332
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
332 points (96.9% liked)
Games
32417 readers
807 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure most of them have already been available on GoG for quite some time, I don't know what took them so long to port them over competing storefronts.
Maybe they had an agreement with GOG? This is all personal speculation, but GOG was primarily known as Good Old (Ol'?) Games for a long time, as they would put that under their GOG acronym back in the day. It was essentially a storefront that primarily dealt with classics and keeping them available to consumers before they pivoted and started also focusing a lot on modern games. Maybe my memory is flawed and I'm completely misremembering the old GOG and they've always focused on modern games as well, so anyone feel free to correct me if that's the case.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if GOG struck a deal with a lot of publishers for selling all their classics exclusively. On the flip side, it could also be that the publishers just didn't care enough about their old offerings to put any effort into porting them into other storefronts. Now that retrogaming is much more ubiquitous than it once was, some bean counter pitched this idea in a mid-quarter profit seeking brainstorming meeting and here we are.
GOG doesn't have the money to do exclusives like Epic Games.
I wouldn't think getting exclusive access to 20+ year old games that are mostly obscure would cost very much, but who knows. It was just a theory either way.
Good point that old games mightn't cost as much to exclusivise
literally in the bloody article lmfao.
I didn't see where it says why they took so long to add to Steam?
It's a competitor, they only started using Steam since the profit is better than the pride.
Steam wins on market share. You'd think they would have started on steam if it was to make more money, or added them to Steam a long time ago. I'm sure their reasoning is sound, just curious what it was. Licensing deals, listing cost, whatever. Maybe they waited for all the true believers to get it on gog and now hope they'll all buy again on steam for the achievements. By pride do you mean the Origin failure?
Steam takes a 30% cut of the profit last I read. EA tried to avoid this with Orgin to not pay that 30%. I assume Steam sales have to be pretty good VS Orgin numbers keep using Steam.
People hate using extra launchers, and EA has a reputation of being comic book villain evil. I assume any tiny bits of good will they get from customers is rare and this is low hanging fruit. People also love Steam to the point of not buying a game without it. The 30% cut probably seemed worth the trade for the wriggling masses running EA.
They were on GOG, and it’s for more access to more people and compatibility.
Article was only a few paragraphs, I thought Reddit was bad for people not reading articles, fucking shit lmfao.
Maybe go back to Reddit if your replies are that toxic. I read that. It's the author's opinion that he's happy it's on steam now. It is not the answer to the question, so I thought maybe you had some insight or I misread something. I gave another user (you) the benefit of the doubt that maybe I missed something. Maybe you're in defensive mode from Reddit. It's not needed here
That's not an answer to the question and your reading comprehension is bad if you think it is.
I read the article and it didn't answer my question, so I'm not sure what are you trying to say.
They were on GOG, more access to more people and compatibility.
The article isn’t that long and you missed that?
That's not an explanation of why it took them so long.
It's the article's writer (not an EA representative, so it's just the writer's subjective opinion) saying "the games were already available elsewhere, but it's good they are now available on Steam as well".
Also, you should tone down your snarkiness.