Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
♥♥♥♥ like EA and Ubisoft are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ jokes because they were just glorified DRM launcehrs for their own products that was forced down people's necks, even if they bought the damn game on Steam. Nobody respected that from day 1.
The core problem is consumers do not have consistent messaging about this topic.
You listed Epic doing anti-competitive practices with exclusivity. Okay, but they're doing that because Steam is an impenetrable goliath. So you want to roast Epic for that and not Steam? I'm no fan of Epic's principles as a business, but if we're talking the topic of anti-competition and monopolies, it makes absolutely no sense to ream the competitor over the platform with the soft monopoly.
Another way this manifests is that even though some people do genuinely have anti-monopoly values, they still enjoy having all of their games and the community for those games in one place. They actually *want* there to be only one platform. You would wind up with friend circles splintered using different platforms and a hefty amount of people unhappy about it.
That's to speak nothing of the people who do not care about the topic at all and like the Steam order exactly the way it is.
This isn't the only industry that is troubled by this issue, either. People like monopolies when they're fair, and don't like them when they're unfair.
If people really want to play a video game, such as AC:Valhalla, they'll shrug and deal with the secondary UPlay launcher being a requirement, even if they complain that it is excessive. Which it is. But plenty of PC gamers also like GOG, so they can make exceptions here and there. The way I see it, you might still need to use some terrible launcher to play a game but at least you can still collect those games all within one place, on Steam, which is generally the idea. Catch-22, perhaps. But it's better than games only being available on EGS or some other shoddy launcher that lacks the most basic of features. If some of these companies, like Ubisoft, really cared about competing with Steam then they would apply some effort to improving their launchers, but you can tell that's not really the point.
As for Steam, it would not have nearly as many features as it does if Valve didn't need to eventually implement these features to stay ahead of the competition that has always existed. People just don't like to be forced to use a certain service to play a video game that should have been available on their preferred platform to begin with. Keeping a video game (through bribery, basically) on your platform does not encourage competition between companies, where the consumers can choose which service they prefer to use. EPIC tries to force people to use its service instead. Really, the last few years have mostly been Steam vs EGS. Nobody even knows who the other 'competitors' to Valve actually are, besides maybe Microsoft but even Microsoft seemingly wants to work with Valve rather than against them and that's good, friendly competition.
You either are not European or you don't understand what they said. In Europe it is regulated by law that companies pay part of their employee's income tax. It is not considered a gift, it is mandatory by law. This is for several social benefits that get funded this way (paid sick leave, health insurance, unemployment benefits). Also pension building.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-york/52000/?filing=single&deductions=0&k401=0&ira=0&dependents=0
what are you even talking about? you are making no sense at all... you have been told how taxes work.
no, its you who is arguing for no reason.
employers paying the taxes out of your check (ie... those taxes are coming out of the money you earned, which is essentially you paying your taxes) is not a gift, learn the facts already....
microscams store is one of the worst stores out of all of them...
Epic is just throwing around money and not adding anything to gaming.
PS: I don't see any thing on my payroll that employer paid my income tax but it shown me that I paid my income taxes. EX: Federal Withholding and 401K are an income tax which I already paid. If I earned $2100 before tax for a bi-weekly payroll, then I got $1600 home and I paid $500 to income taxes.
Epic does already bind customers to their store with their free games. The exclusivity of new releases is not needed for that. That is just a scummy anti consumer practice. Exclusivity for selling a game is a monopoly on selling the game. They could easily improve their brand if they improved their platform. Same goes for EA.
As for having all games into the same place. This has nothing to do with a monopoly. Monopoly is about market share for selling products.
Steam allows you to add games to your Steam library that you didn't buy in their store. That is simply about convenience. (this obviously has a positive effect on their branding).
As for community. This is also separate from whether the Steam store behaves like a monopoly. Besides, there are several other major community platforms for gaming (Discord for example). There is also no reason why EA and Epic could not build the same. They have the money.
A monopoly for a commercial company is generally not a good thing.
your employer is the one who takes those taxes out of your check and the amount is set by how much you made that week/biweek/year.... there is no gift nonsense....
federal, state, social security, medicare (standard taxes taken out) are all taxes taken out of your check by your company, then you have 401k which is set or has a general amount and some companies may even match or give a specific percentage towards your 401k (i huess the 401k match/percentage added from the company can be called a gift...).
the only other thing different is if you are a contractor, then the company doesnt take taxes out of your check, you are expected to pay your own at the end of the year.
im not sure why/how this is that hard for you to comprehend.
example as you stated, you made $2100 and got back $1600, that means your company took $500 out for taxes, that will all add up by the end of the year and you can file to get them returned from the government.