this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
748 points (90.3% liked)

Games

16828 readers
988 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
748
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 (twitter.com)
submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
507 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrQuint@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

but why 30%, why not

To which the response is: I don't care. I would have paid the same amount of money for games no matter which of the stupid funny numbers you picked out.

The beginning and end of how much one should care is "are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?". And the answer to both is Yes, so the concerns are abated.

If it opens them to driven out of the market by a more generous competitor: Cool. But that alone doesn't impact me, the costumer. The generous competitor needs to do more. And you know, they know that. That's why Tim gave me so many free games.

No you wouldn't.

Immortals of Aveum cost 70 monetary-whatevers and killed its studio and no one commented on it. It would have cost 60 whatevers two years ago and still would have killed its studio. But if they did 70, they would have torpedoed that price point in the news circles as a death sentence. They only had the gall because literally no one dared release a game for 70 till Activision did it and others like Sony and Nintendo followed along.

Steams share has zero impact on my wallet. The market is dictated by things way more arbitrary. Everyone with brain knows this.

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes

I fully disagree. On the first point, do developers accept it? Sure. That does not at all mean they are happy about it. Money is tight for games, and I guarantee you every developer would much prefer to take a bigger piece of the pie.

To your second point, it is the standard but it is not universal. Epic Games Store takes 12%. Itch.io defaults to 10%. Google Play Store takes 15% on the first $1 million in revenue.

But that alone doesn’t impact me, the consumer.

I don't believe this is entirely true. The more cash flow developers have, the more stable they are as companies, and the more able they are to put out good games. You are indirectly impacted because a larger tax on developers means fewer, or lower quality, games that get released.

Steams share has zero impact on my wallet.

~~Disagree, unless you exclusively play AAA.~~

Edit: Actually I've changed my mind on this. I mostly agree the percentage cut doesn't affect the optimal price point.