This dude analyzes why Netflix has become worse after competition entered the scene and the competition has, in the end, only been negative for the consumer.
Because the way these streaming services compete is by getting their own exclusive shows that you can only watch on them.
Which means instead of providing cool features for the customer so you're encouraged to go with service X over service Y, they try to force people to go with their service if they want to watch a certain show.
Sound familiar? Yeah, that's exactly the kind of "competition" Epic is going for. Snatch exclusives, force people to use Epic if they want to play that game, don't give a single fuck about providing a good customer experience.
If you still think Epic's approach is going to lead to any kind of positive development in the PC gaming market, this is a great example from a different industry that shows why this kind of competition only ends up screwing the customers.
From a consumer point of view it's obviously correct and exactly what is happening for a while with Origin, battlenet, Uplay eventually and now Epic.
In PC gaming it's not as bad and not comparable currently, since you don't have to pay subscription for each service, you can pay per unit and it's just one more icon on the desktop.
If one day industry move to an annual subscription model exclusively we will be as fucked as video streaming services.
But I believe that for now most games have better earning potential in the current model, so subscriptions will be optional.
The truth is most gamers don't need, or even want any service competing with Steam, it's close to perfect and it's convenient for us to keep adding to our massive game libraries we have there. It's simply impossible to create a service that gamers would choose over Steam currently.
But it's not close to perfect from a publishers point of view, when they are aware that with current technology and infrastructure, such service could easily operate at 2x smaller cut and still generate great profit.
So publishers can either accept this situation, or struggle against both Valve and gamers interest, with the only method that can work, just like video streaming services.
If everything was on Netflix no one would bother to use any other service, it's way more true with Steam which has no subscription, but users with massive already paid libraries.
So every publisher with brands strong enough to force most gamers to use a new service with exclusivity will be trying to do so.
As for Epic, the major win for them is that they can sell their own future games there without Steam cut and it makes Unreal Engine slightly more attractive, at 12% and so much smaller scale of operation I doubt third party games will bring mad profit.
So I don't believe they will ever start to stright up pay for exclusives, beyond attracting them with current modest advance deal, smaller profit cut and free Unreal Engine license. There is not enough profit potential here to justify that.
I also do believe that they would stop to bother investing in it further and put their own games on Steam, if it offered comparable cut. Sweeney never used word "altruistic", but simply stated that Epic pressuring Steam would be mutually beneficial for both Epic and others.
It creates minor inconvenience for the customers (another launcher) and I see neither side as morally superior, it's just bussiness. Valve use their position to gain mad profits and publishers seek a way to keep more of the pie they produce for themselves.
The only two things that could stop market fragmentation, or even revert it by releasing some of the current exclusives on Steam, would be either Steam giving up some of it's pie, or publishers would have to just accept Steam tax forever, for the convenience of the customers.
I predict, that neither will happen.