Quoting: sub

Quoting: eldaking

Quoting: subI'd like to see Valve giving devs a discount as an incentive, IF they (properly) support all 3 targets Windows, Mac, Linux.

There must be some quality threshold/check, ofc.
Otherwise we'll see many one-click Unity and UE Linux builds that are crap.

I am strongly against this. I think that as a store Steam shouldn't discriminate the games it sells, and that users and developers of any OS should be treated equally. I don't think that charging more from users of any system is fair, even when it benefits the one I use. It is probably also difficult to evaluate.

Discriminate?
Where to start if the suggestion like the one above already belongs to the category of discrimination?

IMHO this is absolutely a fair deal.

Devs usually have to pay a 30 % cut to Valve AFAIK.
If you sell a lot the share reduces to 20 %.
(Btw, I'm sure that's also discrimination in your view but is reality already.)

Having many well-supported games on Steam must be a goal for Valve.
It increases the value of their service.
Plus, it is probably (still) part of their strategy to get less dependent on Windows.

So here is the fair deal to all devs:
If you help us getting towards more games being properly supported on all platforms,
we lower the cut for this game to let's say 25 %.

I agree, though, that evaluating that can be difficult.
But there are surely good approaches.

One could go for the market-drive option.
If all platforms are present you get a lower cut.
If a build was just done to get the lower share and is not supported or outright crappy,
then people will surely downvote the game.
Having "Mixed Reviews" or worse is not what you want.

That could be a good thing *additionally* to all the great things they already do.

They are providing the same service, but charging more for some people. Because they think that some people are more valuable based on what OS they develop for.

And yes, the current "AAA games get a better deal" is one of the worst things Steam has done recently, it is downright hostile to indies, it benefits the people that need it the least, and I think it is horrible all around.

I don't want Steam to use its market size and pricing policies to blatantly push developers into adding/removing specific features. That is, by principle, a bad thing for stores to do.

I don't want Windows games to be more expensive than the alternatives (for developers, in this case). I don't want Linux to succeed because a huge company decided to charge extra if you don't use Linux. I don't want people to be bullied into using Linux, I want them to do it because Linux is awesome. And artificial price differences are not "awesome".

If they want to subsidize Linux development, don't do it through store policies. Don't do it by leveraging your dominance in the market. Do it by creating a porting studio, by giving grants, by giving away tools and stuff, by helping with long term support. The kind of thing that helps, instead of just rewarding those that already had the means.

Edit: another analogy. Paying developers to add Linux support is wrong by many of the same reasons that paying developers to make their games exclusive to one store is wrong, or paying to have your crapware pre-installed or bundled with a system.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I really don't see this as positively as most people seem to. I don't think that refunding fixes the issues; I personally think the previous solution of partial support was more beneficial in the long run. This feels even more like a "we don't want anything to do with you no matter what". However, this is a very generous policy, and one of the safest ways to avoid negative feedback (more than the previous, honest "yes our support was bad and we can't even fix it completely"). So, well, not bad.

Quoting: subI'd like to see Valve giving devs a discount as an incentive, IF they (properly) support all 3 targets Windows, Mac, Linux.

There must be some quality threshold/check, ofc.
Otherwise we'll see many one-click Unity and UE Linux builds that are crap.

I am strongly against this. I think that as a store Steam shouldn't discriminate the games it sells, and that users and developers of any OS should be treated equally. I don't think that charging more from users of any system is fair, even when it benefits the one I use. It is probably also difficult to evaluate.

If they wanted to push Linux, they should pay for ports directly or indirectly invest in making it easier and better - libraries, tools, contributing to the OS itself, some marketing initiative. Or, you know, find a way that they can independently make all other games work on Linux...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleI can't see Steam going away any more than I could see Microsoft or Google go away, but better safe than sorry!

Well, I try my best to find alternatives to Microsoft and Google as well... preferably libre ones where you don't depend on a single company that can take it away at any time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This looks really, really interesting. While this falls a bit outside Zachtronics usual gameplay loop, I feel that the theme and atmosphere fit well enough to be a companion to their other games.

And it looks quite nice for a VN, which is a kind of game I enjoy a lot but often have trouble finding titles for (they are often too cheesy, too slow, too badly sexualized, or just outside of my interests).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, I appreciate the honesty. This is not a "win" for Linux players by any means, but it is a somewhat fair solution: they will keep some support for the users that already bought the game, they will be upfront about the level of support, and they will not release future games they aren't willing to support properly. I agree with their assessment: the number of Linux users is small, but they paid the same and it is not fair to treat them as second-class citizens. I don't really think that not receiving new features is sufficient (for those very reasons), but I can understand separating the versions.

It is bad. But the previous news suggested it was going to be even worse... the idea that games sold with Linux support could suddenly stop having it is just scary.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm not even interested in this game, but I have heard (and checked) that it is actually more expensive in my region (and other "poor" countries) that usually benefit from regional pricing. Which is crazy and ridiculous and makes no sense, and also in very bad taste.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quotewhy did that kid have a knife? Why does the Science teacher have a gun? Lots of questions that you might eventually get an answer to.

It's obviously an American school.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I find this very intriguing, more than for Boxtron itself, because of the way Steam is integrating other functionality in a somewhat decentralized way. We have their own compatibility layer, that works without Steam if you want; you can use your own compatibility tools with their client; they use open standards and tools and services.
Next steps would be an API so that people can make their own clients to replace the official client, and possibly opening the client so people can fork it (because by now it is becoming seriously awesome). Seems like a tall order, but I don't doubt Valve is capable of anything anymore...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is one of the most awesome bundles I have ever seem. It has absolutely all the expansions, all 16, which is something very rare (it does not include cosmetics and other random DLC like EU4 converter, but proper expansions are all there). Even without regional pricing, it is almost half the price of buying everything on their best sales prices (and I think Holy Fury hasn't had a 50% off sale yet), and for those that already buy in dollars it should be about twice as good of a deal. Getting a complete and up-to-date Paradox game is usually the province of hardcore fans, but this makes it cheaper than many games are on sale.

Yes, Paradox puts a lot of fairly expensive DLC. But those are 7 years of improvements and additional content. It is like buying Total Warhammer 1 & 2 (each with its own DLC) and playing the big combined map campaign. Or like buying several continuations of an RPG that add out to make a super-long story. Frankly, for us enthusiasts that buy everything it is equivalent to buying several iterations of the same game; Crusader Kings 2012 to Crusader Kings 2019, in the hands of a AAA publisher, with day-0 DLC for each version...

Quoting: EverLinuxI only own the base game in steam and wonder are the DLCs listed apart & can be redeemed individually?
If it's not the case, I'm afraid of a blocking from steam telling that I'm trying to add an already owned game!

That's how it usually works, each item is an individual key. I have previously bought bundles where I only wanted the DLC and gave away the base game to friend. And CK2 was one such game (in a past bundle, not this one), so shouldn't be any different.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: GuestGood to see Itch getting more love from developers. It needs to get more love from gamers though seeing as it is a storefront that does pretty much everything we want. Excellent open source client, treats developers ethically, can download your games outside of the client and more.

I'd do that if itch had regional prices and sales like Steam. The price difference is so great for us, third-world people that itch, however good it is, is simply not an option.

Exactly. I really wish it had regional prices (and local currencies, and local payment methods)... it is a platform I really want to succeed, but I can't afford to pay almost twice as much for games. Steam and GOG (and now, Paradox Plaza) are the only places where buying games is viable, and even then usually only on deep sales.

View this comment - View article - View full comments