Honestly, that Nurgle/Slaanesh trailer is one of the best that CA have put forth so far.

The "narration" on the gameplay-related videos I find pretty cringy, tbh.
They are telling you about mechanics and improvements, but make it sound like they are narrating some dark grand dark adventure.
Wtf? Just have a normal person tell me normally about gameplay improvements. I don't know if it only triggers ME that much, but I find it really, REALLY odd.

When the game comes out, I don't know if I'll be playing the Linux native version much.
With WH2, you basically had only disadvantages from it. The ports were always weeks behind the Windows version (which also made mods unusable since those move with the Windows versions obviously), the communication from Feral was... not good, to put it mildly, and performance-wise I just don't see that much of a difference. Maybe 10% better on the Linux native version (and definitely faster loading, for some reason).

Cross-play is not something I personally care about a lot, but obviously going to be a dealbreaker for others if it won't be supported.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerYou've still made no argument that Valve's share is "excessive" other than that developers want more money.

I have, as have others, you just didn't read or understand it or chose not to.

I'm just going to quote myself:

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI actually work in this field and no, it isn't free. But you don't need 30% for that. Not even remotely.
15% would be much closer to cover maintenance and still have a small profit.

...
As a developer, if I sell something on a storefront, I'm fine paying the maintenance cost of what I actually use and a bit extra for the storefront's profit - but anything beyond that I'd not be okay with.

FFS, going back, you yourself quoted some source that Valve's breaking even point was 20% (which is bogus if you look at the costs they have just for hosting games and operating their storefront, but hey, even that number still proves the point).
That's a profit margin of 10%. Ten percent. That's not "a bit extra" that I wrote above.
Such a profit margin is unheard of in most fields on this planet.
Wholesale/retail is about 2-3%, services about 6-7%, online retail 1-5%. 10% puts you closer to Apple, and I don't think I need to elaborate how Apple is not exactly engaging in ethical business practice :wink:
Yet even Apple reduced their cut to 15% for smaller devs and are still in wild profit margin regions.

But somehow that's not supposed be "excessive"?!
How can you even arrive at that conclusion?

Quoting: LeopardDevelopers can go with other stores that takes a lower cut like Epic Store if they are not happy.

While I'm quoting myself since people do not read what has been written already, I might as well go on...

Quoting: TheSHEEEPAs others have pointed out, that's not a choice that especially small devs have.
Many gamers quite simply demand a Steam release or they won't buy a game. So, what choice does a developer have here, really?
Lose more money than you should on a sale or lose the entire sale. Hmm...

Big names can somewhat pull that off.
Small devs? I could maybe name a handful that have successfully sold a game outside of Steam.

I honestly find it shocking how people on a gaming forum are so blindly defending bad practices of a huge corporation while simultaneously being anti-developers (the ones providing games for them, usually not by working nicely paid and safe 8-5 jobs) by insisting they should just pay an excessive share and shut up about it just to get their game hosted where most people expect it.

Either way, I'm outta this thread, getting a bit tired of repeating what I or others have already explained.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: micke1mI don't see a problem with valves fee, if you don't like it you don't have to release on Steam.

As others have pointed out, that's not a choice that especially small devs have.
Many gamers quite simply demand a Steam release or they won't buy a game. So, what choice does a developer have here, really?
Lose more money than you should on a sale or lose the entire sale. Hmm...

Big names can somewhat pull that off.
Small devs? I could maybe name a handful that have successfully sold a game outside of Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerThey have millions of pairs of eyeballs they can put your game in front of, and they've invested heavily in putting it in front of the eyeballs of customers that are likely to buy your game, as well as providing detailed sales data about which regions are interested in your game and when interest is generated. If you have a better term for that than "marketing," please share.

That's not marketing, they do none of that for particular games (except their own).
That's just a storefront with useful filtering and suggestion mechanisms, and "ad space" to somehow deal with the flood of games.
And still good games often get drowned out - don't think Valve is to blame for this all that much, but just having a platform with reach and making it comparatively useful to browse is not marketing.
Valve don't do any marketing for games, they only offer a platform for devs & publishers to do it.

Let me see Valve hire some PR people and "community managers" to go into target-audience-relevant communities/contact streamers/etc. for one of the games that pay them a 30% cut and then we can talk about "marketing".
Hell, if they do that, let em ask for 40%!

Quoting: CatKillerYou can get similar services (although arguably not as good) from Sony - who take 30% or Microsoft (again, arguably not as good) - who take 30%. And Valve have invested the money that they've made into the PC gaming ecosystem. Would there be as much money made by developers as easily now if there had been only GameSpy working on only cost-covering margins since 2003?

You are again arguing the strawman that Valve makes better use of their excessive cuts than others do.
How nice. Not the point, not argued against by anyone. Stop it.

Quoting: CatKillerThe only argument ever presented is that developers want more money. And they'll always want more money, whatever the level were set at.

No, the argument is that developers deserve more money from their sales.
They are the ones creating the game, in case you forgot about that. They are the ones gamers should want to benefit as much as possible from their money.
Valve just offers the platform to sell them on - Steam is replaceable (in case competitors ever get their shit together... it's a cosmic joke that so far they don't), the games are not.
To quell the fanboy rage a bit, this is not an attack on Valve, Valve do good. But it is a fact nonetheless.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerDevelopers aren't paying for anything, customers are.

That's semantics, really.
I'd say customers give 100% of the money to the developers, which have to forward 30% of it to Valve. Or customers give 100% to Valve, which withhold 30% from the developer - that's probably more correct.
Either way, developers lose 30% of what the customers were paying for their game. The developers are the ones losing more money in that scenario than they should.
Keep in mind that taxes go on top of that, in the EU that's about 20% gone additionally (unless you add 20% to the price in VAT countries, which I don't think anyone really does).
So from the get-go you lose 50% of value. Ouch. I'd be pissed about that, too.

Did Valve develop or market that game? No. They host its data and provide some (good) service around it - which is fair to compensate, of course, but 1/3rd is excessive. 1/4th or 5th would be much more reasonable, you don't have to do the lowballing that Epic does to just cover the expenses (of the hosting/service).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasIt's easy to judge the 30% cut as "too much", but maintaining all the infrastructure is not free.

I actually work in this field and no, it isn't free. But you don't need 30% for that. Not even remotely.
15% would be much closer to cover maintenance and still have a small profit.

Quoting: LinasAlso Valve is financing a lot of development work in the Linux world: Mesa, Proton, kernel drivers, etc., which benefits people who don't even use Steam.

This is not an argument about if they are making good use of their income, I'd say they do.
It's an argument about if developers should be the ones to pay for all of Valve's extracurricular efforts.

As a developer, if I sell something on a storefront, I'm fine paying the maintenance cost of what I actually use and a bit extra for the storefront's profit - but anything beyond that I'd not be okay with.

Quoting: rustybroomhandleIt's perfectly fine to like or dislike the 30%, but imo there's no legal grounds to sue over it.

That's probably true.
As long as most are willing to pay the cut, it won't change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Bad for devs, good for corporations.
So yes, that was to be expected.

30% cut is and remains too much for what little work Valve has "per unit sold"/per game hosted and for most devs not using what "additional value services" Valve provides, but probably just something devs will have to arrange themselves with - or keep out of Steam, which some successfully do.

About the clause, well that's just weird. Why even make a claim like that if you can't back it up?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MordragIs there any way to support them ? Given the situation I definitly think many would happily pay to support this ...

I'm not sure if them earning money with the project wouldn't actually hurt their position in court.
Unless you mean like a fund raiser for lawyer costs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZlopezI still have the same opinion on this. Once the developer stops supporting the game, release the code under Open Source license, so the game could either live if there is a community around it or die, if it isn't good.

Yes, but then how could you make money with it?

(I know the answer, and that open source doesn't exclude selling a product, but many bored lawyers and clueless executives have no intention of ever understanding this)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can't say I disagree with the article.

Went through quite a number of distros before I ended up on Manjaro, which comes with Plasma by default.

View this comment - View article - View full comments