I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
That is actually false. Both the higher per unit profits and the overall size of the market have made gaming more profitable than ever. There is a reason profits from gaming are bigger than profits from the film and music industry combined.
I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
That is actually false. Both the higher per unit profits and the overall size of the market have made gaming more profitable than ever. There is a reason profits from gaming are bigger than profits from the film and music industry combined.
Its worth pointing out that Valve has changed its % cut depending on sales
Under 10mil valve takes a 30%
10mil to 50 mil valve takes 25%
Over 50 mil valve takes 20%
Which is a timed-exclusivity ploy really. Developers and Publishers know that steam is the biggest market available and know that if they put their games on steam the majority of the sales would be directly from the store. The revenue splitting system Valve has incentivizes developers to put their game only on Steam at least until they sell the necessary number of copies to qualify for the largest possible percent cut.
Calling Steams platform that they built a 30% "rip-off" to developers when developers can manage their own sales and get by and sink or swim by their own merits
Saying the consumers are in the wrong for not just downloading every fucking game sale platform, like consolidation and streamlining is not what real savvy people do
Acting like game developers are some rockin' indy band getting shafted by a shady record label
Not a single one of the weenies making irrelevant excuses for Epic are talking about features that benefit you know... THE GAME PLAYERS
Keep em coming though.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
If this was all about the % cut then Discord would be on top dev list other then steam or even epic game store if it's not base on unreal engine. This is more on the greed side of things people taking side never good thing then letting games be on all stores.
If they have complaints about the Epic app store LMAO,,you had better think again,how about Google ,what o you think they are up to?Or how about Facebook,those two operations are constantly in battles wioth governments because one they are up to some very shotty/illegal activities and the govs want in on it so it is a constant battle. I was on Twtich watching a 3-4 hour card review for hearthstone and during that time my blocker stopped 535 hits and i am not sure but either 3% got through or it only stopped 3% that i'm not sure.
I have no doubt at all Epic is not totally on the up but what about Valve,they had a monopoly going 30% is not fair partnership.They don't have to do a single thing,their support is all tickets,no live support,they actually do not support a single game that is not Valve,all they do is reap 30% rewards from another persons work.
So if Epic offers a far less take,even if they are up to some no good,they are giving developers a MUCH more fair shake on the deal.That 30% will most certainly drive prices up,i have seen some games worth $5 but they charge commonly 20 because they won't see a profit otherwise.
I think over time,it has to be good for business and gamer's,eventually when Valve starts to feel a pinch they will fight back and then better deals for developers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Actually being on all stores is not as good as you think.An example is as of a couple weeks ago the oil industry bound together to jack up prices,so they all agreed to not compete and simply make it worse for us. So in two weeks gas prices went from 90 to 1.25 in Toronto.In the gaming market,they again still have to compete against each other,unless like the oil companies agree to scam across the board.
The only difference is instead of competing from store to store they are competing BEFORE it hits the store but they are still competing none the less and as long as they compete and don't do like the oil companies,it is ok.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Epic Store needs to becomre more like steam it lacks many of these features.
https://imgur.com/YQ2B2ht.jpg
Then we got the other fact that Epic Store supports Denuvo, they promised no bloatware, but as a customer buying Video Games I should have the right to avoid buying games with DRM that is going to slow down my entire system while the game is running because it takes more resources than ohterwise needed while other games or processes are running.
Epic Promised no bloatware but doesn't require all games to post a warning like Steam does.
Then we got the rare case with Epic Games Launcher eating up 80 - 100% CPU randomly for no reason very rare but its happened over the years with Fort Nite and has to be closed and re-launched.
Epic Store Exclusives, and Denuvo do not help the gaming industry in fact it's my opinion that it makes it worse because now consumers who want to avoid the malicious DRM, or Epic Games store will likely resort to piracy, a s has been seen on many gaming sites, and news Denuvo games are quacked within like days / week of a launch.
So it takes someone like 2 minutes to find a place to get it, 15-45 minutes to download using a VPN, and not long to quack, obviously there are risks to malware, and stuff in these type of things but a lot of people actually do it especially when they can't justify spending $50 for a game thats going to slow down their pc, or is locked behind a specific DRM, or platform.
A tax on the Industry? That's just Hyperbole. Yes, steam is expensive but it also gives dev's access to a huge market and lots of advertising options.
More than any of that though. Steam is a CHOICE. If a dev is confidant in their product they can go to EA, Epic, or just market their own game like the good ol' days. May games have done so without issue.
EX: Minecraft, LOL, Some MMO's, and lots of others.
Lots of Dev's only come to steam when they need a sales boost a few months after launch(ESO, AION, Wildstar... ect), and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the market working as intended.
Steam has allowed ALOT of games to hit it big that normally would have never been able to get off the ground. Without steam would we have ever seen a Stardew Valley, or a Bastion, or a Trine.... Would skyrim have sold 30 million copies without steam?
Yes, it has it's problems, but like Crowdsourcing I feel it's a net positive for the industry regardless of the problems.
I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.
Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.
So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.
As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
Where the costs of developing software have shifted. You have anything concrete to support your claim?
Well, start with the consumer price for games. It's remained essentially unchanged since the dawn of time so that part is obvious.
Comparing the cost of game development from one game to another can be tricky. World of Warcraft cost more to make the EQ, but was it just the years gone by or scope or both? So instead of digging real deep and getting crazy specific, I'll let a veteran of game development throw some numbers at ya that encapsulate better the difference a few years can make:
The development for videogames has increased exponentially throughout their history.
In 1990, I could get a AAA game made for $40,000. Ten years later, I was making games with a budget of $2,000,000. Nowadays, budgets for AAA are typically between $20M and 60M, with the biggest titles costing much more to develop.
Specifically, the first Call of Duty in 2004 cost $8.5M. Call of Duty: Elite, in 2011, had a development budget of $50M.
Destiny (2014) had a development budget of $140M.
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
If it didn't matter why the fuck does Epic need games to be exclusive to it? Shouldn't better splits have all these poor oppressed and disadvantaged developers lining up to add their platform to their distro chains?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
If it didn't matter why the fuck does Epic need games to be exclusive to it? Shouldn't better splits have all these poor oppressed and disadvantaged developers lining up to add their platform to their distro chains?
Developers are already lining up to do it, there's no reason not to sell on the Epic store. Exclusives have nothing to do with getting developers on their platform, that part is a given, the exclusives are there to guide consumers to the Epic store who may otherwise purchase from another location. They'll lose some as we see here who claim they're waiting for Steam, but others will obviously purchase from the Epic store because they don't want to wait. That's called getting a foothold in the market and being so brilliant you should realize that.
As far as the list goes it is 100% subjective. The only feature I use on Steam is the store and launching a game. My friend's list has maybe 5 people and none of them use the in-game system. Everyone I game with uses Discord because the chat and voice are far superior to Steam.
Epic could have waited until all their features were in place before hitting the market, and some think it would have been better, but others would argue that waiting could potentially make it harder for them as well. Was it the best decision? No way to know really
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
Hypocrisy is funny.
More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.
All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
How do you have exclusives when you're pretty much the only one doing what you do? Origins, U Play and stuff like Epic came AFTER Steam had already showed promise. Steam is like the World of Warcraft of the PC gaming platforms. You'll hear a lot of complaining from the vocal minority, but in the end, Steam is still superior and will always have a larger following.
Enter in the, "this platform is going to kill Steam" era.
Steam as the World of Warcraft of game launchers is a good analogy. As fans of some of the early MMORPGs will remind you, there were quite a few other MMORPGs that launched before WoW. What made WoW notable is that it was the first (and apparently last) to get an enormous playerbase.
I remember if it was not because of Valve and blizzard, pc gaming is dead, those 2 save pc community, back then dev want move all their game to console.
I've been following all this drama for a while now and i can't believe what i'm seeing... The PC platform is turning into the same mess that is the console wars... Where both sides attack each other in defense of their respective Corporate Overlords...
For the record i have no loyalty to any Store platform, i will buy games from the one who offer me a better service or products and that's it.
I've been following all this drama for a while now and i can't believe what i'm seeing... The PC platform is turning into the same mess that is the console wars... Where both sides attack each other in defense of their respective Corporate Overlords...
For the record i have no loyalty to any Store platform, i will buy games from the one who offer me a better service or products and that's it.
The worst part is this "war" doesn't cost the consumer a new console to buy the exclusive. It's a complaint over free software.
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
How much more are you folks going to twist and bend yourselves around? It's ridiculous.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
How much more are you folks going to twist and bend yourselves around? It's ridiculous.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
You're crying over something that costs you nothing. You are the one that needs to get it together.
The cost of a game has remained unchanged but the development costs are astronomical in comparison.
That is actually false. Both the higher per unit profits and the overall size of the market have made gaming more profitable than ever. There is a reason profits from gaming are bigger than profits from the film and music industry combined.
- the move to digital distribution has allowed developers to retain a far higher % of the sale cost of the game. - as a result of digital distribution games can be released around the world. - hence the revenue after distribution that a developer gets can be much higher.
The downside of worldwide digital distribution - it applies to every other developer in the world - marketing the game - simply being one of many thousands of games of Steam doesn't get you in the eye of the potential purchaser. (On Epic - maybe at the moment ironically!) Potentially marketing can be very expensive - especially to reach a big audience.
As far as costs go well when it comes to producing TV HD quality has greatly increased costs - despite digital recording, better cameras, editing etc. I would assume that this applies to HD quality games as well. To produce an "old quality" game though - maybe not.
My basic take is pretty simple: I want developers who make games that I like to make a lot of money by doing so. That will encourage more developers to make more games that I like. I want for more developers to make more games that I like.
And that means that when I pay for games that I like, I want for as much of the money as possible to go to the people who developed and maintain the game, or sometimes rather, the people who paid them to do so. I don't want for it to get siphoned off by big box retailers, marketing fees, external publishers, online game stores, or other entities that aren't necessary to making the game work properly. I can accept that it's commonly necessary for some sort of distributor to take a cut to get the game from the developers to me, but I want that cut to be as small as possible. When possible, I'll try to buy a game as directly from its developers as I can, so that intermediaries don't get to take a cut.
If some of you mf'ers don't work in PR you're missing your calling.
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
Have you ever considered that sometimes bloatware is a bad thing?
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
How much more are you folks going to twist and bend yourselves around? It's ridiculous.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
You're crying over something that costs you nothing. You are the one that needs to get it together.
This is the idiocy I'm talking about. Where do you see "crying"? If I'm crying does that mean you're giving sloppy top to Epic?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I find the controversy bizarre. Steam certainly has some crazy fans, and I don't know what they ever did. Yes I've read the claims of what they did, but they practically fell into this situation of power like FB did. Their platform is nothing special. Fifteen years ago I would have never thought people would care more about trophies and friends lists and a unified launcher over the actual games.
Someone complained about consoles, but they are killing it, and they are 'good enough' solutions for almost anyone. And they are platforms. Steam is a platform. It's just one that doesn't take constant development and high level engineering to create. Valve saw the advantage of the platform model it saw with MS and Sony and it tried to create one without doing the work of creating an OS. They even tried a steam box and controller. So if you are against the console model, you are against steam.
Like I said though, I don't get it. If big name devs don't want to pay the 30%, they have options. I don't feel sorry for them. But by that same logic I don't pity the gamers who are just yelling 'but maaaaa, I want it on steeeeeeaaaam'.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Which is a timed-exclusivity ploy really. Developers and Publishers know that steam is the biggest market available and know that if they put their games on steam the majority of the sales would be directly from the store. The revenue splitting system Valve has incentivizes developers to put their game only on Steam at least until they sell the necessary number of copies to qualify for the largest possible percent cut.
- Calling Steams platform that they built a 30% "rip-off" to developers when developers can manage their own sales and get by and sink or swim by their own merits
- Saying the consumers are in the wrong for not just downloading every fucking game sale platform, like consolidation and streamlining is not what real savvy people do
- Acting like game developers are some rockin' indy band getting shafted by a shady record label
- Not a single one of the weenies making irrelevant excuses for Epic are talking about features that benefit you know... THE GAME PLAYERS
Keep em coming though.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was on Twtich watching a 3-4 hour card review for hearthstone and during that time my blocker stopped 535 hits and i am not sure but either 3% got through or it only stopped 3% that i'm not sure.
I have no doubt at all Epic is not totally on the up but what about Valve,they had a monopoly going 30% is not fair partnership.They don't have to do a single thing,their support is all tickets,no live support,they actually do not support a single game that is not Valve,all they do is reap 30% rewards from another persons work.
So if Epic offers a far less take,even if they are up to some no good,they are giving developers a MUCH more fair shake on the deal.That 30% will most certainly drive prices up,i have seen some games worth $5 but they charge commonly 20 because they won't see a profit otherwise.
I think over time,it has to be good for business and gamer's,eventually when Valve starts to feel a pinch they will fight back and then better deals for developers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So in two weeks gas prices went from 90 to 1.25 in Toronto.In the gaming market,they again still have to compete against each other,unless like the oil companies agree to scam across the board.
The only difference is instead of competing from store to store they are competing BEFORE it hits the store but they are still competing none the less and as long as they compete and don't do like the oil companies,it is ok.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
https://imgur.com/YQ2B2ht.jpg
Then we got the other fact that Epic Store supports Denuvo, they promised no bloatware, but as a customer buying Video Games I should have the right to avoid buying games with DRM that is going to slow down my entire system while the game is running because it takes more resources than ohterwise needed while other games or processes are running.
Epic Promised no bloatware but doesn't require all games to post a warning like Steam does.
Then we got the rare case with Epic Games Launcher eating up 80 - 100% CPU randomly for no reason very rare but its happened over the years with Fort Nite and has to be closed and re-launched.
Epic Store Exclusives, and Denuvo do not help the gaming industry in fact it's my opinion that it makes it worse because now consumers who want to avoid the malicious DRM, or Epic Games store will likely resort to piracy, a s has been seen on many gaming sites, and news Denuvo games are quacked within like days / week of a launch.
So it takes someone like 2 minutes to find a place to get it, 15-45 minutes to download using a VPN, and not long to quack, obviously there are risks to malware, and stuff in these type of things but a lot of people actually do it especially when they can't justify spending $50 for a game thats going to slow down their pc, or is locked behind a specific DRM, or platform.
More than any of that though. Steam is a CHOICE. If a dev is confidant in their product they can go to EA, Epic, or just market their own game like the good ol' days. May games have done so without issue.
EX: Minecraft, LOL, Some MMO's, and lots of others. Lots of Dev's only come to steam when they need a sales boost a few months after launch(ESO, AION, Wildstar... ect), and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the market working as intended.
Steam has allowed ALOT of games to hit it big that normally would have never been able to get off the ground. Without steam would we have ever seen a Stardew Valley, or a Bastion, or a Trine.... Would skyrim have sold 30 million copies without steam?
Yes, it has it's problems, but like Crowdsourcing I feel it's a net positive for the industry regardless of the problems.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Comparing the cost of game development from one game to another can be tricky. World of Warcraft cost more to make the EQ, but was it just the years gone by or scope or both? So instead of digging real deep and getting crazy specific, I'll let a veteran of game development throw some numbers at ya that encapsulate better the difference a few years can make:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-make-an-AAA-video-game/answer/David-Mullich
A person literally just posted a straight forward non-hyperbole black and white feature list, and you Kellyannes dance right around that shit like "it doesn't matter".
If it didn't matter why the fuck does Epic need games to be exclusive to it? Shouldn't better splits have all these poor oppressed and disadvantaged developers lining up to add their platform to their distro chains?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As far as the list goes it is 100% subjective. The only feature I use on Steam is the store and launching a game. My friend's list has maybe 5 people and none of them use the in-game system. Everyone I game with uses Discord because the chat and voice are far superior to Steam.
Epic could have waited until all their features were in place before hitting the market, and some think it would have been better, but others would argue that waiting could potentially make it harder for them as well. Was it the best decision? No way to know really
And even if not, if you want a program to do exactly one thing for you, a program that can do 30 things including the one you want doesn't help you any more than one that does exactly what you want and nothing else.
For the record i have no loyalty to any Store platform, i will buy games from the one who offer me a better service or products and that's it.
Now you're calling Steam features "bloatware" right after telling people they should download every platform for every game because "hey it's just a launcher".
Get it together.
If Epic wanted to promote a leaner faster platform with only the necessary features, they could have lead with that and let the chips fall where they may. They could have offered all developers a means for their current Steam customers to transfer saves, and other data from Steam.
That's not what they're doing is it? They're starting an arms race with the consumers in the middle and Kellyannes running around saying "GET BOTH IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTERRRR"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- the move to digital distribution has allowed developers to retain a far higher % of the sale cost of the game.
- as a result of digital distribution games can be released around the world.
- hence the revenue after distribution that a developer gets can be much higher.
The downside of worldwide digital distribution
- it applies to every other developer in the world
- marketing the game - simply being one of many thousands of games of Steam doesn't get you in the eye of the potential purchaser. (On Epic - maybe at the moment ironically!) Potentially marketing can be very expensive - especially to reach a big audience.
As far as costs go well when it comes to producing TV HD quality has greatly increased costs - despite digital recording, better cameras, editing etc. I would assume that this applies to HD quality games as well. To produce an "old quality" game though - maybe not.
And that means that when I pay for games that I like, I want for as much of the money as possible to go to the people who developed and maintain the game, or sometimes rather, the people who paid them to do so. I don't want for it to get siphoned off by big box retailers, marketing fees, external publishers, online game stores, or other entities that aren't necessary to making the game work properly. I can accept that it's commonly necessary for some sort of distributor to take a cut to get the game from the developers to me, but I want that cut to be as small as possible. When possible, I'll try to buy a game as directly from its developers as I can, so that intermediaries don't get to take a cut.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Someone complained about consoles, but they are killing it, and they are 'good enough' solutions for almost anyone. And they are platforms. Steam is a platform. It's just one that doesn't take constant development and high level engineering to create. Valve saw the advantage of the platform model it saw with MS and Sony and it tried to create one without doing the work of creating an OS. They even tried a steam box and controller. So if you are against the console model, you are against steam.
Like I said though, I don't get it. If big name devs don't want to pay the 30%, they have options. I don't feel sorry for them. But by that same logic I don't pity the gamers who are just yelling 'but maaaaa, I want it on steeeeeeaaaam'.