Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly
Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly
You're viewing a single thread.
ITT: G*mers being Stockholmed.
I can't name a single other digital service anywhere near steam level of trust. things you bought don't disappear. they are on the record saying there is a contingency in case of shutdown. they havnt a used their position. as far as market leaders go, you could do worse
Steam happily took money from unity asset flips and one level early access titles for years.
They have zero quality control and instead hashed out the curator system for users to do their job for them.
This is a lot like saying YouTube is evil for allowing anyone to upload videos to their platform
Youtube videos are free
I don't want a curated store though and would rather have people be able to release games, and let users decide if it is something they want or not. I can access reviews myself and don't need companies deciding what game is or isn't worthy of being available. And users is who I trust more anyways, which is why for so long search term + reddit is what I've relied on.
I mean, isn't community self-policing and an overly tolerant attitude towards picking what type of games are allowed on your platform exactly what we want from them?
Permanently Deleted
Valve still promotes those games by having them in their store.
Permanently Deleted
Great job, missing my point entirely.
Steam created an ecosystem for these asset flips for their own gain, at the expense of the customers and legitimate Devs.
Permanently Deleted
Quality control is another word for "high barrier to entry", and especially with their market position, being rejected by Steam for some arbitrary reason would effectively kill your project.
Not only should they not restrict the ability to sell your games there without a concrete reason; they shouldn't be permitted to do so. A company with that much influence shouldn't be allowed to be a gatekeeper of what constitutes a "good" game.
Their review system and strong return policy are more than enough.
Why would you censor the word gamer? The Internet is bizarre
Because there is a gamer. Someone who plays games.
And Gmer. Someone who's entire personality is based around games, and not in the fun healthy way. But in the justifying a monopoly because it's their colour way. Just look at some of the comments here and you'll see a lot of Gmers.
Lol you pretentious cunt
Hit a nerve I guess.
Ok, so that is the what, but what is the why? Why the censored word? I don't get it. Nonetheless I'm closer to getting it now so thank you for that much
I'm never heard of 'Gmer' like that until a few seconds ago; but I'll go on and assume that G*mers might refer to 'both' words.