Quoting: scaine

Quoting: jrtCan you please try low settings VR with a dongle? I'm curious, looking at the rumors about the Deckard VR headset. It has more power than a Quest 2.

I don't think this is a VR game, is it?

No it's not. This was just a request for further coverage.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can you please try low settings VR with a dongle? I'm curious, looking at the rumors about the Deckard VR headset. It has more power than a Quest 2.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@liamd have you tried getting your Index to run with the Steam Deck? I know it's not officially supported. (It's more of an academic question.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

If they don't support the biggest gaming focussed Linux install base they don't need to bother with ports at all imho.

I think they will focus more on mobile and console ports going forward.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mphuZ

Quoting: jrtValve does not make money by trading items outside of the steam market.

Revaluation of cost and speculation you do not take into account, of course? :dizzy:

Ask yourself a simple question: can an item cost $ 100 on the Steam trading platform when it is resold for $ 1000 on another platform? :tongue: And then you will understand how Valve makes money on this.

That's a stupid argument, imho. This would imply that the one blockchain trading site is responsible for the market price. There are multiple, large, and way older item trading sites that don't use a blockchain. So you could spin this argument in the other direction as well. This is a normal market effect with multiple large and small players, at what point ends this “support” for a platform? Do you support crime because you use a currency that is also used by crime? You keep the currency at a specific value because you (and a lot of other people participating) exchange it for a good with a value (like food) and trust in the ability to do so in the future.

We need to go all the way: not only to ban NFT on our site, but also to stop supporting others who sell NFT items.

If they are like you say, supporting them by taking a cut on their unrelated platform due to market effects and that needs to stop, what is your proposed solution?
The obvious solution is to disable trades between users and restrict it to the steam market. That would also result in a lot of unwanted side effects (e.g. players can't exchange items they have twice with someone who has something else twice)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mphuZ

Not only has Valve banned NFT games from Steam...

But at the same time they themselves support a third-party NFT platform: https://dmarket.com [External Link] :whistle:

That's convenient, isn't it? :grin:

They are not affiliated with valve. External steam trading sites have existed for a long time.
The only difference seems to be that they have choosen a payment method that burns the planet.

Valve does not make money by trading items outside of the steam market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Looks good, but I can't wait for the exclusive virtual keyboard design!11!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The immutable system is definitely the right choice for 99% of the users. But I really like that they are not locking it down for the 1% who likes to tinker.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: jrtI don't think there is anything wrong with taking 30%. They don't have a monopoly, so they can set the prices and if you don't like them you can still use gog, itch or your own launcher. Ubisoft, League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite,... seem all to do fine without steam.
Also, as a Linux user, I don't buy games that do not run on my system. Windows only games that run through proton are therefore sales that wouldn't have happened without Valve's work. Keeping 70% vs. no sale at all sounds like a good deal to me.

that is non sense.
linux has 1% of marketshare.
valve takes 30% of all the sames on a platform with 90% of marketshare.
if you earn 900.000 dollars with an game and valve takes 30%, you end up with 630.000 dollars.
then you sell more 1% wich give you aditionally 9.000 dolars, and out of those valve take 30% and you end up with 6300 extra dolars thanks to valve making your game avaliable for linux.

Maybe I've worded the Linux part wrong. From my personal point of view, I want valve to take a cut because they make the game playable. That the developer doesn't care about the 1% is a different story.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking 30%. They don't have a monopoly, so they can set the prices and if you don't like them you can still use gog, itch or your own launcher. Ubisoft, League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite,... seem all to do fine without steam.
Also, as a Linux user, I don't buy games that do not run on my system. Windows only games that run through proton are therefore sales that wouldn't have happened without Valve's work. Keeping 70% vs. no sale at all sounds like a good deal to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments