@tgrech
My use of the word “arbitrary” in this case was my key point regarding the exclusive idea; timed or otherwise, there is no /need/ for this exclusivity (which is the wording they themselves used) on the PC platform there is NOTHING stopping developers from offering their products using both (or more e.g. GoG, etc.) storefronts / launchers – they can even offer their products at different prices to reflect the price split if they so wished – it is this precise exclusivity that I take issue with, and while I dislike “exclusives” (for games) like as you might see in the physical realm as you pointed out (collectors editions, bonus content, etc.) they are perfectly acceptable as a way to entice a purchase as you are typically gaining something extra (a discount, stuff, etc.), and you’d have a choice on whether you’d support your local game shop or a chain for example – you wouldn’t be forced to buy it from one place without an equivalent substitute somewhere else. I’d also challenge you on what items are REALLY exclusive in this day and age in ANY store (physical or otherwise) because aside from some top end luxury items / patented equipment / specialist and / or field specific equipment I can’t think of many that I can’t find in once place where I wouldn’t be able to find the same OR suitable alternative somewhere else EXCEPT with regards to some software.
By the way to clarify the “no extra charge thing” from what I’ve read and understand - they are not taking any Percent of a sale made on another storefront i.e. the proceeds are split between whichever store it was sold on and the seller only; while Valve at no cost will host the backend for downloading and running the game, updates, etc. To this end the “Lions Share” would only apply to sales they made on Steam.
Since you also brought up competition with to regards to a specific case I’d just like to point I was been more generalised in my approach in that we have at least 3 over lapping groups that we can consider to be “consumers” namely:
- Between Suppliers (storefronts like GoG, Steam, Epic, etc.) – Having an exclusive here prevents other stores from selling the game (for a timed period or otherwise) this stifles their ability to act as what they are – storefronts.
- Between Suppliers and Developers – Limits the ability of the developer to promote and get their software out to users (this applies more towards paid for exclusives such as we see with consoles).
- Between Suppliers and Users (with suppliers also potentially been developers in this case e.g. Ubisoft’s – UPlay, EA’s – Origin, etc.) – Users been forced to utilise one launcher for one thing, and another for something else with no choice is in itself stifling competition or providing a drive for suppliers to improve their service. In addition each new launcher serves to fragment a user’s library’s / friends lists / etc. and expose their personal data.
As an aside valve didn’t /FORCE/ a monopoly they just, over time came to offer a superior service compared to their competitors; another example of this would be Google that has come to be the main search engine of choice for many. Further Valve doesn’t set the price of games the developers do, which in turn are set by their market research and they’ve concluded that there is no need to differentiate between different platforms pricing people will buy it regardless; In fact I recall buying games for the PC in game stores that were the same price as the equivalent console price during the early 2000s… On a final note I’m not privy to what Valve spends their money on but, hosting such an extensive library of games can’t be cheap with regards to the back end and while I imagine they turn a very tidy profit they still have to invest a significant amount into the backend; they also in recent memory have been doing a lot with regards to VR and the like so who knows…
To be perfectly honest the issue here is really not that it is a “launcher” exclusive because your right, developers shouldn’t be forced to use Steam or any other 3rd party service to sell / host / launch their games to our (gamers) benefit, it’s that it is a SINGLE STORE exclusive and that isn’t good for consumers and parties that sell games (be them physical or digital stores). The only good that /might/ come from all of this is that stores may adopt the new pricing strategy that everyone seems to have got behind if enough momentum forms… which is good for the developers I guess.
