Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy… and then it’s only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can’t it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It’s so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic… which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
I… wait, what?
So are you okay with exclusives but only when the developer is not getting paid for it? Or only when it’s on Steam because you just happen to like Steam?
That’s such a weird take. It owns the inconsistency so thoroughly I have trouble navigating it.
Since apparently I have to explain this for some reason, I don’t particularly like exclusives in general and prefer platform-agnostic games so I can pick where to get them. but if you’re only going to support a store, I’m perfectly fine with developers getting paid by Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic or whever else. You do you and keep your workers employed any way you see fit.
And when I get a choice I tend to pick GOG because… well, they don’t need a little reminder that you’re not buying the game you’re buying in the payment page, so I get to back up my installers and keep them forever.
Now, THAT is a criticsm of Steam that I’m actually making here.
I generally am less bothered by exclusives that are a result of a company deciding to not release at a certain storefront as opposed to being bribed and contractually prevented from releasing elsewhere after signing. Those at least have a chance of being released somewhere else if they change their mind.
Like Yakuza was a console exclusive for a long time but not because Sony forced them to. So when they decided PC games was worth venturing into they ended up doing so as opposed to being contractually prevented. Same goes for Persona.
That’s the difference from contract based exclusives.
They all have a chance at getting re-released later, unless they are first party (and these days even then).
I mean, Uncharted 4 is on GOG. Not The Last of Us, for some reason. That sucks.
I’d love to see Mario Galaxy on PC officially, but that’s not gonna happen, I’m not gonna get mad about it. But Alan Wake II? Yeah, that’ll probably make it elsewhere.
Ultimately all it takes for an exclusivity deal to be lifted is for the people involved to agree to lift it. That can be because the exclusivity is timed or because they got to some agreement on it. There is no fundamentally nefarious reason getting paid for exclusivity is worse than Valve being the only platform that is viable for a particular release. The impact is the same.
Maybe I’m just too old and can’t cope with the weird whiplash of being there to hear people rage about Final Fantasy showing up on Xbox only to then see this weird vitriol for a storefront compensating devs to get an exclusive on a game inside the same platform.
Like, I get being mad that you’d have to buy a different console to play a thing, but dude, it’s a free piece of software, you can just… install it.
Honestly, both things are sheer tribalism and I’ve never been there for it. Not since the dumb Sega vs Nintendo schoolyard nonsense.
Uncharted was released in 2022 on steam then 2023 on GOG.
Sony has released on GOG later. It tends to be the trend because companies are in the mindset of PC has a lot of pirates. So selling a game without drm and an installer is not something they rush to do until they feel sales are on a downward trend.
Now that Sony has moved to PSN requirements future drm free plans are in question. Only way for GOG to get day 1 releases consistently would be to give up on DRM free requirements.
So it’s not really any surprise what the reasons may be.
And it sucks, whether it’s a surprise or not.
I’m not angrier at something being absent from Steam because Epic paid for an exclusive than I am at any other reason why a game wouldn’t make it to my storefront of choice.
Which is, let’s be clear, very lightly angry. This is choosing a store to buy videogames, not seeking revenge for my clan in holy war.
I don’t see exclusives the same as a company choosing to not release a product on a certain storefront. One is a choice that can be changed and another is a contract.
Contracts can, in fact, be changed.
Those are pretty similar deals, honestly. In many cases the exclusivity deal gets signed because without the up-front cash the game can’t get done. You give up some long-term sales for the up front money and the better revenue split. In both cases it’s about resources.
And, again, in both cases that decision can be reviewed later. Either because it’s baked into the timed exclusivity or because all contracts can be amended.
But also, there isn’t a moral stance here. As a user I care about where and how I can play the game, I don’t care about the reasons. I don’t need to approve your business agreements before I play your videogame, I’m not your lawyer.
It’s nicer to not need a contract that needs to be changed. Already enough obstacles of even getting a pc port for some games without it.
Oh, it’s nicer for them, I assume, but again, I’m not your bizdev guy. Their lawyers can do the paperwork, I just care about the game.
Plus, I think you’re misjudging PC ports. The “obstacles” are actually for shipping on consoles, which require expensive dev kits and complex certification and submission requirements. PC ports are easy, you probably have a PC build running for development anyway and PC platforms really don’t give a crap about compliance requirements.
If it’s not on PC it’s a business decision, not about complexities. Having to sign a contract in exchange for money isn’t an “added obstacle”, it’s a motivation to do it in the first place.
I prefer when there is no exclusivity to be lifted to begin with. Leads to games more likely to not take years and years for it to maybe come out. There’s already a barrier without it on the PC. Even with denuvo companies think pirates will result in lost sales.
deleted by creator