It’s still attractive to publish games on Steam. Even Playstation titles are on Steam now. It’s not very obvious to run a platform that needs to be available all the time and to offer all kinds of content in huge volumes. The true value is the amount of gamers they have gathered.
I don’t know if Steam really locks vendors’ games from being published elsewhere. That would be bad. In my opinion it does quite the opposite. It supports Linux and tries to unlock your PC from further dependecies.
Epic is quite the opposite in their policies. I’d never join there, for ideological reasons. They can offer as much free games as they want.
I don’t know if Steam really locks vendors’ games from being published elsewhere.
They don’t. Who are you talking to?
Being a monopoly doesn’t mean no competition exists. It means saying “it’s attractive to publish games on Steam” when what you mean is, it’s attractive to publish games on PC. Steam is not the only store for that platform. But it’s the only one that matters.
And again - that’d be perfectly alright, if they didn’t charge as much to publish on PC as Sony charges to publish on Playstation.
Epic is evil. They justify locking games to their platform because Steam charges 30%. It’s anticompetitive and plain bullshit. It should matter you as a gamer.
If you sell 10x the amount of licenses on Steam in comparison to Epic it’s still a win. No one really cares about charges when you earn more in total.
I don’t recall throwing Epic one mote of credit, here. Again: who are you talking to? I am lately short on patience for getting slotted into conversations the other party would rather be having.
No shit people sell through the monopoly store based on how much money they get. That’s not a counterpoint - that’s the fucking problem. It does not matter how awful Steam is or isn’t, because people will go there anyway.
It’s still attractive to publish games on Steam. Even Playstation titles are on Steam now. It’s not very obvious to run a platform that needs to be available all the time and to offer all kinds of content in huge volumes. The true value is the amount of gamers they have gathered.
I don’t know if Steam really locks vendors’ games from being published elsewhere. That would be bad. In my opinion it does quite the opposite. It supports Linux and tries to unlock your PC from further dependecies.
Epic is quite the opposite in their policies. I’d never join there, for ideological reasons. They can offer as much free games as they want.
They don’t. Who are you talking to?
Being a monopoly doesn’t mean no competition exists. It means saying “it’s attractive to publish games on Steam” when what you mean is, it’s attractive to publish games on PC. Steam is not the only store for that platform. But it’s the only one that matters.
And again - that’d be perfectly alright, if they didn’t charge as much to publish on PC as Sony charges to publish on Playstation.
Epic is evil. They justify locking games to their platform because Steam charges 30%. It’s anticompetitive and plain bullshit. It should matter you as a gamer.
If you sell 10x the amount of licenses on Steam in comparison to Epic it’s still a win. No one really cares about charges when you earn more in total.
I don’t recall throwing Epic one mote of credit, here. Again: who are you talking to? I am lately short on patience for getting slotted into conversations the other party would rather be having.
No shit people sell through the monopoly store based on how much money they get. That’s not a counterpoint - that’s the fucking problem. It does not matter how awful Steam is or isn’t, because people will go there anyway.