Word. It’s not hoarding it’s “yeah I’d pay $16 dollars for that one game and I’ll give a couple of others a go”. I didn’t just never get around to Kane and Lynch, I never had any interest in it.
I have bought games on steam that I already owned and played on other platforms, just because I wanted to support the dev and have a copy on a reliable platform. But with recent developements I do wonder more and more how long it will stay reliable.
Sorry I wasn’t clear, I’m a big fan of Valve’s efforts, it’s just that they are the only ones right now and I’m wondering how long until they too fall like the rest of the industry.
This just sounds like sour grapes whining paid for by Epic games who actually just want that to be them rather than Steam, despite Steam having provided the same service for free, consistently, for multiple decades now. The real offense here is PC Gamer attacking its primary consumer base (try to tell me the majority of PC gamers aren’t Steam users), so you KNOW Epic is paying a shit-ton for this manufactured consent and wish-casting. Counterpoint to this article: having more games that you want to play than you have time for, without breaking the bank, is GOOD actually, and other launch platforms only seek to enshittify YOUR experience for their own gain. Thanks!
As with almost everything. Cheap is subjective. And not even just as in “I have more money so everything is cheaper for me” but also like “The value I derive from this thing for my specific use-case makes the cost feel cheap. To me.”
It’s like gym membership or books. If everyone with gym membership would go regularly, the business won’t be profitable. Or if everyone only buys a new book after they finish what they have bought, the publishing industry would be in shambles.
These businesses play the probability game. They are actually just insurance by a different name.
It seems like a ignorant take. It’s FOMO but instead of a missing out on a loot box or a silly cosmetic for a high price. It’s about missing out on the sale for a low price.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I do have a lot of games but most of them came from big bundles from Humble Bundle.
Word. It’s not hoarding it’s “yeah I’d pay $16 dollars for that one game and I’ll give a couple of others a go”. I didn’t just never get around to Kane and Lynch, I never had any interest in it.
Aww man K+L has one of the most surreal co-op experiences ever put into a video game.
It legit gets one player to think the other has gone completely off the rails.
The perfect south park clip to illustrate this story:
Randy explains how stupid other people are with their money.
Another complaint about the 30% cut on PCGamer? This reeks.
I always wait 3 years to play a game. Its less expensive, my gpu is up to date and the game is patched.
I have bought games on steam that I already owned and played on other platforms, just because I wanted to support the dev and have a copy on a reliable platform. But with recent developements I do wonder more and more how long it will stay reliable.
What recent developments?
Probably supporting Linux and open source is now evil or so.
Sorry I wasn’t clear, I’m a big fan of Valve’s efforts, it’s just that they are the only ones right now and I’m wondering how long until they too fall like the rest of the industry.
I was thinking of developments in the industry as a whole. Valve themselves have been the only beacon of hope, but for how long.
Guilty.
When I first got a Steam account, my original plan was to buy every game released on it. But now that’s impossible.
Well, not with that attitude!
Giving 30% for Steamworks Multiplayer servers and matchmaking, player inventory and trading, modding support w/ workshop, forums, cloud saves: 🙅
Giving 30% because players ‘spend irresponsibly’: ✅✅✅
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YSltK-10zk
My thoughts exactly :)
This just sounds like sour grapes whining paid for by Epic games who actually just want that to be them rather than Steam, despite Steam having provided the same service for free, consistently, for multiple decades now. The real offense here is PC Gamer attacking its primary consumer base (try to tell me the majority of PC gamers aren’t Steam users), so you KNOW Epic is paying a shit-ton for this manufactured consent and wish-casting. Counterpoint to this article: having more games that you want to play than you have time for, without breaking the bank, is GOOD actually, and other launch platforms only seek to enshittify YOUR experience for their own gain. Thanks!
Edit: grammar
I mean, where is the lie? Gimme cheap games, I’ll “buy” all of them!
It’s not cheap
As with almost everything. Cheap is subjective. And not even just as in “I have more money so everything is cheaper for me” but also like “The value I derive from this thing for my specific use-case makes the cost feel cheap. To me.”
Will I get around to playing my whole library? God no, but do i want to give this indie Dev my money? God yes!
It’s like gym membership or books. If everyone with gym membership would go regularly, the business won’t be profitable. Or if everyone only buys a new book after they finish what they have bought, the publishing industry would be in shambles.
These businesses play the probability game. They are actually just insurance by a different name.
It seems like a ignorant take. It’s FOMO but instead of a missing out on a loot box or a silly cosmetic for a high price. It’s about missing out on the sale for a low price.