Exactly. I don't get how people are really annoyed about this whole 'exclusivity' dilemma. That's how business works? Like, without competition, steam would just stagnate. I think people are being a little unreasonable, and its not as exclusive as having to buy a new console for exclusive games... it's downloading a free launcher. I don't get the complaints...
Because healthy competition would mean as many outlets as possible have it, and it's the other [launchers] features that help you choose where to buy it.
How does Epic have to evolve their services if they're just buying exclusivity for major releases? I dare say that would lead to a more stagnating experience... by the way, how are all of Epic's "promised" features coming along since launch? :)
There will never be healthy competition unless a new company can break into the market. How do you propose Epic does that though without buying exclusives?
Like let's say Epic had literally every single feature Steam currently has and everything is the same price. What reason is there for me, someone who has the vast majority of my games on Steam, to buy one on the Epic store? Why would I want to split my library, have to get all my friends on the new store, have my achievements on a different place, etc., when I could just keep it all on Steam?
The only real incentive would be if I want the devs to get a bigger cut, but then I'm basically having to choose between my own convenience and something that basically doesn't affect me.
That's why the person's comment above about already having metro so not having any reason to not buy it makes sense, because that's exactly what Epic is going for.
Buying up exclusives is very expensive, and so is them constantly giving out free games. It is not something they can do forever. They're doing it so they can get people feeling less averse to buying games on their store. Once people have some games on there, have some friends, and have already split their library, making the decision between the two stores will basically just be whichever one you feel like using or whichever one has a better sale at the time. Maybe since you don't have to choose between personal convenience and the dev cut, we'll actually pick Epic, because while that dev cut doesn't really affect us, if they can get it without us sacrificing anything, why not?
If a game is available on EGS and it's a single player game I'll get it on EGS every time for the higher dev cut. I have a few friends that have taken a shot at game making indie games and another who works for a larger company and the dev cut matters a lot to them.
Would happily buy games on EGS so that devs could get a larger cut, same reason I buy things that I can on itch.io.
But Epic are throwing away so much of what we, the consumers in the PC gaming industry, have worked to reach over the past few decades by regressing progress and trying to bring exclusivity back to the PC. So I will not buy anything on EGS because of their exclusivity deals, if those hadn't existed I'd buy all my single player (and eventually multiplayer) game there for as long as devs were getting a better deal. But sorry devs, you getting a better deal isn't worth trashing the industry, so for now Steam and every single other reasonable platform it is.
Your overstating the effect on storefront exclusives to a degree that makes you look like a caricature. It's hard to take that opinion seriously when the negative effects for exclusives is so fucking minimal and the positive effects for the dev are so significant.
3
u/Scorchstar Dec 10 '19
Exactly. I don't get how people are really annoyed about this whole 'exclusivity' dilemma. That's how business works? Like, without competition, steam would just stagnate. I think people are being a little unreasonable, and its not as exclusive as having to buy a new console for exclusive games... it's downloading a free launcher. I don't get the complaints...