Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
One of the annoying thing about epic exclusives is that the focus is on steam, but GOG is affected too and loses out on games too until the deal expires.
Steam is their scapegoat, they want a Monopoly without having to say they have a Monopoly.
The company providing an actual alternative to steam's real monopoly is not the one to be complaining about
Except they're trying to strongarm people into using it by using huge amounts of money to buy exclusivity rights.
People don't want monopolies because companies can abuse their position to hurt consumers. But steam provides a very user friendly experience with lots of benefits and features like mod hosting, remote play together, etc. Epic provides a store that people hate using, and people only put up with because epic abused fortnite's success to buy exclusivity deals*. Despite being the much smaller storefront, Epic already feels like the abusive monopoly in the PC gaming space.
*Many people also play on Epic because of free games, which is a valid and pro-consumer way to attract users. I'm 100% cool with this strategy, although giving away merchandise at a loss is also a common monopoly strategy.
With regards to
It's important to remember that it's not only buyers, but developers that use Steam. Steam is currently involved in a lawsuit with developers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/the-antitrust-lawsuit-against-steam-is-now-a-class-action-and-that-could-have-big-repercussions-for-valve/
Also relevant, from 2021 but the same lawsuit,
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/
I like Steam, I'm not hating on Steam, but rushing to defend it from people saying it's a monopoly (or calling Epic Games Store a monopoly) is very much denying reality.
Epic is running a loss leader at this point so it's not an business model to point to, since it's subsidized by unreal and fortnite.
Microsoft on Xbox is taking a 30% cut so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume cut is more a strategy to try to expand market share and are willing to increase down the line if they got market share. And Microsoft is Microsoft so has lot of other profitable divisions to be able to run things at a loss.
One actually better to point to might be GOG which is also taking 30%, but in 2021 had a 1 million dollar loss. https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
Which raises the question. What is actually sustainable? Especially the lower cut offered have other much more profitable divisions that are covering potential losses and not being the main source of revenue.
All retail establishments utilize loss leaders. It's not some underhanded duplicitous tactic, it's just a common business strategy
Loss leaders that lead to buying other things that lead to overall profitability for that section of the business.
This entire division is operating at a loss. Point isn't that it is unusual or underhanded. It's that because of the way the division is currently run it is not a business model to point to as being sustainable.
Well yeah, fighting for market share against an entrenched monopoly isn't cheap. That's not a reason to cheer on the monopoly though.
That's not what the conversation was about. It was about whether the business model is actually viable.
If the business of that section is turning a profit it lends more support as opposed to being seen as a side project that doesn't need to turn a profit. Which is why I included GOG into the mix, since Microsoft and Epic are huge companies with alternative revenue streams.
No it wasn't. We were taking about streams monopoly status and epic being one of the few alternatives.
YOU were the one trying to deflect the conversation into business viability. Which your entire side tangent really only reinforces how obscene the monopoly hold off stream is, that trying to break into the market is so expensive.
If the point of cuts is given then business viability is quite important. Especially when it raises questions of whether GOG could sustain a lower cut. Those options you provided like Microsoft and Epic are multibillion dollar corporations capable of burning through money endlessly.
That 30% is standard for most storefronts. Just look at Google Play and Apple's App Store.
If you're that put off by 30% cuts then don't look into retail stores because their markups make that look like chump change.
Actually, it's generally publishers, not developers that end up paying the 30% cut. For most games the developer gets paid upfront by the publisher, and the publisher pockets the difference between development costs and sales. I'd also like to point out that prices between EGS and Steam are generally the same, so instead of getting lower priced games as promised, the publishers are just pocketing the larger profits.
Repeat Tim Swiney's fake talking points all you want, the fact of the matter is that Valve isn't behaving like a monopoly, even if they command a huge portion of the market. The reason they're so big in the first place is specifically because they're very pro-consumer
I'm keeping the model simple by equating publisher with developer. Basically, you've got the consumer, the store, and the supplier. That some (most) developer studios go through a publisher for funding is a business practice that's actually unrelated to Steam. Especially because they allow indie content.
That's the same as app stores/etc, and is still a common cut to take. I'm not convinced the cuts that Epic is taking are actually sustainable for offering downloads/updates/etc for a game indefinitely, but it's hard to tell since the Epic store is already bleeding money.
I'll also mention that Audible (which has a monopoly in the audiobook space) reportably takes a 60-75% cut of audiobooks sold on their platform (they take only 60% if you agree to sell exclusively on audible, but they take the full 75% if you want to sell the book somewhere else as well). Monopolies abusing their position is really common, but I haven't seen anything similar from Steam that makes me think they're abusing their position. I suspect PC gaming would be in a far worse state if another company controlled the popular storefront.
Would you do your job and maybe receive an income but only years later, based on results and how happy you made your boss?
The devs and publishers who sign those deals are the ones you should be angry at, Epic is offering them guaranteed income in exchange for timed exclusivity, Valve is offering them access to a bigger player base in exchange for a gamble.
Being a small game dev has a lot of uncertainty and risk. I wouldn't blame any small dev for taking a guaranteed paycheck from Epic. Larger studios with safe prospects should be blamed though imo. Gearbox with Borderlands 3 for example.
Doesn't matter the size of the studio, in the end they have people to pay and Steam is asking them to take a gamble in the hope that they'll make enough to compensate the money they spent. We've seen but studios crash and burn, hell Sony wasted home many millions on that game that was online for a couple of days? I'm sure they would have been happy to have gotten a cheque instead of nothing!
And that's why I don't buy games from those devs and publishers