Ripper
Зичу Вам успіхів
- Joined
- November 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,085
I wouldn’t call it anti competitive, its just not competitive and I’m not looking at everything as a whole. I’m looking only at epic vs steam.
I understand exclusives when it comes to consoles because there’s hardware to purchase. Many people will buy just 1 console and the difference between them is so slight that the quality of exclusives will sway people one way or the other. Once they have your hardware their locked in unless they want to shell out for a different console.
On PC you just download a client and that’s it. So these exclusives will get epic some sales for sure but its also alienating some consumers and will undoubtedly loose them sales in the future. Also they cant seriously compete with exclusives alone. They need to offer a comparable or realistically steams so entrenched they’ll have to offer a better client or other incentive to keep customers.
Don’t get me wrong they can exist with exclusives. Just like origins , ubi and the others. People will install their clients to play their few exclusive and then buy everything else on steam. If they truly want to compete with steam then they need much more than exclusives.
Anyway, that got pretty long winded but what I’m essentially saying is imo exclusives will give them a short term sales bump but wont give them a competitive advantage in the long run. Also, if they keep doing it the way they are ( yanking games at the last minute) it may actually hurt them in the long run.
I would agree that they would need more than exclusives in the long run, but I'd suggest they are already offering more by taking a much more sensible percentage cut than Steam currently gets away with. Now, one could say that this doesn't offer anything directly to the consumer, but I think, in terms of the market, it means more cash in the coffers of the studios rather than the distributor, and, with the pressure of competition, we'd expect to see some of that re-invested in improving their offer. From a customer perspective, less of the cash being siphoned out by the middle-man is likely to have positive effects, one way or the other.
I think one also has to look at the de facto advantage that Steam has. It's a common pattern to see one company dominating in a new market by being the early bird, and then others trying to find ways to take a chunk of that market. By virtue of getting established first, Steam has a massive installed user base (which, as we see, creates a resistance to switch), and a huge library of products, of which, by default, many are effectively exclusive. It's easy for them to say that every product should be released across all platforms as a matter of "openness", but that's like demanding a level playing field when you're already 1000 points in the lead. Very likely no-one, studios nor gamers, are going to look twice at another platform unless they can find some way to get established. I suspect that Valve would be singing a different song if they were the newcomers facing massive entrenched advantage.
As I mentioned before, I do agree that they are being clumsy with this last-minute poaching from Steam, but then market competition doesn't tend to be pretty, in my experience.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,085