Astyanax:

Steam provides cloud save storage. Controller Emulation Remote play Friend Streaming Workshop Versioning system (for downgrades) Voice chat Customizable Profiles Art/Screenshot hosting Groups/Communities Network interface for server listings Music library And much more. as well few more gimmicky things like badges/cards/tradeables, on a system that caters to the consumer/user and ease of use. Developers that are unwilling to pay to be on a platform that provides all of these and more, choosing to be on inferior services are the greedy ones. Developers that are bribed to exclusively release their product on an inferior service are the greedy ones. You've taken Epics ill founded bait and gone deep sea fishing with it, it costs money to be on a superior service, that money is taken from a higher cut of the profits (and its not even always 30%) Microsoft are double dipping with advert revenue and selling your user data, so theres no justifiable reason they had to take 30%, they also don't do much if any of the above features. I reckon EGS is ripping studio's off with their pathetic capability set.

Steam has been a monopoly far too long. They were the first since 2003 with such a service. I do not think it is reasonable to compare it with other launchers, because they existed so long and have a different business plan. People still use different things for streaming (OBS) , voice chat (Discord) , Spotify (music), use browser to read their forum (which will add so much more functionality) , Screenshot hosting (see our screenshot thread) , workshop (which is very limited , people still prefer nexus or other ways to release their mods) . While it may be more accessible, it is not the preferred choice, so more (superior) isn't always the most chosen and better choice. It will become useless, and honestly just taking up system resources if you are not using it. Epic also invite people to try out Unreal engine with assets for free , they have tons of tutorials for people to try , and encourage them to create something. (which , until it starts to make money is absolutely FREE!) I have yet to see Valve do this. Valve is only interested to encourage people to use trading cards or use their market to sell items from a game. 5% and add 10% for more popular games, so that's 15% for an artificial item that can be used in game. how is that not greed, and promote greed as well.

JonasBeckman:

There's also the payment options and Valve covering some of the involved fees and I believe the trading cards were cited as a part of what this cut also covers for and then there's the free key generation and being allowed to sell to other platforms though you can't generate a massive number of keys and just sell elsewhere there's a few terms for it but Valve is fairly generous about this system it doesn't have to be 1:1 against Steam sales. Regional pricing is nice as well, shame a lot of publishers modify the suggested price defaults to really mess with a couple of regions but EGS also supports it though then sees it modified a bit afterwards as I think it's applied by default letting people snag a few good deals before it's "corrected" ha ha. Higher sales allowing for a reduction in the cut though I don't know if many but the larger publishers could hit such sales. Proton and all that effort as well, massive work on input support and upcoming overhauls and improvements. 🙂 Think the cut could have been higher too and might even have been before the 30/70 split but it's the industry default now though EGS and Microsoft (3rd parties and only on PC though.) lowering it down is a interesting shift. (I don't think it'd be sustainable though lowering it by that much.)

How many times is Valve brought to the attention of Geoblocking by the EU ? It is not the developers doing this. Their refund policy was also forced by EU by law. free key generation , I do not think any other platform charges for key generation, it is part of the fee.

I am impressed to hear other services even offer key generation, figured that'd be a big no without them getting at least a cut out of the sales from this if not the majority of the revenue even but Valve somehow have allowed the practice even if they are losing out on it. Geographical blocking of sales and the changes to VPN and regional cross-purchases is something I have to look into as another piece of the ongoing regional pricing and changes, I am however glad the refund policy exists even if consumers have to put up a bit of a fight for getting it granted compared to before with digital sales. 🙂 The ongoing lawsuit and claims is kinda ridiculous with some of the demands and statements but it will be interesting to see if this ongoing legal settlement and other surrounding business decisions and changes have an impact, lowering the fee would at least be a nice bonus for developers (Or the publisher.) even if the actual purchase price remains unchanged. 🙂 EDIT: Ah right, so there's also the Steam licenses and keys for that and activation of these. Then there's the key requests so the developer can distribute these elsewhere but it's also outside of Valve's fees and there's no additional costs just that they will eventually look into sales for when a very large number of keys gets requested and how it matches the current Steam sales.

Steams future will be russian asset flips.

The only problem I have with Steam is them allowing games on Steam that are broken, instead of pushing for those titles to be fixed.

TheDeeGee:

It's amazing how many people are still: "Epic baaaaaaaaaaaaaad!". Yet they play games using the Unreal Engine. Can't be more pathetic.

Epic is simply trying to making in 2 years what steam did in more than 17 years. Even Steam at beginning was not profitable for Valve outside it's own games.

Stormyandcold:

The only problem I have with Steam is them allowing games on Steam that are broken, instead of pushing for those titles to be fixed.

That's a common problem for modern software thanks to gig economy and agile programming.

I think Microsoft's idea with Gamepass is the best shot so far to actually have a chance going up against Steam. But I don't ever see Steam being challenged for real, gamers simply opt for that since they have their 15+ year old accumulated libraries and want to keep it in the same place when possible. It was obviously easier for physical stores to compete with oneanother since the price was the only difference no matter where you bought the game. And I do truthfully believe that if Epic thought that they could make a dent on Steam without paying for all the exclusives, they would absolutely do so. They're just as greedy as every other business and if they decide to waste money it's because their management has deemed it the most viable strategy. I don't remember every single good/bad thing Valve has done, but it sure feels like the standards back then was lower and now Microsoft/Epic/Ubisoft are judged harsher for their methods. I do remember Counter Strike being a mod available for everyone before Valve bought it and made it exclusive to Steam, as well as thinking it wasn't morally right that Valve made a standalone game of Dota that actually was popular in WC3. Valve is actually the reason Blizzard explicity says every map you create is their IP.

Glad to see Microsoft stepping up to the plate. What the PC Online gaming distribution markets need is fierce competition. EPIC was the first one to realize that it doesn't do a reseller much good to cut his commissions by 22% to developers if end user customers do not also get some sort of concomitant reduction in purchase prices. For instance, a Microsoft or EGS developer gets a reduction in his commission of 18%, discounts his software to his customers by 10%, and still comes out 8% ahead of where he is today with Steam! (No exclusives required. That was only something Sweeney felt he had to do to break into the online market--he cannot continue that, of course--and neither can developers.) Personally, I prefer GOG. No DRM, and no compromise on that issue; and I get my own installable copy of every game I own on GOG. But if I can buy a game cheaper somewhere else, I may just do that.

waltc3:

Glad to see Microsoft stepping up to the plate. What the PC Online gaming distribution markets need is fierce competition. EPIC was the first one to realize that it doesn't do a reseller much good to cut his commissions by 22% to developers if end user customers do not also get some sort of concomitant reduction in purchase prices. For instance, a Microsoft or EGS developer gets a reduction in his commission of 18%, discounts his software to his customers by 10%, and still comes out 8% ahead of where he is today with Steam! (No exclusives required. That was only something Sweeney felt he had to do to break into the online market--he cannot continue that, of course--and neither can developers.) Personally, I prefer GOG. No DRM, and no compromise on that issue; and I get my own installable copy of every game I own on GOG. But if I can buy a game cheaper somewhere else, I may just do that.

Everything you just thought, doesn't work in reality.