Quoting: orochi_kyoIf that is true you come off like a very aggressive Steam hater, not the first time you show you think Steam is something despicable.

That's because I call shitty things out when I see them, independent of the good stuff the same entity (Valve in this case) does.

I am neutral.
Of course, to the mind of a rabid fanboy, calling things out like a way too big cut or a refusal to have regional pricing within the same currency zone immediately makes you a hater.

In this case, it turned out the whole thing of the article was a lot of smoke about nothing and it will most certainly go nowhere. I initially assumed there was actually some point to the lawsuit - as in, Valve actually does what the lawsuit claims it does. And of course argued based on that assumption.
But apparently that doesn't seem to be the case. Making it all just very weird.

Quoting: orochi_kyoAnd the first fact you or anyone else in this forum can not deny is that "lower cuts generate lower prices, which is good for customers" is a lie.

I don't know who said that, but I sure didn't. A few devs may choose to lower the price due to a lower cut, but most won't.
A lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This really looks quite interesting.
Not quite sure about longevity, but at that price, that might not be the biggest concern.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can I have some sauce with that jungle planet, please?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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. :whistle:

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