# Steam introduces feature to combat Borderlands review bombings, Gearbox CEO responds to situation

I know this is pissing in a hurricane but do you have a source for this?

12% vs 34% (30%+4%) for initial sales, 29% for most initial full priced sales and then 24% for all remaining sales many of which are going to be at reduced prices. Some rough math:

2K/Gearbox will loose \$7.20 on each sale on EGS when looking at the US \$60 price. They will loose \$14.40 on each Steam sale after the 20% kicks in, which will start after the initial large sales window has largely passed by at the higher fee rate. At a price of \$60 USD they would need to sell over 800,000 copies to reach the 20% fee threshold at \$50 million in sales for the \$14.40 fee rate. When you account for lower cost regions the number sold may have to be higher because countries like Russia and Poland charge \$30 for new games as examples.

So we're talking about paying more than \$14.40 per game sold for the first 800,000 to 1,000,000 copies sold. That means between \$20.40 for the initial \$10 million in sales and \$17.40 between \$10 million and \$50 million.

First 16,700 games sold = \$20.40 in fees which is \$340,680 in selling fees.
The next 816,600 games sold = \$17.40 in fees which is \$14,208,840 in selling fees.

833,300 copies sold at \$60 = \$49,998,000. Just under \$50 million threshold for the 20% +4% fee to kick in.

So what we have is selling fees of \$14,549,520 for the first 833,300 copies of Borderlands 3 sold if selling on Steam. Selling on EGS is \$7.20x833300 = \$5,999,760 in selling fees.

The difference: \$8,549,760 more to sell on Steam.

Now these are rough numbers and I assumed every sale was \$60 when in reality some might be \$60, some \$30, some \$70-80. And I am sure the regional sales breakdown varies greatly from game to game. A game like Metro likely would sell a lot better in Russia where it would be harder to hit the \$50 million threshold but I think BL3 would hit it more easily as it is a western game and probably sells better in countries that charge more. But what we can see is that the difference can end up being pretty big. A potential of \$8.5 million dollars saved without Epic having to do anything else.

Will some people not buy the game because it wasn't on Steam? Of course. Will the loss be anywhere close to \$8.5 million USD? Not even close.

Now if someone can find a big flaw in my rough numbers feel free to point it out.

I've been saying this (with a lot less math) all along, people either don't get it or don't care. They're too stubborn to realize that 1.) more money going to publishers and developers isn't a bad thing and 2.) there is very good reason to believe that publishers and developers will choose exclusivity on EGS even without any incentives from Epic beyond the reduced selling fees. Even in a a scenario where Epic doesn't do jack shit to make a game exclusive, people will still paint them as the villain.

Also, my understanding is that games that are sold on EGS that utilize the Unreal Engine do not have to pay the 5% licensing fee on those sales. If true, that means you can effectively add an addition 5%, roughly \$2.5 million, in fees that would be paid out for Steam sales that wouldn't be paid out for EGS sales. That brings the difference to over \$11 million dollars. That is a hefty fucking fee to sell on Steam. It blows my mind that people can't understand why publishers and developers are looking elsewhere.

...The strategy they have gone with over the rev-split is absolutely spot on. The benefit of Steam is its large install base, and consumer buying habits. The benefits of the EGS is purely about business, we make more money for every unit sold. For UE games... your talking about a 23% increase in revenue. 23%! That is absolutely massive!

In a situation where we are sure our userbase is going to buy it regardless, why would I put it on Steam at all? Why wouldn't i want them to buy it from the EGS? I get to get more of the revenue. Much more of the revenue.

...

And six months later, when it comes to release on other platforms, we can have a 'second launch' and get things into the news, restarting the GTM cycle for the Steam launch, which means that the holdouts would buy it, and that the people who want to have everything on one game store... they would buy it again. We get more money!

From a business standpoint, what they are doing makes absolute perfect sense..

23% sounds huge, but not if they only sell half of the copies they would have had it been listed on Steam.

A games' sales can jump 40x when it goes on sale and gets promoted by showing on the top of the store, or in those ads when Steam launches. 40x! That's the power of Steam. Obviously a well promoted title will likely sell well, wherever it is launched. But I wouldn't discount the Steam user base either.

Time will tell if the game does well on the Epic store, but we can only make guesses as to how well it would have sold if it was on Steam as well as epic and not exclusive.

I've been saying this (with a lot less math) all along, people either don't get it or don't care. They're too stubborn to realize that 1.) more money going to publishers and developers isn't a bad thing.

It's not a good thing either, rather it's just a thing. Are they taking out micro-transactions because all of this new found money? No. Are they providing free DLC or other value adds? No. As a consumer, if I pay \$60 for a game, it really doesn't matter to me how it's split up. I'm concerned with how much it cost me, not the back end splits.

2.) there is very good reason to believe that publishers and developers will choose exclusivity on EGS even without any incentives from Epic beyond the reduced selling fees. Even in a a scenario where Epic doesn't do jack shit to make a game exclusive, people will still paint them as the villain.
Actually no, to me that's the reason they are the villain. Offering an inferior product (which EGS is to Steam) certainly won't get me to buy from you, but it won't make me hate you either. You'd just be a choice I would skip over. Not bad or good. Paying off distributors so I can't buy goods at a store I like makes me dislike you and now I won't buy from you out of principle. At least before if you later on out-competed them through ways that offered a better product or experience I'd consider your store. Now even if they do that I won't shop there out of dislike for them.

Also, my understanding is that games that are sold on EGS that utilize the Unreal Engine do not have to pay the 5% licensing fee on those sales. If true, that means you can effectively add an addition 5%, roughly \$2.5 million, in fees that would be paid out for Steam sales that wouldn't be paid out for EGS sales. That brings the difference to over \$11 million dollars. That is a hefty fucking fee to sell on Steam. It blows my mind that people can't understand why publishers and developers are looking elsewhere.

I can understand why they look elsewhere, however it blows my mind that companies not only don't give customers what they want, but actively fight against it and then they get their panties all in a bunch when people complain about it. It's as if I went to a restaurant and asked for a steak and the waiter retorted back, "F you, you get chicken, bitch!", and then walked off whining about all the customers asking for steak when they could sell chicken at the same price to make more profit. Well, if you don't sell me a steak and I don't want chicken, then you aren't going to sell me *anything*.

Bottom line, we as consumers need their product less than they need our money. If we don't spend it there, then life goes on for us, but they come to an end.

I know in the grand scheme of things it will not matter, but I will not be buying games on Epic even if they do get Red Dead. This does pain me, but I have been with steam from beta. Steam offers a much better experience and has a much better flow for me personally.

The question you really have to ask yourself is this:

Why doesn't EGS just have games for \$10 cheaper (like with Metro) and have the games be available on Steam and EGS (and wherever else)? That way, folks who want to "support" the developer and want a cheaper option, can go EGS, and everyone else can go Steam / etc.?

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the answer is because Steam will still outsell EGS, because EGS is an inferior product, and Epic knows this.

I know in the grand scheme of things it will not matter, but I will not be buying games on Epic even if they do get Red Dead. This does pain me, but I have been with steam from beta. Steam offers a much better experience and has a much better flow for me personally.

The RDR2 bullshit was a troll post on Reddit.

GoodBoy said:
23% sounds huge, but not if they only sell half of the copies they would have had it been listed on Steam.
A games' sales can jump 40x when it goes on sale and gets promoted by showing on the top of the store, or in those ads when Steam launches. 40x! That's the power of Steam. Obviously a well promoted title will likely sell well, wherever it is launched. But I wouldn't discount the Steam user base either.
Time will tell if the game does well on the Epic store, but we can only make guesses as to how well it would have sold if it was on Steam as well as epic and not exclusive.

23% is huge. As above given an example, it's millions of dollars in additional revenue for relatively no cost.
The assumptions are based on the fact that not a significant amount of customers wont by based on the store its sold in.
Yes if sales are only 50% of what you could have got on one platform vs the other then you would lose.
But reality is the bet is the vocal minority is who wouldn't buy.

We'll see when it releases how these new timed exclusives turn out for the developers, I highly doubt they are going to lose money on the deal.

I think there was a misunderstanding with the quote, these are timed exclusives. After the exclusive period. The publishers / developers get to have a second marketing launch for when it comes to Steam, getting those huge eyes on it and generating more revenue. This is ideal from a business standpoint. They make as much money as they can on the first launch with low fees, but then are able to have a second launch to generate additional revenue for little or no product changes.

MavericK said:
The question you really have to ask yourself is this:

Why doesn't EGS just have games for \$10 cheaper (like with Metro) and have the games be available on Steam and EGS (and wherever else)? That way, folks who want to "support" the developer and want a cheaper option, can go EGS, and everyone else can go Steam / etc.?

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the answer is because Steam will still outsell EGS, because EGS is an inferior product, and Epic knows this.

And your point is? Epic is out to make all the money it can, they know customers wont just happily come to them over their entrenched service offering (in this case, Steam). If anything, all the backlash they are getting is reinforcing WHY they are going with this strategy. In addition, why would they sell for a product for less and devalue the cost of products on their storefront? Their business model is all about competing with Steam by taking less of a share of the revenue per sale. If you were selling a good, and Store A is going to only take 10%, while Store B is going to take 20%. As a publisher you would sell for the same price, and pointing as many people as possible to Store A to maximize your revenue, the best way to do this, is to not release your product to Store B so they HAVE to buy it at Store A. Especially if Store A is giving you extra goodies, like comarketing or marketing support. As marketing is extremely expensive yet crucial to the success of a good or service.

It's terrible for the customer, but business wise, this is completely logical.

It's not a good thing either, rather it's just a thing. Are they taking out micro-transactions because all of this new found money? No. Are they providing free DLC or other value adds? No. As a consumer, if I pay \$60 for a game, it really doesn't matter to me how it's split up. I'm concerned with how much it cost me, not the back end splits.

My opinion on this is that people are too concerned about an immediate payoff. A lower price tag sure would be nice for us consumers, but I think that's a bit too simple. Consider that this is all very new territory, publishers and developers need time to really figure out how EGS can potentially help or hurt their bottom line. Selling the product at a discount on EGS and not releasing on Steam could very well be enough to do more harm than good. Taking their normal \$60 I believe makes it easier to calculate if going with EGS was really a profitable solution. Especially in an industry where we accepted nearly 15 years ago that new games cost \$60. The less they shake up, the better (for them).

That all said, I believe there is more potential benefit to consumers than just a lower price tag. You mention taking out things like micro transactions and/or free DLC and other content, and mention that they are not doing this despite there being basically no evidence (either for or against). At this point, for AAA EGS exclusives, we have a sample of one with Metro. I'm not sure how you can say that developers aren't doing less moneygrubbing when their is literally no data for or against yet.

Ultimately, my hope is that more money going to developers will equal more and/or better games. For most releases, I'd guess PC is the least profitable platform, and probably the most difficult to support. If EGS can make games more profitable, maybe it will entice publishers and developers to give it more attention. Maybe we'll see less console exclusives (like the rumored RDR2). Maybe small developers will be able to take more risks. Maybe we'll see franchises grow to greater potential. Obviously it would be very difficult to prove any of that, but I guess I prefer to hope for a positive outcome than assume these companies are just laughing all the way to the bank. In some instances, I'm sure I'll be wrong, but in others I bet not. Indie and smaller devs in particular could gain a lot, and if the extra revenue helps them grow and take on bigger projects, I'm all for it.

Actually no, to me that's the reason they are the villain. Offering an inferior product (which EGS is to Steam) certainly won't get me to buy from you, but it won't make me hate you either. You'd just be a choice I would skip over. Not bad or good. Paying off distributors so I can't buy goods at a store I like makes me dislike you and now I won't buy from you out of principle. At least before if you later on out-competed them through ways that offered a better product or experience I'd consider your store. Now even if they do that I won't shop there out of dislike for them.

I think (hope) you misunderstood what you've quoted. What I said is that some publishers likely will chose to make their games exclusive to EGS solely because of the 12% take. In other words, no cut backs, no incentives, no paid exclusives, no influence whatsoever from Epic. You can't possibly be upset with Epic if a publisher chooses their platform of their own free will. People assume every Epic exclusive is a paid exclusive. Right now, maybe they are, we don't really know what the terms are. But I really would not be surprised to see exclusives that were in no way negotiated by Epic. Bottom line is EGS is offering a much better profit share than their competitors. For some publishers, that'll be enough.

I can understand why they look elsewhere, however it blows my mind that companies not only don't give customers what they want, but actively fight against it and then they get their panties all in a bunch when people complain about it. It's as if I went to a restaurant and asked for a steak and the waiter retorted back, "F you, you get chicken, bitch!", and then walked off whining about all the customers asking for steak when they could sell chicken at the same price to make more profit. Well, if you don't sell me a steak and I don't want chicken, then you aren't going to sell me *anything*.

Bottom line, we as consumers need their product less than they need our money. If we don't spend it there, then life goes on for us, but they come to an end.

I'm going to assume you're referring to EGS's lack of features in comparison to Steam. I agree 100% that EGS is not on par with Steam, but it doesn't bother me. Steam has been around for 15 years, EGS has been around for 6 months. EGS as it exists today is not the way it will always be, and if you look at their published roadmap they appear to be working to incorporate a lot of the features people want in the coming months. By the time they see their first major release (BL3), I think most of the things that people bitch EGS lacks will be present. And quite truthfully, all of that is really secondary, at least to me. The social aspects of Steam are largely annoying. The discussion boards are nice for developers to communicate with their customers, but there are other ways of accomplishing that. Reviews are nice, but largely bullshit. I don't trust Steam reviews for shit until I've spent significant time filtering out which are real reviews and which are people being cyrbabies over stupid shit that has nothing to do with the game they are reviewing. And again, there are other options this, between forums, metacritic, and any number of video game journalists. Just about all of Steams enhancements can be outsources elsewhere. Obviously having everything in one place is convenient, but it's not as if you're shit out of luck forever, Epic will catch up.

...And your point is? Epic is out to make all the money it can, they know customers wont just happily come to them over their entrenched service offering (in this case, Steam). If anything, all the backlash they are getting is reinforcing WHY they are going with this strategy. In addition, why would they sell for a product for less and devalue the cost of products on their storefront? Their business model is all about competing with Steam by taking less of a share of the revenue per sale. If you were selling a good, and Store A is going to only take 10%, while Store B is going to take 20%. As a publisher you would sell for the same price, and pointing as many people as possible to Store A to maximize your revenue, the best way to do this, is to not release your product to Store B so they HAVE to buy it at Store A. Especially if Store A is giving you extra goodies, like comarketing or marketing support. As marketing is extremely expensive yet crucial to the success of a good or service..

You ignored what he said.

If they sell the game in both stores, \$53 in Epic store, \$60 on Steam, at the same time, they make the same profit regardless of where it is sold. It does not NEED to be forced into one store... they can charge the difference in profit upfront, make the consumer pay that.

I can assure you that if it was for sale in multiple stores vs 1, it will sell more and make more profit. <- Completely Logical.

You ignored what he said.

If they sell the game in both stores, \$53 in Epic store, \$60 on Steam, at the same time, they make the same profit regardless of where it is sold. It does not NEED to be forced into one store... they can charge the difference in profit upfront, make the consumer pay that.

I can assure you that if it was for sale in multiple stores vs 1, it will sell more and make more profit. <- Completely Logical.

Actually no. The logic is false for a variety of reasons. Remember a business is out to make as much money as possible. Not just some money, all of the money. Businesses do not leave money on the table, any C-suite member that suggest such will be fired by the board for incompetence and replaced with someone the investors trust to make them all the money.

Given the industry standard price is 60\$, any reduction in fees to that is just additional profit. Thus a business would not change the price it would pocket the additional revenue.

Similarly, a reduction in cost like what you suggested could happen if Epic mandated it, which they wont do. Why? Because if they did then the publishers would not use their store at all! Because it devalues the product of their customers lowering the base price down which they don't want to set the lower price as a precedent for future sales.

The devaluing issue is a whole nother topic, but its also a huge reason why publishers do not like Steam.

That being said, by being so adamant on buying this on Steam rather than in another Storefront you are making my point about entrenchment. Epic wants the business from Valve. People dont want to change, this is physiological nature.

How to do that? Easy, don't give the customer a choice. Entice the developers not the consumers to come to their shop by offering lower rates and perks by making things exclusive.

The publishers business model states that whatever revenue is lost by being a timed exclusive to EGS is vastly offset by the lower costs of doing business, thus ending up with more profit in the end.

What Epic is doing and what the companies are buying into are not emotional decisions. They are business decisions that have been based on a model which itself was created from assumptions, facts, logic, and sales numbers of other exclusive deals. I would bet somehow the data from console timed exclusive deals in the past has been baked into the model for helping to predict the revenue stream.

If the model proves incorrect, and they do not hit their expected revenue targets and can trace it back to the decision for an Epic timed exclusive. Then i'm sure their next game wont have timed Epic exclusivity.

What must be remembered though is the publisher does not care if they sell less copies.
What they care about is how much profit is made from the game, and if the model supports doing the timed exclusive to make more money, then in the end that's all that matters.

I'm not going to respond to all the individual epic shill posts in this topic, because it makes me want to throw up that people can be so disconnected from reality. But I'll say this:

They are so comfortable in their own echo chambers, they don't even want to hear the arguments against the epic game store. There is on way to inform such people. And it is such people why companies can get away with more and more anti consumer practices. The way the gaming industry is treating their customers went steep downhill in the past 5-6 years, and it is mainly due to people who not just not care, but even support the companies in stomping all over fans hopes and dreams.

You know who you are, and shame on you for not standing up, and damn you for supporting this garbage.

Again for the n billionth time: Which part of market exclusivity do you not get? Or do you actually think it's a good thing, that a bully swoops in and tells you you're no longer allowed to buy games from anyone but me?

I'm just here to argument, I take no particular stand in this case and look from a 3rd person perspective but yea it can easily be made counter arguments to the case as well:

- The lower revenue cut EGS asks in comparison to Steam makes the game developers earn more. If Valve would cut their revenue share this exclusivity wouldn't be a thing because Epic wouldn't even be in a position to be able to drive publishers into exclusive deals. The publishers who side with Epic is probably hoping to also put additional pressure onto Valve to change their revenue policies.

- The review bombing I suppose for some can be seen as a childish & destructive tactic to bring attention to the matter and they disagree with how the critic is messaged as it not only develops negative feedback towards the game developer but affects their image too and their future products/projects could be at harm as a result which can lead to more developers having to close doors

- Game developers aren't dependant on entitled PC gamers. They can shift their focus towards console markets if it becomes too tricky from their point of view to sustain PC game development as the console market is much more "anti-consumer" with a more locked market and less choices (thinking especially in the digital publishing domain). If you besides the complex nature of trying to satisfy the more free market of PC gaming with all the review bombings and kiddies screaming I want, ice cream with strawberries, another wants strawberries with banana and maybe a 3rd wants cherries added on top as well. If that's not enough then add the rising costs of PC gaming hardware, all this are things that have a negative impact on PC gaming market adoption, if you further add all these recent twists with the PC gamer community to that as they more publicly oppose publisher decisions, it's surely not making matters easier to argue why to focus into the market in comparison to console gaming market.

The point that they can offer the games at all domains for a different price is a fair point but I believe it won't have any affect on Steam monopoly that it's clear multiple publishers want to try challenge. It's true it's not pro consumer and why should the consumers have to care about how much money the devs & publishers make but the reality is that the developers will always strive for the best margins and can always shift to console game development if that's necessary which begs the question, would you rather have a locked pc game market than no market at all? I'm afraid if the situation gets worse, we'll see more developers making the shift away from PC gaming so while it's fair to stand up for consumer rights and all that, it also makes damage to the PC gaming market in the long term as I don't see it happening that the publishers will cave in to the yelling kid mentality as long as there's alternative markets they can shift their focus to. I don't like the situation more than any other but I'm being realistic here as we don't have any strong enough pro-consumer laws to protect the current case from happening and I think worsening the bond between developers & publishers and PC gamers is leading to a desctructive path going forward.

Last edited:
You ignored what he said.

If they sell the game in both stores, \$53 in Epic store, \$60 on Steam, at the same time, they make the same profit regardless of where it is sold. It does not NEED to be forced into one store... they can charge the difference in profit upfront, make the consumer pay that.

I can assure you that if it was for sale in multiple stores vs 1, it will sell more and make more profit. <- Completely Logical.

But if a steam customer is willing to use EGS and you sell for \$60 only on EGS you make \$7 more on that customer. That's a lot of extra money.

Then you can get the remaining customers unwilling to use EGS 6 months later.

But if a steam customer is willing to use EGS and you sell for \$60 only on EGS you make \$7 more on that customer. That's a lot of extra money.

Then you can get the remaining customers unwilling to use EGS 6 months later.

Except:

a) Some people just straight-up won't buy it because of this practice, so you're talking \$60 versus \$0.

b) I can't speak for everyone, but I sure as shit would not be paying anywhere near \$60 for a 6-month to 1-year old release.

I'm just here to argument, I take no particular stand in this case and look from a 3rd person perspective but yea it can easily be made counter arguments to the case as well:
You try to elevate yourself above the rest, not a good start imo.

- The lower revenue cut EGS asks in comparison to Steam makes the game developers earn more. If Valve would cut their revenue share this exclusivity wouldn't be a thing because Epic wouldn't even be in a position to be able to drive publishers into exclusive deals. The publishers who side with Epic is probably hoping to also put additional pressure onto Valve to change their revenue policies.
The revenue EGS takes is only less if you don't account for lost sales and to 3rd party sales. As a dev/publisher can take as much keys from steam as they wish to sell to 3rd parties or for retail distribution. And steam takes no commission on those sales. Valve only takes the 30 / 20% on games that are sold directly on the steam store.
As opposed to the epic store which doesn't even offer 3rd party keys, let alone commission free.
- The review bombing I suppose for some can be seen as a childish & destructive tactic to bring attention to the matter and they disagree with how the critic is messaged as it not only develops negative feedback towards the game developer but affects their image too and their future products/projects could be at harm as a result which can lead to more developers having to close doors
Negative reviews are the only way people can make their voices heard in a way that is not easily ignored. It is a protest. And I won't shed a tear for those developers who sell their souls for a few dollars more. I wish they would fail.
But this is a completely unrealistic scenario. No dev will go out of business because their old games get a few negative reviews on steam. Poor ratings on 5-6 year old games hardly affects their pockets. But it has the power to bring attention to the fact that they're doing something anti-consumer. Honestly , how many copies of bordlerlands 1-2 is sold on steam nowadays, what do you think? And how many people decide against buying it due the recent change in ratings? One or two a week? I'm sure that will bankrupt them.

- Game developers aren't dependant on entitled PC gamers. They can shift their focus towards console markets if it becomes too tricky from their point of view to sustain PC game development as the console market is much more "anti-consumer" with a more locked market and less choices (thinking especially in the digital publishing domain). If you besides the complex nature of trying to satisfy the more free market of PC gaming with all the review bombings and kiddies screaming I want, ice cream with strawberries, another wants strawberries with banana and maybe a 3rd wants cherries added on top as well. If that's not enough then add the rising costs of PC gaming hardware, all this are things that have a negative impact on PC gaming market adoption, if you further add all these recent twists with the PC gamer community to that as they more publicly oppose publisher decisions, it's surely not making matters easier to argue why to focus into the market in comparison to console gaming market.
Only the most out of touch / biased individuals say that gamers are entitled in a pejorative. What makes us entitled? That we complain about a negative change? Should we just tow the party line, and never complain about any change that affects us negatively, otherwise we are"entitled" ?
"You'd better not complain because they'll take away your games completely" Is that really your argument? LOL. We are still the consumer, we give them money, they won't abandon a market just because we stand our ground. They can get away with shit like this because most are weak minded and lack the stamina to fight back. If nothing else by not buying the games that were signed away as exclusives.

The point that they can offer the games at all domains for a different price is a fair point but I believe it won't have any affect on Steam monopoly that it's clear multiple publishers want to try challenge. It's true it's not pro consumer and why should the consumers have to care about how much money the devs & publishers make but the reality is that the developers will always strive for the best margins and can always shift to console game development if that's necessary which begs the question, would you rather have a locked pc game market than no market at all? I'm afraid if the situation gets worse, we'll see more developers making the shift away from PC gaming so while it's fair to stand up for consumer rights and all that, it also makes damage to the PC gaming market in the long term as I don't see it happening that the publishers will cave in to the yelling kid mentality as long as there's alternative markets they can shift their focus to. I don't like the situation more than any other but I'm being realistic here as we don't have any strong enough pro-consumer laws to protect the current case from happening and I think worsening the bond between developers & publishers and PC gamers is leading to a desctructive path going forward.

You're only a monopoly if you abuse your market position. Steam never abused theirs. Epic alredy does. I'll not support such a company, no matter how much money they give to the devs (that will get pocketed by the greedy execs who signed the deal in the first place)
I'll never support a closed market on PC, and if you do, then you're the problem. I don't blame epic, I blame those who let themselves bullied and act as if it is a privilege. The privilege is theirs when we buy their games. They are not doing us any favors by being on PC as a platform. They are there because it is a lucrative market. And anyone who thinks they will just completely abandon it because of a little pushback against anti consumerism is deluding themselves, or worse spreading unsubstantiated fud.

I'll never support a closed market on PC, and if you do, then you're the problem. I don't blame epic, I blame those who let themselves bullied and act as if it is a privilege.

Don't you think "bullied" is a bit of a stretch? They (Epic) are offering product X on store Y - and as usual, we are free to accept or reject it. People accepting it aren't "bullied" - they have weighed the options, and their calculus differs from yours.

If I have no issue with EGS - what is the down side of me obtaining the game and enjoying it? I understand some people would like a different store - awesome. Vote with your wallet. But I may have a different value assessment, and it isn't made from ignorance, or malice.

You're only a monopoly if you abuse your market position.
Incorrect. You're a de facto monopoly if you control a majority of marketshare in a field, whether you're behaving well or not.
Steam never abused theirs.
Companies that never abuse their position usually aren't fined 3 million dollars for violating laws with anti-consumer practices.
https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-and-ubisoft-fined-over-steam-and-uplay-refund-policies-in-france/
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...fund-policy-found-in-breach-of-australian-law
https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-is-be...on-over-suspected-anti-competitive-practices/

Don't you think "bullied" is a bit of a stretch? They (Epic) are offering product X on store Y - and as usual, we are free to accept or reject it. People accepting it aren't "bullied" - they have weighed the options, and their calculus differs from yours.

If I have no issue with EGS - what is the down side of me obtaining the game and enjoying it? I understand some people would like a different store - awesome. Vote with your wallet. But I may have a different value assessment, and it isn't made from ignorance, or malice.

Bullied is the wrong analog, but Epic is behaving more like the ticket scalpers of PC Gaming. Trying to buy up all the supply so that you can only get the games from them. Do you see ticket scalpers as problematic? We can apply the same asinine arguments people are to EGS - "ticket scalping isn't illegal, it's capitalism bro".

Does anyone really trust Epic and emboldened publishers not to price-fix games at \$60 once they've gained enough marketshare to arrogantly get away with it? Why wouldn't they continue their anti-consumer tactics if its profitable? Bye bye cheap game keys from competing third party sites.

You try to elevate yourself above the rest, not a good start imo.

It was perhaps badly written message, I was trying to step back and looking from a 3rd person view looking at both from the publisher's point of view and consumer point of view while you are strictly talking from a consumer (your personal) point of view. As an objectivist I think it's important to be able to try look from different people's views and try to picture how they are looking at things and not only talk from your personal opinion so you can get a better understanding on the matter so you can better come to a compromise. If PC gamers aren't willing to budge one bit on the matter, I don't think devs & publishers will either in this case unfortunately and I think it's more likely that they'll search for alternative options than cave in to the criticism as the first option.

The revenue EGS takes is only less if you don't account for lost sales and to 3rd party sales. As a dev/publisher can take as much keys from steam as they wish to sell to 3rd parties or for retail distribution. And steam takes no commission on those sales. Valve only takes the 30 / 20% on games that are sold directly on the steam store.
As opposed to the epic store which doesn't even offer 3rd party keys, let alone commission free.

This is a fair point that I agree with. Steam from a marketing point is probably not capitalizing on this from a marketing standpoint meanwhile Epic is so loudly touting the magic number 12% and comparing it to the worst case scenario 30% number, probably Valve aren't taking Epic very seriously at this point and perhaps think it'll blow over in time that they'll just sit it out for now.

Negative reviews are the only way people can make their voices heard in a way that is not easily ignored. It is a protest. And I won't shed a tear for those developers who sell their souls for a few dollars more. I wish they would fail.
But this is a completely unrealistic scenario. No dev will go out of business because their old games get a few negative reviews on steam. Poor ratings on 5-6 year old games hardly affects their pockets. But it has the power to bring attention to the fact that they're doing something anti-consumer. Honestly , how many copies of bordlerlands 1-2 is sold on steam nowadays, what do you think? And how many people decide against buying it due the recent change in ratings? One or two a week? I'm sure that will bankrupt them.

OK, maybe not all people will shed a tear if their favorite games are getting negatively affected but I bet a lot of people cares. I have experience of favorite titles getting ruined by similar cases because of overly negative feedback from a small group of people that ultimately have misslead the project development off the rails.

In regards to reviewbombing of course I agree with you on old games like Borderlands 1-2, I was only thinking of reviewbombing on alpha/beta/just launched games where the impact will be far greater.

Only the most out of touch / biased individuals say that gamers are entitled in a pejorative. What makes us entitled? That we complain about a negative change? Should we just tow the party line, and never complain about any change that affects us negatively, otherwise we are"entitled" ?
"You'd better not complain because they'll take away your games completely" Is that really your argument? LOL. We are still the consumer, we give them money, they won't abandon a market just because we stand our ground. They can get away with shit like this because most are weak minded and lack the stamina to fight back. If nothing else by not buying the games that were signed away as exclusives.

From a game developer's perspective it's easy to percieve PC gamers as an "entitled bunch" as you sign up for PC game development you kind of sign up also for following:

- Expectation of widely supported PC hardware
- Expecation of a HUGE amount of options, significantly better graphics and widely configureable graphic and gameplay settings
- Significantly expensier PC hardware in comparison to console hardware (rules out certain gamers, potential risk factor as the pricing is more varying in this market based on external factors)
- Expectation of widely available publishing/platform options

I think it's not farfetched to think that some developers are maybe opting for console market for much easier to please crowd, less efforts required to meet the "standards" PC gamers tend to have. Especially if PC hardware cost is on the rise like it has been recently and other factors like PC gamers are more willing to publicly resolt into mass boycott/criticism which have been a clear growing trend for the last year or so "Monkey see, monkey do" -principle, it just continues to become more normal thing to do. I don't expect to see a sudden shift but I see this as a potential start of a bad downwards spiral that the end result will come after many years, first it maybe might mean more and more "console first, PC port 2nd" releases like Red Dead Redemption and GTA games which already is a bad thing for PC gamers as it means they won't likely be fully optimized for PC and is launched much later. Remember this might be just the tip of the iceberg we're witnessing now, the situation could still become worse potentially.

You're only a monopoly if you abuse your market position. Steam never abused theirs. Epic alredy does. I'll not support such a company, no matter how much money they give to the devs (that will get pocketed by the greedy execs who signed the deal in the first place)
I'll never support a closed market on PC, and if you do, then you're the problem. I don't blame epic, I blame those who let themselves bullied and act as if it is a privilege. The privilege is theirs when we buy their games. They are not doing us any favors by being on PC as a platform. They are there because it is a lucrative market. And anyone who thinks they will just completely abandon it because of a little pushback against anti consumerism is deluding themselves, or worse spreading unsubstantiated fud.

I would disagree with that statements as someone already linked to here. Fair point but I think it's also fair point that other people could see those people as stubborn if they rather hold onto their principles tightly and see PC game scene developing negatively because the devs & publishers and gamers can't make any compromises and devs if going the console option and the market develops in such a way that console market becomes more and more viable option.

Last edited:
Bullied is the wrong analog, but Epic is really behaving more like the ticket scalpers of PC Gaming. Trying to buy up all the supply so that you can only get the games from them. Do you see ticket scalpers as problematic? We can apply the same asinine arguments people are to EGS - "ticket scalping isn't illegal, it's just capitalism bro".

This isn't scalping. People don't seem to get that this behavior has been happening on consoles for years. Exclusives are part of the industry. My defense for Epic is that I don't really see them as having another option. Your average PC user seems to be vehemently against shopping anywhere but Steam. Steam is too big to just offer up another option and try to get people to switch. The only way to compete with them is brute force. EGS's methods may not be eloquent, but I believe they may be necessary.

Does anyone really trust Epic not to price-fix games at \$60 once they feel they've gained enough marketshare to arrogantly get away with it? Why wouldn't they continue their anti-consumer tactics if its profitable? Bye bye cheap steam keys from third party sites.

I keep seeing posts discussing Epic and the prices of their games and I'm honestly confused. Epic has no control over the prices of the products it sells. That is entirely up to the publisher. If the price has been lowered (such as Metro) that was the publishers decision. If the price is \$60, that is also the publishers decision. Epic really has nothing to do with this at all.

I assume what people really are worried about is the fact that Steam keys can be purchased by third party suppliers like GMG, and Epic keys can't. I could be wrong, but I very much expect that to change. People seem to forget that EGS is a 6 month old platform and Steam is a 15 year old platform. The head-start is astronomical. Borderlands 3 has a collectors edition for PC that can be pre-ordered, so I have to assume they have some sort of solution for key generation and redemption for physical copies. I'm sure we'll see this expanded so publishers can sell their own keys and do business with companies like GMG.

If this still hasn't happened a year from now, bitch away... but I do think EGS deserves a change to catch up.

This isn't scalping. People don't seem to get that this behavior has been happening on consoles for years. Exclusives are part of the industry. My defense for Epic is that I don't really see them as having another option. Your average PC user seems to be vehemently against shopping anywhere but Steam.
We already had crap like that happening with Acti-Blizzard, no need to encourage it
I think you meant "your average Steam user"; GoG users are quite happy to not always shop at Steam (not to mention publisher storefronts).

I keep seeing posts discussing Epic and the prices of their games and I'm honestly confused. Epic has no control over the prices of the products it sells. That is entirely up to the publisher. If the price has been lowered (such as Metro) that was the publishers decision. If the price is \$60, that is also the publishers decision. Epic really has nothing to do with this at all.
Epic has nothing to do with Epic's store pricing? They've arranged for games to be exclusive to their store, I'm sure they could do the same for a price knockdown.

We already had crap like that happening with Acti-Blizzard, no need to encourage it
I think you meant "your average Steam user"; GoG users are quite happy to not always shop at Steam (not to mention publisher storefronts).

I know there are other storefronts, but most of them are exclusive to first-party titles. GOG is the obvious exception, but I admittedly don't shop their often, my assumption is that they are largely void of new, AAA games due to the DRM free stance. I don't think it's really comparable.

Epic has nothing to do with Epic's store pricing? They've arranged for games to be exclusive to their store, I'm sure they could do the same for a price knockdown.

That may be venturing into illegal territory, I think they are smarter than that. I really don't see them wanting to try and control pricing, and I also don't really see publishers wanting to sacrifice that. Getting upset because the possibility exists despite no evidence is a stretch at best, and sort of proves people will find any reason to hate on Epic.

That may be venturing into illegal territory, I think they are smarter than that. I really don't see them wanting to try and control pricing, and I also don't really see publishers wanting to sacrifice that.
I meant something along the lines of sales on Steam, but the money for the discount comes from the Epic battlechest.

"PCMasterRace"

This isn't scalping. People don't seem to get that this behavior has been happening on consoles for years. Exclusives are part of the industry. My defense for Epic is that I don't really see them as having another option. Your average PC user seems to be vehemently against shopping anywhere but Steam. Steam is too big to just offer up another option and try to get people to switch. The only way to compete with them is brute force. EGS's methods may not be eloquent, but I believe they may be necessary.

It's scalping by every definition. And why should I care what's been going on with consoles for years? Two wrongs don't make a right., and I'm on PC for a reason. I also don't see Sony or Microsoft paying off publishers to stop selling games already for sale on the other platform.

Epic has plenty of options. How about put the work in and actually build a better store, and subsidize the games to be cheaper than Steam and elsewhere. Actually incentivize people coming over, rather than trying to take every new game hostage. Valve built up user trust and goodwill over many years in part because they DIDN'T pull bullshit like Epic is doing. That's what Tim Sweeney can't seem to get through his very dense head - you cannot buy/force/hijack a following, or friends.

Last edited:

Valve built up user trust and goodwill over many years in part because they DIDN'T pull bullshit like Epic is doing.
The devil you know sits on their ass when they get too popular, what will the publicly traded Epic do once they're big enough to not give a shit (let's also not forget Valve is privately owned)?

Knowing what I do of gamers and their sensitivity to outrage. It would seem they are mad because BL3 will be an Epic exclusive?
Oh wow. Imagine game publishers/developers choosing the platform that lets them distribute their game for a lot less cost.

But man oh man. If it were a Steam exclusive, everyone would be happy. Am I hearing this right?

I'll be buying BL3 and probably have a great time with it. Haters gonna hate.

This isn't scalping. People don't seem to get that this behavior has been happening on consoles for years. Exclusives are part of the industry.

The difference is that console makers are trying to sell hardware.

The difference is that console makers are trying to sell hardware.

you say hardware, the industry and marketing say product thus they are the same thing.. one is software the other is physical but the end result is the same \$\$\$\$\$\$\$.

Valve built up user trust and goodwill over many years in part because they DIDN'T pull bullshit like Epic is doing.

actually what valve did was the bare minimum to make sure they weren't considered a monopoly. yes i'm glad there's ways to buy games other than directly from steam but the reality is it took a long ass time for that to even be considered an option and the only reason they did it was to stop the sites that were selling keys to games on their platform against their ToS. it wasn't a good faith gesture to their customers to do it, they just wanted another source of profit.

steam didn't go from nothing to successful over night, it took them a good 5 years before gamers even trusted them and then another 5-6 years to get developers to fully trust them. hell steam as a whole would of completely failed if it wasn't for the fact that they ended up making steam mandatory to update HL1/CS because no one was signing up for it when it first started. you can't just expect epic's store to go from nothing to a direct competitor to steam over night, shit doesn't work like that in the real world. but they sure as hell are doing a better job than ubisoft, origin and all the other "store/launcher" platforms that have come and gone over the last 15 years.

Last edited:
same old shit but different day. Buy the game to play the game, not to bitch about platforms. if you hate epic, go buy a game console and play games there.

you say hardware, the industry and marketing say product thus they are the same thing.. one is software the other is physical but the end result is the same \$\$\$\$\$\$\$.

The point is, no consumer LIKES exclusives. But people have come to accept it with the console industry because they realize it's done to boost hardware sales (from what I hear, console hardware margins are pretty slim, if not at a loss in the beginning).

EGS is trying to sell...what, exactly? An inferior distribution platform.

The point is, no consumer LIKES exclusives. But people have come to accept it with the console industry because they realize it's done to boost hardware sales (from what I hear, console hardware margins are pretty slim, if not at a loss in the beginning).

EGS is trying to sell...what, exactly? An inferior distribution platform.

no only the extreme vocal customers don't like exclusives, most of consumers don't give a shit, it was the same thing when steam first started, you had a small minority including myself that were pissed about having to use another layer of software just to play counterstrike when it worked perfectly fine without it before but the vast majority didn't care and willingly signed up to use it because guess what we had no other choice if we wanted to continue playing counterstrike. but most of the people throwing a fit probably aren't even old enough to remember how much of a pile of crap steam was for the first 5-6 years.

as far as EGS being inferior i just don't see it, it does the exact same things most users use steam for.. you buy a game, you install said game, you launch the game, and periodically you update a game without being annoyed by game ad's when launching it and 50 million clicks to get to things(cough origin).. everything else can be added over time. where my biggest worry lies in if/when they add 3rd party seller affiliation is if either steam or epic put a clause in their ToS that key sellers can't sell games for both platforms because that's where i'll draw the hard line between which platform i use. otherwise i have no issues with using either of them, i just don't leave EGS launcher open unless i'm playing a game on there since it's a whole lot faster to launch and close than steam is.

with consoles the actual hardware is sold at a loss for the first year or so and then takes another 2-3 years to recoup R&D costs, sony never did with the PS3. which is why the big 3 console companies have further shifted to more traditional PC hardware to shorten the time span needed to recoup hardware costs. but game sales are their primary profit. exclusives actually cost them money in the short term because they pay for the exclusivity rights, lose money on the console and lose money on the game sale but what they care about is the potential long term profit that the person buying the game may buy more games for that console which is exactly what epic is trying to do with their platform now and what steam did with theirs back in 2003 when Valve as a developer was relevant until they realized they could make more money on the platform then actually developing games. these are the things ubisoft, origin and all the other companies that tried to create store/launcher combo platforms failed miserably to do.

The devil you know sits on their ass when they get too popular, what will the publicly traded Epic do once they're big enough to not give a shit (let's also not forget Valve is privately owned)?

I like reading about people complaining EGS isn't doing anything to get customers. I guess literally giving games away \$20 games for free every fortnight and selling games for \$5 cheaper than they were on on Steam doesn't count. Yet you hear people say hurr durr they should just sell games for cheaper then I would use it. Well they're doing that and more but you aren't noticing so I guess they better pay for exclusives to get your attention. lmao

Then you get the people complaining about the store not having all the features Steam has. My favorite are when they complain about EGS not having a feature it actually does already have. But yeah Epic totally should have waited another year before releasing their store so it had all those non-critical and obscure features no one really cares about there on day one. Not having a feature is literally censoring my free speech LOL Releasing a perfectly working product and adding to it like they are now is so dumb amirite? I'm sure you'll all stop using Steam once EGS gets more features because Steam will be a crap inferior product.

I can't wait to hear the next crazy excuses for not wanting to click another icon.

My mouse has very strong click resistance, the act of starting Epic's launcher tires me out so much that I have to quit the game before I get enough enjoyment out of it.

Nah, I'm just throwing them out there and seeing what sticks. I've heard the colour scheme of their website will make you impotent.

Don't you think "bullied" is a bit of a stretch? They (Epic) are offering product X on store Y - and as usual, we are free to accept or reject it. People accepting it aren't "bullied" - they have weighed the options, and their calculus differs from yours.
No, Epic is setting up shop and telling you you are no longer buying games from anyone else but me. That is the very definition of bullying wouldn't you say? "Buy it from me or don't buy it at all!"

People who only weigh how much it affects them personally right now with no consideration of other repercussions of this practice are not a model to follow or praise.
If I have no issue with EGS - what is the down side of me obtaining the game and enjoying it? I understand some people would like a different store - awesome. Vote with your wallet. But I may have a different value assessment, and it isn't made from ignorance, or malice.
Indifference is no better than malice in terms of the end result. But I do think it's ignorance. Ignorance of what this means for the future.

I don't know how can this simple but world changing difference elude you all: If store exclusivity becomes everyday practice on PC, it will be the end of price competition. Stores with exclusive deals can set the price freely, as there is no competition to consider. Nobody will be able to undercut them if nobody is allowed to sell the same product.

But man oh man. If it were a Steam exclusive, everyone would be happy. Am I hearing this right?

But yeah Epic totally should have waited another year before releasing their store so it had all those non-critical and obscure features no one really cares about there on day one.

Not having a feature is literally censoring my free speech LOL

Nothing but strawmen in this thread as substitute for having an argument.

And still not a single example of anything EGS brings to the table that is of ANY benefit to the consumer, or how Epic desperately trying to steal every new game coming out (before Fortnite turns into a pumpkin) makes anything better for gamers. None. I'm tossing cards into a hat.

I hope the publishers have early exit clauses in their pact with Epic, or they're in for some pain and devaluation of their IP.

Last edited:
It was perhaps badly written message, I was trying to step back and looking from a 3rd person view looking at both from the publisher's point of view and consumer point of view while you are strictly talking from a consumer (your personal) point of view. As an objectivist I think it's important to be able to try look from different people's views and try to picture how they are looking at things and not only talk from your personal opinion so you can get a better understanding on the matter so you can better come to a compromise. If PC gamers aren't willing to budge one bit on the matter, I don't think devs & publishers will either in this case unfortunately and I think it's more likely that they'll search for alternative options than cave in to the criticism as the first option.
As a consumer why should I care about the publisher viewpoint? I know why they are doing it, that doesn't mean I'm willing to endorse it.
You talk as if publishers have the option to leave the consumers behind. I know they wish they could just discard the consumer as garbage and not deal with us, but they can't do that. They can give more cut to the developer without hurting the consumers. There is no either or decision here. It's not that I want developers to get less, but it is not my fight, and I won't be a willing casualty of the infighting of storefronts.

This is a fair point that I agree with. Steam from a marketing point is probably not capitalizing on this from a marketing standpoint meanwhile Epic is so loudly touting the magic number 12% and comparing it to the worst case scenario 30% number, probably Valve aren't taking Epic very seriously at this point and perhaps think it'll blow over in time that they'll just sit it out for now.
It is not the 12% that brings publishers to epic, it is the kickbacks and guaranteed payouts. Steam cannot do anything but do the same thing : Buy their own exclusives. And I'm glad they are not doing that, because it is a terrible practice whoever does it. If steam would start the practice of exclusives I'd be against that the same as I'm against epic exclusives. I'm not a hypocrite.

OK, maybe not all people will shed a tear if their favorite games are getting negatively affected but I bet a lot of people cares. I have experience of favorite titles getting ruined by similar cases because of overly negative feedback from a small group of people that ultimately have misslead the project development off the rails.

In regards to reviewbombing of course I agree with you on old games like Borderlands 1-2, I was only thinking of reviewbombing on alpha/beta/just launched games where the impact will be far greater.
That is an unrelated phenomenon and I spoke out against hearsay reviews vehemently in the past on multiple occasions.

From a game developer's perspective it's easy to percieve PC gamers as an "entitled bunch" as you sign up for PC game development you kind of sign up also for following:

- Expectation of widely supported PC hardware
- Expecation of a HUGE amount of options, significantly better graphics and widely configureable graphic and gameplay settings
- Significantly expensier PC hardware in comparison to console hardware (rules out certain gamers, potential risk factor as the pricing is more varying in this market based on external factors)
- Expectation of widely available publishing/platform options
So if I expect a carpenter to build a roof that stands up to all reasonably expected weather in the area I'm entitled?
These are common industry standards that if they don't meet then of course they get called out. Still they have the gal to try it on from time to time.
It is in their best interest to make their products widely available if they want to make a profit.

I think it's not farfetched to think that some developers are maybe opting for console market for much easier to please crowd, less efforts required to meet the "standards" PC gamers tend to have. Especially if PC hardware cost is on the rise like it has been recently and other factors like PC gamers are more willing to publicly resolt into mass boycott/criticism which have been a clear growing trend for the last year or so "Monkey see, monkey do" -principle, it just continues to become more normal thing to do. I don't expect to see a sudden shift but I see this as a potential start of a bad downwards spiral that the end result will come after many years, first it maybe might mean more and more "console first, PC port 2nd" releases like Red Dead Redemption and GTA games which already is a bad thing for PC gamers as it means they won't likely be fully optimized for PC and is launched much later. Remember this might be just the tip of the iceberg we're witnessing now, the situation could still become worse potentially.
The console market is not an alternate to the PC market, they are independent. Exiting one means you cut yourself off from that revenue. If a dev wants to only develop to console, then they can do it. But it yields better returns if the game reaches more people.

Last edited:
you say hardware, the industry and marketing say product thus they are the same thing.. one is software the other is physical but the end result is the same \$\$\$\$\$\$\$.

actually what valve did was the bare minimum to make sure they weren't considered a monopoly. yes i'm glad there's ways to buy games other than directly from steam but the reality is it took a long ass time for that to even be considered an option and the only reason they did it was to stop the sites that were selling keys to games on their platform against their ToS. it wasn't a good faith gesture to their customers to do it, they just wanted another source of profit.

steam didn't go from nothing to successful over night, it took them a good 5 years before gamers even trusted them and then another 5-6 years to get developers to fully trust them. hell steam as a whole would of completely failed if it wasn't for the fact that they ended up making steam mandatory to update HL1/CS because no one was signing up for it when it first started. you can't just expect epic's store to go from nothing to a direct competitor to steam over night, shit doesn't work like that in the real world. but they sure as hell are doing a better job than ubisoft, origin and all the other "store/launcher" platforms that have come and gone over the last 15 years.
Valve did two things.

1) Chugged along until they fixed their client and DRM to make them easier
2) Intertwined Steam with its own products in an anti-competitive way (<= basically Counter-Strike and Half-Life 2). This the only bad-ish thing Steam did to become a monoploy
3) Helped introduce Volume pricing to the marketplace. circa 2008, 90% specials on a game, were unheard of and only enabled by Digital Distribution where cost of selling additional copies of a game became trivial so you could still make a profit at \$10 or less. You just sold 10,20,30x more copies than you would have.

#3) is how Steam got important. #3 with Consumers settling on Steam as their primary Digital Distributor. #2 is the only thing they did wrong and nobody is going to really care about a couple of video games.

Now that being said if they are a monopoly, they still have some obligation. But they really didn't do shit to cause that outside of HL2 and CS. although technically you could get those through other means.

Last edited:
Actually no, to me that's the reason they are the villain. Offering an inferior product (which EGS is to Steam) certainly won't get me to buy from you, but it won't make me hate you either. You'd just be a choice I would skip over. Not bad or good. Paying off distributors so I can't buy goods at a store I like makes me dislike you and now I won't buy from you out of principle. At least before if you later on out-competed them through ways that offered a better product or experience I'd consider your store. Now even if they do that I won't shop there out of dislike for them.

this.
very much this.

This is why i stopped buying consoles and just skipping titles that were console exclusives. why would i not carry that same attitude forward when you forcibly prevent me from using a client of my choice on an otherwise supported platform?