The piece about Mac makes no sense. That’s purely a result of Apple’s decision to drop support. In general, if you are interested in older games, MacOS is not a viable platform.
Most the article makes no sense, but the Mac stuff is really weird. This 18 year old YouTube video is still accurate about the Mac part. youtu.be/2B-ekl_cEWk?si=xWJ43QEO48O9t2oY
It’s the opposite tbh. If you want to play emulators or old (as in 2015) PC games via Wine/VM, mac has you covered. It’s newer games that are tougher because 80% of them don’t get ports and Wine/VM will have to turn down the graphics to run well.
Even so, I can still run most modern games at medium settings with a low-tier, 2 generations old mac. Small price to pay for avoiding windows’ godawful UX, ads, tracking, ai spam, onedrive spam, monthly subscription for solitaire, etc.
Can you provide one real world example? An older Windows game that works better on Mac than on Windows?
I will also add that 2015 is a random number. Win10 easily handles anything after 2005 or so. It’s the pre 2005 games that often require some deal of research.
I’ve heard of some edge cases where Wine is now a better option than native windows for really weirdly built 2000s era games. But overall most won’t run better since they have to use a compatibility layer. The point is they do run and my computer isn’t just for gaming. Windows has gone deep into enshittification for ten years now, and it’s worth trading some FPS to Wine to not have to live with that.
Also this only matters for new games. If you’re a HoMM3 addict or only care about emulators there’s no downside.
Macs also lack GPUs suitable for gaming. The modern ones are remarkably efficient, partly because they didn’t jam a 4060’s worth of graphic silicon into them. Why would they? Macs are for web browsing, media creation, productivity if you’re in the C-suite and making other people think you’re cool if you’re in a coffee shop. Their users do not expect to run AAA games at 4k60fps.
I can think of very few companies or services that I approve of more than Valve and Steam. Being private and free of shareholder greed is huge. They’ve never once screwed me over.
Only moment of worry will be when the company changes hands, but I’m sure Gabe has already thought about a worthy successor who won’t destroy the soul of the company.
I’ve even wanted to bring up Valve in some recent political discussions on corporate governance. With the blatant exception of CSGO child-focused gambling, it is otherwise the “shining ideal” of a good company: They invented a product that people like and enjoy, maintain it well to please their customers, and pay their employees well without growing excessively or finding ways to cheat customers out of their money.
Steam’s 30% cut on each purchase has been criticized over the years, especially with Steam’s market share being too large for many developers to ignore.
With all what they offer, 30% IMO is fair. It gets lower when you reach a certain amount too
Steam’s position in the market is a functional monopoly, but there have been challengers. The greatest example is the Epic Games Store, which started as just the launcher for Fortnite, then became a full-blown store in 2019 for third-party games. The Epic Games Store was light on features at first, and still doesn’t have many of the community-centric features in Steam, but it has a Steamworks-like multiplayer framework and other core functionality. Epic also doesn’t take as much money from game developers as Steam’s 30% cut.
Epic a challenger? LMAO “The greatest example is the Epic Games Store” yeah sure, they have nothing, quite literally.
It’s not like the games are cheaper on other stores with lower cuts. Why would customers care if the lower cut just results in publishers pocketing higher profits.
True. Not praising steam as the god digital store on PC because it has its own problems but it saved me from 🏴☠️ and now I do it for devs that deserve it (Looking at you Sony and PSN requirement) or as demo damn I wish more games had a demo
The problem is: Epic is shit and does nothing. What does it has more than steam? Free games? Eh can get them for free anyway without a launcher sooo without the games, what does it has?
The problem is a second launcher or library is a pain in the ass for a user. I already avoid GoG unless it’s massively cheaper, and there’s the no drm benefits there. I’m not even interested in free games on epic.
GoG is not bad (for me) but I used steam for years so I buy games there. Did you know their launcher is, according to some people, made with unreal engine? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I was like that until Epic released free games that I decided to claim just in case my tastes changed or I was with a friend who enjoyed that game, but that I myself was very uninterested in playing. And then I got busier, and bought games I have high confidence I’d like but did not have the time to play just then past maybe a demo or a short while to check if I did actually like it—I’d get to it sometime later when I had more free time. My tastes tend to expand to include more things, but not to reject more things as well, so I thought the risk of tastes changing was an okay risk to take in order to capitalize on the sale of a game I am interested in now, even if I would play it much later. So far I have proven pretty good at guessing future me’s tastes.
Maybe I’m not seeing the whole picture, doesn’t steam host the game data? Push updates? Promote? Host Workshops if applicable? Use their bandwidth? Sync saves when applicable? Provide a community forum for the game? Allow players to connect easier?
I think 30% is fair too, thats what I was asking. I don’t know the industry, but steam takes on a lot of responsibility hosting a game and handling what I listed.
What a weaksauce article, spends most of the time arguing against itself, and the problem is most of the strawman arguments it sets up to argue against actually win in my opinion. Most of its arguments follow this kind of format:
I think that 2 + 2 = 5, now I know you might hear that 2 + 2 = 4, but the only thing that says that is thousands of years of math, and we can’t assume that’s going to continue into the future because Valve made a mistake doing math once.
Finally ends with some vague hypothetical about how even though they admit Valve is pretty good today, but still it will become evil someday because grr capitalism bad.
Steam is fantastic, they’ve made mistakes yes (Australia’s gaming laws are well known to be crazy for example so that’s not completely Valve’s responsibility) but on the whole they are doing great things and making money while doing it, which is great because a successful and profitable Steam is able to continue to do great things. Making money is not a sin if they do it fairly and ethically, and they do. 30% is a bargain for what they’re providing, especially the devoted audience which they have attracted (completely legitimately), and if you don’t agree it’s worth that 30% you’re welcome to distribute your game literally anywhere else.
spacebar.news
Aktywne