• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Some of them are convinced to

    So not being on Steam isn’t widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      ‘But if not being on Steam means they can’t get enough money, how would more money help?’

      You cannot be serious.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You’ve been saying everyone in the industry knows not being on Steam means your game won’t be successful and it warps the industry around it.

        You’ve also been saying that Alan Wake 2 was guaranteed to make a lot of money if they released on Steam.

        So given these two arguments you’ve been making, why would a company choose to make less money by not releasing on Steam?

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 minutes ago

          Epic… funded… the game.

          Remedy took money up-front, expecting it to be more money than they would make later.

          Being on Steam means access to customers, and more sales. You said so. So Epic, to promote the Epic Game Store, estimated how much revenue Alan Wake 2 would lose by not being on Steam, doubled it, and wrote that on a check.