Any other publishers Tencent invested/moneyhatted their way into lately? I need a list so I'm prepared for when more bad news hits.
It'd be easier to tell you which ones they don't have a stake in nowadays tbh
Any other publishers Tencent invested/moneyhatted their way into lately? I need a list so I'm prepared for when more bad news hits.
Arguments that steam is a platform the way a sony playstation 4 or nintendo switch are aren't welcome at my lunch hour.I really don't think it's a redefinition. So far as I know, moneyhatting just meant buying platform exclusivity for third party titles.
Any other publishers Tencent invested/moneyhatted their way into lately? I need a list so I'm prepared for when more bad news hits.
It'd be easier to tell you which ones they don't have a stake in nowadays tbh
Genuinely surprisedTrolls getting banned in a PC thread? Never thought I'd see the day.
Give it time and even competitors could have their grey market ! ^^;
Arguments that steam is a platform the way a sony playstation 4 or nintendo switch are aren't welcome at my lunch hour.
Give it time and even competitors could have their grey market ! ^^;
It has always been the case that some people are more deeply engaged with their hobby than others, and you'll certainly find more enthusiasts here than elsewhere. If gaming was just something I occasionally, randomly do in my free time (like hiking or watching a TV show) I likely wouldn't care about anything going on here.I'm just finding some of the reasoning (not necessarily yours) little more than avant-garde posturing.
I'd say I'm responding mostly to the nuanced arguments. Even if there's no hard evidence, I believe you when you say that the possibility money changed hands and that's why The Division 2 is not on Steam is enough to cancel out any enthusiasm you had for the game.Is is possible there is a nuance to the reasoning that you might have missed though?
You have no idea what "grey market" means right?Give it time and even competitors could have their grey market ! ^^;
I totally understand that and I am not dismissing it but at the end of the day, I am in it for the games.Valve is offering pc gamers the most features and best prices. You can't blame people for preferring Steam and disliking companies that actually pay 3rd party devs and publishers to keep their games away from Steam.
The reason some picture replies are posted at a high rate is because the same small set of (repetitive, and crucially, actually answered by the picture and multiple times in the thread) questions is asked at a high rate, often in one-off posts.'here's a context-free png file lol!' that fits under the umbrella of 'avant-garde posturing' from which no nuance or real discussion can be gleaned, an increasingly distressing, high-volume phenomenon any time something isn't on Steam for whatever reason.
Not really, because the margins have nothing to do with this, a moneyhat does.
They'd have to offer the ability to generate keys at no (or reduced) cost to do that. So far as I know, EGS doesn't offer the ability to sell EGS keys outside of EGS.Give it time and even competitors could have their grey market ! ^^;
lol. Your lunch hour not withstanding, Steam and EGS are digital distribution platforms that in many respects operate similarly to the Switch and PS4. The fact that Switch and PS4 both operate exclusively on proprietary hardware is sort of beside the point. They all have a storefront they want you and I to patronize. It is in their interest to secure a variety of games, and exclusivity to those games, so that we are forced to patronize them if we want to play those games, and to further increase our exposure to the rest of their storefronts. When they do that, we call it moneyhatting. This isn't a stretch.Arguments that steam is a platform the way a sony playstation 4 or nintendo switch are aren't welcome at my lunch hour.
In principle this is accurate, in practice it should be noted that (i) for large-scale games like The Division it's probably closer to 12% now and (ii) for smaller developers (so not Ubisoft) Steam provides a lot of features you'd need to set up and pay for hosting for if you were planning to offer them on the Epic store.This isn't really accurate.
If I could sell a million copies at 30% margins or 800K at 12%, I take the 2nd one because profit is higher. Unit sales mean dick. So if Ubisoft expects to only sell effectively 600K (after the cut) on the Epic Store, then Epic needs to pay them the money they'll lose for effectively 100K (70% of a million on Steam is 700K) copies. But if the margins were equal, you gotta moneyhat every lost copy.
To say it another way, there's a built-in moneyhat of 18% per copy on the Epic Store. If Steam matched that, Epic couldn't afford to pay for the lost revenue.
To which I can only say 1) You're probably being trolled, don't rise to it and 2) Those image replies don't rise to the level of a nuanced argument. They just don't. They certainly don't represent more than one person's (probably warped and inaccurate) point of view and they just make it harder to talk about our priorities in a meaningful way.The reason some picture replies are posted at a high rate is because the same small set of (repetitive, and crucially, actually answered by the picture and multiple times in the thread) questions is asked at a high rate, often in one-off posts.
It was 100% the point when the term was coined in 2000 and people didn't want to buy an XBox for Munch's Oddysee.
You really have to explain to me how e.g. this image (which I made) presents a "warped and inaccurate" view -- or at least how it is more "warped and inaccurate" than if I typed up the same thing again in a new post. (Someone previously remarked that I missed a lot of developer-facing features that Steam has over the Epic store, and I guess that's true)To which I can only say 1) You're probably being trolled, don't rise to it and 2) Those image replies don't rise to the level of a nuanced argument. They just don't. They certainly don't represent more than one person's (probably warped and inaccurate) point of view and they just make it harder to talk about our priorities in a meaningful way.
Steam"s margin is 20%This isn't really accurate.
If I could sell a million copies at 30% margins or 800K at 12%, I take the 2nd one because profit is higher. Unit sales mean dick. So if Ubisoft expects to only sell effectively 600K (after the cut) on the Epic Store, then Epic needs to pay them the money they'll lose for effectively 100K (70% of a million on Steam is 700K) copies. But if the margins were equal, you gotta moneyhat every lost copy.
To say it another way, there's a built-in moneyhat of 18% per copy on the Epic Store. If Steam matched that, Epic couldn't afford to pay for the lost revenue.
Tbf except for marketplace/trading cards Uplay has all of the things you mentioned in this post including play time tracking. It also does loyalty discounts via uplay coins. It also has support for anti cheat like Battleeye as well as install folder relocation whereas in that picture it says uplay doesn't support anti cheat or folder relocation.He literally listed two other benefits that you didn't bother to address. On top of which, native Steam applications track total playtime, allow participation in the marketplace with trading cards and such, and give you access to cloud saves.
For me, not getting the features I am accustomed to is a larger inconvenience than spending $300 on a console (and it's, features, not cost, which are the reason I always wanted every game on PC in the first place).If anything, trying to fit the term to whatever the latest conspiracy theory is diminishes the impact of the inconvenience expressed when it first entered the lexicon.
It's got an unexplained money hat on it and uses the mad decade-old 'master race' cosmology, and seems to not find any customer positives from the epic store when even the google doc screenshot that pulled me into the thread could and it has a silly strawman at the bottom and...do I really have to dignify this?You really have to explain to me how e.g. this image (which I made) presents a "warped and inaccurate" view -- or at least how it is more "warped and inaccurate" than if I typed up the same thing again in a new post. (Someone previously remarked that I missed a lot of developer-facing features that Steam has over the Epic store, and I guess that's true)
I totally understand that and I am not dismissing it but at the end of the day, I am in it for the games.
If Dark Souls 4 comes out and it says it is not coming out on Steam. I am going to buy it day 1 on whatever service they put it on. There has to be a game for everyone that they just go screw it I want it now because the most important thing here is the games.
This is why I don't get the Steam loyalty and the attitude of "No Steam, No sale". Maybe if Valve themselves were putting out more games of their own but I just don't know why someone would be more loyal to the platform than the games. It is not at all like consoles.
If you genuinely think that that was essential to the original definition, I'm afraid to tell you that it is no longer 2000, and the meaning of the word may have undergone a subtle change. Your feelings on the appropriateness of the word are irrelevant. We all know what it means when someone says that EGS is moneyhatting publishers for third party exclusives.It was 100% the point when the term was coined in 2000 and people didn't want to buy an XBox for Munch's Oddysee.
If anything, trying to fit the term to whatever the latest conspiracy theory is diminishes the impact of the inconvenience expressed when it first entered the lexicon.
Seriously. Let it go. You are the only one digging their heels in on the bizarre sanctity of "money hatting only applies to consoles."
I plead guilty to a strangely constructed sentence, but I'll repost it in its entirety with emphasis on the subject of my beliefsAlso, you now referring to "the latest conspiracy theory" seems awfully dismissive given that just a few posts up you said that "I believe you when you say that the possibility money changed hands"
I was asked to comment on the relative bias of useless .png replies. Report my posts if you have a problem with me participating in a discussion when I'm directly asked a question.Seriously. Let it go. You are the only one digging their heels in on the bizarre sanctity of "money hatting only applies to consoles."
More console style exclusivity on PC... thanks a bunch, Epic. I can feel the "competition". Here's to the day when the checks stop going out.
Yep. Consoles are shit PCs now too, and now they're trying to make the marketplace like consoles. Blergh.More console style exclusivity on PC... thanks a bunch, Epic. I can feel the "competition". Here's to the day when the checks stop going out.
This modern take that now it means "a game isn't for sale on Steam because I think money changed hands between shrouded figures in trench coats in an alley and bulging cartoon sacks labeled with big green dollar signs" is baffling to me, personally. But again, do you.
Actually, there is a money hat on it because we know that Epic paid for game exclusivity. (We admittedly don't know for sure whether this happened with Ubisoft in particular)
I find that amusing, sorry for my lack of sophistication.
It doesn't though? Unless you refer to "curation", which I consider a preference rather than a feature. (E.g. GoG "curation" meant that they initially rejected one of the best games of last year) To me it's a negative, but I just chose to omit it entirely. It is actually listed as a positive from the developer PoV ("Empty Shelves").and seems to not find any customer positives from the epic store when even the google doc screenshot that pulled me into the thread could
It's not a strawman, it was made after a great many exchanges which literally boil down to that (all of which are archived thanks to the power of the internet). Unless those were straw-people posting of course.
I mean, if they're willing to pay all major third party publishers and major indies who don't decide to make themselves exclusive to their OWN shop (an increasingly small pool), exclusivity fees may just mean that Epic to some extent will come to own the PC space. That's a sort of depressing thought.
I find it more depressing when I consider who (to a significant extent) owns Epic.I mean, if they're willing to pay all major third party publishers and major indies who don't decide to make themselves exclusive to their OWN shop (an increasingly small pool), exclusivity fees may just mean that Epic to some extent will come to own the PC space. That's a sort of depressing thought.