Quoting: scaineI think I've explained the position pretty well here. As I say, if you can't understand this, you either don't understand the industry issues (such as redistribution rights, copyright, etc), or you're being deliberately obstinate because you feel your "rights" are being infringed, or some such.

You compared it to

This would be like Netflix just putting a Disney film on their service and then people getting mad at Disney when they pull it. Sure, get mad, I guess, but this is how consumerism works, obviously.

Nvidia didn't redistribute anything. They didn't put anything on their "platform" (what platform?) and they didn't violate any copyright.

You can a PC, just like Shadow, and you run your own software on it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: hummer010

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: torkel104I just found out about this dev's anti-consumer practices which made me lose all interest in this game

Are you referring to the fact that GeForce Now put Hinterland's game up on their platform without a written agreement? I guess, technically, you can say it's "anti-consumer". But Nvidia were in the wrong here, not Hinterland. This would be like Netflix just putting a Disney film on their service and then people getting mad at Disney when they pull it. Sure, get mad, I guess, but this is how consumerism works, obviously.

How were Nvidia in the wrong here, though?

How weren't they? They didn't have permission.

Permission for what? It's none of the devs business where I play my game. I could launch it here on my desktop PC and stream it via Remote Play to my old Laptop.

It's the same exact thing with Geforce Now. I launch MY GAME from MY ACCOUNT, just on a remote PC.

A remote PC you own. Via a service (Steam) that the developer has granted rights to distribution for. Neither is true of GeForce Now.

If you can't see that, you're being obstinate. And I get it. I'm not arguing that the consumer loses out here. But if you truly can't see why Nvidia is in the wrong here, you're just not being realistic.

What difference does it make? You're just telling me that I'm not being realistic without explaining what the difference is. What does it matter that I own the PC or not?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hummer010

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: torkel104I just found out about this dev's anti-consumer practices which made me lose all interest in this game

Are you referring to the fact that GeForce Now put Hinterland's game up on their platform without a written agreement? I guess, technically, you can say it's "anti-consumer". But Nvidia were in the wrong here, not Hinterland. This would be like Netflix just putting a Disney film on their service and then people getting mad at Disney when they pull it. Sure, get mad, I guess, but this is how consumerism works, obviously.

How were Nvidia in the wrong here, though?

How weren't they? They didn't have permission.

Permission for what? It's none of the devs business where I play my game. I could launch it here on my desktop PC and stream it via Remote Play to my old Laptop.

It's the same exact thing with Geforce Now. I launch MY GAME from MY ACCOUNT, just on a remote PC.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: torkel104I just found out about this dev's anti-consumer practices which made me lose all interest in this game

Are you referring to the fact that GeForce Now put Hinterland's game up on their platform without a written agreement? I guess, technically, you can say it's "anti-consumer". But Nvidia were in the wrong here, not Hinterland. This would be like Netflix just putting a Disney film on their service and then people getting mad at Disney when they pull it. Sure, get mad, I guess, but this is how consumerism works, obviously.

How were Nvidia in the wrong here, though?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D

Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.

But they did. In 2018, they reduced their fees for big publishers (technically any game over $10M sales is reduced). What am I missing here?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition [External Link]

Edit:

Wait, just re-read - are you (kuhpunkt) suggesting that it's technically not a price reduction for big publishers because like 2 indies managed to make $10M of sales!?!

Haha - okay then. Yeah, I'm with Mal. They reduced their prices for big publishers, make no mistake. The fact that a couple of indie lottery winners benefited as well is of no relevance. It was done to appease the big guns and honestly, it's probably the only reason we're seeing Origin games back on Steam. I also believe it's the only reason we're seeing some Sony titles on there too. Their motivation here was clear. I'm gobsmacked you're arguing such a technicality.

It's not a technicality. There is a 30%/70% cut for everybody. If they had reduced the fees for big publishers like you say, they would have a 20%/80% cut as a default. That is not the case. How can you claim that they reduced the fees when they didn't?

If anything, you could say that they introduced a tiered system that favors big publishers - but they still have to earn that higher tier.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D

Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mal"EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money" doesn't make it large publishers? Without mass investments into commercials it's hard to consistently make "certain amount of money" in any business. Let alone a overcrowded business like VGs. And that is essentially publishers business and role in the industry.

Valheim or Stardew Valley... no big publishers or whatever. They made enough money to get a bigger percentage of sales numbers. Other big games fail. You say it like it's a default... that big publishers already get a bigger cut, when that's just not the case. Valve made no deals for anybody.

Quoting: MalI remembered that EGS was not open but already announced. I might be wrong. But if they did it before EGS was announced, that would make a monopoly case even weaker: there was already enough competition to put them under pressure even before Tim crusade. Now it might not even be worth considering.

It was before the EGS was announced. Just by a few days, but it was before... as I said, maybe they heard something through the grapevine, but I can't make a judgment there.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition [External Link]

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/announcing-the-epic-games-store [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalBut when Epic arrived they felt the pressure to even lowered fees for large publishers. That closes any possible claim of monopoly in front of any court.

Valve never lowered the fees for large publishers. They lowered the fees for EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money - and that was announced before the EGS was announced. Maybe they heard some industry chatter, but there were no signs of that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlooAlien

Quoting: kuhpunktSteam is getting 20 years old soon. Has Valve ever exploited their situation? Did they ever raise the cut they demand? Did they ever make it worse for customers? No, they improved.

Because they have a philosophy that works and makes sense. They understand that this is a symbiotic relationship... and that's good.

In the vast majority of cases competition is great because in the vast majority of cases people almost always abuse a position of "power" or "dominance".

This competition often leads to awful working conditions, because companies need to cut costs to stay profitable (or because they are super greedy). Amazon (and many many others) abuse their position of power and that is with competition. They are dominant and they can do whatever they want.

The end goal doesn't need to be communism... that's not great either, but I'm not sure that competition is such a good thing. In a competition there are always losers - when there is no need for that in the first place.

Steam is the closest thing to a neutral market place. The only thing I wish they could/would do is open it up for other big studios with an API or whatever so that they all use the same infrastructure, but share the costs or whatever.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A question for you: do you expect the Steam Deck to push Steam player numbers even higher? For a lot of people, it will be an additional device but no doubt it's a device that will be pulling in some new users who didn't previously use Steam or even a PC. It will be thoroughly interesting to see if there's much of an effect there.

I think there will be an effect, but it will show up only over the next few years. The Steam Deck exists to push the PC as a platform and people won't just abandon their consoles over night... but it will help people migrating.

View this comment - View article - View full comments