*** PC Gaming - Daily Deals Thread ***

Wrinkly

Wrinkly

Wrinkly

Permabanned
Joined
31 Aug 2013
Posts
3,364
Location
Scotland
bigmike20vt said:
obviously you are the customer and it is your choice, but I feel sorry for devs these days. Why should bethesda pay valve 30% for doing really very little to sell their game?

I do get it.... it is a pita having to have multiple 3rd party apps installed to play games but it is valve which started this mess by forcing their own bloatware on everyones pcs with half life 2.


up until then we could install our games and use what ever game manager front end we chose (or non at all if we wanted)
Click to expand...

Why do you feel sorry for the devs? Do you see queues of devs outside of foodbanks?

What sort of costs do you think is involved with providing a game client such as Steam and why do you think clients such as Battle Net, Epic, GOG, Origin, Uplay, etc. offer such a bare bones client?

I've no issue with games being offered on many clients, Ubisoft do this, but why force us onto one?

I currently have 1,938 titles on Steam and around 200 on GOG. I don't need another client.

:)
 

bigmike20vt

bigmike20vt

bigmike20vt

Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
6,848
MissChief said:
But it’s really not a hassle having all these launchers is it? They take up very little system resources and any decent modern PC wouldn’t even be slowed by it and you can just double click the icon or within the start menu and it launches. I honestly don’t get the love for Steam by some people and the hatred for other launchers and platforms. These days I use Origin and UPlay far more than Steam and haven’t had any issues at all.
Click to expand...

For the most part i think you are agreeing with me? I mean, actually i would rather not have all the launchers but I agree it is not the end of the world.

Wrinkly said:
I've no issue with games being offered on many clients, Ubisoft do this, but why force us onto one?
:)
Click to expand...

because steam take 30% (yes i am aware of the recent change which makes it a little more complicated) to put a game on their store, so i look at it the other way, why should Bethesda pay valve when they can sell it themselves?.

buyers choice of course but i worry that valve have far too much control of the PC games space and i am actually glad that companies like epic are forcing change - even if it is at a minor inconvenience to me. (valve have already responded to a degree imo largely in response to the epic client).

also how are valve any different on the forcing us onto 1? (that is another thing which frustrates me a bit, there are some double standards here).

i cant play halflife 2, or left for dead or a whole raft of other titles without running the steam client, why do valve get a pass for forcing their client but others dont? :/
 
Last edited:

MissChief

MissChief

MissChief

Caporegime
Joined
17 Jul 2010
Posts
25,741
I can still remember the amount of hatred and criticism Valve got when Steam launched with a Half Life as well. Thousands of people were extremely unhappy about being forced onto it!
 

bigmike20vt

bigmike20vt

bigmike20vt

Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
6,848
MissChief said:
I can still remember the amount of hatred and criticism Valve got when Steam launched with a Half Life as well. Thousands of people were extremely unhappy about being forced onto it!
Click to expand...

I was one of them! because at that time no one did it, they were the ones who started the rot of forcing (at that time very poor) software on our machine. Given a choice i would much rather steam, uplay and all of them be optional, and i just open it up to buy and download and then use an organiser of my choosing (and not open anything up apart from the game when i play it.

Sadly that time is long since passed....... but to somehow decree that valve should be the arbiter of the PC games space and only they should force their client on people and no one else should seems illogical to me esp when valve charge a lot of money for the service.

in a way if people want their stance to have merit the statement should be...... its not for sale on GOG or DRM free so i am not buying IF that is someones stance then i fully respect it. I feel like you are shouting at the tide to stop coming in whilst knee deep it water, but i would give kudos for it ;)

(however eventually you may get bored of playing witcher 3, hell blade, small indie titles and 15 year old games) ;)

The "value" steam offers devs is even less now. at least 5 years ago if you had a title on steam you had some decent coverage for free advertising. with so much utter utter junk on their now however the odd little jewel of a title gets completely swamped and lost.

edit I just had an idea, and i think it is great even if i say so myself..... how about if developers put their games on all store fronts (that would allow them) for exactly the same base price BUT added the store fee on top.

so, if people really want Game X, they can pay £20 for it direct from the devs store front, or they can pay £20 +30% from steam. IF consumers really want to buy on steam let them pay the valve tax. This would then put massive pressure on valve to cut their own rates.

Something tells me they would not allow this however
 
Last edited:

HRL

HRL

HRL

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
3,028
Location
Devon
Anyone seen a good deal on Battlefield V?

Got an email from EA offering me 50% off but it’s limited to the PS4 which I had Battlefield 4 on. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom