Flawed logic. That's assuming sales would have remained roughly the same. It's a new platform and there is no guarantee they would have done anywhere near the sales they did on Steam. Steam created many opportunities for indie developers to get their games out there that otherwise would not have been able to. Now people want to bite the hand that has essentially fed them.
Also, the idea that all a AAA publisher has to do is open their own store and they will do better than they would have sharing profits with Steam is also flawed. Simply having your own storefront doesn't mean your games will sell. I use Steam, and only Steam. Release a game exclusively on another platform and it essentially doesn't exist to me. That's lost sale(s).
People being butt hurt about larger developers giving up a lower percentage is also flawed. It's Steam's response to keep it's platform attractive to the big names, so they don't keep pulling their titles and going elsewhere.
[quote]I'm calling BS. Once the next new title comes, player will use what ever means they can to get that title.[/quote]
Not accurate. I really wanted State of Decay 2, followed it for a long time. Didn't come out on Steam, so the game is dead to me. Same for other games. I like having my games in one launcher. Not on Steam, no sale.
What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both? If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone. That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
Now you get it. That's how it works in reality. They may make 5% more, not 18%. Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol. Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well.
So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus. Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.
The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
The OP statement wasn't real. It was wildly wrong. Delusional. I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want. But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.
If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more. .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.
Also, the sky is black. I just checked outside to verify this. It's definitely black.
That math has nothing to do with what you said. 80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC. So....
And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on. Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both? If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone. That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
Now you get it. That's how it works in reality. They may make 5% more, not 18%. Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol. Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well.
So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus. Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.
The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
The OP statement wasn't real. It was wildly wrong. Delusional. I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want. But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.
If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more. .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.
Also, the sky is black. I just checked outside to verify this. It's definitely black.
That math has nothing to do with what you said. 80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC. So....
And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on. Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
If you want to quibble with my 5% number above, then the math is easy enough:
(0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.
Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong. It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.
What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both? If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone. That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
Now you get it. That's how it works in reality. They may make 5% more, not 18%. Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol. Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well.
So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus. Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.
The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
The OP statement wasn't real. It was wildly wrong. Delusional. I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want. But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.
If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more. .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.
Also, the sky is black. I just checked outside to verify this. It's definitely black.
That math has nothing to do with what you said. 80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC. So....
And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on. Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
If you want to quibble with my 5% number above, then the math is easy enough:
(0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.
Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong. It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both? If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone. That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
Now you get it. That's how it works in reality. They may make 5% more, not 18%. Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol. Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well.
So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus. Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.
The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
The OP statement wasn't real. It was wildly wrong. Delusional. I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want. But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.
If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
It is literally the Hypothetical of the same number of sales at 12% vs 30% and why a service like this, if it takes off, will be good for the industry and especially small development teams.
Unfortunately, the lack of a customer friendly refund policy and other 'account' issues, i seriously doubt i would ever use the Epic store, so any game put on there that isn't also on other platforms might just as well not exist. If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service.
I hope EPIC Games bans Denuvo DRM products from their store they really should, only DRM Free games exception of Serial Keys, and Accounts that require a valid license.
Only companies / games like "Origin" "Uplay", Serial Key verification, or Activation Online should be allowed, and only products which do not use 3rd party DRM's.
Battlefield 1, also gets FPS issues when running other games / tasks due to Denuvo the FPS tends to drop due to the Anti-Tamper checks ); wasting computer resources that could be allocated elsewhere with processing.
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.
you now after you install it and play once, you can be offline right?
Unfortunately, the lack of a customer friendly refund policy and other 'account' issues, i seriously doubt i would ever use the Epic store, so any game put on there that isn't also on other platforms might just as well not exist. If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service.
Don't you find it ironic after all of Sweeney's rants about Microsoft and fear about their Store lock-in that he goes and tries to pull the same thing?
I think he's a giant two-faced windbag. He's talked about Linux support through Unreal and how he doesn't want Microsoft lockin. Then he goes and makes his store incompatible with Linux - it checks if it's run through WINE and errs out purposely. It's to prevent people on Linux from purchasing and installing games through their service. Why, especially after all the bullshit lipservice he's paid to his Linux users/developers (via Unreal).
Ashen originally was supposed to launch through Steam. It gained a lot of exposure and publicity through Steam. It's how I learned about the game. They pull their launch from Steam, while leaving the page up with "TBD", publish exclusively on Epic, giving players the finger. I'm sure Epic paid them handsomely to do so, but I wonder how much actual purchase revenue was lost as a result. This tells me neither Epic or Annapurna publishing are considering their gamers at all.
Did they take money from players for the steam release?
Otherwise, the only real inconvenience to gamers here is downloading the Epic portal and noting the refund policy before purchasing. That seems.... Less than a big deal, to me, specifically if it means the dev gets to keep a larger cut of the revenue. Steam is essentially just assessing a tax on purchase to the devs.
Not only that, but have you considered Ashen may not have wanted to battle the reportedly awful dev support from Valve? There may be more to this than merely a percentage point.
Game developers are trying to make more money. We all know that. In some cases, it's make more money or shut down the company and lay everyone off. Suppose that their choices are:
1) Move to a different launcher that takes a much smaller cut of revenue. 2) Add loot boxes to their game. 3) Fairly directly sell power by making the game flagrantly pay to win. 4) Cut back severely on expenses by ending new content.
Is it really so crazy to think that (1) is less objectionable than the others?
What I learned from this thread: apparently there are people who, in choosing which games to play, care more about which launcher the game goes through than the game itself. Who knew?
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.
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)
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.
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
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
@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.....
@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Comments
Also, the idea that all a AAA publisher has to do is open their own store and they will do better than they would have sharing profits with Steam is also flawed. Simply having your own storefront doesn't mean your games will sell. I use Steam, and only Steam. Release a game exclusively on another platform and it essentially doesn't exist to me. That's lost sale(s).
People being butt hurt about larger developers giving up a lower percentage is also flawed. It's Steam's response to keep it's platform attractive to the big names, so they don't keep pulling their titles and going elsewhere.
[quote]I'm calling BS. Once the next new title comes, player will use what ever means they can to get that title.[/quote]
Not accurate. I really wanted State of Decay 2, followed it for a long time. Didn't come out on Steam, so the game is dead to me. Same for other games. I like having my games in one launcher. Not on Steam, no sale.
And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on. Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
(0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.
Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong. It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.
The cause of the sky appearing whatever color is pretty well understood, though.
If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service.
Only companies / games like "Origin" "Uplay", Serial Key verification, or Activation Online should be allowed, and only products which do not use 3rd party DRM's.
Battlefield 1, also gets FPS issues when running other games / tasks due to Denuvo the FPS tends to drop due to the Anti-Tamper checks ); wasting computer resources that could be allocated elsewhere with processing.
Otherwise, the only real inconvenience to gamers here is downloading the Epic portal and noting the refund policy before purchasing. That seems.... Less than a big deal, to me, specifically if it means the dev gets to keep a larger cut of the revenue. Steam is essentially just assessing a tax on purchase to the devs.
Not only that, but have you considered Ashen may not have wanted to battle the reportedly awful dev support from Valve? There may be more to this than merely a percentage point.
1) Move to a different launcher that takes a much smaller cut of revenue.
2) Add loot boxes to their game.
3) Fairly directly sell power by making the game flagrantly pay to win.
4) Cut back severely on expenses by ending new content.
Is it really so crazy to think that (1) is less objectionable than the others?
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.
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!
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
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
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.....
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
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.
In providing you TV they will incur costs: admin, security, bank charges etc.
Providing both will only incur these costs once not twice.
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.
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!
(Of course other times I play games on Steam but I guess I can cope