Riiight, the customers benefited so much when Metro: Exodus was removed from Steam due to a last-minute moneyhatting agreement. Absolutely laughable.
So you're gonna blame the company who offered that agreement, or the developers who voluntarily accepted that agreement instead? Whose really "at fault" there?
Forcing players to create an extra account and increase their risk of falling victim to database hacks for no value in return? Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would get riled up about that. And don't kid yourself, players have voiced their displeasure at pointless secondary launchers and accounts since the day of GFWL, if not beyond. Your SIE isn't getting uniquely persecuted here.
Just people people have complained about secondary accounts in the past doesn't mean them doing it now is the exact same, or even justified. With the PSN situation, yes I think SIE forcing it for regions where PSN wasn't even available was a stupid idea. I think them removing games from those regions instead of bringing PSN to them is a stupid idea.
That said, the FUD and narratives formed around PSN in particular by many PC players was unusual, and IMO seemed agenda-driven. SIE capitulating to them with the HD2 stuff they way they did made them look pretty weak IMO, but I guess that got them some longer-term goodwill hence HD2 still dominating Steam sales charts. I think your concern about database breaches is exaggerated, because whether it's one login or seven, once you put that info out there in
ANY company's hands, you are always at some small risk.
You know these publishers want player metrics so they can provide to shareholders and bolster their monetization efforts. They are going to find a way to do this, regardless if people want them to or not. Given some of the other alternatives, and understanding how the real world functions, you'd think some of these PC gamers on places like Steam would eventually shut up about multiple launchers. It's just a reality these publishers need, after all it's a business.
In my 13 years on Steam, I've not come across a single person who was upset that a game was available on another PC storefront on top of Steam. You must have been incredibly unlucky to run into such sorts or are exaggerating.
That's not what I'm saying. My point is, when many people keep saying "I just want them on PC", they are basically just saying "I want them on Steam" because that is the storefront of choice for people who share those sentiments. Because the moment some of them see a game get a PC announcement, but not for Steam, these same people start saying things like the game's destined to fail, it needs a Steam version ASAP, etc.
As a separate observation, those things may be true. However, it also feels like those people are just wanting to wish and will it into reality, just wanting the game to get a Steam release so they can get it there. It's very persistent when certain games get EGS timed exclusivity (and so what if it's about exclusivity? If people really felt about it they'd be more vocal about Steam-exclusive games going to other storefronts).
Tough. If they expect sympathy from consumers because they're twenty years late to the scene and are getting all precious over a 20-30 percent middleman tax, then they're absolute fools.
Okay. And, they have the choice of choosing not to cater to that market. Considering where most multiplats are still getting the lion's share of their sales and money, they wouldn't be mistaken in ignoring catering to said market.
But I don't think Sony are fools. I think they're wise enough to learn from the lessons of EA and Activision or the abysmal failure of EGS and understand that making games exclusive to their launcher would significantly hinder, if not be outright ruinous towards their efforts on PC.
The idea itself is not flawed because, again, Steam has exclusives. People don't seem to have a problem with that (nor should they IMO). The issue is
always in the execution; this idea that exclusives are fundamentally bad only exists (fundamentally) among diehard fanboys of two specific platforms: Xbox and Steam.
The former, because of everything happening with their console and because Phil Spencer's laid the groundwork for that narrative to take hold. The latter, because they really just want every other console's exclusives to be on Steam Day 1 so they don't need a console anymore. Neither of these groups are legitimate, and if you're a corporation in the games business where you know firsthand the benefits of exclusivity, well, you can safely ignore their complaints.
I would be delighted to see Valve's games available on other platforms. I don't think any reasonable soul would take issue with the Half-Life series coming to GOG, for example.
Cool. But where are the other Steam fanatics asking for this to happen? The games media, where are they asking and pressing about it? Influencers? You see where I'm going with this?...
Valve has never paid a third-party for platform exclusivity. That's entirely on the publishers. Valve instead adds value to their platform by continually improving their client's functionality far beyond any other launcher. In short, they offer a superior end-user experience: that's competition.
You're repeating basically what I already said, about them providing features and QOL that appeal to customers. But I never said Valve paid for 3P exclusives; I said they basically enjoy the privilege of defacto 3P exclusives due to the size of their platform on Steam. It's not all this dissimilar to what we saw with the PS2 generations ago, especially past 2002.
I also never said Valve having those defacto 3P exclusives was a bad thing; in fact it's something that also adds value to the Steam platform because for all the features you can have, that doesn't mean anything if you don't have content to use those features. Which is why your idea of competing solely on features, especially for a new storefront, is completely unrealistic. You need both matching/superior features
AND exclusive games to make any encroachments on a super-dominant platform like Steam.
We have simply too many examples through gaming and entertainment history to prove that to be true. What helped systems like the Genesis against Nintendo? Great system hardware/features AND exclusives like Sonic. What about 360 against PlayStation? Again, great features, but
ALSO exclusives like Gears of War, Halo 3, and Mass Effect. How about the PS3 regaining momentum against 360? Drastically improved features, and once again, also exclusive hits like TLOU, Uncharted 2 & 3, GT5 etc.
We don't even have to just look at gaming; how do you think services like HBO MAX and Disney+ have been able to gain market share while competing against entrenched platforms like Netflix? You think they've done that with just better UI & features?
No! They've also been pushing tons of exclusive content, whether that be The Penguin, TLOU, WandaVision or Loki. This is the reality: if you're in an entertainment space, you can't half-ass and compete against entrenched major market leaders with
just features or
just exclusives (well, maybe if you were a Nintendo-like you could get away with just exclusives but I doubt it).
You need both, simple as that.
^^ Spot on.
If Sony cancelled the PC ports the shareholders would be pissed.
Uh, shareholders have
literally expressed worry that the PC ports are negatively impacting the console.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
and
Bryank75
get so worked up exclusives. Sony porting their games legitimately had a huge impact on their psyche. 
partner.steamgames.com
