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

[invid02]

There is a clear distinction that needs to be made between stuff like uPlay and Origin; they always came across as the publishers wanting to retain their 30% and get direct access to customers etc

What Epic is doing is a direct assault on the entrenched monopoly in Steam; they have technology in UE4, a killer app in Fortnite, are flush with cash and have a massive ongoing revenue stream, securing exclusives, given it a USP in a better revenue split with devs, and have chosen a good time to do it all when Valve are seemingly fucking about.

It's not competition as much as it is a war

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Excellent post, GhostTrick . Well stated.

PC doesn't need more launchers.

There is a clear distinction that needs to be made between stuff like uPlay and Origin; they always came across as the publishers wanting to retain their 30% and get direct access to customers etc

What Epic is doing is a direct assault on the entrenched monopoly in Steam; they have technology in UE4, a killer app in Fortnite, are flush with cash and have a massive ongoing revenue stream, securing exclusives, given it a USP in a better revenue split with devs, and have chosen a good time to do it all when Valve are seemingly fucking about.

It's not competition as much as it is a war

Click to shrink...

It's definitely not a war. With their inability to compete in features or friends lists with Steam, all Epic is likely hoping for is to get a small slice of their own. Which is good for nobody but Epic, really.

Nobody is going to be looking to make a downgraded experience their new home. And without that level of draw, it's not really a competition at all.

 

[MarcelRguez]

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.

Click to shrink...

Of course it's not a charity, this whole conversation is about paying for games.

Jokes aside, what I'm getting at is that, if you were interested in (i.e.) Super Meat Boy Forever but suddenly find yourself uninterested because it's on a different launcher, you might need to reflect about how much do you really like Super Meat Boy.

 

[Dalik]

Great post but people that were posting drive-bys on the previous threads wont read it cause they dont care about pc gaming, its honestly a matter of moderation at this point in time more than education.

 

[Lashley]

Great post but people that were posting drive-bys on the previous threads wont read it cause they dont care about pc gaming, its honestly a matter of moderation at this point in time more than education.

Click to shrink...

.

 

[see5harp]

I don't really have a problem with EPIC having their own store but if it's lacking features that have already been established as the expected then there's no problem thinking Steam would be better. It's the same reason most people here preferred 360 last generation and why we all talk shit about Nintendo being the shit show they are. It's warranted.

 

[Wrellie]

I'll buy games wherever, so Epic Store is all good to me, and extra launchers don't matter to me at all. That said, really enjoyable post OP.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

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.

Click to shrink...

Before Steam, the PC market was literally dying. Publishers were giving up on the platform en masse due to rampant piracy, the few publishers left were using all kinds of DRM to try and combat it (like TAGES) and were beginning to focus on consoles instead.

There was no widespread method of updating games. When there was a patch available most people used fileplanet, or other shady looking websites where you'd enter a queue which would take ages, and then you were never 100% sure if what you was downloading was actually the patch you needed, or if it was a virus.

If you wanted to have more than 1 game ready to play at any time and didn't want to mess around with switching CD's, you needed to use no-cd patches from very shady sources.

Some regions basically didn't buy any PC games at all due to awful availability and pricing.

More recently, Valve have developed a unified approach to handling controller inputs and have revolutionized Linux gaming, among other things.

But sure, all Valve have done for PC is introduce online DRM.

 

[Laser Man]

Good post, I agree!

Spoiler: Nobody click this, stupid rambling inside

Despite agreeing with you I'm going to crash into your side here, just a little... I DO buy because of brand loyality, I am loyal for all sorts of arbitray reasons to many things and they may seem weird or silly ( I get a haircut at a place where there is a hot woman working which is super nice and I like being there and having her cut my hair, haircut is ok/good too - around the corner there might be someone better or cheaper, I don't care!) .... I don't need to justify this behaviour to any random shmoe on the internet (doing it anyway of course ;) this behaviour is not easily uprooted because somewhere something is a little bit cheaper or because I want to see competition increased for that store, I don't want a better hairstudio right next to my favorite barber so they have to close up shop just because competition, fuck competition!

There is a retail electronics store and I like buying there because people seem nice and stuff is not through the roof expensive, I don't want to see competition increasing so I can ransack that place more easily when shit hit the fan and I don't care about better service when I am already satisfied with what I have, I don't need the store to suffer in the chance they might give me bluray player and bj for free.

I'm gonna argue that everybody does that and no one cares about competetion because Amazon is world ruler Amazon and people buy Apple products despite tha pricetag (to extremely oversimplify things and antagonize an entire group of people at the same time haha)

"No steam no buy" to me (as someone who also bought on GOG in the past) is not about features (bit of a lie on my part here) or the choice of buying games and third party exclusives games (no lie, I don't need to play every game even if its a game of the century according to metacritic, I don't even need to play every other game or third, or forth and so on)

To me it is a bet on the survival of my favorite shop where I like the interior and its nice and welcoming people are greeting me when I enter, and also about my convinience of having that shop nearby and easily accessible as I like that as a customer.
The mofo at another local electronics store, where I bought before, will never see me buying another lenovo tablet there because he thought he was clever making a fucking scene when I wanted to return it as the shit thing stopped working out of nowhere 2 weeks after having bought it there. I don't care how much cheaper that store is I will go and buy from a place where me and my rights are being respected and where the air smells like cinnamon during x-mas, that might even be more important!

And I know the people working there aren't my friends, I don't need them to be my friends, I only need them to pretend that they respect me and tell my how good I look now and then and it goes a long way if they don't ignore me or even treat me as a second class citizen when I shop there!
There are lots of reasons better than mine why "No Steam no buy!" is something to live by as a pc gamer, some of them also apply to me of course but competition or patreon money for megaseller indi devs, yeah that's a no from me!

And another thing, Steam is not a monopoly but as someone else pointed out it is rather near a hegemony image wise and I'm absolutely ok with that because I'd rather have one all overpowering store around where I feel good buying games then 20 other stores and they all try to pickpocket me everytime I turn around or fuck me over in other ways!
Competition is only relevant to me if that competition actually has some form of respect for me, not when it is comprised of wolves that are only waiting to tear me to shreds!

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I think the reason why the blizzard storefront works well and has been relatively ignored when it comes time to complain about multiple storefronts is because:

1. The blizzard launcher fully integrates all blizzard products in a meaningful way, is feature rich, light weight, and unobtrusive.
2. It's so focused on blizzard products and has pretty much all of them available, while also having 2 major activision titles on it that using it doesn't feel annoying.
3. Since it isn't actually selling games that are available on other launchers and is fully supporting everything that is on that platform it adds value.
4. The cross communication features on those products and in game chat are so rich that it's hard to see how those games could even perform as well using another launcher.

I get that most of those points are pretty much the same thing only slightly reworded. But at the end of the day it's hard to see the blizz launcher as another "me too!!" launcher / storefront combo and a very much an established product that actually uses its stand alone nature to the fullest while also keeping its own boundries.

I think that's the problem with these other launchers and storefronts. The blizzard store feels like it's earned the right to exist. All these other stores feel like they're just trying to be "that other program you have to use instead of steam". The blizz launcher feels like it knows what it needs to be and stays away from trying to be anything else.

 

[Wandermust]

I own hundreds of games on steam, I have hundreds of friends on steam. I've built my online gaming life for the past 10 years at the very least because of steams existence. It's not brand loyalty, it's just they've been all there was for a very long time and they always did their damned best to improve and respect the community. I'm fine with GOG and the fact I can download and play everything outside of steam, but why would I want to use a new launcher when Steam already has everything I need?

it's the same with starting a new MMO. If I'm max level, made friends in an older MMO, why would I start a new one and have to go from the beginning again?

Click to shrink...

Err. So you only make 1 toon in your mmo?

 

[AfropunkNyc]

Steam is already established and already have a ton of good stuff on the storefront. Being a new guy coming up and trying to compete is a uphill battle and buying up exclusives isn't going to cut it. I'm 3, 326 games strong into steam and been on there for 10 years. you'll be crazy if you think ill move on to another store.

 

[Hasseigaku]

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.
.

Click to shrink...

See, I'm not a fan of characterizing Epic as a bad actor just because they bought some time-limited exclusives. Maybe in terms of platform convenience they are "bad" but Valve has done way more egregious things as a platform holder than making some games inaccessible without inconvenience.

 

[DaveLong]

Welcome (back) to the real world, where retail stores offer exclusive things to get you to come to their store. Have you ever shopped at a local retailer of any type of goods? They have brands and items that other stores do not, hoping you will come to them instead of someone else.

Windmills gotta be tilted at I guess?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Great post but people that were posting drive-bys on the previous threads wont read it cause they dont care about pc gaming, its honestly a matter of moderation at this point in time more than education.

Click to shrink...

well stated as well.

I think the reason why the blizzard storefront works well and has been relatively ignored when it comes time to complain about multiple storefronts is because:

1. The blizzard launcher fully integrates all blizzard products in a meaningful way, is feature rich, light weight, and unobtrusive.
2. It's so focused on blizzard products and has pretty much all of them available, while also having 2 major activision titles on it that using it doesn't feel annoying.
3. Since it isn't actually selling games that are available on other launchers and is fully supporting everything that is on that platform it adds value.
4. The cross communication features on those products and in game chat are so rich that it's hard to see how those games could even perform as well using another launcher.

I get that most of those points are pretty much the same thing only slightly reworded. But at the end of the day it's hard to see the blizz launcher as another "me too!!" launcher / storefront combo and a very much an established product that actually uses its stand alone nature to the fullest while also keeping its own boundries.

I think that's the problem with these other launchers and storefronts. The blizzard store feels like it's earned the right to exist. All these other stores feel like they're just trying to be "that other program you have to use instead of steam". The blizz launcher feels like it knows what it needs to be and stays away from trying to be anything else.

Click to shrink...

also: I can run my Blizzard games through Steam and get the Steam overlay and direct access to my friends list, including being able to stream the games through Steam's streaming system.

But yes, Blizzard is gucci. And they've been around just as long as Steam has, so there's no questioning it anyway.

 

[Wrellie]

Also, someone really needs to start a "Movies Anywhere" for video games if this is the direction we're heading.

 

[Joe Spangle]

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...

Most private companies care about making money. Steam has done a load of open source stuff that benefits the whole PC community which they could lock down to make more money but haven't. I think peoples faith in them comes from 10-15 years worth of improving service to developers and to customers.

 

[MarcelRguez]

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.

Click to shrink...

I can see how a dozen might be an issue, but I don't think that model is sustainable at all. Just take a look at streaming services and the like, the whole system will collapse before we arrive at that. For better or worse, Steam strikes me as way too big and well-established for even half a dozen competitors to make a dent on the hold of the market it has. As long as devs can make money on the dominant platform, they can just ignore the other ones, just like many ignore consoles. And it's not like this is an either-or situation, people can have both launchers installed, free of charge.

 

[invid02]

Excellent post, GhostTrick . Well stated.

PC doesn't need more launchers.


It's definitely not a war. With their inability to compete in features or friends lists with Steam, all Epic is likely hoping for is to get a small slice of their own.

Nobody is going to be looking to make a downgraded experience their new home. And without that level of draw, it's not really a competition at all.

Click to shrink...

Aside from our enthusiast bubble and the vocal minority, I think people overestimate how many people legitimately care enough to forgo playing a game they are interested in because it's on a sub-par launcher. If Epic continue swiping games people care about and want to play, they will likely cement themselves as the number two shop to Steam rather than a fringe launcher with a few of their own games like most of the attempts before them.

We all forget all of this is still so infant, even Steam has only been around for 15 years. What the hell wil the landscape look like in another 15, and will the next generation of PC gamers actually care, who knows

 

[hey it's that dog]

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...

You're posing this question at a high level of abstraction and in such a way that most people will agree "yeah, monopolies bad, competition good". However, the complaints about Epic Game Store are specific and it has been explained countless times why the particular way they are doing things is not the ideal form of competition that you are speaking of, again, at a high level of abstraction.

Having a monopoly on a launcher is trivial. The real threat to the consumer is a monopoly on where you can purchase games that register on Steam. Steam is very open about letting devs and pubs sell Steam keys outside of the Steam store. This is a hugely important point in the monopoly debate and it seems like a lot of people think that having one icon to click on instead of another is the crux of the issue. It is not.

 

[GhostTrick]

See, I'm not a fan of characterizing Epic as a bad actor just because they bought some time-limited exclusives. Maybe in terms of platform convenience they are "bad" but Valve has done way more egregious things as a platform holder than making some games inaccessible without inconvenience.

Click to shrink...

Bad in term of quality. It's in no way a moral judgement. Lack of fonctionalities, bad policies among others. It's a bad launcher and a bad storefront for now.

 

[Aaron D.]

Great post but people that were posting drive-bys on the previous threads wont read it cause they dont care about pc gaming, its honestly a matter of moderation at this point in time more than education.

Click to shrink...

Browsing various threads on the topic, I'm inclined to agree.

Tribalism seem more important many than open, good-faith debate.

Great OP, btw!

 

[CharMomone]

Excellent write-up, people seem to fail to care or understand that Steam is and has been more than just a storefront with community features for years. I may not particularly enjoy the direction their games have been going in recently but Valve has made great strides in the pc space for years through Steam with projects like their controller api and linux support.

It is shortsighted to just throw out another online marketplace with a higher developer revenue margin without taking an interest to improve the user-end experience.

 

[Deleted member 426]

If a launcher launched that had all of Steam's features, as well as free games, most of you would stick resolutely with Steam.

It's okay to say you prefer one service over another because of the features it offers. But that's not the whole story, brand affinity comes into it. At least be honest with yourselves.

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

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.

Click to shrink...

You couldnt play MP portions of those games online without a CD Key.

Of course it's not a charity, this whole conversation is about paying for games.

Jokes aside, what I'm getting at is that, if you were interested in (i.e.) Super Meat Boy Forever but suddenly find yourself uninterested because it's on a different launcher, you might need to reflect about how much do you really like Super Meat Boy.

Click to shrink...

I literally cant buy the game. People in China literally cant buy the game anymore till next year.
People in low-income regions have to pay the equivalent of 100$ for SMB since Epic doesnt have regional prices.

 

[Freddo]

But sure, all Valve have done for PC is introduce online DRM.

Click to shrink...

Good to hear you agree!

 

[GhostTrick]

If a launcher launched that had all of Steam's features, as well as free games, most of you would stick resolutely with Steam.

It's okay to say you prefer one service over another because of the features it offers. But that's not the whole story, brand affinity comes into it. At least be honest with yourselves.

Click to shrink...

I would most likely but that's related to the fact that all my library is there.
Now, if I could import my library and the client is better: No question asked, I move.
Having your library in a reliable place is important: People who had GFWL games knows that fairly well.

 

[Deleted member 5596]

I don't care about features and all, I mean, is a reasonable argument. For me the biggest thing in all this is that Steam doesn't force games in their store, publishers and devs are free to put their games in other online stores. Epic is forcing exclusives, I don't care is just a launcher, I care about being able to choose in what store I want to use.

Exclusivities doesn't have a place in the open ended nature of the PC

 

[Richietto]

I pretty much don't care about having to use multiple launchers. If I want to play something I'll play it, but yeah can't disagree with the OP.

 

[Deleted member 426]

I would most likely but that's related to the fact that all my library is there.
Now, if I could import my library and the client is better: No question asked, I move.
Having your library in a reliable place is important: People who had GFWL games knows that fairly well.

Click to shrink...

Well that'd be a fair indicator so fair enough.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

OP you claim that Epic isn't giving devs enough tools in their platform, but that doesn't nearly outweigh the better revenue splits and payout they're doing to buy exclusivity. If it didn't, they wouldn't have takers! The proof is self-evident!

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

OP you claim that Epic isn't giving devs enough tools in their platform, but that doesn't nearly outweigh the better revenue splits and payout they're doing to buy exclusivity. If it didn't, they wouldn't have takers! The proof is self-evident!

Click to shrink...

What if the takers came because of an instant direct "moneyhat"? Some devs even said that the thing they received from Epic was "really generous".

Others said (like the Rebel Galaxy dev) that they did it to force Steam to give them a better cut so in turn feels more like a move to force Valve for that (and I dont see it as a bad move), but seems like they rather want to be on Steam with the bigger cut.

Edit: Here is the Rebel Galaxy Q&A. Gotta find the other comment.

 

[mutantmagnet]

That was a well made OP Ghosttrick. You get across neatly what is competitive and anti consumer and competitive and pro-consumer.

In the end though the first wave of devs who signed up with Epic will be better off sales wise. These discussions do raise awareness of some of these timed exclusives which certainly draws more attention than Valve's combined promotional efforts in their entire existence. If the game isn't made by Valve it simply doesn't get the marketing presence these other games are getting now.


But this only works well for those first in line. 4 months later after the full scope of Epic's poor launcher is assessed any dev who signs up with 1 year exclusivity after that point should be aware that Epic's barebones featureset will be accounted for when buying their games. They won't have the same level of talks going on about them like the first wave and they'll have their game attached to a poor launcher. At best the exclusivity is a sidegrade for their sales potential in the short term with a long term payoff that 30% isn't the defacto cut in 2-5 years.

 

[GhostTrick]

OP you claim that Epic isn't giving devs enough tools in their platform, but that doesn't nearly outweigh the better revenue splits and payout they're doing to buy exclusivity. If it didn't, they wouldn't have takers! The proof is self-evident!

Click to shrink...

There's something I wont deny: Getting the payout was an amazing deal for the devs involved:
It was basically being paid to launch on a store with a better cut, that has so few games that it's basically a gigantic billboard advertisement for these 15 games, featured at TGA.

 

[datamage]

Of course it's not a charity, this whole conversation is about paying for games.

Jokes aside, what I'm getting at is that, if you were interested in (i.e.) Super Meat Boy Forever but suddenly find yourself uninterested because it's on a different launcher, you might need to reflect about how much do you really like Super Meat Boy.

Click to shrink...

Oh, I totally get that. What I'm saying is, I'm not interested enough to want to deal with another account/launcher/ecosystem/ for it, or any of the other exclusive for now games. Where as, if those games were on Steam, the client I always have running, I would have probably gotten at least a couple of those games.

It's the devs gamble, as to whether their extra cut, and whatever Epic paid them would be worth it after the dust settles. Only time will tell.

 

[MarcelRguez]

I literally cant buy the game. People in China literally cant buy the game anymore till next year.
People in low-income regions have to pay the equivalent of 100$ for SMB since Epic doesnt have regional prices.

Click to shrink...

For the record, I have said that Epic's launcher is far from perfect. These are issues that need to be addressed.

However, they are also not the reason most people are against the idea of multiple launchers.

Oh, I totally get that. What I'm saying is, I'm not interested enough to want to deal with another account/launcher/ecosystem/ for it, or any of the other exclusive for now games. Where as, if those games were on Steam, the client I always have running, I would have probably gotten at least a couple of those games.

It's the devs gamble, as to whether their extra cut, and whatever Epic paid them would be worth it after the dust settles. Only time will tell.

Click to shrink...

Ok, glad we get each other's point. And yeah, it's the devs gamble at the end of the day, and I trust they know what's better for their finances.

 

[Asriel]

I like and use Steam, but having to download and use another launcher isn't gonna stop me from buying a game that I really want.

 

[Deleted member 3876]

This will be a much more interesting conversation in a year or so, when (er, assuming) Epic has upgraded their store experience with better gaming consumer-friendly tools and features.

 

[Complicated]

I'll keep buying the games I want to play regardless. If somebody wants to jump in with their capital and offer something to the PC ecosystem that's fantastic. It's the greatest strength of PC gaming.

 

[Deleted member 27771]

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-2019-cross-platform-online-services-roadmap

This seems pretty cool. Super ambitious but if they pull it off it seems like a very clear differentiator.

Sounds like it could unify all launchers and platforms at a tools and services level.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I like and use Steam, but having to download and use another launcher isn't gonna stop me from buying a game that I really want.

Click to shrink...

I agree, but that's also part of the rub, right? In order to be bothered with another launcher you have to really want to play said game. If a game has earned that kind of excitement, great. But that's a rare sight. For the other 90% of games, you either won't buy them or won't play them much because fuck bothering with other launchers. That's how this goes for most people.

 

[Gentlemen]

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.

Click to shrink...

This is still rubbish.
The Epic store is still needing to compete with Steam because if it doesn't improve its featureset it's going to wither and die as the exclusivity it has paid for is on a timer. They do not have the luxury of the pre-WW2 studio system that owned everything from script to soda fountain in the movie business.
It will evolve and get better because the forces of competition will demand it. It is not a monopoly.
The 'no steam no buy' slogan still sounds like flimsy, childish nonsense thanks to these absurd redefinitions of terms to loaded language like 'monpolies!'

 

[Crayon]

Valve has practically built half an operating system. Imagine what they're going to do over the next 10 years well these publishers struggle to get basic functionality in their own launchers.

 

[Asriel]

I agree, but that's also part of the rub, right? In order to be bothered with another launcher you have to really want to play said game. If a game has earned that kind of excitement, great. But that's a rare sight. For the other 90% of games, you either won't buy them or won't play them much because fuck bothering with other launchers. That's how this goes for most people.

Click to shrink...

I mean, that's fine? I find that people missing out on a game they'd otherwise enjoy because of having to use a different launcher is ridiculous, but that's me.

 

[GhostTrick]

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-2019-cross-platform-online-services-roadmap

This seems pretty cool. Super ambitious but if they pull it off it seems like a very clear differentiator.

Sounds like it could unify all launchers and platforms at a tools and services level.

Click to shrink...

Depending on how they pull it off, it can be either amazing news or terrible news.

 

[GhostTrick]

This is still rubbish.
The Epic store is still needing to compete with Steam because if it doesn't improve its featureset it's going to wither and die as the exclusivity it has paid for is on a timer. They do not have the luxury of the pre-WW2 studio system that owned everything from script to soda fountain in the movie business.
It will evolve and get better because the forces of competition will demand it. It is not a monopoly.
The 'no steam no buy' slogan still sounds like flimsy, childish nonsense thanks to these absurd redefinitions of terms to loaded language like 'monpolies!'

Click to shrink...

There's an entire OP adressing everything you're saying here. Please read it.

 

[Deleted member 27771]

Depending on how they pull it off, it can be either amazing news or terrible news.

Click to shrink...

Well if Fortnite is anything to go by I'd say there are reasons to be optimistic - though this sounds like an insane undertaking.

 

[Armaros]

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...

Have you asked that question to devs not signed into Epic's exclusivity deal?

Epic's indie devs are not example of the majority of indie devs.

 

[Lothars]

Of course it's not a charity, this whole conversation is about paying for games.

Jokes aside, what I'm getting at is that, if you were interested in (i.e.) Super Meat Boy Forever but suddenly find yourself uninterested because it's on a different launcher, you might need to reflect about how much do you really like Super Meat Boy.

Click to shrink...

No The developer needs to reflect on hmm how many people are like this and are not willing to put up with another terrible launcher. I love Super Meat Boy but I will not buy Super Meat Boy forever until the exclusivity is done.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

I think the reason why the blizzard storefront works well and has been relatively ignored when it comes time to complain about multiple storefronts is because:

1. The blizzard launcher fully integrates all blizzard products in a meaningful way, is feature rich, light weight, and unobtrusive.
2. It's so focused on blizzard products and has pretty much all of them available, while also having 2 major activision titles on it that using it doesn't feel annoying.
3. Since it isn't actually selling games that are available on other launchers and is fully supporting everything that is on that platform it adds value.
4. The cross communication features on those products and in game chat are so rich that it's hard to see how those games could even perform as well using another launcher.

I get that most of those points are pretty much the same thing only slightly reworded. But at the end of the day it's hard to see the blizz launcher as another "me too!!" launcher / storefront combo and a very much an established product that actually uses its stand alone nature to the fullest while also keeping its own boundries.

I think that's the problem with these other launchers and storefronts. The blizzard store feels like it's earned the right to exist. All these other stores feel like they're just trying to be "that other program you have to use instead of steam". The blizz launcher feels like it knows what it needs to be and stays away from trying to be anything else.

Click to shrink...

Blizzard Store is also based on Battle.net which has been around before Steam. Battle.net has had its place in PC gaming for ages and had many handy features with it, like auto-patching, etc. Also not to mention, Blizzard's customer support is probably the best in the industry. I dislike PC launchers but I have no issues with Battle.net since it was around for a very long time before even Steam or Epic Game Launcher.