this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
484 points (94.2% liked)
Gaming
3239 readers
10 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And make sure to avoid stores that actively promote the store exclusives concept, even for stuff that isn't an exclusive (anymore). They don't deserve our money. Looking at you Epic.
I remember when Metro Exodus was about to release, Epic bought them out and they made the game unpurchasable on Steam after people already preordered. So only those who preordered were able to play on Steam for the first year after release. Valve left this statement on the store page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Exodus#Release
Ubisoft pulled something like that with Anno 1800. If you pre-ordered it on Steam it was possible to install and play it, as it was only delisted but not removed entirely. Buying the DLC was a bit of a pain as you couldn't search Steam for it, you had to dig up the direct Steam Store link from one of the official posts on the Ubi forum. It wasn't ideal, but at least they had the sense to make everything available immediately on Steam for those that already bought the game there.
Store exclusivity is paid, this means that the devs get a guaranteed income instead of relying on the Steam gamble.
Would you work for your employer if you might be paid more than average but no guarantee on that and only in two years if it happens at all as it depends on the number of clients you got and how influencers feel about your work once it's complete?
I don't know about you but I look around and I don't know anyone who would accept those conditions. That's where exclusivity becomes an option, you might not have as high an income, but that employer tells you ahead of hiring you how much you'll make in the next year with a commission on every sale you make once your work is complete.
I'm fully aware, and I don't even blame developers, especially indies, as I can completely understand their reasoning and commercial consideration. But from a user perspective I just see a store trying to buy market share and either forcing customers to wait a year or cave and use that store. Epic doesn't fork over money to help developers, it does so to grab a piece of the pie and create value for shareholders.
Personally I prefer not buying or using platforms from companies whose policies I don't agree with. I avoid Amazon for that reason, and Epic's store is therefore also on my personal blacklist.
It's a choice I'm allowed and willing to make. Of course you are free to disagree and by all means, do whatever you feel is right.
Do you purchase on Steam? Because it is in a monopolistic position and that's much more anti consumer than anything Epic or GOG can do in their position.
That's not even talking about the 30% cut which means less money going to the devs (and before you say they use the money to innovate, devs being able to afford making games is much more important for gaming than developing virtual trading cards or enriching a billionaire with a yacht collection).
Is it forcing a monopolistic position? Or is it's "monopolistic position" just a result of it being popular and widely used?
Do we need to wait until they start abusing their position before we react to the fact that they can do whatever the fuck they want with the PC gaming market?
Should we be punishing Steam for things they haven't done?
Epic was already trying to abuse their position as soon as they started up.
"You should purchase from the shitty company because if you purchase from the better company they might maybe one day become shitty" is not a compelling argument.
If Steam starts abusing their position and becomes shitty then I will stop using Steam. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong (or difficult) with "pirating" the games I have legally purchased on Steam in order to access them outside of the Steam environment.
except publishers frequently do accept those conditions.
I'm talking about employees, not businesses, people like you and me
and I'm saying your analogy doesn't work.
Except that yes it does. You're expecting all devs to spend their life savings to develop a game in the hope that Markiplier or Northernlion or whoever else decide to play their game out of thousands of suggestions they get? Some of them prefer a guaranteed salary in exchange for exclusivity, just like the vast majority of people exchange a guaranteed salary in exchange for work exclusive to a single employer. But somehow you guys expect devs to just gamble while you wouldn't play slot machine for a living.
I am not a dev. You are also not a dev. Here are some thoughts from an indie dev about Steam and Epic: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/comments/1dbljev/jason_thor_halls_pirate_software_thoughts_on/
Note the comments he makes about why an Epic exclusivity window is valuable to a dev.
The employees got paid while working on the game. They don't only get paid based on sales.
I'm making a parallel between those businesses who still need money to come in in order to pay employees and the way people who are complaining about exclusives wouldn't submit themselves to the same process of working without any guaranteed income. Money to pay employees doesn't come out of nowhere and plenty of publishers have went bankrupt leaving the employees without anything to show for their hard work.
You're also completely forgetting about indie devs.
Analogies, you guys should go read about those.
You can't hide behind a bad analogy simply due to it being an analogy. It's still bad. McDonald's doesn't get paid until someone buys a burger. Walmart doesn't get paid until a customer leaves the checkout. This is very normal for businesses that you don't get money until the consumer buys your product. If I start an independent business selling socks I can make all the socks I want, I don't get paid unless people buy them. That's a normal risk to starting your own business.
All of this is besides the fact that I don't blame devs for taking the offer, I blame Epic. If a game later becomes available on another service I will consider it then, I will not let Epic have any of my money.
Okay, let's ask an indie dev.
Does McDonald's wait 2 or 3 years to get money for the work accomplished to make that burger?
To make that burger they need to acquire the property, get permits, build the restaurant, purchase and receive equipment, get more permits, train staff, get supplies, advertise...
Yes, all that will take 2-3 years. I worked at a McDonald's that was getting rebuilt and the process for a restaurant that already existed took longer than 2 years.
Thank you for focusing on the last relevant part of my comment to signal that you don't have any actual valid criticisms of what I said.