By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation on 22 May 2023
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:

Azzanation said:

And where you and others fail to understand is it's not needed. Steam offers devs more sales than EGS, the devs make more money by taking less due to Steam's popularity. This is unnecessary competition to break up Steams PC monopoly and divide the market which PC gamers need to happen. I don't want more store fronts, I want less. I don't want to juggle my games from store front to store front. If that's what you want than your opinion is bad for the industry because you are supporting games being taking away from a popular store and force gamers to switch.  

So you are trying to tell everyone that EGS is not needed, are you a developer.  If Steam offered more sales than EGS why does EGS get developers to put their games on their Storefront.  Why does any game get put on any other Storefront if Steam is the only one to use.  I mean it just seems like you really have no real business sense if you do not understand this simple concept.  It does not matter what you want.  You continue to move from talking about business to your own personal wants.  YOU DO NOT DEFINE THE MARKET.  This is why your arguments are all over the place because the majority of it is based on your opinion but now exactly what you stated was the thread meaning.  You have not provided an argument that is based on what a business want but instead have continued to throw in your own personal opinion and assumptions.  The thing is EGS offer another store front whether you like it or not.  It offer another store front for customers and developers/publishers.  EGS continue to gain customers and developers and offer competition to Valve whether you like it or not because that is business.  If Valve ever stumbles, get greedy lose site of customers, they EGS will be there to pick them up.

Azzanation said:

So be it, if Sony say no than maybe Nintendo's next system will take Elder Scrolls 6. Less sales for Sony if that's the choice they want to make. I also heavily disagree. Sony have no issue selling Bethesda games on PS to this day. So whay would that change if Xbox hardware isn't a thing anymore?

Maybe Nintendo will.  All your points are maybe.  Everything is just some assumption.  You stated yourself, no corporation can run their business on assumptions.  It's not that Sony has any issue in selling MS games, it's that Sony doesn't need MS games on their console.  If Sony is the only High end Console on the market, they already getting all the games and all the customers.  They would be in an even more dominate position then they are today.  You think Sony will say, "Hey look at how much more money we can make selling MS games",  I say "Look how much more money we can make by forcing MS to leave the market and selling their games division".  Both are assumptions but the thing is, to directly state Sony will do something without understanding what Sony wants, is pure gamblig.  The second point is if Sony is going to allow MS to sell their games on PS, what will MS have to give up in the process.  If MS cannot sell their games on Sony hardware which mind you probably will be the only real console hardware that probably will be able to play their games, where do MS go to.  You say Nintendo, but you are still playing the high risk assumption game.

Azzanation said:

Its based on business logic. MS will make more money with GP in the future, XCloud is another form of distribution (Replacing hardware) Sony saying no to Xbox games would be one of the stupidest moves a business can make, sure MS will have to abide to Sonys rules, but a board of directors wont say no to more income.

In what future, how far away is this future you keep talking about.  A future where MS is dependent on other companies allowing them to put their games and GP on their platform.  I see you have no clue how a board operates.  If Sony is the only console in town and the only one gaining all the customers who want a high end console, they already have all the games.  All the games that would be coming to MS, all the indies, new studios, existing studios and publishers all now go to Sony.  For the money Sony will make with everyone coming to them, do you think the money they will be missing from MS will mean that much.  I will agree with you, that Sony will probably not deny MS to publish their games on their console but GP, in what form does that happen.  Definitely not in its current form but somehow you believe this is what customers will want.

Azzanation said:

They released zero games last year and 2 this year, one being critically acclaimed and one being a disaster. You cant say they cant compete when they have only released 2 major titles in 2 years. 20+ Studios are all cooking something. You literally believe 20 studios are not doing anything?

MS is not competing if all you have is one good game against just about everything Sony released last year and this year.  Sony and Nintendo have not missed a beat, while MS has constantly struggled to get any game out.  I could list so many exclusive high profile games released from Sony and Nintendo while from MS its been limited at best. I am not saying that MS cannot compete, I am saying because of how bad 2022 was and the start of 2023 compared to the other vendors, MS is a gen behind.  This means that all MS games must hit hard for the rest of the year to even be considered in the same conversation as Sony or Nintendo.  This has set back MS big time in all their future plans because it doesn't matter if GP is on everything if people do not care about MS games.  First MS needs to make consumers care about their games before MS can care about how many subs they are going to be able to achieve.

Ill keep this to these 4 points.

1) Steam has been operating almost a decade without EGS and was doing just fine without them. This conclusion of "we need it" is rubbish. No point did Steam step out of line when they basically owned a monopoly. The issue with this type of competition like EGS is they push anti-consumer practices on the industry to steal the market. Its bad competition. I'll give you an example: If EGS became big enough, they might implement a Pay for Online system, and if that happens, that will entice Steam and other platforms to follow suit, just like we seen PS and Nintendo follow Xbox's Live model. You are only defending EGS because you believe in this false narrative of, we need competition. Some competition is fine but not at the extent you are thinking of. EGS has brought nothing but headaches to consumers on PC. PC has always been good with just Steam being the main platform.

2) It's not just Nintendo that will be competing with PS, its also the PC market. You can never make too much money and MS have IPs that will sell. If Sony so no, good luck, Nintendo might take those customers instead, and we know Steam will have them by default so more Console gamers immigrating to PC isn't something Sony would like to happen to their console hardware.

3) MS can literally rely on distributing games without the billions of investing in hardware which doesn't sell. Id expect MS going hybrid to full digital/Streaming next gen or the gen after that.

4) Strange, currently Xbox has the higher rated game over PS in 2023 so far, so i don't see what the point you are making is. They released nothing last year probably because they are holding their cards close to their chest due to the ABK case going on. I wouldn't be surprised if it was self sabotage to make themselves look bad towards the FTC but ill digress. Nintendo and Sony have stuffed up, let's not make this a MS only thing. Nintendo with the recent Pokemon and Sony with TLOU1 PC and Xbox with Redfall. They are not a gen behind, that analogy makes no sense. They were publisher of the year just 2 years ago.