Quoting: Liam DaweWe're not talking traditional consoles, we're talking what's basically a portable PC here.

I stand by what I said there. The market for portable PC gaming handhelds has nowhere near hit the proper mainstream yet.

As someone who's once been really passionate about handheld consoles, I second that.
Also, the time when developers had to craft their game for a specific platform is long passed now. Optimisation before this mostly multi-platform era was something else entirely, even more when dealing with handhelds.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: omer666I really hope some day they will get to the beta stage, it's such a great effort.

Not sure if joking or not. It has been what other projects call "stable" for years. It's just bad marketing :(

Not at all!
Yes it's "stable," but not really feature-complete yet, and I think that's why they label it as "alpha".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I really hope some day they will get to the beta stage, it's such a great effort.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The blog post makes a clear and honest statement, which is a good thing.
I think the price equivalency point looks like a monopoly in the way it is enforced more than in itself, and Rosen has been advised to make a lawsuit in this respect.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Not trying to make any point but part of the debate. [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: omer666

Quoting: Guestwow everyone here is an expert at games development and marketing!1!

Yes, because movie critics are all expert filmmakers.

"30% is too much" is not a qualitative assessment but rates a very specific figure. Yet all in this discussion who have stated this failed to come up with the adequate cut Steam deserves.

Anyway, the "discussion" is really getting toxic.

If it is not a qualitative assessment, how can you say 30% is too much? How can you discuss the price of something you don't qualitatively assess?
The discussion can get very toxic indeed, but I think there are smart people in here who want to discuss the issue at hand in a civilised manner.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestwow everyone here is an expert at games development and marketing!1!

Yes, because movie critics are all expert filmmakers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI'm making this argument (on behalf of the Indies I follow) on multiple threads, so I might have lost track of who I was quoting. Sorry. But in any case, my point is that a 30% cut is only justified if Valve add value. They used to, but with the algo changes, they now see no value at all. Honestly, I'm losing track of the various attacks on this position, so genuinely, apologies if I've misread what you're saying.

No harm taken. We can all see why this issue is sensible for Linux gamers, torn between their inclination towards indie devs and the massive impact Steam has had on Linux gaming. And I don't have a clear answer either, it's just that we must keep in mind that there is more than meets the eye.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineWow... why do you think I keep repeating it?? Maybe because people are constantly parroting the same tripe counter-argument that "it must be competition" or "their game must be crap", ignoring the fact that these devs were previously selling in the thousands, then a day later selling almost nothing. Literally a day, btw. Quite a few devs shared sales graphs of the month it happened.

So why do you quote a post with none of those arguments in it? You say publishing an indie game on Steam isn't worth bothering any longer, I tell you this is true, but it doesn't mean the 30% cut is the issue here, which is the real subject at hand in the lawsuit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: x_wingValve creating a feature were game journalists can freely share reviews of games of the platform isn't doing something for you? What's your point here? That Valve should contract reviewers for the platform?

My point, as I wrote originally, was it's not something Valve should take money for.

Buy who said Valve took money for this, or for their algorithm?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe very article you link to also has Epic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost. Yes, no profit from that alone. So increase it to 15%. Now you've got profit

If a 12% cut doesn't make profits with their barebones storefront, how in the world can you imagine a service like Steam could make some with 15%?

I understand developers need to eat, and if you want to maximise profits and scale down services, it is your own right. But it also means Steam is not the place to sell your software.

Quoting: GuestSidestepping the issue there. Valve have far too much control over gaming.

So much control that they can't prevent Epic from buying exclusives and enforcing a lower cut upon the whole market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments