The big issue would be getting game developers onboard. The service valve provides is both to developers and to consumers.
The appeal to developers is that they can toss the game on steam and valve will manage putting it in front of players and getting them to buy it, and all the associated payment processing that entails.
Developers like steam because it has all the users and does a good job of “based on your games, buy these too”.
Users like it because it has all the games, installation is inevitably trivial, and it does a good job offering them games they could plausibly like, often on sale, and there’s a feeling of platform security: valve won’t screw you over.
Any new distribution system will have a tough time breaking in. Just look at the difficulties epic has had despite giving away games constantly and offering extremely generous developer revenue shares.
Valve aimed to make steam $30-60 dollars more convenient than piracy, and that seems to extend to other forms of free as well.
First step is figuring out secure decentralized credit card payments. 😊
Well, I don’t think they’re interested in selling directly. There’s a lot of overhead in handling credit card payments and dealing with the jurisdictional issues of sales tax, currency conversion, and regional age and content restrictions.
Your notion sounds perfectly lovely from the consumer side, but from the creator side it’s not much different from not using the system at all.
I could see a federated recommendation engine/ranking system/the social parts of game ownership, but I just don’t see it panning out for the actual commerce part.
Those parts benefit from being able to control your own data and who it’s shared with. I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to federate giving a specific individual money and them authorizing you to download or access a resource they control.
The goal should be fast travel people don’t want to use because travel is fun.
The Spiderman games for the most part made moving around the city fun enough that I didn’t fast travel, but it was still there for the times I had to go really far away.
If you need a feature that lets players skip a part of your game, you should either make that part better or just remove it. But you should still make concessions to players who want to skip it anyway. Like the little “skip cutscene” buttons.
So, I’ve got one for my steam deck and it’s less an issue than you might think, in my opinion.
When you’re focused on the screen, it doesn’t create too much incongruity when the background shifts, and it’s easy to just let you brain parse the screen as something that just floats in front of you.
It’s not immersive enough to get the inner ear involved and confused. It’s a lot closer to holding a phone sideways about six inches from your face and moving your head around.
The only time it felt weird was when I was using it in a well lit room, and I shifted my focus to something not on the screen, that was closer than the apparent distance to the floating display. It was weird feeling my vision try to reconcile that the nearer thing was moving behind the far thing.
Crazy rumour suggests Microsoft are preparing $16 billion offer for Valve (www.altchar.com) angielski
deleted_by_moderator
What was Capcom thinking? (lemmy.world) angielski
Valve employee reveals “stupid expensive” scrapped VR console plans (www.dexerto.com) angielski