Top
770°

Valve says Epic exclusivity for Metro Exodus “is unfair to Steam customers”

Valve’s message for prospective Metro Exodus players on Steam characterises the late-game platform switch as “unfair.”

Read Full Story >>
store.steampowered.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Kados809d ago

While i agree, and will not be purchasing it due to that fact, it is also unfair to developers to charge them 30% just for digital publishing. It is Valves own greed that has led to this issue. The solution is theirs.

NarutoFox809d ago (Edited 809d ago )

Tell that to Valve. What did they expect 😁

"Deep Silver CEO, Dr Klemens Kundratitz, says that the storefront’s 88/12% revenue split is “a game changer,” that’s likely to have impacted the publisher’s decision.

Kundratitz also says that “by teaming up with Epic we will be able to invest more into the future of Metro,” potentially suggesting that a sequel to Exodus is on the cards."

Servbot41808d ago

88% is pointless if you are getting 1/2 (or worse) of the sales you would if you sold it on Steam as well. It's like these devs don't understand basic math.

UltraNova808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

Is this team up on a faith or monetary basis though? How is Epic luring these devs away from Steam's massive potential customer pool? Surely the standard 88/12 split isn't enough for a dev that needs all the sales they can get to ensure theit very existence. Going exclusive with the new and far far smaller PC digital publisher is surely risky.

Epic must have found the real magic sauce.

I_am_Batman808d ago

@Servbot41 & Ultranova: The 88/12 split is potentially huge. The transition phase will be messy because the userbase isn't there yet for the epic store. But the userbase won't come if the publishers won't make the first step. I doubt many publishers are willing to be among the first to abandon steam's user base for a better deal with epic but once a critical mass is reached it could cause a positive feedback loop that forces steam to reevaluate their business model. In the end this will be beneficial for the publishers and developers.

UltraNova808d ago

Iambatman

"In the end this will be beneficial for the publishers and developers."

You forgot about the consumer... Is it going to be beneficial for us too? Is the 10 dollars discount promo for anyone who buys Exodus from Epic's store a sign of things to come or a temporary sway tactic?

All I see at the moment is yet another platform for us to choose, another platform to build up a new library and make a new friend list(I know people who wont budge from Steam). How long will these platform holders keep their services for free? Are we headed to the same bottomless pit called TV/VOD platform subscription service never ending fragmentation and eventual consumer milking?

We are we headed, this is all I'm asking.

fiveby9808d ago

The publishers want to move to a sales platform where there are no user reviews. Steam user reviews can be very useful but publishers find it is better to hide negativity so sales of a poor game cannot be impeded by the truth. I'm all for competition for Valve but not this way. I will not purchase any game from the EPIC store which is exclusive to them. So Metro Exodus and The Div 2 are out for me. Steam user reviews show the number of hours played on a game from a user on their review. It gives great context to their comments. Sure Valve needs to adjust their business model but don't take what little voice consumers have away like EPIC.

I_am_Batman808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@UltraNova: Well as a consumer I don't mind having an additional platform if it means that the publishers I support get bigger returns enabling them to take greater risks with the projects they fund. Ultimately I'm more interested in getting more of the games I like to play than the convenience of having a single digital library and all of my friends on the same list.

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives in this case. And worrying whether these services will stay free or become subscription based is understandable but the likelyhood of that happening will only decrease the more competition you have in the field.

@fiveby9: Well that's the beauty of competition. If more people will criticise epic on that and not buy games because of this missing feature they will include it in no time. The Epic games store has a long way to go before it can be considered feature complete no doubt about that.

UltraNova808d ago

Iambatman

"And worrying whether these services will stay free or become subscription based is understandable but the likelyhood of that happening will only decrease the more competition you have in the field. "

Look I respect your opinion but "worrying" implies something that is uncertain or hypothetical. No, just look at a true example we already have to face: Neflix, HBO, Hulu, Amazon Video, Disney...the list is getting bigger by the day. How many more subscriptions do we need for the "competition balancing in favor of the consumer" thing to kick in? All I see is that each year we nees to pay more and more in order to have access to content. MS is already touting their Netflix for games... all the worning signs are there and gaming as we know is put on notice.

I_am_Batman808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@UltraNova: I'm no expert in this movie streaming field so tell me if I'm wrong but weren't most if not all of these services meant to be subscription based streaming services from the get go? Nothing is gonna "kick in" to correct that no matter how much competition there is as long as the consumer is not demanding an alternative that isn't subscription based. And as far as I know there are alternatives out there that aren't subscription based. At the very least you can still buy physical blu-ray movies.

It just seems like you are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. I'm not arguing that the platform holders won't try to push subscription-based models onto gamers because it makes a lot of sense financially for them but I highly doubt that they'd be able to take the backlash of gamers if they made those platforms subscription-based only. And even if they did I doubt they could lock your past game purchases behind that pay-wall legally. I think the "Netflix for games" will become a reality but I doubt it'll replace traditional online stores anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong, I am not exactly an optimist when it comes to the average consumers ability to vote with their wallets. Precedents like onlineplay ending up behind a pay-wall are clearly pointing to the contrary. I just think that having one large coorporation in control of most of the market share will only make these kind of problems worse.

RacerX808d ago

It's more than basic math at play here.... Sure, releasing the game with valve would increase sales and total revenue. But Epic is sending a message that an 88/12 split is not a good business decision in the long run.

Epic may lose some revenue today. I think Valve is losing more, and will come back to the negotiating table.

808d ago
ILostMyMind807d ago

@Servbot41
Not everyone is a Steam worship bot. People will use all available launchers.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 807d ago
TK-55808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

"The solution is theirs."

Pay for exclusivity rights for a different game?

Old McGroin808d ago

@ TK-55

"Pay for exclusivity rights for a different game?"

I would have thought reducing their cut of the takings down from a massive 30% would be a better idea.

TK-55808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@Old McGroin

"I would have thought reducing their cut of the takings down from a massive 30% would be a better idea."

I thought that as well but apparently EPIC still needs to pay for devs to put the game exclusively on their store. Is that 12% share not enough to bring consumers or am I missing something?

monkey602808d ago

Seems a few studios are more than willing to go this route. That should tell you all you need to know about Steam from their side of things. A change may be needed

Rachel_Alucard808d ago

This is literally Epic coercing Deep Silver with money. 4A was against this too in their comments.

Rachel_Alucard808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

"Valve's own greed"

I didn't know Epic throwing money at Deep Silver for exclusivity was Valves greed. Valve doesn't go around throwing money at exclusivity and I don't recall them ever doing this tactic in general to get where they're at. That cut is only good if the sales are good, being locked to one platform is never good. Especially with all the complaints against Epic in response to this news. I know people like to call Valve a monopoly but they never set out to be as big as they are and control the market. All I see at Epic is just trying to undermine everyone who uses the platform.

Lord_Sloth808d ago

30% loss or 12% loss. Seems like an easy decision to me actually. I don't think Epic throwing money at them is what's doing this. Ubi is doing the same thing with the Division 2 not being on Steam. Possibly more of their future titles as well.

Rachel_Alucard808d ago

Yeah now they get to enjoy an increased piracy rate. I heard the russians were upset by this whole thing and this is accelerating a crack.

starchild808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

Having to use different digital platforms for some games is a minor annoyance, but the advantages of an open platform with lots of competition are worth far more. The competition will, without a doubt, be better for gamers in the long run.

Maybe we'll even see Valve start to make games again (and make them exclusive to Steam). Cheaper games are also a possibility, as different digital game platforms compete for our gamer dollars. Metro Exodus is already cheaper on Epic's store than other platforms.

Sophisticated_Chap808d ago

It isn't really the kind of competition that benefits consumers, since you don't really have a choice on where you can buy the game. I could understand if it were being released on all platforms, but in this case you are being forced to use a service, that you may not want to use, for various reasons.

rainslacker808d ago

I don't agree, because steam customers can easily be Epic customers. It's not like there has to be only one service that people use, and Valve can't reasonably expect other services to care about Valve providing their customers with everything, especially since Valve isn't paying any publishers for that privilege.

Valve used to charge 20%, then they upped it to 30%. While I think it is worth it to some degree, Valve doesn't really do much to deserve that much of a cut. If Epic charges less, or other services offer better cuts, Valve will have to adjust, and bring things back to something reasonable.

Orionsangel808d ago

It’s also not fair to leave your flagship franchise on a story cliff hanger for 12 years

Sophisticated_Chap808d ago

PlayStation and Xbox also charge 30%, and yet the game is still releasing on those platforms.

n1kki6808d ago

I might be in the minority, but I have never really cared what store I need to use to buy or launch my games. I usually buy where cheapest, play it, and move on to the next game.

Hydrazinezz807d ago

Why is everyone so butthurt about this? Devs get more money to do more with their game. Its about time someone came to challenege steam. Steam is a mess. Would like for steam to go back to its glory days

RabbitFly805d ago

Valve is not charging 30% for digital publishing. They are charging 30% for selling the game in their store. Most stores take a much bigger pie than that, and that is just to stay afloat.

When you buy a physical game, it is likely that 30-50% of the money you pay is going to the store. Most storefront businesses have percentage based rent contracts and it is likely that 10% of what you are paying goes directly to the owner of the property. Then comes a whole plethora of running costs like salary, power, etc. etc. Not to mention sales tax.

You guys are acting like Valve is getting 30% of the price for doing nothing, Nothing could be further from the truth.
a 30% overhead is on the lower spectrum in most retail businesses. While one could argue that the same doesn't apply to digital, one could just as easily argue that it's the publishers fault for not selling their games at a lower price in the first place.

Let's take a game that goes for $59 as an example. Valve takes 30%, but if the publisher was to sell that game as a physical disc the percentage left for the publisher would be much, much, smaller. Because there are so many more joints that need to be payed. The factory that produces the disc, the material the disc and case is made from, the shipping from the factory to retail. Not to mention that most stores don't buy directly from publishers but from a wholesaler. So yet another joint that needs a piece of the cake.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 805d ago
AspiringProGenji809d ago

“Oh no we finally have competition”

- Valve

NarooN808d ago

"It's unfair that we can't gouge publishers as much as our competition"

Pretty much just Valve whining honestly lol

Michiel1989808d ago

being a game dev/publisher and a store is finally biting them in the ass.

Veneno808d ago

The statement by Valve seems completely warranted since Exodus was first going to be abailable on Steam. That would be like if some 3rd party pulled a game from Xbox out of nowhere after promising it would come to the Xbox.

There is very good reason to be upset here.

AspiringProGenji808d ago

I agree with this, but Valve is also at fault for this.

Veneno808d ago

How so? They kept their part of the bargain.

badz149808d ago

The Rise of a Tomb Raider rings a bell?

ShadowWolf712808d ago

lol how?

Anyone who pre-ordered through Steam before this announcement will still have that pre-order honored. This is literally just Valve whining that they have to compete.

Michiel1989808d ago

@veneno no its not the same. xbox is a platform. Steam however big it may be is a store/lobby for the platform PC, it is not the platform PC although many (including me) associate steam with pc. pulling something off xbox means you wouldnt be able to play it on that platform at all, in this case you can still play it on pc, just not through steam, The illusion that all games must come to steam forever and ever is so utterly dumb. Literally the only reason steam is this big was because there wasnt any other store with this ammount of reach for pc. Why do you think everyone accepts the 30% cut they ask? cause there is no alternative with enough reach.

but this is a good thing, they are getting competition and lets see for how long that 30% is gonna stand. Grab the popcorn honny

Veneno808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

Michel 1989

My self and everyone else knows that Steam is a store and not necessarily a platform. If you need to elevate yourself over something so juvenile then go right ahead and pat yourself on the back.

But fine I'll give another analogy. This would be like if they promised to sell the game at Target and then last minute pulled the plug on it.

There you satisfied ?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 808d ago
TheOptimist808d ago

Would have agreed if they had cried about The Division 2 (Though that is most likely gonna be a shit game)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 808d ago
-Foxtrot809d ago

Well if you made Half Life 3, L4D3, Portal 3, TF3, a new IP, revived a cancelled IP like the Crossing then Steam players could play one of those instead

zahdab808d ago

aren't valves own IPs exclusive to their store as well ? why is that fair to other store fronts anyway .. .

darthv72808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

I think most Steam customers aren't exclusively Steam customers. Meaning if there is a digital deal happening on a game they are interested in... they will take advantage of it.

Besides it isnt like you can't be a member of a variety of services these days. Steam isn't going to lose customers, they may just lose out on some sales. It's like retailers competing. I may not have purchased (insert product here) from Macy's but that doesn't mean I will stop shopping at Macy's all together. I like to shop around, and most consumers do in order to get the best deal.

Razzer808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

There are some that claim to only buy from Steam, but I really do not see the point. I buy from GOG, Steam, Origin, Ubisoft, Battle.net, and now Epic. I do where the best deal is. The fact that Epic is selling Metro Exodus for $10 less than the console price tells me competition is exactly what PC gaming needs. It was $60 on Steam. So as great as Valve has been for PC gaming over the years, they have rested on their laurels for far too long. Time to take notice.

starchild808d ago

Fully agree with all of that.

TK-55808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@Razzer

In the UK it's still more expensive than usual PC releases and costs just as much as the console version so this isn't entirely true. CD key sites are already selling it for £15 cheaper so I think claiming that the EPIC game store being more consumer-friendly (which all evidence so far suggests the opposite) is false.

"they have rested on their laurels for far too long."

Steam is already very different to what it was 5 years ago and anyone pretending Valve has just been sitting on their asses doing absolutely nothing is misremembering (or flat out making up) history. Have they been slow to implement changes? Definitely. But how long am I going to be waiting for the EPIC Store to get standard features? So far their one special feature has been lacklustre with every free game being something I've already played.

Razzer808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@TK-55

No idea about UK or why it is more expensive there. But yes, it is entirely true that in the US it is cheaper. And I did specify $. And I said nothing about Epic being more "consumer-friendly". I referenced the lower price. Hopefully, with a smaller take from the store, other devs will be more inclined to pass savings on to the consumer as well. That is not a given. But I'm not concerned about store "features" myself in the slightest. For what? Achievements? lol.....I think I'll live.

I'm not trashing Steam, btw. It is a good service. But there is a reason so many games are no longer going to Steam and that was the case before Epic was even had a store. The reasons for devs depending on Steam are less and less. That's what I mean by "resting on their laurels".

TK-55808d ago

@Razzer

"That is not a given. But I'm not concerned about store "features" myself in the slightest. For what? Achievements? lol.....I think I'll live."

Bit of a strawman. It's about a hell of a lot more than just achievements. So these developers just want a bigger cut of their game right? That's all they want, isn't it? Wrong. There was an interview a while back with one of the developers working on EGS and what developers wanted from the service and can you guess what the number one thing they hate about Steam is? The Steam reviews, Curators and forums. Their number one issue was the community being able to hold them directly accountable for bad products and having a place where they can directly get answers from the devs.

So if you're all for kneecapping your ability to hold devs accountable you're more than welcome to purchase your games on the EGS. But I think we'll find that Steam has implemented more than enough features that allow its customers to be informed when they purchase a product.

"But there is a reason so many games are no longer going to Steam and that was the case before Epic was even had a store."

I haven't seen a single new release on the EGS that hasn't been paid or offered media promotion to be available on that store exclusively. Obviously, they weren't fans of Valves idea which was let the community decide what's worth their time via the curation system. One curator I follow lists all games that are locked to 30 fps meaning that if you're one of the devs guilty of doing so I can easily check and avoid your game.

Have a read of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/pc...

EGS may be the client of choice for developers but it's certainly not going to be the one for consumers in its current state and with the mindset currently running it.

Sophisticated_Chap808d ago

There are two issues that many people will have with purchasing games from all of those services. The first problem, is that many people don't want to give all of the companies their credit card information. Secondly, many people don't want to have to remember that many user names and passwords.

Ultimately, this is bad for both parties. It's bad for Steam because they've just lost out on another big franchise release, and this seems to be a pattern. It's bad for 4A games, because they will get only a fraction of the sales they would have gotten on Steam. I think they should just release the game on all platforms, and let the consumer choose.

The funny part is that Metro Exodus is still releasing on Xbox One and PS4, and both of those companies charge 30% also... I think the fracturing we see happening on PC with Steam, Origin, Battle.Net, Epic Games Store, UPlay and the Microsoft Store, is going to really damage PC gaming. Who wants to mess around with having all of these accounts, when you could just buy a PlayStation or an Xbox, and play 90% of everything that gets released, all on one platform.

Razzer808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@TK-55

"Bit of a strawman. It's about a hell of a lot more than just achievements. "

That's why I was asked the question.

Customer reviews are certainly important. So are forums. Thank goodness Steam isn't the only resource for either. So please, cut out this hyperbole that consumers are being "knee-capped" and devs will not be held accountable anywhere. Does EGS somehow disable twitter and social media? Come on. But is this a weakness for EGS? We will see. And hopefully it is something they will constantly evaluate. But review bombing is a problem for Steam as well. We will see how this ticket system bears out. if consumers reject it, fine. The devs may find they prefer a less direct approach like forums. Regardless, I don't get this idea that EGS has to mimic Steam's methods in every way.

@Sophisticated_Chap

"The first problem, is that many people don't want to give all of the companies their credit card information. Secondly, many people don't want to have to remember that many user names and passwords. "

First problem: use PayPal. Second problem: why are you acting like this is somehow new?

"I think the fracturing we see happening on PC with Steam, Origin, Battle.Net, Epic Games Store, UPlay and the Microsoft Store, is going to really damage PC gaming. Who wants to mess around with having all of these accounts, when you could just buy a PlayStation or an Xbox, and play 90% of everything that gets released, all on one platform."

Again.....multiple accounts? Why are you acting like this is unique to gaming. This is a result of e-commerce. I can't imagine how many web store accounts the typical internet consumer has. But for gaming....this is now a problem? And when we are talking about a digital marketplace, which is where everything will be eventually, then being tied to one or two vendors is hardly ideal. The fact that we are comparing and contrasting multiple vendors is ultimately a good thing. I have read many times where console gamers have said it is good that MS, Sony, and Nintendo exists because the competition is good for gaming. I agree. Competition is good.

TK-55808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@Razzer

"So please, cut out this hyperbole that consumers are being "knee-capped" and devs will not be held accountable anywhere."

Lol, hyperbole. Thats funny because Steams review system is better than 90% of the other options because it is the most reliable user review system on the platform. It shows me how many hours were played by the user and is very informative altogether. But you're advocating for an alternative that removes such a good feature and forces users to go running round the internet for answers? Its anti consumerism. I guess you would rather YouTubers just put their paid promotion disclosure on Twitter and not in the actual video right?

Actually I will ask this. Is offering Twiter as an alternative a joke? Are you actually suggesting that?

You also seem to have completely ignored the rest of the comment which to me suggests you have no counter to it. Man I wonder what would have happened if I included EGS's original refund policy which ended up being complete BS and required a ridiculous amount of information because they care about our "privacy" lol.

Razzer808d ago

I never said Steam reviews were not good. I said Steam user reviews wasn't the only way to keep developers accountable. And it isn't the only source of reviews. Yes....heaven forbid people need to google. God help them even more if they depend entirely on Steam reviews for gaming decisions. The link you posted wasn't from Steam so you yourself provided an example of holding devs accountable without Steam. I never offered Twitter as an alternative for user reviews either. Just accountability. So it is only a joke if you misread what I said, which you seem to have a bad habit of doing.

You previously said Steam was different than it was five years ago. Yep. That's true. Was a curation system on Steam day one? Nope. So you want to give Steam all the props in the world for evolving over time, but expect EGS to get there overnight? And I fully acknowledged that consumers may very well reject the features (or the lack thereof) EGS offers. And now you are talking about EGS' refund policy....which they have already fixed, so why even bring that up? I'm simply advocating direct competition over a single source when it comes to consumerism. No idea why that is a problem.

And I feel no need to counter every point you make. Take that for whatever you want.

logotero808d ago

Dont' argue with @Razzer, he is a Sony fanboy who is happy to pay $60 a year to get to play online on his favorite consoles. What could he understand about PC gaming, he doesn't get what is anti-consumerism.

Razzer808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

anyone here a fly or something buzzing around here?

Edit: Oh it is just logo. Nothing to see here

logotero808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

@Razzer

You just go behind your wall ignoring the truly facts here:

Steam gives a lot more value to the consumer, if you say that's a monopoly, the right move is actually trying to give at least the same amount of value to customers, not just forcing them to change the actual benefits of them on Steam by FORCING them to buy their wanted game on a barebones platform.

You only seem to reply with that $10 price cut, but guess what, it's only on the US, not even in europe there is such a price cut, but yeah, who cares about the rest of the world?

This is something in which the pc gaming community will have to react, and they will do it like in 2007 when Microsoft tried to charge us for online and we said NO. Not like you, console hype-eaters, that say nothing about Sony charging you 50 dollars (and now 60) for their service which got hacked more than twice in 2011. That's why you, as a Sony fanboy, don't understand any of this.

You see competition? This is not competition. "Exclusivity" is a console term, because console gaming is just a scam to make you put against gaming as a whole. You know what's the only reason why God of War your beloved game is not on PC? because greed. Nothing else.

There's no place for that term "exclusivity" on PC gaming because PC gaming is an OPEN market. But yeah, you console fanboys think the way Sony does business is the better. Go keep paying 60 dollars for shit on consoles. In the PC side there are people that actually think.

ILostMyMind807d ago

How can someone disagree with what you said?

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 807d ago
Profchaos808d ago (Edited 808d ago )

Can you even be a pc gamer these days without a minimum of 4 clients installed i've got steam, origin, battle net and ubi launcher for starters. i've just added epic recently as they have had some great games like subnautica go for free.

In a way a long for the days of retail boxes and buying a game once installing it and playing direct from the exe.

Idree808d ago

glad steam is finally getting competition.