Steam is a ticking time bomb.
-
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.
Epic is the latest example that's trying. EA gave up that fight years ago, and probably had better shot than Epic ever will.
-
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.
Little known fact Steam refunds the money you paid to get the game on the platform if you pass a certain % in sales
-
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.
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?
Sounds like that 30% goes a long way.
Is that cut too much to cover all those things?
-
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.
Dang I have more games in my epic library than I do my steam library.
-
With all what they offer, 30% IMO is fair.
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.
Good point
-
Epic is the latest example that's trying. EA gave up that fight years ago, and probably had better shot than Epic ever will.
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?
-
Little known fact Steam refunds the money you paid to get the game on the platform if you pass a certain % in sales
True! Like the 30% is lower after a certain % is passed
-
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?
Sounds like that 30% goes a long way.
Is that cut too much to cover all those things?
I don't get if it's a negative comment or not (apologies) but for what you listed, I think 30% is fair
-
Dang I have more games in my epic library than I do my steam library.
OK? I wonder how many of them you played and how many are there ¯_(ツ)_/¯ eh don't care
-
I don't get if it's a negative comment or not (apologies) but for what you listed, I think 30% is fair
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Ooh okay! I thought was something bad, sorry.
Yeah, it has:
- Proton
- Steam input that's plug and play most of the times
- Forums
- Workshop
- Community
- Cloud sync & backup
- The whole social-ish part (useful or not up to people)
- more
30% is a fair cut but not all get that
-
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)_/¯
-
This coming from game journalism, which has just turned into a mouthpiece and constantly been used to lie about how good games are.
Funny how the date of this article comes out around the time that Amazon is failing, Epic is failing, Ubisoft is failing, and they're failing because they hate the people that they sell their products to, and they refuse to be user-friendly and user-focused.
Steam isn't perfect, but the reason why they're a monopoly is they actually give a shit about gamers, unlike all of their competition.
Gamers aren't a product, they're a user, and Steam understands that offering the voice to those people makes their product what it is. The more users they have, the more money they make. They don't need to nickel and dime and squeeze.
This is something that every single competitor they have had has just blatantly ignored.
Cross posted from: https://lemmy.world/comment/15611343
The likeliest explanation is that games press lie about how good games are and not that they just have a different opinion than you? Also, this isn't even a major outlet. It's just some guy's blog, not even exclusively about games.
-
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.
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.
-
OK? I wonder how many of them you played and how many are there ¯_(ツ)_/¯ eh don't care
I've played every game I own. Who gets a game and doesn't play it?
-
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 played every game I own. Who gets a game and doesn't play it?
Yeah sure bud. 99.8% of epic users
-
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.
-
The likeliest explanation is that games press lie about how good games are and not that they just have a different opinion than you? Also, this isn't even a major outlet. It's just some guy's blog, not even exclusively about games.
It's definitely happened before, though I couldn't say to what extent. The reason has been that if they rate games from major developers too poorly they stop getting access to their new games before release.
I care very little about critics these days though, and it's mostly for the reason you suggest, differing opinions. If they don't like the same types of games I like, what good is their rating to me? I'm not taking the time to try to find a critic that has similar tastes as me.
