No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
No, exclusive is not monopoly. Monopoly is a situation where similar or replacement products or services are not available.
Having a couple of exclusive games is not a monopoly, and you can't get a monopoly on one game like Metro Exodus. To get a monopoly using exclusives you'd have to get so many exclusives that it would limit people's ability to buy (good) games outside your store.
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
No, exclusive is not monopoly. Monopoly is a situation where similar or replacement products or services are not available.
Having a couple of exclusive games is not a monopoly, and you can't get a monopoly on one game like Metro Exodus. To get a monopoly using exclusives you'd have to get so many exclusives that it would limit people's ability to buy (good) games outside your store.
There's more than one game actually. Ashen also comes to mind. Was supposed to launch in Epic store then in other launchers, then it never did.
I would think... using the OP example... if a game is selling for $50 on Steam, I would be more than happy to sell it for $50 elsewhere and pocket that extra income from a lower fee...
distributors can undercut themselves all they want but I as the developer set the value of my product
Exactly!
Developers are not charity. If they can get more money from x instead of y, they won't surely put it for less. Also, if said developers wanted the freedom to release their games wherever they wanted, why not simply also offer it on their own store? They get no cuts, people decide which launcher they want to use, and everyone is happy.
How much does a DVD and material cost? Might not be that much savings anymore going digital.
You can't forget about the distribution and the packaging.
I'd say it's no contest.
I doubt it cost more than a few dollars to for disc, burning, shipping and materials. Jordan brand shoes cost around 16 dollars to make and ship from China.
Normally the way goods are sold is the retailer purchase the product from the vendor, and then marks it up as much as they wish.
The vendor's price could be the same to all resellers, but often discounts are given for being a large volume reseller.
The model by Steam is just odd, they are basically demanding the right to mark it up 30% and force the vendor to make sure no one undercuts this.
Weird.
Agreed
This is something that's up to the vendors to change. There is more competition now, tell steam your not playing that game.
Personally, I don't find out about indie games through Steam. I find out about them through sites such as this one. I'm not beholden to one market place.
I find it interesting that some feel the need for regulation around this type of thing, but feel that regulation around gambling mechanics and children is a step too far.
Ubisoft is currently running several of their titles with large discounts on Epic store while they are full price on Steam so the 'assumption' you cannot sell titles for different price on other platforms is debunked.
Ubisoft is currently running several of their titles with large discounts on Epic store while they are full price on Steam so the 'assumption' you cannot sell titles for different price on other platforms is debunked.
Typical Q...
I would imagine that Ubisoft doesn't accept and won't agree to certain terms. I also would imagine that Steam would still be interested in selling Ubisoft's products and would offer different terms.
Ubisoft is currently running several of their titles with large discounts on Epic store while they are full price on Steam so the 'assumption' you cannot sell titles for different price on other platforms is debunked.
Typical Q...
I would imagine that Ubisoft doesn't accept and won't agree to certain terms. I also would imagine that Steam would still be interested in selling Ubisoft's products and would offer different terms.
Doesn’t make Gd wrong (and I don’t say that often)
Ubisoft is currently running several of their titles with large discounts on Epic store while they are full price on Steam so the 'assumption' you cannot sell titles for different price on other platforms is debunked.
Typical Q...
I would imagine that Ubisoft doesn't accept and won't agree to certain terms. I also would imagine that Steam would still be interested in selling Ubisoft's products and would offer different terms.
Doesn’t make Gd wrong (and I don’t say that often)
Agreed
Except for the "Typical Q..." part
Home Depot wanted to sell one of my products locally. Its a product that the customer must take some measurements for, custom fitted. Part of Home Depots terms we're that I would have to give a full refund even if the customer was wrong with their measurements. I politely said thanks but no thanks.
Developers have more than one store front, it's up to them to say no to bad terms.
I think that battle will be short fought with streaming services winning the war. This will be a short and quickly forgotten footnote in tech history like cassette drives. Distribution and consumption is changing. These store war battles remind me of the Long Distance carrier wars of the nineties. It was a big deal until mobile tech made long distance irrelevant. In a few short years it crushed a decades old revenue system.
The same thing will happen here with sketchy deals going back and forth. Epic has already been caught scraping users Steam install folders for data. What will Valve do next? What other lengths will Epic go? Tim Sweeney has already started pointing fingers at the consumer. https://www.thegamer.com/epic-boss-says-developers-win-game-store-wars-not-consumers/. In there he basically says, there isn't a way to improve the consumer experience so we're going to focus on the developer at the expense of the consumer experience.
Given the choice I always try to purchase straight from the maker. Too many greedy hands out all trying to take a cut at my expense.
People don't realize how everyday products in the store suffer from this type of thing through exclusive distributorships etc.
I think that battle will be short fought with streaming services winning the war. This will be a short and quickly forgotten footnote in tech history like cassette drives. Distribution and consumption is changing. These store war battles remind me of the Long Distance carrier wars of the nineties. It was a big deal until mobile tech made long distance irrelevant. In a few short years it crushed a decades old revenue system.
The same thing will happen here with sketchy deals going back and forth. Epic has already been caught scraping users Steam install folders for data. What will Valve do next? What other lengths will Epic go? Tim Sweeney has already started pointing fingers at the consumer. https://www.thegamer.com/epic-boss-says-developers-win-game-store-wars-not-consumers/. In there he basically says, there isn't a way to improve the consumer experience so we're going to focus on the developer at the expense of the consumer experience.
But I'm curious. Do we have numbers on what streaming services pay devs to host the game? At least for PSnow or even the monthly subscription model from the Xbox. Is it the same type of situation as Spotify and Apple Music and paying awful unless you have 100 million plus listens? Or is it more of a Netflix type thing where they license out the rights to host your game.
I'm worried we will end up in a situation where only major publishers survive because they are hosting their own game streaming platforms. I'm all for going forward into this type of thing, but I definitely don't only want to play Battlefield 58 and Call of Duty 25.
There's already a loophole that has been used on other sites to distribute steam keys. Sell at base price but offer huge savings off. That's why Humble, Indiegala, Fanatical etc are still relevant stores that people use.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
It should be illegal for an online marketplace to mandate that if you sell an item through their site, it cannot be sold cheaper elsewhere. This is an anti-competitive practice that facilitates monopolies. That leads to more of the money than necessary that players spend on games being skimmed off by intermediaries who did not develop the game.
For example, suppose that a game costs $50 on Steam. Since Steam takes a 30% cut, the developer gets $35. The Epic games store takes a 12% cut, so if a game costs $40 on the Epic games store, the developer gets $35.20, or more than it would on the Steam store.
Developers should have the option to do this. Right now, Steam policy is that if it costs the end user $40 on the Epic store, it can't cost more than $40 on Steam. If the developer only charges $40 on Steam, then he only gets to keep $28.
Some people have dismissed the Epic store taking a smaller cut of sales, claiming that that savings won't be passed on to players. If that's true, it's because of Steam's anti-competitive practices that prevent it from happening.
This is exactly the rule that makes it hard for possible competitors to undercut Steam's prices. Developers mostly feel the need to offer their game on Steam because so many players use that. If you offer it there, then you can't offer it elsewhere, and have to pay a 30% cut to a company that isn't responsible for anywhere near 30% of the work to bring your game to the public.
If a developer wants for a game to cost the end user $50 on both the Steam and Epic game stores, fine. If they want to charge $50 on Steam, $40 on Epic, and $39 on the Discord store (which takes a 10% cut), that should be an option, too. Or whatever other combination of prices. If players are willing to pay extra specifically to get a game through Steam, that's fine.
But let the developers choose their prices and the players buy where they choose. If some players think it's worth enough to have all of their games through a single launcher and will pay extra for the privilege, that's fine. But don't mandate that Steam gets a huge cut of everything for the foreseeable future just because they had some first-mover advantage many years ago.
If there are going to be anti-monopoly laws at all, then this is exactly the sort of rule that we need. It's narrowly targeted at an anti-competitive practice that heavily skews the market. It's a clearly defined rule, not heavily reliant on the whims of some bureaucrat. And it won't impose meaningful compliance costs, as all that it would do is require certain companies to stop doing things that they're already doing, purely to stifle competition.
What, you thought this thread was about Steam? I was talking about Amazon.
gog prices are normally higher then steam, so I doubt its the case, the ones about the key for steam makes more sense
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
No, exclusive is not monopoly. Monopoly is a situation where similar or replacement products or services are not available.
Having a couple of exclusive games is not a monopoly, and you can't get a monopoly on one game like Metro Exodus. To get a monopoly using exclusives you'd have to get so many exclusives that it would limit people's ability to buy (good) games outside your store.
so like nintendo sony and exbox do with they exclusives? and epic trying to get the first wave of gamers who can't wait for the new thing to spend on then on exclusives?
you say its not exclusives but in the end it is, you yourself counter yourself
Now, the debate has to do with a developer being able to sell their product on 2 distributors AND be allowed to take advantage of the lower platform cuts and pass it along to the user. If I sell on both steam AND epic I am not allowed to sell it cheaper on epics store. The ones losing are the customers here. Use your heads please
Oh FFS if you can still play it on your PC Windows 10 OS it’s not an exclusive. Stop being so stupid.
FTFY
No thanks. I think it's stupid you're beholden to the Norton Antivirus of operating systems. It's turned into a big telemetry pig with the most abysmal file system performance of any major OS. "Thank you sir, May I have another!" may work for you, but not for me.
never used the windows store, so that I din't know, and since I still use win 7, really I was thinking on changeing my MB and processor, with would mean my changing the SO, I guess I will pass, or just see how linux is for gamming lately, only reason I use windows was always for not to have the hassle of config it for gamming, but lately....
with is funny the main reason most people used windows or started using it was because of piracy, but now they say it a bad thing, funny how it is
Valve's policy isn't that you can't sell a game cheaper elsewhere. It's that you can't offer Steam customers an inferior experience or worse deal. If the only difference between the two sites is that Steam is $50 and Epic is $40 then I would agree with Valve. If the Steam users get $10 more value in some way then I would side with the developer.
Your first sentence contradicts what I said in the original post, and then your second agrees with what I said. Pick one or the other. It can't be both.
I would think... using the OP example... if a game is selling for $50 on Steam, I would be more than happy to sell it for $50 elsewhere and pocket that extra income from a lower fee...
distributors can undercut themselves all they want but I as the developer set the value of my product
Why would a developer be eager to sell a game for less (in the money paid to the developer) on Steam than on Epic? And even if one developer would, why would all take that view?
If a developer wants to make the end price to the customer the same on Steam as it is on Epic, then they should have that option, of course. But I don't think that Steam should be able to dictate the price at which a developer can sell a game to Epic (or Discord or Origin or Uplay or anything else) by threatening to kick the game off of Steam entirely if Valve disapproves of the terms.
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
You know why there are exclusives on the Epic store? Because they can't just undercut Steam prices directly. Instead, in order to make it possible for a developer to sell a game more cheaply on Epic, they have to pay the developer enough to make it worth their while not to sell through Steam at all.
Allow Epic to simply undercut prices and those exclusives will vanish. They'll get plenty of business from gamers who want to save $10 while legally buying exactly the same game as before.
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
No, exclusive is not monopoly. Monopoly is a situation where similar or replacement products or services are not available.
Having a couple of exclusive games is not a monopoly, and you can't get a monopoly on one game like Metro Exodus. To get a monopoly using exclusives you'd have to get so many exclusives that it would limit people's ability to buy (good) games outside your store.
So you're saying I can get Metro Exodus elsewhere (legally)? If not, it sounds like a monopoly on that game. Polygon has an interesting blurb on the store from GDC 2019 here.
In that list:
Afterparty from Night School Studios
Controlfrom Remedy Entertainment and 505 Games
The Cycle from Yager
Dauntless from Phoenix Labs
Industries of Titan from Brace Yourself Games
Journey to the Savage Planet from Typhoon Studios and 505 Games
Kine from Chump Squad
Phoenix Pointfrom Snapshot Games
The Sinking City from Frogwares and Bigben
Spellbreak from Proletariat Inc
Solar Ash Kingdomfrom Heart Machine and Annapurna Interactive
That's not even counting Metro Exodus, Division 2, and older Epic Games like Fortnite and Detroit: Become Human.
The trouble with comparing gaming with other businesses like ISP or Department Stores is that games are singular. Each game is its own entity. Sure, I can get a game "kinda sorts" like Metro Exodus, but it's not Metro Exodus. It's like if a music store had an exclusive to sell a record (showing my age here). It has a monopoly on that record.
Am I making any sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think that battle will be short fought with streaming services winning the war. This will be a short and quickly forgotten footnote in tech history like cassette drives. Distribution and consumption is changing. These store war battles remind me of the Long Distance carrier wars of the nineties. It was a big deal until mobile tech made long distance irrelevant. In a few short years it crushed a decades old revenue system.
The same thing will happen here with sketchy deals going back and forth. Epic has already been caught scraping users Steam install folders for data. What will Valve do next? What other lengths will Epic go? Tim Sweeney has already started pointing fingers at the consumer. https://www.thegamer.com/epic-boss-says-developers-win-game-store-wars-not-consumers/. In there he basically says, there isn't a way to improve the consumer experience so we're going to focus on the developer at the expense of the consumer experience.
Given the choice I always try to purchase straight from the maker. Too many greedy hands out all trying to take a cut at my expense.
People don't realize how everyday products in the store suffer from this type of thing through exclusive distributorships etc.
"Found exclusively at [fill in retailer here]!" They even advertise it
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
No to the government doing anything at this time. They just about always make things worse.
As to Amazon, and Steam.... people, devs, businesses...those that deal with both, or either, of those. Do so for their reach, or the amount of people they can both draw in with their businesses.
And that comes with a cost. I am not sure that that can be said to be an monopoly at this time.
They can take their goods and or products elsewhere. We have lot of proof of that by the amount of people trying to take on Steam right now...the issue is that they are trying to do it separately...
If they all tried to form a group business, take them on together, they would have a much better chance. All the of them trying to outdo one another..not much chance as far as i can see. Just adds a bit of blood in the water the way they are doing things now.
A valid point. What IS a monopoly is "Exclusivity", as the Epic Store keeps trying to pull. Many other stores (digital and otherwise) have all striven for exclusives.
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
You know why there are exclusives on the Epic store? Because they can't just undercut Steam prices directly. Instead, in order to make it possible for a developer to sell a game more cheaply on Epic, they have to pay the developer enough to make it worth their while not to sell through Steam at all.
Allow Epic to simply undercut prices and those exclusives will vanish. They'll get plenty of business from gamers who want to save $10 while legally buying exactly the same game as before.
I was watching CohhCarnage streaming the other day and he asked a very pertinent question. "Who receives this exclusivity money?" The publisher, NOT the developers are making these deals. So who is getting these kickbacks? I doubt the developers see much of it, if at all
I could be totally off-base, but I can see this happening all too easily in today's greed-filled gaming industry.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
For some odd reason, I get no kicks from exclusive purchases. In fact, I avoid them like a plague. I much prefer INCLUSIVE purchases. I have no need to feel "special" in an exclusive way
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Having a couple of exclusive games is not a monopoly, and you can't get a monopoly on one game like Metro Exodus. To get a monopoly using exclusives you'd have to get so many exclusives that it would limit people's ability to buy (good) games outside your store.
Developers are not charity. If they can get more money from x instead of y, they won't surely put it for less. Also, if said developers wanted the freedom to release their games wherever they wanted, why not simply also offer it on their own store? They get no cuts, people decide which launcher they want to use, and everyone is happy.
This is something that's up to the vendors to change. There is more competition now, tell steam your not playing that game.
Personally, I don't find out about indie games through Steam. I find out about them through sites such as this one. I'm not beholden to one market place.
I find it interesting that some feel the need for regulation around this type of thing, but feel that regulation around gambling mechanics and children is a step too far.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Except for the "Typical Q..." part
Home Depot wanted to sell one of my products locally. Its a product that the customer must take some measurements for, custom fitted. Part of Home Depots terms we're that I would have to give a full refund even if the customer was wrong with their measurements. I politely said thanks but no thanks.
Developers have more than one store front, it's up to them to say no to bad terms.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
People don't realize how everyday products in the store suffer from this type of thing through exclusive distributorships etc.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I'm worried we will end up in a situation where only major publishers survive because they are hosting their own game streaming platforms. I'm all for going forward into this type of thing, but I definitely don't only want to play Battlefield 58 and Call of Duty 25.
never used the windows store, so that I din't know, and since I still use win 7, really I was thinking on changeing my MB and processor, with would mean my changing the SO, I guess I will pass, or just see how linux is for gamming lately, only reason I use windows was always for not to have the hassle of config it for gamming, but lately....
If a developer wants to make the end price to the customer the same on Steam as it is on Epic, then they should have that option, of course. But I don't think that Steam should be able to dictate the price at which a developer can sell a game to Epic (or Discord or Origin or Uplay or anything else) by threatening to kick the game off of Steam entirely if Valve disapproves of the terms.
Allow Epic to simply undercut prices and those exclusives will vanish. They'll get plenty of business from gamers who want to save $10 while legally buying exactly the same game as before.
In that list:
-
Afterparty from Night School Studios
-
Control from Remedy Entertainment and 505 Games
-
The Cycle from Yager
-
Dauntless from Phoenix Labs
-
Industries of Titan from Brace Yourself Games
-
Journey to the Savage Planet from Typhoon Studios and 505 Games
-
Kine from Chump Squad
-
Phoenix Point from Snapshot Games
-
The Sinking City from Frogwares and Bigben
-
Spellbreak from Proletariat Inc
-
Solar Ash Kingdom from Heart Machine and Annapurna Interactive
That's not even counting Metro Exodus, Division 2, and older Epic Games like Fortnite and Detroit: Become Human.The trouble with comparing gaming with other businesses like ISP or Department Stores is that games are singular. Each game is its own entity. Sure, I can get a game "kinda sorts" like Metro Exodus, but it's not Metro Exodus. It's like if a music store had an exclusive to sell a record (showing my age here). It has a monopoly on that record.
Am I making any sense?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I could be totally off-base, but I can see this happening all too easily in today's greed-filled gaming industry.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR