So if you look at this from the perspective of these corporations and corporate lawyers, they want to keep complete control of their products and maximaise profits for their shareholders. That may even mean spinning some stories about how legit sites like G2A are. Even calling them 'grey sites' is part of that.
I like your thinking, but they arent spinning those stories about other sites like Fanatical or GMG. Only G2A, I dont buy it, unless you have any evidence to support it?
I'd prefer not to dwell on GOG's less-than-stellar moments either unless you're genuinely unaware, as I'm also a big fan of theirs. In short, if you want angels, go to heaven—you won't find 'em down here. Present poster excepted, of course.
A fair point. GOG though have come a long way since they were selling hooky CD's on markets in Poland 30 years ago. The years of work they've done for game preservation and the love and care they displayed in making their games since has made up for that. Doesn't mean they couldn't fall though.
I'm not yet convinced G2A is trying to do that kind of good work. Especially as all their evidence for their innocence comes from their own statements. I think the lady doth protest too much. Theyll hold their hands up when theyre caught, otherwise its all fair game. I realize this is standard behaviour in a lot of business, doesnt mean we have to accept it as normal and ignore it so soon after the fact.
You haven't watched YouTube? Used FaceBook? Put gasoline in your car? Etc 1,000,000s of times. Because an entity's call-out hasn't made headlines does not mean they're cleaner than the next guy.
False equivalence. I can choose not to use a game key reseller or digital store because there are alternatives. If I want to stay in touch with family and friends on the other side of the world, theres no other viable choice. Likewise Youtube is ubiquitous, if I want to watch or share any video on the internet there isn't an alternative.
So you're okay with the big retailer revolt against bad ol' Steam in the 00s?
You'd have to enlighten me? Google doesnt find any reference,
You ok with Steam flexing its market dominance by taking 30% of sales, when Epic takes only 12% and Discord only 10%—oh, and G2A 11%?
How about last decade's "F" grade from the Better Business Bureau?
I could go on and on, but as I've often said here, I'm a big fan of Steam—so I prefer not to wade pointlessly in the weeds which grow around all companies' feet, or the dirt that get's splashed up on them.
Whataboutism.
But anyway as far as I was aware Steams 30% for digital was originally a smaller cut than it cost for publishers to create and ship retail items, so they were quite on board with it back then? Not to mention availability.
I'd totally be in favour of them lowering their cut based on present alternative options and competition. Quite a few devs have already gone with Epic timed exclusives because of it. Not aware of anything overtly anti consumer or anti publisher/dev by Steam, but I'm sure they've had their issues at times like anything.
Always shades of grey of course, but it takes longer for some stains to fade.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a while now our devs have been getting e-mails from G2A with proposals to work together. We no longer actively jump on additional distribution opportunities (there's a new bundle every day...), but the whole G2A subject needs to be talked about a bit more. Before I dive deeper, it's...
www.tinybuild.com
G2A came out with an initiative that finally addresses some of the issues we've been talking about.
The only tangible part about their program is royalties to developers and database access which undoubtedly is a good step -- we will need to see how it works in practice. It still doesn't solve the issue of stolen keys or the shady business practice of forcing down insurance on consumers you won't get a guaranteed key unless you sign-up for their insurance service. It seems they want it all to be on developers' hands and unless the devs become actively involved in policing G2A (and thus working with them) they'll wash their hands off any responsibility. We as a community want to see more extensive merchant verification to go alongside this.
Unless they actually solve the main issue -- fraud on their platform -- this initiative invites developers to become accomplices. G2A claims that fraud is a very small part of their economy. If so it shouldn't be that difficult to implement ethical business practices of extensive merchant verification?
Found some more about the earlier scandal from a devs side. I'd be really interested in finding some views/articles from devs or independent media on the 2023 state of G2A. I wonder how many of the original complainants have been mollified by the actions G2A claim to have taken. Theres a few stories of them offering compensation after fraudulently obtained keys were found to have been sold.
It also leaves the question of other key resellers, have they taken any actions and why werent they included in the original scandal?