@MinModulation@LavenderGhast You know, chasing the aesthetic of movies isn't an invalid choice. But when everyone's doing it and your implementation dosen't stand out in any way, we get the current state of affairs.
women have been playing male protagonists for decades without complaint, yet every year we see grown ass men throwing tantrums over women in games. that should tell you everything you need to know about who's truly ruining gaming now
Ubisoft CEO is today having an "invitation-only" meeting with the European Commission, hosted by VGE, 2 weeks before the EC planned answer to our ECI.
SKG was not invited.
Thus, we publish an Open Letter, that we invite everyone of you to read it and share it for visibility.
This post dosen't even mention how Valve largerly fixed PC controller support with steam input and made Linux gaming viable.
The latter being the most anti-monopoly thing from a compamy of that size in this industry ever.
Twisting things a little hard there, aren't we?
That's a bad faith post.
Nobody has to abandon anything, and options do exist. More options than those can easily exist. They can exist because Steam made it possible.
It's no exaggeration to say that Steam effectively saved PC gaming while fighting for it the entire time.
Steam is also a launchpad for developers. Of course it's going to be stocked well. They opened the door to everyone. Nothing stopping others from doing that.
Publishers creating walled gardens is on them. They keep people out, they want data, they want to run 24/7, and their launchers are clunky and half-baked.
They're not trying.
Big vendors using undesirable account models is on them, as well. Microsoft's service is a mess and invasive, but does offer enough to give people a place to go. The same goes for others, in their position.
They're not trying, either.
Those guys want to collect you and keep you to themselves. They didn't have to fight the fight Steam did to build this industry from scratch. Steam built the world in which they operate, nail by nail.
To this day, Steam just lets you buy games, play games, and launch games, and it gets out of your way. They're not taking over your machine, and they're not trying to control your experience.
There's also an alternative we all know, and it's a big one:
Gog grew in Steam's shadow by doing things right. Now you've got a great choice if you don't like Steam, but most of us are happy to use both, because both are great.
That's the point:
In good faith competition, options aren't trying to steal you away from others and lock you in their ecosystem.
Neither company does that.
Steam was already absolutely massive when Gog showed up with a few retro titles. It was cute; a neat idea that was small potatoes but scrappy and ready to hustle.
It had something Steam didn't have, and it took root and grew. Steam stayed in it's own lane.
That Gog hustle is what it takes. It's what separates a good, sustainable, and growth-oriented business from the opposite; just as Steam had the entire time.
Steam didn't step on them. Steam never tried to downplay them, and they didn't suddenly lock up the ecosystem to prevent migration. As always, they stood by and let the industry and new ideas grow.
They exist in harmony, and Gog is getting big titles, now, with advantages Steam can't offer using their business model. These days, buying from Gog or Steam is making a choice that both freely allow.
There is always room for another Gog. People just aren't trying. They'd rather score a user and keep him in their ecosystem, or just not put forth the effort.
Here's what people who don't know business can't wrap their brains around:
Long-term risk and effort.
It took Steam literal decades to get where they are, against all odds. Everything stood against them, but they fought fairly through many of their users' entire lives and survived with grit and dedication to service.
Odds are, if you're reading this, they were fighting to keep your industry alive before you were born, and nobody trusted them. All odds were against them, and yet they pushed forward.
If Steam hadn't pushed through nearly impossible obstacles, your only option today would be to sit in front of a TV with a Nintendo.
When they first showed up, I wouldn't let them anywhere near my computer, and I wasn't the only one. They had to work for years just to reach a point of even mild acceptance; not even trust.
Just acceptance.
Now, they're big. So what? They're not standing in anyone's way, and they don't offer anything ten years ahead of anyone. It's a simple, fair market.
That's all.
Their is no killer feature others can't implement. There is no secret technology they claim that makes them impenetrable. They don't carry a shield.
The functions themselves are not advanced or world-changing. It was the effort that was world-changing.
They fought the big fight, leaving room for everyone else. If anything, simply by going through all those years of toil, risk, and sacrifice, they opened the door for competition that never would have been possible without them.
Everyone doing business in this industry owes steam for doing what they would not. They could have, but they didn't. They still can, but they don't.
Steam started off as suspected malware. Never forget that. They didn't get an ounce of help up the ladder.
They just ran a solid, fair business for decades.
@mabatsekker I guess that counts. Still I think there are people who are way more content with way less than any of us finns would ever be. But this whole metric is kinda weird.
@Spikey_Buddy I've lamented this for years and have burning hatred of adobe and apple. Apple for planting the idea of flash being bad. And adobe for continuing to fuck up flash to the point where apple was actually correct.