I think it does. Instead of competing they chose to try and force customers to use their platform by buying exclusivity that specifically targets Steam. From the perspective of the customer they took the worst possible approach and, along with how Sweeney has talked about people like us, treated customers like a cattle to be herded, as if we couldn't think for ourselves and would throw ourselves into EGS if our games went there.

But the end goal of EGS wasn’t just to make them more money, they offer every developer more money when they publish there.

That is the PR they sold that the money goes into the hands of the developer. That is true only if the developer is also self publishing. Actually that extra money goes into the hands of the publisher and then it's up to the publisher to decide if the developers get any more money. And once again, from the customers perspective, we barely get anything out of that goal. Games don't get cheaper for us, we don't really get more games because of it. The publishers simply get more money per sale. They don't even get more money (except for the exclusivity money that Epic threw their way) because you sell significantly more copies on Steam because unlike Epic Steam doesn't treat its customers like cattle.

The underlying motivation for creating EGS in the first place was the recognition that Valve does not need to be taking a 30% cut of every game sale to provide the services they provide.

So to prove that Valve doesn't need to take a higher cut they make a store where they take fraction of the cut Steam would take but also offer a fraction of the services Steam offers? I think that would be an argument if they offered at least half of what Steam offers but they don't even do that. They made a barebones store for a barebones cut, that doesn't show anything.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

The store taking a smaller cut of the pie either means that developers get more money to spend on the game or consumers spend less for games. Full stop.

Publishers have revenue sharing percentages with the developers, if a game sells more and makes more money per sale the developer gets more money.

There is no way that Valve is the good guy or even neutral for taking more of the pie then they need to.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

buying exclusivity that specifically targets Steam

That specifically target Steam or Steam ends up being the only target because the other stores are either specialized or publisher specific?

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're asking so I'll just expand on what Epic did. Epic made a deal with Ubisoft where Ubisoft releases their game on their store and on EGS but not on Steam despite all previous Ubisoft titles being on Steam. I remember there being another smaller publisher who made a deal with EGS and released their game on other storefronts (I think it was EGS and GOG but it also could've been the MS store) but not on Steam. I would consider that exclusivity targeting specifically Steam.

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are not arguing in good faith here - the other user is being very clear about their question and you are pretending not to understand. You invented a sourceless situation to answer the question while saying you didn't understand it.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

His question was not clear to me which is why I stated I didn't understand what he was asking. And then expanded what I meant by exclusivity to see if that answered his question. And while I didn't have time to go find the sources especially since finding the source for the other publisher IMO isn't worth the effort (mainly because searching the web for anything very has become next to impossible unless you know exactly what you're looking for). The Ubisoft one however is really simple, anyone with basic googling skills could find it.

If anyone is here in bad faith it's you. You instantly assumed I'm being disingenuous and come attacking me without even doing a basic check to see if you have anything to attack.

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You cherry picked a single example you couldn't recall until pressed. It's really obvious you're only here to trash a storefront you don't use for no reason. If you recall, the division 2 was only on uPlay, requiring you to install the game through it even if you purchased it elsewhere - and that's a substantially worse data collection vector than EGS (multiple breaches) and it is actually missing features like linking of DLC to the store page. What's your point?

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not continuing this discussion with you. You won't even check if you're talking out of your ass. The division 2 released simultaneously on Uplay and EGS

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

You're incapable of having a rational discussion and ignoring the fact that you needed to install uPlay even when buying it through other storefronts. This isn't something steam did better on, and you googling and linking the first article you see that remotely confirms your viewpoint (which is now detached from the thread) is kind of childish