Quoting: JSo do you think we will get these happy chappies as a DLC?

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: 1d4chan.org
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

They will be popular....

I mean, everyone knows that there are only ordersome Dwarves and that Dwarves would never succumb to Chaos, so.... no idea what you are talking about.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RedBatmanI'm glad about this. My only worry is that Warhammer 2 had bugs that were bad and Linux was getting some bugs that affected performance. Hopefully they will be fixed by this new release.

The entire engine will be much closer to what you can see in Three Kingdoms or Troy - both totally outperform the WH 2 engine.

No doubt it will be the same with WH3.

Of course you can still expect bugs, though ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerIt's 3 people that have bought games on Steam for themselves, and 2 people that have bought games on Steam for their children (which they think means they aren't themselves subject to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, despite them necessarily checking the box to say that they are). They aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

How disappointing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wingOh, and I completely disagree on labeling people as you do. Buying a game on release date doesn't mean that you're an impulsive person, it just mean that you really enjoy a game. And that's what Epic exploits with their exclusivity.

So enjoy the game later, then! If not buying on Epic is so important to you. When I see that a game is on EGS that I know I'd really like to play, I simply wait. Is having to make that decision a disadvantage? Sure, but a very minor one. It's not like that is some herculean feat of willpower.

If making excuses for people not even able to deal with some irrational FOMO being suckered into buying from a store they don't actually want to buy from is what rocks your boat, have fun I guess.

If I get suckered into doing something I think I shouldn't do, it's my fault and nobody else's. Might even grant the other party some kudos as they got the better of me. What I won't do is blame them for something I did, as that would be pathetic.

Quoting: F.UltraTook me until I read the actual filing to realise that the 5 plaintiffs where all gamers, I for some reason thought that they where game developers.

Are you sure about this? That does make the whole thing indeed sound incredibly weird.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is really neat, as unfortunately not all games support cloud save on Steam and for some I so far used self-written scripts to back them up via my SpiderOak.
But if something could automate that process more, it would be very welcome.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wingAs I implied in my last comment, Epic doesn't have regional pricing tools as good as Steam has. Being objective would require that you take in account this limitations when you try to imply that a temporal exclusivity is not a big deal.

Temporary exclusivity is only a big deal if someone absolutely has to play a game right now instead of one year later.
Now, objectively, how many people absolutely have to play a game right now and couldn't possibly wait? Especially considering so many games nowadays take about a year to "mature" post release to actually be good...

No, Epic is aiming at those without patience and poor impulse control (or who genuinely don't care what storefront they use).
Either way, it's the consumer's decision and the consumer is old enough to make decisions for themselves.
The lure is Epic's, but nobody is forcing anyone to bite.

You are correct about the regional pricing, afaik.
But I don't see what that would have to do with devs being allowed to sell lower on Epic.
If Steam already has better regional pricing, and if you can benefit from that by getting the lowest price already, what does it matter if Epic's high prices are lower than Steam's high prices?

Quoting: x_wingNot to mention that installing Steam client is way simpler in any Linux distro that doing the same with Epic launcher.

Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about the majority of users, not the majority of Linux users.
If you are on Windows, both are the same experience (install-wise! not usability-wise as everyone knows).
And most are on Windows, so...

The harsh truth is that Linux still doesn't matter much on the gaming market (and that is still a better state than it was years ago).
"Think of the poor Linux users" just isn't much of an argument when you talk business.

Quoting: randylThe lawsuit makes many claims which are based on social media rants, such as clause 67 which states "Game developers overwhelmingly believe that the Steam platform does not justify a 30% commission fee on their earnings." Meanwhile they seemingly have no problem with Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PlayStation), and Nintendo (Switch) all charging that same 30% fee. Rhetorically speaking, why are they singling out Valve as the market manipulator when all 3 of those other platforms have greater market reach and influence?

XBox is a platform owned by Microsoft. They can (well, almost) do whatever the hell they want on their own platform. Same for PS and Switch.
MS, Sony and Nintendo have monopolies on their own platforms. As someone else said, monopolies are not on their own illegal. Problematic, maybe, but not illegal.

PC is different. Very different. Valve doesn't own the platform. It is a competitor on the platform. And when you do have competition, there are actually some rules.
Valve is not being unfairly singled out here, they are literally the only ones in their situation.

The 30% themselves are more historical than anything else. They became the standard because they are not completely outlandish (iirc, it used to be 50% many more years ago) while also allowing the store owners a significant profit. It is still undeniably more than it has to be for store owners to be profitable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pb

Quoting: TheSHEEEPor the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

Indeed, why? To find the reason, follow the money. Who paid the lawyers preparing the lawsuit? Some five random indie guys? I doubt it.

Oh, if this does turn out to be just a shitpost in lawsuit form by Epic, I'll be sure to raise a glass to them. Well done!
Good trolling of competitors like that is an art form.

Quoting: x_wingMaybe it's "minor" or "medium" inconvenience for someone like you that lives in a first world country and/or don't care on using a non-native client in order to get a game, but for many others it is a major inconvenience (and mostly a deal breaker). It's now clear to me that you minimize other practices because you are unable to think beyong the consecuences you get by them.

I'm speaking in objective terms, not subjective ones.
Using a different client to download and play a game is objectively not a problem to anyone who has access to that client and is capable of... clicking and typing.
If some people are some kind of anti-China, anti-Epic or Linux-zealot is irrelevant to the argument at hand and irrelevant to me as a person. In one ear, out the other.

Quoting: x_wingFor many of us here buying a game on Steam is not about being fanboys, it's just about what is a better deal.

So they can continue to buy on Steam - devs being allowed to ask for lower prices on platforms that offer lower cuts to them will not affect them in any way.
As I will, btw. The convenience of having everything in the same place far outweighs any monetary benefit I'd gain on EGS - for me, personally. Haven't even gotten a single free game on EGS.

But you don't see me going around taking my personal preferences or situation as some kind of objective argument in discussions.
I guess I'm just not a person who thinks they are entitled to anything not guaranteed by law. Entitlement generally rubs me the wrong way.

Quoting: MohandevirThey know that 12% won't allow them to compete but are trying to force everyone to a lower quality service nonetheless.

As someone who actually works in the field and knows a lot about server pricing and cost of maintencance of larger infrastructures - 12% is indeed absolutely possible for the services Steam is offering. It would be at the very bottom of profitability, but it could still be profitable.
If they were reasonable, they'd drop their cut to 25 or 20%, but that'll only happen once an actual competitor shows up. You know, what Epic with EGS could have been if the store wasn't such a rubbish storefront.
If they were even more reasonable, they'd start at a low cut (say 15%?) and then devs can pay a higher cut for some services (like multiplayer-services, forums, etc.).
But that Steam cut discussion is just so time-intensive every single time so I'll not go further into this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wingWell, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

There is a VERY large difference between selling your game on a store that everyone can use (hell, even we can by now via some frontends) with the only inconvenience being that you have to use something other than Steam for up to one year if you really want that game right now on one hand.
And on the other hand you have the practice of forcing developers to ask the same prices everywhere, even on places where you could ask for less due to a lower cut (or maybe because you want to push that other platform).

One is a minor to medium inconvenience for customers (and not even illegal), the other (again, if true) a serious misuse of market power that could prevent a gain of profit especially for smaller developers.
As well as artificially trying to uphold a monopoly-like market position - which is almost certainly illegal in itself.

Apples and oranges.

Quoting: BeamboomOr the opposite - that it ensures that Steam users are getting a lower price than they would if not.
I mean, it could easily go both ways, that devs would be adding the Valve cut on Steam (40% isn't it?), while operating with a different price elsewhere.

That's a very far-fetched theory. I don't see any reason to expect that developers would suddenly raise their prices on one platform because they can lower their prices on another.

It's not like Valve increases their cut - if they did, that would lead to higher prices on Steam.

Most likely scenario is no price changes for the most part with a few devs or publishers lowering prices on platforms with a lower cut.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWho is doing what for the customers? Selling on Steam? Not selling on Steam?
Either way, of course not!
You don't develop games "for the customers", you do it either for yourself and/or because you want to make a profit with it - that's just a necessity of living in a world that requires money.
Some are nice enough to put extra effort in "for the customers" or because they feel like it's the right thing to do and those are generally favored by customers.
But when you get the option to earn 20% more just by selling somewhere else, on top of a fixed pile of cash by Epic (if this is what that was about) - you take it if you can. After all, you'll still be able to sell on Steam later. It's just a sound business decision. Wouldn't blame anyone for it, except if they promised not to beforehand.

I don't get your point. You seem to minimize other practices because "business" but also get mad at Steam with this practice because affects customers (which is debatable as there are examples of lower prices in other platforms).

I don't see how I minimize other practices. I just explained how as a developer, you do what you have to in order to stay afloat.

The practice of Steam of not allowing lower prices on other stores, if true, is what I criticize.

What examples of lower prices are you talking about?
If it is about Steam keys, those are excempt from the contract if I understood that correctly.
If there are more than those, then it is quite possible Steam didn't "catch" those (not all contractually "illegal" things are brought to court, after all) or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: MohandevirReally not sure about this one... Nothing forces them to sell on Steam, anyway.

This is not how the PC gaming industry works, unfortunately.
You either sell on Steam or you can't sell your game because you don't got a large enough audience anywhere else.

It's either that or hoping for some kind of deal with Epic, Stadia, etc.

Sure, there are a handful of devs who managed to make some small profit without Steam, but those are so few and far between, they can be considered the exception that proves the rule.
EA tried to do that - as everyone knows, they failed and came crawling back to Steam.

Maybe, but my main point is that they are not doing this for the customers. This is just a false excuse. This one makes me really cynical.

This said... Blizzard is not on Steam, as far as I know? Overwatch? COD Warzone? WoW? Anybody?

Xbox, Playstation or Switch markets are not dictated by Steam either. Many developers are not publishing their games on PC at all.

Who is doing what for the customers? Selling on Steam? Not selling on Steam?
Either way, of course not!
You don't develop games "for the customers", you do it either for yourself and/or because you want to make a profit with it - that's just a necessity of living in a world that requires money.
Some are nice enough to put extra effort in "for the customers" or because they feel like it's the right thing to do and those are generally favored by customers.
But when you get the option to earn 20% more just by selling somewhere else, on top of a fixed pile of cash by Epic (if this is what that was about) - you take it if you can. After all, you'll still be able to sell on Steam later. It's just a sound business decision. Wouldn't blame anyone for it, except if they promised not to beforehand.

View this comment - View article - View full comments