The “killer feature” is that they pay more to the developers, so if you are getting the exact same game on (e.g.) Steam versus Epic Games, then whomever actually made the game gets more money from the Epic sale. Isn’t that a good thing?
(Note that I may be conflating the publisher with the developer, but either way, it’s still the case that less money is taken by intermediaries, which is a good thing.)
And are those because Steam is trying to pressure them into being exclusive on Steam? Or did they just not bother releasing anywhere else?
If a developer just wants to release on Epic and nowhere else they can do that. My issue comes from Epic approaching games that have already announced a Steam release asking for exclusivity, and having no interest in hosting the game if they don’t accept the exclusivity offer.
Exactly. Not having an alternative marketplace–and no other one exists–is anti-customer and yet, you seem to have no problem with a Steam monopoly. Why?
No, because epic has been engaging in anti consumer practices from the start. This is literally the only category epic has a leg up on steam, and if they didn’t need to bully their way into the marketplace, I have no reason to believe they’d treat creators any better than they currently do customers
edit: The revelation that they are running the store at a loss just furthers me not believing they are helping developers from the goodness of their heart, it shows they’re likely running the Walmart strategy of using their vast wealth to choke out their competition until there is none, and then once they have a monopoly, jack everything up, which’d probably include their cut of the pie
The “killer feature” is that they pay more to the developers, so if you are getting the exact same game on (e.g.) Steam versus Epic Games, then whomever actually made the game gets more money from the Epic sale. Isn’t that a good thing?
(Note that I may be conflating the publisher with the developer, but either way, it’s still the case that less money is taken by intermediaries, which is a good thing.)
That’s a reason for developers to use them, not for consumers to use them.
EPICs anti-customer practices (such as trying to make everything exclusive) are reasons for consumers not to use them.
There are tens of thousands of Steam-exclusive games: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_exclusive_to_Steam
What is the alternative to Steam?
And are those because Steam is trying to pressure them into being exclusive on Steam? Or did they just not bother releasing anywhere else?
If a developer just wants to release on Epic and nowhere else they can do that. My issue comes from Epic approaching games that have already announced a Steam release asking for exclusivity, and having no interest in hosting the game if they don’t accept the exclusivity offer.
There are almost 40,000 entries, I obviously cannot answer for all of them.
Still waiting for you to answer my question.
Well you sound like someone trying to have a good faith discussion and attempting to continue would be a good use of my time.
As I said.
(The linked article is about Epic)
Exactly. Not having an alternative marketplace–and no other one exists–is anti-customer and yet, you seem to have no problem with a Steam monopoly. Why?
However because of their 40% ownership, you’re ALSO giving more money to Tencent.
Wait tencent has ownership of epic games?
Yikes. Good point.
No, because epic has been engaging in anti consumer practices from the start. This is literally the only category epic has a leg up on steam, and if they didn’t need to bully their way into the marketplace, I have no reason to believe they’d treat creators any better than they currently do customers
edit: The revelation that they are running the store at a loss just furthers me not believing they are helping developers from the goodness of their heart, it shows they’re likely running the Walmart strategy of using their vast wealth to choke out their competition until there is none, and then once they have a monopoly, jack everything up, which’d probably include their cut of the pie
You think?
Yes, I do, or else I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I’d prefer the publisher gets money over a middleman store. Isn’t that preferable?
Its a phrase that signals something else, and not a literal content reply.
How about you write what you mean and have quality conversation in the future?
I did. Its a standard phrase used by people in conversation. See defintion #2 below.
Below definition is from here …
Quality is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. /shrug
If you did, then I answered the genuine question you asked.