Holy fuck, this looks incredible. For context, Fat Shark have been working very hard to address the criticisms of the game at launch, and they’ve really, really listened to the community in a big way. Many concerns have been addressed already, and the two big ones left were the lack of missions (which is slowly improving, but mapmaking takes time, so I can’t be too salty on that one) and the lack of class variety. This looks like it completely addresses that last issue.
Back when the game launched I wrote a review on steam that basically said “Despite all its flaws I enjoy this game a lot and will continue to play it, but I can’t in good conscience recommend it.” Every now and I go back and ask myself if it’s time to go back and finally flip that review to a “Recommended”. Every time so far the answer has been no, not yet. This might finally be the thing that pushes it over into a yes.
I haven’t played much since launch. I liked the game, but it felt like there was still a lot missing so I figured I’d put it down and play something else. Now I’m busy with bg3 but it may be time to jump back into darktide soon.
If that were true, ‘No’ is also an answer. Total Annihilation does not seem like the only option and certainly not an option to use as a lesson. Can’t teach a dead pupil.
Why would he get in trouble? Sony only owns 15% of From. And who the hell would fire him? That’d be like firing Kojima. And we see how that turned out for Konami.
I wouldn’t suppose that people are required to inform steam that they’re dead. Therefore, I’d assume the easiest way to bequeath games/DLCs, etc, is to get a wishlist from your loved ones, and then gift all of those games prior to death on a credit card that you might not be able to pay, due to being dead. Steam gets the money, the CC company gets shafted. Alternately, share your credit card details with a loved one and that list, and have them order within hours of your death (this depends on whether or not you were plausibly alive when those CC transactions took place)
It’s crazy though, they plopped HFH on the store the day it was announced with no marketing push, it became a critical and audience darling and execs said it was a breakout hit.
What else do you need to stay alive in this industry? Insomniac made one of the best selling games of the year and got rewarded by getting 10% of its workforce cut.
I get the feeling the part of capitalism Phil Spencer hates is the part where consumers can take their business elsewhere if they don’t like the product.
Epic bought rocket league and promptly tanked it in favor of their stupid fortniteverse. Maybe steam keeps winning because they’re not actively screwing over their customers.
Or Pheonix Point, where Epic bought an kickstarter game that was funded under the promise of releasing on Steam, GOG and potentially other stores and promptly made it exclusive - and this was in the early days when their launcher/store was in a much worse state too.
Wolfire originally operated Humble Bundle, and they have a very legitimate case. Steam uses anticompetitive pricing policies that makes it difficult for other marketplaces to compete.
If anticompetitive means “it’s your choice to enter into an agreement in which we host your game for 30%, and distribute it on our platform, with unlimited patch updates, and unlimited user downloads, and a fuckton of features like community forums, guides, groups etc., also if your game is good we will promote it free of charge”
Then I suppose companies like Epic who choose to run at a loss, as opposed to providing a good service, have no chance, and Steam is anticompetitive.
The counter narrative exists though, Steam is just a good service, and if you want to compete with them, you need to provide a good service, like GOG.
The Platform Most Favored Nation policy employed by Steam is the one at issue in this case. And yes, it is anticompetitive. It abuses userbase size to prevent alternative marketplaces from providing fewer services for smaller cuts
Again, it just sounds like Valve is offering a good service and other companies don’t want to compete. If it’s Valves fault for providing a good service and lots of users choose to use their platform instead of others, I fail to see what they could do to rectify that.
Valve offers a great service, and I enjoy it a lot. But it’s very difficult for a competitor to enter the market because they won’t be able to match Steam’s services immediately. Typically in a market the approach is then to undercut Steam, but that is exactly what this policy is designed to make impractical by forcing publishers to overprice, on penalty of losing Steams’ userbase.
I mean I don’t know what else to say. It is anti-competitive. It doesn’t take too much to see why. There are many good articles and legal briefs on the matter. It hurts you and me, the consumer, and it hurts publishers. It enriches Valve, benevolent though they may appear. You shouldn’t like this type of strong-arming the market when Amazon does it, and you shouldn’t roll over and take it from Valve either.
Doesn’t even matter, the court is going to sort it out for us. But I hate to see the reputational hit Wolfire is taking here. I like their studio, I believe their developers are operating in genuine good faith, and I think they are doing consumers a favor.
Just to play devils advocate, what do you think Valve should do differently?
After learning more about it, I’m understanding the problem is that Wolfire (and every other developer/publisher) has a contract with Valve, in which they aren’t allowed to sell their game on another PC market for a cheaper price than Steam.
Though, I wouldn’t describe that as anticompetitive, rather, neutrally-competitive. Valve is offering a level playing field, they can take it or leave it. This is a fairly standard practice among businesses (though I understand this does not make it right).
If valve wanted to be anticompetitive they would dictate that games published on Steam are exclusive to Steam on PC.
What Wolfire wants to happen is for game marketplaces and game services platforms to be decoupled. Right now Valve has vertically integrated the two. You buy the game, and they offer peer multiplayer, social, workshop, etc.
If those services were charged separately, so that the costs of those services was not forced into the pricing of other marketplaces that don’t offer those services, you open the market to more competition.
So Wolfire’s idea of being anticompetitive is to restrict how many features a platform may offer?
Honestly, it just sounds like Wolfire has an axe to grind. Steam doesn’t price in the features it offers, their 30% cut existed a long time before most of this stuff was added.
Something like this will never be implemented. Consider the outcome: Steam decouples the marketplace from the extra services, so they create a separate application and offer it as a free service, and creates a link between the two services. There are a hundred ways around this, and all of them inconvenience the consumer.
I’m at my wits end trying to explain this. I guess I can just recommend reading the legal briefs that summarize the matter, or articles that dig deeper than this one.
Maybe I’ll think about it later and make a more complete write up with concrete examples. I really hate to see the confusion here. Wolfire is doing us a favor, we should not be handing Valve the keys to the market just because they act like Mr. Benevolent.
That us all fine. David is alleging that Valve is trying to restrict other platforms wolfire can sell their cases on. Valve needs to compete, not threaten to stop distributing a game if they don’t like how it is selling elsewhere.
I can’t believe that a company that puts out a device running Linux that gives you access to the OS in a few clicks and provides guides for how to install competing distribution platforms is more anticompetitive than Sony, Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google. Valve and Steam aren’t perfect. It’s difficult to accept that having a store and charging for it is worse than, for example, Sony buying studios and paying millions of dollars for some games to be exclusive on their platform.
I love this new narrative that undercutting the competition’s pricing is anti-competitive and not just winning at the competition because the other teams don’t want to improve.
Ironic for a company that published indie hits like Terraria and fresh mainstream games like A Tale of 2 Sons.
This does not reflect the whole gaming market but rather the failure of publishers to innovate well and make new things people like. Big publishers are risk averse and it's a common path them as they get bigger, and care more about shareholder value or venture capital. They won't take risks, and can't accept failures so they retrench. It's not a recipe for success as that end of the games market is already dominated by big publishers churning out annual versions of their mass market games.
A publisher like 505 r ally only has two possible futures on this road - go bankrupt as they can't compete or get bought out by a big fish who want their IP.
It doesn't say much abou the games market as it's actually very large, vibrant and varied. A publisher like 505 is not on the vanguard of the games market and like most people I had to look them up to even see which games they had published. This is just yet another company being mismanaged into oblivion and well beyond its hey day.
Yet it still managed to be fresh and, in my opinion, make the next big leap in what rpgs are capable of. Sequels aren’t really the problem, and I don’t mind them really—in a vacuum. The bigger problem is what ‘sequels’ are in corporate speak; making minimal effort and doing the same things over and over again, trying to profit off of name recognition alone. They don’t see a franchise and think “Great, a chance to dive into this world and see all it has to offer and what makes it tick,” they see it as a chance to make maximum $$$ while not feeling like they need to do much.
Right, but from the perspective of a gaming company CEO, it being a sequel is everything. You have to remember, these people are incredibly uninformed and shortsighted. Think of the dumbest person you’ve interacted with ever, and that’s about as intelligent as the smartest CEO. They see that Baldur’s Gate 3 sold well, and all they learn from that is that sequels are a profitable endeavor. They couldn’t care less about any of the context that makes it a good game.
pcgamer.com
Ważne