That is extremely disingenuous. It wouldn’t be commercially viable to do that (as seen by… you know, CDPR not even doing that). The way to make that commercially viable would be to get paid for an exclusivity deal by GOG… at which point I’m pretty sure people would, in fact, complain.
would be to get paid for an exclusivity deal by GOG… at which point I’m pretty sure people would, in fact, complain.
Yes, I’m sure they would. Note how in your scenario here people aren’t complaining about it but being on Steam, they are complaining about the exclusivity deal.
Man, it’s really hard to say this without sounding condescending, so let me say I absolutely am not trying to be, but I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. I think something got cut in that sentence somewhere.
I am agreeing with you that if someone signed and exclusivity deal with GoG people would complain.
I am pointing out that in order to get people to complain (in this hypothetical scenario) about something only being available on GoG, we had to introduce an exclusivity deal.
So people aren’t complaining about it not being on Steam, they are complaining about exclusivity deals.
Yes? Because if the game isn’t exclusive then it’s on Steam.
That’s what a monopoly gets ya. Especially if you have policies in place preventing competing storefronts from competing on price.
Exclusivity deals aren’t a particularly bad thing. Nerddom in general also keeps complaining when other first parties don’t have enough exclusives, often at the same time they make the opposite argument when it comes to Steam, which is part of the weirdness.
It’s a weirdly circular argument that you’re okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren’t profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you. And it’s definitely not what people here are arguing. That’s a very forced, disingenuous stance.
So a Monopoly (you can only purchase from one service) is bad, but exclusivity deals (you can only purchase from one service) aren’t bad. But I’m the one with the circular logic.
general also keeps complaining when other first parties don’t have enough exclusives,
they’re idiots.
A stance someone else may or may not have is irrelevant to this discussion or the arguments I am making.
consoles are diffrent from store fronts. No one is complaining that a PC game store doesn’t have enough exclusives.
It’s a weirdly circular argument that you’re okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren’t profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you.
The end result is not the same. That’s like saying “it’s weird that you’re not okay with slave labour to work on farms, when the end result is the same to you.” How it gets there is relevant, as well as the long term effects of supporting it. Epic has made it clear by their actions that they do not care about the end user, and if they end up “winning” against Steam they would actively make things worse.
Yeah, that only works if you wildly misrepresent a monopoly. It’s not about “you can only purchase from one service”, it’s one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.
Exclusives are a competitive proposition. That’s why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios. Because… you know, they want exclusive games to their platforms. And Netflix, and every other TV station that has ever existed.
It’s not as convernient, necessarily, but it does preserve competition in a way that having a single entity deciding the prices of all games does not.
Those are the long term effects of supporting them. There’s no “winning” here. It’s not a zero sum game. The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don’t have a reason to give you a better deal.
And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn’t, he’d just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he’s not going to be around forever and you don’t want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?
it’s one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.
You’re the one wildly misrepresenting what a monopoly is:
1 exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 exclusive possession or control
3
a commodity controlled by one party
By definition Steam is not a monopoly because it does have exclusive control.
Notice how the word “exclusive” keeps showing up in the definition. An “exclusivity deal” is literally a monopoly on that specific product. Seeing as we agree that monopolies are bad why are you supporting Epics monopoly on all sales of [game]?
That’s why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios
I have no issue with Epic having the games they created exclusive to their platform. Fortnight doesn’t have to be on Steam. The developer can decide “I only want to sell in this/these stores” and I have no problem with that. My issue is with things like what happened with darq where Epic waited until the game was finished and announced on Steam, then approached them for an exclusivity deal. When the dev wanted to maintain their promise to fans and backers to have the game available on Steam suddenly EGS went from “would love to have your game” to “no interest”.
The dev would have been fully willing to release on both, and if EGS cared about their users they could have easily had the game as well, (more games available to users of your service is a good thing). But Epic did not care about having more options available to their users, or having actual competition in the market place, they were only interested if they had a monopoly on all sales of the game and if customers did not have a choice and had to purchase from EGS if they wanted the game.
The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don’t have a reason to give you a better deal.
I agree. EGS makes itself “the only game in town” for every title they purchase an exclusivity deal with, and that is why I refuse to use it.
And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn’t, he’d just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he’s not going to be around forever and you don’t want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?
Of course, but I’m not going to use a service that is shit now over one that might be shit later. If Steam becomes shitty I will stop using it, I can always pirate my collection if I need to. I fully agree with you that competition is important, which is why I refuse to support Epic’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer behaviour.
I think if a Dev decided to only release their game on GoG because they prefer GoGs business practices there wouldn’t be a lot of complaints about it.
That is extremely disingenuous. It wouldn’t be commercially viable to do that (as seen by… you know, CDPR not even doing that). The way to make that commercially viable would be to get paid for an exclusivity deal by GOG… at which point I’m pretty sure people would, in fact, complain.
Yes, I’m sure they would. Note how in your scenario here people aren’t complaining about it but being on Steam, they are complaining about the exclusivity deal.
Man, it’s really hard to say this without sounding condescending, so let me say I absolutely am not trying to be, but I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. I think something got cut in that sentence somewhere.
I am agreeing with you that if someone signed and exclusivity deal with GoG people would complain.
I am pointing out that in order to get people to complain (in this hypothetical scenario) about something only being available on GoG, we had to introduce an exclusivity deal.
So people aren’t complaining about it not being on Steam, they are complaining about exclusivity deals.
Yes? Because if the game isn’t exclusive then it’s on Steam.
That’s what a monopoly gets ya. Especially if you have policies in place preventing competing storefronts from competing on price.
Exclusivity deals aren’t a particularly bad thing. Nerddom in general also keeps complaining when other first parties don’t have enough exclusives, often at the same time they make the opposite argument when it comes to Steam, which is part of the weirdness.
It’s a weirdly circular argument that you’re okay with Epic exclusives as long as the devs aren’t profiting from it, even if the end result is the same for you. And it’s definitely not what people here are arguing. That’s a very forced, disingenuous stance.
So a Monopoly (you can only purchase from one service) is bad, but exclusivity deals (you can only purchase from one service) aren’t bad. But I’m the one with the circular logic.
they’re idiots.
A stance someone else may or may not have is irrelevant to this discussion or the arguments I am making.
consoles are diffrent from store fronts. No one is complaining that a PC game store doesn’t have enough exclusives.
The end result is not the same. That’s like saying “it’s weird that you’re not okay with slave labour to work on farms, when the end result is the same to you.” How it gets there is relevant, as well as the long term effects of supporting it. Epic has made it clear by their actions that they do not care about the end user, and if they end up “winning” against Steam they would actively make things worse.
Yeah, that only works if you wildly misrepresent a monopoly. It’s not about “you can only purchase from one service”, it’s one service having a dominant position in the market. Not the same thing.
Exclusives are a competitive proposition. That’s why Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have first party studios. Because… you know, they want exclusive games to their platforms. And Netflix, and every other TV station that has ever existed.
It’s not as convernient, necessarily, but it does preserve competition in a way that having a single entity deciding the prices of all games does not.
Those are the long term effects of supporting them. There’s no “winning” here. It’s not a zero sum game. The idea is that multiple (two is also bad) players are in the market, all competing to give you a better deal and attract you to their option. Steam gives you a better deal because the competitors exist. If they are the only game in town they don’t have a reason to give you a better deal.
And even if you assumed Gaben is a saint (he isn’t, he’d just rather squeeze the devs than the users, which makes him smart, not nice), he’s not going to be around forever and you don’t want a world where Steam is the next Microsoft. Does that register to you at all?
You’re the one wildly misrepresenting what a monopoly is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
By definition Steam is not a monopoly because it does have exclusive control.
Notice how the word “exclusive” keeps showing up in the definition. An “exclusivity deal” is literally a monopoly on that specific product. Seeing as we agree that monopolies are bad why are you supporting Epics monopoly on all sales of [game]?
I have no issue with Epic having the games they created exclusive to their platform. Fortnight doesn’t have to be on Steam. The developer can decide “I only want to sell in this/these stores” and I have no problem with that. My issue is with things like what happened with darq where Epic waited until the game was finished and announced on Steam, then approached them for an exclusivity deal. When the dev wanted to maintain their promise to fans and backers to have the game available on Steam suddenly EGS went from “would love to have your game” to “no interest”.
The dev would have been fully willing to release on both, and if EGS cared about their users they could have easily had the game as well, (more games available to users of your service is a good thing). But Epic did not care about having more options available to their users, or having actual competition in the market place, they were only interested if they had a monopoly on all sales of the game and if customers did not have a choice and had to purchase from EGS if they wanted the game.
I agree. EGS makes itself “the only game in town” for every title they purchase an exclusivity deal with, and that is why I refuse to use it.
Of course, but I’m not going to use a service that is shit now over one that might be shit later. If Steam becomes shitty I will stop using it, I can always pirate my collection if I need to. I fully agree with you that competition is important, which is why I refuse to support Epic’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer behaviour.