They're be tearing a page right out of Epic's playbook and would certainly give developers another reason to stay on Steam. Perhaps Valve should make a competitive game engine and wave all royalty fees if it is sold on Steam. If you can't do that your platform is of little use to anyone.
Metro exodus steam forums software#
Valve & Epic's jobs are to woo developers onto their platform because that is how they make their money - by getting in demand software to sell. If you want want to talk about gamers as customers, then this conversation (platform of choice) has little relevance. They're shopping to see who can offer the most for their dollar. Because they are the customer in this scenario. When talking about competition for platforms/launchers it is obviously a developer point of view.
The idea that everyone must charge the same fees and offer the same perks & incentives is ludicrous. Offering lower fees if you use their other products/services (like waving the fees for UE4 games) is another tool they can use to be competitive. Hate to break it to you, but that is competition. It could be that larger publishers like Deep Silver have made the same calculation I mentioned above with "third-party" developers selling exclusively on EGS, but we'll have to see how that plays out for them and everyone else involved through the rest of the year. At least one developer (Genesis Alpha One) has admitted as much. With Epic the competitive market idea fails because they are colluding with the producers through direct financial incentives to keep their products off of competing storefronts. The console world is still a competitive market, just a monopolistic one. Nintendo and Sony have a walled garden with their proprietary hardware, so that isn't comparable to PC. If they want to create their own storefront like EA and Ubisoft, they're welcome to do that as well. "Third-party" developers sell on Steam because their storefront offers the most exposure for their product, and have made the calculation that their ROI will not improve if they sell elsewhere. From that point of view, the developer has every right to sell their product on whatever platform they wish. Because a 20-30% cut in the short to mid term isn't going to be sustainable.Ĭlick to expand.Notice how you're talking about things from a developer point of view, not the consumer. Time for Valve to wake up, readjust their priorities and maybe put out some high quality games again to make a profit. The games are what keeps people there, and when developers/publishers find a better deal they'll leave. All the paid emoticons, trading cards and "Steam level" in the world won't keep anyone on the platform. I expect this to become more common going forward. If anything, having Epic and Valve agree to keep their cut at an equal amount would essentially be collusion and create a duopoly. What about third party developers that sell exclusively on Steam and not on Origin? Is that anti competitive? Offering a better deal and gaining a customer (Deep Silver) isn't exactly anti competitive its really the opposite of it. Wouldn't that make Valve, EA, Nintendo & Sony anti competitive? They all do the same thing. While I agree with you in that they should have kept it on both stores with a higher price for Steam I don't see how this is noncompetitive.
0 kommentar(er)
