Skip Navigation

Posts
3
Comments
2584
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • What you aren't arguing for anywhere in this comment is that every artist be required to do these things. Somehow game developers are exempt from this grace?

    Would it be better if every piece of art was accessible like this? Yes.

    Same goes for games. That's what this thread is: it would be better if every game had X

  • I prefer the 4 circles glyphs that shows the appropriate face button highlighted. It's device agnostic and helpful when I'm switching between playing on my Switch and playing on my PC with an Xbox controller.

  • Don't threaten me with a good time.

  • You've been saying everyone in the industry knows not being on Steam means your game won't be successful and it warps the industry around it.

    You've also been saying that Alan Wake 2 was guaranteed to make a lot of money if they released on Steam.

    So given these two arguments you've been making, why would a company choose to make less money by not releasing on Steam?

  • Here's the funny part: it's probably fine

    Then what have you been going on about all this time? You' been saying repeatedly that it's a problem and now you're saying it's probably fine? Pick a lane.

    If you're not in this one store, you lose access to most customers.

    Customers who want your product can still access it.

    That's a fucking monopoly.

    Not by the dictionary definition nor the legal definition you cited.

    We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything.

    But "it's probably fine."

    And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront

    Which most of them are. For a while Epic was refusing games that wasn't signing exclusivity deals with them, but that ended up not working out for them.In the past Walmart has refused to sell music of artists with content they disagreed with. Was that Walmart exploiting it's market share, or a business choosing what they do and do not stock?

    instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant.

    Again, what should we do about that?

  • Some of them are convinced to

    So not being on Steam isn't widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?

  • So what do you propose? Is there some action Steam is doing that they should be legally stopped from? As far as I am aware Steam has the most customers simply because those customers prefer it.

  • It me.

    Leftists NOT_RICK, who does 509642577 leftisims a day, is an outlier and should not have been included in the study.

  • Valve kills studios by saying 'no thank you.'

    Back to your earlier point: why wasn't Alan Wake 2 on Steam? Did Steam say 'no thank you'?

    The mere possibility shapes the entire industry.

    If it's such a wide reaching and well known issue, why would any studio choose not to release on Steam? Do you know something they don't?

    Games want to feature nudity and intimacy

    They they do. Steam has full on porn games on it.

  • If only there were words for one company arbitrarily restricting who gets to reach customers.

    Freedom of association? Valve is not obligated or required to host everyone's game if they don't want to.

  • Ability

    So you think if Steam decided to cancel all of its sales and double the price of everything people would keep purchasing from them? If not then they do not have the ability. We already know they don't have the ability to prevent competition in the market due to the competition in the market.

    if they start being dicks, we're all in deep shit?

    We're really not. If they start being dicks other stores already exist that we can use instead.

  • The reason is not complicated.

    Right: there's not a market for AAA torture porn / sexual abuse games.

  • One example does not mean most.

  • that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

    So again, not what we're seeing at all.

    Epic has little impact because Epic is shit at making a store people actually want to use.

  • Alan Wake 2 was a popular and acclaimed game, and it did terribly on PC specifically

    Exceptions mean there’s no rule, yeah?

  • Monopoly:

    1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

    2: exclusive possession or control

    3: a commodity controlled by one party

    4: : one that has a monopoly

  • they have competitors

    So not a monopoly.

  • Exceptions mean there's no rule, yeah?

    1. when you're arguing that it's impossible for a game to make a profit without Steam, yes
    2. my post was in reply to you listing a single game that wasn't profitable for a year and blaming that on it not being on Steam. If my example is not a valid argument then you shouldn't have argued that way in the first place.
  • Satisfactory made $11 million in the first year when it was exclusive to Epic (and not available on "the one store everybody uses").