Cethin

Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.

Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…

Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.

This is why I don’t get why adults play Pokémon. Even as a young child playing the original Pokémon, without any guides or any other resources, I was able to trivially make a party where I didn’t have to think. I just spam one move and win. I know you can optimize the hell out of the games, but there’s zero need to outside multiplayer. I thought the games were really fun as a child, partially because of a lack of options and partially because it’s made for children. I know people in their 30s who still play them when they release though. It’s so confusing to me.

There’s a lot of types of sex. Every one of them has a name. Even the “default” of PIV sex has a name.

Yes, but they’re also legally required to follow that order, except for certain circumstances. The question is if someone in the chain will have the moral backbone to stop said order, and it can’t just be the person launching it as there are more that can be launched. It needs to be someone high up in the chain. It may also require them physically stopping him from just asking the next person.

I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.

Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?

Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.

No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?

If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.

They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.

Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.

I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.

You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.

Because you disagree you think I have no idea. You didn’t engage with my argument. You just assume you’re correct and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Based on your logic, why shouldn’t we mark posts with swear words as NSFW?

Especially the “fuckin’” part. Would he actually write it like that, instead of “fuckin” or just “fucking”? It seems wrong for him.

Again, and this will be the last time I try to draw such a map for you, the whole point of the NSFW label is to communicate to people in all possible workplaces that certain content might be risky to view in said workplace

And this is my point. All possible workplaces means we have to mark everything NSFW. To use the example again, swear words can be seen as bad by some people. Any post with them we should mark NSFW by your logic. No, NSFW is not for all possible workplaces. It’s for the average one. The average one is not going to take umbrage with this.

After they fix the errors, sure. Alternatively, with the group we watch would be nice. Before they fix the problems, and everyone is tortured by demons for eternity? I’ll pass.

Maybe, if this includes traveling to the future where the shoes mostly take place. Right now, in their universe, things aren’t exactly going too well.

Well, their religion is centered around a Jew. If you want to do as Jesus would have done then you celebrate the Jewish traditions.

I think they’ve got a number of drawbacks, so that’s why. IIRC they have a low refresh rate, and they’re pretty pricy. For this application, where it’s a small screen and you only need the one, and you’ll only refresh it rarely, it makes sense though.

I don’t know what kind of dark chocolate compliments shirt, but there’s probably an expert who can help.

I still don’t agree that it should be NSFW. What workplace would have an issue if you had an anatomy textbook on your desk, for example? You see this as being vulgar, at the same level as watching someone get hit by a car, as an example. I fundamentally disagree. This is purely scientific. Even for entertainment, I don’t think we should NSFW art with nudity, for example. That’s absurd. Porn? Sure. Equating all nudity with porn is the same as equating this with extreme gore.

Even that, a dedicated player can capture it. If it has to be rendered on the device then they have access to the assets.

Because it’s roughly in the same class as extreme gore, even if produced for a very different, educational purpose. I think there are likely plenty of workplaces where having the equivalent of extreme gore visible on your device would be a problem.

I can somewhat understand not wanting to see it, but it literally is not gore. There is zero gore in image. Gore specifically refers to blood.

I don’t think this should be marked NSFW though. There’s a lot of things people can argue they don’t want to see. Some might not want to see swear words, for example. It doesn’t mean we need to censor everything for them. This is tame and should not really be upsetting for an adult. It’s no worse than what you’d see in an anatomy book. It’s not reveling in this person death, or anything like that. It’s just organs.

Although that still never totally protects it. I’ve seen a fair few number of passionate game communities bring online-only games back from the dead by reverse engineering the server architecture. It’s a lot of work, but if you know how the software is supposed to function then you can write the other half of the software that gives the response to make that work.