The enduring debate on Valve’s Steam versus Epic Games Store rages on. As Epic Games Store persuades developers to join its platform, many studios still prefer to work with the industry-leading platform, and David Szymanski might have given a good reason for this.
The adept hand behind hit indie titles such as Dusk and Iron Lung, the latter of which is getting a live-action adaptation, laid out his candid stance in favor of Valve.
According to Szymanski, he’d very much prefer to align with Valve and endure their 30% fee, viewing it as the favorable alternative compared to supporting Epic’s obvious drive for their monopoly. His concerns with Epic aren’t limited to just mere conjecture. Over the years, Epic’s aggressive tactics, including the push for exclusives, and their seemingly volatile behavior, have been cause for pause. Szymanski brings up a valid point: “Ideological business motivations are only good so long as the ideology isn’t toxic.”
Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly https://t.co/M7p1mQuVFZ
— David Szymanski (@DUSKdev) September 24, 2023
While Epic’s approach can be viewed as driven by business or ideology, it’s the opacity of their true motivations that irks many, including Szymanski.
Others share a similar sentiment, with many drawing attention to the visible reinvestment by Valve of their 30% fee. In recent years, we’ve seen innovations like the Steam Controller, advances in Linux gaming, and commendable open-source contributions. Not to forget, the inception of the VR movement, the recent release of the Steam Deck, and the evident surge in handheld PC gaming. All funded by that very fee which Epic often criticizes.
But, that’s not all. Valve’s extensive user-centric features, including the community hub, a robust mod workshop, and a vast player base, are things that the Epic Games Store simply can’t compete with.
It’s easy to appreciate the dedication that Valve exhibits in pushing niche games to the right audience. It would be hard to imagine a world where games such as Hollow Knight and Hades, among others, were released on different platforms. While their gameplay would’ve helped spread news about their quality via word of mouth, their availability on Steam surely must have helped in getting them traction.
Baldur’s Gate 3, which is on track to win Game of the Year, benefitted from spending a couple of years in Early Access on Steam – a program also available on the Epic Games Store sans the user reviews.
While some were willing to give Epic a chance in its early days, frustrations have only grown. The platform still grapples with user issues, such as recognizing game files. Epic’s stark refusal to support platforms like Linux and the Steam Deck doesn’t bode well, given their vocal stand against Apple and Android’s ecosystems. Such moves only bolster the belief that their interest leans more towards monetary gain than genuine platform openness.
It doesn’t help that Epic, during the Xbox 360 and PS3 era, tried to edge PC gaming out of the market. The firm’s history of seemingly monopolistic endeavors, as evidenced by their handling of the Unreal Tournament franchise, raises eyebrows. With such an approach to their own legacy, how can one entrust them with a game library?
Yet, it’s not all black and white. Epic’s push for exclusives is essential to challenge Steam’s dominant foothold. But years later, with persisting issues and limited platform advancement, such arguments have waned.
Ultimately, the debate on platform preference is a mix of personal and business perspectives. Valve’s commitment to a better PC gaming ecosystem has fostered loyalty among developers and gamers alike. And as Szymanski concludes, the question isn’t about quashing competition. It’s about ensuring that a known entity, which has shown dedication to both developers and gamers, isn’t replaced by an unknown that might prioritize profits over progress.
