3 ms·
My wording was probably dramatic there, it's just I don't think a Microsoft subsidiary would lightly take the decision to forgo 20-30% (TIL it's tiered) of thei
by BbzzbB 5y ago
My wording was probably dramatic there, it's just I don't think a Microsoft subsidiary would lightly take the decision to forgo 20-30% (TIL it's tiered) of their revenue to a third party when they have capabilities to handle such services internally. Building platforms is kind of Microsoft's business, so to me migrating Bethesda to Steam is their acknowledgment that a competing platform has won that space. Seemingly deservedly so beyond network effects and user lock-in.
- DanHulton 5y agoOh, I don't think they do take it lightly! Building platforms _badly_ is kind of Microsoft's specialty, unfortunately. They have lock-in on the Xbox, but any kind of Steam-esque competitor for the PC has always been a miserable experience that nobody ever wanted to use. That said, I did forget until now that GamePass exists - Microsoft isn't really challenging Steam anymore, they're doing kind of an end-run around them with their games subscription service, and it frankly kinda rocks. But for those who still want to outright purchase games, they still sell on Steam, because, again, Valve have made it worthwhile to pay the 30% to at least get the userbase and marketing bump.