Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
13 
Signaler ce message
A release on Steam being pointless is BS of course. Steam has by far the biggest player base, so even if the distribution cut is higher, there will be much more potential buyers than on any other platform combined.
Maybe because the Steam userbase and the Epic userbase may not have a lot of overlap and releasing on Steam will expand the audience. Does it matter if Epic has a better cut if a large portion of gamers that don't have the game don't use Epic at all for whatever reason?
Will there be a GoG release? Is one planed at all?
Epic Store made 643 million its first year. 18 billion with Fortnite. They dont need the very small amount of people that think their petty epic boycott actually means something. Most people who wanted to play/own this game has it on Epic already. Stay petty about Epic. lmao.
How did you even get that I was being petty about Epic?
There actually are some people that don't use Epic. Sure, some people don't like the store because of their business practices. But, some people have to use payment options that Epic doesn't support so buying games there can be expensive. Hell, some people don't even know EGS exists. These people don't hang out on r/pcgaming or read gaming news. Occasionally they have a few extra bucks, open up Steam, and see if anything catches their eye. If you don't have the game on Steam, you are going to lose all of those potential customers.
This wasn't a game like Borderlands 3 that everyone knew was coming. It didn't have advertisements everywhere. This is more of a game people just stumble upon and if you aren't exposed to it, it is a little hard to do that.
Thing is, a lot of people on Epic only play Fortnite and aren't that interested in other games. It doesn't have anything to do with liking or disliking Epic. The amount of potential buyers is just significantly greater on Steam. For a game like Metro Exodus that's maybe not true because it's a well known brand and people are proacitvely searching and buying it. But smaller indie games like Outer Wilds are oftentimes found by accident while browsing, or because you have money left in your wallet etc, or when there's a big sale etc. Or maybe because it's a hidden gem and people see positive reviews. Most people don't really know about this game and pro actively go on Epic just to buy it. It's more of a "Oh, I'll buy this game as well" sort of thing, and that's not what the majority of people on Epic does. It's also not encouraged by the EGS.
Yes, Steam still does have a quite a large user base that can lead to more sales of the game. But aside from hitting some peaks due to global paranoia of users hiding indoors, incentive for releasing on Steam is becoming less significant.
You're not wrong about most of the things you said, except for:
"Despite way long history of devs attaching Steam to their games no matter where you get it. Forever (not just one year)."
What Epic does, are exclusivity deals which actively prohibit the sale on another platform until the exclusivity period is over (1 year for all deals atm as far as I know). Steam doesn't do this at all. Every game that comes out on Steam is allowed to also release on any other platform and there are a lot of Steam games which are also on Gog, Origin, Uplay etc. If a game is on Steam for years and isn't on any other platform, then this is 100% the decision of the game developers or rather the game publishers. This isn't up to Steam or any contract.
As for your argument about the reputation of Epic, I can at least tell you why I won't buy anything on Steam, and it's mainly 3 reasons:
1. The store is sh*t. It's not user-friendly, it doesn't have reviews or any forums to discuss anything.
2. It's basically owned by China, which doesn't give a f**k about human rights. Probably not a strong reason to not buy anything on Epic, but it still leaves a stale taste.
3. This is the most important reason. Plainly, I just don't want another store. The only stores I like, that have a nice design and are user-friendly, are Steam and Gog. And I don't buy anything on any other store. This applies not only to Epic, but also to Origin, Uplay and all the other mediocre stores.
So, I think you're right. People exaggerate a bit when it comes to Epic. I assume many people, like me, just don't want another store, but are afraid to plainly state this. So instead, they search for other reasons to blame Epic. But to stay fair, these other reasons sure exist and there is indeed a lot to dislike about Epic. (Also, I'm not a fan of them letting Unreal Tournament die because of Fortnite). On a positive note, it's nice that developers get a higher cut. Maybe it will make Valve reconsider this in the future.
Mh, I think I don't quite get your point to be honest here.
Thing is, a developer/publisher could release their game on Steam, Gog, Uplay, Origin and Epic simultaneously, they would just miss out on the money from an Epic exclusivity deal. Steam doesn't forbid it. The reason why so many developers don't do this and their games stay on Steam only is unclear to me.
If you mean, it's better for a game to release on Epic to then, eventually, release for a multitude of other platforms so that many more can enjoy it (which rarely happens after a Steam release), I get you. But wouldn't it be best (in case the exlusivity money isn't needed) for a game to release for all these platforms at once?
I just don't get why they only do this after the game has been initially released on Epic, and not after an initial Steam release.
If a small developer needs the money to finish their game, that's of course a different case and it's always better for a game to be given the chance to be finished. (Like, I'm really glad Epic supports System Shock 3, which would've been canceled otherwise, most likely).
*makes
The ENTIRE PURPOSE is digital rights management. DRM. When you release a video game, you attach the DRM to it for copy protection. You don't release copies of it without DRM (in this case, Steam). There is the game itself as a whole (intellectual property), and individual copies of the game on media. It just defeats the purpose of protecting your game as a whole with DRM if you're just going to release non-restricted individual copies anyway. If you are going to release a copy-protected game (DRM game), you need every individual copy of that game with the DRM attached to it.
Everything you're saying about dev choice is 100% meaningless. Devs choose to DRM their games on Steam. Which leads to trapping games on Steam for years and years. Because they have no incentive to ditch the copy protection that Steam provides. Sure, some games, after a few years go DRM-free, and are sold elsewhere. Yet many stay strictly on Steam to keep that copy protection going. Since selling copies elsewhere without the DRM (Steam) pretty much renders the copy protection for the game as a whole. Hence the entire point of keeping the DRM tied to the game.
The whole entire process of DRM is a major step of publishing on Steam. Devs following Steamworks directions for releasing their game, apply the coding even if not really thinking about copy protection for their game. It's just part of the process. Yes you can totally skip the step if you are actually thinking about it, and want to go DRM-free.
DRM-free is the ONLY reason GOG exists. If not for the Steam problem of DRM always being considered far and wide to be an extremely anti-consumer practice, there would never have been a need for CD Project to open a strictly DRM-free store for the sole purpose of doing what's right to the benefit of the consumer. GOG will absolutely not allow you to publish a game at their shop with any form of DRM on it.
EGS has no DRM coding as part of the process of publishing your game at their shop. This is why the vast majority of games there are actually DRM-free. But they don't have a strictly DRM-free rule like GOG. So unlike Steam which is a DRM provider, and GOG which absolutely does not allow DRM, EGS is just a game shop. You can sell your game with or without DRM. Just like any traditional PC game shop, but you will need to find your own. And obviously, Steam cannot be it because its DRM cannot be applied aside from publishing your game in their shop. So typically games will use Denuvo. Or actually write their own code that uses EGS authentication just like Steam. Only, unlike Steam, as mentioned, it's not part of the standard EGS publishing process.
And in terms of digital restriction, there is none out there, not just in games, not just in software, but in all media, bigger (as in more used) than Steam. Steam is the biggest digital restriction tool on the planet. At least as far as I know.
So your question of a game releasing on all platforms at once is no. It shouldn't be releasing on any "platform". All games should be platform-free. Which would technically mean, all games should release on GOG, and completely unnecessary on any forced platform. Since GOG is the shop that does not force any sort of bloatware client onto end-users. Since Galaxy is 100% optional to the end-user. Never ever forced. Plus you receive the installer for all games you buy from them, and own.
This choice to end-users that GOG gives, including installer for your games, does not apply to any forced bloatware like Steam or EGS. Since users are forced to install their client, at the very least to install the game. And with Steam, in the vast majority of cases, also for DRMing the game you buy. Nor they will never give you an installer for a single game you own.
Either way, the point was about the irrelevance of even mentioning dev choice. It is obviously a better choice to do a contract that locks a game for a year on one bloatware shop. Then intentionally keeping a game locked on another bloatware shop for years and years, contract or not. The main point being is that if not for this one-year Epic shop contract, all those games, pretty much 100% without any doubt, would have been exclusively only available on Steam. You can claim irrelevant dev choice and no contract all day long. That changes absolutely nothing about how the game ends up with respect to the consumer.