1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ex Valve Developer Lashes out about Steam "Steam Killing PC Gaming"

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,623
    Likes Received:
    893
    GPU:
    -
    We already paid both steam/valve and the developer/publisher of the game when purchasing said game, so yes, it's anti-consumer.

    Again, if the publisher/developer decides they do not want to have their game on steam due to the 30% take, then by all means, they don't have to. They don't have to have all the features provided on steam to both them and their customers. They don't have to have access to the largest PC gaming platform there is.

    If they feel that they will get more money from not having access to steam, that is their call.

    This is on the developer/publisher, not the consumer, so yes, again, your suggestions are anti-consumer, because it's about what the developer/publisher wants and can have access to, that you're trying to put onto the consumer. These features are for the game developers/publishers to benefit from, from MORE sales, from MORE benefits, from MORE reason to purchase said game by the consumer, not for the consumer to have to worry about what features they have paid for and what features they have not paid for and feeling like steam is a pay-to-play platform.

    Your suggestions would be the end of steam competitiveness, simply put. And this has no benefit to consumers, steam/valve, or the publishers/developers that put their games on it. No one benefits.

    No, we're not. It is not "greedy" to not purchase a product, or purchase a product. If a game is not good, then is it then greedy to not purchase their product and instead purchase their competitors product? No.

    If the developer/publisher earns more money overall from being on a platform that the consumers are more willing to buy their product on, there's nothing greedy about it. The developers/publishers get what they want: More overall money, and the consumers get what they want: The features on the gaming platform they use.

    Developers/publishers are looking for US to purchase their game and give them money, so as you say we are "demanding" that the game creators pay the "steam tax", so be it, THEY want OUR money. If a game developer isn't willing to do what their gamers want and are asking for, then so be it, they won't have a good selling game, and this is regardless if it's steam, or plain and simple features within the actual game.

    Again, it's up to the developers/publishers to determine what will best sell THEIR game, and it's up to the consumers to decide to pay for it if it meets their needs. This is not even remotely the definition of "greed"

    Game developers do not HAVE to have their games on steam, they are not FORCED to do this, and consumers do not HAVE to purchase their game for whatever reason they feel like. This is how the world works. It's up to the game developers/publishers to do what is needed to make the consumers buy the products they are making, not the other way around.

    I feel like i'm going around in circles here since it's painful how this isn't understood, so maybe i'll try one last ditch effort and compare it to real-world markets.

    Would you:

    • Go to a grocery store that is a dump and seems like it's unsanitary, no one wants to help you, doesn't look like the place gets much maintenance done, and everything is MSRP pricing, but you know the grocery store doesn't take as much of a hit on the products so the products you are buying have more money go to the maker

    Or

    • Go to a grocery store that looks well maintained, plenty of help everywhere, plenty of features available such as in-store pick up and can order from home and be ready when you are there, apps on your phone to tell you exactly where the products are, among whatever else you feel would be a luxury for a grocery store, and still pay the same as the run-down store, knowing that the makers of the products you are buying do not get as good of a margin on it, more goes to the store.

    I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would WILLINGLY go to the run-down, featureless store, just so the makers of the products get more money. If you're spending the same both places you will go where it is more convenient for you, what feels better, for you.

    Now if the run-down store had less cost on the products, more people would be enticed to go there, but this is why the epic store makes no sense, it costs the consumers the same, for LESS FEATURES.

    This is why they are exclusives, to timed exclusives, because if they weren't, epic store would get no sales (or very little rather). This is anti-consumer, as you are forcing, at least for a time being, for consumers to get products with less features for full retail prices. You're taking away the choice that consumers have to buy their products wherever they want with the features they want, so that the developers/publishers get more money, and so that epic gets a larger userbase and people get use to buying stuff from them. Again, anti-consumer. The pro-consumer way to do this would be to release on all platforms the game developers want, and for EPIC to decide to take a cut to THEIR cost to get consumers over to the platform, by enticing consumers with less costly games for their lack of features.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
    TalentX and Keitosha like this.
  2. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    1,233
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    We pay for the game, not necessarily the platform features.
    Now, if the publishers want to raise prices on Steam for said features then that would be fine with me.

    I disagree. I think Steam's features primarily benefit customers, not the developers. The angle you seem to be taking is "if customers benefit, then so do developers" but that's not necessarily true. If I really like a game on Origin, then I'll buy it, regardless of the launcher features (that's purely a secondary consideration), and the same goes for the EGS. As I wrote before, in the end, it's the game that matters.

    I agree that game developers do not have to have their games on Steam, and yet that's precisely what Steam supporters are saying - pages and pages of text, all saying that games should be available on all stores.

    No, they are not. You get the same game, regardless of the launcher - the product is the same, the only thing different is the store. When I pay for my games, I am paying for the game and nothing else (ideally, there would be a 1-to-1 transfer of value from game creator to game consumer, but if a middle-man is needed then ideally there would be as small of a cut as possible).

    Yes, this is why Epic is using exclusivity deals for their store. They know that it's pointless to try to compete with Steam based on features or prices alone. This is especially true in light of PC gamer's attitudes - gamers want all their games under one store. The fact is, even if the EGS had feature parity, most people would continue to use Steam, dooming the EGS to failure if they tried to compete on even grounds.

    Sweeney may be boastful and eccentric, but he is no fool. He knows how PC gamers think - he knows that the only reason we Steam gamers use another launcher is for exclusives. The only reason I use Origin is for EA exclusives, the only reason I use Uplay is for Ubisoft exclusives, and the only reason I use the EGS is for the timed exclusives. My first choice is always Steam, so if Epic didn't go for exclusives there would be no reason for me to use the EGS at all.

    I generally have no problems with gamers refusing to buy from the EGS - it's their money and their choice - but I think Steam needs to make a few adjustments to draw developers back. Developers do not like paying such a high fee, no matter the platform (and try to get around it, even if it inconveniences their customers) and I can well understand their frustration (I'm a software developer myself). If games come back to Steam then I'll buy from there again, as it's still my preferred platform, but until then I have no problems buying from the EGS.
     
  3. TalentX

    TalentX Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 / 8GB
    @D3M1G0D
    So, how about when said games are becoming available in Steam, after the exclusive event is over, do both platforms support cross-play in multi-player? For as far as I know they don't.
    This will have the effect that players on PC won't even be able to play together due to the platform they've chosen. If you don't have any friends on the opposing platform, fine, but then you may face a less active multi-player experience due to the lack of people, who didn't buy on your platform.

    Besides, if there is a publisher that a developer is dependent to, it remains unclear if the developer is going to see anything from the share the game would win from the lesser fees.

    And that would be still counter-productive. Most customers don't want to pay more as necessary, rising the price is a measure that companies take with caution, as it has a high risk of negatively affecting the sales.
     
  4. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    1,233
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Why would this affect multiplayer? They are both for the same platform - PC (the only difference is how they're launched).
     

  5. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
    I think the features are matter of a time. Steam been around for 15 years. There will be new features to keep community active. You can't have platform for 15 years and never add a new feature. It's a stale state and nobody wants it. Community will always ask for improvements and something new.
     
  6. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,246
    Likes Received:
    840
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    Equally, You can't enter an established market and not have those features ready to go
     
  7. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Why not? Seems like Epic is doing just fine.
     
  8. TalentX

    TalentX Member

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 / 8GB
    That's the question. Do you believe that Steam will allow cross-play with Epic, or vice versa? Some games might work in terms of LAN connected Co-Op or Competitive games, but for online multiplayer I am not so sure, if the servers and matchmakings are managed by the corresponding service providers such as Steam/Epic. That's also DRM related after all.
     

Share This Page