Play whatever you enjoy the most and leave the rest in the backlog (or simply don't buy them because new things will keep coming out).The Ascent on Gamepass.
Halo Infinite week end.
Death Door and Avengers discounted to respectable levels.
...
Me playing FF14 : how the fuck will I find the time to play any of those if I buy them ?
No, I had to click all the X's like a shmuck
Ah yeah, even greater update then. Felt really good clicking that "clear all" button, so something had changed.
it kinda reached the point , not even Jazz Jackrabbit 3 would be enough
they also never patched back the new content from switch version
They wouldn't even need to put any restrictions on them, they just naturally would cease existing.
Certainly not, since I feel like I clicked on that X a million times.
I meant "justify" there in an economic sense from Valve's POV, nothing else. If a huge chunk of the money they see comes from titles selling less than 1 million in revenue, then cutting the 30% fee for these titles would hurt Valve. If however, most of its fees come from titles with revenue over 1 million, then it's probably not a big deal for Valve to reduce it like I suggested.
Yes, my point being that they owe their existence and success in large part to that kickstarter. People took a chance on them. And now that they are established, they went "fuck you, got mine" like the others that took the moneyhats.
My issue with their client is their proven track record of using it to spy on me, to the point of literally accessing without your knowledge the data in your local Steam directory.
I'm complicated, deadlines are only a part of the formula.
You can also buy this game you know, Steam or MS Store. So you can take your time with it.
Holy shit fucking finally
We don't have the same opinion about GP. I have never had technical issues with it and I'm not interested in the game enough to nuke 26 euros out of my super limited budget (saving for Deck).
Who knows ? Some GP technical issue ?
From what I've read it seems that devs/pubs don't pay attention much to the game pass version of games as Steam version actually affects their bottom line, but game pass version does not. Read about lots of games getting patched far later on game pass than Steam.
Yeah, I mean it sucks that game pass and Steam versions aren't the same and most likely don't get the same amout of care, but in some way, game pass is like Epic exclusives, the devs/pub got their back of money, they put it on the service and that's it. They got their money and don't have to care anymore. If anything else, it is Epic or MS that have to push the devs/pub in to caring about the product.
It's both strange and sad that many people don't care about this.
I think a lot of people don't know. We are enthusiasts, most people are not.It's both strange and sad that many people don't care about this.
Probably an older build and too annoying for them to update it via Microsoft's weird process? lol
Oh yeah, now that I think about it, Windows Store games probably have to deal with console-esque certification, right?
That's a fair concern, and becomes an issue when it comes to a game one is interested in getting day 1/0.
If one were to buy this particular game, one would pay EUR 10, and the dev got a good cut from it; why is them getting a better cut from this such a bad thing?
This comes off irrelevant when games are already priced between $5-$30 range, and have been for the better part of a decade. Budgeting is already done.
That is indeed something that's on my mind and an understandable concern. However, how can indies even increase their costs in game development when there are already many tools available for developing games?
No it is not because it has been the case on steam for the longest time now; not every small, let alone medium, indie game made is gonna be Among Us levels of success, and there are many such games on steam already. The key thing here isn't success; it's getting a better cut for the game they worked to develop, and now with how well steam is doing, I think valve should consider lowering the cut.
"If indie devs work hard, surely they'll be rewarded'
It might be that because Microsofts patch process is needlessly complicated that devs can subtly force change by being extra slow to patch on the service. By extension, annoying Microsofts customers with an unequal service.
Done. Please give us more Capcom, I will buy all of it
Please complete if you want more Ace Attorneys to Steam
I put that qualifier there since I know there are some EGS games on key sites, but I'm not sure exactly how the logistics for that go. IIRC, exclusives sold on key sites go against their minimum guarantees, but I'm not quite sure if that applies to non-exclusive games. Regardless, you're right that the discounts would most likely go away, if not change a lot worse for the user.
So it can run Crysis? Phew, I was worried about that.200fps in Crysis on high
I mean, I guess that's a nice effort and all, but they don't even try to compensate for the much lower GPU memory bandwidth in the deck. Depending on a games' workload, at best they are on point, but at worst they could be off by a factor of 4.
Give me 4-6, Kenji 1-2 and brand new games you COWARDS
Please complete if you want more Ace Attorneys to Steam
Because it doesn't solve the financial issues for 99% of the devs. Like I said, the scenario where the dev depended on a 5 to 10% better cut to survive is very narrow in scope and won't even save those companies in the first place because Game development, apart from GAAS, is not a continuous money-earner in the first place. For a developer that is in financial trouble a better cut just changes the bankruptcy a month or two to the future.
This is not the budgeting I am talking about. I talk about budgeting your game development expenses.
The point is, that the game is either profitable or not. The cut only changes that for very few specific cases. The % isn't a sliding scale of profitability. It. is. just. another. expense. You can be profitable with your game with a 99% cut, and you can go bankrupt with your game with a 1% cut, hell you could go bankrupt with your game having a -1000% cut.
Again. This has nothing to do with pricing your game. I am talking about pumping money into your game. And you can absolutely pump an immense amount of money into a game and software licensing is just a tiny cost.
We hear success stories on Steam from Indie devs more often than in previous years. Every game has the same chance, it has nothing to do with quality, size of your development team, or how much sweat and tears a dev has brought into making it.
You are putting words in my mouth. It is not hard work that is rewarded, it is genre, luck, timing, word of mouth.
Why do devs "deserve" a better cut?
I don't think "deserve" is the right word to use, especially when we're talking about market forces at work. It implies that devs are being underpayed/taken advantage of as a baseline by the [major] storefronts by default. Is there an argument to be made that the current 'sell more, earn more' model isn't distributed fairly given how the industry operates, and that maybe the pyramid for it should be bottom up, where indies get the bigger cut on a different scale than a major multinational corporate publisher, sure. But neither side 'deserves' anything, just like a dev doesn't deserve my money just because they released a game into the market place.
Hello, I'm the Giveaway Bot! FeedMeAStrayCat is giving away 10 gift(s).
This is a first-come, first-served giveaway. Once you enter, your key will be delivered to you instantly via a PM.
Probably updating on gp is as fun as downloading and playing.
