Digital PC Games: Dishonored: Definitive Edition & Eximius: Seize the Frontline Expired

I get the impression you "hate" Steam/Valve, and I'm not sure why?

I haven't experienced any of the issues you are talking about. I know for a short while, they where struggling and making some poor decisions, but in general they have been very good stewards of PC gaming.

I look at how Oculus did VR by fencing off their content, how Epic Store competes with their store, and how Discord Store failed. There is a pattern there, that I would rather use GoG or Steam (despite their terrible UI) rather than most other stores.

I'm open to being shown why Steam is so horrible. Can you show us examples with sources of your claim?

When there is only one high speed provider of internet in your area, you end up paying double for service.

Steam could have been worse about prices, but I'm glad companies like epic are competing and taking less of the pie from producers of games. Proof? What percent of money goes to steam when you buy a game? How much to the developers?

If the producers make more money and the middle man makes less, how can you not understand the benefit for the producer, and thereby the incentive for the better product? I though it very self explanatory.

Think about how door dash/Uber eats/etc. takes money that might have been spent directly on the restaurant and some restaurants hate that, it would be same with developers...

They did revert everyone to the normal version iirc. I have a few friends who were able to claim the directors cut but it's now showing as the normal version in their library.

So besides your entitled self, I don't see what your problem is.

So if I don't get the super duper, extra special bonus, game of the year edition can I start a class action lawsuit against the website I have never spent a dime with? Asking for about 100,000 friends

Edit: It sad how few people understood the sarcasm above....

That's because you are mistaken. That is not how capitalism works.

Pricing is most often based on what the market can bear, and the producer is always trying to hit that sweet spot. The middle man does the same. In cases when costs for producer increases beyond profitability, they either are forced to raise prices or shut down.

The incentive for a "better" product is always there, but only if that is the measure of success. The measure of success instead is good sales and profitability, so "better" is only one of many other factors. Often "better" product is pretty low on the list, because of other dynamics like it is already profitable and the goal is to expand the business to more buyers.



I mean of course, but do you think the restaurant goes and pick up all the produce and all the supplies itself?

Do you think the supply provider would rather cut out the delivery middle man and earn a higher profit from the restaurant?

So this is a false premise and not the right forum for that discussion.

The middle men in this case do provide a significant value to consumers, and that is why they choose that. It's technically something the producer cannot really match, because they don't have enough business to support it.

That is, the producer is in the business of producing content and not a platform. Whereas the platform is in the business of distribution, thus they distribute from a lot more sources. They pool the profits and provides value to consumers. It's why consumers choose a platform over the publisher's own store front that is often barren with features, broken features and overall poor design.

Why do you think lots of publishers left Steam, only to come crawling back?

It's because consumers recognize the value of Steam. Despite my positivity towards Valve/Steam, I do want competition. I want competition that benefits consumers and puts Valve/Steam in check because who knows, maybe Gabe Newell no longer is there to lead and things change.

However, subtractive competition doesn't improve the situation for consumers. It instead makes it worse. That is why you should be against it!

Another form of this is when a big business moves into a neighborhood, undercuts the competition in price (say sold items at loss). Consumers will of course cheer the greatness of the deal and how competition is awesome! Then the original business in that neighborhood goes out of business, because they cannot sell a product at loss then the big business raises their prices as the sole provider of said product.

That's bad for consumers, and why we have laws against it. Unfortunately, we don't have laws against moneyhatting, and I'm not even sure if such a law would make sense. However, as consumers we should recognize these tactics and punish businesses accordingly, not encourage it.

Hope that helps clarify it.

You probably could. Lying that you have a product for free to drive traffic to your site. You might have a case

In fact, I think the dev they contracted the work to apologized publicly.