3 ms·

I'm glad to see that Steam has more competition nowadays, but I'm just not a fan of the competitors. I feel like some of them have reduced the value they provid

I'm glad to see that Steam has more competition nowadays, but I'm just not a fan of the competitors. I feel like some of them have reduced the value they provide to users by creating their own storefronts/launchers/etc. Fortunately for them, they only need to care about shareholder value. Users come second </s> I like GOG enough to willingly use their Galaxy client, since they tend to provide DRM-free options, and because buying CDPR games via GOG gives them a bigger share of revenue without costing me more money or dignity. Origin and Uplay seem to add no value for a user, and I remember a big fuss a while back about Origin scanning people's PCs a bit too eagerly. I think Ubisoft and EA also started withdrawing their newer titles from Steam and the likes to push people towards their own platforms, but that isn't consumer-friendly in the least bit. Epic seems to have had ups and downs with their store/services. I don't use it personally, but it was not feature-complete at release[1], and they got a lot of titles on their service by making exclusivity deals, instead of by offering a better experience. Metro Exodus was a particularly stinky example of this, in that people preordered the game on Steam, only to have a timed exclusivity deal with Epic put into place shortly before release. If I were a games developer, I don't know if the better revenue share with Epic would be worth the potential lost sales from being available everywhere, even if it were only a timed exclusivity. I'm part of the camp that just doesn't want to use certain storefronts, so why wouldn't I expect the same from my customers? [1]: https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/introducing-the-epic-games-store-shopping-cart https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/news/introducing-the-epic-... (Because a Shopping Cart feature was apparently not necessary for their 1.0 release of a video game storefront)

baud147258 5y ago
> Origin and Uplay seem to add no value for a user, and I remember a big fuss a while back about Origin scanning people's PCs a bit too eagerly. I think the issue is when EA and Ubisoft bundles Uplay and Origin in the games distributed through Steam, forcing you to create a Uplay/origin account and install it. I understand why they're doing it (so that people install Uplay/origin), but I really dislike it. Also it recently prevented me from playing a Ubisoft title, as I couldn't get it to run with the last Uplay version. > I think Ubisoft and EA also started withdrawing their newer titles from Steam and the likes to push people towards their own platforms, but that isn't consumer-friendly in the least bit. For EA it worked so well they started putting back their games on Steam...
- gigaflop 5y ago
  EA and Ubisoft can try to have their cake and eat it too, but Steam has been better at showing what EULAs and online accounts are required before a consumer makes a purchase. The Steam Store page for Assasin's Creed: Odyssey (the last Creed game I remember news of) tells us to expect Denuvo DRM (an anti-feature that some people boycott, chosen by Ubi), a 3rd-party account requirement, and whatever the game's actual EULA is. Nevermind the face that the game is MSRP on Steam, and Ubi had it marked down to $15 on their own platform when I checked. Gee, I wonder why the price hasn't been cut on Steam? </s> As for EA specifically, they've been a bit of a dumpster fire for PC gamers, and have pushed a lot of 'Games are a Live Service' stuff. They've released games that are partially broken on day 1, but have their microtransaction systems fleshed out. While purchasable on Steam, their latest Battlefield game still requires an EA account, to get people onto their Epic Store. It's just a way to advertise in front of the Steam crowd, to tease them towards their platform with some discounts. (very opinionated, if you haven't noticed)
robotnikman 5y ago
>Fortunately for them, they only need to care about shareholder value. Users come second </s> I think the fact that Valve doesn't need to worry about being strangled by shareholders has been a major advantage for them, and has led to a higher quality service than the competition can provide Uplay and Origin look like the a cheap ploy to try and extract more money from users in comparison.
- gigaflop 5y ago
  Fun fact, Tencent (Chinese conglomerate) owns about 40% of Epic. Ubisoft also tried adding blockchain tech/NFTs to their games to manage cosmetic items, which is stupid on multiple levels, IMO, especially since you can't actually transfer them outside of their closed ecosystem. Valve has the breathing room to do what they want. Their cash cow of Steam helps them out A LOT, since they don't even need to make games anymore. Instead, they've invested into what they think benefits the future of gaming. Who else in the games industry would make a non-locked-down VR headset, or work on anything Linux-related? Maybe indies, if they had the money. Valve will probably make HL3 at some point, but last I heard, it was an idea waiting for the right tech. I'd rather it stay that way if it makes it better.

baud147258 5y ago

> Origin and Uplay seem to add no value for a user, and I remember a big fuss a while back about Origin scanning people's PCs a bit too eagerly. I think the issue is when EA and Ubisoft bundles Uplay and Origin in the games distributed through Steam, forcing you to create a Uplay/origin account and install it. I understand why they're doing it (so that people install Uplay/origin), but I really dislike it. Also it recently prevented me from playing a Ubisoft title, as I couldn't get it to run with the last Uplay version. > I think Ubisoft and EA also started withdrawing their newer titles from Steam and the likes to push people towards their own platforms, but that isn't consumer-friendly in the least bit. For EA it worked so well they started putting back their games on Steam...

gigaflop 5y ago
EA and Ubisoft can try to have their cake and eat it too, but Steam has been better at showing what EULAs and online accounts are required before a consumer makes a purchase. The Steam Store page for Assasin's Creed: Odyssey (the last Creed game I remember news of) tells us to expect Denuvo DRM (an anti-feature that some people boycott, chosen by Ubi), a 3rd-party account requirement, and whatever the game's actual EULA is. Nevermind the face that the game is MSRP on Steam, and Ubi had it marked down to $15 on their own platform when I checked. Gee, I wonder why the price hasn't been cut on Steam? </s> As for EA specifically, they've been a bit of a dumpster fire for PC gamers, and have pushed a lot of 'Games are a Live Service' stuff. They've released games that are partially broken on day 1, but have their microtransaction systems fleshed out. While purchasable on Steam, their latest Battlefield game still requires an EA account, to get people onto their Epic Store. It's just a way to advertise in front of the Steam crowd, to tease them towards their platform with some discounts. (very opinionated, if you haven't noticed)

robotnikman 5y ago

>Fortunately for them, they only need to care about shareholder value. Users come second </s> I think the fact that Valve doesn't need to worry about being strangled by shareholders has been a major advantage for them, and has led to a higher quality service than the competition can provide Uplay and Origin look like the a cheap ploy to try and extract more money from users in comparison.

gigaflop 5y ago
Fun fact, Tencent (Chinese conglomerate) owns about 40% of Epic. Ubisoft also tried adding blockchain tech/NFTs to their games to manage cosmetic items, which is stupid on multiple levels, IMO, especially since you can't actually transfer them outside of their closed ecosystem. Valve has the breathing room to do what they want. Their cash cow of Steam helps them out A LOT, since they don't even need to make games anymore. Instead, they've invested into what they think benefits the future of gaming. Who else in the games industry would make a non-locked-down VR headset, or work on anything Linux-related? Maybe indies, if they had the money. Valve will probably make HL3 at some point, but last I heard, it was an idea waiting for the right tech. I'd rather it stay that way if it makes it better.