing, for sure, but even with that being the case I am concerned about the amount of games dependent upon Steam continuing to be both benevolent and good for the foreseeable future.

 

[BasilZero]

I completely agree with OP. It's about convenience not about brand loyalty. People should remember what Steam has done to PC community.

Click to shrink...

Yep


100%

 

[Deleted member 19813]

I completely agree with OP. It's about convenience not about brand loyalty. People should remember what Steam has done to PC community.

Click to shrink...

Truth.

 

[Deleted member 1759]

Good post GhostTrick

Imo, Ubisoft deserves some kudos for their PC efforts. You would think they would just leave Steam and make their games exclusives to UPlay. Nope. They have even implemented more stuff to their recent Steam releases like achievements and cards. Optimization is getting better for each release too. You can buy their games on Steam, UPlay, Origin and key sites. They also have lots of features and their client is very good. Features like experience points, gold coins etc.

The UPlay overlay is also really great. It includes weekly challenges in lots of games, like Siege where the challenges have made me try other weapons, classes and completing them gives me more XP and credits for stuff.

UPlay is imo the 2nd best client after Steam and I really like it and the fact that Ubi is very supportive of the open PC ecosystem is great.

A pic I found of the UPlay overlay. It actaully gives meaning to the games you play and if Ubi gave me the option to not use Uplay which meant no UPlay overlay if I own the game on Steam, I would still have UPlay installed and in use.

Simply put, Uplay is great, it is supportive of the openess of the PC plattform and the UPlay overlay is fantastic and actually has tons of cool stuff that gives the games more stuff.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. I don't mind buying games from uPlay or GOG because they all offer me something. Especially uPlay came a long way since it was first introduced.

 

[Odeko]

Are people basically okay with Valve being the de facto monopoly launcher (it's not a monopoly, but let's not pretend like it's not close) without any significant competition? Do people really want to just trust them to never abuse that position of extreme power?

I get people liking and preferring Valve being the standard, I just get concerned with the vitriol that people display when anyone makes move to try and cut in on that market.

Click to shrink...

Storefronts have incredibly strong network effects, of course people prefer consolidation. When Valve releases a new feature it improves 600 of my games, when Blizzard does so it improves my Overwatch and Diablo 3.

 

[GhostTrick]

I get that no competitor has really stepped up the plate, which is disappointing, for sure, but even with that being the case I am concerned about the amount of games dependent upon Steam continuing to be both benevolent and good for the foreseeable future.

Click to shrink...

Which I forgot to adress but is important: Why should we give the benefit of the doubt of bad actors because the actual good one might become bad too ?

 

[Hasseigaku]

But how would Epic get people to keep using their store in this scenario? If the launcher is worse, won't people just buy the exclusive on Epic's store because they have no other choice and keep buying everything else on Steam? I don't see how that's competition, it's "forcing" people into using something they apparently don't want to use.

Competition would be creating a launcher that's at least as good as Steam (which isn't totally unimaginable; Steam has its flaws), offer better prices (should be possible considering Epic's lower cut), and make people WANT to use your store.

Click to shrink...

I see this phrase being used over and over, and even if you don't like the tactic, creating exclusives is a competitive tactic.

Method I don't like doesn't equal not competition.

 

[Hasseigaku]

Which I forgot to adress but is important: Why should we give the benefit of the doubt of bad actors because the actual good one might become bad too ?

Click to shrink...

So anyone other than Valve is a bad actor in this scenario? I'm not sure I can agree with that.

 

[Moose]

Competition would be good if any of these launchers actually matched Steam in terms of features and didn't have UI designs that looked like after thoughts.

 

[elzeus]

I want to say one thing...Apple did launch the iPhone without copy and paste that competitors had and for quite some time (and such a basic ass feature and they didn't get it out for some time as well). Let Epic do what they want, the market will decide.

Click to shrink...

Nah man we need feature parity before it even launches!
/s

Does steam offer an affiliate program? It seems like Epic is pushing their "Support a Creator" program from Fortnite into the mix and morphing it into an affiliate program where content creators can get paid for reviewing/marketing games using the Epic Store.

 

[Odeko]

I see this phrase being used over and over, and even if you don't like the tactic, creating exclusives is a competitive tactic.

Method I don't like doesn't equal not competition.

Click to shrink...

I mean, it's monopolizing the market of selling Ashen for example. There's no competition if you want to buy Ashen — you have to buy it from Epic. On the otherhand most Steam games are purchasable from dozens of places all at different competing prices.

 

[MarcelRguez]

Not conviced, OP. For sure, the convenience of having all your games in one place (and the most feature-complete one at that) is great but, at the same time, I can't help but think the games themselves and the developers making a profit should be the priorities here, and that users should be willing to sacrifice a degree of convenience if the devs themselves think the deal is worth it for them.

While some of you might say "who cares about these features ?" well... that's your opinion and that's fine. But not only some of them are just too convenient to pass on them, others are either great for consumers as a whole or even benefit PC gaming as a whole (VR, Input, Proton). So when someone claims that they won't get a game if it releases somewhere else exclusively, don't think of it as a form of tribalism or brand loyalty but more as of a loss for them of important features and convenience, on top of them having a convenient place to have their entire library and dont want to go through the hassle of using another borked launcher... which allows me to talk about the next point..

Click to shrink...

Add me to the list of people who find this argument unconvincing. This reads to me like people value the ecosystem more than playing the game itself. From a (somewhat) outsider perspective, this is not the first time I've noticed this in conversations around PC gaming, and it makes it hard to relate, personally.

Epic's launcher has a long way to go, don't get me wrong (the refunds part sounds awful), but the conversation is always focused on how this affects users and not around what the devs themselves are getting out of this in terms of reduction of finantial risks, for example.

 

[Bjones]

Fragment hurts user experience. Hurt user experience means less users.

Also those talking about monopolies and position of power. Epic makes the leading middleware engine for games. Which they are going to leverage to get games on their store. If we are theorizing the future they could easily tell developers. You want to save money use our engine on our store and you can keep that 80% otherwise it's 30 .

 

[Kthulhu]

Totally agree OP.

I can still add games on the Epic Store as non-Steam games, right?

 

[thediamondage]

To me its a much more bizarre reason, nowadays I hate having to keep track of a billion logins and more importantly payment links. Fraud is real and the bigger danger nowadays is not just getting hacked/etc, but having fraud charges THAT YOU DON'T EVEN SPOT because I have a million credit cards and I don't look at them all the time.

My solution has been simple, I don't link credit cards with game stores (just about every one of them has been hacked) and I have all my credit cards email me for every charge. I try to use my CC as little as possible. Sure, I have an epic launcher account (and unique passwords for everything using keepass) just like I have a gog, origin, uPlay, etc, etc but I don't keep any payment on any of them unless they entice me really, really hard with a game I want that I can't buy on steam. So far it hasn't happened, at all, yet. Cyberpunk 2077 exclusive to GoG might be the only thing, although honestly I'll probably just play it on xbox (physical copy).

So if Epic games gets something I GOTTA play day one then i'll either look at epic wallet codes (amazon/gamestop/etc) or using paypal but the bar is really, really high and I honestly couldn't think of a game they get that I wouldn't mind just waiting a year to get on steam.

 

[Odeko]

Not conviced, OP. For sure, the convenience of having all your games in one place (and the most feature-complete one at that) is great but, at the same time, I can't help but think the games themselves and the developers making a profit should be the priorities here, and that users should be willing to sacrifice a degree of convenience if the devs themselves think the deal is worth it for them.


Add me to the list of people who find this argument unconvincing. This reads to me like people value the ecosystem more than playing the game itself. From a (somewhat) outsider perspective, this is not the first time I've noticed this in conversations around PC gaming, and it makes it hard to relate, personally.

Epic's launcher has a long way to go, don't get me wrong (the refunds part sounds awful), but the conversation is always focused on how this affects users and not around what the devs themselves are getting out of this in terms of reduction of finantial risks, for example.

Click to shrink...

You should actually ask indie devs what they prefer then. I've heard the sentiment loud and clear that only having to manage a single store front to reach your entire audience is infinitely preferable to having to divide your limited time across multiple fronts, 12% extra revenue or no.

 

[Instro]

I take no issue with folks being against the Epic store and related policies, regardless of whether it's justified or just fanyboyism. It's not a problem. What I really take issue with though is people attacking developers on social media for choosing to cut a deal with Epic. That's not right, and really delegitimatizes the people who are in the Steam only group in my eyes.

 

[GhostTrick]

So anyone other than Valve is a bad actor in this scenario? I'm not sure I can agree with that.

Click to shrink...

Nah, Uplay is actually good, since they compete with Steam with prices, still offer the choice while integrating both Steam API and Uplay API together. No fragmentation, no exclusivity. Only choice and price competition.

Not conviced, OP. For sure, the convenience of having all your games in one place (and the most feature-complete one at that) is great but, at the same time, I can't help but think the games themselves and the developers making a profit should be the priorities here, and that users should be willing to sacrifice a degree of convenience if the devs themselves think the deal is worth it for them.


Add me to the list of people who find this argument unconvincing. This reads to me like people value the ecosystem more than playing the game itself. From a (somewhat) outsider perspective, this is not the first time I've noticed this in conversations around PC gaming, and it makes it hard to relate, personally.

Epic's launcher has a long way to go, don't get me wrong (the refunds part sounds awful), but the conversation is always focused on how this affects users and not around what the devs themselves are getting out of this in terms of reduction of finantial risks, for example.

Click to shrink...

I adressed that though: Storefront competition is what devs want. But launcher competition means devs have to work on multiple builds of their PC games.
Also as someone said, it's not about enhancing one game but every games. And when you lock a game on a bad ecosystem, you hurt the game itself, yes.

 

[Alexandros]

I take no issue with folks being against the Epic store and related policies, regardless of whether it's justified or just fanyboyism. It's not a problem. What I really take issue with though is people attacking developers on social media for choosing to cut a deal with Epic. That's not right, and really delegitimatizes the people who are in the Steam only group in my eyes.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean by attacking?

 

[AvernOffset]

Redefining what "monopoly" means to fit a narrative undermines its validity. There is no such thing as a 'tiny monopoly.'

Click to shrink...

Copyright is a "tiny monopoly." Whoever holds the copyright has a monopoly over the copyrighted material.

This is crucial, and I think it's part of why some people don't seem to get why so many PC gamers treat Epic and other launchers as "not competition". Consider film: Two companies compete for customers' dollars by trying to make better films. But also, theater chains compete with each other to provide the best moviegoing experience. So critically, consumers get two choices: What movie do I see? Where do I see it?

But if every studio owned their own theater chain and only showed their own films in it, that choice gets halved. Now people can choose what to see, but they can't choose where to see it. So now, competition between theater chains is lessened, since the movies are the real draw. In this hypothetical scenario, the parent companies shouldn't really bother investing in their theaters, since investing in better films is clearly bigger bang for their buck. Afterall, if your theater is really nice, but the competition has all the best films, you're going to have a rough time.

We can see this happening in the video game console space. Sony, Nintendo, and MS all have walled gardens and compete heavily on exclusives. How many people are going to skip Smash Ultimate just because the eShop is kind of garbage? How many people bailed on God of War because the PS Store interface is slow and clunky?

The PC, by being an open platform, means a separation between content and the surrounding experience is possible, which increases consumer choice. When a store relies on exclusives as its sole differentiating feature, that choice evaporates. These platforms "compete", but they doesn't have a strong incentive to compete on features, so it results in competition that doesn't spur innovation, better costs, etc. These companies are leveraging the tiny monopolies copyright gives them to avoid having to compete on platform features.

The idea that competition is A Good Thing™ only applies if that competition is resulting in better customer experiences. Am I getting a better experience when a game I want to play is locked off on a platform that is missing features I consider crucial? Because if no, then the competition isn't working as advertised, and in this case, it's because of a tiny monopoly held over that one game.

 

[elyetis]

Em, that's still what it is. I can find Apple devices and their ecosystem such as handoff, FaceTime, iMessage etc incredibly useful but if I refuse to interact with any other devices, even if they are offering something I want, it's fair to say its fanboyism.

You basically say that because steam is good and has a lot of features refusing to use anything else is not fanboyism, which it is. For example Xbox one has a ton of great features atm, such as back compat, but if there was a game I wanted on PlayStation and refused to buy it or a PlayStation because it wasn't Xbox... well.

Maybe fanboyism isn't the correct word, but definitely brand loyalty / stubbornness / obstinance.

Click to shrink...

I have no problem being called stubborn when it comes to expect multi million companies to fight over being better than each other at my benefit over giving them money because they paid a publisher/dev to prevent them from releasing their game on a platform which would have offered me either a better product ( because of it's functionality ) or better prices.

 

[Hasseigaku]

I mean, it's monopolizing the market of selling Ashen for example. There's no competition if you want to buy Ashen — you have to buy it from Epic. On the otherhand most Steam games are purchasable from dozens of places all at different competing prices.

Click to shrink...

People are totally fixated on Steam having competition as far as different marketplaces go but since those are all Steam Keys they all funnel people into the Steam ecosystem which gives them a competitive advantage over the other marketplaces for one, and gives them the current dominance they enjoy as the primary launcher of PC games in the current system.

 

[mclem]

One thing that struck me with Chubigans' earlier post was that for an indie developer there's more to *selling* a game than just *making* the game. Smaller devs would also need to come up with infrastructure to handle distribution, customer support, dissemination of information, promotion, online servers if necessary, key generation, DRM if you wish...

One of the advantages of distributing via Steam (and, fair's fair, a number of the more established rivals, too) is that a lot of that infrastructure comes for free when your title is represented on the platform; take a look at the developer side of Steam and also here sometime to see the toolsets that are exposed to developers who use them.

This is all stuff that the dev could implement themselves, absolutely - but for the smaller dev, maybe the hobbyist who's more interested in actually developing the title rather than the important things around selling it, it's so useful to have that obligation handled for them. If I were to ever look into properly developing the idea I've got bouncing around my head, I wouldn't want the hassle of implementing all that; from my perspective, Steam would save me *so* much hassle and allow me to get down to direct engagement with my players.

The thing that strikes me about the Epic store is that - to at least some extent - it feels like it's for the devs who already have that sorted; "We'll pay you more but we'll do less". That's not inherently wrong in and of itself, but it does make it feel more like the Epic project is being designed solely for the big players, and it's not really for Joe Average.

 

[GhostTrick]

People are totally fixated on Steam having competition as far as different marketplaces go but since those are all Steam Keys they all funnel people into the Steam ecosystem which gives them a competitive advantage over the other marketplaces for one, and gives them the current dominance they enjoy as the primary launcher of PC games in the current system.

Click to shrink...

How is that a bad thing though ?
Since that these stores exists because of that Steam key policy. Where can you buy Ashen on PC ? Epic Games Store. Nowhere else. It's not even about launchers bot even store front. Why should we wish a company with that kind of behaviour to be able to do more of that ?
How is it bad when the current dominance leads to a better ecosystem as a whole ?

 

[MarcelRguez]

You should actually ask indie devs what they prefer then. I've heard the sentiment loud and clear that only having to manage a single store front to reach your entire audience is infinitely preferable to having to divide your limited time across multiple fronts, 12% extra revenue or no.

Click to shrink...

I mean, if games are actually launching as exclusives (timed or not) on Epic's launcher, it would be safe to assume those devs think it's beneficial for them, right? I don't think we need to conduct a survey.

If they don't want to publish the game in two different storefronts, they can just ignore all this and publish their games on Steam. It still was the biggest store of the two the last time I checked.

For what's worth, I'm willing to have my mind changed about this, I'm just genuinely not seeing it.

I adressed that though: Storefront competition is what devs want. But launcher competition means devs have to work on multiple builds of their PC games.
Also as someone said, it's not about enhancing one game but every games. And when you lock a game on a bad ecosystem, you hurt the game itself, yes.

Click to shrink...

Do they? Or can they just not publish the game on the rival storefront if they know what in entails in terms of missing features?
And on the user's side, an informed one might know about what you mention about Dying Light servers and decide to buy it on Steam, not GOG. Can't help but see this as an overblown issue, but that might be because it's even worse on console.

 

[TitanicFall]

So when someone claims that they won't get a game if it releases somewhere else exclusively, don't think of it as a form of tribalism or brand loyalty but more as of a loss for them of important features and convenience, on top of them having a convenient place to have their entire library and dont want to go through the hassle of using another borked launcher... which allows me to talk about the next point.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't discount that tribalism is a thing. I'm not saying it's the majority, but it's there. People also dislike change and most are fine with never venturing outside the Steam garden. And I agree that Valve created some great features, some of which are platform agnostic. If you want to add an exe to your library and launch it from Steam or Big Picture mode, you can.

The other important point to talk about is to dismiss the idea that people are against Steam competitors. In fact, a lot of the people who raised criticism toward Epic Games' initiative mostly buy from other storefronts. For exemple, in the entire year of 2018, I bought 5 games on Steam. But more than 50 on other storefronts, which activated on Steam. Which is why it's important to make a distinction between the launchers and the storefronts. People are, in fact, excited by new storefronts. What is bad for them though is new launchers.

Click to shrink...

At the end of the day, it's a Steam key, no matter where you got it from, so you're still forced to engage with the platform. Like it doesn't matter if you bought God of War from Target or Best Buy. It's still only going to work on a PS4. So to me, even if everyone benefits from reduced launchers, it's still making Steam the defacto platform. It's like advocating for more cellphone stores, but the caveat is they can only sell iPhone.

I think if people are going to say, "No Steam, No Buy" then at least expand on that by saying why, which you've done. However too often those words are posted with no explanation. It's almost a drive by post. So I think you can see why some may think it's just loyalty and sticking with the devil you know.

 

[yellow wallpaper]

Kind of crazy how a lot of the big games are skipping steam. Excited to see how it all plays out though.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I swear one of these days we need to have a mass primer on what a 'monopoly' actually is, far more people throw around the word then knows what it means.

Anyway I'm interested in seeing how the Epic Launcher develops, the whole thing could just fizzle out if they can't successfully attract users.

 

[Hasseigaku]

I think that, ultimately, all this comes down to the fact that I am skeptical of Valve as a company, and skeptical of allowing so much power in determining the future of PC games going forward.

And so, I'm okay with some inconvenience if it means that Valve has to continue to improve in order to stay ahead. Some people are not and have more faith in Valve as a company, and I get that perspective.

 

[GhostTrick]

I wouldn't discount that tribalism is a thing. I'm not saying it's the majority, but it's there. People also dislike change and most are fine with never venturing outside the Steam garden. And I agree that Valve created some great features, some of which are platform agnostic. If you want to add an exe to your library and launch it from Steam or Big Picture mode, you can.



At the end of the day, it's a Steam key, no matter where you got it from, so you're still forced to engage with the platform. Like it doesn't matter if you bought God of War from Target or Best Buy. It's still only going to work on a PS4. So to me, even if everyone benefits from reduced launchers, it's still making Steam the defacto platform. It's like advocating for more cellphone stores, but the caveat is they can only sell iPhone.

I think if people are going to say, "No Steam, No Buy" then at least expand on that by saying why, which you've done. However too often those words are posted with no explanation. It's almost a drive by post. So I think you can see why some may think it's just loyalty and sticking with the devil you know.

Click to shrink...

Oh, I'm not discounting it entirely either.
And yes, at the end of the day, you're still forced to engage with the platform. But that's the for better because having multiple platforms means having multiple builds for each platforms. And on top of that... well, that engagement was earned imo in term of features. It's still a steam key, but as opposed to others, they allow it to be sold by someone else without them getting any money out of it.
And as a customer, I benefitted from more competition between these stores and got these games for cheaper.

I think that, ultimately, all this comes down to the fact that I am skeptical of Valve as a company, and skeptical of allowing so much power in determining the future of PC games going forward.

And so, I'm okay with some inconvenience if it means that Valve has to continue to improve in order to stay ahead. Some people are not and have more faith in Valve as a company, and I get that perspective.

Click to shrink...

Oh I can definitely understand that. But as I said, these inconvenience aren't doing anything to push Valve to improve. What's the answer to moneyhat ? Moneyhat. And while I can understand being skeptical of Valve, as no company is our friend, they are a business, the problem is nearly every other competitors are even more dubious.

 

[Instro]

What do you mean by attacking?

Click to shrink...

Just grabbing a quick example here so you know what I mean:

I've seen a fair amount of this type of stuff, or worse, on social media since the Epic store announcements.

 

[Freddo]

People should remember what Steam has done to PC community.

Click to shrink...

Introducing online DRM for retail copies of singleplayer games? Before HL2, no single player game required you to make an account and register the game online to play it.

That's the Steam legacy, online DRM.

 

[datamage]

Epic's launcher has a long way to go, don't get me wrong (the refunds part sounds awful), but the conversation is always focused on how this affects users and not around what the devs themselves are getting out of this in terms of reduction of finantial risks, for example.

Click to shrink...

Imagine that, the users talking about how it affects them, the users. Gaming is not a charity, nor a right, it's a luxury. Developers make games to sell said game and hopefully make a living/turn a profit. I understand them wanting to make more money, and they have every right to do what they deem best for this. However, as the user, if they are not providing or delivering said game, in a desirable fashion, we have every right to remark on it, or simply not purchase their game. In a time where there are way too many good games to play, putting up hurdles to play your game isn't a smart idea.

 

[BasilZero]

Are people basically okay with Valve being the de facto monopoly launcher (it's not a monopoly, but let's not pretend like it's not close) without any significant competition? Do people really want to just trust them to never abuse that position of extreme power?

I get people liking and preferring Valve being the standard, I just get concerned with the vitriol that people display when anyone makes move to try and cut in on that market.

Click to shrink...

I don't mind every store having every single game but I am sorry but I am going to the one that has the most features and the one that I had the most games on

Same reason why I buy all third party titles on PlayStation and not buy a single one on a Nintendo console.

 

[Odeko]

I mean, if games are actually launching as exclusives (timed or not) on Epic's launcher, it would be safe to assume those devs think it's beneficial for them, right? I don't think we need to conduct a survey.

If they don't want to publish the game in two different storefronts, they can just ignore all this and publish their games on Steam. It still was the biggest store of the two the last time I checked.

For what's worth, I'm willing to have my mind changed about this, I'm just genuinely not seeing it.

Click to shrink...

That's true in 2018 when's Steam still has dominance. That won't be true if we keep going down this path and the current Steam audience gets fractured across a dozen proprietary market places. Then you'll have to manage tons of different releases just to make 80% of the money you used to make on Steam which, while easy for any big company, will just make it no longer feasible for smaller teams to compete. I listen to the amazing podcast by some of the guys at Asymmetric (Kingdom of Loathing, West of Loathing) and according to them even managing Steam and GOG for West of Loathing was unsustainably large ask for their decently sized team, so they probably won't do GOG in the future.

 

[HyGogg]

I'm all for competition, but when every publisher wants their own storefront they can pound sand. Epic is actually trying to build a platform for everyone and that's cool, but Bethesda's crap is not going to happen for me.

 

[GhostTrick]

Introducing online DRM for singleplayer games? Before HL2, no single player game required you to make an account and register the game online to play it.

Click to shrink...

They required you to type a single cd key. Sometimes, it'd be expired. And well, that doesn't cover about how the market nearly died in 2008-2009.

 

[Hasseigaku]

Oh I can definitely understand that. But as I said, these inconvenience aren't doing anything to push Valve to improve. What's the answer to moneyhat ? Moneyhat. And while I can understand being skeptical of Valve, as no company is our friend, they are a business, the problem is nearly every other competitors are even more dubious.

Click to shrink...

If enough people buy into it, then they could improve. Valve has shown consistently that the thing they care about most is making more money, and if money is leaving they'll do everything they can to get it back.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

The real question is: has someone done a parody of no woman, no cry with these words?

 

[Deleted member 47843]

I definitely get all of that. It's just not stuff I care about as I care much more about frugality than convenience. I just want to get my games legally for as cheap as I can. More stores/launchers means more and better sales and more freebies being offered up which is good for my bottom line. Is it good for devs/publishers? Couldn't say and don't really care. I don't pirate games, that's the most loyalty devs/pubs are getting from me. I mostly play AAA games anyway, so it's not like we're talking small indies that are probably most likely to be hurt by that kind of thing.

 

[GhostTrick]

If enough people buy into it, then they could improve. Valve has shown consistently that the thing they care about most is making more money, and if money is leaving they'll do everything they can to get it back.

Click to shrink...

That argument holds no weight unfortunately.
It's basically this: "Epic Games Store is bad today. But IF we support it, they MAY improve in case Valve gets bad."
I don't see the point to support a bad actor for it to be as good as the other. It's basically getting the worst option to yourself in the hope it becomes a good option rather than enjoying the good option in the first place.

I definitely get all of that. It's just not stuff I care about as I care much more about frugality than convenience. I just want to get my games legally for as cheap as I can. More stores/launchers means more and better sales and more freebies being offered up which is good for my bottom line. Is it good for devs/publishers? Couldn't say and don't really care. I don't pirate games, that's the most loyalty devs/pubs are getting from me. I mostly play AAA games anyway, so it's not like we're talking small indies that are probably most likely to be hurt by that kind of thing.

Click to shrink...

More stores, yes, that is if they don't buy them.
More launchers ? No, because they are always worse and forces devs to handle multiple builds.