Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic - MMORPG.com News

12346

Comments

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,599
    Did anyone find out what EPIC's return policy is? Is it similar? Is it better? Is there even a return policy?

  • SiveriaSiveria Member UncommonPosts: 1,411
    edited December 2018

    Scot said:

    I value competition, there isn't much here and that's why Steam are taking 30%.



    Exactly, steam could get away with the 30% as it was the biggest and really only major pc digital platform, but now that epic and discord are in the market with much lower profit hits, once games start showing up on discord and epic and not steam, steam will get the message. If you wanna get a big company to do something you have to hit them where it hurts: their profits. Once they notice profits in decline they will look into why, and then try to fix it.

    Otherwise steam won't care, they only will care like I said when their profits start taking a noticable hit.
    Scot

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • ceratop001ceratop001 Member RarePosts: 1,590
    If I'm steam I'm not losing sleep over this.
     
  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Member EpicPosts: 1,895
    I would have earned multiple millions if I'd bought a winning Powerball ticket.


    MMORPG.COM took away my swinging cheerleader butt .gif.

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,599
    Well, got the confirmation I needed. EPIC's platform does nothing to protect consumers to the same degree that STEAM already does. So it may be a beneficial platform for developers, but since there's no guarantee that equals quality products, then I'll stick with STEAM.


    Phry

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,170
    First 10 seconds complaining about exclusives. It doesn't affect the player. Exclusives here are not the same as system exclusives... I'll keep watching, but I hope they use their heads for the test of the video.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,170
    yeah so a 13 minute video and 10 minutes complaining about 'exclusives'... jesus.
    SBFord
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,604
    edited December 2018
    As i mentioned in another thread it can be even better because Epic gives another break if using their game engine so it could easily be millions in savings.
    Ok so that is the positive for THEM and THEIR partners but what about us?
    Well their refund policy is total rubbish,that one mistake by Epic is enough to keep me off of their platform.

    "Review bombing"Yet again this is to protect EPIC and NOT the consumer,so this is 2 strikes against Epic and their platform.Whomever is in charge of running this should be fired because the number one rule is to perform towards CONSUMERS and not your partners,so this guy must have failed economics 101.

    Discord's new platform has basically the same refund policy as Steam and an even cheaper partner deal at 10% and you can play games from other platforms on their app.So Discord is miles ahead of Epic imo.

    As to "assumptions" on pricing,there is absolutely NO guarantee that a lower take on the deals will equate to lower prices for us the consumer.I would bet they simply look at other platform prices and try to just barely undermine them,like maybe $5.

    There i guess another strike against Epic,they are going to have EXCLUSIVES,meaning use our store app or you can't play this game.This yet again is good for THEM and not for the consumer,so yeah Epic simply does not GET IT
    Rhoklaw

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,599
    Wizardry said:
    As i mentioned in another thread it can be even better because Epic gives another break if using their game engine so it could easily be millions in savings.
    Ok so that is the positive for THEM and THEIR partners but what about us?
    Well their refund policy is total rubbish,that one mistake by Epic is enough to keep me off of their platform.

    "Review bombing"Yet again this is to protect EPIC and NOT the consumer,so this is 2 strikes against Epic and their platform.Whomever is in charge of running this should be fired because the number one rule is to perform towards CONSUMERS and not your partners,so this guy must have failed economics 101.

    Discord's new platform has basically the same refund policy as Steam and an even cheaper partner deal at 10% and you can play games from other platforms on their app.So Discord is miles ahead of Epic imo.

    As to "assumptions" on pricing,there is absolutely NO guarantee that a lower take on the deals will equate to lower prices for us the consumer.I would bet they simply look at other platform prices and try to just barely undermine them,like maybe $5.

    There i guess another strike against Epic,they are going to have EXCLUSIVES,meaning use our store app or you can't play this game.This yet again is good for THEM and not for the consumer,so yeah Epic simply does not GET IT
    Being rich apparently couldn't afford them an education in consumer relations. I foresee another Electronic Arts approach to gaming.

  • crankkedcrankked Member UncommonPosts: 125
    thunderC said:
    @MisterZebub The current streaming content industry is a great example. The whole "cut the cord" is a load of Horse shit. I need my netflix for stranger things, i need my HBO go for Game of Thrones, I need my NFL package on the PSN so i can watch the games this , that and thensome before i know it im paying double what i paid for cable because every platform has their own exclusives  ? O did i mention netflix has 3 different sub options charging the most if i want to stream that sweet sweet 4k content. 

    How is this benefiting the consumer again ? With the cost of living today Im supposed to be concerned with a company missing out on a additional 350 K in profit ? LOL
    But, that's your fault for wanting to watch 5 specific shows on 5 different networks.  "cutting the cord" isn't for everyone and it clearly isn't for you.  I pay for Hulu live TV and netflix and I am probably getting rid of netflix.  Calling "horse shit" on cutting the cord not a fair assessment.  

    I encourage everyone to get rid of cable/DTV/Dish.  These companies have long been raking us over the coals and not giving consumers good options.  It's time for a change.....
    RexKushman
  • PemminPemmin Member UncommonPosts: 622
    edited December 2018
    crankked said:
    thunderC said:
    @MisterZebub The current streaming content industry is a great example. The whole "cut the cord" is a load of Horse shit. I need my netflix for stranger things, i need my HBO go for Game of Thrones, I need my NFL package on the PSN so i can watch the games this , that and thensome before i know it im paying double what i paid for cable because every platform has their own exclusives  ? O did i mention netflix has 3 different sub options charging the most if i want to stream that sweet sweet 4k content. 

    How is this benefiting the consumer again ? With the cost of living today Im supposed to be concerned with a company missing out on a additional 350 K in profit ? LOL
    But, that's your fault for wanting to watch 5 specific shows on 5 different networks.  "cutting the cord" isn't for everyone and it clearly isn't for you.  I pay for Hulu live TV and netflix and I am probably getting rid of netflix.  Calling "horse shit" on cutting the cord not a fair assessment.  

    I encourage everyone to get rid of cable/DTV/Dish.  These companies have long been raking us over the coals and not giving consumers good options.  It's time for a change.....
    having worked in that industry i can say "cutting the cord" is very much horse shit. the reason your cable bill goes up is broadcasters and local governments.... not the providers. when I was working in the industry broadcasting fees providers had to pay went up 3700% over a 10 year period(that averages 370% per year). Local governments also demand that the companies provide for people in unsustainable areas in order to renew franchise deals....most of the companies are giving basic cable at cost and making there money back on internet and phone, while also using dense population areas to subsidize the more rural areas.

    cable companies don't make shit off of TV. phone has the highest margin and internet has the highest gross profits. the future is your going to see traditional cable go away and cost of internet go up because you need internet to stream. basically your not punishing the cable companies by "cutting the cord". they make there money regardless of if you have tv or not
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,599
    Pemmin said:
    crankked said:
    thunderC said:
    @MisterZebub The current streaming content industry is a great example. The whole "cut the cord" is a load of Horse shit. I need my netflix for stranger things, i need my HBO go for Game of Thrones, I need my NFL package on the PSN so i can watch the games this , that and thensome before i know it im paying double what i paid for cable because every platform has their own exclusives  ? O did i mention netflix has 3 different sub options charging the most if i want to stream that sweet sweet 4k content. 

    How is this benefiting the consumer again ? With the cost of living today Im supposed to be concerned with a company missing out on a additional 350 K in profit ? LOL
    But, that's your fault for wanting to watch 5 specific shows on 5 different networks.  "cutting the cord" isn't for everyone and it clearly isn't for you.  I pay for Hulu live TV and netflix and I am probably getting rid of netflix.  Calling "horse shit" on cutting the cord not a fair assessment.  

    I encourage everyone to get rid of cable/DTV/Dish.  These companies have long been raking us over the coals and not giving consumers good options.  It's time for a change.....
    having worked in that industry i can say "cutting the cord" is very much horse shit. the reason your cable bill goes up is broadcasters and local governments.... not the providers. when I was working in the industry broadcasting fees providers had to pay went up 3700% over a 10 year period(that averages 370% per year). Local governments also demand that the companies provide for people in unsustainable areas in order to renew franchise deals....most of the companies are giving basic cable at cost and making there money back on internet and phone, while also using dense population areas to subsidize the more rural areas.

    cable companies don't make shit off of TV. phone has the highest margin and internet has the highest gross profits. the future is your going to see traditional cable go away and cost of internet go up because you need internet to stream. basically your not punishing the cable companies by "cutting the cord". they make there money regardless of if you have tv or not
    If what you say is true, then why does Spectrum keep trying to RAM cable TV down my throat when all I ever ask for is internet?
    Torval

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    Daranar said:
    gervaise1 said:
    As someone else mentioned earlier, it appears that Epic is more dev friendly than steam, but steam is a bit more consumer friendly.  As a consumer, I know where I'm going...
    Charging 30% rather than 12% is more consumer friendly? Seriously?  
    <snip>

    I think you may not be understanding that there is virtually no benefit to the consumer in the difference in fees.   I know someone earlier mentioned that with lower fees the devs could give a better product.

    <snip>
    Read my previous post.
    Summary: even if the price we see is the same if devs make more money then that will help devs stay afloat (had some closures this year). More devs = more games = more competition.  
    SBFord
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    Rhoklaw said:

    If what you say is true, then why does Spectrum keep trying to RAM cable TV down my throat when all I ever ask for is internet?
    In providing you internet they will incur costs: admin on your account, security, bank charges etc.
    In providing you TV they will incur costs: admin, security, bank charges etc. 
    Providing both will only incur these costs once not twice. 
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    edited December 2018
    SBFord said:
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    Players didn't want an all-in-one digital launcher a decade ago either. They wanted to keep buying physical discs. 

    Life evolves. Games -- even game launchers -- follow suit.
    I have to admit, I was one of the early hold outs.  Back in 2005 when I first installed Half-Life 2, my reaction to Steam was "What the hell is this shit?".  Having to login to Steam to play an offline game was annoying as hell to me ... but things change, and eventually I started to accept Steam and enjoy the finer points of digital distribution.
    I am sure that there are people who play Fortnite for whom Steam is something that comes out of a kettle. 

    And at some point in the future they may have the same "What the hell is this shit?" moment - but then notice that it gives them some free games so they'll accept it. And eventually you have millions and millions of people logging in to the Epic Store.

    Now I admit I am making an assumption that - at some point - this is what will happen. But hey - its how Steam got its start.
  • GruugGruug Member RarePosts: 1,712
    First of all, how much of that 18% savings do you think that the customer will see?

    Second of all, I have FIVE (six if you include Origin which I currently do not have installed) launchers on my PC right now. Of those FIVE, which one gets the most LOOKS and do I play games from the most? Answer, Steam. I have virtually no reason to look at any of those other launchers. And as the saying goes, "out of sight..out of mind". I SEE my friends when they are on Steam. I can join them if they are playing a game that allows it from Steam. I can easily see all my game library from Steam. I don't see that from the other launchers.

    So, with all of that in mind, I have Zero reason to make any other Launcher my primary gaming home UNLESS I see a significant reduction in the COST to purchase said games.

    Are you listening game developers?

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,258
    Wizardry said:

    There i guess another strike against Epic,they are going to have EXCLUSIVES,meaning use our store app or you can't play this game.This yet again is good for THEM and not for the consumer,so yeah Epic simply does not GET IT
    If you object to game stores that have some games that are exclusive to that particular store, then you'd better avoid Steam.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    edited December 2018
    Gruug said:
    First of all, how much of that 18% savings do you think that the customer will see?

    Second of all, I have FIVE (six if you include Origin which I currently do not have installed) launchers on my PC right now. Of those FIVE, which one gets the most LOOKS and do I play games from the most? Answer, Steam. I have virtually no reason to look at any of those other launchers. And as the saying goes, "out of sight..out of mind". I SEE my friends when they are on Steam. I can join them if they are playing a game that allows it from Steam. I can easily see all my game library from Steam. I don't see that from the other launchers.

    So, with all of that in mind, I have Zero reason to make any other Launcher my primary gaming home UNLESS I see a significant reduction in the COST to purchase said games.

    Are you listening game developers?
    I could write the same thing about Discord at the moment. So devs don't listen to @Gruug listen to me ... muhahaha! 

    (Of course other times I play games on Steam but I guess I can cope :)
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,860
    gervaise1 said:
    Daranar said:
    gervaise1 said:
    As someone else mentioned earlier, it appears that Epic is more dev friendly than steam, but steam is a bit more consumer friendly.  As a consumer, I know where I'm going...
    Charging 30% rather than 12% is more consumer friendly? Seriously?  
    <snip>

    I think you may not be understanding that there is virtually no benefit to the consumer in the difference in fees.   I know someone earlier mentioned that with lower fees the devs could give a better product.

    <snip>
    Read my previous post.
    Summary: even if the price we see is the same if devs make more money then that will help devs stay afloat (had some closures this year). More devs = more games = more competition.  
    The market seems over saturated to me. This could actually just prolong the inevitable crash that follows prolonged over saturation. Or if the fragmentation results in lower sales, hasten it. Either way it doesn't resolve the issues that crippling some kinds of PC games development.

    Ten years ago this entire thing might have mattered, but now I don't think so. Even back then it probably would have just hastened to the timeline to over saturation.

    In this instance Capitalism is working against creativity. More competition is going to bring better games that make more money, not more creative diversity and quality of product. In other words, I think over saturation will lead to fewer less lucrative games and more competition amongst the high money makers. That will mean fewer narrative driven types with DLC/xpacs and more GaaS. Even then I think longevity will be shorter lived if those games don't meet revenue expectations. My examples are the long string of online titles that have come and gone. Rumor has it HotS may be next on the list.

    Just something to consider. Maybe propping up a ton of mediocre indie studios is a bad idea for the health of the better studios, artists, and programmers.
    MadFrenchie
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,258
    Gruug said:
    First of all, how much of that 18% savings do you think that the customer will see?
    Directly, probably none.  But if this becomes the industry standard, then eventually, most or all of it.  The real question is whether that extra revenue for developers will manifest in the form of reduced game prices for players, increased game development, or some combination of them.  But that's all good for gamers.

    Just because you can't immediately and directly see an effect doesn't mean that it isn't there.  For example, the rise of television contracts for pro sports leagues only directly meant more money for owners at first, but it would ultimately lead to players being paid vastly more than before.
    MadFrenchie
  • PemminPemmin Member UncommonPosts: 622
    edited December 2018
    Rhoklaw said:
    Pemmin said:
    crankked said:
    thunderC said:
    @MisterZebub The current streaming content industry is a great example. The whole "cut the cord" is a load of Horse shit. I need my netflix for stranger things, i need my HBO go for Game of Thrones, I need my NFL package on the PSN so i can watch the games this , that and thensome before i know it im paying double what i paid for cable because every platform has their own exclusives  ? O did i mention netflix has 3 different sub options charging the most if i want to stream that sweet sweet 4k content. 

    How is this benefiting the consumer again ? With the cost of living today Im supposed to be concerned with a company missing out on a additional 350 K in profit ? LOL
    But, that's your fault for wanting to watch 5 specific shows on 5 different networks.  "cutting the cord" isn't for everyone and it clearly isn't for you.  I pay for Hulu live TV and netflix and I am probably getting rid of netflix.  Calling "horse shit" on cutting the cord not a fair assessment.  

    I encourage everyone to get rid of cable/DTV/Dish.  These companies have long been raking us over the coals and not giving consumers good options.  It's time for a change.....
    having worked in that industry i can say "cutting the cord" is very much horse shit. the reason your cable bill goes up is broadcasters and local governments.... not the providers. when I was working in the industry broadcasting fees providers had to pay went up 3700% over a 10 year period(that averages 370% per year). Local governments also demand that the companies provide for people in unsustainable areas in order to renew franchise deals....most of the companies are giving basic cable at cost and making there money back on internet and phone, while also using dense population areas to subsidize the more rural areas.

    cable companies don't make shit off of TV. phone has the highest margin and internet has the highest gross profits. the future is your going to see traditional cable go away and cost of internet go up because you need internet to stream. basically your not punishing the cable companies by "cutting the cord". they make there money regardless of if you have tv or not
    If what you say is true, then why does Spectrum keep trying to RAM cable TV down my throat when all I ever ask for is internet?
    4 reasons 

    1) because once infrastructure is in place ….plant maintenance costs are the same regardless of services. internet, phone, and CTV are all transferred via the same medium( carrier signal over coax or fiber in spectrums case). if it is a small up sale its still an up sale and they can push more on you at a later date like premium channels, pay per view, or DVR services(which do generate profit).
    2) they use people to subsidize other people to keep prices as low as possible for the TV service(especially in areas where they are forced to service via local governments even if its unprofitable). a broadcasting fee spread over 10000 people is less impactful per person then it would be over 5000. 
    3)customer retention. Customers will go to the company that provides all services instead of the ones that just provide single services(its just what customers statistically do). that's why in areas where there is coax or fiber... sat tv isn't very popular.....this occurs because sat internet is both more costly and lower quality while tv is essentially the same. why pay DTV and Spectrum when you can just pay spectrum(and probably get a packaged discount).
    4) they don't profit from streaming apps but streaming apps use the isp infrastructure. Netflix was accounting for almost 50% of the total bandwidth used at peak hours for the company I worked for. the companies wanna push there own streaming apps(spectrum has a spectrum tv app I believe) as smart tvs become more popular.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,258
    It looks like Epic's strategy for attracting players is to offer a free game every two weeks.  I'm not sure if that's a two-week free trial or if you get to keep the game after it ends.  I suspect the former, but don't see anything that explicitly says so.  Right now, it's Subnautica that is free, and in two weeks, it will be Super Meat Boy.
    MadFrenchie
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    gervaise1 said:
    Rhoklaw said:

    If what you say is true, then why does Spectrum keep trying to RAM cable TV down my throat when all I ever ask for is internet?
    In providing you internet they will incur costs: admin on your account, security, bank charges etc.
    In providing you TV they will incur costs: admin, security, bank charges etc. 
    Providing both will only incur these costs once not twice. 
    Also, it's important to consider that at this point, from the provider's perspective, there's not a whole lot of difference between streaming internet or TV content to the home.

    In fact, the FCC considered legislation that would force providers to offer a way to get their TV streamed through devices like Chromecast because, well, there's not a whole lot of legitimate reasons to force a customer to keep a dedicated cable TV receiver anymore.

    So if they're providing you with internet already, the cost to deliver that TV content is likely relatively small at that point.  Different than a consumer merely purchasing a basic cable package and getting internet elsewhere.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Daranar said:
    gervaise1 said:
    As someone else mentioned earlier, it appears that Epic is more dev friendly than steam, but steam is a bit more consumer friendly.  As a consumer, I know where I'm going...
    Charging 30% rather than 12% is more consumer friendly? Seriously?  
    <snip>

    I think you may not be understanding that there is virtually no benefit to the consumer in the difference in fees.   I know someone earlier mentioned that with lower fees the devs could give a better product.

    <snip>
    Read my previous post.
    Summary: even if the price we see is the same if devs make more money then that will help devs stay afloat (had some closures this year). More devs = more games = more competition.  
    The market seems over saturated to me. This could actually just prolong the inevitable crash that follows prolonged over saturation. Or if the fragmentation results in lower sales, hasten it. Either way it doesn't resolve the issues that crippling some kinds of PC games development.

    Ten years ago this entire thing might have mattered, but now I don't think so. Even back then it probably would have just hastened to the timeline to over saturation.

    In this instance Capitalism is working against creativity. More competition is going to bring better games that make more money, not more creative diversity and quality of product. In other words, I think over saturation will lead to fewer less lucrative games and more competition amongst the high money makers. That will mean fewer narrative driven types with DLC/xpacs and more GaaS. Even then I think longevity will be shorter lived if those games don't meet revenue expectations. My examples are the long string of online titles that have come and gone. Rumor has it HotS may be next on the list.

    Just something to consider. Maybe propping up a ton of mediocre indie studios is a bad idea for the health of the better studios, artists, and programmers.
    The market is over-saturated, but that's due in no small part to the dominant gaming platform giving up all pretenses of actual, professional curation of their storefront.

    If Epic and Discord will actively curate theirs to weed out the bullshit, half-assed titles Steam allows to fester freely because they're, quite frankly, too lazy and cheap to spend money continuing to curate for their customers, then that helps the quality dev studios, too.

    However, for it to help, consumers have to actually buy into the idea that not having to deal with bullshit money grab titles is worth downloading another launcher.
    Scot

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,258
    Torval said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Daranar said:
    gervaise1 said:
    As someone else mentioned earlier, it appears that Epic is more dev friendly than steam, but steam is a bit more consumer friendly.  As a consumer, I know where I'm going...
    Charging 30% rather than 12% is more consumer friendly? Seriously?  
    <snip>

    I think you may not be understanding that there is virtually no benefit to the consumer in the difference in fees.   I know someone earlier mentioned that with lower fees the devs could give a better product.

    <snip>
    Read my previous post.
    Summary: even if the price we see is the same if devs make more money then that will help devs stay afloat (had some closures this year). More devs = more games = more competition.  
    The market seems over saturated to me. This could actually just prolong the inevitable crash that follows prolonged over saturation. Or if the fragmentation results in lower sales, hasten it. Either way it doesn't resolve the issues that crippling some kinds of PC games development.

    Ten years ago this entire thing might have mattered, but now I don't think so. Even back then it probably would have just hastened to the timeline to over saturation.

    In this instance Capitalism is working against creativity. More competition is going to bring better games that make more money, not more creative diversity and quality of product. In other words, I think over saturation will lead to fewer less lucrative games and more competition amongst the high money makers. That will mean fewer narrative driven types with DLC/xpacs and more GaaS. Even then I think longevity will be shorter lived if those games don't meet revenue expectations. My examples are the long string of online titles that have come and gone. Rumor has it HotS may be next on the list.

    Just something to consider. Maybe propping up a ton of mediocre indie studios is a bad idea for the health of the better studios, artists, and programmers.
    The market is over-saturated, but that's due in no small part to the dominant gaming platform giving up all pretenses of actual, professional curation of their storefront.

    If Epic and Discord will actively curate theirs to weed out the bullshit, half-assed titles Steam allows to fester freely because they're, quite frankly, too lazy and cheap to spend money continuing to curate for their customers, then that helps the quality dev studios, too.

    However, for it to help, consumers have to actually buy into the idea that not having to deal with bullshit money grab titles is worth downloading another launcher.
    Curation to keep out junk is not that easy to do.  Obviously, you want to exclude junk like the Steam games whose only reason for existence is to make it easy to rack up a ton of cards and achievements.  Even Steam tried to crack down on that to some degree.  And you obviously don't want to exclude good quality indie games.

    But there's a ton of space between those two things, and people will disagree on where exactly to draw the line.  No matter where you draw the line, there will be a number of games that are very close to it, and people will argue as to whether the game should be allowed in the store or not.

    Even with their policy of allowing just about everything, Steam has still run into controversies over what exactly constitutes adult content that they should exclude.  And even most of the terrible games are pretty obviously not adult content.  Try to make a curated library that only allows games that are actually good and your only chance at not constantly dealing with one controversy after the next is if nearly everyone decides to just ignore your store entirely.
Sign In or Register to comment.