Why Amazon Luna Failed To Beat Steam

by

In bygone days, one of the colossal global corporations attempted to introduce a competitor to Steam. Today, Luna, this rival platform, is scarcely recalled except when associated with Amazon. Meanwhile, Steam persists and remains unyielding.

Despite numerous benefits, Amazon failed to penetrate the PC gaming market. More recently, one of its key decision-makers shared insights on this unsuccessful venture.

In a LinkedIn post, Ethan Evans, formerly of Amazon Prime Gaming, shares insights gleaned from his experience.

Following the acquisition of Twitch, we thought it prudent to establish a game store for personal computers, assuming that gamers would automatically patronize us due to their existing usage of Twitch. However, this presumption proved incorrect.

Amazon’s endeavors to make a mark in the PC gaming sector date back several years prior to Luna. They began by leveraging Twitch, and also through an earlier purchase of Reflexive Entertainment, they aimed to carve out a niche for themselves.

Additionally, while Twitch remains an integral part of the gaming community, it didn’t align perfectly with their broader goals, making it challenging for them to seamlessly integrate Twitch into their larger plan.

Twitch still holds a significant place in the world of gaming, but it wasn’t a perfect fit for what Amazon was aiming to achieve, and they faced difficulties finding a suitable spot for Twitch within their overarching strategy.

In roughly the same period, we developed Luna – a game streaming platform allowing users to play games even without powerful computers. Similarly, Google introduced Stadia during the same phase. However, neither managed to attract substantial popularity. Throughout this era, Steam remained the leading platform.

Regardless of fierce competition from giants like Amazon and Google in the realm of game streaming, and notwithstanding each platform’s apparent distinctive advantages, it seems that no chink could be found in Steam’s defensive strategy. Conventional business wisdom appears to have fallen short, and Evans offers an explanation for this phenomenon.

It turns out that gamers had already found answers to their issues, so they wouldn’t change platforms merely because a new one emerged on the scene.

We needed to build something dramatically better, but we failed to do so.

It seems that regardless of size or financial resources, tackling a problem doesn’t always yield success. To quote Evans, what was required was the creation of something superior, offering a standard of excellence that Steam couldn’t rival. Unfortunately, this wasn’t achieved, leading to the demise of Luna.

Just because you are big enough to build something doesn’t mean people will use it.

Despite Amazon’s Attempts, Steam Rises Above

As a passionate gamer, I must admit that at present, the Epic Games Store is the main contender challenging Steam’s dominance in the PC gaming marketplace. With its robust corporate backing, it offers an appealing perk – regular free games. Yet, despite this advantage, it remains notably behind Steam in terms of popularity.

Many gamers believe that the primary motivation for using the Epic Games Store is due to its free offerings. However, when it comes to purchasing games, it’s often recommended to opt for Steam instead.

People often explain their preference by pointing out the superiority of service quality. Perhaps it’s because Steam offers certain unique features that the Epic Games Store doesn’t, such as a wide range of social amenities. Alternatively, it could be due to the Epic Games Store missing out on one or more quality-of-life aspects.

Regardless of the passage of time or your financial resources, Steam appears robust enough to withstand any potential challenges, demonstrating its enduring strength.

Read More

2025-02-20 21:12