I said I was done but I just want to point out that either
@reminisce is either being intentionally disingenuous or is just completely ignorant/misinformed.
He keeps saying it's about the 30% cut and saying that Valve have a monopoly and Epic's deals are helping revive the gaming medium. That's not true. The deals are about keeping games off of competitors stores, fullstop. Publishers take the money, because, well, who doesn't like money? In fact to prove this point the developers of the highly anticipated game
Untitled Goose Game
have chosen to take Epic up on their exclusivity deal. The kicker? They planned to launch their game on itch.io, a platform that doesn't take ANY money from the sales of games on its store. Devs see 100% of the profit that the consumer chooses to give them.
Why then would they go to Epic Store Exclusively? Because Epic offers them MILLIONS of dollars up front in exchange for it. That's not making PC Gaming better. It's being anti competitive a-holes.
But not every company will take the money, every time. Sometimes they will see the benefits of an open platform instead of accepting short term gains.
As such that makes
@9dragons point not entirely accurate either. We learned just today regarding Samurai Showdown that in December 2018 the CEO of SNK stated that "some PC download platform wanted an exclusive release on the condition of a pre-order of hundreds of thousands, " (hmm. wonder what platform that was!) but SNK's CEO rejected the offer.
If you extrapolate the numbers based on pre-order price with number of copies sold, you'll come close to $5.3 million for every 100,000 copies sold or $10.6 million for every 200,000 copies sold.
But SNK rejected this deal, deciding to go multiplatform instead. I thought business would always accept more money no matter what? Apparently not!
I wonder why...
I doubt people who defend anti-consumer and anti-competitive behaviours would get it though.