LED lighting that doesn't illuminate the key labels? Sorry, but that must be the most idiotic design decision ever...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: TuxeeInterestingly are all those successful indie titles not only successful but also f*cking good. Hundreds of them: Dead Cells, Everspace, Limbo, Factorio, Mindustry, Opus Magnum, Stardew Valley, Terraria, Among Us...
One could say: That's the reason. And not because they got a popular spot on the carousel.

Ah! That's the reason ! That's why these devs, who got thousand plus sales before the algorithm change, suddenly experience less than a hundred sales afterwards? Good to know. Quality of games. Quality... that... suddenly, within weeks... deteriorated exponentially...?

Okay.

Yes, I am still convinced that that is the reason (plus something like "serving a popular genre" and it doesn't imply that every "good" game will be successful). Can you back up your claims (or rather the indie developers you follow on Twitter) with some hard data? Or at least name some of those titles? How can this ominous "algorithm change" explain that certain indie developers are still going strong (Mimimi Games or Motion Twin)?
This feels more like these statements that the Linux market share is "skewed" because the the survey "doesn't show up", "shows up on Windows more often", "shows up only after re-installs (which happen on Windows often, on Linux never)", etc.

Second edit:
To clarify I am aware of the buzz the algorithm change caused in 2018(?) which was allegedly fixed soon after that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWhy do you think competition would hurt, by the way? Your words don't explicitly state that, true, but are highly suggestive of it.

I don't think that competition hurts and I am rooting for underdogs - hence I am on Linux, browse with Firefox and have AMD hardware (though I should probably switch to Intel for that...)
But in what way would this lawsuit - if successful - foster competition? In what way would lowering the 30% share achieve that?
From what I understand you mean the reduction of Valve's share can either lead to lower prices for the customer OR better support by the developers. Correct?
However, for an unknown reason I can't use the Epic Store as an example how lowering the cut leads to same prices AND worse user experience. Yes, in an ideal world this might work out. In reality it just doesn't. With the 30% share you have game developers on Steam who care for their customers and plenty who don't. Why should this be in any way different when Steam, say, charges 25%? Or 22%? Or 29.90%? Lowering the cut might also lead to reducing the service by Valve (after all the developer can take up instead). But what to drop? Forums? Modding and workshops? Cloud syncing? Region specific pricing?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TuxeeIn what way would a reduction of Valve's share change this situation? It would actually force remaining alternatives out of the market.

Reduction of Valve's share would mean people are using somewhere else - so overall share to the customer wouldn't be decreased. Unless shady deals are pushing people elsewhere without choice (and that's not really competition), then it's by offering better deals, better services, better value to a customer.
Or, Valve would do better to keep people.
Either way the customer wins.

That's some wacky reasoning... (Or maybe I am too dim, but I doubt that.)

The prices for the customer stay exactly the same. Valve might drop services. The customer has no benefit whatsoever except the vague promise of "better games" because the developers earn more. (Wasn't that one of the selling points of the Epic Store?)

The Epic Store is there. And from what I can tell: Apart from the free games people get there, there is nothing that can be counted as a "win for the customer".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: TuxeeIf you don't sell anything, you won't pay. And if you have to rely on the additional few percent per sale you can get on alternative stores you have been doomed from the get go.

Obviously, but if you think in the low-margin world of indie development a difference of 10-15% in income cannot make the difference between "can live from it" and "nope!", then you are sorely mistaken.

Makes sense from your perspective since you also state that

Quoting: TheSHEEEP3% is a very good profit margin as every trader on this planet will tell you

(Haven't met a trader who assured me that 3% is really all they would strife for.)

Quoting: TheSHEEEPEpic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost.

I have never been on the Epic store (naturally), but from what I have heard the whole thing is laughable in comparison to Steam. Which makes me wonder whether these 12% would suffice for all the things Steam (potentially) has to offer. Let alone their contributions to the - definitely not profitable - Linux gaming world.

Take this a step further: Valve becomes "less greedy" and drops the quote to 15%. I suppose even if they wouldn't make any profit from it, it would help them to take GOG out of business, with Epic to follow. If it takes longer to wipe the slate clean, well, they could drop this Linux crap. And/or cut down a few servers.
I what way would that help anyone? Apart from a few desperate developers of "me too" indie games? (There might always be a few games and developers not making it into the limelight despite being good - has been the same for the last 35 or 40 years.)

I don't know whether 30% is excessive or adequate but neither does anyone else on this forum.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestValve need competition against Steam. The reality is that it's the main place to get most games, and it's the primary point of purchase for just about anything. I've seen a good many comments on this very site that if a game isn't on Steam, they won't buy it. If a developer wants a game to be successful, they've practically no choice but to put in on Steam (exceptions exist of course, but for the vast majority this is quite true).

Valve have far too much influence as a distribution platform. It's not healthy for the gaming ecosystem. They can pretty much do what they want with impunity, and that's really not good.

At about this point I'm sure several people will be foaming at the mouth and already typing out something furiously, but at no point above did I say Valve were bad or evil. They've reached this position by being good at the business. My point is that the situation is bad, and the situation is harmful to gaming, particularly on GNU/Linux.

On a parallel note, the flood of crap on Steam is really harmful to developers, and customers too. Part of the reason I continue to support GOL is for discovering nice games. Something like Vaporum I'd never have seen were it not covered on this site. Valve's so-called "algorithm" is basically just a way for them not to have a hand in any sort of store curation. While there are arguments for and against that, if Valve don't have a hand in it, they shouldn't take money for it. That 30% cut of theirs is, I believe, too much.

The real solution is some competition to force the market to be a little more friendly. The problem with that now is being really difficult to get into the market: Epic did it by spending an awful lot of money to get exclusives, and personally I think they botched it (to say nothing of completely ignoring GNU/Linux).

In what way would a reduction of Valve's share change this situation? It would actually force remaining alternatives out of the market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineThe point is how they get popular. If the algorithm was fairer for new titles, then indies would have a better chance at leveraging Steam and becoming the next big thing. But since it doesn't, they never hit the front-page and the same tired (but popular) games are constantly regurgitated on the carousel and in the discovery queues.

My carousel:

Total War: Rome - Ark - Rimworld - Under Leaves - Last Epoch - Poly Bridge - Rain on Your Parade - Space Haven - 7 Days to Die - Universim - Project Hospital

Quite a mixture I'd say...

Discovery New Releases:
Battle in the City - ADD - Lair Hockey - Neon Nights (Boooobs!) - Creatura - ....

An endless stretch of indie titles. And in all honesty: neither do I pay attention the carousel (never) nor do I care about the queues. Must have been the first time that I clicked through the first couple of entries.
Interestingly are all those successful indie titles not only successful but also f*cking good. Hundreds of them: Dead Cells, Everspace, Limbo, Factorio, Mindustry, Opus Magnum, Stardew Valley, Terraria, Among Us...
One could say: That's the reason. And not because they got a popular spot on the carousel.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI follow a lot of indies on Twitter who genuinely despise Steam. Not just for taking a 30% cut, but for taking that cut and giving almost nothing back. They argue that the lure of the biggest audience for gaming is useless when Steam's algorithms are geared to only highlight AAA or "popular" content.

The same argument and frustration is often voiced around Play and Apple's store - they take their 30% cut but unless you magically put out the next minecraft, factorio or limbo, you're gonna languish with pitiful sales until you go out of business.

If you don't sell anything, you won't pay. And if you have to rely on the additional few percent per sale you can get on alternative stores you have been doomed from the get go.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisanceI can't stand it when I see people on forums saying how "game x" has some issue on Proton or Wine and hopefully the developer makes a Linux version some day so they can play it properly. They fail to see that they have no more leverage, they already own the game and the publisher and developer has their money. If someone wants to buy Windows games then by all means do what you want to but it is delusional to think that buying the game without Linux support will somehow make a publisher change their mind about Linux support.

But it happens. Not often, but it does. Most recent example would be Metro Exodus. (OTOH we have publishers who drop their well established Linux ports.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments