this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
48 points (85.3% liked)
Games
32748 readers
1496 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Getting 100% of your revenue is pretty wild, epic taking 12% was already massively competitive though.
Pc gamers are just so hostile to anything but steam that it's unlikely it'll trigger third parties to go with epic over steam. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Pc gamers aren't going to be accepting of anything but steam anytime soon.
That's not entirely true, I like GOG. But I will say that a big part of why I dislike the use of so many launchers is because 98% of my game library already exists on steam. Publishers would like to use the storefront analogy but I think that gamers look at it more like moving house, and no one likes to move house.
Also you have to consider that a lot of modern day PC gamers grew up with consoles where there are no launchers there is just the home page and the games.
That's not to touch on the much more prevalent and important topics like privacy concerns and the like.
Eh no, it's entirely true. We've a decade of data showing that almost all pc gamers will not use a storefront and launcher that is not steam. Even if you personally buy games on gog occasionally.
Okay, where's the data?
ugh god are we really going to reddit level discorse, fucking hell. hack into epic games and valve and interview every single pc gamer or you are fucking WRONG asshole and i'm right i don't need to prove anything.
You are literally the one who said that such data exists and is clearly available if some random person on the internet has examined it. You are the one making a claim, therefore it is your duty to provide evidence of your claim, which you stated is in publicly available. If you instead meant that said data is simply anecdotal data based on whatever conclusions you figured is correct, then sure, I'll take that. Just give us a link to it.
I didn't say that at all, all I asked is what data you're referencing. It's not even in the same ball park.
You sound like you need a hug. Is everything okay in your personal life? I'm here to talk if you need it.
You came to Lemmy to escape people asking you to corroborate your claims?