Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Humbug

Member
  • Content Count

    6,985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About Humbug

  • Title
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We may see more and more games using Vulkan since it's a graphics API that covers both Windows and Google Stadia (Linux).
  2. Humbug

    Navi Speculation

    High end Navi will obviously be faster than Radeon 7. But the rumours are that what we are getting this year is mid-range Navi which will be about getting great Vega56 performance at cheap price points.
  3. Modern big game development is difficult, rigorous, multi-year process involving large teams of employees with proper planning and break down milestones, hiring the required people and pushing through all obstacles to create a compelling and polished product both technically and artistically. Doesn't sound like something modern Valve is capable of. They can do smaller projects very well, but they don't have that fire under their asses now. If that Half Life VR game they are making turns out to be good I will concede I was wrong. But for now that's my opinion. They couldn't even finish up their Source 2 engine to a state where they could release the SDK some 7 years after announcing it.
  4. This has been in the works for some time. Looks ok, will have to use it in person to get a real feel. I think they should lower it to 20% across the board. 30% seems too much, although I know they maintain a massive infrastructure. But the thing is Epic is offering big payouts to get exclusivity. This is apart from the revenue split. So even if Valve changes their revenue split they will still have the issue of paid exclusivity on Epic. It's like the console wars, although it has some impact it's not the revenue split that buys exclusivity. It's other incentives that are thrown at the devs to keep the game off a competing platform.
  5. To be clear on this, steam does not have any contractually obligated paid exclusives. They do have some exclusives, simply based on the fact that some devs decided not to sell via any other store, but those devs have the freedom to do so at any time...
  6. Gabe deserves credit for using steam to trigger the PC gaming resurgence at a time when retail sales were flagging and everybody predicted PC gaming will die. Personally it changed me from being a pirate to a legitimate customer and I am glad the physical disc days are gone. But him and Valve have now (mostly) lost their reputation only due to their own fault. And it's not because of steam, It's because of how they have fallen apart as a game developer which is indicative of the problems in the company.
  7. Don't apologize for your opinions, you are entitled to them. To answer your question it's the ethics of paying money to a 3rd party dev/publisher to get them to remove a game from another store. This is a regular practice in the console world but many of us did not want to see it coming to PC. The devs are signing contracts where they give up the rights to decide where the game is sold within that exclusivity period. This has been tried by oculus and Microsoft Store before but the big players on PC- steam/gog/origin/humble bundle etc have never done this. So that means any publisher on these incumbent stores has the freedom to wake up one morning and decide, "Hmmm let's try launching on xyz store maybe we can move another thousand copies"... So we want to maintain that freedom. If you look at a store like gog.com and check their best selling games which keep the lights on- 90% of them are also on steam. This is possible because Valve doesn't go around offering cash incentives to remove games from other stores. Anybody on steam is free to also sell their game anywhere else at any time. Now in the future if epic is the dominant store they will have backroom contracts and deals with most of the publishers making that kind of store diversity impossible. They will have a more tyrannical grip on PC gaming. So trying to use these means to create a bigger steam competitor is self defeating. Regardless of who is the top store in 5 years these practices should not be popularised. You may think you are promoting competition but on the long-term you are encouraging more anti-competitive practices.
  8. One example that springs to mind which I hated was what Microsoft did with Rise of the Tomb Raider. They threw money at the developers to make it an xbox timed exclusive. So PS4 and PC users had to wait. They actually punished their own (windows) customers. Imagine being willing to pay money to devs to keep a game away from your own customers... Today you can play the game on PS4, Xbox, Windows, Linux, Mac OSX. I actually played it on Linux LOL.
  9. Clearly 'paid exclusivity deals' are their way of dealing with competitors. If they are willing to do it now you can be sure they will do it in the future when another competitor threatens them. Even if they stop inbetween.
  10. I know that some people do think along these lines. They know that exclusivity bribes are evil but they think sometimes the ends justify the means. With the end in this case being more competition to steam. I strongly disagree. I think that people only say this because they have not thought it through. Imagine in the year 2025 a world where the Epic Store has become the dominant PC games store. Paying money to 3rd party devs for exclusivity contracts will then be the norm in pc gaming. Then if another small PC games store pops up the developers will not have the freedom to support that store with day one releases unless they break their contracts with Epic. It will be a different world from today where an independent dev is free to launch simultaneously on Steam/GOG/Orgin etc. Is that the future we want for PC gaming? Let's take another example. Click on the below link to see the current best selling games on GOG https://www.gog.com/games?page=1&sort=popularity 90% of these games are also available on steam. Now let's say Valve decides to throw their billions of dollars around, they could approach all these devs and ask them to sign exclusivity contracts with steam. GOG will have to close down! If we allow paid exclusivity then this is what pc gaming will become.
  11. The way you do it as a new store is that you approach lots of devs. You pitch to them -we plan to be a major competitor to steam -we bundle unreal engine for free -we have a fair user base already thanks to our first party games like Fortnite -you will get greater visibility on our store compared to steam where you are drowned out by thousands of other games -You have nothing to lose by selling your game on one more store, in fact you can only gain from this since you get a larger piece of the pie ^^This is how you pitch to devs, you get them to come onboard with you. It's not a difficult pitch since you are not asking them to remove the game from other stores. Plenty of devs will come onboard because they want to support another player. Then you build up like that over the years by continuously getting more devs and improving your store. If you do it right you could even come to the point some day where your market share is big enough that some devs don't bother with steam anymore.
  12. PC gaming should not go in a direction where stores are bribing 3rd party devs to keep a game off other stores. It's already a toxic practice in the console world. It degenerates into a store arms race with bad consequences. It's the same principle of paid exclusivity contracts that has made some devs unable to release their game on PC because they signed with some console company, or we have seen some devs not be able to release on Linux due to being disallowed from using stores which support Linux like GOG and steam. We should not create silos in the industry. It's healthier if developers retain their rights to sell their game anywhere they want. That includes the right to wake up one day and decide, "let me launch on xyz store this week, maybe we can sell another thousand copies". So if Epic was competing honestly they would promote the lower cut to devs and devs would gradually come onboard. Some would be on other stores too, some may be epic exclusive. But that exclusivity would not be mandated by a contract, it would be the devs decision at any time to stick only to this platform or to sell elsewhere too.
  13. Wonder if they have got Valve to create a backdoor for them in steam...
  14. LOL that's hilarious. Checkmate.
  15. That is a direct result of the exclusivity clause in Epic's contract. Nobody would be pissed if they decided to also sell their game on Epic Store alongside GOG and Steam, the issue is the contractually obligated exclusivity. Exactly. GoG and Steam and Origin do not ask 3rd party devs to remove their games from other stores. They do try to promote their own store but no 3rd party dev is asked to remove a game from another store.
×