[politelemon]

It isn't just the exclusivity deals, but the manner in which those deals are brought about, often with release promises broken, releases yanked and backers being outright lied to; I do not wish any success to such a business. As a gamer I don't like what the PC gaming landscape is turning into with Epic Games at the forefront of it. As a developer I would expect to consider a wider scope than a revenue split, a big part of which is an ecosystem, platform and tooling.

[coderunner]

All the extras like platform and tooling is nice, but don't mean anything if you can't support yourself as a dev. Better revenue sharing for devs is one thing that can make a big difference, provided the user base is there. Either it'll be there on Epic one day or Valve will match the revenue share of Epic or both. I'm all for having a competitive option in this space.

I don't think it's entirely Epic's fault about the releases being yanked from Steam or crowd sourced titles making changes. The developers had to sign the contract with Epic and Valve decided that they're too big to fail (which they might be by now) so they didn't try anything to counter.

The one thing that does suck from the gamer perspective is having to use multiple stores. As a dev and gamer I'm okay with this however as it helps the dev community at large in the long run if a viable store contender ever arrives.

[tomnipotent]

> As a developer I would expect to consider a wider scope than a revenue split

Rev split was the best thing to happen to the game industry. Previously, game engines required ridiculous six figure contracts to even get started and meant a fixed cost regardless of the success of the game. We've had no shortage of amazing games thanks to this arrangement.