Metro Exodus - Being Removed from Steam

Originally Posted by Silver
PC is largely an open platform and for them to compete they need to consider the service side and its a scant offering. .

But what does having a game published on Steam (just one proprietary platform), have to do with the PC being an open platform?

Originally Posted by Ripper
But what does having a game published on Steam (just one proprietary platform), have to do with the PC being an open platform?

Steam recognizes that they are competing with piracy. If they fail to provide a better service than the pirates then they won't sell the game. This is why we have things like Steam workshop and cloud saves.

Originally Posted by Stingray
I'm not particularly keen on "exclusive deals" (kickbacks), but generally speaking, all gamers should be happy that the people who developed the game would get 88% of its revenue (via Epic store) rather than only 70% (via Steam store). Having some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder about only having one game store app installed on your computer shouldn't trump the desire for the game's developer to get a much larger percentage of the money you paid for their game. That's a really sad attitude.

Yeah Steam has a lot of loyalty. I think 30% was once pretty great compared to brick and mortar, but it's still a lot of money.

I have a great idea hardware and Software branded PC's. Lets see how everyone who is a PC gamer loves that idea over open platforms. Different PC's only play certain games.

Lets see Microsoft,Steam, Apple, and am I missing anyone who would love this idea?

As for the retail side that 20-30% at a company like Walmart is well worth it. They push pallets of crap worldwide at cheap prices that make more sales for the seller.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I have a great idea hardware and Software branded PC's. Lets see how everyone who is a PC gamer loves that idea over open platforms. Different PC's only play certain games.

Lets see Microsoft,Steam. Apple and am I missing anyone who would love this idea?

Except that isn't what's going on here at all, there is nothing stopping anyone from playing the game except that they have to shop at a different online store. This is like finding out that only Babbages carries the game you want, not Electronics Boutique, so you refuse to buy the game because you only shop at Electronics Boutique.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Except that isn't what's going on here at all, there is nothing stopping anyone from playing the game except that they have to shop at a different online store. This is like finding out that only Babbages carries the game you want, not Electronic Boutique, so you refuse to buy the game because you only shop at Babbages.

It was a joke comparing it to the attitudes of buyers about exclusives that's all. As the further you go down that road what I wrote about might become a reality at some point.

Good intentions and all that nonsense.

Originally Posted by Silver
Steam recognizes that they are competing with piracy. If they fail to provide a better service than the pirates then they won't sell the game. This is why we have things like Steam workshop and cloud saves.

Sure - so that's something in their favour. But I'm still not seeing what that's got to do with the PC being an open platform, and games not being published on Steam working against that openness.

Certainly a great deal of general software available for Windows is sold directly by the companies that create it. I would have thought that the openness of the PC has to do with that freedom to sell your software however you like. If a software company opts to use a third-party online store, and chooses to use one instead of another, I don't see how that reduces the openness of the PC platform.

Originally Posted by Ripper
If one company opts to use a third party online store, and chooses to use one instead of another, I don't see how that reduces the openness of the PC platform.

Indeed, it's more a reflection of the openness, not something that reduces openness.

In this case I don't know if Epic paid this company some money to put their game only on the Epic store. If they did, then I don't know that I'm too fond of that, but…it makes perfect sense for a dev to put their game on the Epic platform for some limited exclusivity period and rake in 88% of the revenues of all the early sales (which is quite a lot for a game usually), then put it on Steam later to pick up the customers who have that OCD and refuse to buy games outside of Steam too. They'll only get 70% from those Steam sales, but will pick up some sales they might not have gotten at all otherwise.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Indeed, it's more a reflection of the openness, not something that reduces openness.

In this case I don't know if Epic paid this company some money to put their game only on the Epic store. If they did, then I don't know that I'm too fond of that, but…it makes perfect sense for a dev to put their game on the Epic platform for some limited exclusivity period and rake in 88% of the revenues of all the early sales (which is quite a lot for a game usually), then put it on Steam later to pick up the customers who have that OCD and refuse to buy games outside of Steam too. They'll only get 70% from those Steam sales, but will pick up some sales they might not have gotten at all otherwise.

Agree somewhat with you but I don't agree with the one year exclusive length. A better deal would be three to six months for initial sales, but I'm sure Epic wouldn't want that.

Originally Posted by Stingray
I'm not particularly keen on "exclusive deals" (kickbacks), but generally speaking, all gamers should be happy that the people who developed the game would get 88% of its revenue (via Epic store) rather than only 70% (via Steam store). Having some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder about only having one game store app installed on your computer shouldn't trump the desire for the game's developer to get a much larger percentage of the money you paid for their game. That's a really sad attitude.

I'm not fussed by the number of clients on my computer because I use desktop links to launch my games anyways. I'm OCD in the way I like to organize those links through.

Generally speaking I think people don't want to have to think about which game is where and deal with different platform hijinks when they are time limited as it is.

There is probably a business opportunity somewhere for the ultimate game launcher that can organize that stuff for you from multiple clients.

I'm glad developers are getting a larger share through.

From what I've heard from developers, if you want to make big sales numbers, you need Steam. The other stores are a fraction of what Steam does because of the loyalty.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Metro. I hope the deal with Epic is pretty sweet though because it's a huge risk.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Sure - so that's something in their favour. But I'm still not seeing what that's got to do with the PC being an open platform, and games not being published on Steam working against that openness.

Certainly a great deal of general software available for Windows is sold directly by the companies that create it. I would have thought that the openness of the PC has to do with that freedom to sell your software however you like. If a software company opts to use a third-party online store, and chooses to use one instead of another, I don't see how that reduces the openness of the PC platform.

I'm not making that claim. The PC is an open platform and Steam better realizes that than their competitors except for perhaps GOG by offering a superior service.

Originally Posted by Silver
I'm glad developers are getting a larger share through.

I'm also glad developers get a larger share just hate exclusives. Even hate them on consoles. A better practice would be to release on multiple platforms instead of one.

Buyers then can buy it on the platform of their choice.

Originally Posted by Silver
I'm not making that claim. The PC is an open platform and Steam better realizes that than their competitors except for perhaps GOG by offering a superior service.

Fair enough. I still don't quite see how the quality of Steam's service realizes the openness of the PC platform better than others, but let's agree to differ.

The main problem with this is that it offers absolute zero to the consumer. From what I've seen, Epic is offering nothing to the consumer other than to potentially complicate his life a little further. This is all about the proportions of money earned by the publishers and distributors. It's not really my problem as a consumer to start with, and tactics like these exclusives only hurt consumers.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Fair enough. I still don't quite see how the quality of Steam's service realizes the openness of the PC platform better than others, but let's agree to differ.

Okay last reply I promise to clarify for you. The Steam service isn't about realizing openness its about providing convenience to the consumer and less hassle. Steam knows its competing with the freedom that openness provides. Thats all I'm saying.

The way I look at it, the current scenario doesn't offer any immediate advantage to the consumer, but I think that establishing credible competition to Steam could, in the longer term. If Epic became as viable a choice for studios as Steam, their lower percentage cut could be quite disruptive. So, I would personally trade a bit more inconvenience in the short term, for a potentially improved state of affairs down the line. But then, I already dislike the amount of power Valve holds, so the case is an easier one for me to swallow.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Except that isn't what's going on here at all, there is nothing stopping anyone from playing the game except that they have to shop at a different online store. This is like finding out that only Babbages carries the game you want, not Electronics Boutique, so you refuse to buy the game because you only shop at Electronics Boutique.

Except its not like that either. We aren't talking about a store to buy the game from. We are talking about being tied to a client that you run the game from.

Originally Posted by Ripper
The way I look at it, the current scenario doesn't offer any immediate advantage to the consumer, but I think that establishing credible competition to Steam could, in the longer term. If Epic became as viable a choice for studios as Steam, their lower percentage cut could be quite disruptive. So, I would personally trade a bit more inconvenience in the short term, for a potentially improved state of affairs down the line. But then, I already dislike the amount of power Valve holds, so the case is an easier one for me to swallow.

True, but I'll be interested to see if that percentage doesn't creep up if they gain popularity and spend money on R&D to improve their client which currently runs far behind steams.

Originally Posted by sakichop
True, but I'll be interested to see if that percentage doesn't creep up if they gain popularity and spend money on R&D to improve their client which currently runs far behind steams.

I think it very likely would. But I'd take a fiercely competitive duopoly over a virtual monopoly any day.