Cohih

@ManicUCW I've had Lonestar on my Steam wishlist, thanks for posting so I can play it free on Epic.

"Steam is a monopoly" The free games on the Epic Games Store:

@Marky_X_ Acting like Steam is doing more work with a digital product vs a physical product. What are we doing here?

For what steam provides, 30% is generous Trying making a physical product and getting into stores or listing it on Amazon. The cut is higher and you aren't nearly getting the same benefits as Steam

@AquillonVT @SeaCritDev @RealBSP3 Xbox takes 12% on PC, Epic takes 12% after the first million dollars in annual revenue per app, 0% before. Maybe you should be looking into things.

@SeaCritDev @RealBSP3 Xbox takes 30% Epic takes 30% Sony takes 30% Nintendo was the FIRST company to take 30%, and that was during the fucking SNES era. People are so willing to paint a target on Steam for just using the industry standard number for rev share, without actually looking into anything

Twisting things a little hard there, aren't we? That's a bad faith post. Nobody has to abandon anything, and options do exist. More options than those can easily exist. They can exist because Steam made it possible. It's no exaggeration to say that Steam effectively saved PC gaming while fighting for it the entire time. Steam is also a launchpad for developers. Of course it's going to be stocked well. They opened the door to everyone. Nothing stopping others from doing that. Publishers creating walled gardens is on them. They keep people out, they want data, they want to run 24/7, and their launchers are clunky and half-baked. They're not trying. Big vendors using undesirable account models is on them, as well. Microsoft's service is a mess and invasive, but does offer enough to give people a place to go. The same goes for others, in their position. They're not trying, either. Those guys want to collect you and keep you to themselves. They didn't have to fight the fight Steam did to build this industry from scratch. Steam built the world in which they operate, nail by nail. To this day, Steam just lets you buy games, play games, and launch games, and it gets out of your way. They're not taking over your machine, and they're not trying to control your experience. There's also an alternative we all know, and it's a big one: Gog grew in Steam's shadow by doing things right. Now you've got a great choice if you don't like Steam, but most of us are happy to use both, because both are great. That's the point: In good faith competition, options aren't trying to steal you away from others and lock you in their ecosystem. Neither company does that. Steam was already absolutely massive when Gog showed up with a few retro titles. It was cute; a neat idea that was small potatoes but scrappy and ready to hustle. It had something Steam didn't have, and it took root and grew. Steam stayed in it's own lane. That Gog hustle is what it takes. It's what separates a good, sustainable, and growth-oriented business from the opposite; just as Steam had the entire time. Steam didn't step on them. Steam never tried to downplay them, and they didn't suddenly lock up the ecosystem to prevent migration. As always, they stood by and let the industry and new ideas grow. They exist in harmony, and Gog is getting big titles, now, with advantages Steam can't offer using their business model. These days, buying from Gog or Steam is making a choice that both freely allow. There is always room for another Gog. People just aren't trying. They'd rather score a user and keep him in their ecosystem, or just not put forth the effort. Here's what people who don't know business can't wrap their brains around: Long-term risk and effort. It took Steam literal decades to get where they are, against all odds. Everything stood against them, but they fought fairly through many of their users' entire lives and survived with grit and dedication to service. Odds are, if you're reading this, they were fighting to keep your industry alive before you were born, and nobody trusted them. All odds were against them, and yet they pushed forward. If Steam hadn't pushed through nearly impossible obstacles, your only option today would be to sit in front of a TV with a Nintendo. When they first showed up, I wouldn't let them anywhere near my computer, and I wasn't the only one. They had to work for years just to reach a point of even mild acceptance; not even trust. Just acceptance. Now, they're big. So what? They're not standing in anyone's way, and they don't offer anything ten years ahead of anyone. It's a simple, fair market. That's all. Their is no killer feature others can't implement. There is no secret technology they claim that makes them impenetrable. They don't carry a shield. The functions themselves are not advanced or world-changing. It was the effort that was world-changing. They fought the big fight, leaving room for everyone else. If anything, simply by going through all those years of toil, risk, and sacrifice, they opened the door for competition that never would have been possible without them. Everyone doing business in this industry owes steam for doing what they would not. They could have, but they didn't. They still can, but they don't. Steam started off as suspected malware. Never forget that. They didn't get an ounce of help up the ladder. They just ran a solid, fair business for decades.

@Grrbyy @BogosBinted1987 It's 30% on the first $10 million, then 25% up to $50 million, then 20% on the remainder which is incredibly stupid because only the massive AAAs benefit from the lower fee. The guy you are replying to is full of shit. newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/revealed-the…

@BogosBinted1987 That is incorrect. Steam takes a 30% cut from developers from the very first dollar made. Also I specifically mentioned PC distribution for a reason. Console distribution is a cookie for another glass of milk.

The issue is the cut they take. It’s a bit flippant to say they aren’t just about THE PC distributor for indies— so they take the largest cut among PC distributors because they can. It’s a little frustrating is all when, sure devs could go to Epic, but the audience is on Steam.

@EHNovaMaster @TheRealDashFir1 Did you tell Shane about the youtube troll that has been pretending to be him saying that Phil is banned from the shop?

@TheRealDashFir1 Walked into Shane’s today and this was their Pokemon selection, first thing you see walking into the store. I talked to Shane and he said he was pretty confused by the reviews. His employees looked Phil up and were all shocked by how bad his content is.

@mightyd_2 Hypes up every pack to get the $50 needed. Ends the box with a PSA warning about gambling on packs. Starts the new box with a deal.

Booster Box 🔴$325 Binder, sleeves etc 🔴$25 Hits value 🟢$40 Pack Openings 🟢$1800 Total Profit 🔵 $1490 DSP - "Sometimes you don't make much from the box. That's the risk you take."

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse The price they put on Steam is dependent on Steam's 30% cut. The price on other platforms is based on the 12% cut(or otherwise). Saying the publisher can just eat the loss shows you have no idea how this all works.

@Cohih0 @tomphonse It doesn't take away that choice, because they can still sell it for the same price on steam. But they don't want to do that because they know it won't bring anyone over to their platform. That's why.

Trying to frame this as monopolistic when they literally had the option of just listing the same lower price on Steam is crazy lmao ANYTHING but acknowledge that Steam is an objectively better service. They're so scared to have the same prices because they know people wont leave

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse Taking away the consumer choice of a cheaper game on other platforms is anti-consumer. I use Steam all the time too but if you can't see that you're too far gone.

@Cohih0 @tomphonse Because it's not anti consumer at all? People have been choosing steam over these barely functional launchers for 22 years. They've had their own stores and launchers for ages and yet people still don't like them, why is that?

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse I'll wait for the judge to decide if that's the case.

@Cohih0 @tomphonse But they can do that if they want to lmao so yes it does

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse Again, your whole argument is showing that Valve doesn't need to resort to anti-consumer tactics. So why defend it?

@Cohih0 @tomphonse People who use steam tell you people over and over and over ad fucking nauseam that we LIKE steam better, we LIKE using steam, we DO NOT LIKE other launchers because they *SUCK* but you pretend like the only reason consumers are on steam is because they HAVE to be.

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse Ok and that dealership isn't going to the other one and threatening to stop selling that model or car if they don't price match them. Your analogy doesn't really help your case.

@Cohih0 @tomphonse One car dealership offers me lifetime warranty, lets me chat with other people who enjoy that car, and can refund me on clear fair terms, I will choose that over 20% sale. Not allowing you to undercut while selling on both forces you to make an attractive service if you want sale

@RavenLenoreCh @tomphonse So then it isn't a big deal if Valve lets devs/publishers offer their game for a lower price elsewhere because of a lower fee.

@tomphonse No they wouldn't because I refuse to use other launchers due to their lack of features. Epic literally gives free games away and they are still not doing even remotely well compared to steam because the platform sucks ass and engages in bad practices

@Y0K0S0N I remember people freaking out because Factorio raised their price by $5 or $10.

$70 for a game like Factorio, Rim World, Civ (the good ones) is actually insanely cheap. 500-1000 hours of entertainment for $70. Games with low replay value should be far less.

@zeelee3D It's refreshing to see someone else who understand that it's an antitrust issue. Most people keep talking about monopolies it's exhausting.

Words to mute today : Monopoly, Gabe, Valve it is clear to me that I am now older than most of the people commenting on the Internet, because most people don’t understand antitrust law and it’s like they don’t remember when Microsoft went through it. Sheesh…

@BroSydePhil Dent got scammed, he's doing a 2 for 1 deal (now a 2 for 3 deal) for chill with phil.

Phil proves the grift works, as ward-of-the-State jimjam9641 dropped a $50 superchat for big daddy Phil.

@_fod0 @Mushgamer99 @Aelita_LL That's literally what this post is about. "Valve once threatened to remove Rainbow Six Siege from Steam after Ubisoft tried selling the game at a lower price on its own storefront, Uplay."

@Cohih0 @Mushgamer99 @Aelita_LL You actually think Ubisoft would do that? It would be $70 on Ubisoft and $90 on Steam. The choice is buying it on a shitty store vs overpaying on an infinitely better store.

Remember when everyone tried to tell us "Valve is a good monopoly cause it's pro-consumer" well it turns out it just was a monopoly. You didn't know better was possible cause they crushed anyone trying to do better.

@LuisAlaxander @saraliciousz_x @zewmerz @TimSweeneyEpic I wasn't aware of GOG's fee, my point still stands.

@Cohih0 @saraliciousz_x @zewmerz @TimSweeneyEpic GOG also takes 30%. Think before you post

Is this the "fair competition" praised by recent articles? If a store with dominant market share taking a 30% cut can bully developers into not passing on savings to customers on competing stores with lower fees, then competition doesn't stand a chance.

@Mushgamer99 @Aelita_LL There have been other cases alleged in the antitrust where devs tried doing that and the same thing happened.

@Cohih0 @Aelita_LL That's fine and all but if they wanna do that they should sell it at the same price elsewhere also

@Mushgamer99 @Aelita_LL That's because it's their own game, they can put it on their own platform without any cost to themselves. On Steam they lose 30%, so they can afford to make it cheaper on their store and pass some of the savings off to the consumer.

@Cohih0 @Aelita_LL Yeah that's why Valve had a leg to stand on and Ubisoft didn't. Cause Ubisoft was selling it cheaper on their own store front. No where else

@Mushgamer99 @Aelita_LL But would you, as a consumer, prefer to have the option of saving $10 by using a different platform? Even if you personally don't like the other platform others might be ok with it and would rather save the $10.

@Cohih0 @Aelita_LL Idk if its illegal or price fixing tho. Selling one item cheaper on your storefront compared to other storefronts feels more price fixing than Valve saying "hey stop that sell it at the same price as anywhere else"