Exclusive to Steam? - A Faint Hope

[Verrucosus]

Given how Civ5 worked, I had resigned myself to Civ6 requiring Steam as well.

However, at 15:58 in this interview

https://www.twitch.tv/twitch/v/72503385

Mr Beach used an interesting turn of phrase when answering a question about multiplayer match-making: "Steam is, you know, a big part of how we roll out to the PC audience, so that is still going to be true, but ... specific details not yet".

I do not understand about multiplayer match-making to put this into a proper context, but I am wondering whether "a big part of" can be read to imply that Steam will not be a requirement this time.

Admittedly, this looks like a a very thin straw to grab, so here is the question: Has there been any explicit statement yet about whether Steam will be required?

 

[Ryika]

Her Question was about multiplayer, and his answer was referring to exactly that. Assuming anything else does indeed seem like grasping for straws to me, especially given that the game has exclusively been added to steam. If it weren't a steam exclusive, it would probably have been added to other stores as well.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I really hope is what Civ should never be Origin-exclusive. Their language-locking policy is terrible. Steam is totally ok.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

hopefully they release it on GOG as well, of it's steam only I'll pass

 

[stealth_nsk]

hopefully they release it on GOG as well, of it's steam only I'll pass

It could be released on GOG once the "O" will be actual (surely after Civ7 or even Civ8 release). What's your problem with Steam?

 

[Plus Ultra]

What's your problem with Steam?

Yeah, what's your problem with Steam? Looking for trouble mate?

 

[StrideColossus]

Yeah, what's your problem with Steam? Looking for trouble mate?

Agreed, not sure what their problem is with Steam.

 

[killmeplease]

i believe steam takes less commission from exclusives so top brands are sold only there as its a biggest store and currently unrivaled

 

[stealth_nsk]

i believe steam takes less commission from exclusives so top brands are sold only there as its a biggest store and currently unrivaled

Yeah, plus it gives a lot of features for devs, starting from DRM. I still remember some DRMs of 10-15 years old, they were a nightmare.

 

[Gorbles]

If people are allowed to have problems with Origin, people are allowed to have problems with Steam.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If people are allowed to have problems with Origin, people are allowed to have problems with Steam.

Yes, sure, I just wanted to know which ones? Most complains I heard about Steam are complains about DRM in general, and DRM is unavoidable for new games.

 

[Ryika]

Steam exclusives are bad because of the same reasons all exclusives are bad... they are a selling point for no reason other than you have to have X to get Y. That staggers development as it keeps Steam floating above its competition even if Steam as a platform lags behind in Features, customer support, etc.

However, I somewhat understand why a developer would choose to do a steam exclusive, as things like workshop integration are indeed limited to that platform. You'd need to create and maintain that infrastructure if you were to release it platform-neutral. And for what reason really? Just to get a worse deal from steam? The number of people who would not buy Civ VI "because Steam" is probably very limited.

 

[killmeplease]

Steam exclusives are bad because of the same reasons all exclusives are bad... they are a selling point for no reason other than you have to have X to get Y. That staggers development as it keeps Steam floating above its competition even if Steam as a platform lags behind in Features, customer support, etc.

ok create your own store and make Civ7 to be your exclusive
ofc Firaxis will agree, just for "no reason"

 

[Ryika]

ok create your own store and make Civ7 to be your exclusive
ofc Firaxis will agree, just for "no reason"

I have no idea what you're trying to say. ^^

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, sure, I just wanted to know which ones? Most complains I heard about Steam are complains about DRM in general, and DRM is unavoidable for new games.

It being unavoidable doesn't mean people aren't allowed to not like it.

Beyond that, these arguments often get very subjective, very quickly. Some people dislike Origin for petty reasons, some people dislike Steam for petty reasons. Others have valid reasons for both. It's difficult to generalise, even fairly. I like and use both, and personally there are aspects of both that could do with improvement.

 

[Drakarska]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. ^^

If I am interpreting KMP's comment correctly, I believe he was attempting to be sarcastic.

Additionally, at least as far as I am aware, forum rules do not prohibit having a distaste for Steam, or voicing that opinion within forum rules.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah I realize he was trying to be sarcastic, I just don't understand why. I don't think his comment has anything to do with the part he quoted, in which I simply explained why exclusives, even on steam, can be problematic.

 

[killmeplease]

i just want to say its beneficial for firaxis to be steam-exclusive if it goes with it
and whats good for devs is good for us consumers

 

[Ryika]

i just want to say its beneficial for firaxis to be steam-exclusive if it goes with it

...yeah, as I wrote in that part that you didn't quote...

and whats good for devs is good for us consumers

No, that's not true. A pseudo-monopoly such as Steam can very well cause problems for consumers, while being good for the devs. If for example steam becomes worse and worse but offers enough profit for developers to keep them releasing Steam-Exclusives, thereby practically "forcing" people to either keep using that platform or skip games that they would want to play that is certainly not ideal for the consumer.

As long as the platform is "just about good enough" that people still buy the games on Steam people won't switch the platform.

If on the other hand exclusives didn't exist all platforms would need to compete with each other directly, which would undoubtedly lead to continuous development of all platforms that want to stay relevant. That's good for the consumer.

An easy example is Steam Refund - if Steam wasn't as dominant as it is that system would probably have created much, much earlier. Origin had the ability to refund way before Steam had.

 

[killmeplease]

No, that's not true. A pseudo-monopoly such as Steam can very well cause problems for consumers, while being good for the devs. If for example steam becomes worse and worse but offers enough profit for developers to keep them releasing Steam-Exclusives, thereby practically "forcing" people to either keep using that platform or skip games that they would want to play that is certainly not ideal for the consumer.

An easy example is Steam Refund - if Steam wasn't as dominant as it is that system would probably have created much, much earlier. Origin had the ability to refund way before Steam had.

more money for devs => bigger the future budget and better the next game
one can tolerate inconvenience for that. but personally i dont meet any inconvenience and i never wanted anything like refunding.

As long as the platform is "just about good enough" that people still buy the games on Steam people won't switch the platform.

and if a platform isnt good enough devs wont stick to it

If on the other hand exclusives didn't exist all platforms would need to compete with each other directly, which would undoubtedly lead to continuous development of all platforms that want to stay relevant. That's good for the consumer.

i think its more a tradeoff (like everything in our life, yin yang and all the stuff), development of what would you want best. if you are for some game, like civ, steam exclusiveness is more beneficial to you than not. if you think games are good enough but internet trade platforms are lacking, exclusives are of course evil.