So you think if Steam decided to cancel all of its sales and double the price of everything people would keep purchasing from them? If not then they do not have the ability. We already know they don’t have the ability to prevent competition in the market due to the competition in the market.
if they start being dicks, we’re all in deep shit?
We’re really not. If they start being dicks other stores already exist that we can use instead.
If Valve bumped their cut from 30% to 40%, do you imagine publishers would rush to EGS? Epic’s cut is already 15 points lower than Valve’s. It hasn’t moved the needle.
Valve kills studios by saying ‘no thank you.’ They have immense power. They just don’t use it in any way that freaks people out. The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. Only niche studios try weird shit, because large studios don’t risk poking the bear. Games want to feature nudity and intimacy, but most are so self-censored, they could be televised. The cultural prevalence of nude mods is proof of demand that has been frustrated.
If you’d rather blame Mastercard and Visa openly dictating what art can and can’t be sold, by all means, we can talk about their joint control of online payment. But it might get blunt if you insist one store taking Bitcoin means that’s not a duopoly.
why would any studio choose not to release on Steam?
Epic gave Remedy a shitload of money, up-front. All exclusivity these days works like that. Nobody wants to reach fewer customers. Some of them are convinced to - some of them are forced to. Alan Wake exemplifies the former, and there’s a good chance Remedy regrets the decision.
So not being on Steam isn’t widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?
Remedy took money up-front, expecting it to be more money than they would make later.
Being on Steam means access to customers, and more sales. You said so. So Epic, to promote the Epic Game Store, estimated how much revenue Alan Wake 2 would lose by not being on Steam, doubled it, and wrote that on a check.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
So you think if Steam decided to cancel all of its sales and double the price of everything people would keep purchasing from them? If not then they do not have the ability. We already know they don’t have the ability to prevent competition in the market due to the competition in the market.
We’re really not. If they start being dicks other stores already exist that we can use instead.
If Valve bumped their cut from 30% to 40%, do you imagine publishers would rush to EGS? Epic’s cut is already 15 points lower than Valve’s. It hasn’t moved the needle.
Valve kills studios by saying ‘no thank you.’ They have immense power. They just don’t use it in any way that freaks people out. The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. Only niche studios try weird shit, because large studios don’t risk poking the bear. Games want to feature nudity and intimacy, but most are so self-censored, they could be televised. The cultural prevalence of nude mods is proof of demand that has been frustrated.
If you’d rather blame Mastercard and Visa openly dictating what art can and can’t be sold, by all means, we can talk about their joint control of online payment. But it might get blunt if you insist one store taking Bitcoin means that’s not a duopoly.
Back to your earlier point: why wasn’t Alan Wake 2 on Steam? Did Steam say ‘no thank you’?
If it’s such a wide reaching and well known issue, why would any studio choose not to release on Steam? Do you know something they don’t?
They they do. Steam has full on porn games on it.
Epic gave Remedy a shitload of money, up-front. All exclusivity these days works like that. Nobody wants to reach fewer customers. Some of them are convinced to - some of them are forced to. Alan Wake exemplifies the former, and there’s a good chance Remedy regrets the decision.
So not being on Steam isn’t widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?
‘But if not being on Steam means they can’t get enough money, how would more money help?’
You cannot be serious.
You’ve been saying everyone in the industry knows not being on Steam means your game won’t be successful and it warps the industry around it.
You’ve also been saying that Alan Wake 2 was guaranteed to make a lot of money if they released on Steam.
So given these two arguments you’ve been making, why would a company choose to make less money by not releasing on Steam?
Epic… funded… the game.
Remedy took money up-front, expecting it to be more money than they would make later.
Being on Steam means access to customers, and more sales. You said so. So Epic, to promote the Epic Game Store, estimated how much revenue Alan Wake 2 would lose by not being on Steam, doubled it, and wrote that on a check.