Originally Posted by Avonosac
Yea.. it's somewhat wordy because there's a whole lot of subtle reasons why this is a very bad thing for consumer's. There is no reason to look for precedent in this niche to understand how the strategy of a platform company plays out in the myriad other platform economy precedent, games are no different than any other platform - full stop.
Creating walled gardens, which any platform exclusive title does by definition, is anti-competitive - full stop.
Steam doesn't really have unreasonably high fees, they just want better margins and out of complete ignorance of the actual complexity, difficulty, and cost of running this kind of platform. They also don't really bear much of the risk of trying, you do. While they learn how wrong they are, you suffer preventable and easily avoidable pain.
I really don't think you did get what I was saying, because the message you seemed to receive was they are going about it wrong from a platform perspective. I was pointing out exactly how all of the rhetoric is awful for you as a consumer regardless - so you shouldn't support this activity. Content creators being in charge of distribution always with plenty of precedent results in consumer abuse. Simply put, did you use Ubisoft's awful required store and downloader for the past 5 years?
Look, reread what I wrote. I tried to organize it somewhat in stages but its clear at this point you're also only seeing the top of the ice berg and dismissing the stuff I'm saying is below the surface. Fine, but digital distribution is a LOT harder of a problem than you think it is, I lived through the creation of steam and the years it took for them to grow the clients and architecture to at least a palatable solution, and now I know intricately how hard they are to build. A collection of walled gardens screws the customer, and will definitely lead to situations where the competing gardens are literally battling each other with your resources on the battlefield of your computer.
Yep, its not competitive - 100%.
Yes they want developers, the way you do that is to bring a market developers want to address, or offer a solution to a problem developers have. They aren't doing either, they are trapping customers with exclusive titles to create the illusion of a market to attract developers. If they were competing it would be on prices and features, not back room deals - even if it's just with themselves.
I actually like Uplay quite a bit. I am of the mindset that I like competition to Steam, so as long as it works well, I like it. Uplay works really well, its very simple. Seems lightweight compared to Steam. Origin is ok but it doesn't scale right in 4K yet for me, though Steam lagged on 4K scaling support for a really long time as well. I don't think I ever had any issues with Uplay at all.
"will definitely lead to situations where the competing gardens are literally battling each other with your resources on the battlefield of your computer" - I really don't think its nearly as dramatics as you've made it sound here. They will be competing in the same way two or more gas stations at the same intersection are. I'd hardly call that a "battlefield."
I do understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. You have some good points that are definitely well thought out and you may be right, but IMO Steam is as much a walled garden as anything in this market, it's just a very comfortable walled garden at this point. Valve doesn't put their games up anywhere else. They made Steam to get the same amount of direct to consumer access that other companies are now trying to get for themselves.
To me it seem like you are looking at the Epic store from a very nagative light and it's affected your objectivity on this, because while your thoughts are definitely very well thought out, they don't seem to take into acount any of the growing pains that Steam iteslf went through and that forces your argument to boil down to... Steam did it first and no one else is entitled to try, because if they have to go through any of the same kinds of growing pains it's just not acceptable now that Steam has already gotten so many things right. No one else is entitled to take a similar approach to what Valve did with Steam because Steam got their first.
I'm not trying to belittle your point, I know your saying a lot more than that, but without writting huge essays on the topic here, I don't think your looking at the whole picture. I do think there is a lot of upside to consumers that will manifest over time if the Epic store makes it out if the rocky beginning phase, which I have no doubt it will. Developers/publishers will want people to use the Epic store so they can make more money, and if developers feel less pinched for cash all the time they might start making some new IPs more often instead of playing it safe all the time with Call of Duty 15 coming out soon. A sinical person can say they will just pocket the cash and the consumer will never know the difference, but that's definitely not the case because this industry is far too competitive. Game developers put major effort into their games, and major money. If they can get more money to fule their future product, you can be damn sure they're going to use it to the best of their ability if they want to stay competitive.
I also don't really agree with your premise that the Epic store is doing anything significantly bad for consumers here. The only real issue is that some consumers might have to begrudgingly use the Epic store for certian games. You can analyze that deeply and I get that your job is to do exactly that but to the average consumer the equation is pretty simple. Steam is a lot more fleshed out but again, that's not a big deal to most people. The major issue here is just that people are bothered by having to install another program. I think this marks the end of the days where most major AAA titles release on Steam. With Uplay, Origin, and now this, gamers are just going to have to start buying games in more places if they want to play a variety of AAA titles.
I would argue that Orrgin is by far the worst of the major digital stores, and really it still works fine for buying and playing games. Even the worst of them suddenly is an after thought to most people as soon as a game they want to play is out, hence APEX.
I also do not agree with you when you say Steam's fee's are unreasonable. I think 30% is too high for a digital store. Yes they certainly have costs, but not nearly enough to justify 30% fees. Valve us just getting richer and richer and we all know it. Maybe if Valve was doing anything to reinvest their profits into something meaningful for PC gamers beyond a few small projects here and there it would be reasonable, but all they are really doing is maintaining and updating Steam. Thats not worth 30%. If the problem developers have is the 30% than as you suggested the Epic store should do, they have offered a solution.