[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Compare this to the days of console exclusives, and it's almost a non-issue.

That's the thing though, console exclusives at least saved developers the resources needed to port to another console. Especially in ye olden days, that was a non-trivial cost. The storefront exclusivity on PCs is completely artificial.

But also, yeah, my computer is full of enough bloated useless-ware. At least GoG and Itch don't make me use a client.

[seventhtiger]

It's not artificial, it's financial.

I was against Epic's aggressive moves, until I realized just how much cash they're injecting into developers. In the video game industry developers are the ones that bring the most value to customers.

Valve has been a dragon hoarding its gold. The services they provide are better than Epic, but they really don't reflect their near-monopoly position for over a decade. 30% out of the majority of PC game sales, and what do we have to show for it? Valve doesn't even seem willing to compete and lower its cut.

In the end going with Epic will guarantee the studio can make it to the next game. That's worth downloading another client. That and the free games.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> 30% out of the majority of PC game sales, and what do we have to show for it?

Steam links, Steam controllers, Steam on Linux, Proton, and the OpenVR SDK to name a few. Sure several of those things were failures, but it isn't like they aren't trying.

> In the video game industry developers are the ones that bring the most value to customers.

That's some trickle-down theory right there. I'm not convinced that what's good for developers is necessarily good for gamers or the gaming market. Case in point: loot boxes.

[seventhtiger]

It's not trickle-down theory. It's actual redistribution of wealth from publishers to developers. If a developer you like cuts a deal with Epic and ensures their own existence for one more game, then you should be very happy.

Studio closures are common, game services shut down, mass layoffs, and project cancellations. An exclusivity deal is much better than a publisher going in and changing monetization or game design to fit their strategy.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> If a developer you like cuts a deal with Epic and ensures their own existence for one more game, then you should be very happy.

Where do you get off telling me how I should feel? The way I feel is that exclusivity that has nothing to do with technical constraints and everything to do with corporate sumo wrestling is not and never will be good for gaming as a whole.

[seventhtiger]

Not you personally. Rhetorical you, the gamer.

Exclusivity can be good if it results in more games being developed, at a better quality, cheaper. Do you disagree with that?

[ZeikJT]

I wouldn't say it's completely artificial. Steam offers APIs for things like cloud saving, workshop, achievements, cards, etc. and any games that want to make use of those things pays dev costs to integrate it EXCLUSIVELY for the Steam version. I'm sure the Epic Games Store offers something similar and more dev costs would be associated there to integrate. And so on.

[favorited]

Neither modern console nor PC game store exclusives are "completely artificial" when those contracts provide an influx of cash for the developer or studio.

Gamedev isn't cheap, especially for indies and smaller studios.