Thanks, I’ll take a look at that.

Yeah, the folder is usually in downloads(not my downloads) in windows 7/8/10/etc. It's usually a numbered folder inside a gamersgate folder. Once the bought game's app(gotten by clicking to download on the gamersgate site/the game's webpage on said site) is downloaded/run and the files finish downloading(when the installer is ready to start) you can safely copy-paste the files from the GG temp directory to another folder for backup.

They don't have everything, but they have alot of russian/foreign/indie/rare stuff(of varying quality) to check out.

Metro did charge less on Epic Store. However for the most part they're billing this as more money for the developer so the developer can make more games. It's not really being sold as a consumer benefit. Games don't get made without profit.

No one ever said without profit. I simply said that it should benefit everyone. Not just Epic and publishers/developers. Consumers are an important part of that equation and I'm tired of being shafted by game companies.

maybe it should go like this
dev gets a cut depending on how broken and good there game is
if it's like fallout 76, Assassin’s Creed Unity, Batman: Arkham Knight

super broken devs only get 10% but if it actually works they get more of the cut devs want more of the cut but all the broken games there releasing and or dlc, expansions, and such ya they don't deserve a higher cut from my point of view

The only way that will ever happen is if the masses wake up and decide to reject materialism.

We're shafted in lots of areas, but I don't think price is among them. Games cost less today day one than they did 30 years ago usually, and cost a lot more to make. Steam sales and such lower the prices very quickly. I don't think price for the consumer is an issue, stuff like microtransactions and crappy ports are more the problem.

Games need profit, but you can sense something's amiss when digital only game copies are the same price as physical(and even the physical copies tend to be minimal in quantity of stuff gained, with minor/no paper manuals and cheap plastic cases).

The old chestnut. Make an offer you know will be refused and then paint the other party as unreasonable for turning you down.

^ Personally I'd love to see a serious in-depth study on this stuff. On the one hand it's true games price increases haven't kept up with inflation and that modern games are more complex than they used to be. On the other hand, back in the 90's many titles had to create, test & debug their own game engine from scratch, then create the toolkit / level editor for that engine, and only after that even begin to start to work on the game (eg, Dark Engine + DromEd for Thief 1-2 & System Shock used just for those 3x games). These days, devs have it cheaper & easier than ever with not only pre-made engines reused hundreds of times over (Unreal, Unity, etc) but pre-packaged texture packs, resource packs, large audio libraries, etc. Then 50% physical cost vs 14-30% digital retailer cut (something else that was never really passed onto consumers post-2004). Then free 3rd party optimisation (when you read "AMD & nVidia have released a new optimised driver for x game" what that really means is they've been forced to include their own custom written replacement shaders that get seamlessly swapped out by the GPU drivers to replace those in-game because the game devs couldn't code them even if their lives depended on it). Then Steam sales being counterbalanced by killing off 2nd hand disc resales (even at 90% off they still get something. They get nothing from a second hand sale though). It would be interesting to see how all the maths balances out.

A good bit of investigation could be had, i'm sure.

Also, one thing to look into is the massive DLC(cosmetic, while cheap makes serious money over time) influx from certain series/devs, and also "swag editions"(Collector's editions) of some games making more bank for game devs.

in those days, the games where made in small groups, 5-10 people, many multitasking, so not that much salary (salary is in most industries the largest expense) so the cost of production was in the $100K size for an then AAA title. Today there are teams over 100's working on a title, there is much more assets in a game than ever before, in much more detail, the games are larger and people demands more variety. This lead to the AAA titles today reaching over the $1M easily, with some titles being over $10M to produce, so no - you are not correct here. games today can be much more expensive to make

edit - most of the cost in a game does not come from coders and engines, but from direction, planing, designing, writing and the art.

Solution: Cut staff(redundant staffers or make work positions/nepotism) and encourage those who are kept to work harder with incentives that don't cost much to produce/hand out.

Also cut advertising budget(use social media/word of mouth/etc to get the word out more)/budget for after parties & the like.

Because gaming development isn't tough enough as it is.

Sure. I never said that modern blockbusters would end up cheaper, simply that "like for like", the maths are a bit more complicated than finding say a $40 one-man dev 90's game, then feeding $40 in 1995 into an inflation calculator and coming up with "$66.78 is the correct price" for modern one-man dev games like Stardew Valley or Pinstripe today.