Beamer wrote on Jul 10, 2019, 10:00:
Creston wrote on Jul 10, 2019, 08:52:
By "every store," you mostly mean the publishers' own stores, right?
Steam really is over 90% of the market, so of course it's what they're focusing on. If they steal 100% of the market share from GOG and Humble Bundle they still have, what, 3% of the total market? Maybe less? Add in UPlay, Origin, etc., and it's 5%?
How does that invalidate what I said, dude? They sell their keys (now) on GMG, Humble, the games are still on the publishers' own stores, by Sweeney's own tweets they're looking at selling on more stores, but they aren't on Steam. I'm not sure why market share invalidates the concept that clearly they are 'waging war' (metaphorically) against Steam and Steam alone.
Taking from them is utterly meaningless. It's like trying to build a competitor to Windows by focusing on OS/2 users.
Again, that doesn't invalidate what I said.
Except for the headline of the article we're discussing. And the concluding paragraph. Both imply Epic's goal is to put Steam out of business, which is ludicrous. However, Jerykk seems to agree in the post I quoted, and further down, you seem to agree that its goal is to "replace Steam," or at least your concern is it replacing Steam, which seems to be a weird thing to be concerned about.
Replace Steam as the #1 client, yes, most certainly, though certain rabid developers (aka the imbecile known as Randy Pitchford) are apparently fervently hoping for Steam to go up in ashes. If that came across as "replace Steam and Steam ceases to exist", that was not my intent, so apologies if it appeared that way.
Legally, no, but I'm not making the legal argument. Functionally, yes. This site is power users, and what percentage of games do you think people here play that don't involve Steam? I'd be shocked if it's 10%. Some of the online-only games don't touch Steam, but virtually every other major PC game does. A huge chunk use Steam as their backend, and even ones using something like uPlay as it are still bought far more frequently on Steam than on, well, uPlay.
Right, but that's USAGE. I can't really help using Steam for the majority of my games, because the majority of my games need Steam to run. A far better question to ask, imo, is how many people here BUY their games solely on Steam? Because other than stuff in sales which I buy because I can't be bothered to look elsewhere to see if it's a dollar cheaper, I haven't BOUGHT an actual game on Steam in like six years. I buy them everywhere BUT Steam. So how is that a monopoly? Steam gives away free keys to its store without ever seeing a dime from that, but they do provide the bandwidth and the patching etc. which is fucking incredible. But they pay for that from their regular 30% cut. (I will say that it appears
as if Epic is now slowly going to start doing the same though we'll see if it really becomes a thing. It's one thing to gives keys to Humble, it's another to allow tens of thousands of keys to be sold elsewhere so you don't see a dime but you are still footing the bill for all the bandwidth and all the patching work.)
Which is one of my main points about Epic being a shittier client. Sure, we're 'forced' to use Steam right now in a lot of cases, but using Steam has become quite a boon to gaming. There's tons of shit I can do in Steam which is super useful to me as a gamer. Want a mod? Click on Subscribe, boom, done. Want to backup the game to replay later? Four clicks and it's done. Play with other people and use chat? Simple. Stream for your friends? Simple. No other client has these options. Uplay, Origin, GOG, etc, they all pretty much have little to none of those options. EGS has very few of these options, and since every client other than Steam has never bothered to build out these kind of options, I'm rather doubtful EGS will ever do either.
(Btw, I get all of that without Steam having seen a dime off of me for new games in years. Queue the EGS fanboy horde bleating about how fucking terrible Steam is for PC gaming because the poor publisher doesn't make more money.)
Is it a strawman? Reread the quote I put up from Jerykk - how else do you construe it? He's saying they want to "replace Steam," which I construe as meaning "have more than 90% of the market"
That's one guy and one clickbait article. Also, Steam may have 90% of the usage market (which I doubt, to be honest, but whatever), but they sure as hell don't have 90% of the sales.
and goes on to say "considering its complete lack of features, paltry selection and complete disregard towards consumer interests," which I construe to mean that he sees this state going forward and them not building features or selection.
We'll see. Sweeney's roadmap was followed very quickly by him saying that they had to "postpone" it because they needed to devote time to building the actual required mp infrastructure for Borderlands 3. Understandable, but so far they are still a barren wasteland, feature-wise, compared to Steam. So we'll see how much of that roadmap gets put in place.
And now you're saying "replaced Steam" with something shittier. You just said I made a strawman, but now you're talking about Steam essentially going away despite EGS not building feature parity.
No, that's not what I mean. I mean EGS replaces Steam as the #1 usage client, but I should have made that more clear, so sorry. So even if I buy a game elsewhere (if and when that becomes as prevalent as it's been on Steam), I have to use EGS to play it.
I don't really care who gets the money for the sales, whether that's Steam or EGS or GMG or GOG (preferably GOG or Humble, but whatever), but I do not look forward to a possible future where EGS becomes the default usage client, because let's face it, for a publisher that 18% is a BIG incentive, and then I have to play all future games on a (currently) far shittier client that has little to none of all the conveniences that the Steam client offers.
And I'm sorry, until EGS actually HAS those features in place, I'm going to remain skeptical that they'll get there. The paint hadn't dried on their roadmap yet when they already tweeted they had to delay said roadmap because of X. What's the next X?
How would that even happen? The only possible way that happens, the only single way, is to keep doing exclusives, which you just said no one is claiming they'll do. So how do you see them "replacing" Steam without building feature parity or exclusives? Because I see no path to that, and therefore complaining about it is like complaining that the sky is blue instead of yellow.
Fair enough, I should have been more clear.
In any case, I do think that IF Epic stops doing exclusives prematurely, everyone except the most rabid EGS Shareholder fanboy immediately goes back to Steam, so I don't really buy this argument that the exclusives are just for a year or so either. They will keep doing exclusives until either
1) They are number 1 in sales.
2) Their Fortnite money fountain runs out.
Steam is clearly betting on 2 happening way before 1, but for some reason people just keep on playing fortnite.