And it’s kind of bullshit that there’s no real balancing for singleplayers.
Each enemy takes a pretty big chunk of your health bar, and you can only attack so fast. They can and will attack faster than you, and sometimes even just stunlock you over and over until you just die and have to respawn. I want to enjoy the game, but I feel like I’m actively fighting against the brain grain when I play it.
I play multiplayer so I can’t comment much on that … but remember this game is in early access. Like it just launched its early access last month. It’s not a complete game or even a 1.0 game.
Enshrouded has no plans for mods from what I’ve heard so far. Which basically killed the game for me. Not going to bother with it because there are some mechanics that would irritate me too much to enjoy the game. Mods would’ve fixed it.
Steams cut off that, at just the $3 million mark, is $450 million. This is $900,000 per game.
People wonder why other companies wanted to make their own launchers. They leave millions on the table by having steam 'handle' things.
This is also why Valve isn't that inclined to pump out tons of new games.
A game like Palworld, which as of 3 weeks ago, has sold 12 million copies would end up making Valve somewhere in the neighbourhood of $72 million as of the end of January.
There’s nothing stopping game companies from selling through multiple storefronts, or even direct to customer with Steam’s cut removed.
The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library, are downloaded via Steam’s delivery network, and integrate with steam features.
The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library
i don’t think you can make a statement like that, that is so untested. If capcom were to start selling games at $70 on steam, and $50 on capcom.com things might be different, we can’t really say.
Exactly. Steam provides a service to these companies (a pipeline to customers) and they don’t want to pay.
They are free to make their own, like epic, ubisoft, origin, etc. have, and I am free to continue to use Steam, which I prefer because it provides a service and it works and I feel is a superior product.
Another thing is the infrastructure that Steam provides to get the games to the users and support them costs money. If Capcom wants to build the infrastructure themselves it will cost them more. they will have to charge $100 (exaggeration) and they will only be serving Capcom games.
If you sell steam keys through your site you can't charge less than the steam price. In order to sell it cheaper on their site, it would have to be a non-steam version and they'd have to serve up the files themselves. If it's a multiplayer game it wouldn't be compatible, they'd need to switch to EOS or something else. realistically speak, developers could probably charge a bit less by providing that their own. it doesn't cost 30% to serve up the files and process some payments.
it doesn’t cost 30% to serve up the files and process some payments.
No, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t take $5 to make a cup of coffee, or $10 to make a plate of pasta, or whatever Netflix charges every month to serve up mundane low quality streaming video.
But unless you’re proposing ending capitalism to fix the problems with valve’s pricing model, there won’t be any change to it any time soon.
The only thing that will get valve to have more competitive pricing for video games publishers is if they have actual competition that can siphon away games from their platform. It’s not valve’s fault that everyone else has made inferior products.
And there’s nothing forcing you to publish on steam. If you don’t think 30% is a fair exchange for handling file distribution and payments, you can handle your own file distribution and payments. Your game isn’t forced to be on Steam.
or whatever Netflix charges every month to serve up mundane low quality streaming video
Netflix isn't the service I'd point the finger at for low quality streaming video. That would be Amazon. They don't even have the problem that Max has where it always starts low and then evens out by the time the recap is done.
In fact, I’m fairly certain you’re allowed to do both: sell your game for 25% less while hosting and processing yourself. You just can’t sell your steam codes for less.
Gaming on the PC around the 90s-2000s was pretty rough. I remember installing a game from a CD, typing the key on the back of the CD, and installation failed because I needed different sound drivers or something. I remember most games on my janky PC would be a gamble if it worked or not, even if it met minimum specs.
I remember still facing that issue in around 2010s even with Steam, and then seeing how slick installing apps were on the iPhone and it just “worked”, and wishing PC games were as simple.
PC gaming is great now. It’s been a long time coming.
Steam offers many services to users and developers more than just being a simple storefront. They didn’t become top dog by virtue of being early, there are plenty of competing launchers that do not offer even a tenth of what steam offers.
I feel like a lot of people, myself included, forget that there’s all kinds of software and such available on steam. Their main thing is games, but they have stuff like Blender (which is free), Vegas Movie Studio or whatever it’s called, and a bunch of others. Don’t they also have movies, or am I wrong on that one?
As we continue to work toward regulatory approval of the Microsoft deal, we’ve been getting some questions whether our upcoming and recently launched games will be available via Game Pass," says the statement. “While we do not have plans to put Modern Warfare III or Diablo IV into Game Pass this year, once the deal closes, we expect to start working with Xbox to bring our titles to more players around the world. And we anticipate that we would begin adding games into Game Pass sometime in the course of next year.”
What’s worse is that it seems like Evil Empire is going to get cut off of the revenue from Dead Cells because Motion Twins owns the IP. EE has been working on the game since after the first DLC expansion (1.5 or 6 I can’t remember), and the majority of the content and expansions are done by them at this point, not Motion Twin.
I am interested to see what Evil Empire has in store, as they announced they are working with two long dormant IP, and they did just work with Konami on the Castlevania expansion of Dead Cells…
Motion Twin, the original studio behind the game, are the ones terminating all the updates. Evil Empire, the studio that took over development of it for the last 5 years and have developed 22 large content updates (as opposed to MT, who only released the first 2), had to abruptly cancel their future plans.
I hope Rocksteady turns the disappointing launch around and Suicide Squad has decent success down the line.
I am a massive Suicide Squad fan, so I decided to get the game early, even though I normally stay away from Live-Service and Always-online games. The game is very entertaining in Cutscenes and the banter between the Squad is hilarious. That alone made me enjoy the Story experience very much and I feel like getting the game was worth it for me personally. There is sadly a lot of valid criticism around the game and Rocksteady has to release a much needed Patch soon to fix early issues and they need a very good Season 1 Content drop in March, or I don’t think this game will have any long lasting success.
I understand everyone who either dismisses this game on the Live-Service aspect alone or waits on deep sales for this game. If this game wasn’t so agressively designed as a live-service looter shooter, but as a single player shooter (maybe with Multiplayer added later on?) with the same story, it would have been a bigger success.
There is fun to be had in the game and there is still potential for it to become great and ultimately successful, but it will take passion and commitment from WB and Rocksteady throughout the next year.
I’m honestly just gonna wait till it’s on GamePass in a year or so. Would love to play as a 9 hour ish Campaign with a lot of customization once the abandon the GaaS stuff.
They had to have seen the writing on the wall at least a year or two before they brought this to market.
I seem to remember that at about a year before launch there was some reporter (Jason Schreier?) who had an inside tip that they were changing some stuff in the face of the realization that GaaS were not the money maker they were thought to be once upon a time, but the tipper also said that they were too locked into the GaaS paradigm to make the sort of meaningful changes that would salvage the experience. I don't think there's any rescuing this one if they knew they were in trouble a full year before delivery and still couldn't shape it up into a product worthy of attention.
There was a similar comment about that. How they are in a sunk cost fallacy for all the GaaS promises they made a few years ago. And to not release it means they make zero.
Versus releasing and maybe they make some money back.
rockpapershotgun.com
Gorące