672

Dusk Developer David Szymanski: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly (twitter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Carighan@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If I'm honest, I don't disagree.

I would love for Steam to have **actual competition. Which is difficult, sure, but you could run a slightly less feature-rich store, take less of a cut, and pass the reduction fully on to consumers and you'd be an easy choice for many gamers.

But that's not what Epic is after. They tried to go hard after the sellers, figuring that if they can corner enough fo the market with exclusives the buyers will have to come. But they underestimated that even their nigh-infinite coffers struggle to keep up with the raw amount of games releasing, and also the unpredictability of the indie market where you can't really know what to buy as an exclusive.
Nevermind that buying one is a good way to make it forgotten.

So yeah, fully agreed. Compared to Epic, I vastly prefer Steam's 30% cut. As the consumer I pay the same anyways, and Steam offers lots of stuff for it like forums, a client that boots before the heat death of the universe, in-house streaming, library sharing, cloud sync that sometimes works.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thanks for the read. A couple points:

I summarily addressed the inertia issue already, when I mentioned that they underestimated consumer's unwillingness to change.
The article is primarily aimed at startups, who don't have the same amount of money to pour into software development, testing, and infrastructure.
Epic almost did exactly what the article suggested, but it notably did not improve anything over Steam. It didn't even try for parity with Steam. In my opinion, as someone who plays PC games, that removed any chance of me even considering using it in any serious capacity.

I genuinely think they would've had a shot at being successful if they had tried to improve the state of PC gaming. Steam is massive, but it's not without its pain points. The core of the client is ancient, and the fact that it heavily utilizes CEF makes it a bit of a resource hog. There's a lot of bugs hidden in the nooks and crannies, and legacy cruft makes fixing some of these issues take a very long time.

Epic had the right approach to getting their foot in the door by giving away games for free and paying/bribing developers to release non-exclusive games on their platform. They just fucked up everything else.

Some things they could have done to help themselves:

Released a client that worked more consistently than Steam:
- Steam Cloud is extremely opaque about errors.
- Download times are inaccurate, particularly when dealing with IO.
- Chat windows are pretty laggy and resource-intensive.
Built-in Nvidia GameStream protocol support.
GameStream has lower latency than Steam Link.
Integrated mods.
They wouldn't get developer buy-in for a new ecosystem, but that doesn't mean they couldn't just buy out an existing mod platform and integrate it.
Forums, chat, and social features.
Lacking these, they're basically asking players to go to Steam whenever they need to find comminuty guides or discussions.
Achievements and matchmaking as a drop-in Steam API replacement.
An equivalent to Steam Input for remapping controller inputs on a per-game basis.
A CEO that knows when to stop talking.
The impression I get from him talking is that he thinks he's the messiah of PC gaming. The impression I get from his actions is that he's just like the rest of the publishers trying to grope our wallets at every opportunity. I doubt I'm the only one.

[+] mammut@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 7 points 1 year ago

I also think the problem is how they executed some of their exclusives. There have been multiple games, mostly in the past now, that announced launching on certain platforms, including Steam, then had to backtrack and reveal that Epic bought their exclusivity and that gamers that were already expecting to get the game from one platform, now wouldn't be able to.

Even though that doesn't change the end result of what you're getting, the feeling that the timing and method of the exclusivity deal left you with was... a surprise that forced the buyer to reevaluate their expectations and have to consider the purchase all over again on a different storefront, because of that storefront's direct monetary intervention.

It came off as a corporate bribe that lessened the consumer's options, for no benefit to the consumer. The pure taste that actions like that left in my mouth got me to never even claim any free Epic games and to wait an entire year for Hitman 3 to drop on Steam even though the reboot trilogy are some of my favorite games of all time, and I won't even get into the snafu that game particularly had with transferring trilogy content paid for on Steam to Epic.

If they hadn't gone about purchasing exclusivity deals in that fashion, I may have bought some things on sale from them, or at the least claimed some games allowing their launcher to live on my machine, but instead it drove me away.

[-] brawleryukon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

There have been multiple games, mostly in the past now, that announced launching on certain platforms, including Steam, then had to backtrack and reveal that Epic bought their exclusivity and that gamers that were already expecting to get the game from one platform, now wouldn't be able to.

There was one game that happened to. Metro. And anyone who had already pre-purchased on Steam had it fulfilled through Steam at launch.

The rest of the games people claim this happened to were Kickstarter projects in which the backer reward promised a "digital key". Now, at the time of those Kickstarter campaigns, the only stores that existed were Steam and GOG, so there was an assumption made that the keys would be to one of those two. But by the time the games were getting ready to launch, another option came into existence and devs who clearly needed money (or they wouldn't have been going to Kickstarter to begin with) made a deal.

[-] all-knight-party@kbin.run 4 points 1 year ago

Well, I also count Hitman 3 since it delayed my ability to complete the trilogy I'd been playing for years at that point by another year without having to deal with the storefront content transfer issues that weren't guaranteed to be handled by IOI as well as they ended up being after some struggle.

For me, the one time with Metro and the deal with Hitman were two distasteful deal executions too many.