* Valve has never gone the 3rd party exclusivity route at any point. Neither has GOG and GOG isn't really all that old, and certainly isn't a dominant storefront.
And that is Valve's prerogative. However, as I already mentioned, Valve has never needed that. Steam has never been in a position of such an underdog, in which gaining market share would be this difficult. Back when Steam was small, so were its "competitors". Steam has never had actual competition. It still doesn't. Origin and Uplay are not direct competitors because they are not general game stores, they sell exclusively (or almost exclusively) their own games. GOG is a general game store but it was never a true competitor to Steam, nor do I believe it was ever meant to be. Its main selling points are "no DRM" and "tweaked/fixed releases of old games for newer systems", both of which I applaud and respect greatly. I don't know if CD Project Red is financially capable yet to challenge Valve's market share. I hope that it is (or becomes soon), and does. But thus far GOG has been content with being an alternative that tries to fill in some gaps/niches that Steam isn't interested in. Epic is the only company that is trying to actually challenge Valve.
I would be dancing on my coffee table if Valve, Epic Games, and CD Projekt Red were heavily competing with each other. As everybody knows, competition is really beneficial for the end user.
* And that's your right to feel that way - not all of us are okay with Tim Sweeney's statements about how gamers won't get a say in the platform / storefront war, or the way they handle exclusives. It sounds like it's not a big deal to you, and I'm sure you're not alone, but to some of us, it rubs us the wrong way and as a result I know I won't ever do business there. I know I like GOG and to a slightly lesser degree, Steam. GOG has very pro consumer policies - no drm, and an exceptional return policy. Steam has a storefront with fantastic features that in some cases you can't get at other storefronts, you can tell they invest in their platform on behalf of their customers. Epic is very much the opposite - has a bare bones store with a number of items that concern me, and in response to their exclusives and Tim Sweeney's comments, I'll never buy anything there.
I'm not sure what you mean, but of course we have no say how Epic handles exclusives. We can express our opinions and ultimately vote with our wallets, but it would incredibly foolish and naive to expect that Tim Sweeny would just like that make decisions based on our wishes. It is his company, not ours. For example, I wish Valve would not reject some erotic/pornographic games, but allow others. I don't care about such games myself, but it seems a bit doublestandard-ish. But at the end of the day, it's not my company, so I don't get a say.
I agree about GOG and Steam. I disagree about the Epic Game Store. Yes, it is missing features, but they are working on them. Calling it the opposite is quite a claim. You cannot expect all of those to be added overnight. I think they are doing a decent job at implementing features. Steam was also bare bones initially, it took quite a while for it to become the feature-rich platform we see today. People seem to forget that.
Also, some of Epic's policies are actually good. Automatically refunding money to users who had purchased a game at a higher price shortly before it went on a sale. Or retroactively refunding the difference to developers after they reduced their cut.
People seem to either forget these things as well, or are conveniently omitting them.
* Sort of. I think it comes down to the relationship individual consumers have with a given storefront. If they are already using a given storefront and like it, and a new game is released only on that storefront, that individual in all likelihood isn't going to notice or care that it's exclusive because it's on their preferred storefront anyway. But if a different user doesn't use that storefront, they may be less likely to want to use it for a new game and not like the feeling of being forced to use it.
That is true, but it goes both ways. If a user just so happens to use only Epic, and there is game he/she wants to play that is available only on Steam, that user would feel forced to use Steam. Granted, this is very unlikely due to games available on Steam and the Epic Game store, but the principle stands.
And is this it? Is this your argument? That users are would need to install another launcher? Sure,
technically, it
is an inconvenience, but is it really that much of a hurdle to overcome? Just installing another program on your computer? Is this this the best argument you can come up with?
* I do think devs and publishers get blamed - in fact I know they do because not only do I blame them, but I see others on other messageboards blame them as well. It's a situation where "it takes two to tango" - Epic approaches the devs / pubs with these exclusivity offers and then they have to accept it. I certainly keep in the back of my mind which developers take those deals and will act accordingly with their subsequent game releases in the future, so in my case, I don't only blame Epic. But Epic definitely is the bigger problem in my viewpoint as they are initiating the exclusives and Tim Sweeney has even made public comments about how they'll keep pursuing the exclusives. I'll never forget what the DARQ developer experienced, I think that showed Epic's true colors pretty clearly.
Yes, it does indeed "take two to tango". Like I said, I don't think the developers/publishers should be blamed either, but I guess it's nice to see some consistency. Still, I do not remember seeing anyone put the blame on the developers/publishers, I see Epic being the one taking all of the blame, but I could be wrong on that.
Regarding DARQ's developer, my opinion will be quite unpopular. I think he behaved abhorrently. Let me explain.
Epic approached him with an offer. He refused. Good for him. It should have ended there. What he did afterwards was simultaneously brilliant and devious. He offered to donate 100% of his revenue from the Epic store to charity, provided Epic agrees to a non-exclusivity deal.
It was brilliant because either way Tim Sweeny kind of loses: if he rejected the counter offer, he would look like a greedy asshole who hates charities; if he accepted it, he would be basically setting a precedent for the future.
It was devious because DARQ's developer was well aware that many people disliked Epic, so even if Tim Sweeny accepted the counter offer, virtually nobody would have purchased the game on the Epic store if it was also available on Steam and GOG, either because users are much more likely to already have an account for the two aforementioned stores, or because "Epic bad". This provided him with a lot of positive press, made him look like a saint, he made even more money, and nothing went to charity.
You can call me cynical, but that's how I saw it. Using the idea of charities to make money like that is despicable in my book.
I think Tim Sweeny should have made a counter-counter-offer to donate Epic's entire cut (or double) to the same charity if DARQ's developer would accept the exclusivity offer. Fight fire with fire.
The interesting part is, however, that after everything you have said, I still did not see any
practical arguments as to why store-exclusive games are bad for gamers. All I saw were moral/ethical arguments and personal preferences.
As you should already know, morals and ethics take a back seat in the business world. Not just in gaming, but everywhere.
Personal preferences are just that... personal. You have every right to have your feelings and opinions, and you also have every right to make decisions for yourself based on said feelings and opinions, but they are not the same as logical arguments or empirical evidence.
