• MSids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    I can’t wait to get more games on my Epic deck, oh wait it was Valve who pioneered an incredible platform that can play AAA games on a handheld running Linux and made compatibility a reality for thousands of games.

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      They didn’t pioneer it, companies like GPD did. Not shitting in the Steam Deck, love that thing. Just wanting to get the facts straight.

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    Steam really needs something like this. Even the first 100k would be a great start for boosting indie devs.

    Instead they do the opposite and reward the big players.

    Steam actually reduces their cut as you hit certain milestones. For your first $10M in sales, they take that standard 30%. Hit the $10M mark, and their cut drops to 25% for sales between $10M and $50M. Push past $50M, and Steam only takes 20%.

    • Kualdir@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think ideally the first xk should have somethong like 10% since there’s still payment processing fees and such. After that have 30% then go down on huge amount of sales (to keep the big boys happy and on steam)

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Why do you want to keep “the big boys” happy?

        I mean, if you’re Gabe then I get it. If you have a spare yacht call me, let’s talk.

        But if you’re not, then… what’s the reasoning there?

        • Kualdir@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          From the POV of steam, you want the big releases to happen on your platform and take your cut even if its a bit smaller. In the end people change platforms for the big releases. Its the main reason I haven’t fully switched to GOG yet, it doesn’t have the major releases I want (or gets them late like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2).

          You can spread idealism, but I rather stay realistic.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Yeah, but I’m not in the POV of Steam.

            I’m in my POV.

            You can’t simultaneously go “it is what it is” when Valve gives big games a better deal to secure their position and be mad that Epic gives games exclusivity deals. It just doesn’t follow. Realistically.

        • Tanoh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          If it free, there is an incentive to release quantity and not quality, it could become a spam problem. I am all for having a lower percentage though, but 0 could be a problem.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            You think the current cut Steam is taking…

            … is preventing shovelware spam?

            Have you been on Steam this decade?

            But hey, yeah, nobody is advocating a 0% cut for Valve. Epic is doing this because they need to attract developers and most of their money comes from Fortnite anyway, so it’s something they can try.

            But Valve has a looot of ground between 0 and 30% and a lot of ways to give back to the developers that built their empire. And I don’t think starting by treating smaller devs as well as they treat major corporations would be a bad start at all.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Not me, but i do want steam to stay the main game platform, if the alternative is epic games. That means you want to keep big studios on the platform.

          On the other hand the vast majority of the money that valve makes comes from indie games, not big studios.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            My go-to is GoG, but I definitely want Steam to lose some market share in favor of literally anybody else. I will worry about moving that extra share towards GoG when the market isn’t a full on monopoly.

            But hey, yeah, stop using Steam and go to Gog whenever you can. You heard it here first. DRM-free software should be your first choice.

            • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              GOG and Itch are both great services. Epic is run by a psychopath and working hard to create the walled garden they themselves have been railing against. That’s why EGS can go to hell but I’ll gladly buy from the others.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              Reminder that the world’s biggest money makers in PC gaming are not on Steam.

              Minecraft isn’t (it’s on Microsoft Store and a stand-alone web store), Fortnite isn’t (it’s EGS exclusive), Roblox isn’t (its own store), League of Legends and Valorant aren’t (Riot Launcher and EGS),…

              • MudMan@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 days ago

                Yeah.

                And that’s a fantastic showcase of the bar you need to hit to not be effectively toiling in the Steam mines. Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam.

                It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC. And none of those is even close to having a viable platform for third party releases outside of Epic, which is perhaps the last one standing on that front and currently not managing to get a foothold. And judging by the rabid fanboy backlash anytime they try to do something nice to attract devs, not even finding a path towards one at any point in the future, either.

                That’s a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren’t that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam.

                  They don’t have to. OK, maybe Microsoft has to because they are the actual monopolist and making the Activision Blizzard franchises available on storefronts other than Microsoft’s own is to keep the watchdogs away.

                  Also, none of the franchises are exclusive to Steam, so Steam has no monopoly.

                  It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC.

                  That sentence makes no sense. Fortnite is exclusive to EGS, therefore it cannot be “significantly bigger than the entire Epic store”.

                  Steam has no policies that forbid offering games on other stores, Epic has policies that makes certain games timed exclusives to EGS.

                  What makes EGS unattractive compared to Steam is the simple fact that Epic chooses to most prominently display their own games on EGS. Valve does front page banners, fests, that window that opens with every Steam launch, etc. and goes out of their way to make everything from big launches as well as solo dev indie games discoverable.

                  Epic has it in their own hands to make EGS more than the Fortnite launcher. They could promote other EGS games inside Fortnite but they don’t. They host concerts inside Fortnite but nothing to promote 3rd party EGS games, for examle.

                  That’s a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren’t that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.

                  USD 45 billion overall PC gaming revenue and all of Steam combined is 8.6bn. “And the cash flows to Valve”? Sure…

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              I definitely want Steam to lose some market share

              I want them to have some competition…

              • MudMan@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 days ago

                Yeah. I mean, same thing.

                The point is you ideally want multiple players in the PC market competing with each other on features and approach that are all viable, sustainable and give users and developers a better deal as middlemen.

                I don’t want Steam to go away, it’s an insanely good client and a great piece of software. But I don’t want every game having to be on Steam no matter what and only doing GoG or Epic or Xbox if they are being given a deal or for ideological reasons.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Valve is the only one in PC gaming to push an alternative operating system to Windows.

                  EGS, GOG,… all enforce a Windows hegemony. GOG Galaxy isn’t even available on Linux, despite the fact that it’s built on cross platform frameworks that make porting easy. Proton by Valve is open source and GOG Galaxy would be free to integrate it.

                  Heroic Launcher is a community effort that shows that it would be possible without massive investments. Epic and GOG/CD Project just chose not to.

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I like GoG but they don’t support Linux, they don’t take a smaller cut, and developers are free to submit their games to Steam without DRM.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        I dont think the curve would look like this without valves efforts to push linux, so i am a bit forgiving when it comes to them wanting money to do random research and development. So far they have always been making cool stuff with that money.

        • notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          They’re constantly making cool, free shit for gamers because valve at its core is a company of gamers - they happen to make a shit ton of money because their passion for gaming ended up delivering a superior product, but it’s that passion that keeps them at the top.

          Look at remote play together and family sharing - neither of those concepts help valve sell more games… if anything, they reduce the number of games sold (ie, their entire profit model), but they’re great ideas that make sense… so they spent a bunch of the companies time and money developing them.

          Epic will forever be garbage as long as it’s only goal is to dick with steam… and it will always fail because they’re treating steam like a greedy corporation when really, it’s just a bunch of passionate gamers building the toys they wish they had when they were kids.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. But if they drop their rates they get accused of being anticompetitive and monopolistic.

      So if they do something similar like Epic, they’ll go back to using their monopoly over the market to keep competitors down.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates.

        …those are not different sides? The only reason they can charge such absurd rates is because of their position in the marketplace.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn’t increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition? They already have active legal cases against them for monopolizing.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging.

            When they have absolute monopoly.

            Nintendo charges that much because only Nintendo provides Switch software.

            Microsoft charges that much because only Microsoft provides Xbox software.

            Sony charges that much because only Sony provides Playstation software.

            Apple charges that much because only Apple provides iOS software… despite the EU’s best efforts.

            Steam and Android act like they’re the only store that matters, for their platform. And it works. Because they are.

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging

            It’s not what Epic charges.

            Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn’t increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition?

            No one would care if they were a monopoly and also charged less than everyone else. Pretty much every monopoly discussion revolves almost entirely around their absurd commission rates.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 days ago

              No it doesn’t. Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam to undercut their rates because they can annihilate them in volume? Steam may not answer back at epics first million $ rate cut because Steam kind of needs them as competition.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 days ago

                Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam

                Nobody gives a shit what they want. Monopoly enforcement is about consumers.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Epic only does it because they know they’re the underdog. If that were to one day become untrue they would never do anything like this again.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I mean, yeah.

        You sorta figured out competition in marketplaces.

        Hey, I’m a social democrat. I’m all for intervening in markets, but for commodity entertainment products competition works pretty well, as you just explained.

        • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          but no, steam has maintained its 30% cut since its inception do you know the rate publishers like EA demand? 50%. EA is just pissed valve is a better and more reasonable publisher than they are.

          so long as EA and other publishers exist and are taking a bigger cut than valve. I’m happy to give valve a pass atm at the better option.

          the issue at hand atm is gamers won’t tolerate price increases and inflation has cut into the original profit margin. and so publishers are running around screaming about valve’s 30% cut when they demand a larger cut.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            You are mistaking publishing for distribution.

            Publishing is not distribution.

            • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              smile the whole point of publishers back in the day before the internet was distribution and marketing. no I am not mistaking one for the other.

              • MudMan@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 days ago

                No, you absolutely are. Publishers will typically pay for retail manufacturing costs (so printing, boxing and shipping), but that’s not the same as digital distribution. Digital distribution doesn’t map to shipping game boxes, it maps to retail.

                Which is why games on Steam have deals with publishers, NOT with Valve.

                • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  No, I’m not. you’re assuming i am. game developers dont generally have the relationships with distributors. the whole point of a publisher is to handle that relationship + the relationship with marketing avenues.

                  with digital distribution the role of a publisher is greatly reduced. mostly down to just marketing.

      • Velypso@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        And steam doesn’t do it at all.

        One approach is objectively better for the little guys than the other.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          One approach is objectively better for the little guys than the other.

          I’m a littler guy than any game company, Epic treats me like shit. So I’m not going to use Epic.

  • MortUS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    A lot of Steam Stans here.

    Here’s some neat facts:

    • Epic Games is the same Source Developers behind Unreal Engine 5. UE5 is arguably the best game engine right now for modern graphics.
    • Epic Games Unreal Engine 5 is Free to start developing and only kicks in commission after X% of sales.
    • Both Steam and GoG take a ~30% commission on all game sales.
    • Steam games aren’t DRM-free (neither is EGS, but 0% + the driving force behind UE5?)
    • The Steam Source 2 Engine is proprietary; only their team can develop Source games.

    It sucks that EGS is looking to suck up games, customers, data, etc. Their App / Interface also kinda sucks. UE5 on the other hand kinda rules, and Steam has been quietly collecting cheques while their Source Engine has collected dust. Almost all my games are on Steam but the ones I want to keep I’ve been getting through GoG. Steam is going to have to make some tough decisions I think to compete as time goes on. GoG on the other hand has a solid business model of old DRM free games.

    • Zaemz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Source 2 is closed source, however it’s absolutely available to third parties. There are a couple non-Valve Source 2 games in development right now.

      • MortUS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Could you point to these games or any documentation on how a developer may reach out to Valve regarding developing in the Source 2 Engine?

        I was able to find sources for the Source engine, but not Source 2 which Valve has been primarily making games on in the last 10 years. In any case, neither are as widely supported or available as UE5.

    • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I would argue UE5 enables and encourages bad development practices that lead to the unoptimized mess that “modern graphics” games are right now. Their work is cool, but so many games rely on temporal aliasing for in-game effects now, and UE5 is the common denominator.

      Steam and GOG have a strong history and userbase. 0% commission is nice, but Steam in particular offers a world of more value than Epic Games Store, including but not limited to a usable fucking user interface (I use Rare to play my EGS library because it’s so bad).

      Steam games are DRM free unless you consider Steam itself a form of DRM. DRM is implemented by the developers of the game, not by the marketplace it’s sold on.

      And I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?

      • MortUS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?

        Steam is it’s own DRM system. Control (2020) is a perfect example. You can’t run that from your steamapps folder due to Steams DRM to verify a purchase license. GoG on the other hand has the same game, usually cheaper, an runs entirely independent of any platform. Not every Steam game is like this, but most major releases are.

        The nice thing about a “Free” Engine is that anyone can pick it up. This means the more people pick it up, the more tutorials, the more docs, the most common issues are found, the more common solutions, etc. So while you believe that performance is an issue, it really is one of the better available engines out there and it can only get better. Again, Steam does not let other people use their Engine - what’s the next best free thing - Unity?

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yet Steam has a history that proves they will not fuck customers over, and if they try new features people hate they’ll not pushing it through no matter what for the purpose of maximizing profits (also not through dark patterns). This is something phenomenally rare and which you can’t buy with any amount of money.

      So yeah, not sure what will happen in the future. But competing with Steam always will be just painful unless you got your own niche (like GOG) by the mere fact that Valve isn’t “just another company that will screw you over” <-- the default expectation these days.

      • Rose@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        You do realize the market share of GOG is about 0.5%, right? That’s despite Projekt Red being a beloved developer, the great launcher features, the fairest DRM practices, many years in the business, and so on. It only proves the point that Steam is a monopoly that cannot be disrupted whether you do it nicely like GOG or aggressively like Epic.

          • Rose@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            From what I’ve been hearing, their fee is flexible. 30% is uncommon on PC.

              • Rose@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                I’m not aware of any evidence of Valve’s cut ever adapting to a dev’s circumstances. It’s 30% until they’ve made $10M, which drops it to 25%, and to 20% after $50M. I’d call that scalability available only to the most successful few, not flexibility.

                • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  That is a dynamic rate by definition, not saying its perfect. But its available to any dev whos game hits those numbers.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I assume they mostly just do Steam sale and store organization stuff these days. Maybe they were involved with the SteamDeck but I mostly saw word of mouth for that.

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    100% of $0 is still $0.

    I’ll spend my money on platforms that have proven to respect their customers.

    • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      What’s epics problem? I only log in to get free games but I think competition should work out better for the consumer

      • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Competition is usually always a good thing, but sadly no launcher has ever brought anything new to the table that Steam hasn’t already been doing (they usually just bring headaches).

        Epic doesn’t want to compete fairly (by providing a great user experience, etc). They want to compete by paying for exclusives & bribing users with free games. Obviously this hasn’t worked because they are loweri g fees, likely to try to get the growth they just aren’t seeing.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        For the consumer multiple platforms sucks. There’s already competition for selling steam keys as well. Epic doesn’t want to pay other platforms for anything fortnite, anything else they do is to justify why they shouldn’t have to pay like every one else.

      • glitchdx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They could literally just copy steam, add their “we take less of a cut” thing, and be in a good place.

        Instead, using their storefront sucks, their customer service sucks, they lack features you’d expect of a major platform, and they’re pretentious dicks about it. Instead of fixing these obvious problems, they’re bribing devs for exclusivity, pumping their marketing with bullshit, and litigating apple over their app store (actually that last one is kinda great). The epic store today would be competition to steam if steam was still as it was 20 years ago when everyone hated steam.

      • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They don’t got a problem. Someone on reddit a while ago pushed for epic=bad so now years later people just parrot the same shit over and over like monkeys.

        These people in their minds are “friends” with steam. They gotta stick up for their buddies on the internet.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    At least Valve takes some of the money that they make from Steam and use it for Steam. You cant run an entire gaming platform based on developers alone, you also need to make it at least somewhat bearable for consumers.

  • notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Because they have to, because their store is based in bribing developers for artificial exclusivity in an attempt to hurt Valve for proving that Pig Swiney was a moron a decade ago when he said PC gaming was dead.

    This is all a vain attempt by a man child to get back at Gabe, and it’s abso fucking lutely a hilarious delight what an abject failure it all is.

    Garbage store with no customer services struggles and burns money, because that’s what’s lazy customer fucking cash grabs should do - burn. Fuck epic, fuck Swiney, and fuck you if you defend them.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Good for them, but until EGS starts being more pro- consumer, I’m not spending a cent there

    • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      even if they do become pro-consumer you shouldn’t spend there. because it’d be a temporary affair and soon as they win market share from steam it’ll disappear.

  • idriss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    It s a good start ngl.

    What about taking a different route altogether and not be greedy? what about charging a flat fee (your costs plus some profits to run the infrastructure like yearly or monthly). What about not being evil?

    There is a huge business opportunity IMO to do just that. Have a store, charge a flat fee, add whatever percentage wire transfers take (1-3%). You make money, you out-compete everyone and you are the good guy.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      That would require having a platform worth something. Currently, they sank millions into the community - but in the wrong way. The client still lacks basic features and yet they spend money to buy exclusivity.

      Fuck them, they don’t deserve shit - praise or money.

      • idriss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I agree with this. What would make people jump from an evil corporation abusing its users and creators to another evil corporation abusing its users and creators.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Sounds like it’s time to play through the free games I got before epic folds like a card table and revokes my access to them.

    In a sane world, the library could host the people’s digital store front with no cuts taken from the sales. Gaming is our culture, we should preserve it. We should collectively own it. We should be free to sell the games without a middleman taking a cut.

    • Suite404@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I don’t have an issue with a platform taking a small cut, but the 30% steam takes is ridiculous.

    • Rusty@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I would rather buy a game on steam, or better yet on gog, than giving my money to a company that is trying to make store exclusive games a thing.

      • gl38@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Wait, I’m confused. The article is about how Epic won’t take a cut to a point. Surely, you’re not giving money to Epic if you buy the game on EGS?