First, you shouldn't take this so personal. Should I be calling Epic game store or Steam bad platforms if they don't support Windows 95? Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows.
I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?
Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
> Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy.
... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :)
> I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe.
No, the exclusives are paid money upfront on a certain amount of estimated sales, which they don't have to return no matter what the actual sales are. They're not going exclusive just for the lower commission.
The juicy bit: When doing the math, looking at Fig's stake (50%) and the 85% dividend rate (how much Fig gives to investors), this means that Epic Games will have had to have given Snapshot Games approximately $2,247,058 for the Phoenix Point exclusivity rights.
> Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
I'm sure the society would have been better without IAPs. Not all the marks something leaves are desirable.
I don't believe you are willing to discuss anything in good faith if you are unwilling to read or begin to understand what I wrote.
1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing,
2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy to look at the evidence. Publishers and developers do not owe you anything, and I would rather they take the extra cut and either pay their employees/shareholders, or develop better games.
30% is unconscionable, and I cannot wait until the App Store is forced to be spun off or forced to lower their margin, and Steam is being out competed by Epic.
I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?
Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.