Perhaps Epic should focus more on actually making their platform not hot-garbage (aka actually making a better competing product) instead of holding games hostage and forcing users into their beyond subpar platform, they've had plenty of time and people still go to the steam forums for an epic exclusive to ask questions and make guides about the game. Steam is simply the better product and the only way Epic can stay alive is by employing anti-competitive business practices.
Exactly. In theory, I have no problems with a Steam competitor, but the extras Steam gives, plus its support for linux is just unmatched. Input binding, support for non-standard controllers (huge for accessibility), Proton, streaming, remote play, etc. The list goes on and on. Epic... is just a glorified downloader and friend list basically where you are stuck on windows.
Store exclusives don't seem like too much of an issue to me. There's a bit of added hassle in the same way there is for games with their own launcher/account system, but for the most part you're still able to get any game (and I believe even add it as an external game to your Steam library, if that's the UI you prefer) without significant cost/barrier to switching like there is for platform exclusives.
In exchange, it can add some much-needed competition on the developer side - with multiple stores competing to give a better deal. I don't think it's particuarly healthy to have pretty much just one store, sitting on a large cut and not doing much in the way of funding new games.
I do wish Epic would also improve in areas of Linux support/input binding/etc. though.
* Store 1 offers them 70% of profit and no funding
* Store 2 then offers them 90% of profit and significant developement funding, on the condition of exclusivity
The existence of competition (including a potential counteroffer by store 1) gives the developer a better deal, and possibly results in a better game or ability to produce games that wouldn't otherwise exist.
It's admittedly a little bit of a hassle for consumers to use multiple stores, same as with games that have their own launcher/account system, but there's no buy-in like with streaming services or console platforms. I think it's probably worth it for a form of competition that has been lacking.
It's my understanding that Steam does not really do exclusivity deals, outside of games they self-publish, which is why I asked the question. I wasn't sure if I was wrong on that point.
I've read some blog posts by indie developers that break down the cost model and effort required to publish to various platforms (Steam, Epic, etc). I can't seem to find them now though... But the general takeaway was that Steam is where the consumers are, so you end up making the most amount of money there. They also have a really nice pipeline that covers every aspect of development, publishing, and payment. I suspect the benefit of publishing on multiple platforms may simply not be worth the effort when Steam has the pipeline, the storefront, and more importantly, the customer base.
I've seen similar things in the mobile app space. The Apple store is where the money is at, and there are many apps that are not on Android. This isn't because of an exclusivity deal with Apple, but rather a business decision made by each developer.
Well, why did you ask what games have exclusivity contracts with Valve?
My point was, Epic creates these exclusivity contracts for games they fund. I think it's a net positive for there to be more art in the world, even if you have to wait a few months to buy them from your favorite storefront.
Valve doesn't fund the development of third party games. They do create some games in house (fewer than they used to sadly) but just like in Epic's case these are exclusive to Steam.