While this might not be specific to Linux gaming, it's still something interesting I've wanted to talk about. Metro Exodus from 4A Games and Deep Silver has jumped ship from Steam to the Epic Store.
I waited for the situation to become clear before saying anything on this, as it got a little…ugly.
Last night, the team behind Metro Exodus announced the change saying that "the digital PC version of Metro Exodus will now be available to purchase solely through EpicGames.com". In their official announcement, nothing about it being a timed exclusive was mentioned and so a lot of people were left quite unhappy.
This led Valve, to actually put out a statement on the Steam store page, which reads:
Notice: Sales of Metro Exodus have been discontinued on Steam due to a publisher decision to make the game exclusive to another PC store.
The developer and publisher have assured us that all prior sales of the game on Steam will be fulfilled on Steam, and Steam owners will be able to access the game and any future updates or DLC through Steam.
We think the decision to remove the game is unfair to Steam customers, especially after a long pre-sale period. We apologize to Steam customers that were expecting it to be available for sale through the February 15th release date, but we were only recently informed of the decision and given limited time to let everyone know.
Soon after this, the Metro team put up an announcement on Steam where it does actually mention that Metro Exodus will come back to Steam "after 14th February 2020". To do this so close to release, feels really off.
I've seen a lot of arguments both for and against the Epic Store across the net, with wildly varying opinions on each side of the argument. For gamers, competition between stores can be a really good and helpful thing and we all know Steam could do with a little competition. Valve have dragged their heels on so many things over the years, I firmly hope this is a good kick up their backside to do better.
However, the way Epic is going about it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I don't think forcing and annoying people into using another launcher is a good way to go, at all. Rather than compete on customer service, value for money, features and so on Epic are forcing people to look at them. For developers, the short-term gain might be good but do they really, honestly, expect the free to play Fortnite audience which is Epic's bread and butter to translate into sales for AAA games? I've become a lot more sceptical of this recently and I think it's largely the reason Epic is throwing money around to try and force a change.
As Epic Games continue throwing money at developers and publishers, I expect things to get even uglier as the year goes on. For us, it's not a good thing, as time and time again Epic Games have shown how little they care about Linux (we're not even on the damn roadmap) and that's sad as we will be the ones losing out.
For Valve, the more they lose like this the quicker they will need to react. I'm going to end up sounding like a broken record here, but they need to seriously get back into their own IP. Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, Portal and so on. Especially after Artifact basically failed them, although they again said they're "Still in it for the long haul" in the most recent update to it.
Not just that, reducing their cut from developers may be inevitable too, it would certainly show they understand the market is changing considering how many developers feel Steam's 30% cut isn't worth it. The most recent "GDC State of the Industry report" showed that only six percent of developers thought Valve were doing enough for it. I don't think Valve need to match Epic on the cut either given how popular Steam already is, even a 5% reduction could be massive for smaller developers.
Linux gamers might think differently on that point though, since Valve help to fund various open source projects and that would likely reduce their ability or enthusiasm to do so. We're not a big enough audience for them to put more of their eggs in our basket—yet.
No matter what happens, I can't imagine Valve just rolling over and allowing Epic to set up shop on their lawn. I'm very curious to see what they have up their sleeves. A competitive Steam is good for everyone!
At least by the time Metro Exodus comes back to Steam, we will see if they made any sort of decision on Linux support (as they currently won't say—likely a no). If not, that's a long time for Steam Play to mature for those who use it.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: Whitewolfe80would you have as many concerns about what epic was doing if Epics store was on linux as a native app and Metro had been confirmed as coming to linux
Exclusives are always bad. And if you don't pay the price right on the spot, you certainly will down the line.
Quoting: Whitewolfe80would you have as many concerns about what epic was doing if Epics store was on linux as a native app and Metro had been confirmed as coming to linux
You should have concerns in such case. Same as you should have them now if some Linux game is Steam exclusive (Feral games for starters?).
Last edited by Shmerl on 29 January 2019 at 6:37 pm UTC
Quoting: iiariThey also need to double down on social/chat/voice to maximize the value of everyone having extensive friends lists here, and also need to push on home and over-the-web game streaming before Google/Sony/Amazon eat their lunch here. If all Valve does in 2019 is refresh the launcher, it will seriously have been a lost year. This is the critical time. Proton is great, but it's developing their own IP, streaming, and social that will save them...Very true.
Linux gaming is almost not existing market (less than 1% of Steam hardware survey), so Valve investments into it doesn't make sense from economic point of view.
There are three possibilities:
1. Valve perhaps will back to Steam Machine initiative (PC Linux console)
2. Valve is preparing to start streaming service
3. Both:)
It could be possible that Valve is preparing Steam Machine 2, but after failure of first initiative (with Dell cooperation) - it could be difficult. Also let be honest - Valve is too small company to subsidize Linux PC console that will be sold cheaper than production cost. Sony/Microsoft/Google/Apple are big enough to subsidize unprofitable initiatives for years - without economic threat for company, because they have plenty of income from other sources.
Streaming service probably is less risky initiative. Valve already have big network infrastructure across the globe. Of course streaming require much more investments into network and hardware, but it feels less risky than subsidize console. And Linux also is very important for streaming service.
Why Linux for streaming service? Because every started session of streamed Windows game require pay license fee to Microsoft. If Windows VM could be replaced with Linux VM - it means millions of cash not spent for unnecessary licenses. Google also doing something similar, but closed-source and for new games only - Project Stream Assassin's Creed Odyssey is streamed from Linux servers.
Game streaming probably is the future of AAA games, but local, standalone games will not vanish. There will be always market for it - indie games, but also very fast, competitive online games like Quake - "real" gamers will prefer local clients, because even little lag it is disaster for very fast FPS games. But for "Sunday gamers" - streaming will be "good enough" (and finally almost no cheaters!!!).
Quoting: dannielloAlso let be honest - Valve is too small company to subsidize Linux PC console that will be sold cheaper than production cost. Sony/Microsoft/Google/Apple are big enough to subsidize unprofitable initiatives for years - without economic threat for company, because they have plenty of income from other sources.
They can sell high end consoles. It's a different market than current incumbent consoles that can't run anything at higher than 30 fps.
Quoting: ShmerlWell i would if cared in anyway about drm but what i ll say on Feral position its 100 percent understandable since they have no free reign on which platforms their port is allowed to come out on. I am not a contract lawyer but i am willing to bet the more platforms you want to make a port avilable for the more cost and risk in your example feral absorb.Quoting: Whitewolfe80would you have as many concerns about what epic was doing if Epics store was on linux as a native app and Metro had been confirmed as coming to linux
You should have concerns in such case. Same as you should have them now if some Linux game is Steam exclusive (Feral games for starters?).
I wasn't going to buy the game on release due to their DRM and missing Linux support. However I really thought, they are going to remove Denuvo eventually and Proton probably would make it possible to play. I even hoped for a later Linux release since of their engagement in the past.
Well, that hopes are gone now. Even if I would accept their decision to publish the title exclusively on Epic Store, the client is just garbage on wine.
Just sad, I really respected Deep Silver...
Quoting: iiariThey also need to double down on social/chat/voice to maximize the value of everyone having extensive friends lists here, and also need to push on home and over-the-web game streaming before Google/Sony/Amazon eat their lunch here. If all Valve does in 2019 is refresh the launcher, it will seriously have been a lost year. This is the critical time. Proton is great, but it's developing their own IP, streaming, and social that will save them...Very true.
Linux gaming is almost not existing market (less than 1% of Steam hardware survey), so Valve investments into it doesn't make sense from economic point of view.
There are three possibilities:
1. Valve perhaps will back to Steam Machine initiative (PC Linux console)
2. Valve is preparing to start streaming service
3. Both:)"
Just that point it was valve that dropped Steam machines like a hot potato when they saw they werent getting anywhere for them to try that push they would have to stump up the kind of cash MS and Sony do to advertise their consoles we are talking billions to advertise world wide. Not that Valve dont have that money but the whole reason they partnered with alienware etc was so they didnt have to stump up cash on development and advertising.
Quoting: ryadAs a big fan of the series (own and played all of their Metro titles), I'm also quiet disappointed.
I wasn't going to buy the game on release due to their DRM and missing Linux support. However I really thought, they are going to remove Denuvo eventually and Proton probably would make it possible to play. I even hoped for a later Linux release since of their engagement in the past.
Well, that hopes are gone now. Even if I would accept their decision to publish the title exclusively on Epic Store, the client is just garbage on wine.
Just sad, I really respected Deep Silver...
Also i am beating this point to death but the Deep silver that is around now is not the same deep silver that ported the Metro 2033/Last light they were bought last year by THQ Nordic and I would imagine they have to answer to THQ board now not there own.
Quoting: legluondunetThis method works very well for Sony on Playstation.
Theres a big difference here. While there are some exclusives Sony just pays for, the majority of the exclusives that have been so successful are first party titles. Games like uncharted, last of us, horizon zero dawn all done in house. To be honest I fully support this business model, some of Sony's exclusives are the best games of the generation. In a world where everything has to be continually monetized I'm not sure some of these games would have been made without Sony. Even in cases of third party exclusives, these deals can be critical for studios to secure funding and/or marketing for their title.
By contrast, this announcement was a last minute deal, epic did nothing to help this game be made or marketed, it just got scooped up last minute for an unknown sum of money.
Quoting: Whitewolfe80Well i would if cared in anyway about drm but what i ll say on Feral position its 100 percent understandable since they have no free reign on which platforms their port is allowed to come out on. I am not a contract lawyer but i am willing to bet the more platforms you want to make a port avilable for the more cost and risk in your example feral absorb.
My point is, Feral themselves decided to make their games Steam exclusives. And not with all of their games they were forced by original publishers to do so. Yet people seem to be oblivious about that, while bashing Epic / Deep Silver in this case. Feral aren't any better.
Last edited by Shmerl on 29 January 2019 at 6:55 pm UTC
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me