Even for urinalists this is a hilariously shaky article. Valve has a "don't deliberately rip us off" clause in their agreement somewhere and this constitutes a monopoly?
Between The Guardian and the BBC being involved I'm thinking this entire thing is just a further proof of how people who buy and play games are being misrepresented by those wanting power and control via illicit means.
I mean, if the largest distributor is even vaguely independent then that's a problem for "them".
The EU for example have long ago declared that they think they have the right to censor the entire Internet under the premise that their citizens might see it. Why wouldn't the corrupt eurocrats try to strongarm steam?
I'd wager there's several more attempts in the future.
We're already murders, rapists, racists and all sorts of other things apparently.
Why not just all-out remove the drip and make sure that it comes from an approved Big Pharma that pays dividends to the politicians looking after their peons all so well?
I'm somebody who does not like steam's back end and business practices and you know it's bad when I'm sticking my neck out to defend them from this retard who obviously didn't read the policy properly.
Ms Shotbolt says this has enabled Steam to charge an "excessive commission of up to 30%", making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.
No, no, that's not how it works, this moron doesn't understand a thing about game pricing, how does she even justify what 'too much' is?
Ms Shotbolt - who accuses Valve of breaching UK competition law for at least six years - says she is bringing the claim "to stop this unlawful conduct and help people get back what they are owed."
It is going to be absolutely hilarious seeing her try and justify the maths on this and I'm sure what will happen instead of her actually getting it back to gamers as she pretends she's on side with she is almost certainly going to be running a grift. Fuck you leftists for making me defend business practices I don't like.
This article looks like it was written by an 8 year old, I love how she didn't even bring up the upload fee which is easily one of the most egregious things about steam I bet she has done zero research.
. Hideous UI with multiple tabs of 'required' ridiculous information you have to enter in which valve don't even check as seen by the kind of crap that they allow on the platform, you could probably write poopy poop as your company name and it would get accepted. This kind of lax attitude towards financial information about developers could potentially lead to real legal trouble in the future especially if Valve let a particularly disastrous project in that bricks peoples' computers
. Blatant scams or shady projects popping up and getting astroturfed by bots with Valve doing nothing
. Certain multiplayer games are being breached frequently by hackers and are leaking IP addresses of people on steam reviews and forums which is effectively a doxxing attempt and Valve aren't clamping down on the script kiddies doing this or the devs letting this go on
. Upfront fee is a ridiculous concept because as an indie dev especially you're £70 ( $100 ) in the hole just for uploading and it's done absolutely nothing to prevent trash projects going up, would much rather just the commission
. Botting is everywhere and it's pretty blatant now, it is looking like most positive reviews are by bots and don't seem to be real people giving feedback, ironically you have to go to the negative feedback to get anything real on a game by a human being
All of these are valid, valid complaints which makes the article writer all the more ludicrous for whining about valve's commission which they need to make money on otherwise they'd go out of business, that's just how they make their money per sale.
I'd point out that your complaint against the upfront fee clashes with the complaint against scams. The fee was implemented to try and dissuade fly by night assholes doing that.
Now what they ought to implement is a monetary floor for giving reviews.
Even for urinalists this is a hilariously shaky article. Valve has a "don't deliberately rip us off" clause in their agreement somewhere and this constitutes a monopoly?
Between The Guardian and the BBC being involved I'm thinking this entire thing is just a further proof of how people who buy and play games are being misrepresented by those wanting power and control via illicit means.
I mean, if the largest distributor is even vaguely independent then that's a problem for "them".
The EU for example have long ago declared that they think they have the right to censor the entire Internet under the premise that their citizens might see it. Why wouldn't the corrupt eurocrats try to strongarm steam?
I'd wager there's several more attempts in the future.
We're already murders, rapists, racists and all sorts of other things apparently.
Why not just all-out remove the drip and make sure that it comes from an approved Big Pharma that pays dividends to the politicians looking after their peons all so well?
I'm somebody who does not like steam's back end and business practices and you know it's bad when I'm sticking my neck out to defend them from this retard who obviously didn't read the policy properly.
No, no, that's not how it works, this moron doesn't understand a thing about game pricing, how does she even justify what 'too much' is?
It is going to be absolutely hilarious seeing her try and justify the maths on this and I'm sure what will happen instead of her actually getting it back to gamers as she pretends she's on side with she is almost certainly going to be running a grift. Fuck you leftists for making me defend business practices I don't like.
This article looks like it was written by an 8 year old, I love how she didn't even bring up the upload fee which is easily one of the most egregious things about steam I bet she has done zero research.
Like what?
. Hideous UI with multiple tabs of 'required' ridiculous information you have to enter in which valve don't even check as seen by the kind of crap that they allow on the platform, you could probably write poopy poop as your company name and it would get accepted. This kind of lax attitude towards financial information about developers could potentially lead to real legal trouble in the future especially if Valve let a particularly disastrous project in that bricks peoples' computers
. Blatant scams or shady projects popping up and getting astroturfed by bots with Valve doing nothing
. Certain multiplayer games are being breached frequently by hackers and are leaking IP addresses of people on steam reviews and forums which is effectively a doxxing attempt and Valve aren't clamping down on the script kiddies doing this or the devs letting this go on
. Upfront fee is a ridiculous concept because as an indie dev especially you're £70 ( $100 ) in the hole just for uploading and it's done absolutely nothing to prevent trash projects going up, would much rather just the commission
. Botting is everywhere and it's pretty blatant now, it is looking like most positive reviews are by bots and don't seem to be real people giving feedback, ironically you have to go to the negative feedback to get anything real on a game by a human being
All of these are valid, valid complaints which makes the article writer all the more ludicrous for whining about valve's commission which they need to make money on otherwise they'd go out of business, that's just how they make their money per sale.
I'd point out that your complaint against the upfront fee clashes with the complaint against scams. The fee was implemented to try and dissuade fly by night assholes doing that.
Now what they ought to implement is a monetary floor for giving reviews.
"urinalists"
stop doing that. it makes you sound like a child.
Nah.