Prez wrote on Aug 26, 2020, 09:54:
So just to understand, Apple and Google can bilaterally agree to charge a 95/5 split instead of a 30/70 and it's legal?

Regardless of the split itself, agreeing to price fix is illegal in this context.

jacobvandy wrote on Aug 26, 2020, 00:56:
anti-trust laws aren't there to punish whoever so happens to be in any kind of dominant market position. They are for preventing the abuse of power that position wields and preventing the gaining of that position through illegal means.

Has Apple been charging that same rate this whole time, while their market share started from 0% in 2007, rose as high as 70% or so before COMPETITION brought it tumbling down by half of that in 2010, then came back up and held pretty stable at 50-60% throughout the past decade? (Talking about the US, only, here; Android has dominated everywhere else since 2012 and today there's a 75/25 split over iOS in the global market.) I don't know the answer, but if yes, then how is taking 30% considered an abuse of the dominant market position they hold today? You don't get to suddenly decide it's "egregious" now if the market found it acceptable to begin with, to the point where they grew to dominate said market over the span of more than a decade of charging that rate.

If they came upon that market position legitimately, it doesn't matter how obscene their profit margins are, or whether they are fit to be categorized a monopoly... It's not illegal. An anti-trust case would be about proving they have done something illegal to stay there. Like threatening would-be competitors with secret ninja death squads or some shit. Or explicitly price-fixing with Google.

Indeed, well put. The cellphone industry has amazing offerings at every price level for hardware, services and apps despite the presence of only 2 major players in many (not all) regions. Users and developers brought us here, not anti-competitive actions by Google and Apple. At one point we had 5-6 different platforms and the increased competition was not helpful, it fractured application development and users largely rejected the other platforms. They are not stopping anyone from entering the cellphone industry with a competitive offering, it is an open market place. The presence of dominant players in an industry does not inherently mean there is an unhealthy marketplace.

All Google and Apple have done is create robust and desirable platforms and continually reinvest in them. The idea that its just some servers is silly. It's an entire platform. The App Store doesn't matter if Apple doesn't continually make new hardware that people want, new accessories, invest in R&D, develop iOS, follow other industry trends and so on. The same goes for Google and its partners. That's a lot more than a few hundred mil and some servers. No one seems to be able answer "What is a fair split?" despite feeling strongly that 30% is somehow too much. If it's truly harmful to consumers then why isn't there any evidence of that harm? When I think of anti-competitive acts that need immediate attention, my thoughts go to carriers rather than Apple/Google.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 23, 2020, 16:16:
That said, I didn't call you a Nazi supporter. I was pointing out a historical context: both of those (rather recent) regimes thrived on a close relationship between authoritarian governments and corporate conglomerates like the zaibatsu. It was through those relationships that both governments were able to ramp up their war machines and embark in misguided adventures resulting in the deaths of millions. Through mergers and acquisitions and other techniques, American business is steadily consolidating, and that's not a good thing.So this has much less to do with Sweeney, and more to do with the US government's lackadaisical approach to anti-trust and enforcing free markets in general, a problem which has been festering and getting worse for decades. And the reason is that these megacorps donate to both parties, and neither party wants to give up that sweet donation cash by going after these companies. Massive corporations that are able to fleece consumers and control the government are bad for both capitalism and democracy.

"Youre overreacting" "THATS WHAT THE NAZIS WOULD SAY!" But hey you're a good guy and debates get heated so fair enough.

As for keeping devices longer, welcome to the PC industry, where people keep desktops and laptops for years, but those hardware companies don't require vertically integrated walled garden software shops to prop up their hardware business. Quite the opposite: You can get an amazing gaming laptop for less than a new phone due to the robust competition in that market. Market pressures keep companies innovating and prices reasonable.

I'm not sure I agree with the laptop comment, phones serve many purposes in a very compact offering. My last phone was an extravagant $699 and I generally keep my phones for 2-3 years. Do I get $0.60-1.00 worth of daily value out of this amazing portable handheld communications device with the entire worlds knowledge at my finger tips? I'd say so. And the phone market has great offerings at every price level these days, even cheap phones are absolutely fantastic. Since you referenced the free market by the way, you keep leaving out the part where any company with the capital or partnerships can enter the phone marketplace with their own OS, app store and hardware offerings. I don't see how Google and Apple have prevented competitors from entering the marketplace with anti-competitive actions either like your Intel example. What is Apple doing to stop Intel from making a phone, enticing developers and users with attractive offers? What is Google doing to stop its partners from doing the same? What have they done other than have very robust and developed platforms that consumers desire? We've had numerous entrants come, go and come again but it's been largely their lack of execution which has kept users away, not anti-competitive actions by Apple and Google.

It seems like you inherently want the app stores to decouple from their parent platforms but for a variety of reasons I've noted already, I'm not sure how that's entirely possible. They are integrated to such a degree that just saying "oh well App Store is Company B now" ignores all of the technical and other regulatory underpinning, much of which is necessary to provide the product end users expect now. That's why I think decoupling isn't realistic, it's not that I "dont want competition" or something, its that its an inherently different product if its decoupled and I believe some of that would be to the detriment of customers. But I agree that "golly we're just too integrated" is too convenient an excuse for some of these greedy corps so that's why I think some sort of third party mediation in revenue splits is probably a good solution to suit all. Or open up the platform to other stores but have those stores kick up to the parent platform at a reasonable percentage. Zero is not reasonable.

As for user agency, there is none. Apple leveraged an amazing hardware and OS combination into an exclusive vertically integrated walled garden where it rules by fiat. Google gave away its OS for free in order to gain its market share, pushing out Blackberry and MS. There is no agency, because there's no choice. You need a phone, phones need apps, and it's either Apple or Android, that's it.

This is where we will never see eye to eye I guess. You say there is no choice and I say it was direct market choice that lead us here. Developers complained about being able to support multiple platforms and consumers were confused by offerings and so the market solidified around the best platforms. I didn't buy a Windows Phone because I didn't like it, they didn't have a competitive offering when I weighed them against the competition. I don't see an unhealthy market at the moment either, there is an abundance of choice for consumers at every price range in hardware and on the app side of things. In fact the largest complaint I hear from the dev side of things is a missed opportunity for your argument - discoverability. That's where multiple storefronts would likely help and where Apple/Google have conflicts when they offer their own apps. Regardless you seem to see monopolistic demons everywhere and I've only seen a few thus far.

Anyways I don't think we need to break anything up at this stage, its far too early. I hope like you said that these corporations will beat each other up a bit and come to some sort of middle ground that won't require much government intervention.

YOU SILLY COMMIE!

Kxmode wrote on Aug 25, 2020, 13:25:
When a developer lives under Apple's house, they play by Apple's rules

The judge seemed to agree:

But Rogers also offered a preview of her feelings on whether Epic was likely to succeed in its legal arguments against Apple's alleged monopoly power over the iOS app marketplace.

"Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform," Rogers wrote. "While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free."

She also noted that Epic can restore Fortnite by simply removing the patch that placed it offside of the store rules which was done intentionally for litigation purposes.

I'm pretty stoked for battery day on September 22nd, Tesla apparently has a lot of cool shit in the works. Million mile battery, cobalt free battery rumors and now some stuff about future density improvements.

Yeah it seems like a very reasonable ruling. It was interesting that Fortnite was not allowed back yet because Epic failed to demonstrate harm due to it being self-inflicted:

Here, the Court’s evaluation is guided by the general notion that“self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
Al Otro Lado v. Wolf
, 952 F.3d 999, 1008 (9thCir. 2020) (quoting
Second City Music, Inc. v. City of Chicago
, 333 F.3d 846, 850 (7th Cir.2003)). Further courts generally decline to find irreparable harm that “results from the expressterms of [the] contract.”
See Salt Lake Tribune Publ’g Co., LLC v. AT&T Corp.
, 320 F.3d 1081,1106 (10th Cir. 2003) (no irreparable harm where the alleged harm “results from the express termsof [the] contract”).

At its core, irreparable harm is harm or injury that cannot be repaired.The Court finds that with respect to Epic Games’ motion as to its games, includingFortnite, Epic Games has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm. The current predicament appearsof its own making.
See Second City Music
, 333 F.3d at 850 (“Only the injury inflicted by one’sadversary counts for this purpose.”). Epic Games remains free to maintain its agreements withApple in breach status as this litigation continues, but as the Seventh Circuit recognized in
SecondCity Music
, “[t]he sensible way to proceed is for [Epic to comply with the agreements andguidelines] and continue to operate while it builds a record.”
Id.
“Any injury that [Epic Gamesncurs by following a different course is of its own choosing.”
Id.
Epic Games admits that thetechnology exists to “fix” the problem easily by deactivating the “hotfix.” That Epic Gameswould prefer
not
to litigate in that context does not mean that “irreparable harm” exists

Anyways we'll see how things play out, many more of these things to come. Also interesting to note that Apple seems to be taking a bit of a different tack now and apologized and re-instated the Wordpress app.

Microsoft's party line seems to be "we're a platform, buy and play our games anywhere" but unfortunately for them most people don't really seem to care. They did well in the US with consoles and had little success elsewhere. I'm not sure why they thought a platform approach would be effective, stuff like Gamepass only makes sense if you have the base for subscribers. Despite a massive marketing push and selling at a hefty loss consistently, Gamepass barely breaks 20% of the US market for the Xbox. If they're serious with the platform approach then just call it a day and become Sega where you're truly neutral and sell to everyone. Also I will never understand the whole "bad console, good console" launch approach. Launching the Series S and X seems like it will only lead to retail confusion and other problems. To the extent that people are even aware that there will be two of them, few will want the "weak" one but will likely be priced out of the X anyway. Which leads them to...the PS5 sitting nicely in the middle ground with the promise of many first party games. The Xbox approach instead is "Play 4000 games!" which translates to "Buy our expensive shit to play your backlog". Not exactly fantastic marketing. Now they're muddying the waters even more by considering selective compatibility after already promising cross-platform first party titles. This is facepalm territory stuff.

Microsoft also somehow managed to bungle their exclusive IP offerings yet again, this is what the 6th year running? 2+ years after many of those acquisitions too. Every year Spencer trots out the tired partyline that "This year is going to be the biggest in Xbox Game Studio history" and every year its a disappointment. This year they even managed to fuck up their biggest announcement by not even mentioning Halo: Infinite multiplayer being F2P during the show. Instead it was done on Twitter late at night, 2 days after the event with millions of eyeballs on it had ended. Yowza.

Sony gets annoyingly anti-consumer and arrogant when they get a lot of marketplace share but damn if Microsoft isn't totally incompetent at offering a meaningful alternative. I don't know how they keep going in the marketplace, it must be pure brand inertia because it's been clownshoes there for almost friggin 10 years.

I've been binging old spaghetti westerns lately myself, working through Leone's catalog. It was a real shame how the studio handled West, the NA release is a travesty compared to the original theatrical release and I remember reading it really affected Leone. High Plain's Drifter is up next tonight.

I think top 5 lists are fun, there's a reason they are one of the more popular Youtube formats for things. My taste is all over the place which makes it all the more challenging as I think about different genres and try to contrast quality between them.

Darks wrote on Aug 23, 2020, 15:07:
And you wonder why Microsoft is all fucked up like they are.

Ehh of all of the parties involved, I feel Microsoft has the most legitimate case. Much moreso than Epic and certainly with less hypocrisy. They were denied the ability to offer Project xCloud until Apple could individually review each game on the service to ensure they comply with platform standards. That's just not practical for a service that is going to continually stream new games constantly. And frankly it feels like a reach, Google didn't seem to have a problem with it. Apple is being too rigid on this interpretation because they know some other app developers will use a similar system to skirt the paywall and fair enough, I think Apple deserves some cut for the exposure and hosting/etc. But what that cut is just going to become more contentious as time goes on and it's not realistic to individually bargain with each company, nor would that be fair. To me there needs to be some sort of arbitration or mediation process for these things. Or maybe Apple needs to revisit its revenue share structure entirely to take into account different sorts of apps and how they are monetized.

And they're right in the sense that yes Epic is in violation of its Apple Developer Account agreement but they could've let the court crap play out instead of going nuclear which just needlessly hurts third parties.

Quinn wrote on Aug 23, 2020, 12:19:
I'm "over-reacting" because I want another good Batman game. No spin-offs. I'm not that much of a DC fan. Batman is awesome. The Arkham games are awesome. So when time and money is put in another Gotham/Arkham game, I curse the fact I wouldn't be playing it as Batman. =

There's some truth to the idea there is too much of a good thing, as many players of Arkham Knight complained about. And as the poet Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

Deal with it

But calling the game Dark Knight Souls but no Dark Knight in it? What a disaster.

Holy shit a DC Soulsborne style game. That could totally be a thing

Quinn wrote on Aug 23, 2020, 08:07:
You must be a special kind of cringy new-age hipster to be the one that proposes NOT to have Batman as the protagonist and playable character. Fucking genius...

Every DC game has to star Batman now? He just had an entire trilogy. Variety is the spice of life, I guess that makes me a new-age hipster.

The gameplay looks good and we don't know enough about the story to judge it yet so I don't know why you're overreacting but uh chillax a bit there and let's see how it is.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 23, 2020, 02:16:
Wow. I really just don't know what to say to that statement. That's as pro-monopolist, pro-corporatist statement as I've ever read. You know who else loved corporate conglomerates and monopolies? Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. And we know how that politically cozy military-industrial complex turned out for the rest of the world.

I know you typed this late at night but yeesh man, you're a nazi supporter if you don't see things my way? Haha wow that is really below you. And you deserve a bit of a dig for that so quite frankly for a guy who didn't know who was being sued three days ago you really have some unbending opinions on this stuff and seem to discard any questions or other opinions out of hand. I'm sorry but I don't agree with your take on the situation right now and I was pretty patient and articulate in laying out why at several points here. I think it's premature to break up these companies at this stage, especially Google who allows users to choose to install alternative apps and storefronts. I can see all of the perspectives here and I feel they all have some merit. I also don't feel the phone market developed through anti-competitive action but consumer choice and I laid out my reasons. Maybe going forward this is a problem and these companies will need to be reigned in, I don't know, we'll see what the investigations reveal but "off with their heads" right off the hop feels irresponsible to me. I think that these platforms do need a central authority and trusted source for users because many app developers have shown themselves to be shitheads time and time again who will abuse users and these devices are starting to integrate into societal functions.

I don't think there is a lot of incentive for Apple and Google to operate platforms that they can't profit from. Hardware profitability is a real question mark moving forward, users are keeping devices longer and its a much more competitive marketplace for devices. And I see the perspective that as Apple and Google compete on services that they have a real conflict of interest in providing the app distribution and vetting. Again though I think there's some alternatives that are less harmful than just immediately breaking up companies at the first of issues. But I guess we'll see what this case brings. Maybe Apple and Google need to charge for the operating system itself, spin off their respective storefronts and offer a "storefront catalog" the way that Microsoft does with search engines, I don't know. I think you're discounting the agency of users here and I'm not sure that deleveraging will be the solution that you seem to think it is. Regardless there are some shades of grey here and complexities that require a bit more thought in my opinion, I don't think that qualifies me or anyone else who disagrees with you as a nazi supporter though.

Anyways I can't tell if you're just tweaking my nipples or were having a bad night so I'll leave it off there

They've tried when they brought out the Windows store with Windows 8, about 8 years ago. What was the reaction of Valve/Steam? The creation of Steam OS and then making Proton (a Wine fork) compatibility program to run Windows games on Linux OS'es. Timmy Tencent was also rather unhappy with MS when they announced a desire to lock most software behind the store. It was a silly idea because it would kill much of the reason people still use Windows, its open nature.

Interestingly enough Tim was also upset that they used exclusive content to launch their store/UWP yet now he's quite the fan of buying exclusives but that's neither here nor there. I do find it interesting the way some seem to rationalize his hypocritical actions. Tim sues Apple because they won't sell his storefront for him, OK well I could maybe see the whole "its the only store!" spiel but Google allows users to choose and install their own apps yet they're being sued too. It's OK though because hes just fighting the good fight against bigger market forces or something. Partner with a hardware company and take your shot Tim, certainly has access to the capital after all. If this is really a serious market problem it sounds like he would be able to attract some developers with his promise of better revenue sharing. I'm not being glib when I say that either, I think the hardware side of the industry needs a shake up and users love new ideas. Well good ideas anyway, folding phones are a bit wack

Calls to breakup Apple and Google are reactionary and totally unnecessary at this stage. I'm not even sure how you could possibly accomplish that, users have been given alternatives in the past and chose this path. So did developers for that matter. Users need a regulated, trusted source to download apps that have been vetted because cellphones carry far too much personal info for anything else. People point to other vertically integrated markets but they were vastly different. The only sensible solutions I've seen involve some sort of third party like a mediator, union or etc. I can see some sort of government appointed oversight to regulate revenue sharing but breaking up app distribution and the platform doesn't seem realistic, especially considering how close we are to these things serving as identity verification.

What really stuck in my craw was attempting to recruit kids for PR - that's just some sleazy, indefensible shit. Anyways it'll be interesting to see how the case plays out and it certainly will have a lot of ramifications for the future.

twobit wrote on Aug 22, 2020, 09:32:
Nobody is asking Apple to host a competing storefront at Apple's expense.

Well Epic did. Epic asked Apple to let it load a competing storefront on the App Store. It is also fact that Epic has tried repeatedly to end run the payment systems of Apple and Google. They tried to bypass them entirely making that revenue split zero. Epic tried this in the past with Google in 2018, it tried to force its users to sideload Fortnite so it could garner more revenue. Users largely rejected that choice and Epic was forced to cave. It is also worth noting that Epic is suing Apple AND Google. Google allows users to choose for themselves and install their own apps and even entire storefronts if they want, you just can't do it through the Play Store. And despite that openness, they are also being sued. Epic wants the discoverability of the platform holders stores to install its own storefront but it doesn't want to pay any revenue back to them, it is pretty much that simple. We can talk about what other critics of Apple/Google want and fair enough but that's what Epic wants and Epic brought this suit.

We can debate about whether Apple or Google should get to control the platforms they built at great time and expense. To me, Apple designs and develops it's own devices, which runs it's own software. It's well within it's right to say what can and cannot be done on that platform. These platforms require multi billion dollar reinvestment annually just in hardware offerings to keep consumers interested, they require massive software teams to maintain, constantly reinvestment in software development for the OS itself and associated apps, the list goes on and on. Given that these platforms are designed and regulated from the ground up a certain way, I don't know how people expect them to be easily decoupled either. It's an inherently different product at that point.

We can also discuss whether its good or bad for consumers and the marketplace as a whole. To me, it's up to consumers to choose what platform they want. Do they want an Apple device? Then they are fully aware of what that entails. Do they want an Android device? Again, they know what comes with it. Some have argued that there is a "duopoly" and that users are somehow being harmed by lack of choice. I would note that the market already had several players and naturally chose this path, for better or for worse. Developers could not support 5 different phone platforms and consumers were confused by the offerings. Apple and Google put the rest to pasture with better offerings, not anti-competitive actions. Despite all of that, it remains a market open to innovation and new entrants as both companies are lacking for new ideas.

We can discuss what is a fair revenue split and I'm sure everyone has an opinion on that. People like to point to how profitable both companies are as if it's somehow evidence of unfairness but I don't agree that they are related. Apple and Google have a mountain cash from tax dodging and other shitty practices I don't approve of. Many, many other industries have significantly worse revenue splits. In fact 70/30 seems fairly standard on the software side of things. Epic does business with the big console makers for example and is largely silent on this front despite them charging the same split.

Regardless though, should these companies and platforms be decoupled because of a revenue squabble? That seems to be what a few are proposing here. Speaking as a user of these platforms myself, I have no desire for that outcome and it's not because I am rooting for any particular party, I speak entirely out of self interest. I don't want a third party hosting an application store that is not regulated by the platform holder in some way. Like it or not phones have become central to society and carry a lot of personal info and provide a lot of functionality now. I don't want 10 app stores to worry about, each with its own set of permissions, rules and etc. I like knowing there is a process involved and a privilege that can be revoked by a central platform holder. People can argue more competition is better but I don't have any issue finding useful apps and paying reasonable prices for them, it is a market full of abundant choice right now even if you only get the apps themselves at a few locations.

I can see there being an argument for some sort of objective third party for dispute resolutions like revenue sharing for example. That I could get behind. I just don't know how you come up with something that is fair to everyone, someone is always going to be unhappy.

Orogogus wrote on Aug 22, 2020, 05:03:

jdreyer wrote on Aug 22, 2020, 00:24:
The point is that all iOS developers wouldn't have to swallow an egregious 30% cut if there was more competition in the market.

Sure they would. Because even if there were competition, Apple would still have way more than 50% market share, and you'd still be complaining about a monopoly, like you do with the PC market and Steam's 75%.

I asked before but didn't see an answer -- where do you see artists getting more than a 70% cut of revenue? It seems to me that you've accepted that it's outrageous based on Sweeney's say-so, but I haven't seen much evidence.

Again I think it bears worth repeating that Tim is continually trying to pay zero. There is no fair cut because the cut he wants is nothing and we now have evidence from the source in that regard. He's done it with Google and now Apple. He's also suing Google who allow users to install their own apps and storefronts. What's the excuse there?

Apple and Google should not be forced to host a direct competitor to their store on their store and do it for free. And breaking up Apple and Google is no solution to any problem here. We can't just breakup every closed software platform when they become successful.

The "just trust Tim" argument is amusing but ignores the fact that he's been hypocritical about these and other issues many times, not to mention deceptive about seeking an arrangement with Apple while he attempts to recruit children for his PR campaign. Tim is a businessman like most others, he acts out of self interest. I don't mind when his interests align with consumers but there are bigger questions here with serious ramifications to these platforms and I don't see a lot of answers from the people who seem eager to just accept his version and want these companies broken up.

This comment was edited on Aug 22, 2020, 08:48.

Apple said Sweeney was asking permission for Epic to bypass in-app purchases and allow Fortnite players to pay it directly, as well as permission to launch a third-party app store for iPhones

As a few of us said in the last topic, this was the end goal. He wants the EGS on iOS/Android and he even wants them to serve up the app for him with no revenue sharing. So much for saying he didn't want any special deals, going as far as denying it even.

Anyways time for the lawyers to do their thing and get rich.

FloorPie wrote on Aug 21, 2020, 14:26:
Only for Tencent Timmy. We toxic gamers should just shut up and buy his real customer's products. Think of the Devs and publishers man! Its gonna help the gaming industry in the long run, you know.

The monopoly argument on the PC is silly anyway. It's an inherently open platform with many competitive vendors, little to no anti-competitive behavior anymore and abundant customer choice. Tim just wants a piece of the pie, he's no ones savior. Nothing wrong with that either but he's gotta earn it. I treat the EGS as a dumping ground for freeware and otherwise don't spend any money on it, that's largely because they've tried to bribe people instead of making it a genuinely great platform with features that interest me. Steam provides robust and invaluable features to both consumers and developers. That's what Epic needs to do. So far we've seen modest feature expansion at best, they need to do a lot better. Given their engine pedigree one would hope that they can speed this up.

To the topic at hand though, I last revisited Crysis a few years ago and to be honest it hasn't aged well. I can't say this really interests me that much given that it's another remaster and not a remake. I think Crysis is a great candidate for an actual remake project though.

Fion wrote on Aug 21, 2020, 12:18:

Prez wrote on Aug 21, 2020, 10:57:
The number of exclusives that Epic has garnered definitely seems to have dropped.

From what I've read, a lot of the companies last year who went with epic exclusivity lost a lot of money in the end. For example, apparently Control didn't do so well on PC, despite Tencent getting $10 million from Epic Games. In fact, the month it released saw a 20 year low on game sales. This helps explain why they are pushing the new $40 ultimate edition so hard, to the point that only the new edition gets a 'next gen upgrade'.A.k.a. PC level graphics - only it won't even hit that benchmark, because of the lack of ray tracing hardware.

It's the same reason EA is going back on steam. Because they were actually losing money by having their own platform despite Steams 30% cut, because they simply weren't getting nearly as many eyeballs on their own platform compared to what they do on Steam.


As to the trailer, I fail to see how Knives Out is particularly 'hit man'. I'll buy Hitman 3 when it's $15 on steam for the complete edition.

Yeah this is similar to what I've been reading online, it's good for some smaller companies to have some guaranteed money off the hop but apparently the contracts are structured so that they don't get any future payout until they surpass that amount in sales or the exclusivity period expires. Another factor is that apparently DLC sales on the Epic Games Store have an absurdly low attach rate so many devs are putting off releasing DLC on there in favor of waiting out the exclusivity period and releasing it on Steam. This makes sense to me because I suspect many people use it like I do - I grab free games that sometimes get played for a bit and then I basically forget it exists.

Tom wrote on Aug 20, 2020, 11:54:

Verno wrote on Aug 20, 2020, 11:45:
Man OK, good to hear I'm not the only one with a problem with the HOTAS X. So mine kept pulling to the left despite re-calibration, I finally got pissed off last night and took the whole thing apart. I put some lubricant on the gimbal and did a few other things, they really use some cheap ass parts inside btw. This fixed it for now but looking at the innards I can tell you these things are made to break, I'm going to be looking for something else.

I tried using an Xbox One controller using Bluetooth but of course its a disaster, loses connection constantly and etc. I'm going to get a Saitek full flight setup I think.

Thrustmaster and Saitek gimbals are cheap junk, unfortunately. If you want something better, it'll cost you upfront but pay for itself in the long run. Check out Virpil.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll check em out!

Just fucking shut Facebook down, it's a net loss for society to keep it running.