But but but the 30% cut is too high it’s not justified and the epic game store takes only 12%!!!!!!111
Comment on Steam is adding support to show estimated FPS for your hardware before buying a game
9point6@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Damn, that’s kinda a holy grail of game storefronts
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 1 day ago
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 1 day ago
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
artyom@piefed.social 1 day ago
Laying off employees is not a sign of being unsuccessful. In fact, in many cases it’s the opposite. Also Epic as a storefront is horrific, and Tim is a cunt, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that very few people actually buy from them.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.
Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.
I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
As long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic, it’s a better deal for developers as well.
(math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)
Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.
doublah@sopuli.xyz 19 hours ago
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable, a lower cut would be nice for smaller devs but I don’t see why Valve would when every other platform of Steam’s size also takes 30%.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…
Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.
artyom@piefed.social 1 day ago
Steam is a multi-billion dollar company and Gabe owns like 4 yachts. They can easily afford to lower their commission.
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I agree. We need more kids being exposed to gambling. Steam earning money from ruining children is very important for those neat features. :3 Steam FTW. Amirite g*mers? <333
For real though. This is just long term business strategy. They are not your friend. They can do things things that are good and ghings that are very bad. Stop definding big corporation that doesn’t know or care about your existence. I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 1 day ago
We need more kids being exposed to gambling
I’m honestly tired of debating that point again and again. However, to summarize my stance on this: If parents are unable or unwilling to monitor what their child is playing or spending money on, that is not the problem of steam - or any platform for that matter. It’s also not EAs fault if a child is spending thousands of bucks in ultimate team. If my child stole my credit card and did that, I would refund the money immediately and get his account locked. It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
Saying that a 30% cut is justified for everything steam offers isn’t “defending” steam, it’s just stating my opinion, but yeah whatever, you do you.
artyom@piefed.social 1 day ago
It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
That’s exactly why they need to do more… Children shouldn’t be forced to suffer because corporations exploit them and their shitty parents.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
That is a separate and valid issue Steam needs to be called out on, yes.
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
Like taking a massive cut because they have network effect to their advantage isn’t. I’m mocking them because they mock people pointing out issues with the platform without anything in this thread prompting them to do that.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
Also note that nobody was saying this before Tim Swiney started trying to break into the marlet
Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Yeah, and it makes a ton of sense for Steam Deck/Machine/Frame
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I remember seeing someone play a Steam Deck in an airport awhile ago and the 3D game had a HORRIBLE frame rate.
To the person playing to their credit they didn’t seem bothered but it made me think that a lot of people may have not really had the importance of framerate explained to them and what the relevant numbers are (film is 25, 30 is generally minimum for gamee and 60 is best).
Almost by definition we aren’t going to know those people but that is because if you are here you are probably a nerd, so this is good for all those blindspots.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 hours ago
A neat trick you can do with heavier games on … at least an OLED Deck (not sure if this is doable on the LCD version)…
You target 45 fps, min, lock the max frame rate at something like 45-50, then, use VRR set at a 1:2 ratio, so you get 45 fps at 90hz.
In many games, this generally, at least imo, ends you up with a smoother and potentially graphically higher quality than just targeting 60 fps / 60 hz.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
I don’t have a PC. My only way to play PC games is through a Deck. I’m at the point where I’m just happy to be able to play these games, period, let alone on the go.
Sophocles@infosec.pub 18 hours ago
Lowest I can go is 20fps, anything below is too nauseating. I learned to cope because I modded Skyrim to the point of no return, and I could only get max 20fps with a decent rig and a ton of optimising. Hair physics and 4k trees definitely worth it 👍
UnimportantHuman@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
I’m happy you can appreciate frames that low. My fiance makes fun of me cuz I stress about anything below 60 lol granted my current PC doesn’t have these issues. Plus I used to game on laptops so I’m perfectly content with lower graphics for smooth frame rate.
echodot@feddit.uk 18 hours ago
I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I’m used to it.
Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Yeah, I started gaming when games were bought on cassette tape. Pretty much anything is an improvement. Though TBF some stuff back then was pretty cool at the time.
random_character_a@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
I played first the Wing Commander + special operations with 8088XT 10MHz, 768kB RAM system. FPS was 20 when things were quiet, but when the shit hit the fan it was below 10.
WraithGear@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
in my case, i would play on potato graphics to get good fps, 60 is the minimum, 30 is an exception. i can FEEL it in my play if its below 100. like not only see it but it feels progressively bad the lower it is
Nikelui@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Serious question: does the difference between 60 and 100 even matter if your monitor is capped to 60Hz?