"If that were true, then you would never see sales for games on Steam or Epic where games have 50-75% discounts, but there are sales like that and often at both."
It's about balance. When you first release your game people are more likely to buy it and you sell it for the highest price. As time goes on, less people buy your game at full price because the ones who really wanted it already have it. Since you have already made some money (and maybe profit, although that's not always the case), you lower the price so that it is appealing to those who are on the fence of buying it, and you keep doing this (both with the base price and sales price) until you can't or don't want to lower it anymore. If you sell it at a much lower price from the get go I am certainly sure that MANY wouldn't be able to make up for the cost of development. A flop, basically, and this has happened many times. If you never lower the price, even if you have already earned enough to cover the expenses, you wouldn't earn as much money overall. You also need to take into account than in many cases it's a gamble. You don't know whether people will like it and buy it or not. Games being discounted by 50-70% doesn't mean that devs can afford to do that from release.
"Then there is no point."
Even if only ONE game is being sold at a lower price, then it's already a win. Of course, many others would do the same. I'm sure some would sell their games for a lower price even without Epic's incentive just to gain popularity for future releases.
"Also, if the difference was so great between what Valve takes and what Epic takes, developers/publishers would be flocking to Epic without the exclusivity deals."
They can't because steam is what most gamers use. Going full Epic exclusivity without a deal from Epic as of now would be suicidal and the game probably dead on arrival in the case of small releases. Devs have said that Epic's exclusivity deal completely prevents them from losing money regardless of how the game sells. The difference is not that big to justify not having the game available to the bigger user base, and Valve is abusing that.
"There would be no need for Steam to change, because it would fail without that."
For this to happen A LOT of people would need to start using Epic's store and stop using Steam. Most don't want to no matter what happens. It's a mixture of attachment and having their whole library of games on Steam. Many people even refuse to download the launcher and claim/play the free games, so imagine what it would take for them to start buying games there.
"I really doubt that many developers/publishers would do that. (Sell games at $49)"
Like I said, even if only one person does it, it's already a win, but Valve won't allow it. It doesn't really matter if everyone does it or no one. They should have the freedom to do it.
"The reason that most console gamers do not play more games on PC is because the hardware can be very expensive (not the games), and overall, it is far less convenient."
For the most part, but some would move to PC. I know people here in my town that quit console gaming to buy a gaming rig because Steam sells games at a lower price than consoles due to regional prices, so the price of games IS an incentive.
@KotomineKirei: Do you know all the expenses they have to cover when making a game? There is a reason why most new games cost $60 and not $40 or less on every store (consoles included). Epic would be the only one selling games for a lower price than the standard, and it's because of their lower cut and probably even an extra incentive. Of course, we're not talking about mainstream games or massive publishers here, and even though small studios tend to sell their new games for less, the same applies.
While you're right in that the price has to be the same, either high or low, what I meant is that Valve knows that they won't start selling their games for a lower price on Steam, but they could afford to do it on epic, so the only option for devs is not to lower the price of games on any store. The whole "sell it for less here too" is just smoke. If they could, then this whole lawsuit wouldn't exist because games would be cheaper on both stores. The cut does matter, and by not lowering it Valve is forcing studios to sell games AS HIGH AS they are being sold on Steam.
18% of $60 is around $11 (the price of many discounted games), so they could potentially sell new games at $49 which would be a win for gamers and also for devs, since they are still earning the usual amount of money for every game sold AND at the same time they would most likely sell more copies than they would at $60. Valve not allowing this hurts both gamers and devs. I'm not saying that everyone would be doing it, but they should be free to do it. We would definitely start seeing lower prices across both stores, and it might even atract customers from the console market.
@OrgeLambart: Because opposite to popular belief, most people only care about free games, and building a library of free games on Epic might drive people to start buying games there. Not that many people care about all these missing features (not saying they are not important). They'll most likely implement them over time, they are just focused on games first.
@seanwil545: It's understandable, and I think this is how most people feel about this whole Steam vs Epic situation. Anyone can buy games wherever they want and support any store they want, but it's important to know what's happening behind the curtains.
MS also tried to abuse their leader status at the beginning of the last console gen and it didn't go well for them. They learned from their mistakes and are now much more gamer friendly.
AhReQueNoMori's comments