Metro Exodus - Being Removed from Steam

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.

That does tend to happen when market dominance has been achieved in other sectors. Steam has actually dropped the revenue share for big sellers through which suggests that they don't have market dominance, in terms of big players at least. I think the same will also be true for Epic if it achieves the same market position as Steam has now.

On a side note: I always shudder to think what would of happened if EA had come out with Steam first.

Originally Posted by sakichop
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.

Eh, not really. Don't know about you but I don't "run my game from clients". I use the store client to install it and create a desktop shortcut to run it in the future, that's about it. If you choose to use the store for more than that, that's on you I think.

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

I understand what you're saying, but there's only competition if the games are release on all clients.

If I have to use Bethesda's launcher for their games, origins for an EA game, Ubi's launcher for their game, Galaxy for CDPR games and so on and so forth then there's no competition.

There's just inconvenience for the consumer.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Eh, not really. Don't know about you but I don't "run my game from clients". I use the store client to install it and create a desktop shortcut to run it in the future, that's about it. If you choose to use the store for more than that, that's on you I think.

I do that for single player games, yes, but I like to use some of the features offered by the clients. (chat, cloud saves, groups etc)

I'm weird that way though, I also like my windows in my car to work even though that doesn't affect it from taking me from A to B.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I understand what you're saying, but there's only competition if the games are release on all clients.

If I have to use Bethesda's launcher for their games, origins for an EA game, Ubi's launcher for their game, Galaxy for CDPR games and so on and so forth then there's no competition.

There's just inconvenience for the consumer.

No, I'd disagree with that. You might not have direct price competition on each individual game, but you would still have different stores trying to compete on offering better quality products, at better prices. I think that's a much healthier state of affairs, in any market.

With regard to the need for multiple clients, that's really because each one is currently its own DRM agent. There are all sorts of possible technical solutions to that problem, if we moved to a market with far more distribution platforms. Licensing and DRM could be done in a standardized and interoperable way. So, the competing distributors could compete on the quality of their clients, of which you would select your favourite (as we do with web browsers), and on what they offer in their stores.

Say what you want but I for one don't want a client for every major publisher. It'll be interesting to read the sale numbers in a few months to see if this was a good decision.

The stores are competing already and Steam is the dominant player still because the other players are just too greedy and self interested to effectively compete with Steam. I believe that they are really hamstrung by being listed on the stockmarket and being beholden to quarterly earnings reports and the like. Valve can make long term plans whereas the competition is stuck thinking about short term gains. This means that anything they come up with is hastily implemented and poorly thought through. Will Epic be any different?

Valve even spent some diversionary time on VR and Steam controller and ignored the storefront for 5 or more years. During that time EA and Ubisoft certainly improved their profitability but did they make any headway in terms of reputation and buy-in towards their storefronts? Hard to say but I think the gains would be minimal. To compete effectively with Steam these publishers need a different philosophy and not just a different software.

Nope, I won't capitulate to these kinds of exclusiveness. If it's just too good a game to not be on great old games or steam, I'll take a pass on it with a smile on my face. Two platforms is more than enough for me already, at least Epic has shown us all what they are all about at their inception, so no need to wonder anymore.

Yea, scratch one game off for now, called "Metro Exodus" because of this greedy publisher decision. Leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, for this gamer, at any rate.

I was very interested in this game, having both of the previous ones in my steam library, but will not buy it unless and until it is available at steam again. The other thing that was making this game not as appealing was the absurdly high system requirements, those are beyond my computer, and so I was worried about having a smooth playing experience.

Maybe I will pick it up in a couple years on a steam sale, but this game officially goes off my radar once it leaves steam and goes to Epic games….I won't have anything to do with Epic games. As shown, they offer nothing to the consumer in terms of their client. No forums? Nor player reviews? Hmmm…I wonder why. If you really think about it, you can understand why they and publishers would prefer this arrangement.

Hell, maybe Epic games will deign to have reviews eventually, but only the hand picked ones, that the publisher chooses…every game will be called "fantastic!" and "GOTY material". Perhaps then they will be even sneakier and decide to publish player reviews, but only the same process…the player reviews deemed too negative will be called "abusive" and not allowed on the client, while the player reviews gushing about the games will be prominently featured, as just another sales gimmick.

Screw that. Not interested.

I don't mind competition but the exclusiveness i don't like. Anyway i'm not going ot install epic client so I guess this is another game I won't play.

Originally Posted by Ripper
No, I'd disagree with that. You might not have direct price competition on each individual game, but you would still have different stores trying to compete on offering better quality products, at better prices. I think that's a much healthier state of affairs, in any market.

With regard to the need for multiple clients, that's really because each one is currently its own DRM agent. There are all sorts of possible technical solutions to that problem, if we moved to a market with far more distribution platforms. Licensing and DRM could be done in a standardized and interoperable way. So, the competing distributors could compete on the quality of their clients, of which you would select your favourite (as we do with web browsers), and on what they offer in their stores.

Yeah, agree to disagree i guess.

The number of clients or having exclusivity wont affect quality of games at all.

As for price competitiveness we already have that. The clients aren’t the only one selling games and most often the best deals are at online stores that just sell the keys for the clients. Such as gamersgate, green man gaming, humble bundle, etc.

There’s no shortage of deals for games so to me it comes down to client features. Taking away my choice as to which client i can use depending on the availability of games is not a positive imo.

A lot of teeth gnashing and "I'll show them!" talk in here. Anyone who was truly interested in the game could have preordered it. Not to mention we were warned in advance before it was taken off Steam.

I don't like exclusive deals like this, but I'm not going to deny myself what looks like a really good game because of it.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Yeah, agree to disagree i guess.

The number of clients or having exclusivity wont affect quality of games at all.

As for price competitiveness we already have that. The clients aren’t the only one selling games and most often the best deals are at online stores that just sell the keys for the clients. Such as gamersgate, green man gaming, humble bundle, etc.

There’s no shortage of deals for games so to me it comes down to client features. Taking away my choice as to which client i can use depending on the availability of games is not a positive imo.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that exclusivity automatically increases the quality of games, or that it's desirable in itself. I'm saying that by having more stores competing (in any context), you will generally see positive effects for the consumer - and the reverse where you have monopolies or cartels. If, as in your previous example, you have several stores selling the same products, you will create an obvious downward pressure on prices. And, even if you don't have them selling the exact same products, but competing ones, there is still a pressure to make a better offer to the consumer, one way or another. It could be lower prices, better quality, better terms, etc. To me, that seems like a core principle of free market economics.

Regarding your points on price competitiveness and resellers - it's a peculiar type of price competition we have here. In some cases, it's the sale of grey market keys, and various other shenanigans that shadier resellers have come up with. Where Steam keys are being resold at lower prices legitimately, those keys would need to have have been bought from Steam by the publishers, taking a hit on discounting them to resellers as part of their sales strategy. Valve's terms require that anything they distribute not be sold independently on other platforms at a lower price, shutting off genuine competition. So, true competition in the market would mean the publisher has more leverage to share the cost of discounting with the distributor, and both would have an incentive for more competitive pricing.

Having the 88% split is no guarantee for maximum revenue over time. Sheer volume sales on Steam could lead to more profit despite the lower 70% split.

I don't really care about monopolies as far as game distribution goes. Near-sighted of me? Yeah, probably. Mostly, I just want a centralized game library to scroll through and pick from. I have no interest in having to remember where I have a particular game for the sake of [re]downloading.

Hell, I barely scroll through my GoG library! And at least that has some older titles unavailable elsewhere.

All the game clients I have to use so far.

Forgot to add GOG Galaxy but it's optional not forced on you.

PC Platforms.jpg

Lately I've been interested in a free source program called playnite.

Link - https://playnite.link/

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
All the game clients I have to use so far.

Forgot to add GOG Galaxy but it's optional not forced on you.

Attachment 3344

Lately I've been interested in a free source program called playnite.

Link - https://playnite.link/

loading…

Thanks for linking that playnite software. I'll have a look at it and see if it is worth installing and using.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Eh, not really. Don't know about you but I don't "run my game from clients". I use the store client to install it and create a desktop shortcut to run it in the future, that's about it. If you choose to use the store for more than that, that's on you I think.

Doesnt running the game from shrtcut also start the client in behind? I think at least some of the clients work like that, no?

Originally Posted by Drithius
I don't really care about monopolies as far as game distribution goes. Near-sighted of me? Yeah, probably. Mostly, I just want a centralized game library to scroll through and pick from. I have no interest in having to remember where I have a particular game for the sake of [re]downloading.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position - more clients are a damn nuisance, and you don't really care about video game monopolies. Can't argue with that, and i think it's better just to be blunt that it's simply a matter of one's own convenience.

A shitty move. They chose epic launcher whatever, i choose daemon tools.