80 world-class engineers sounds like more than enough people. It’s not like Valve struggle to acquire talent and are thus forced to have teams and teams of juniors who are masters at building tech debt.
Valve will likely be hiring and retaining the kinds of engineers who love a good refactor and appreciate the time and space to do that rather than some product manager pressuring for the next shiny shit they wanted yesterday.
And Steam is their money printing machine that keeps them free to do whatever they want. It’s no surprise their team have stayed invested in continuing to build out the best gaming platform of all time.
80 talented, passionate, and healthily paid engineers > 800 junior, sleep deprived, and struggling to buy groceries “coders”.
Also explains why Steam is still a 32-bit binary and didn’t get ARM port on any platform.
I think the point is that with this kind of upkeep costs it’s hard to argue that Steam sales cut is fair, especially given near-monopoly in PC gaming space.
At this point, their cut is just about mathematically fair, given how little value customers get from buying games most other places and how much value they get from Steam. Then that money got funneled back into decoupling PC gaming from Microsoft and making probably the only mass produced handheld gaming system that’s open enough to let you opt out of their ecosystem. I’d be really curious as to how many games on Steam even have ARM builds, because I’ll bet it’s a very low number, and that would likely make the juice not worth the squeeze.
Their cut is mathematically fair but the inputs for this formula are mostly pain tolerance levels of consumers and producers. I meant fair for having a monopoly. Either you’re a utility or need to be broken up so that actual competition can take place.
Steam Deck and Proton killed Linux gaming because nobody bothers to do native ports. While I don’t agree with that approach it kinda works but it’s not that Valve does this because they like Linux. They’re scared of losing their monopoly in case Windows changes too much.
There are ARM native games on Mac (Disco Elysium for example) and Steam has no issues with them. Not having ARM client though means that you’re running a dynamically recompiling web browser through a translation layer resulting in terrible performance.
Pain tolerance levels? The biggest pain points I have with Steam are that it’s not universally DRM-free (which is why I shop GOG first) and that their multiplayer servers go down for 15 minutes during maintenance windows once or twice per week. Native Linux ports were not going to become more common prior to Proton; they were on the fast track to becoming less common, especially given how many more games are now released every year, and Proton has the added benefit of adding Linux support to games where it was just never going to feasibly happen otherwise.
While I don’t agree with that approach it kinda works but it’s not that Valve does this because they like Linux. They’re scared of losing their monopoly in case Windows changes too much.
It’s both. That fear of losing their market position is exactly how a functioning market is supposed to work. Competition is supposed to come in and outdo Valve. EA looked like they were interested for a little while back when they launched Origin, but they changed their minds. Epic says they’re interested now, but they only want sellers and not customers. It’s not a monopoly, legally, when they attained their market position by just being better than everyone else.
There are ARM native games on Mac (Disco Elysium for example) and Steam has no issues with them.
And I wonder how many more there are out there. Because if that number is low enough, it may just not be worth it to bother. I’d imagine it’s a nightmare to have to support Apple through all of their standards that they dictate at their business partners. Valve went through the trouble of making a Vulkan->Metal translation layer, since Apple refused to support open standards, and then Apple retired x64 on their machines shortly afterward.
Pain tolerance to prices, how good the support is, how snappy the app is etc. Within the space of game marketplaces they’re average and that’s because every one of them kind of sucks. If Epic was first to monopolize PC game marketplaces people would be defending them like they defend Valve now because they want all of their games in one place.
Linux gaming was stable before Proton. It was never big but mainstream titles were getting released. These days there’s nothing. Titles could be broken at any moment by a developer and nobody will have any responsibility to fix it. I very much doubt that a for profit company does anything because they “like” something like Linux. They’re there to make money, period.
I’m not saying Valve should port their games to ARM or update them, it’s up to them and they don’t seem to be interested in developing games all that much these days. My point wad that plenty of games run via Rosetta2 fine. Steam doesn’t run fine because essentially it’s a web browser and that’s where you can say that 80 developers might not be enough to support this money printing machine.
Pain tolerance to prices? We’re talking about the platform whose name is frequently coupled with the word “sale”. Given the complete lack of ideas out of Epic in the year 2024, I don’t have much confidence that they’d have risen to be a dominant market leader in the first place.
Linux gaming was stable before Proton. It was never big but mainstream titles were getting released.
Stable, but not many titles. Mainstream titles were getting released because Valve was either greasing the wheels or because those partners thought Steam Machines were going to be a bigger deal. When they weren’t a bigger deal, those mainstream titles dried up fast. The Witcher 3 and Street Fighter V both announced Linux ports and cancelled them when the writing was on the wall for Steam Machines. Both now work in Proton.
I very much doubt that a for profit company does anything because they “like” something like Linux. They’re there to make money, period.
I was told, to my face, by a Valve employee between the launch of Steam Machines and the release of Proton, that a lot of engineers at Valve “are enamored with Linux” before he gave me a look indicating that he couldn’t say more. But also, yes, the pursuit of making money leads to all sorts of wonderful new things, like simultaneously porting more than half of the history of PC gaming to a different operating system.
I’m not saying Valve should port their games to ARM or update them, it’s up to them and they don’t seem to be interested in developing games all that much these days. My point wad that plenty of games run via Rosetta2 fine. Steam doesn’t run fine because essentially it’s a web browser and that’s where you can say that 80 developers might not be enough to support this money printing machine.
But if there aren’t many games ported to ARM, and if the number of games running via Rosetta “fine” isn’t high enough, then the number of customers you’re benefiting by making a native ARM build of Steam is very low, and throwing more developers at the problem only makes that math worse. I think you should have a better Steam on Mac. I also know that Apple is actively hostile to gaming on Mac, so I get it if Valve isn’t super interested.
If Epic was first to monopolize PC game marketplaces people would be defending them like they defend Valve now because they want all of their games in one place.
No, people accept Steam because of the proven track record, values of their leadership, their hardware and the work they do with Linux.
The only reason you don’t see the price as a pain point is that you refuse to see that about 50% of that goes to companies that make billions in profit while people like you and me can’t afford rent.
Valve is not your landlord. They made a good place to buy video games. And come on, now; it’s 30% at most to Valve (which is less than brick and mortar before it) and then some more to the government.
There isn’t always a publisher. Sometimes the publisher owns them outright, and the devs will only see a salary in either case. There are only a handful of publishers that are worth more than a billion dollars and therefore run by billionaires, and they account for very few game releases in a given year on Steam these days. There’s a lot of nuance to this. And quite frankly, if a game I want to play comes from a billionaire’s company, I’m going to buy the game, they’re going to get some of my money, and I won’t feel bad about that.
If you sold something for $10 that hundreds of thousands of people wanted enough to buy it, you’d be a multimillionaire too. The only way you fund a development team with a handful of people working there is with multiple millions of dollars.
It’s irrelevant, is what it is. When you make something a whole bunch of people want to pay money for, you get to buy yourself nice things. I find a yacht to be a pretty wasteful use of money, but when I handed over thousands of dollars for hundreds of Steam games, it’s because we were both getting something good out of that transaction.
I’m not in an adversarial relationship with the people who sell me video games for fun. Every time you buy a video game from an indie dev on their own web site, that too is money you could have used to buy food for someone who’s starving.
When I buy from an indie dev directly the money goes to the person accomplishing the work to make the product I’m buying, not a bunch of rich guys that have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.
So what happens when that indie dev sells multiple millions of copies and has more money than they know what to do with? The game is just free for everyone else once it reaches a critical mass? Your definition is so arbitrary. Rich people get rich by selling things people want.
Because the same games sell for more elsewhere (also, funnily enough, we’re seeing tons of info on Valve because they’re getting sued for including a non compete clause in their contract to prevent games from being sold for less elsewhere), that’s an issue for the market as a whole and doesn’t apply to video games only. You’re paying too much for your food, for your gas, for your housing, for your clothes, for every fucking thing!
Profit shares for distributors will need to be regulated and wealth tax will need to be applied.
That’s my fucking point, the whole distribution chain needs to be regulated to stop distributors pocketing so much of our money when they’re accomplishing barely any of the actual work. It’s not a Valve problem, it’s a capitalism problem!
So you think grocery chains are making record profit every year without it impacting your wallet or something?
Valve gets a 30% cut, take a game, reduce that cut to 10% and figure out the price. Price stays the same? Alright, that just means more money going to the devs, which are the people like you and me, instead of Gabe, which is a billionaire.
Apply that in all sectors and we end up richer, billionaires end up poorer. The 1% would finally stop owning 63% of all wealth… But I guess you would rather defend their right to make as much profit as they want while you can only afford a 10$ game every six months.
Ok, so you can’t do basic calculations then, the education system truly failed you, no wonder you complain that you’re poor but can’t understand who made you so.
What calculations? Lmao.
You refuse to prove what you’re saying. Show us how every online storefront has different full sale pricing for the same games.
There are no calculations needed. You simple look at the price for the same games on different stores. But you’re somehow unable to do that?
This is completely incorrect. Their contract states that you can’t sell Steam keys for less elsewhere, which is entirely fair in my opinion. If your game is on multiple platforms or storefronts, you can sell it for whatever price you want there. The fact is that nobody does; they list it for the same everywhere and pocket the difference if someone buys on EGS.
I disagree with your definition of “killed Linux gaming.” It killed native Linux development perhaps. But using Linux for gaming is more viable than ever thanks to Valve. They single handedly boosted Linux gaming, if anything.
And they also offer more than the competition. For a while there games on EGS were just telling people to get support on steam forums because epic had nothing for supporting games they sold. Steam has forums, screenshot storage, achievements, remote play, friends lists, a shopping cart (🙄) and is adding new features like clips. I’m not using steam because it’s a monopoly, I’m using it because it’s a better platform.
Killed Linux gaming? I hard disagree with that. Yes developers may not do Native ports as often anymore but I would much rather have the ability to play games that are not considered a native Port because the ocean is so much vaster. If anything proton in the steam deck put Linux on the map, prior to the deck AAA titles you would never see running on Linux you barely saw AA titles on it. However with the introduction of the steam deck in proton we now have companies moving closer to at least making sure their game is compatible with the deck which is one step closer to allowing it to be Linux compatible. It allows you to take your windows games and for the most part just be able to play it without having to have the studio spend as much for it as they would with a native port, because that’s the number one thing that holds them back from making a native Port the lack of market share. I would not have switched off of Windows if this was not the case because that was basically the only thing that was holding me on Windows still was the lack of decent gaming support
Let’s take Elden Ring for example, it plays beautifully I haven’t had a single problem playing it. They weren’t going to release a Linux branch but they made sure it was steamdeck compatible, which meant that it was proton compatible which then allows me to play this amazing game on my Debian 12, a game that otherwise would not have worked because none of the other translation layers function with it. I notice zero difference in performance it plays flawlessly, but I would not have been able to play this game otherwise. It might as well be a native Port because I’ve had zero issues with functionality.
The Factorio development blog has a piece on developing Linux-native. Basically there’s ONE GUY who works on the LInux-native version, and it’s a lot more challenging than people think – from managing and linking dependencies, to working around GNOME’s monumentally stupid decision to expect client-side decorations from all apps. It’s simply more worthwhile to ensure that a game works well on WIne/Proton.
It’s actually pretty easy to argue it’s fair once you look at everything. Steam offers a shit ton of resources for that 30%, including hosting, distribution, patching, workshop, etc. And that’s not even getting into the fact that the dev can get all of that AND get steam keys that they can distribute themselves (meaning valve doesn’t get a cut of that) that still utilizes the same infra.
I wish I could find it, but I recently saw a video of Thor (@piratesoftware, does his own game dev and used to work for Blizzard) talking about this and going into even more detail than I can remember at the moment.
Competition isn’t possible? EGS is an active competitor that only takes 12% and they still can’t get fucking anywhere because their store fucking sucks. GoG exists and also takes 30%, their store/launcher are ok, but they don’t offer nearly as much for that 30%, but they make up for that with drm free games. There are other minor players out there, so competition is definitely possible, but not one of them offers a comparable product.
The only way steam would lower their cut is if someone came along and made a game store that actually offered a significant portion of the services steam offered and was about as good but also had a lower cut of sales. But good luck finding someone who can do all of that and also takes less than 30%.
You don’t seem to understand what a monopoly is. Having some small competition that’s not ever going to threaten you because you can leverage your dominant position is also a case of a monopoly.
Epic poured billions of Fortnite money with little to show for it. How is anyone going to compete with a platform that most gamers have all of their games on? This is why they need to be broken up or brought to order via regulations. Companies are not your friends.
Epic poured billions of Fortnite money with little to show for it.
Yes, Into fortnite, not EGS. The eggs spent all their money on timed exclusives instead of a better product, and that’s why they failed to make a steam competitor.
Oh, I know. I got exactly 1 free game from EGS, which I promptly bought on stream myself once I realized that EGS had no offline mode (so the game I had been playing refused to launch during an Internet outage).
And that’s one of the many reasons EGS isn’t able to get a significant market share, because as I said initially, EGS fucking sucks. If they spent half as much on improving the store as they do for timed exclusives and trying to lure people in with free games, they might actually get somewhere.
How is anyone going to compete with a platform that most gamers have all of their games on?
They could offer their games DRM-free, guarantee that their multiplayer games have LAN or provide servers and/or at least provide that information clearly to the consumer, write an open source drop-in replacement for Steam Input and Workshop, guarantee more uptime on their matchmaking/friends servers, retain old versions of games that they distribute, and allow for user-customized or open source clients to fit all sorts of UI preferences, off the top of my head.
GOG mandates that all games must be DRM-free, so when I shop there, I know what I’m getting. Valve has tags that tell me if a game supports LAN, but developers aren’t required to report that, so I can’t tell if a multiplayer game I’m buying is built to last if the developer didn’t think to list it; if they were required to, that would be different. People lean on Steam Input and Workshop because those features are made easy for them, but using them means you don’t get those benefits outside of Steam, so there should be an open, third party alternative that developers can easily switch to if they’re familiar with developing for Steam; a company running a non-Steam store has an incentive to develop this. Matchmaking and friends servers, as they exist today, are frequently provided by the storefront, so when Steam servers go down for maintenance and I’m in the middle of an online match of Skullgirls, we get disconnected, and we have to wait until they come back up; there are ways to increase uptime and prevent this interruption, but Valve hasn’t improved the situation in at least 15 years.
If EGS mandated those things it would be as successful as GOG. Which is irrelevant compared to Steam. Steam didn’t become successful because of tags. It’s because they were first.
GOG succeeds in one key area that gives me a reason to shop there. Steam succeeds in other areas. Epic succeeds in none. If GOG wants to supplant Steam, they need to be good in that key area and the areas that I value from Steam. If Epic wants to supplant Steam, they need to give a single shit about what their customers want.
Honestly, even those are pretty overkill to make a competing storefront. All you’d have to do is to offer lower prices and/or take a smaller percentage while matching at least a fraction of Steam’s functionality (unlike Epic) or actively working to screw over customers (also unlike Epic). If a store sold games consistantly 5% cheaper than Steam, even without controller options, good support, a built-in forum, explicit Linux support, ect., I’m confident it would be reasonably successful. Just look at Humble and Fanatical. While they do (mostly) sell Steam keys, their prices are arguably what made them a success, not the features you get after redeaming the Steam keys.
Even beside that, the ideas you provided are all pretty minor. If you’re willing to throw more significant amounts of money at the platform, like many before have, you can go a lot further than that even. For example, seeing as Steam’s discovery algorithm is one of the bigger benifits Steam provides, you could one-up them by providing off-platform marketing for games launching on your platform. This would be a way to bring devlopers and players alike to use your platform without screwing over either. Similarly, you could take a page out of Epic’s book and do giveaways regularly. Alternatively, you could use a less generous system such as “buy anything and get x game free” or “every $10 spent gives you a chance to win x game bundle” to make it more sustainable, and/or allow you to market specific underperforming games. It isn’t that hard to come up with ideas that would allow a competitor to do well. You just have to do that rather than putting all your resources into trying to take games away from players, and harvest their data.
Success is not illegal. Valve isn’t buying up smaller competing storefronts, or paying off developers for exclusivity, or burying competition in legal fees and prepared 80-page lawsuits. The only thing holding back real competition is the competing platforms being dogshit.
I was excited for the EGS when it was announced. Then it turned out to be a garbage platform with the shady exclusivity deals that turned Steam into an ad platform for games that had been poached by Epic. Valve responded to it with the Steam Deck and Proton.
At some point you’re so entrenched in the market you don’t have to do anything anymore. I was quite surprised that Valve somehow evaded EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper criteria.
Ok but you made a claim that they were leveraging their market position to maintain a monopoly. So please describe how they are doing that in any way shape or form.
Just because someone claims something to sue a company does not mean it’s true. You gotta go through the whole court process and prove it.
It says Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms
I’ve never seen any publisher claim this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But it sure doesn’t sound like that has anything to do with being a monopoly. Epic, GoG, Ubisoft, etc. could all do the exact same thing.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I was not the one to downvote you on your last comment. You did what I asked.
Because you’re intentionally ignoring the fact that every time you buy a game you’re paying more than you really need to, therefore you’re keeping less of your wealth than you should.
What exactly is your point? The comment you linked to has me saying I am poor, and the comment your replying to says the same thing. Ten bucks for one full video game in six months is not being overcharged. A pair of jeans is more than ten bucks.
If you’re arguing that the only good game is a free game, I’m not going to agree with you. I will happily pirate “AAA” games, but indie games I’ll pay for.
Highschool freshman edge bs is annoying as hell. You’re not as smart as you think you are.
It is being overcharged when they game should be 7$ instead.
That applies everywhere. You pay 100$ to do your grocery, 30$ goes to the store owner, you’re here defending the store owner while you’re trying to choose between eating and paying rent.
Find me a game that costs less than 10$ to make then! It’s the logic you’re coming up with!
Do you think you’re the only one purchasing the game? On a 10$ game you’ve got about 5$ going to the devs, 2$ to the publisher, 3$ to Steam. It’s 5$ per copy they the devs need to cover development costs, the rest goes to companies unrelated to the actual development and they’re the companies that make the most profit in the end because the cost to provide their service is the lowest.
I’m using the example that you provided, the exact same calculation applies to any game sold on Steam because it’s %! “How is 5$ enough?” I don’t know, you tell me, you’re the one who brought up the 10$ game in the first place, how do YOU expect the devs to make a living if they only got 5$ from the 10$ you paid? Because that’s the reality they have to deal with!
70$ game? Same thing, about 30 to 35$ is taken by Valve and the publisher, that’s overhead you’re paying for and it’s the part of the revenue that leads to the most profit for the people who get it, the rest of the revenues goes to the people who actually have spendings to cover and their P/E ratio is the worst of the three parties involved.
Heck, Vampire Survivors has always sold for less than 10$, the 50% left for the dev was enough for him to make a living off it and cover his development cost, so I guess it’s actually possible for some indie games, right?
Man, either you’re an idiot or you’re just trolling.
Someday, when you actually interact with people in real life, in person, and don’t rely on your parents for everything you’ll see how stupid your entire “argument” is.
You’ve also never made anything, so you really have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Says the guy who complains about being poor to the guy who’s got his shit in order. Guess who of the two doesn’t understand how the world works and is getting exploited the most 🤔
Blame the game not the player, it’s not like they are doing some next level weird shit like all the competition does. This rigged economic system allowed this situation.
Ok, so then handle all of that yourself at cost. Which will lead to the death of your studio faster?
Seriously though, a $15 game selling just 100k copies is still $1m to you (before taxes) and has no upkeep. You do all that steam does yourself, you’re going to drown in operations costs and upkeep time.
I agree with you but at the same time I feel like I should point out that this is the China fallacy, where there's a billion people in China and if you could just tap into even 0.3% of their market you would make bank.
While it's technically true, the fallacy behind it overshadows the difficulty of acquiring that percentage of the market. The grand majority of games released never become cash positive, and over 50% of games on steam alone never make more than $4,000.
This is not an issue with distribution, it's an issue with marketing and market fit, and accompanied by the base fact of that if you're the kind of person who is good at making games, it would be a rarity for you to also be the kind of person that's good at marketing the games you made.
Those are two entirely different wheelhouses that function best with two entirely different personality types, and that's not covering all of the different disciplines that you need to make a game or run a game making company in the first place.
Use Steams competitors then if you don’t want to pay Steams cut. If you’re getting less overall from them, that tells you all you need to know about the validity of Steams fees
Ah fair. My reading comprehension also failed there because I thought you were the same person the person you responded to was responding to was (Person I thought you were - Person you responded to - you - me: if that makes what I said make more sense). I guess my response though is that discoverability is going to be an issue for any new game regardless of whether someone chooses to put their game on Steam or not (and I’d argue that not putting their game on Steam would negatively impact their discoverability, hence another point in favour of Steams cut)
edit: (I actively hate Epic though, so consider taking their money as losing the possibility of ever getting mine. I am NOT for console exclusive bs on the PC marketplace, and Epic is actively trying to make that a thing. So if you except money from epic to go exclusive on their store, I’m only ever going to pirate your game, if I can even be bothered to play it at all)
After that well-informed take, listen to an actual indie developer talk about why the 30% is worth it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwoAmifo9r0 (it’s a separate but similar lawsuit by a “waaahmbulance-chaser” law firm in the UK)
Enjoy accelerating late stage capitalism while pretending you’re against it because you’re incapable of seeing things outside of black and white thinking
Damn dude that link fuckin DESTROYS every braindead “b-b-but STEAMS MONOPOLY!!!” arguement I’ve seen uttered by idiots who want to bring late stage capitalism to the PC marketplace just so they can pretend they stood up to a company
As of 2022, according to its financials, the company has spent $637 million on development, with 2020 – 2022 averaging over $106 million a year. Assuming that the company continues spending around $100+ million a year, it doesn’t take a mathematician to realize that the $790 million raised so far at the time of writing is on the verge of, or has likely, run out.
No, the article is claiming $700M in development costs—based on $637M spent by 2022–and $790M raised. They’re speculating that the company is going to run out of money soon.
That’s not how you calculate profit. Their revenue might exceed their costs so far but they have to keep spending. The game isn’t done and it costs money to just keep the lights on.
Look, I don’t know their financials. I’m just correcting what you claimed and pointing out what the article is claiming which is that their spending appears to be outpacing their revenue.
I actually do appreciate the clarification then, thank you. But I’ll still suggest to the readers of this convo, articles like these aren’t written for the edification of its readers, it’s written to bait engagement. The speculations of gaming journalists on Star Citizen is as reliable as Fox News’ speculation on the Mexico/USA border.
And as someonewho has been following following the numbers, it’s growing in revenue and daily active players every year. They just opened a massive new office in Manchester so they can hire more people. The people they do hire get paid well and stick around for years. If they were worried about cash flow, they have a lot of fat they would be trimming right now, but their expenses and revenue keep growing in step with eachother. They have no investors to pay, no vaults to fill. They make money and spend it growing the business. Those expenses represent 12 years of good wages and benefits for workers.
Star citizens success is a threat to capitalist, investor focused gaming. Gaming news is run by game industry capitalists and has zero oversight or accountability for bring truthful.
I don’t think so, SpaceX claimed (and NASA apparently verified) that the development costs for the Falcon 9 were $300 million. It’s in the Wikipedia article, also here: newspaceeconomy.ca/…/how-much-would-falcon-9-have…
I was under the impression that the Falcon Heavy was a ground-up development. But in any case the Falcon 9 was cheaper, so go figure…
As for as storefronts go, which is what’s being talked about here, they are competing and winning. With a fraction of the employees other companies employ for storefront work. Origin (Rest Unpeacefully) and Uplay never stood a chance and epic has had plenty of time to market saturate. The company not being publicly traded doesn’t prevent competition, it prevents investor interests like quashing competition.
They’ve touted before that they may be the most profitable company per employee on earth. They make a few billion in profit per year with a payroll of a few hundred employees.
I don’t know, there’s plenty of anti-Valve rhetoric on Lemmy. Plenty of people try to spin it as Valve having a low employee count because they have a lot of contractors. One guy was making a point that Valve employee count is much lower because they buy in AMD GPUs for the Steam Deck… As if Valve should buy chip manufacturing plants and design and manufacture their own GPUs.
Even here somewhere below (or maybe up later) in this thread someone said
Also, a company can pretend to have 10 employees if it instead hires 1000 contractors to do the actual work.
Which is an argument, if you can prove Valve is buying in 10 times the amount of contractors as they have employees for positions that should go to full-time employees. But I very much doubt such information exists.
Humble used to be an event that celebrated and showcased indie developers while at the same time raising many millions for charities. Then IGN bought it and rapidly enshittified it into a bog-standard, for-profit corporate enterprise like any other, and I’ll never forgive them for it.
Do they even give any of the profits to charity any more? If they do, I bet they only keep it around to take advantage of the tax writeoffs.
Humble bundle does still give to charity. The default they give is usually extremely low but on bundles you can adjust the sliders though they’ve now hidden it underneath the purchase button.
That’s more than keeping the lights on money, as the old humble was doing that just fine without any mandatory amount. Even taking into account taht they want to pay off their fresh purchase, IGN is gouging.
It doesnt help either that the charity slider is always set to a minimum now. It used to be evenly weighted, but now it’s weighted about 45%/45% IGN and the vendor, with maybe 10% to the charity by defualt. You have to click through a hidden menu to fix it.
And they made it such a pain in the ass when you adjust the sliders to maximize the charitable donation and then the cut for the content provider. Like, let me just put in amounts so I can max out the charity donation, minimize the payment to Humble, and give the rest to the content provider.
Man, "15 hours in and not a single bug." I love Bethesda, but I feel like that's an incredibly bold claim to make and that his definition of bug is probably a bit loose. I wish they wouldn't make this big of a hubbub about it and just let the game speak for itself if it's really that solid.
Exactly. By pointing a big red arrow at the problem they've historically had to the point of memory it just serves to make the skeptics more skeptical and create concern in everybody else since it's just a big "source: trust me, bro".
“So I killed an entire city, which caused the dead body clean up cell to overfill and explode dead bodies into the void, which first makes it rain dead bodies and then crashes the game.”
The funny thing is we kinda expect bugs, not game breaking bugs, but bugs that we understand would be there since people are about to have more than 100 hours of gameplay. With possibly over billion hours of game testing time from consumers. So there will be bugs.
I mean cancelling preview copies of Space Marine 2 seemed to work out. They got to finish cooking and it paid off for them in the end with everyone’s minds being blown (I haven’t played it yet myself, but I’ve seen reviews).
Taste is always subjective. I watched Charlie play it on YouTube, and he played the whole thing with mouse and keyboard and he fucking loved it. Like he was literally about jump balls deep into the tabletop and mini aspect of the IP.
Also, “pandering to LGBTQ”? A) it’s 40K, which aside from aesthetics is one of the least sexual franchises of all time. B) fuck off with that shit.
Do you have examples of DEI’d games? Do you have sources for saying devs don’t want to do it anymore? So far I only know of guys that record videos of themselves screaming “fucking pronouns” being offended by the mere presence of pronouns, and that’s not even “DEI”. There’s also that weird steam recommendation character who criticizes every game that has a woman who isn’t meant to be a sex object, but these are all very fringe and often severely disturbed people, not at all representative of any real impactful opinions.
EDIT: Of course I don’t mean to say that these anti-woke beliefs aren’t dangerous in the right hand, or that anti-woke anti-justice warriors can’t pose a danger to anyone, but their beliefs do not need to be discussed and argued with every time, and definitely not in good faith.
Oh fuck off, queer people aren’t politics. It’s literally just humans existing, but since some bigots want to limit their rights you call it political. This is the same exact thought process of asking “the Jewish question”.
never cared what the main protagonist is like
And yet here you are saying a bunch of dumb stuff about devs pushing things in. You can’t have it both ways.
From the term used I can easily determine you are more conservative than most here, and even if your comment got reported multiple time on the basis of rule 2, I’d like not to overreact and give you the occasion to develop a bit more your arguments by providing examples instead of just “its like that because I feel like it is like that”.
So, could you please kindly provide, as other in this thread asked, example of :
Games where those “political” topics doesn’t belong
Review criticizing SpaceMarine 2 for not “pandering to LGBTQ”
I believe this would help open a more open conversation than some politically opposite attacking each other personally.
In my humble opinion, Games being a work of art as much as it is an entertainment, it is up to the creator to chose what kind of story it want to talk about.
Does they want to talk about how the LGBTQ community, which has been oppressed for a long time, in their game ? Fine by me, at lease I can have some insight from the viewpoint of someone of this community, albeit virtual, to better understand said topic.
Those topics where not talked at all previously, so of course it would feel like it becomes a lot more present in the last years, just by contrast with the absence of it in previous titles. It is also a brand new storytelling topic on which game designer have very little experience with, so it is logical for it to be talked about awkwardly at time (thus the need for specialized consulting firm like Sweet Baby Inc), with some very obvious stitches at times. Just give them time to understand how to blend it better in the story and gameplay, and you’ll get the fun games you wish for, with a diverse cast you won’t even have to complain about.
You can’t argue that 40k panders to the LGBT crowd because fuckin obviously if you’ve ever even looked at a 40k title, but you also can’t really argue that 40k isn’t at least a little sexual.
You got ratlings, pretty much everything slaanesh, aeldari waifus, and the entire Ciaphas Cain series. And while yeah, you don’t exactly get steamy love triangles in mainline 40k lore, you also have callidus assassin’s and sisters of silence popping up all the damn time. Sex isn’t the focus (mostly. Looking at you ciaphas) but it’s certainly present in the setting.
I mean I will say that apparently Concord has the characters’ preferred pronouns under their name in the top corner of the screen, but I literally had no idea that was even a thing until I saw someone make a post bitching about specifically that. Like even Charlie didn’t notice (or didn’t say anything) either time he played the game.
Who knows what happens when someone else takes the helm at Valve, might not be too long either. Lots of companies see a massive shift in company policies once a new CEO takes over. Hopefully it’ll be someone that upholds the same integrity as Gabe.
The surface is one of my go-to examples of Microsoft’s ineptitude. The surface is honestly an amazing tablet. It works very well, great battery life, and you can either use a standard tablet mode or it as a full Windows machine. For businesses too it was a slam-dunk, where since it’s Windows it already interfaces with most IT systems out of the box, no special setup or store integrations or Apple stuff, it’d work with Microsoft AD. Unfortunately it followed the pattern.
They gave up on tablets before fully vetting the market
Apple lands the iPad, and it takes off, is groundbreaking
Microsoft got butthurt that Apple made profit on a thing they gave up on
They take years coming up with the Surface, in the meantime every 3rd party came out with an Android one that was slow and choppy so the people have all decided iPad was the winner
Microsoft hired thousands of engineers and pivoted the entire world to touch, forcing Windows 8 down everyone’s throats, making the public hate it
Surface finally lands, but everyone already hates the interface, and anyone who wants a tablet already has one
Microsoft quietly lays off everyone. Surface is still around, but on life support.
Yeah who TF are their lawyers? Anticompetitive behavior is just that—there have o be actions taken, at least in the United States. And Steam doesn’t have exclusivity agreements so IDK what they’re gonna argue.
The closest thing they can argue to any kind of “exclusivity” is that the free steam keys developers can generate for their games may not be resold for a lower amount than the game can be purchased for on steam outright. That says nothing about other means of distributing the game outside of steam, and nothing about alternative platforms the devs might want to use. It’s a tiny and far away straw to grasp at.
TF2 lawyers, it would seem.
Their legal Offense has evidently been workgrouped by Scout, Soldier and Pyro, judging by this particular legal argument. To think the Mercenaries would turn on their creator… Well, they’re mercenaries!
The case seems like such a reach. At worst it’s an effective monopoly for devs, not consumers. Devs have a really hard time selling elsewhere.
That said, I love Steam and think it’s genuinely one of the best companies out there. And whilst it’s not great that they’re so big, they aren’t that big due to anti-competitive behaviour. It’s quite the opposite. You can add non-Steam games to your library and use Steam features. The fucking Steam deck isn’t locked down, and you can install non-Steam games. Just because Uplay wants to log me out every time I reboot doesn’t mean Steam should be sued.
There are so many other companies more deserving of the lawsuit
Precisely what the share holders don’t want people to know. They worship money and what the public to think more money = more good. If people realize these investor backed products are generally not anything better than someone can make in their garage they’ll stop buying overpriced junk. So here we are about to see how the sausage gets made.
Well, that literally is the only reason to become a shareholder, right?
I mean, technically you’re participating in the management of the company and can influence decisions such as environmental benefits, but it feels like that only happens when there’s secondary benefits that also improve profit.
How about just the completely entitled attitude of the execs that think they can tell us how to enjoy something. Only to then whine that nobody wants to buy their 70 euro no better than mid game
Honestly, Outlaws has flaws, BUUUUT it’s fun as hell. It’s a 7/10 game, but it’s fun. I enjoy my time with it even though I see some glitches here or there, or that the lip sync is a little jank.
It’s a big ass Star Wars game (with no AC towers hooray!) where you get to rub shoulders with scoundrels and play Sabacc and visit honestly cool locations that are visually impressive.
I feel like most of the issues it has is probably a function of “we need this game out by X date” versus the devs’ ability.
I finished the main story last night and I basically agree with you. It’s got plenty of issues, but overall it’s fun. It is neither the 9/10 game of most reviews I saw nor the 4/10 game that people want it to be.
I think my main issue is that it wants to have a story about the underworld and how you can’t trust anyone and you’re a huge underdog just trying to survive but it doesn’t want to commit to it. It feels thematically janky in places and ways that feel design-by-committee. It fills the shoes of Shadows of the Empire decently enough, but it feels like it was trying to be 1313 and failed.
I have this feeling that once it starts going on more sales and more people play it the general consensus will be that’s it’s a pretty solid game. I also imagine like a lot of these games there will be a patch in the next month that fixes a litany of issues.
You’re right it’s kind of interesting that the factions don’t really add a lot of meaningful gameplay mechanics, but oh well. At first I was like, “I’m not working with the Pykes AT ALL because I know what happens in your spice mines.” But you end up just being friends with all of them as needed (to get their rewards).
Just having this big coat of Star Wars paint over this otherwise fairly standard action/shooter/open world game really does make it more fun, though. I still have a bit to go in the story, but I’m just basting around cleaning up side quests right now because it’s fun to do.
9 years old is pretty old for a video game. When it first came out, the goofiest thing about it was the guy who could heal you by throwing a syringe at you. Now everyone has goofy super powers and things that would never make sense in the same world as something like a Jack Ryan novel.
My god Siege was good for the first few years. Intoxicatingly good multiplayer. Too bad they fucked it up trying to make it more CoD like. For example, I used to play with a completely hidden hud because it was so immersive and fun. Now it’s like rainbow six and Roblox had a baby and the weird game popped out. I can’t even hide my hud or crosshair any longer
they did a little bit of this to hell let loose. The primary thing that bothered me was how when the game came out there was no hit indicator whatsoever. no visual no sound nothing. it made for some very interesting gameplay. then they added it indicators, even if you’re like 100 yards away from somebody you can hear this bullet go “whap” if it hits them
But Infinite growth!! How do you affirm the ability for a new CEO to make tough decisions without going on insane hiring sprees to show growth, and then firing those same people to cut corners and also show growth!? The economy needs blood!
Oh wait, they’re not publically traded? I thought only corner shops were allowed to stay off the market.
That’s just a name we give to “a share of a well-known, profitable, and established company with a history of success”. I.e. “companies that experience constant and consistent growth”. That’s literally what OP is criticizing. They do the same things. Microsoft is a blue chip. You think they don’t have layoffs to appease shareholders? Google? Apple?
Honestly this is what pissed me off about the reaction to cyberpunk bugs. I remember how the fallout games were at launch. And I think even now trying to play new Vegas on Xbox (360 I think?) Has an issue if your save file gets too big where the save will corrupt.
CDPR definitely over promised. But every business does. They probably should’ve not released on last gen consoles at all, but that is tricky as fuck. I mean when they started to dev cp2077, I doubt Sony and MS even had dev units for next gen. Probably should’ve delayed last gen release only, made a transparent explanation and apology, and did what they ended up doing after release. But I had a low mid tier PC that played it at a solid 60 fps without major issue at launch. And it was exactly what I had hoped.
I’ll probably also really like starfield, warts and all, when it drops. These are just my type of game.
To be honest, half the stuff people claim they lied about was always entirely speculation hype that never had any backing.
Otherwise, for some people the game worked just fine. For others the game was nearly or entirely unplayable, and everything in between. Cdpr certainly lied and should have delayed their game’s release, probably upwards of a couple years, but the situation is rarely portrayed accurately.
I’m not saying they didn’t lie, there are many of features which were at best skeletons of the features that were expected. But I’m just saying a lot of the hype around the game was so out of control you had people on the sub reddit talking about how cool the car customization will be, or how they can’t wait to play, what would’ve amounted to essentially, gtav but with arasaka. Talking any l about features which actively were never even slightly implied to exist.
People get way too excited for any game, should always expect a pile of shit these days and just be pleasantly surprised instead. People are die hard fans of games like CP2077 before they even release, it's not good.
But expectations don't come from nowhere, a lot of the city stuff they were selling was like GTA, but the AI didn't even release at a 2004 San Andreas level, it's still not as good as GTA AI and that's just people walking/driving around convincingly. GTA V itself was 7 years old when CP2077 released, it's not surprising people were expecting a simulation of the world to be at least as good as that. I think their scope was too big, there was probs a lot of mismanagement behind the scenes. I don't know how they spent 8 years on it and it still turned out like it did, I guess we will never know what happened. The story is the only saving grace, they should have just delayed it and tried to make it a more linear story game and just abandon any RPG-esque/open world elements that were left.
Being critical of games is good, especially ones that completely shit the bed, defending it just leads to more of that in the future. I love BG3 for example, but it has it's fair share of issues that I can point out every time I play it. Why would I not want better products? Why settle for less? There's too much submissive consumerism these days.
For sure. And who knows, much of that could be guerrilla marketing to stoke the hype.
Expecting cp2077 to be anything like GTA is just silly. They are entirely different games.
And the RPG elements are fine, it’s already very linear, and plays like you’re the focus character of a cyberpunk campaign. They did just fine on that front, so I don’t really understand your critique there.
I played through the whole game last year and while I had fun, you can definitely tell the scope is too big. There’s lots to do but when you do things, there isn’t much depth. Systems that you think should be in place just aren’t there. The game also has a lot of features that align with open world action games of the era like Ghost of Tsushima or Horizon Forbidden West. There’s stealth, there’s a crafting system, there’s collectibles and fetch quests. But there’s few features that align with most other role playing games. You cant get a bite to eat at nearly any restaurant. You can’t have a conversation with an NPC that isn’t one of the dozen that’s relevant to the story. (My favorite activity in fallout is to chat with random characters about random things.) Dialogue trees are shockingly stiff and inconsequential. Most missions have choices but it boils down to “X character is alive instead of unconscious.”
There’s a lot more I could go into but in general it just came across like it was almost unfinished. The only mission I played that felt like a true RPG mission instead of a stealth game or a shooter was the Flathead mission, so it makes sense that’s the mission they relentlessly previewed back in 2019.
Agreed. The biggest issue for me, as a PC gamer who expected bugs at launch, was really that it’s a stealth/action game that was marketed as an RPG even though it has precious few consequential choices or playstyle options.
Honestly this is what pissed me off about the reaction to cyberpunk bugs. I remember how the fallout games were at launch
I bought the fallout games at launch. I bought Cyberpunk months after launch when I found it on clearance. Cyberpunk was still far less playable for me than the fallout games were at launch.
This was due to:
The game crashing at least once per hour
Falling through the ground at least one per hour
Dying suddenly though nothing was attacking me at least once per hour
Questlines breaking and being un-repairable
Additionally, CP2077 had all the same bugs in Fallout/Elder Scrolls releases.
I usually power through buggy RPG releases, but I waited to give CP a couple more patches before actually trying to play through it.
insider-gaming.com
Ważne