The EU has had digital legislations since long before that lawsuit. Or do you think Epic is also responsible for GDPR?.
So you think that the European commission saw a lawsuit in a different country and decided “We need that” then rushed to write the entirety of DMA in less than 4 months. If you think DMA and Epic lawsuits are related the most possible order of events is that Epic saw what was going to be passed in the EU and decided to suit Apple and Google to get the same in the USA
The iOS version also has nothing to do with their lawsuit of Apple, they lost that one. It’s due to an unrelated law in the EU, which is why this is only available in the EU.
There are alternative stores on Android since forever.
From 1, Opening a secondary store on Android was always an option.
30% they claim is abusive is the industry standard, i.e. no one is taking advantage of their monopoly to enforce that, because even in markets without a monopoly that’s the amount charged.
Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple, which was the only company he was suing that actually enforced a monopoly in their platform.
Secondary stores are allowed on Apple in the EU as a result of DMA which has nothing to do with Epic.
From 5, Opening a secondary store on Apple is now an option regardless of what Epic did.
So you have one company that sued two others to be able to launch their store there, one of the companies wasn’t preventing them from doing so, and they lost their lawsuit against the other one. Completely unrelated to that, the EU forced that second company to allow third-party stores. Conclusion, Epic’s lawsuit has nothing to do with this announcement.
But that’s nothing to do with pay to win, that is a form of balancing. If you’re bad at the game the game gives you advantages so you can play with the big boys. Hopefully the game gradually turns off those advantages when you start getting good and high skill matches have no one with those advantages on.
That being said I’ve never played the game, or watched anything about it, so I might be missinterpreting what you’re saying, but to me it sounds like a good balancing system to keep noobs from being frustrated and experts from destroying everyone who’s not at their level of skill. It’s like if CS gave you more damage or auto-aim if your account was low K/D ratio, they’re trying to make everyone be on a leveled play field. Obviously competitive matches need to have that turned off, but for people playing just for fun that’s the difference between every time I spawn I die and I can kill someone every once in a while.
Yes, but read that again, he’s making a new language, not a new engine… To put it in terms of food, using things like Unity is equivalent to eating industrialized food, you have absolutely no control and you get what you get; Using other engines like Unreal or Godot that have open source is like cooking at home, some work but you can get it just the way you like; Building an engine yourself is like having a little farm in your backyard and doing everything from start to finish, it’s slow, you’ll face problems that have nothing to do with cooking that were handled by the farmers before and at the end you’ll get something only slightly better than what you could using store bought products; Building a language from scratch is the personification of the saying “to make an apple pie from scratch first you have to invent the universe”.
And you know the worst part? It won’t be any faster or better in any mensurable way, large groups of developers spend decades to develop the languages we have today.
I know how Valve’s publisher API works, others are similar in case you didn’t know. But that is only true for games that need online validation of some sort, DLCs for offline games don’t need to implement this.
Valve is hosting the game, providing the storefront and bringing in a lot of customers. If you didn’t think those 30% were worth it you would not have put your game on steam.
Plus all of this is irrelevant to the point that Valve doesn’t enforce price parity.
They don’t. The thing most people who have never published a game on steam don’t know is that valve gives you infinite steam keys (for free) that you can give or sell as you wish. This is to allow studios/publishers to give keys to whoever they want, and also allows them to sell those keys on their own or third-party websites. This is a HUGE deal, Valve is letting studios/publishers sell games on a separate site without charging anything while hosting the game themselves. The only condition to those keys is that they can’t be sold cheaper than on Steam.
That’s a completely different thing from what you’re claiming. This means that games can be cheaper on GoG, Epic, etc as long as they don’t give you a steam key together (which they could, for free).
Yes, if Valve limited the price games could have in other stores that would be anti-competitive, but that’s not the case. Their price parity clause is just for selling steam keys.
No it doesn’t. The price parity thing is only if you are selling the game on Steam platform, i.e. selling a steam key, it’s essentially a way to allow publishers to sell the game on their own website, without paying the 30% to steam, but don’t allow them to undercut steam entirely while still taking advantage of their platform.
Games on GoG, itch, Epic store, etc, can have any price they want, as long as they don’t give away a steam key valve doesn’t care what price you sell your game elsewhere.
This is one of the most annoying fake news out there, Valve are going above and beyond what any other store is doing, and they get bad rep from people who have never read their policy, published a game there, or talked to anyone who has.
Yes, but that’s boring, they even mentioned it in the article right before they talk about the Ethernet port, here’s the link if you want to do it yourself github.com/TheOfficialFloW/PPPwn