You don't have your series X anymore?The Ascent is a stuttery mess on my end even with DLSS. I wonder what I should turn off / down.
You don't have your series X anymore?The Ascent is a stuttery mess on my end even with DLSS. I wonder what I should turn off / down.
The Ascent is a stuttery mess on my end even with DLSS. I wonder what I should turn off / down.
I do but I wanted it on Steam since it doesn't have crossplay.You don't have your series X anymore?
I'm playing in DX11
Ah, yes forgot people do prefer to play in coop haha, I need friends.T_TI do but I wanted it on Steam since it doesn't have crossplay.
This is a very interesting discussion you guys are having, it's fascinating to follow. My point of view is that of a simple customer so keep that in mind as I explain my position which is in short as follows: I don't mind developers making more money but I am happy with the current situation and I don't have any incentive to support rocking the boat.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?
HOLY SHIT SQUARE ENIX WHAT HAPPENEDFinal Fantasy Pixel Remaster scrolling issue has been fixed.
I repeat
Final Fantasy Pixel Remaster scrolling issue has been fixed.
also the regional pricing is beyond trashI just realized that FF collection won't be featured in the top seller weekly chart because bundles are not included and as separated SKUs they are not close to top 10 as most people are buying the complete collection. Damn it. U_U
Fans happened, as usual with their ports.HOLY SHIT SQUARE ENIX WHAT HAPPENED
Oh why would i have ever thought you spoke of an official patchFans happened, as usual with their ports.
Steam Community :: Guide :: How to unlock or set the framerate
yeah, dunno why ... don't expect an official one for at least another 3-4 years and even then it'll most likely break more stuff than fixOh why would i have ever thought you spoke of an official patch
OK, now that's a name I havent heard in a long, long time.
Considering the remaster will be exclusive to PS5 for a while....That can't be right.No new big PS5 game this fall means Bloodborne remaster confirmed. Or at least a PC port confirmed. Sony still wants money.
Plans change all the time. We've seen that so much the past year and so. Covid fucked up everyones plans.Considering the remaster will be exclusive to PS5 for a while....That can't be right.
Didn't Nvidia bought everything related to 3dfx?
Mmm, "an major", this could be a sign of fake news . Sorry if its the case in the end.
Remember the size of Voodoo cards 20 years ago? ATX cases arent prepared for such monstrosities (assuming real)
Mmm, "an major", this could be a sign of fake news . Sorry if its the case in the end.
I think you're exaggerating.Remember the size of Voodoo cards 20 years ago? ATX cases arent prepared for such monstrosities (assuming real)
no need to apologizeAnd again sorry for the fake news, I feel utterly bad now.
Hey hey.... they weren't hat big.... compared with today cardsRemember the size of Voodoo cards 20 years ago? ATX cases arent prepared for such monstrosities (assuming real)
And the 3080 is waaaaay bigger - but I'm not touching that to remove it from my case just for a silly picture
It was a fun trip down memory-lane so no need to feed bad or apologize.And again sorry for the fake news, I feel utterly bad now.
I've re-read and re-wrote how to respond to these points a couple of times and found myself repeating some points when responding to this. I eventually ended up consolidating my response as much as I could.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.
electricity and other utilities
wages
software licenses
taxes
3rd party contracting
marketing
voice work
trade shows
lawyers
financial advisors (<-----!!!!!)
30%cut for digital distribution
retail cut for selling the game on shelves
publisher cut if applicable
not all those points are applicable for every dev but those that do have to budget all of them and hold it against their projected game sales. The 30% cut is just one of the things you have to take into account when making a game.
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.
It seems like people infer that a 30% cut means that 30% of the game's budget goes to Steam. This is ridiculous.
The cut doesn't bankrupt devs. low unit sales are!
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.
longer development time
better art
better animations
greater scope
voice work
polishing
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.
It is only luck and SOMETIMES chasing what is currently "in". The cut has nothing to do with that.
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?
The devs have to ask if Valve deserves the current cut. And for the silent majority of devs the answer is a 250 million userbase, 120 million monthly CCU resounding YES!
The whole argument about a better cut falls flat on the face when all those "deserving" devs could sell their games with a 0% cut on their own website. And some do! But for most, the expenses in handling financial transactions, refunds, and customer complaints are bigger than what they "lose" to Valve.
In the end, what kind of indies are we talking about? the 80% who don't even sell 1000 units? (median sales on Steam were 1500 units in 2019 with a median price of 12 dollars) The ones who sell 10.000 units and would already be a massive success for most of them?
Have you even considered about what kind of money we are talking about here?
Let's go with your range of 5 to 30 bucks and 1000 unit sales, while we lower the cut from 30% to 20%
with a 5 dollar price point, the dev will get 500 dollar more
with a 30 dollar price point, the dev will get 3000 dollar more.
Those are the numbers whole existences of game developer studios hang on? Spoiler alert: for 99% of devs it is not! Show me the devs who can make a whole other game if they had just 500 dollar more.
Even if we go with the generous 10.000 unit sales, the numbers would be 5.000 and 30.000 dollars. A bunch of money, but a game that needed 10.000 sales to break even would also have bigger expenses in the first place.
The point is: the cut doesn't make or break a developer, unit sales and unit sales expectations are.
My thinking is independent development is tough and risky enough as it is. I would be glad to see small developers have a slightly easier go at it with a bigger share up to a certain dollar amount of initial sales for ex. And while 10% or 15% extra probably isn't necessarily going to make or break things, it is a little bit of extra breathing room. Valve is doing absolutely fine regardless. They're feasting on AAA and hits anyway. It's not whether Valve deserves it or not either -- they unarguably do a lot of great stuff. It's just that it would be good for the scene.So it all comes down to what is more beneficial to me. A well funded Valve means I get a quasi platform holder pushing and improving PC gaming. It means I get the Steam Deck. An individual developer making 7% more money gets me... what? A slightly better game? I don't think it's worth it. Maybe Valve dropping its cut won't impact its operations at all. But maybe it will, and I don't see any reason to support rolling the dice.
Yes but they arent on steam. Lan parties with isketch back in the day ftw.Aren't there like a hundred free browser-based versions around of that type of drawing guessing game? Weird. Good for them though.
two words:My thinking is independent development is tough and risky enough as it is. I would be glad to see small developers have a slightly easier go at it with a bigger share up to a certain dollar amount of initial sales for ex. And while 10% or 15% extra probably isn't necessarily going to make or break things, it is a little bit of extra breathing room. Valve is doing absolutely fine regardless. They're feasting on AAA and hits anyway. It's not whether Valve deserves it or not either -- they unarguably do a lot of great stuff. It's just that it would be good for the scene.
I also think 20% VAT is "too much", if I could live in a magical land where I get all the services my country provides to me for free. Developers want next to no cut, but still have a large gaming platform, that allows them to easily distribute their games to hundreds of millions of users across the world.According to GDC, a lot of devs thinks EGS cut is too high.
A lot of devs won't be happy until the cut is between 1-9%.
A cut at 9% means that Valve won't be able to afford Wallet cards anymore, Sweeney himself confirmed EGS won't have wallet cards because the EGS cut at 12% can't afford it.
No wallet cards means that millions of people all over the world, especially in Asia, won't be able to buy games.
If Steams cut is so terrible, they should stop selling their games on Steam and only on EGS and Itchio instead. But seems like Steam is too important to miss , so I guess Steams cut must be okay after all.I also think 20% VAT is "too much", if I could live in a magical land where I get all the services my country provides to me for free. Developers want next to no cut, but still have a large gaming platform, that allows them to easily distribute their games to hundreds of millions of users across the world.
This entire "debate" is so one-sided and ridiculous, especially how somehow in console land that 30% is completely a-okay and not worth bringing up even once.
Imaging living in a special region in Africa that is part of Spain but has a special and unique VAT (7%) because many reasons. And yet every time I buy a game I must pay Spain mainland VAT (21%).I also think 20% VAT is "too much", if I could live in a magical land where I get all the services my country provides to me for free. Developers want next to no cut, but still have a large gaming platform, that allows them to easily distribute their games to hundreds of millions of users across the world.
This entire "debate" is so one-sided and ridiculous, especially how somehow in console land that 30% is completely a-okay and not worth bringing up even once.
Any positive store cut is too high: if a game is featured on a store, then devs have to provide support to the store customers, update game builds, upload Mac & Linux builds, waste time implementing store-specific features like achievements, cloud saves, etc. All of these tasks require additional work. The more stores that devs choose to support, the more work.. and the more wasted time. Realistically, small stores should pay devs to have the chance to sell their games.According to GDC, a lot of devs thinks EGS cut is too high.
I understand your point but I don't quite agree. Valve is indeed doing absolutely fine but there is no guarantee that the status quo will not shift dramatically. Just a couple of years ago EA, Microsoft and Sony were not releasing on Steam while Epic was scooping up what was left. Journalists were writing articles about how Steam doesn't have any big games left. As I said for me it's simply a matter of personal interests. To quote many an Era poster, it's just business. I wouldn't have any issue with Valve reducing its cut but I won't push for it because I am not convinced it is in my best interests.My thinking is independent development is tough and risky enough as it is. I would be glad to see small developers have a slightly easier go at it with a bigger share up to a certain dollar amount of initial sales for ex. And while 10% or 15% extra probably isn't necessarily going to make or break things, it is a little bit of extra breathing room. Valve is doing absolutely fine regardless. They're feasting on AAA and hits anyway. It's not whether Valve deserves it or not either -- they unarguably do a lot of great stuff. It's just that it would be good for the scene.
If a reduced cut means fewer steam backend features (store and client), then no, as a consumer it's not worth it.I understand your point but I don't quite agree. Valve is indeed doing absolutely fine but there is no guarantee that the status quo will not shift dramatically. Just a couple of years ago EA, Microsoft and Sony were not releasing on Steam while Epic was scooping up what was left. Journalists were writing articles about how Steam doesn't have any big games left. As I said for me it's simply a matter of personal interests. To quote many an Era poster, it's just business. I wouldn't have any issue with Valve reducing its cut but I won't push for it because I am not convinced it is in my best interests.
I'm aware timetables evolve but Sony's strategy has been quite clear. Ryan and his valet have been on record that PC releases, should they happen, will not be day-and-date. I can't see Sony backtracking on that.Plans change all the time. We've seen that so much the past year and so. Covid fucked up everyones plans.
There is no truth, it's just a rumor. When Sony announces Bloodborne coming 6 months or whatever to PC after PS5 release, then we have truth.I'm aware timetables evolve but Sony's strategy has been quite clear. Ryan and his valet have been on record that PC releases, should they happen, will not be day-and-date. I can't see Sony backtracking on that.
The bitter truth is that we could be at least a year away from Bloodborne PC.