Rockstar launches his own...launcher

[Tech614]

Do you have any concept of how fucking expensive it is to build, own and operate a server network like AWS or Steam? Those are two of the largest in the world and to operate them globally as fast as they are for on average 39 million users a day and a billion overall won't be cheap both in terms of the vast quantity of servers actually needed, not to mention the power needed to run them 24/7

Did you seriously just compare Steam to AWS? Also if you think steams network is larger then Azure or Google well... idk what I'm even reading here.

Things like AWS and Azure are so large they host entire game networks like PSN and XBL on top of the thousands of other networks they host.

[justandulas]

Do you have any concept of how fucking expensive it is to build, own and operate a server network like AWS or Steam? Those are two of the largest in the world and to operate them globally as fast as they are for on average 39 million users a day and a billion overall won't be cheap both in terms of the vast quantity of servers actually needed, not to mention the power needed to run them 24/7

Yes i do, do you? Do you realize steam makes about 6-8 BILLION PROFIT a year? You're telling me gabe can't live with 2 billion a year?

he's a private corporation and isn't beholden to shareholders like others; so it's 100% nothing but steam being greedy

[therealstegblob]

do you?

I've released a game over Steam, so yes. I know how it works.

You source is...?

[justandulas]

I've released a game over Steam, so yes. I know how it works.

You source is...?

Prove it. What game? Secondly, nothing I said was wrong and IF you released on steam you’d know I was right.

Streams asking cut is second only to apple in terms of how bad it is for the developer.

[Rennadrel]

If there's two constants in media today, it's the over abundance of launchers for games on the PC now and we are seeing the same shit happening to streaming services. Hulu, HBO Go, Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and probably a few others that I'm missing as well. Consumers for the most part want one thing and that's convenience. That's why Steam has been so successful, everything in one place. That's why Netflix was wildly successful early on. Now companies are getting greedy because they want a slice of the pie because they don't like that the existing service providers are making more money than them off their own products.

[Vash The Stampede]

If there's two constants in media today, it's the over abundance of launchers for games on the PC now and we are seeing the same shit happening to streaming services. Hulu, HBO Go, Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and probably a few others that I'm missing as well. Consumers for the most part want one thing and that's convenience. That's why Steam has been so successful, everything in one place. That's why Netflix was wildly successful early on. Now companies are getting greedy because they want a slice of the pie because they don't like that the existing service providers are making more money than them off their own products.

This is because we're not enforcing any laws. Paramount vs United States, was a case that made it illegal for movie studios to own theaters so that their theaters was the only source of their movies. Assuming that movies and video games aren't too different in terms of how you distribute and sell it, then video games should also be handled the same way. That way we don't have to rely on multiple services to get what we want. That way services like Hulu, HBO Go, Netflix, and Amazon are not about the content they have but service they provide. Even for video game launchers where RockStar would focus on their service and not be a walled garden for their exclusive games.

[TheRevenantHero]

The 30% has been debunked many times. It will be around 20% for big companies like Rockstar, and while it is a lot still, compared to the cut retailers/resellers used to take, it is not that extreme. And steam is not an unnecessary middle man, it is the biggest seller of games on the market. One Thing I will never get is why the games companies do not just do as Rockstar does in this case and have their own launcher/client, and then just sell the game 5 or 10 bucks cheaper there, than on steam. That way they still get steam sales, but a big portion of players will also go for the cheaper options and buy it directly from them.


He seems to be more into VR these days, though he is still rather involved in esports, especially dota 2.

I've never seen the 30% debunked. Please link a source to this.

- - - Updated - - -

This is because we're not enforcing any laws. Paramount vs United States, was a case that made it illegal for movie studios to own theaters so that their theaters was the only source of their movies. Assuming that movies and video games aren't too different in terms of how you distribute and sell it, then video games should also be handled the same way. That way we don't have to rely on multiple services to get what we want. That way services like Hulu, HBO Go, Netflix, and Amazon are not about the content they have but service they provide. Even for video game launchers where RockStar would focus on their service and not be a walled garden for their exclusive games.

The difference between digital media and movie theaters is that they're not restricted to a physical location. I'm pretty sure that's why it was made illegal.

[Vash The Stampede]

The difference between digital media and movie theaters is that they're not restricted to a physical location. I'm pretty sure that's why it was made illegal.

Why should the physical location matter? The reason it was illegal because it hurt the business of other theaters and started a monopoly. We want competition and another Launcher is not competition. Another video streaming service is not competition. Companies have taken their legal monopolies and have run away with it. They need restrictions.

[TheRevenantHero]

Why should the physical location matter? The reason it was illegal because it hurt the business of other theaters and started a monopoly. We want competition and another Launcher is not competition. Another video streaming service is not competition. Companies have taken their legal monopolies and have run away with it. They need restrictions.

I agree that Steam deserves to have their stranglehold on the industry. But I think the reason the movie theater case won was because there was a better case for it because it could be argued that it would lead to discrimination and people unable to see a movie simply because they didn't live in a certain area. But it's harder to argue with digital media.

[Vash The Stampede]

I agree that Steam deserves to have their stranglehold on the industry. But I think the reason the movie theater case won was because there was a better case for it because it could be argued that it would lead to discrimination and people unable to see a movie simply because they didn't live in a certain area. But it's harder to argue with digital media.

The reason was given in the wiki, in that studios became an oligopoly. They would also do “block booking" in which they force independent theaters to show a number of films. It was just an unfair business practice. It also sounds a lot like our modern video streaming and gaming services. All we gotta do is replace the words "theater" with Launchers along with films with video games and you basically have the same problem. You want NetFlix exclusives then you use Netflix. You want Red Dead Redemption 2 then you use the RockStar Launcher. These are all oligopoly's.

"The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue."

[TheRevenantHero]

The reason was given in the wiki, in that studios became an oligopoly. They would also do “block booking" in which they force independent theaters to show a number of films. It was just an unfair business practice. It also sounds a lot like our modern video streaming and gaming services. All we gotta do is replace the words "theater" with Launchers along with films with video games and you basically have the same problem. You want NetFlix exclusives then you use Netflix. You want Red Dead Redemption 2 then you use the RockStar Launcher. These are all oligopoly's.

"The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue."

Ah ok. then yeah, this shit needs to be fixed.

[Klingers]

Steam's 30% asking fee is too much. I keep saying that, over and over, every time one of these stores pop up and steam knights just blindly defend it without realizing it is DIRECTLY leading to every single store, including epic.

Steam has the power to kill them all, right now, today; Gabe just needs to lower his greed stat from 100 to like 90

It's digital goods and steam is an unnecessary 3rd party middle man; why give them 30%? Those days are over

Because Steam isn't necessarily a unnecessary middleman. They provide DRM, cloud sync, patch deployment, game preloading, a captive audience to advertise to, wishlisting, sales metrics, forums to interact with customers... Suffice to say they, provide a platform.

There's downsides to Steam to be sure, but every man and his dog dumping their shitty little mickey-mouse launchers on our hard drives is getting a little old at this point.

[therealstegblob]

Prove it. What game? Secondly, nothing I said was wrong and IF you released on steam you’d know I was right.

Streams asking cut is second only to apple in terms of how bad it is for the developer.

Pixel Star. I'm partners with the guy who released it.

Or let me guess, now I need to PrOvE tHaT tOo, and when I prove that I need to pRoVe It DoUbLe and so on and so on as you sweat out your ass and backpeddle/change goal posts/endlessly demand proof of escalating things.

[Sencha]

Multiple launchers is a bit annoying for us players but steam and its 30% sales cut is bad for the game industry. So a bit of competition is probably a good thing.

[callipygoustp]

I'm almost convinced by anonymous posters on a weakly moderated gaming forum.

Fuck that, Steam for life.

[justandulas]

Pixel Star. I'm partners with the guy who released it.

Or let me guess, now I need to PrOvE tHaT tOo, and when I prove that I need to pRoVe It DoUbLe and so on and so on as you sweat out your ass and backpeddle/change goal posts/endlessly demand proof of escalating things.

So you didn't release it, but someone you know did? LOL.

That's great for him, but don't try and act like YOU released it when it was your friend. So you're opinion here is no more valid than mine.

I know 3 people who've released games on steam, and one is in legal battle with steam over $, and the other 2 chose to make Apple app games because it's more profitable and they don't have to be under Steam's iron boot anymore.

If game devs are CHOOSING apple as the better option OVER steam; it says a lot about steam

[therealstegblob]

So you didn't release it, but someone you know did? LOL.

No, you illiterate. I worked with the guy who released it. Besides, even if I only just knew him, how in the absolute fucking world would that somehow invalidate my knowledge? Are you even using your brain? Rhetorical, of course you aren't.

You literally don't know what you're talking about. You're a troll at best, genuinely ignorant at worst. I don't want to hear it anymore, so I'm going to ignore you.

[SoundOfGuns]

Snip.

Don't be an asshole. Then i got to be an asshole too, and... you know...

But lets be civil. First off, the law in this regard - regardless of Steams existence - in multiple countries deemed return policies of any sort problematic for digital goods of any kind and thus would have to be treated differently, therefore no return policy was ever established for over a decade. The reasoning behind this was both how easy it was to copy said goods and the argument, that there was no infrastructure to control if these digital goods had been removed. This changed, but barely. Further it was assumed, that when the same policies are applied to physical goods, everyone would just consume said media and return it, thus ruining whoever sells the product. After all nothing really has been circulated and if a consumer gets his money back, it will be in some way charged back from the creator. This is complicated. And while im anti-corporate as fuck i can see the logical reason behind this, because it would break both the developer/publishing side and the vendor who sells it. Do you get the difference between this and a DVD-Box you return? Are you also going to argue that these aren't valid concerns from their side when you snarkily remarked that Valves Always-On DRM isn't enough? Your words, not mine. Denobo isn't save either. None of those are. I would like nothing more than everyone getting a 30-day-return policy in digital goods... but there is a fair logic behind not wanting that with digital goods. The untitled goose game cost me 16 bucks and i finished it in barely 3 hours. Why would i not return that when all it cost me was a click? I can buy it again another time should i crave it... I would not just blame greed for their resistance.

Second, im not "trying to expect" that. As evident by the fact that i said that the cut is to high and that it needs to be changed. I still don't consider this greed. Well... okay, maybe it is enough to convince them to not go to quick with the price after the downfall of physical distribution a few years ago. I would still call it unreasonable to just screech about how its all greed. General physical price-cuts were 60/40... for the vendor, not the publisher. At least here and i highly doubt this was different in other western nations. Mediastores that sold games also tended to be very selective with who they presented. No matter how much you hate Gaben and his marry man of steamy bandits, 30% was a good cut in the early 2ks. But as i said before; That time is long gone... and i fully agree that there needs to be competition but Epic is not the hero you are looking for. GOG is, but people somehow seem to forcefully ignore it.

I would also suggest you read up on Sweeney over there, and what shit he spouted in the past 30 years. I don't really care what your conclusion is. Not enough to read it, but i do believe you will realize that it might be quite interesting of a read, should you assume he is any more kind hearted than Valve. He is actually much much worse... and much much less genuine about his good intentions. He doesn't care that developers get a by today's standards bad share on sales. He is on a Vendetta. And his biggest thing is actually being mad at people for being successful and not asking him for his blessing before they dared to make money. Epics cut works for developers because its incredibly low. Epics cut works financially because its sponsored by Tencent-money and Fortnite-fame, and Epics whole shitty behavior rings because publishers love money for nothing and people flock to those games regardless of how much shit they are getting thrown it with that garbage platform. I don't think my dichotomy is off. I think you are underestimating how much the Platform actually does... But im willing to agree that its not worth the 30% cut.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

I don't understand the infatuation you people have with things like Steam in the first place.

Is it really that fucking hard to manage your own software?

[Wilian]

I don't understand the infatuation you people have with things like Steam in the first place.

Is it really that fucking hard to manage your own software?

I'd like to manage my own software yes, instead of having to install 10+ DRM software managers like Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay etc.