The Steam Deck really doesn't need exclusives

Assume, the only thing I have is a Steam Deck. What difference would it make for me, if a game is exclusive to that thing? None!
OTOH, if I have a PC and a Steam game comes out exclusively for the Deck, I would be pissed. But ofc, Valve could add extra features in a non-exclusive, that only work on a Deck. I'd be fine with that.

While I agree theoretically with Liam, there are other arguments from the dev side that can't be easily discarded.

In a perfect world, I agree at 100% that exclusives are anti-consumers. But pragmatically there are still some arguments that do weight in the scale in favor of exclusive (which, again, I am not fond of).

Let's start with the performance. I agree that it is doable to develop a game that runs perfectly on all the modern platforms, but the resources needed to develop such a game engine is enormous! If you really want the best out of each platform, you need specialists who are extremely expensive. You could argue that modern game engines do the heavy lifting for you. Which is true, but they won't do the huge amount of QA that will happen because of the various hardware to support (especially on PC).

Then there's a mere question of money. When Sony proposes you millions of dollars to develop your game exclusively on their platform, as a director of your studio, you need to balance the pros and cons of accepting this money vs being cross-platform. Most of the time, the money proposed is thought so that you don't seem to lose much. The fact that you receive money right now for your game, and not in a few year when it will finally be released, that you will receive support from the platform manufacturer, that the platform manufacturer will also advertise your game, etc. These are real things offered to the devs when they sign their exclusivity contract.

And finally, the two points above together: by accepting to be exclusive, you have money from the start, you reduce the amount of platforms to support, which allows to have better performance and reduce your QA budget.

To sum up, if you remove the player from the equation, exclusives is a win-win situation for the studios and the platform manufacturers. Also a lot of games would never have been finished or have known the same hype if Sony or Microsoft wouldn't have supported them.

So I agree that from a player standpoint, exclusives are not a good thing (and I agree that players actually _wanting_ exclusives seem completely ludicrous to me). But from a dev standpoint, exclusivity has its perks.


Last edited by Creak on 28 December 2022 at 4:32 pm UTC

It's not that I couldn't imagine some dev that is in love with the Deck for some reason creating a game specifically made for the Deck's somewhat unique input system.
Or that Valve would fund such a thing.
Might be fun, but if that ever happens, it'll be a gigantic rarity and the dev will get a lot of flak if they don't also enable it on normal PC platforms.

I want to see bundles with games for:

- Windows/Linux/Mac
- Windows/Mac
- Windows/Linux
- Linux/Mac
etc.

Valve should stop require rights to publishing a Windows version if a company want to sell only a Linux version.

There’s been a game on Steam before that only had a Linux build. It’s not a hard requirement set by Valve. The point is: why? Exclusives are bad.

I believe in TIMED EXCLUSIVES games (like 6 months and no more than a year) because they push the main platform.

You can choose to wait for to play it on your favourite platform (with the bugs fixed and dlc's released ) or purchase the times exclusive device and play THAT game on day 1 release.

I wouldn't mind a soft exclusive, like the sort of game which is largely made to be played on the Deck, and is playable on other platforms just not as ideal for one reason or another.

Reading some comments got me thinking. Console games are often tailor-made and optimized for specific target hardware. But the Deck is almost the inverse, where it's instead the console rather than the games being tailor-made and optimized to run target games. Steam Input, Performance Profiles, Proton, it's all just stuff to get the console to conform to the games expectations rather than the game being forced to conform with the console expectations.

This has all kind of been the reality for PC gaming since forever, but seeing a console take this approach is fascinating.


Last edited by Botonoski on 28 December 2022 at 5:20 pm UTC

I find unfair to compare an exclusive made by epic store, done for pure marketing reason with no real advantage for the final user, with one done for a specific platform, which leads the software to be written exclusively for that hardware.
Really, Steam Deck can't show its true potential as long as devs continue to make software for other platforms and Valve continues to promote the use of a translation layer.

I have to correct a mistake.

Alternative Games was porting games to Linux for 12 years.

There’s been a game on Steam before that only had a Linux build.

I remember that later, this game was ported to Windows, but they first released the Linux version.
Voltley was released in 2009, and they never ported it to Windows.

It’s not a hard requirement set by Valve.

You can ask Clive Crous, and Thomas Frieden about it. I remember that even a lawyer fron Hyperion couldn't make a deal with creators of Gorky 17.

The point is: why? Exclusives are bad.

They are bad for some users because they have to spend more money on two or three different versions of the game. On the other hand, exclusive games give almost everyone a good reason to keep Linux on your hard drive.

Steam allow users to buy a game for few operating systems. In this case, they can have some fun with Linux, and they can easily go back to Windows. They don't have to worry that they have games for Linux in their closet on a CD or a flash drive.

Exclusive games are good for some Linux publishers because they can earn more money.


Last edited by gbudny on 28 December 2022 at 6:18 pm UTC

It's not rocket science, anyone who can think for a solid second will realize that Steam Deck is made by Valve. Any new Valve game is most likely going to be a Steam/Steam Deck exclusive. There you go. Problem solved, exclusive Andies happy that they got Steam Deck exclusives, Linux/PC gamers happy that no one else had to do it.

There will never be "a game made solely for Steam Deck as an exclusive". It's just absurd. SteamOS is already being distributed to OEMs. However, certain game genres will be arguably played better on a Steam Deck form factor. Not for the hardware, for the experience for example. Indie games, soulslike games or not so demanding games overall.

That includes anything from Nintendo Switch to Ayaneo/GPD and Steam Deck. In my case, I would go for Steam Deck because it's just a brilliant machine to tinker with.

Would Valve even do deals with publishers to only launch on Steam and lock those games to Steam indefinitely? To somehow lock games to the Deck?

No they don’t do that.

their article touches on an important bit: games taking better advantage of the Steam Deck uniqueness directly

When software is tailor made for one specific hardware, it enables the developers to write a lot more effective code. This is why the consoles can perform as good as they do. Just look at the PlayStation and the incredibly smooth and visually stunning experiences they can deliver there year after year on hardware that's nothing compared to a modern pc. The difference is staggering and a very strong demonstration of how exclusive code CAN perform.
And who doesn't want the most out of the hardware they have purchased?

Technically, you don't need an exclusive for that. All you need is to develop for Deck first. No reason a game couldn't still run on other things, just less efficiently--which if you'd written it for Steam Deck, would probably be OK for medium to high end gaming PCs, for instance.

I agree with Liam and with a ton of the comments thus far. Couple of related points

1. They're selling plenty anyway. And I think plenty of their sales are to people who also have (PS, Xbox, Nintendo thingies). Exclusives are a tool for getting more sales in a zero sum game, in which you have to pull people away from the competition in order to sell. That does not seem to be the Steam Deck experience; they are selling successfully without exclusives and indeed largely without peeling people away from consoles, the Switch etc. Given that a few posters have pointed out the major efforts and expenses involved in creating an effective "exclusives" regime, how is it worth it if they're not in the situation exclusives are supposed to solve?

2. For Valve, Steam Deck is part of the Steam ecosystem, more than it is a thing in itself. Steam Deck exclusives per se would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The Steam Deck increases the value of your Steam library by giving you more places and ways to play the games in it. And it increases the value to developers of putting their games on Steam (yeah, sure, because the Deck is open you can play games from other platforms on it, but that takes a bit of work and at the very least, an active choice--where the Steam library is Just There). And while Steam doesn't do exclusives either, for practical purposes Steam has tons of exclusives--all the thousands of games that have never found it worth their while to go on any other site--and now with the Steam Deck, the reach you get from just releasing on Steam has expanded, reducing the incentive to bother with other stores and platforms by a little more.

Exclusives for just the Steam Deck and not the rest of Steam would break all that. They would reduce the value of players' Steam library, reduce the reach of the Steam ecosystem, instead of increasing it. It would be a really stupid move.

I would like to see exclusives for GNU/Linux. The sooner Windows is pushed to extinction, the better.

When Valve eventually does a wide release of SteamOS 3.X it will lower the bar of entry to DIY PC's and HTPC's. It could lead to a renewed interest in a hobby that's dying out. Or maybe that's just an old fools wishes and it's smart phones, games streaming tablets and predatory pay2win crap that are the future.

Well, if you're an old fool, then so am I! One would hope that something like the Steam Deck/SteamOS, and the value it offers, would have a chance against the anti-consumer nature of predatory mobile-game money-sinks!

The Steam Deck increases the value of your Steam library by giving you more places and ways to play the games in it. And it increases the value to developers of putting their games on Steam (yeah, sure, because the Deck is open you can play games from other platforms on it, but that takes a bit of work and at the very least, an active choice--where the Steam library is Just There).

So it's basically like the Action GameMaster, except done right, and it actually got manufactured.

And while Steam doesn't do exclusives either, for practical purposes Steam has tons of exclusives--all the thousands of games that have never found it worth their while to go on any other site--and now with the Steam Deck, the reach you get from just releasing on Steam has expanded, reducing the incentive to bother with other stores and platforms by a little more.

Yeah, PC (and thus the Deck) already has more exclusives than any console in history has ever had. How many (tens of) thousands of games out there can only be played on PC?

Now, I'm all for making things available on multiple platforms and giving people more Choice™, but I must admit I wouldn't mind seeing some games come out on Linux first with the Windows and Mac ports released some time later.

It's not that I couldn't imagine some dev that is in love with the Deck for some reason creating a game specifically made for the Deck's somewhat unique input system.
Or that Valve would fund such a thing.
Might be fun, but if that ever happens, it'll be a gigantic rarity and the dev will get a lot of flak if they don't also enable it on normal PC platforms.

I want to see bundles with games for:

- Windows/Linux/Mac
- Windows/Mac
- Windows/Linux
- Linux/Mac
etc.

Valve should stop require rights to publishing a Windows version if a company want to sell only a Linux version.

There’s been a game on Steam before that only had a Linux build. It’s not a hard requirement set by Valve. The point is: why? Exclusives are bad.

IMO, it's important to distinguish between a game running only on one platform vs being exclusive to that platform (even though _literally_ it means the same). The subtle difference is that with exclusives, the devs are contractually obliged to exclude other platforms. Otherwise if your expertise is only on platform X and you release a game only on that platform, it's not really an exclusive, it's just what was in your power to do.

So, why would I hypothetically release a game only for Linux? Because I don't have windows or mac, and I have no expertise in Android or the consoles. There's nothing wrong with that. You could wish that were not the case as a user, and ask me nicely to port my game, but you can't consider me a terrible person for it.

Steam Deck have  "Aperture Desk Job", which could be classified as exclusive. You can play it on other platforms, but best experience are on Deck. And yes - you can play the game on other platform and think: "great game! I wonder how great it should behaves on Deck?" - and you decided to buy deck. So allowing to play on games designed to be played on Steam Deck on other platform could be great advertisement.

The deck practically has thousands of games that are exclusive for its form factor, no need of exclusivity for the platform.

I don't think the argument has much merit of locking to a single platform for any kind of performance benefit that you suggest. Optimization doesn't mean it needs to be exclusive. Optimization at the lower end can benefit the higher end too, and generally it does.

We do not need to think, assume, suppose or guess anything: The proof is in the pudding.
Just fire up a Playstation exclusive (of any generation really - I only have experience in PS, but I would assume it's the same on Nintendo too, maybe even Xbox), play it, then compare that to a PC game, and do a side-by-side comparison of the hardware VS experience.

I dare say one is of a very prejudice mind if the difference does not appear as striking. The amount of performance the console exclusive is able to squeeze out of the measly 300 euro console is *ridiculous* compared with the PC that in sheer hardware spec (and five times the price!) should run in circles around the console.

While that same blinding difference is *not* as apparent on multiplat games built both for PC and consoles.

I am sure exceptions exist, but if we paint with a broad brush. As a general rule, generally speaking.

I mean, of all arguments AGAINST platform exclusiveness - of whom there are many and legit - I would say this is the ONE major argument for having a game designed specifically for one hardware stack. And I honestly think it's totally fair game to admit so, while still being against exclusivity. Because the arguments against may still outweigh this advantage.


Last edited by Beamboom on 29 December 2022 at 7:23 pm UTC

I don't think the argument has much merit of locking to a single platform for any kind of performance benefit that you suggest. Optimization doesn't mean it needs to be exclusive. Optimization at the lower end can benefit the higher end too, and generally it does.

We do not need to think, assume, suppose or guess anything: The proof is in the pudding here. Just fire up any Playstation exclusive (of any generation really - I only have experience in PS, but I would assume it's the same on Nintendo too, maybe even Xbox), play it, then compare that to a multiplat game on PC, and do a side-by-side comparison of the hardware VS experience.

I dare say one is of a very prejudice mind if the difference does not appear as striking. The amount of performance the exclusive title is able to squeeze out of the measly 300 euro console is *ridiculous* compared with the PC that in sheer number game should run around in circles around the console.

While that same blinding difference is *not* as apparent on multiplat releases.

I mean, of all arguments AGAINST platform exclusiveness - of whom there are many and legit - I would say this is the ONE majr argument for having a game designed specifically for one hardware stack. And I honestly think it's totally fair game to admit so, while still being against exclusivity. Because the arguments against may still outweigh this advantage.

Let me explain why this argument doesn't work. FYI, I was a graphics engineer on Shadow of the Tomb Raider with a focus on PS4. You're absolutely right, knowing the exact GPU, and access to PS4 tools, I could do magic that made things faster on PS4 in a way that is unimaginable on Vulkan on desktop for example. So your assumption is correct, knowledge of hardware can lead to optimizations.

Your conclusion is not correct however. None of the optimizations I or anybody else made required the game to be exclusive. There were just #ifdefs, and the game was released on xbox and PC too.

TL;DR, optimization for specific hardware and exclusivity to said hardware are orthogonal

Your conclusion is not correct however. None of the optimizations I or anybody else made required the game to be exclusive.

Hey, cool to hear from you!
It doesn't REQUIRE it to be, no. I am merely stating the benefit of focusing on one hardware stack, and maximise the utilisation of the chipsets and capacities therein with no consideration of other hardware configurations. And that, in effect, typically implies platform exclusivity. Or ports (a whole other chapter to discuss).

Or do you disagree with that the titles developed for one specific hardware (typically console) as a general observation outperforms the multiplats?


Last edited by Beamboom on 29 December 2022 at 9:47 pm UTC