Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
No you're literally just adding on nonsense in some vain attempt to 'make a point' by basically lying because you know you're basically just spouting utter nonsense.
About that "X=bad" meme,
Something, in this universe, CAN be bad or good, there are greys but also white and black. As long as there are multiple proofs on fundamentals, one side will continue to agree on X is bad and it is not an embarrassing viewpoint either, to put it simple and hardcore.
About Unreal engine, my purchased games using Unreal Engine have nothing to do with Tencent. This Chinese company commingled with EpicGames later on.
Everyone has different reasoning to stay away from EGS. It is not straightforward.
Legally you couldn't transfer licenses either, but there is a difference between not being able to enforce it, and now being able to enforce it....
Can't recall gamestop ever selling used PC games....... Might want to stop and think there huh?
My request isn't about that. I'm referring to publishers who add EoS weeks, months, or even years AFTER the game's launch, as noted in the person's KF2 review.
https://i.redd.it/hrleddj9w6691.png
Because of how EoS works, I am asking that Valve implement rules governing it, namely:
1. A publisher must fully disclose it like any third-party DRM solution (e.g., Denuvo, SecuROM, FairPlay, StarForce, etc.). As customers, we have the right to know what our product contains and how it could impact how we play it.
2. Developers shouldn't enable the EoS overlay. Epic cannot use their overlay to promote themselves on a game purchased and running from Steam.
3. If a publisher decides to implement EoS after the game's launch, they should provide the customer with a refund at the publisher's expense. Adding EoS changes HOW the game plays in a big way. Customers should be able to refund (as noted in the person's review above).
I mean they added it to 7 days to die. No issues with it, no performance changes, nothing other then I know see it with the game.
As for a refund LMAO, good luck with that. Valve is pro developer, they start trying to force what your suggesting OP and they'd just drive developers off their site and Steam would shut down.
If you want to be taken seriously you can start by PROVING how
'adding EoS changes how the game plays in a big way"
Also nothing wrong if they use the overlay, its normal for games to mention the engine, etc that the game runs on in the intro or screens, which news flash, promotes themselves as they own Unreal Engine....
I do need to stop and think - whether it's worth replying to you. But to anyone else that might read your comment, don't take my word, and certainly don't take his, a simple Google search should answer whether you can or can't sell physical copies of videogames (and if Gamestop is in the resale market for them).
So the answer is no, you didn't stop and think, or you've never been in a gamestop, or have no clue how to use google then.....
The answer is no, they have NEVER sold used PC games, in fact no legitimate store has ever sold them. Console games are very different from PC games and since you appear confused what we are discussing here are PC games, not console games.
You can legally transfer licenses in the EU.
It's just extremely hard to fit the conditions where it becomes legal.
And while the trader; publisher; developer; etc. aren't allowed to interfere in the reselling process, they aren't legally required to facilitate it either. Which leads to interesting situations where they come up with passive-aggressive distribution systems that make it impossible to resell a license without active interference in the matter.
This is the heart of the French case against Steam, where a major argument is that Steam's unwillingness to open up their distribution system to reselling is actually active interference in and of itself, because they are aware that its current set-up keeps everything under lock-and-key and they want to keep it that way. I.e. they're equating inaction to having an active effect.
(Valve lost the initial case - but they're appealing it, of course.)
The often-cited counterpoint to the French ruling is that the Germans ruled resale is not allowed. But this is wrong.
The most famous German example of a ruling involving software license resale is UsedSoft vs Oracle; which is where the original EU high court ruling that resale is allowed under certain conditions originates from. What the eventual Munich courts ruled in Germany is that UsedSoft simply didn't meet those conditions. They did not rule that resale is not allowed.
Another example was actually straight-up related to Steam. Here the German courts also did not rule that resale of individual licenses was not allowed. They ruled that resale of whole accounts was not allowed, which was what some people were effectively using as a workaround because Steam as a platform does not facilitate resale of individual licenses. The courts ruled that this was not allowed because it was a breach of the terms of service.
Iirc there were also some cases in the 8-bit and 16-bit console era where Nintendo -- at least; I think it was Nintendo -- was trying to get the practice of shops dealing in second hand videogame sales, outlawed. Unsuccesfully. Because reselling them was legal, not just between private persons, but also as a commercial business model.
Sale cut has nothing to do with using the service features, it's only for sales.
As for both of them: if you can't refund them, you can still request to delete those games from your steam account.
*coughs in Remnant: From the Ashes*
Anyone has any success to play good multiplayer session in this game today?
Or maybe in KoF XV?
Killing Floor probably?
Seriously tho: developers should fork different versions for different platforms, so there won't be any future connection issues. And of course, these issues "coincidentally" almost always happen after epic online services being implemented.
Or when after the game switching platforms.
I know Epic, and Steam can have down time, and when they do, depending how game was handle for p2p either remain connected, just those haven't join can't connect, or have connections lost completely until service back up.
It is. The portion of these cuts is used to maintain steam services. Including the steamworks api for matchmaking.
If sales cuts has nothing to do with using steam services, valve will release those services independently from steam, and developers can use them without selling games on steam.
So does Epic sale cut, but that wasn't the point, the point was you're using sales cut as an excuse why it's not free.
There free games that don't pay sale cut to use same said features that is what I'm saying.