It has nothing to do with loyalty. It’s about user experience. I haven’t seen a single pc gamer celebrate the proliferation of stores on their platform. Why would console gamers be any different? People want performance, quality and convenience. Multiple stores don’t deliver any of that. Publishers may want that (just like EA, Epic, Ubisoft etc on PC) but it sucks for gamers.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
It has nothing to do with loyalty. It’s about user experience. I haven’t seen a single pc gamer celebrate the proliferation of stores on their platform. Why would console gamers be any different? People want performance, quality and convenience. Multiple stores don’t deliver any of that. Publishers may want that (just like EA, Epic, Ubisoft etc on PC) but it sucks for gamers.
How popular are non-Google stores on Android? I got the impression they were irrelevant.
Kids grow up man. And who do you think represents the largest chunk of console/platform fanboys? It's kids and young adults.
You're also making a fundamentally bad assumption that Fortnite and Roblox are literally the only games younger people play. They will absolutely get attached to certain ecosystems they've invested in, like most people.
Overreacting to what 'young gamers' are currently playing led to a lot of mistakes back in the X360/PS3 era, worrying about how mobile gaming would kill consoles, and that Xbox thinking the future was gonna be Kinect and whatnot. None of that panned out. Again, people grow up and they will buy more 'serious' games, if they weren't already doing so. Kids do like a variety of things still, not just one thing all the time, til the end of existence.
Not to mention that Apple phones are by far the most popular/most desirable phones for younger people. They are absolutely already used to walled gardens.
Whatever happens MS should not bring the worst parts of windows gaming over to consoles. That’s bad for everybody. Hopefully it goes the other way and they bring the best parts of the console experience over to windows.
Now that Steam is the undisputed king surely MS are allowed to improve their store experience and try to get to parity with Valve - reviews, chat, achievements, forums etc. Maybe they can even charge less than Valve since they are already rolling in dough.
Now that Steam is the undisputed king surely MS are allowed to improve their store experience and try to get to parity with Valve - reviews, chat, achievements, forums etc. Maybe they can even charge less than Valve since they are already rolling in dough.
I do wonder about the implications of this long-term on the Epic store. I suspect that the decision to go 'free' on the Epic store in a lot of cases was made partly with the knowledge that doing so wouldn't eat into any potential console sales. I'd also be super curious about the contractual language around those free games and whether they'd even carry over to a console.
well, Epic's idea was to create a store on pc that could compete with steam. GoG -my favourite PC store- certainly can't and Epic has the money to give it a try, hence the giveaways. Many of the free games on the Epic store are really good titles, I dunno about the contractual part, but I guess that unless the Epic store disappears the games should be yours forever.
In regards to a console, we're talking about something like Steam Deck but on Windows, so a hybrid (the excellent UI and ease of use of consoles, but Windows beneath). If MS port all the games I have on the Epic store to an improved pc gamepass store I'd kiss MS ass, and so would do many people.
Tbh, aside from quite a few -expensive btw- Rocket League cars for my nephews, like lightning mcqueen, I've never ever spent a single dime on the epic store itself.
MS tried to integrate three services and stores by now on PC gamepass. Afaik, EA Play, Ubisoft store and now Blizzard store.
Those stores improved their sales thanks to being part of PC gamepass store. At least in my case, after EA Play became part of PC gamepass I got 12 full games there with a discount 'cos pc gamepass gives you EA Play access.
I also got 8 games on Ubisoft store after they were added to pc gamepass.
The EA and Ubisoft games I got are the kind of games I'd never get on steam.
That's not a bad strategy, if the games remained playable on the PC gamepass store it would be ideal, but you are forced to install EA Desktop app, Ubisoft store app and now the Battlenet app, and that's a PITA.
Other times it went the other way around, I got some games on Steam after trying them on PC gamepass, like Resident Evil 3, 'cos I wanted to buy it on PC gamepass but the mod support isn't good for that game and I had to get it on Steam.
I have like 4 friends in the EA app, no friends in the ubisoft app, and no friends in the Battlenet app, but have 500 or so friends on pc gamepass -'cos I was a xbox live user back in the day- and like 20 something friends on steam. I could certainly live without those extra stores and have every single game playable on a single one, like GoG Galaxy unsuccessfully tries to do.
That's where MS could do things like signing deals with EA, Ubisoft and so on and so forth, to integrate everything. Sometimes I just launch Steam and PC gamepass and don't want to deal with any other store so I don't play my games there out of laziness.
Last edited:
cheapchips
Veteran
Are there any of note outside of Amazon's, which I have no idea on the installed numbers? I can't imagine they're huge.
Part of the issue there is that many people just won't realise there's an alternative. There's also the question of what's the incentive to use them over the default? Both MD and Epic think they offer something, but we'll see if users are keen.
Ok, so loyalty has nothing to do with it. It's not even about the user experience... it's about what publishers want to do.
That's the only reason the need. Where exactly are people going to run to?
Console gamers aren’t a captive market though. If the experience starts to suck they will do something else for fun. I don’t think publishers have as much leverage in that market as you think. Nintendo and PlayStation are big brands.
I'd argue it's middle-aged adults that grew up with those platforms since the early days. Yes, these kids will grow up... in an ever increasingly open platform world where the games they buy, follow them regardless of the device they want to play on.
I never said anything about Fortnite and Roblox being the only games younger people play. They will increasingly get attaching to having their games with them because all the ecosystems will be everywhere. Let me ask you a question... what do you think will happen when Sony, MS, or Nintendo have to cut off backwards compatibility in the future at some point due to incompatibilities with future hardware?
It's not overreacting... just look at how much the industry has changed in the past 10 years alone. You would have laughed if someone told you that Sony would be releasing their games on PC back then.. just like you're laughing at the idea of consoles becoming open platforms now...
Kids these days simply do not have the same attachment to these platforms that the older gamers do. You're simply lying to yourself if you believe so.
I think they have a ton of leverage. I'm not sure exactly what your idea is of how this will "change the experience" so that it sucks... You click an app store like you would the PS Store and browse it, buy a game, and it's added to your library.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Agreed, the lack of friction is a huge selling point which I think PC advocates sometimes underestimate. There are some things which MS could potentially do to reduce this friction however, such as perhaps encouraging a single sign-on for various storefronts (they could use your Microsoft ID), unified updating mechanism, etc. Who knows. But the 'walled garden' cries from those invested in tech, and I certainly agree, it sucks! - is a bigger concern among the tech crowd than the general public I believe. The iPhone/iPad gained such huge traction for many reasons, but a big one imo was most people just want a computing platform that just works, and are willing to accept a certain lack of freedom in order to get that.
People also need to keep things in perspective - the SteamDeck is touted as showing this model is 'viable', but look at the numbers. What has it sold by now, ~3 million? The Switch by comparison has sold 140 million units. The entire PC gaming portable market is likely around a few months worth of Switch sales, at best.
Last edited:
Samsung, and Huawei have their own store. For themes and other stuff, you use their software and sometimes people use paid themes, but well, yeah google play is always bringing the updates to all of the other programs. Dunno about other Android systems, and in regards to Apple, I'm not into Apple so I can't say.
This is a false equivalence. When people say the Steam Deck is "viable", they mean as a PC front end which simplifies the PC closer to a console like experience. Switch was a mass market produced device sold in retail stores. Steam Deck wasn't. Valve also regulated the amount of Steam Decks sold, as the device was still very much a work in progress in all facets.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
It's only a 'false equivalence' if you don't believe the simplicity and virtual guarantee that 'games just work' isn't what makes consoles such a mass market item in the first place. The fact that Steam Deck isn't sold in mass market outlets is at least in part, due to this friction and inherent complexity (compared to consoles at least) which makes its viability for this market questionable - I don't believe if Valve had SteamDeck's sitting in every Best Buy across the country it would be selling in the tens of millions. It does very well for what is essentially, an extremely niche bracket.
Like I find statements like Oliver's that "the only thing" preventing this model becoming viable is for MS to create a console-style front end to PC games to be a little naive. There's so, so many more pain points involved in making PC gaming to be as straightforward to use on a TV than just a front end launcher, I mean Valve has been at it for decades, and from my experience you had better always have a wireless keyboard/mouse handy if you're using BP mode.
Even if we're restricting the comparisons to the Steam Deck, outside of Steam, the experience really goes to shit when you want to actually take advantage of something other that Valve's kinda/sorta/open-garden. The Heroic Launcher is aptly named as they're heroes for what they have accomplished, but that and Lutris are worlds away from the relative simplicity of just restricting yourself to the one storefront that's owned by the platform producer. The experience you get on a Steamdeck when isolating yourself to the storefront which takes 30% of sales is, atm, far more smooth. Valve knows this, and it's a reason the SteamDeck is even viable at its price, which is higher than consoles. It's only a 'console like experience' when it adopts the main restriction that consoles have that we're advocating MS abandon!
And hell, even if it were just UI innovation, that in itself is a big ask when it's directed at MS. Since when has MS ever had firm footing in the realm of UX to begin with!?*
*Edit: I get the argument that MS has failed in the console arena, so they're doing an 'end run' into a new space - but that was exactly their argument for the design of Windows 8 - using their leverage to force a new paradigm for what constitutes a "PC" - there will be no separation, your PC will be a smartphone and vice versa! Welp. I am skeptical for their ability to recognize what new paradigms actually are in the consumer space, and/or successfully execute them. Their track record in this area is particularly woeful.
Last edited:
here is where Microsoft has an advantage over Steam, taking into account Steam weak point..., optimisation.
MS could ask developers for a minimal optimisation on a certain device with certain settings -say Xboy performance, Xboy RT quality, etc-, something that Valve can't do, i.e. look what happened after Dragon's Dogma 2 launch. If Valve could do something about it (it's in their best interest) they would, but they just publish the game. MS could tell any company that the games published for a given device should have a minimum quality on launch date: they put the OS and standard certified hardware settings.
it might be a good moment for Phil to support pc gaming a little more, whatever they decide to do, even in Japan PC gaming is thriving, so this could be an opportunity to have a better chance in Japan.
Tbh I never thought I said this in a forum like B3D, but that success might be caused 'cos PC is the perfect platform for casuals, and by that I mean, you aren't tortured by exclusives, free online, and you don't need to pay 80€ for a game.
Playing on PC is the new trend for Japan, according to the developers themselves who are fleeing from mobile phones.
Experts in Unity or Unreal Engine think on X (Twitter) that as the gacha market declines, the future is brighter on platforms like Steam.
(title is in spanish but the entire content in the link is translated into english) -note that the tweet mentions Gamepass too-
www-3djuegospc-com.translate.goog
Tbh I never thought I said this in a forum like B3D, but that success might be caused 'cos PC is the perfect platform for casuals, and by that I mean, you aren't tortured by exclusives, free online, and you don't need to pay 80€ for a game.
Playing on PC is the new trend for Japan, according to the developers themselves who are fleeing from mobile phones.
Experts in Unity or Unreal Engine think on X (Twitter) that as the gacha market declines, the future is brighter on platforms like Steam.
(title is in spanish but the entire content in the link is translated into english) -note that the tweet mentions Gamepass too-
Jugar en PC es la nueva tendencia para Japón, según los propios desarrolladores que están huyendo de los móviles
A la hora de consumir videojuegos, tradicionalmente Japón ha tenido unos gustos bastante definidos: consolas, portátiles y móviles. Pero las tendencias están...
www-3djuegospc-com.translate.goog
Last edited:
arandomguy
Veteran
Isn't this kind of circling back to the overarching problem of who benefits from PC gaming thriving? On the platform distribution side PC gaming thriving really means Steam is thriving.
I know the sentiment is that PC gamer's don't care and just are fine (and really they seem to cheer for) Steam's dominance but ultimately if you look at the business economics they are effectively taking 20%-30% of PC gaming software revenue. The cost to the user is hidden basically, but in reality the user is paying for it indirectly (along with the entire market), for basically some "discussion forums."
Circling back in terms of the loyalty discussion, these platforms have basically created almost a stockholm syndrome type situation interms of user loyalty. Because there is so much investment into whatever existing platform you're effectively pressured (forced) into loyalty and the continued hope of success for that platform.
Maybe it's just me in general but I've found it weird that it seems the overall public doesn't seem to realize or have concerns with how these tech industry platforms create massive inherent barriers of industry that distorts how competition functions.
I know the sentiment is that PC gamer's don't care and just are fine (and really they seem to cheer for) Steam's dominance but ultimately if you look at the business economics they are effectively taking 20%-30% of PC gaming software revenue. The cost to the user is hidden basically, but in reality the user is paying for it indirectly (along with the entire market), for basically some "discussion forums."
Circling back in terms of the loyalty discussion, these platforms have basically created almost a stockholm syndrome type situation interms of user loyalty. Because there is so much investment into whatever existing platform you're effectively pressured (forced) into loyalty and the continued hope of success for that platform.
Maybe it's just me in general but I've found it weird that it seems the overall public doesn't seem to realize or have concerns with how these tech industry platforms create massive inherent barriers of industry that distorts how competition functions.
On the flip side if Steam is adding little value while charging exorbitant fees then there should be ample margin for competitors to enter the market and steal share. When those efforts fail miserably (see Epic, GoG) then it adds credibility to the idea that Steam is actually worth the premium.
I have zero loyalty to Steam as a platform. I use it because it’s the best one. Build me a better mouse trap and I’ll come.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Wait, what? Not clear on the implication here - are you saying Steam's worth is largely based on the existent of its game forums? Christ I hope not, they have some worth yes to give feedback directly to the developers, but otherwise they're a cesspool.
When I see people who are 'fans' of Steam, what I see touted as its advantages that are more commonly cited are things like Family Sharing, Steam Workshop, Remote Play, Steam Input, Broadcast, Achievements, the (relatively) speedy client, stuff like that. Don't think I've ever seen someone actually tout the forums as an advantage.
I mean cripes, the Epic client still can't move game installs or even detect already installed games. I don't think every publishers launcher requires Steam's extensive list of features, but most can't even get the basics right.
Last edited:
Similar threads
