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.

  • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    My biggest issue with Epic is them very clearly doing the classic tactic of selling goods at unsustainably low prices in order to drive out competition before jacking them back up again. Their whole free game shtick can’t possibly last forever and they know it.

    • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      This and the paid exclusives mean I haven’t, and won’t use EGS out of pure spite.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I was reading about the Unity debacle and thought thank God Gabe that Steam has never pulled shit like this.

    I think part of the problem is too many companies are controlled by venture capitalists, or private equity, or whatever you call it. The point is that a single entity owns multiple companies from the shadows.

    Companies are supposed to compete and the best company win, that’s good in theory. But when a single shadow entity owns multiple companies they’ll do something like squeeze customers of one company, which drives customers to their competitor, which, surprise, is owned by the same shadow entity.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      You seem to know what you are talking about, so this is for those who don’t, the “illusion of competition” has become such a staple in the modern world. In the US (and much of the world as I understand it) eyeglass sellers are all owned by the same company. Pearl Vision, LensCrafters, and I think even the Walmart vision centers are all owned and operated by Luxottica. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica

      It is a vertical monopoly that controls everything from materials acquisition to sales, directly “competes” with itself, and lies to customers every day to make them think they are actually in control.

      Then you have companies like 3M, or Nestle, who control most of the entire industries. A good 85% of all food on the shelves in the USA is produced by one of 4 or 5 companies that definitely collude to fix prices and use aggressive tactics to protect their position. They also follow the “compete with yourself” model to make you think you are actually making a decision with your money. You aren’t.

      Then there is the big Ag companies. In Ohio they have actually gotten laws on the books that make it illegal to do Farm Shares, where you purchase a share of the crops they produce for the year and for about 8 months a year you get a big basket of fresh produce delivered to you. An ex and I got to do it for a year before we split and it was amazing. It was a ton of food and only cost us about $150 for the half-share we purchased. It would be amazing right now with prices and it would help local private farms, which is precisely why they pushed it out.

      I can rant for hours… So I cut here. This whole topic just infuriates me to no end.

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    valve might be the closest thing i have ever seen to an actual benevolent dictator, even if said dictator is very lazy and only deigns to do anything significant once in a while.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s because you are not in a position to produce and sell a game.

      As a user it sure is the case but as a developer you are in a position that you either have to take their 30% cut or accept that you are selling way less

      The fact that pretty much immediately after epic launched their store steam lowered the cut for big publishers tells you that they are fully aware that 30% is too much to be reasonable but they completely could get away with that because Devs just didn’t have a choice.

      Because of epic that now changed since even if you don’t actually sell more games you at least can get a guaranteed profit as if you sold those games that you miss out on by not being on steam.

      Sure the way epic is doing it is not good but I really don’t see another way how a significant number of buyers would ever come to another store. That didn’t work for EA, that didn’t work for Ubisoft, that also didn’t work for GOG where you actually own the game without DRM and not just a license to play it as long as the server is allowing you.

      People are fundamentally lazy and hate changing their routines - that’s why forcing them into buying at your store is necessary if you want to get them to switch.

  • naut@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    it should be easier to change publisher than engine, you can choose publisher, but Unity will hold your balls forever

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I get like 99% of my news about upcoming or newly released games from steam. There have been so many games I’m not even aware exist, like last week I found out Saints Row got a new game a while back but it was epic exclusive so I never knew.

    Also being a Linux gamer steam has amazing support for Linux while epic has none.

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    You know you made a really interesting point that they marketed to the sellers not the ultimate customers. I hadn’t really picked up on that before, but it does mitigate what should be a healthy dose of competition by altering the target audience a bit.

  • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Epic only has a lower cut because they’re leveraging their undoubtedly massive Chinese investments to gain market share. You can rest assured they would charge 30% if they could.

    I don’t like that Steam or Apple or Google charge 30%. I think it’s absurd. But also Valve is basically a saint compared to every modern corporation so I don’t think twice about it.

  • Lesrid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s infuriating to me that only Steam and EA’s stores have gifting built in. Most of my games budget goes to buying small-squad multiplayer games like Deep Rock Galactic and Sea of Thieves for people.

    Sure you can buy a key anywhere but I love seeing at a glance that an acquaintance has a particular DLC or game to surprise them rather than asking them first. And then there’s a small chance they thank you for the key and pass it on to someone else instead of just telling you they don’t like game, while Steam has a handy decline button.

  • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    In Gaben we trust. Epic sold out to Tencent which is evil.

  • ram@bookwormstory.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That’s a stupid take. “I’d rather contribute to an existing monopoly than a potential one” is just saying you’d rather support a monopoly than any other corporation. Every corporation seeks monopoly. None are our friends, but we should at least try to make them as small and friendly in any particular industry as we reasonably can.