Metro: Exodus [E3 2017]

[Mark A]

Well Cdkeys have refunded me the money, without answering my question if the keys are for Steam . I have emailed back to ask again and hopefully get an answer. I'd have kept the key if it was for Steam.

I'm not paying £50 for a pre-order of a game I am not 100% sure will be amazing, so I'll have to wait a year. Meh, my PC is broke anyway and i'm getting more and more turned off building a new one with the astronomical hardware prices, modding scene being killed off and now all this exclusivity rubbish.

Edit: Yeah looks like Cdkeys have now changed the platform to Epic on their site, so I guess it's confirmed that 3rd party keys are now for the Epic launcher .

 

[BubbySoup]

Guess I'll just wait until it returns to Steam next year with no Denuvo and the bugs fixed then. If I'm even bothered with it by then.

Yeah, I got plenty of stuff to play for now. I'll buy a Steam key when it's half price next year.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Ffs this has now gone up to 38.99 on CD keys from 34.99. They annoy me when they do this....

 

[deuse]

I was going to order the aurora edition from amazon.
But now I will wait till it's on GOG.

 

[bigmike20vt]

it is understandable i guess.

88% of profit on epic store vs 70% of profit on steam. its a gamble, they will definitely lose sales by not being on steam though. The game is definitely on my radar, but i want to play the 1st 2 1st (i have the standard versions but may get redux ones before i put much time into it. (played the 1st game for maybe 30 mins).

isnt this just typical however. All markets get the valve tax savings passed onto them - except the UK.

Now, on the Epic Games store, it's priced £41.99. (UPDATE CORRECTION: This UK pricing is incorrect. Metro Exodus costs £49.99 on the Epic Games store. The price saving does not extend to the UK. Sorry for the confusion.)

I dunno, i am not a fan of store exclusives really but i think they may be a necessary evil (store exclusives at least mean the game is still accessible for everyone at least). 1 way i would like to see tried would be coming from another angle.

Put a game on all stores, for the same base price, but then the store fee is added on top, that way the user can choose where to buy a game from but they pay the store fee on top. The difficulty there arises with multiplayer support but should not be an issue for single player or P2P games.

 

[Bishie]

Valve Says It's 'Unfair' That Metro Exodus Is Exclusive To Epic Store

 

[uncle_rufus]

I can't believe this is the same company that made the beloved Unreal 2004...

They won't be getting a penny from me on their store, ever...

I think competition for Steam is healthy but that's not what this is, this is just pathetic and I hope the gaming community come together like they did with EA over Battlefront to fight against it...

 

[Aretak]

Punitive measures, yeah that'll stop developers running away to the competition

It no longer makes economic sense to release your AAA title on Steam. Until Valve respond to the changing market conditions, publishers will continue to desert them. About time too, they've been siphoning off a ridiculous portion of PC game revenues for far too long.

Utter nonsense. Valve provide a platform that is completely unrivalled in terms of features and userbase access. It's a simpleton's view that Epic take a smaller cut so therefore Valve should too, without taking into account how massively-inferior Epic's platform is. Call me when they even come remotely close to offering all of Steam's features (which Valve have invested in via the money the service has brought in). Oh, but it's cheaper on the Epic store so that makes it okay? Great, buy it there then if you don't value Steam's features, pay less for less and let other people pay more for more. That's actual competition. Something that Epic fear, which is why they're paying off publishers and developers for exclusivity, rather than promoting actual healthy competition in the PC marketplace. Yet once again you have brainless consumers acting as cheerleaders for corporate greed, even if they're the ones who get shafted in the process.

 

[doodah]

Clearly missed all the hoohah, I take it Epic Store ain't that great?

 

[AWPC]

Sooner or later though this was bound to happen though:

EA = Origin Exclusives not available elsewhere 3rd party keys are slightly cheaper but not as easy to get.
Windows Store= MS exclusives not available elsewhere. No 3rd party key resales unless its a Play Anywhere title.
Bethesda Store= Bethesda Exclusives not available elsewhere.
Rockstar Star Store = R* Exclusives not available elsewhere.
Battlenet Store= Exclusives not available elsewhere. 3rd party keys are slightly cheaper but not as easy to get

Valve waited too long to change they happily took tens of billions from running Steam when it was easy money & put virtually nothing back into PC gaming did they. No major new games for over a decade now. After the minimal overheads of running Steam Valve must have banked billions in profits & are very cash rich. Little of this has fed back into PC gaming except indirectly funded the bandwidth required to let you redownload your Steam store purchases on different devices. I cannot think of many things Valve did to their steam client which made any real difference except the Steam cloud integration. The rest is bloatware especially the forced store content curators garbage

I cannot see Valve changing much they seem happy to bank the easy money even though for a few years now other PC gaming stores are eating away at their core business Its not just about the 88% vs 70% either its more about big publishers simply do not see the value in Steam anymore and they are right in a way Valve are sitting on their big pile of money

 

[uncle_rufus]

Of course the publishers don't see the value in Steam... because they only care about getting the best margins they possibly can no matter what it means for their consumers, nothing has changed there and Epic know this, hence their strategy of simply buying exclusivity works

Valve have done plenty for gaming... look at all they've invested into bringing Linux gaming further ahead than it's ever been... their work in VR... in-home streaming... not everything they've done has worked out and their quality control of the store has gotten out of hand in recent years, but people talk about them as if they do literally nothing...

 

[AWPC]

Utter nonsense. Valve provide a platform that is completely unrivalled in terms of features and userbase access. Call me when they even come remotely close to offering all of Steam's features (which Valve have invested in via the money the service has brought in)

Valve have made many billion's from PC gaming until 2014 they had an 80-85% cut of ALL PC gaming digital sales. PC gaming is worth about $30-32 billion a year that is a massive amount of money Valve have dominated for at least a decade. Valve are unrivalled at taking their big cut but they have given nothing of real value back to PC gaming. Their Steam client has changed little since 2004. Its stable & lets you download what you bought but so do all the other alternatives.

For the 100s of billions Valve have taken from PC gaming it would not have hurt them in the slightest to invest in a new state of the art Source engine, more Half Life & more Left For Dead. But instead they got lazy & very rich & have done everything possible to make the Steam Store self sufficient whilst allowing it to be loaded with shovelware content & worthless forced features like the carefully picked curators (paid for forced advertising in all but name).

It does not really matter what us gamers think anyway the major PC publishers have already voted with their wallets & found its cheaper to make their own platform with minimal features than give Valve their 30% year after year. Ubisoft, Rockstar, Activision, Bethesda & EA all seem to be thriving on PC with their own platforms.

 

[AWPC]

Of course the publishers don't see the value in Steam... because they only care about getting the best margins they possibly can no matter what it means for their consumers, nothing has changed there and Epic know this, hence their strategy of simply buying exclusivity works

Valve have done plenty for gaming... look at all they've invested into bringing Linux gaming further ahead than it's ever been... their work in VR... in-home streaming... not everything they've done has worked out and their quality control of the store has gotten out of hand in recent years, but people talk about them as if they do literally nothing...

They do literally do nothing though if you think otherwise their PR has worked on you! The Streaming has been done better by others though its not a new concept neither is VR. Valve have taken 100s of billions out of PC gaming & have given little positive back in return. This is why the publishers are moving away they can see little value in the Steam platform so build their own with less features but that has little affect on their digital sales & lets face it makes little difference to whether or not you will buy a game if you really want it then you will buy the game for the content not that platform its being sold on.

 

[Bishie]

Dear everyone who unnecessarily hates on Steam / the Steam hate circlejerk,

**** you. "Competition" that ***** over the customer, creates exclusivity, has objectively less features and more is not effective competition. Steam has a monopoly - it's true - but when it's deserved because they have the best platform available and offer a great service? C'mon. It's fair to discuss a better alternative or competition but the hate and unnecessary Steam bashing that lead to this? Ridiculous.

You're not completely to blame. Again, Steam has its problems and GOOD competition would be useful. Epic Games paying developers/publishers to make their game exclusive and the greed of publishers who see the lower platform fee are massive contributors - mostly because they fail to realise they're giving up hundreds of features unique to that platform like reviews, modding support, community discussions, screenshots, market support, in-game functionality and more which is all funded by that extra fee.

Who woulda thought? Exclusivity on a single platform. Unnecessary exclusivity that achieves nothing more than to **** people over. Metro could've been posted on BOTH Steam and Epic Games and would've only increased income more due to both storefronts getting sales but greed trumps logic clearly.

Sincerely,

Most of the sane PC gaming community

 

[VincentHanna]

How does it benefit me, the consumer, to exclusively move the game to another platform (that I don't currently use) and not reduce the price for UK/EU consumers?

 

[Mark A]

Valve have made many billion's from PC gaming until 2014 they had an 80-85% cut of ALL PC gaming digital sales. PC gaming is worth about $30-32 billion a year that is a massive amount of money Valve have dominated for at least a decade. Valve are unrivalled at taking their big cut but they have given nothing of real value back to PC gaming. Their Steam client has changed little since 2004. Its stable & lets you download what you bought but so do all the other alternatives.

And how much of that PC gaming market is thanks to Steam? I'd bet a lot of it is.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Dear everyone who unnecessarily hates on Steam / the Steam hate circlejerk,

**** you. "Competition" that ***** over the customer, creates exclusivity, has objectively less features and more is not effective competition. Steam has a monopoly - it's true - but when it's deserved because they have the best platform available and offer a great service? C'mon. It's fair to discuss a better alternative or competition but the hate and unnecessary Steam bashing that lead to this? Ridiculous.

You're not completely to blame. Again, Steam has its problems and GOOD competition would be useful. Epic Games paying developers/publishers to make their game exclusive and the greed of publishers who see the lower platform fee are massive contributors - mostly because they fail to realise they're giving up hundreds of features unique to that platform like reviews, modding support, community discussions, screenshots, market support, in-game functionality and more which is all funded by that extra fee.

Who woulda thought? Exclusivity on a single platform. Unnecessary exclusivity that achieves nothing more than to **** people over. Metro could've been posted on BOTH Steam and Epic Games and would've only increased income more due to both storefronts getting sales but greed trumps logic clearly.

Sincerely,

Most of the sane PC gaming community

Did epic pay for exclusivity or did the devs choose to go onto the epic store due to epic letting them have 88% of the profits rather than the 70% steam would let them have?

PS i really hate it when 1 person attempts to speak for the masses.

I cant agree with the poster who claims about the amount valve has done for VR. Valve have been happy for far to long to take their chunk of cash from other peoples games and have developed very little. Facebook are the people actually investing in VR software.

And as for store front exclusivity being bad? really? it was Valve themselves who started forcing their store front on everyone with half life 2. Where can i get a DRM free version of any valve games? (I admit 3rd parties sell steam keys and this is good but its still ultimately locked to steam)

how can i play any steamworks title without using steam?

Valve dont like it because other companies are potentially about to give them some competition and they are worried. it started with origin and is going from there, however unlike origin and uplay, epic are going to offer non epic games as well, much like steam and oculus store.

I dislike having multiple clients splitting up my games as much as the next person but i dislike the monopoly Valve have even more.
That said, the power is with the consumer. IF games not on steam ultimately bomb then developers will be forced to use steam and you will get your wish.

 

[Hedge]

I'm a big fan of the steam platform but I've also had no issues using any other launcher. Valve have been seriously greedy over the years and losing the odd exclusive is probably overdue.

I'm a huge dota2 addict but valve should have been sinking some of their billions into producing some good new games. It's all well and good having a bitch and moan but if you can't be arsed to produce anything other than cash grabbing dota compendiums then don't be surprised when companies want to make more money on the games they have worked so hard to develop.

Valve haven't really pushed the envelope for years.

 

[uncle_rufus]

They do literally do nothing though if you think otherwise their PR has worked on you! The Streaming has been done better by others though its not a new concept neither is VR. Valve have taken 100s of billions out of PC gaming & have given little positive back in return. This is why the publishers are moving away they can see little value in the Steam platform so build their own with less features but that has little affect on their digital sales & lets face it makes little difference to whether or not you will buy a game if you really want it then you will buy the game for the content not that platform its being sold on.

I don't think it has anything to do with them "not seeing value in the Steam platform"... it's just greed pure and simple (and as you say, the most dedicated fans will happily slurp it up even if the platform is inferior)

I'm not sure where you get 100s of billions though... Valve's cut was not 80-85% I think you're getting the figures mixed up (think about it... 80% of the sale going to the distributor?!)... Valve take 30% leaving the dev with 70% whereas Epic take less (more like 20% I think)... and ignoring that what are Valve's operating costs? How much did they have to spend to grease the wheels with Nvidia to finally start to drive Linux gaming development forward? How much did they spend developing steam link and steam controller, the "steambox" stuff, their VR work with HTC? I'm not claiming to know any of the exact figures and details either but whilst I'm sure they are pretty damn well off I doubt it's as exorbitant as you're saying

FWIW I'm not that bothered about having multiple launchers, so long as they work well enough for me to play my games, and I welcome genuine competition for Steam... what bothers me is the exclusivity-grabbing nature of this and the precedent it might set for the future... If Valve really have as much money as people seem to think they do why do you think they haven't used it to secure exclusivity for all the big titles?

 

[VincentHanna]

Steam, unquestionably, needs a sizeable competitor. With a significant monopoly on the PC games market, such that present rivals like GOG and Humble barely take a dent out of its audience, Valve is able to take an infuriatingly lackadaisical approach to many aspects of Steam. Something to scare them into action would be marvellous. And while not optimistic, I’d hoped that maybe Epic, with their lorries full of money, might be able to try. Except, with yet another exclusivity announcement today regarding Metro: Exodus, they’re going about it entirely the wrong way.

See, here’s the weird thing: Steam, as damaging and dangerous a monopoly as it might have over PC gaming, got to this position a few years back without acquiring competitors, and without demanding developers and publishers bind themselves to inescapable contracts. It just sort of bumbled and stumbled its way there. And Valve, while deserving of so much criticism, significantly have never – so far as we know – asked that a game be exclusively released on their platform.

Click link to read full article