4 ms·

> If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin. And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%.

soulofmischief 3y ago
Epic is absolutely not competing with Steam in any meaningful way for me as a consumer until they compete on several more fronts, or at least integrate with services that allow them to do so. If Steam was just a store frontend, I wouldn't use it. I just established their competitive offering above. In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's anti-consumer, and a poor substitute for engineering a competitive feature offering. I actively avoid their store for this reason, and have passed up on their exclusives in the past, despite being interested in the IP.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  > In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You're only noticing because of the competition. Without it games would be exclusive to Steam and you would never notice. Anything from The Finals to Lethal Company, PUBG to Destiny 2. Are these any less anti-consumer because they're only on Steam? I don't think so.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    I'm speaking of exclusivity deals. None of those games had exclusivity deals with Steam. You're blaming Steam for not having worthy competitors, but that isn't their job. Valve/Steam doesn't engage in exclusivity deals, EGS does. And Valve-published games obviously don't count, there's no deal, they just decide not to publish elsewhere. And remember: the closest competition is literal piracy. I'm not only noticing that Steam provides a quality service worth paying for because of EGS. I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. I'm not saying they have exclusivity deals with Steam and I'm not blaming Steam for anything, but that doesn't change the fact that as a consumer I'm forced to use Steam to purchase those games. In the same way I'm forced to used EGS to purchase their exclusive games. So why does a deal between a publisher and Valve or EGS make a difference to me, the consumer? Why aren't all exclusives anti-consumer regardless of a deal that might or might not exist? > I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries. I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        > And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level. > I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture. > I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly. No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.
        ThatPlayer 3y ago
        Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either. >The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer. To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer. So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
troupo 3y ago
> And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%. Epic's cut is 12% because they can afford to lose money on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweeneys-epic-games-store-is-still-losing-money-after-five-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweene...
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  EGS is in "growth-mode", which, among other things, means they have to provide a current service that offers better terms than the service they intend to provide once they reach Sweeney's ideal 50% market share. They spend a ton of money on exclusives, enticing offers and other substitutes for attractive features.

soulofmischief 3y ago

Epic is absolutely not competing with Steam in any meaningful way for me as a consumer until they compete on several more fronts, or at least integrate with services that allow them to do so. If Steam was just a store frontend, I wouldn't use it. I just established their competitive offering above. In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's anti-consumer, and a poor substitute for engineering a competitive feature offering. I actively avoid their store for this reason, and have passed up on their exclusives in the past, despite being interested in the IP.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
> In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You're only noticing because of the competition. Without it games would be exclusive to Steam and you would never notice. Anything from The Finals to Lethal Company, PUBG to Destiny 2. Are these any less anti-consumer because they're only on Steam? I don't think so.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  I'm speaking of exclusivity deals. None of those games had exclusivity deals with Steam. You're blaming Steam for not having worthy competitors, but that isn't their job. Valve/Steam doesn't engage in exclusivity deals, EGS does. And Valve-published games obviously don't count, there's no deal, they just decide not to publish elsewhere. And remember: the closest competition is literal piracy. I'm not only noticing that Steam provides a quality service worth paying for because of EGS. I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. I'm not saying they have exclusivity deals with Steam and I'm not blaming Steam for anything, but that doesn't change the fact that as a consumer I'm forced to use Steam to purchase those games. In the same way I'm forced to used EGS to purchase their exclusive games. So why does a deal between a publisher and Valve or EGS make a difference to me, the consumer? Why aren't all exclusives anti-consumer regardless of a deal that might or might not exist? > I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries. I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level. > I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture. > I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly. No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either. >The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer. To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer. So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.

troupo 3y ago

> And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%. Epic's cut is 12% because they can afford to lose money on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweeneys-epic-games-store-is-still-losing-money-after-five-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweene...

soulofmischief 3y ago
EGS is in "growth-mode", which, among other things, means they have to provide a current service that offers better terms than the service they intend to provide once they reach Sweeney's ideal 50% market share. They spend a ton of money on exclusives, enticing offers and other substitutes for attractive features.