(11-27-2023, 10:50 PM)stair_fail Wrote: [ -> ]I like Command and Conquer!
I never got around to them but like the music and some of the stuff about how they look. They might make for a good distraction sometime soon if they're not annoying to play.
obscurefish Wrote:If you're using someone else's game engine you're making a mod. AAA games are just overpriced mods.
anthony Wrote:Here we go. Are these games all on the same engine? Originals in each case? Aside from Horizon I don't know. And does it matter when this is the result? They might as well be mods of each other in every bad sense possible. That they're retarded tasteless clones built using shared parts.
Guest Wrote:“Every video game made in RPGmaker is a mod of… uh… the videogame RPGmaker…”
“Remember, when you write a program using another man’s programming language, it’s not software, it’s a modded version of the compiler.”
“To make a truly original video game, you must first create the universe.”
Modding is the more general and primary phenomenon, that the set of "games" is actually a subset of the category of "mods".
In other words, there is a general field of creative activity, and we call an arbitrarily delineated portion of its products "games" if it is marketed and sold for a profit and "mods" otherwise. The point I am trying to make here is not primarily an anti-capitalist one but that game criticism largely accepts economic distinctions as setting the boundaries of its subject and thinking (like people who uncritically accept that "canon" is determined by IP holders*).
For instance, X-COM: Terror From The Deep was a sequel to the original X-COM: UFO Defense which used the exact same engine as the first game with different art assets created by a different studio. What essentially makes it different from the many mod projects for OpenXcom that not only do the same but also include engine changes as well?
Minecraft is an important example because it has had so much influence. Factorio and the entire factory game genre that followed it were inspired by Minecraft mods like Buildcraft and RedPower. All of those games are offshoots of the Minecraft modding scene. There are also more obvious derivatives like Vintage Story and Fortresscraft which are basically mods that outgrew the original engine. Another famous example is Team Fortress beginning life as a Quake mod.
The main thesis here is that modding is the leading edge of creativity and game development in commercial studios is culturally downstream from it, so that many ideas first germinate in modding scenes and only later become games after reaching a certain level of development.
*I don't know why (to the best of my knowledge) none of the leftists who love to make video essays about pop culture have ever challenged the assumption that "canon" is determined by media companies that own intellectual property. If you're an anti-capitalist who loves a franchise owned by a big corporation, what's stopping you from creating your own additions to the canon?
(11-28-2023, 01:51 AM)obscurefish Wrote: [ -> ]Modding is the more general and primary phenomenon, that the set of "games" is actually a subset of the category of "mods".
In other words, there is a general field of creative activity, and we call an arbitrarily delineated portion of its products "games" if it is marketed and sold for a profit and "mods" otherwise. The point I am trying to make here is not primarily an anti-capitalist one but that game criticism largely accepts economic distinctions as setting the boundaries of its subject and thinking (like people who uncritically accept that "canon" is determined by IP holders*).
For instance, X-COM: Terror From The Deep was a sequel to the original X-COM: UFO Defense which used the exact same engine as the first game with different art assets created by a different studio. What essentially makes it different from the many mod projects for OpenXcom that not only do the same but also include engine changes as well?
Minecraft is an important example because it has had so much influence. Factorio and the entire factory game genre that followed it were inspired by Minecraft mods like Buildcraft and RedPower. All of those games are offshoots of the Minecraft modding scene. There are also more obvious derivatives like Vintage Story and Fortresscraft which are basically mods that outgrew the original engine. Another famous example is Team Fortress beginning life as a Quake mod.
I think from here it's legitimate to ask if any degree of creative genealogy is enough to call something a mod, or if shared technical parts are needed. Are all JRPGs mods of each other? Is Resonance of Fate an extremely evolved mod of Final Fantasy? Of course where I'm going is that the question seems far murkier in Japan so I'll get to that.
Quote:The main thesis here is that modding is the leading edge of creativity and game development in commercial studios is culturally downstream from it, so that many ideas first germinate in modding scenes and only later become games after reaching a certain level of development.
Leading edge of creativity
in the west I believe. Lands where people think "gameplay" is not only a word, but a profoundly intelligent thing to say over and over again. If you believe that the point of a game is its "gameplay" than technical tuning is an extremely worthwhile endeavour. While of course nobody is seriously tuning and rebuilding the "gameplay" of evergrace over and over again because they love playing it. Or are they, when you consider the look of the From games that followed... and then to a world where people say "soulsbornelike"...
I hope you see where I'm going. I have no conclusion (yet) beyond that I think this attempt at classifying the activities of developers and creators falls apart upon content with works with artistic intentions. And it works to my constant point about cultures producing video games that you were able to name so many massively influential western games without really naming a single one that it feels right to call a product of an artist's vision. (you know I'm X-Com's strongest soldier but Gollop was a boardgame maker, not a multimedia artist (by intention anyway, I think he is one by accident)).
Quote:*I don't know why (to the best of my knowledge) none of the leftists who love to make video essays about pop culture have ever challenged the assumption that "canon" is determined by media companies that own intellectual property. If you're an anti-capitalist who loves a franchise owned by a big corporation, what's stopping you from creating your own additions to the canon?
Same reason /v/exicans think that some HR firm with an attached game development studio making a sequel or remake of some shit they like can RUIN it. I don't think they're capable of love. Too many social and power factors confusing the issue. Fandom is about status and power. There's no real payoff to being the one who likes the nicest things that's worth it to these people.
A leftist would not want to add to canon because even if the author of a canon is employed by a corporation, every addition by that corporations is done with trust of the author. Anything else cannot be known to be approved by the writer, until he’s liberated from capitalist shackles. Sometimes you see non-corporate examples of adding to the canon when people insist (bully) specific details until author begrudges and says “yep that happened”.
(11-28-2023, 03:31 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]A leftist would not want to add to canon because even if the author of a canon is employed by a corporation, every addition by that corporations is done with trust of the author. Anything else cannot be known to be approved by the writer, until he’s liberated from capitalist shackles. Sometimes you see non-corporate examples of adding to the canon when people insist (bully) specific details until author begrudges and says “yep that happened”.
Not sure what you mean. Leftists seem to like canon as far as I can observe. It's an avenue to power and taking things over through politics.
I don’t think mods are essentially used as a pejorative as much as they are descriptive; a mod is a modification of a video game. They’re always, to some extent, attached to the original game (as in you cannot play them without it), as opposed to new games, which aren’t. The reason why using another studios engine doesn’t make your game a mod is simple; you don’t need to have the engine loaded for the game to be played, similarly to how you don’t need the programming language a game was made in to play it. I think rather than quibbling about the meaning of “mod”, it’s better to focus on the demeaning of them by the gaming consensus machine.
Also obscurefish did name a video game that was the result of one man’s creative spirit, Minecraft. Though Microsoft has stolen its soul, the fact remains that nothing in Minecraft would exist without Notch.
anthony Wrote:Guest Wrote:A leftist would not want to add to canon because even if the author of a canon is employed by a corporation, every addition by that corporations is done with trust of the author. Anything else cannot be known to be approved by the writer, until he’s liberated from capitalist shackles. Sometimes you see non-corporate examples of adding to the canon when people insist (bully) specific details until author begrudges and says “yep that happened”.
Not sure what you mean. Leftists seem to like canon as far as I can observe. It's an avenue to power and taking things over through politics.
Was replying to fish and basically agreeing with this statement. Leftists do multi-pronged attacks against creativity, and concern of "canon" is just another method of slave whipping the writers.
(11-28-2023, 06:33 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t think mods are essentially used as a pejorative as much as they are descriptive; a mod is a modification of a video game. They’re always, to some extent, attached to the original game (as in you cannot play them without it), as opposed to new games, which aren’t. The reason why using another studios engine doesn’t make your game a mod is simple; you don’t need to have the engine loaded for the game to be played, similarly to how you don’t need the programming language a game was made in to play it. I think rather than quibbling about the meaning of “mod”, it’s better to focus on the demeaning of them by the gaming consensus machine.
Also obscurefish did name a video game that was the result of one man’s creative spirit, Minecraft. Though Microsoft has stolen its soul, the fact remains that nothing in Minecraft would exist without Notch.
Also Minecraft wouldn't exist without Infiniminer or Zach Barth. Not saying that's anything against Notch. Again we hit the question of creative genealogy.
A rant about Valve which I found entertaining and agree with.
Unicorn Overlord has very nice art from what I've seen and I am looking forward to it. The new Atlus game (metaphor?) also looks very nice and a large step-up for them. I am unsure what they will do for music as it does not seem like it will fit their recent Jazz-maxxing streak.
(11-29-2023, 12:33 AM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]
A rant about Valve which I found entertaining and agree with.
I hated this and left a long comment calling this man a cretin.
I don't agree with much of your response, this pro-DRM anti-piracy argument has always been facile. Gabe himself famously said "piracy is a service problem" (and I agree), so why should consumers accept a service where they "buy" (rent) games that don't work offline and can be arbitrarily disabled?
Quote:I don't know what a "benevolent" business would look like.
He described a benevolent business model in the video, where you buy a game from a site akin to Amazon and receive a download for that game that works portably with no launcher or DRM.
Quote:They intelligently acquired power and lucrative resources to exploit and got us all to give them money for things THEY MADE which WE WANTED.
So did Microsoft. So does the greasiest Jewish money lender. Why should I care? Not all economic activity is fair game and morally equivalent. Calling the video author a communist because he resents how Valve relies on its monopoly position to extract rent from its platform without creating value is dumb, especially considering that Steam itself is far from a free market.
You're right that Valve was once creative, I do think the video is somewhat hyperbolic and only focuses on negatives, but the gist of what he is saying seems mostly in alignment with what you've said, he's just missing nuance.
Quote:WHO inside Valve do you believe is a cynic?
From what I've read about Valve, it sounds like their flat management structure has created a culture where
everyone is a cynic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20099167 Wrote:Valve have discovered that cosmetic microtransactions are big money makers, and thus every team at Valve was dedicated to that vision. When I was there (before Artifact started in open development) there were essentially no new games being developed at all. There was a small group that were working on Left for Dead 3 (cancelled shortly after I joined), and a couple guys poking around with pre-production experiments for Half-Life 3 (it will never be released). But effectively all the attention was focused on cosmetic items and "the economy" of the three big games (DOTA, CS:GO, and TF2). One very senior employee even said that Valve would never make another single player game, because they weren't worth the effort.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20099484 Wrote:In theory, employees are allowed to (supposed to, even) work on whatever they think is valuable. In reality, you should be working on whatever the people around you think is valuable or you're gonna get fired really quickly. (Fewer than half of new employees make it to the end of their first year.) This usually means doing whatever the most senior people on the team think is important, both because they should know if they've been there for a while, but also because they wield enormous power behind the scenes.
The problem with a company with no defined job titles or explicit seniority is that there is still seniority, but it is invisible and thus deniable. An example: in my first few months, I was struggling to find a good project and a very senior employee (one of the partners, actually) took me aside and recommended I leave my current team since my heart was clearly not in it and take some time to think about what I really wanted to do, or else I'd get let go. I took his advice seriously, came up with a couple ideas, and then approached him a week or so later to pitch these projects. He got _angry_ at me, stressing that he's not my boss, and that it showed a remarkable lack of initiative that I'd ask someone else at the company what I should work on. So: he has the authority to fire me (or at least to plausibly threaten to fire me) but the moment that authority would mean any responsibility or even the slightest effort to mentor someone, he's just another regular Joe with no special role at all. Similarly, there's no way to get meaningful feedback because nobody really knows who's going to be making the performance evaluations. Sure, you can take advice from someone who's been there for ten years, but if they're not included in the group that's assembled to evaluate you then their guidance is worth nothing.
I worked with some very smart people there, but it was the most dysfunctional and broken work environment I've ever witnessed.
It's amusing that Newell said that realism is not equivalent to fun, because it's clear that people on the team who made the Half Life games disagreed wholeheartedly. Strip away flashy engine features made for the explicit pursuit of realism, and those games would have nothing. Half Life 1 is one of the most painfully dull games I have ever played. I can never finish it. 2 at least has the fun ragdolls going for it. Thank the Ancient One that Valve let people with actual creative visions tinker with their engines.
Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:
A rant about Valve which I found entertaining and agree with.
While there are many aspect of Valve's business practices I dislike, it's their position as monopolists that gives them a business incentive to fund the development of FOSS software projects like KDE. For better or worse, I think they are the only business that aims to challenge Windows' position in desktop operating systems.
(11-30-2023, 02:05 AM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]I don't agree with much of your response, this pro-DRM anti-piracy argument has always been facile. Gabe himself famously said "piracy is a service problem" (and I agree), so why should consumers accept a service where they "buy" (rent) games that don't work offline and can be arbitrarily disabled?
Quote:Quote:I don't know what a "benevolent" business would look like.
He described a benevolent business model in the video, where you buy a game from a site akin to Amazon and receive a download for that game that works portably with no launcher or DRM.
Yes, it's very easy to
describe a model. If this was viable, why isn't it happening? SOLELY because Valve got in first? If GOG came first there's no way anything could compete? That's fucking dumb. This retard's idea of benevolent business is a retarded fantasy in which everyone treats software like old physical media out of the goodness of their hearts forever, a system he lays out while playing on an emulator (video guy if you were not on an emulator and you come here and read this feel free to correct me). He wants everyone to give away their source code (but only valve are evil for not doing so), he wants everyone to sell games as downloadable software for PC with no drm, it all just sounds like an oldtroon "furszperzcshooturrrr" niggerfaggot's delusional fantasy of what PC gaming was before Halo caused the apocalypse.
Quote:Quote:They intelligently acquired power and lucrative resources to exploit and got us all to give them money for things THEY MADE which WE WANTED.
So did Microsoft. So does the greasiest Jewish money lender. Why should I care? Not all economic activity is fair game and morally equivalent. Calling the video author a communist because he resents how Valve relies on its monopoly position to extract rent from its platform without creating value is dumb, especially considering that Steam itself is far from a free market.
You're right that Valve was once creative, I do think the video is somewhat hyperbolic and only focuses on negatives, but the gist of what he is saying seems mostly in alignment with what you've said, he's just missing nuance.
Tell me what a Jewish moneylender makes. This is so stupid I am mad and barely restraining my urge to call you mean things. Not all economic activity is the same. Yes. But the difference between FIRE and not-FIRE should be plain. And a good starting point. Valve are not FIRE. Money goes in. Effort and skill are applied. Stuff people comes out. Money comes back in...
The problem is that Valve arguably don't do enough focused work now, and were doomed to fall into their current state by the amount of income they have that is not contingent on delivery of the nice class of work they built their reputation on. Or anything at all frankly. They still do work in there apparently, but how much of it is going to see the light of day or come to be of any lasting use or interest to anybody? I would like to hope that some might. On one hand there's incentive for nerds to quietly tinker on whatever forever. And on the other there's incentives for clans of Indians to get a foot in the door and then weaponise nepotism and diversity laws and standards to secure an ever increasing share of the free money supply without ever contributing anything of value ever. I've heard talk of this and really hope it's not true.
This is the only real problem I see with Valve, a big money supply that isn't well managed, and so becomes parasite fodder. And it's not on this idiot's mind at all.
Quote:Quote:WHO inside Valve do you believe is a cynic?
From what I've read about Valve, it sounds like their flat management structure has created a culture where everyone is a cynic:
I've read a fair bit of this kind of stuff. Gabe could fix all of this if he were a good king. But he's not. It seems to be the unfortunate fate of several white American companies that they built themselves on a kind of meritocratic and open engineer's workshop system that works at a certain scale working on certain kinds of projects. Everyone being smart and cooperative and on the same page, that can work. Once you're big, you can still kind of do things by ear, but you actually need someone exercising judgement and direction. But it sounds like nobody in power wants to do anything. Again, the problem is just that this thing is not well run and nobody with power at Valve has ideas worthy of their income.
But this guy is apparently just mad that power and concentration of wealth exists.
anthony Wrote:Yes, it's very easy to describe a model. If this was viable, why isn't it happening? SOLELY because Valve got in first? If GOG came first there's no way anything could compete? That's fucking dumb. This retard's idea of benevolent business is a retarded fantasy in which everyone treats software like old physical media out of the goodness of their hearts forever, a system he lays out while playing on an emulator (video guy if you were not on an emulator and you come here and read this feel free to correct me). He wants everyone to give away their source code (but only valve are evil for not doing so), he wants everyone to sell games as downloadable software for PC with no drm, it all just sounds like an oldtroon "furszperzcshooturrrr" niggerfaggot's delusional fantasy of what PC gaming was before Halo caused the apocalypse.
I would argue that Steam has no serious competitors because they got there first and their quasi-monopoly status makes it too hard for market entrants to compete, I don't see why that's dumb. Steam don't offer a better product than GOG aside from the size of their library/consumer base, the launcher and social media features Steam offer are close to worthless if not of negative value. If customers were offered a real choice between having a launcher with achievements and profiles with hentai backgrounds and friends leaving ascii art spam comments and a hat market, or paying (let's say) only a 10% markup for direct downloads, most are going to choose the latter (ceteris paribus). So if the barriers to entry didn't exist, this probably would be happening. The additional Steam features don't add enough value to justify the cost passed on to consumers, they're a pretense for Steam's markup.
You're right about public source code, that's totally a fantasy, but I don't think a world without DRM is beyond consideration. And I don't expect Valve to design benevolent software and charge fair fees out of the goodness of their heart, we should regulate them under antitrust law.
Quote:Tell me what a Jewish moneylender makes. This is so stupid I am mad and barely restraining my urge to call you mean things. Not all economic activity is the same. Yes. But the difference between FIRE and not-FIRE should be plain. And a good starting point. Valve are not FIRE. Money goes in. Effort and skill are applied. Stuff people comes out. Money comes back in...
That wasn't a great example since money lenders provide a service not a product, but my point was that in many cases, the customer has demand for the product/service, even though it is plainly exploitative and there is not much of a case to be made for permitting the transaction. I'm not sure any more if you're referring to Valve's games or the Steam store, but the latter is not a good value proposition even though lots of customers "want" to use it.
Quote:The problem is that Valve arguably don't do enough focused work now, and were doomed to fall into their current state by the amount of income they have that is not contingent on delivery of the nice class of work they built their reputation on. Or anything at all frankly. They still do work in there apparently, but how much of it is going to see the light of day or come to be of any lasting use or interest to anybody? I would like to hope that some might. On one hand there's incentive for nerds to quietly tinker on whatever forever. And on the other there's incentives for clans of Indians to get a foot in the door and then weaponise nepotism and diversity laws and standards to secure an ever increasing share of the free money supply without ever contributing anything of value ever. I've heard talk of this and really hope it's not true.
This is the only real problem I see with Valve, a big money supply that isn't well managed, and so becomes parasite fodder. And it's not on this idiot's mind at all.
Quote:From what I've read about Valve, it sounds like their flat management structure has created a culture where everyone is a cynic:
I've read a fair bit of this kind of stuff. Gabe could fix all of this if he were a good king. But he's not. It seems to be the unfortunate fate of several white American companies that they built themselves on a kind of meritocratic and open engineer's workshop system that works at a certain scale working on certain kinds of projects. Everyone being smart and cooperative and on the same page, that can work. Once you're big, you can still kind of do things by ear, but you actually need someone exercising judgement and direction. But it sounds like nobody in power wants to do anything. Again, the problem is just that this thing is not well run and nobody with power at Valve has ideas worthy of their income.
But this guy is apparently just mad that power and concentration of wealth exists.
Yeah I agree, and TBF the situation could be a lot worse if we compare Valve to other companies with similar revenue. I view Steam as a platform that has begun to grow malignant, but is less so compared to most tech giants, and instead of paying salaries to a costly bureaucracy of thousands of useless 6-figure DEI employees, Valve instead pocket the excess money and do ~nothing. I haven't seen anything to suggest Valve aren't still highly selective employers who hire on merit but I could be wrong. I suppose hiring the Campo Santo faggots was pretty stupid.
Anyway, I hope Valve is legally compelled to lower Steam fees, this will ensure more money goes to game developers who actually create value, and they should probably also cut down on Gabe's meals from 7 per day to 3.
I must disagree with cats regarding Half Life 1. I think it is an excellent game, properly made to draw the player into a fast, frenetic experience. It is an FPS JRPG essentially. They constructed all the events with meticulous care and so the feeling is properly transferred to you that "the world is ending" as you run about the facility.
(11-30-2023, 02:22 AM)cats Wrote: [ -> ]It's amusing that Newell said that realism is not equivalent to fun, because it's clear that people on the team who made the Half Life games disagreed wholeheartedly. Strip away flashy engine features made for the explicit pursuit of realism, and those games would have nothing. Half Life 1 is one of the most painfully dull games I have ever played. I can never finish it. 2 at least has the fun ragdolls going for it. Thank the Ancient One that Valve let people with actual creative visions tinker with their engines.
I think that Half Life's strength is that it's a
movie game which is trying to put a lot of the movie in your hands. It's also an adventure game which tries to create naturalistic problems that you can solve in an intuitive way rather than stupid point and click stuff. I really think that the classification of "shooter" is stupid for half life. It's a stupid term in general of course, but half life obviously aspires to be a lot of things that aren't shooting. Half Life doesn't have
nothing. I'm not crazy about it but I can play it. It's trying to be a, dare I say it,
immersive cinematic adventure. Now a lot of that adventure is looking for the way out of a boring room, moving through basements full of crates, etc. But for a game of its time I consider the vision admirable.
The nicest way I can put it is that they were trying to create a linear western science fiction breath of the wild. Does that make sense?
Quote:I must disagree with cats regarding Half Life 1. I think it is an excellent game, properly made to draw the player into a fast, frenetic experience. It is an FPS JRPG essentially. They constructed all the events with meticulous care and so the feeling is properly transferred to you that "the world is ending" as you run about the facility.
I think I agree with this. As I use the term "JRPG" more or less means "multimedia built for specific intention". I
think I agree with you. I do like that
world is ending feeling, which is why I probably like the start the most by far. General rule with fps games that they have a lot of cool adventure game stuff at the start then they become "move through a succession of basements hunting goblins hiding behind crates for 8 hours".
(11-30-2023, 06:22 AM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]anthony Wrote:Yes, it's very easy to describe a model. If this was viable, why isn't it happening? SOLELY because Valve got in first? If GOG came first there's no way anything could compete? That's fucking dumb. This retard's idea of benevolent business is a retarded fantasy in which everyone treats software like old physical media out of the goodness of their hearts forever, a system he lays out while playing on an emulator (video guy if you were not on an emulator and you come here and read this feel free to correct me). He wants everyone to give away their source code (but only valve are evil for not doing so), he wants everyone to sell games as downloadable software for PC with no drm, it all just sounds like an oldtroon "furszperzcshooturrrr" niggerfaggot's delusional fantasy of what PC gaming was before Halo caused the apocalypse.
I would argue that Steam has no serious competitors because they got there first and their quasi-monopoly status makes it too hard for market entrants to compete, I don't see why that's dumb. Steam don't offer a better product than GOG aside from the size of their library/consumer base, the launcher and social media features Steam offer are close to worthless if not of negative value. If customers were offered a real choice between having a launcher with achievements and profiles with hentai backgrounds and friends leaving ascii art spam comments and a hat market, or paying (let's say) only a 10% markup for direct downloads, most are going to choose the latter (ceteris paribus). So if the barriers to entry didn't exist, this probably would be happening. The additional Steam features don't add enough value to justify the cost passed on to consumers, they're a pretense for Steam's markup.
You're right about public source code, that's totally a fantasy, but I don't think a world without DRM is beyond consideration. And I don't expect Valve to design benevolent software and charge fair fees out of the goodness of their heart, we should regulate them under antitrust law.
Quote:Tell me what a Jewish moneylender makes. This is so stupid I am mad and barely restraining my urge to call you mean things. Not all economic activity is the same. Yes. But the difference between FIRE and not-FIRE should be plain. And a good starting point. Valve are not FIRE. Money goes in. Effort and skill are applied. Stuff people comes out. Money comes back in...
That wasn't a great example since money lenders provide a service not a product, but my point was that in many cases, the customer has demand for the product/service, even though it is plainly exploitative and there is not much of a case to be made for permitting the transaction. I'm not sure any more if you're referring to Valve's games or the Steam store, but the latter is not a good value proposition even though lots of customers "want" to use it.
You're only talking about customers here. Valve provide a valuable service to developers, which is they provide a highly populated storefront which has tight DRM and a customerbase used to paying. This is the product that the steam store is. And why it is successful. Yes, they take 30%. Or you can "sell" (lol) on the GOG store and get pirated to hell and back. Valve might not offer a
generous deal, but they're a business. If their deal was
unacceptable they could not continue.
Quote:Yeah I agree, and TBF the situation could be a lot worse if we compare Valve to other companies with similar revenue. I view Steam as a platform that has begun to grow malignant, but is less so compared to most tech giants, and instead of paying salaries to a costly bureaucracy of thousands of useless 6-figure DEI employees, Valve instead pocket the excess money and do ~nothing. I haven't seen anything to suggest Valve aren't still highly selective employers who hire on merit but I could be wrong. I suppose hiring the Campo Santo faggots was pretty stupid.
Anyway, I hope Valve is legally compelled to lower Steam fees, this will ensure more money goes to game developers who actually create value, and they should probably also cut down on Gabe's meals from 7 per day to 3.
Sure. We want money spent ending up in good hands that'll make good use of it. The steam fee is maybe felt painfully by some developers, maybe it could even be called
a problem, but I wouldn't think to call steam or Valve
the problem.
gibsmedat….whitey Jews hoarding all da money and whips and cribs video games that just be spawnin randomly. you know da Jews put viruses in the cracked game download links and dey download slow to keep us community down. zionists download dey games at 100 mbps cuz of the powerful Israel lobby. Jew niggas tryna get a goy nigga to pay 60 bucks fo ONES N ZEROES LMAO. is a scam like bottled water..that shit free to make. call that straight 100% into a fat Jews pockets. we need da government to be doin like an anti-trust law to make DRM illegal it really be holding us down mane like Jew landlords evincing us and dem places you can’t loiter and holla at a bitch and shit.