Amazon thought it could compete with Steam because it was so much larger than Valve, but Prime Gaming's former VP admits that 'gamers already had the solution to their problems'
Steam is a platform that happens to also have a storefront. Other companies are building storefronts and hoping that's enough.
If you can't provide fast downloads, cloud saves synced across devices, achievements, mod support, friends lists, and multiplayer support, it's not a real option. Being cheaper or having some exclusives aren't attractive. Gog already has the drm free angle to be a legitimate competitor.
Being consistently cheaper would actually be attractive to many people. The thing is, none of these competitors can even muster that. Steam consistently has better sales, more often. And it's pretty funny seeing Amazon of all things not able to match or beat that. They are known for undercutting the competition, even at their own expense, just to get customers; It's literally how they got to be as big as they are.
Epic kinda tried that by giving away tons of free games in the Epic Games Store. It didn't work.
If I want Steam games cheaper, I go buy a Steam key for that game from a separate retailer and activate it on Steam. Save like 50-70% irrespective of Steam sales. It's remarkable that Steam allows us to even do that in the first place.
Epic also generated a lot of bad blood by scooping up Kickstarter projects and ordering the devs to cancel the Steam releases, releases that had already been paid for by backers. A bunch of potential customers refused to buy from Epic on principle after that.
I'm one of them. For all their trash talk about Steam being a monopoly, Epic Games sure pulled some hypocritical, anticompetitive shit in their attempt to replace one monopoly with an objectively worse, consumer-hostile one.
I wouldn't be surprised if they require a game to be downloaded and played to count. I know on PS , if you have already downloaded, after purchase, a refund is less likely, so downloading likely triggers the sale to be complete, with payment to the seller. It could be similar for free games.
Yep. I have a bunch of Epic’s free games. Never bought a single game from them and probably never will.
The experience on Steam is just better. And Epics lawsuits look less like they’re fighting for the little guy and more that they are envious of the market that other companies have.
Maybe if they had done that with brand new games and not just a few good but old games and tons of games nobody has even heard of before. It's not really even in the same league as just genuinely being cheaper than the competition. It's a gimmick. Steam also sometimes gives games away for free, while still having tons of deep discounts all year long.
I'm the same. I'll look on Steam first just because I would prefer to keep all my shit in one place, but if it's not the cheapest price I'll get it somewhere else. Although 90% of the time, the cheapest price is just a steam key being sold by a 3rd party (I like Eneba, personally).
The one time Epic was cheaper, was when they gave out Civ6 for free. I bought the two major DLC expansions through Epic instead of buying everything on Steam just because I didn't have to buy the base game and the DLCs were $10 cheaper anyway.
It would be so easy for another store front to just take a 20% cut instead of 30% and pass the savings on to the end consumer. That would be a pretty strong start. But nope. They just want to charge the same base price.
I commented elsewhere that I’ve been trying out some classic PC games in their native Linux form lately.
It is so amazing to see my old saves just show up like nothing ever changed. Plus lots of other little things like time played and friend list and all that.
This is something from before 2010, but I distinctly remember not being able to play Borderlands 1 with my friends because the site I bought it from didn't have a patch yet that Steam did. This was one of the things that sold me on Steam. Prior to that I hated it. It's nearly two decades ago so it's hard to really remember why, but it wasn't always viewed as favorably as now.
This isn't some dig at Steam, like I said, this was over a decade ago.
There was definitely heavy skepticism at first. Buying online was new when it launched and physical was still king. I remember thinking it was dumb to buy from a website that could disappear instead of good old CDs.
There are plenty of successfully competing stores. The only real thing Steam has going for it is network effect that every gamer has an account therefore it's decent for socialising, but even that is being challenged by Discord and a multitude of others.
GamePass is probably the closest we're seeing to a potential monopoly. The purchase of activation should never have been permitted.
Yeah, but where do you have to go to redeem those keys and then subsequently have to open their program every time you wish to use your purchase (which you don't own). Steam is very good at promoting itself and locking people into their platform, it's a constant free advertisement program where they have total control and no competition.
I understand the "Steam is fine" position, but I also wish we weren't always turning to this ONE supplier for a goods or service because it always hits the hardest when corruption takes over. Would love for these threads to be filled with multiple conversations of all these great different gaming services everyone personally loves for one reason or another, instead of comparing the crappiness between these few huge mega-corporations.
It's a launcher successful on the most popular OS in the world that they don't even own that anyone can come in to compete at. And had decades to do so when "PC gaming was dead" so was wide open for anyone that wanted to try to reach potential customers over fixating on the console demographic. What more do want.