Comparing both games I think a few creatures like Cremis are on shaky ground, but even that might turn out to be fine.
What definitely won’t go anywhere is people making mad collages to explain how a pal combines features of such plus such pokémon. They don’t seem to realize that Pokémon doesn’t own every possible combination of features from those creatures,
I don’t really remember asking for your opinion on what a fair cut should be or what you think is a rip off.
Too bad, this is a public forum. I don’t need to ask for your permission to say whatever I want. But if that’s how you are going to go about it, then feel free to think whatever you want on your corner.
The only one that goes on Epic’s favor is the cut, but frankly I think the whole “old revenue share system that’s hurting devs” is nothing more than Epic’s propaganda trying to get marketshare. 70/30 in favor of the devs while Steam handles hosting, community platform, multiplayer and modding tools, so forth, is neither unusual nor ripping anyone off, certainly not worth how maligned it was. I understand devs who prefer Epic’s cut, but I don’t think Epic is doing this out of fairness, nor that it can be relied on if they ever do gain ground.
In the other aspects, it’s either equal or worse. It has as much DRM. Steam provides options for people to trade extra copies they didn’t activate but as far as I know other stores don’t. Neither allows people to trade away activated copies so that’s no points for anyone.
I assume the microtransaction thing is talking about Steam Trading Cards and such, they are a bit of an iffy worthless addition to get people to waste money… but if the person is concerned over how much money the devs are getting, they do get a cut from every transaction, so under that perspective it should be counted as a plus. Which, by the way, is entirely up to the dev to add or not.
People say that theoretically but not only Steam doesn’t stop anyone from selling in other places, it delivers better services than any other platform (except maybe GOG that has the big benefit of being DRM-free)
The Steam “monopoly” ends up being less detrimental than the “competition” of locking each game to a different platform.
That’s probably the best option. Considering how a Ubisoft exec said we should be “comfortable not owning games”, I wouldn’t trust anything purchased from them anymore.
Avoid it in favor of GoG. Ubisoft can’t be trusted with a single drop of goodwill. As we can see by how they inject their clunky garbage manager even in games they sell through other stores.
There are valid concerns but there are benefits to using one game manager. There’s nothing good about having to install a bunch of them because every other game is in a different store.
It still would be best if games came DRM-free and all of them were compatible with whatever game manager someone chooses, but a lot of them aren’t, especially from big publishers.
I used to hate subscription games with a passion, but seeing what followed, in-app purchases, lootboxes and FOMO-driven battlepasses, turns out subscriptions were the lesser evil.
Well, that is a sign of the medium maturing. We’ve figured out most basic technological limitations and many design conventions to make games that are as close to the vision of the creators as we want them to be. Until some new great discovery drastically changes how games are made, now it’s just a matter of building up on existing ideas, with new twists.