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.
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.