PC Gaming

8625 readers

973 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

297

Oof: Years before Steam, a Blizzard engineer wanted to turn Battle.net into a third-party game store, but was reportedly turned down (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not sure why are you against them then. Based on your comments I think you are not against paid mods, you are against companies like Steam or Bethesda taking a cut. Which is exactly my position too, so I’m not sure what are you actually disagreeing with me about.

Great, this whole discussion is because of your inability to understand my first comment in context, the context of talking about Steam pushing for paid mods. Congratz, you wasted both of our times.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

I understood it perfectly well, and wanted to clarify that it is not the concept of paying for mods that is problematic, but implementations like Steam did.

Because just saying "the paid mods shit" gives people a wrong idea that giving creators money is a bad thing, when that's not the problematic part.

Why you took my "the store shouldn't get a cut" comment and thought I support stores getting a cut, I have no clue.