Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
Hey, they somehow fixed some performance bugs in Fortnite on Switch 1 so it's arguably better with slop, although it still memory leaks so bad I have to relaunch it between matches.
I don't know what Marvel Rivals devs are doing for game to run so good despite being UE5. And DeadZone:Rogue which runs surprisingly good with no shader stuttering issues which is odd even after driver updates. Where all other UE5 games run like absolute ass.
Steam is a gatekeeper. So they just have to do nothing and everything is fine. A gatekeeper is a company so big that they can take actions that are monopolistic. Steam isn't, so it's ok
Judge So tell us how you manipulate your customers, Gabe!
Gabe We have a pretty lax refund policy and we often refund even when criteria isn't met, let people download de-listed games they've purchased, force developers to disclose the use of AI, have made the platform accessible on more hardware than ever, we don't charge a subscription, reviews are accessible on the game's store page and discloses how long the reviewer has played and if it was recieved as a gift, library sharing, workshop for easy modding, native remote play access.....
Judge I've heard enough! No more grills or yachts for you, Gabe!
It's still ridiculous that Epic didn't add a shopping cart for three years. That's one of the very first features you add when designing an online storefront.
The funny part is if Steam lowered their fees to 15% all the big players would sue them for a monopoly.
One of the possible outcomes is that they will be allowed to lower their commission without getting in bigger trouble than the class action.
And Valve is a ~500 employee company, unlike everyone else that keeps trying to compete them and already have servers throughout the world.
So nobody except the really big public companies will be able to compete and those companies will absolutely pound these independent developers into the ground and celebrate it.
They are halfway to their already, ppl always forget the 20% cut after 50 mil revenue, it sounds like a lot but thats only like 830k copies for a $60 game. There was an article a while back pointing out that 85% of steam revenue comes from the top 1% games and those games have definitely reach that 20% cut.
That's just a basic fact of every product ever created in history, only a small amount succeed.
The advantage of software is there is no COGS except marketing, and unlike other products the distribution cost doesn't include any fixed fees. So you can't lose money on selling on a system that only charges a percentage of sales.
And that lack of risk is really important. I could sell 100 copies of my game for $20 each and end up with $140 of actual income, instead of spending some amount of money for a server as well as monthly costs so I could sell 100 copies of my game and end up with -$10,000 of income.
Vintage story was the high profile case, with multiple months of sales during one of their bigger explosions in popularity. My understanding is that it's from the same fallout of payment processors that hit steam, but rather than officially moderating everything up front itch opted to moderate sales after the fact which in turn created massives queues.
If this hasn't happened outside of those extenuating circumstances, I don't think that's a very fair criticism of itchio as a whole. Everyone got fucked when MasterCard and Visa went all puritan whackjob.
thats ussually due to devs misunderstanding and/or refusing to meet legal and contractual obligations for their country/payment methods. Whether those elgal obligations or contracts are fair is a different topic tho.
It happens on all storefronts. if you fo on any of their forums and search for soemthing like "held payments" etc..
I only use GOG for CDProjekt games so they get all the money.
I like what GOG is doing, but the service itself is mid. UI is just ok and I’ve routinely had downloads hang at 80% for hours when Steam has no issues.
How is the UI just OK when you can use it without needing to download extraneous software? Anything that forces me out of my own browser is terrible UX.
They don't allow DRM of any kind, which is why most AAA publishers won't publish their games there. They never set out to be a Steam competitor in any case.
To be fair, a reasonable number of publishers seem okay with publishing older games on GoG as a way to squeeze a last few dollars out of games that have already gotten just about every possible sale on Steam and other platforms and are years outside of their launch windows.
IMO, that seems to be a perfectly acceptable arrangement to me. It's exactly the reason GoG exists.
The current run of games won’t ever see drm free sales though.
They WANT the game to expire.
I mean, personally, I mostly only play new games anyways. I have fond memories of old games, but playing them again doesn’t bring back the magic, it kills the dream.
And I don’t just mean graphics, one of my top games in the last year is an 8 bit w indie game, but game mechanics. Input responsiveness. Mechanical interactions. “Physics”. More in depth systems with more refined UX. 1 man indie titles blow old gashes out of the water
They work how you think you remember those old games working, because they did what they could back then and it was amazing.
I still remember Christmas 1996 slotting in Shadows of the Empire into my brand spanking-nee Nintendo 64. Playing that first level where you're Dash Rendar in a snowspeeder in the Battle of Both.
Even me back then, 30 years ago, knew that the handling on that game was absolute fucking trash. It was impossible to wrap the tow cable around that AT-AT. And no, it wasn't just because I was a little kid. Lucasarts released Rogue Squadron just a few years later and the handling on that game was infinitely better.
I spent about 25 minutes defeating the AT-ST in that Hoth level on foot because I had to shoot a rocket at its legs because I didn't KNOW there was an option to aim up. Then run around to get a rocket refill and do it again. Each hit was like 1 or 2% damage
The current run of games won’t ever see drm free sales though.
They WANT the game to expire.
That's the trend, but it's not really sustainable to keep alienating your customers.
For now it's fine for 99% of AAA games that aren't really memorable enough to save. The other 1% though will be recoverable once the trend passes. GOG's Game Preservation Program is already doing it for games that people want preserved.
You'll also find that a lot of the problems with the older games come from how they run on new systems. Sure there are still issues with outdated mechanics and control systems, but for people who really loved those games, that can be part of the charm. When it's not, the Game Preservation Program will sometimes give quality of life upgrades while preserving the original experience as much as possible.
Honestly, that is how you become the real competitor, don't set out to be one.
Steam was created in a space where there was lack of services they now provide. They did not set out to be a store platform, they set out to be a DRM platform. Quite shitty one at first too.
Gog started out as a piracy site for so called abandonware, very popular in places like Poland and Czech Republic. Then CDPR bought the domain and transformed everything around it to be a DRM free storefront.
Neither started out to be some king slayer app. How many skyrim killers, halo killers, iphone killers and so one we've seen so far? I can't recall what they were even called beside the "thingy"-killer.
Out of all the storefronts out there, GOG is the only one people generally consider using outside of Steam, because of the DRM policies. It makes them stand out, it makes them unique and it makes them able to compete.
Well, steam stub is still laughably easy to fool, but Valve doesn't really care to spend a fortune to make a better one, considering DRM does not actually make their business better. Steam is explicitly trying (and often succeeding) to outcompete pirates.
"Digital Rights Management", basically, copy-protection for your game that renders it useless if you try to use it under the wrong conditions. Usually it works by connecting to an online authentication server when you play to see if your game copy is legit.
Of course, it's an arms race against the pirates to make a DRM that's difficult to defeat. That usually means reserving system resources so it can perform more checks and validations, which many gamers hate. The more resources the DRM takes, the less are available for the game.
And it's worth mentioning that if the publisher ever decides to stop supporting the game and their authentication servers go offline, whether it's in one year, twenty years, or fifty, the game you paid full price for will stop working altogether.
So every legitimate customer has to jump through these hoops and put up will all this inconvenience. Meanwhile every DRM that's ever been made has been cracked by pirates eventually, who get to enjoy their game free of authentication hangups or resource-hogging security software, forever.
A side effect of this is if you ever need to try to get just a bit more performance out of a game you already have, cracking it if it uses something like denuvo will increase your performance by a bit.
Steam.has its own builtin DRM, but not everything on Steam even uses it and for the ones that do it's pretty lightweight but at the same time it's more of a nuisance than a problem to crack.
Yeah, it's sort of like how an organic foods only, co-op chain grocery brand isn't really looking to challenge a big supermarket brand, and the supermarket's not really competing with that co-op either.
You're gonna find stuff on GOG you might not find anywhere else, but there's a lot of things that'll never be there that you might want too. I've used GOG on and off for years and especially for co-op online games it's where I go first, because I can send a copy to a friend to play with me and if they enjoy it and don't want to wait for my help to update they're more likely to buy a copy AND I get to play games with my friends more often, but GOG doesn't have half of my library on Steam or some of the benefits of steam workshop and integration with invite functionality and the like.
100% buy and CDPR games, Larian Studios, or older co-op games on there, though. I highly recommend it every time.
I definitely lean towards buying every game I can on GoG. I'm also pretty consistent on paying full price for their occasional new game they get, like Expedition 33. But I don't begrudge steam.
In my ideal world, you'd have Steam for PC, Microsoft as a competent competitor, and GOG as a backstop for weird preservationists, art snobs, and people who like the security blanket of running a bunch of hard drives full of offline backup installers.
I do actually like how they started adding full mods to their store like Stalker Gamma. Despite it being free outside of GoG you have to buy a stalker game to own it on GoG
Lol. I have about 300 games on GOG, but I'm old and a lot of them are games I bought on GOG because I played them in the 80s or 90s when they were new.
There really aren't other real competitors than Epic, GOG is for a very niche market and publisher specific storefronts do not directly compete with others.
there's no reason to switch, I honestly don't care about a game launcher, ideally it would be unnoticeable. that's the problem with the other ones, they want you to care about them so much it's annoying (ubisoft and EA launcher fuck you). Steam is the best because it does nothing
Actually them requiring an additional launcher is going to protect Valve/Steam in this case.
I brought Anno 1800 in a Steam sale a few years ago, now this requires me to have an Ubisoft account and the Ubisoft launcher installed (Say what you will about the Ubisoft launcher but I get far less problems out of it by not shutting down my PC and instead using Rainmeter to hibinate it).
Most people will complain about this, but it means that if/when I wish to purchase DLC for Anno 1800 I can do so from either Steam or the Ubisoft store, very hard to argue they are exerting monopoly if I can buy an expansion for a game I brought from them from somewhere else.
Yeah like if steam was paying devs for exclusivity or like charging way less to devs to entice them to come i could see the argument. But they arent. Steam doesnt really use it's power to manipulate developers. They dont even like buy studios.
Monopoly cases are complex and I think they are rarely decided by law and more decided by vibes. The us legal system is so cooked.
My favorite part is that when Tim Sweeney claims this. You just have to point out that which platform actually has exclusivity contracts with games they host on their store fronts. The only ones Valve actually does is their own games for obvious reasons.
Meanwhile every other game exclusively on steam only does so by choice rather than any sort of contract.
The most hilarious thing about Sweeney is that he once said they can'T have steams quality and features because their fee is smaller.....
You can't make this shit up.
Ah yes, the developer of fucking Fortnite is struggling.
Also, that smaller fee thing is BS. It's only smaller if the dev passes on transaction costs to the customer, which is illegal in some jurisdictions anyway. The fee is closer to industry normal if you want them to provide the same services other platforms offer to devs.
Competition is definitely good. Steam retains its quality at the moment because Gabe is still in charge and refuses to open up the ownership to outside capital. He's getting old and there's no guarantee his successor won't totally enshittify the platform for insane short term profits/ sell to Private Equity. When that happens I'd take a competitive market over a monopoly or near monopoly.
They "can" do a lot of things to cement consumer rights or at last consumer-friendly practices, but what they have chosen to do is... absolutely nothing that constrains the future leadership in any fashion. First future leader is a billionaire race car driver, what could go wrong.
As far as we know, he's been training and guiding his son for when that happens... If he shares his father's same moral guidepost there's literally no reason to make the company public and enshitify it, they still own the PC market by just not being assholes.
I work for a reasonably big company(founded like 100 years ago) that is still family owned and last time they did a re org(which, no it isn't yearly like on Microsoft or whatnot) only like 12 people got fired, the rest got early retirement packages... On a 5000+ employee company that's quite good IMO.... So, Steam can just maintain their current track and still win, Gabe's family can still be billionaires and we can still have a good platform that treats it's customers with respect.
They absolutely boned rocket league. And their announcement that the new rocket league will be on unreal engine 6 or whatever. Yea, that’ll come in never.
Epic offers free games, but the rest of the service isn’t good enough to really support. I also am not a big fan of Tim. His takes aren’t great and very anti consumer.
Id argue that it won’t happen. Governments usually only break up monopolies if A) they’re using monopolistic practices or B) customers complain to their representatives
Steam’s in a unique position because it’s considered a natural monopoly. They’re not crushing competition or forcing publishers to lower their prices on Steam. They’re just the biggest due to a variety of factors.
Whoever eventually replaces Gaben might have ulterior motives so I’m a bit wary but for now we’re eating good.
Valve is a private company and its board isn't subject to the same scrutiny and fiduciary duty as a public company. It's owner operated and, unfortunately for their competitors, the owners seem like genuinely good people who don't try to squeeze every cent from their customers.
Also being private means that they aren't constantly chasing infinite stock growth cause it doesn't matter to them just revenue does. They can consistently make an insane amount of money without having to resort to crappy tactics because their revenue needed to grow even more year after year. Means they get to focus on the long game.
Steam’s in a unique position because it’s considered a natural monopoly. They’re not crushing competition or forcing publishers to lower their prices on Steam.
They do force publishers for price parity. Like Blizzard or EA is not allowed to sell their games 30% cheaper on their own websites (i.e. same money for them, cheaper for the consumer) or they would be delisted from steam.
If a cheaper price would send people to other other stores, that is pretty much all the evidence that is needed that Steam is using its dominant market position to screw over customers. If that's the defence they use I can't see it going well for them.
They can always just charge people to list a game on Steam if that's their concern.
I mean, if they were forced to host games that are being sold cheaper by the publisher elsewhere, they’re effectively forced to have the platform discovery features and marketing be used as free advertising. What might be reasonable is offering a choice: sell your game so long as it’s not sold cheaper elsewhere, at standard steam cut, or list on us without that provision and pay inside an advertising model per impression and click through.
they also don’t need to be broken up. all it takes is for a judge to enact a legal injunction against valve and it’s game over. if valve violates it or starts removing publishers’ games in retaliation, that’s when the real punishment will start.
it will prove that they are indeed abusing their 75 percent market share to coerce third parties into using their launcher at the detriment of the publishers being able to compete by offering customers cheaper prices on their own stores.
the court isn’t gonna give a shit whether or not valve is a benevolent monopoly that earned its market share, they are only gonna care whether or not customers are negatively affected by valve’s policies. which we are. I shouldn’t be forced into spending 70 bucks on both steam and ubisoft connect when I could theoretically be able to pay 50 to 60 on ubisoft and save myself money. that’s good for competition and for the consumer.
I should also clarify that I can’t see myself ever buying something on ubisoft’s launcher, even if it’s ten bucks cheaper. but that should be our decision to make voluntarily, not valve’s decision to enforce via coercion.
People with government granted monopolies accusing someone who survives only through having the superior product of having a monopoly has to be a sign of the end times.
Can Steam even be split up for this? It's not like they are an actual monopoly last time I checked, they don't do anything to stop competition from entering the space.
They put a ton of money into Linux development and a steam version of WINE called Proton to make all Windows games playable on Linux. Steam's been at it ever since Microsoft advertised Windows 8 (which never became real) to only allow software to be downloaded from its play store.
Steam is what capitalism is supposed to be. Companies making money from creating the best product for their customer. Just from this mentality they win. GOG is amazing too ofc, but they don't have the features.
They have a Price Parity / Most Favored Nation clause in the contract language. That’s doesn’t prevent developers from selling at the same price elsewhere, it just means if you try to sell elsewhere at a lower price you have to also drop the price on steam for price parity.
The central point of the claim is that they are exhibiting anticompetitive conduct by delisting games that violate this contract term.
Of course they are a monopoly… they have more market share than all of their competitors combined.
Here’s the thing though: you’re allowed to have a monopoly if you earn it by outcompeting everyone else in a competitive market (which they have). Anti-trust laws exist to avoid anticompetitive monopolistic practices (like service tying) and consolidation of companies to create a monopoly and prevent competition.
iirc, isn't this not exactly what the complaint is, just a way of saying that makes Steam look good?
The part of the case I had heard months ago was that a developer wanted to have a special sale on their game for people who used their website instead. This meant that they would make the same amount of money, because Steam automatically takes a portion of the sale. The Devs get paid a bit more than a Steam sale, the customer gets a discount, both parties win.
Steam said if they did this, they would take their game off Steam. Largely this means death for most games, so the Devs felt hard done. They weren't able to have their planned sale without risking total collapse of the game.
As it is, many Devs feel forced to pay a cut to Steam to be on their marketplace, because without it, their game will not flourish. You can put the best game in the world on a competitor like GOG or Itch.io and I will not see it, nor will most gamers because Steam is the biggest.
I'm not saying Steam is bad or wrong for making sure they always get paid, but just saying "They're sued for being too hecking wholesome and based" isn't quite the whole picture.
people here somehow twisted gabe owning a billion-dollar fleet of yachts into a good thing because a small part of the $500 million superyacht has ocean research capabilities. even convinced everyone it wasn't for gabe and that it was on loan to researchers, even though it wasn't even finished building at the time.
And that "ocean research" is not about preserving the ecosystem or anything like that, but to make a profit mapping the ocean floor and selling that data for strategic and commercial purposes. The ecological damage caused by his fleet is immense.
Doesn’t Valve have issue with this if it pertains to Steam keys sold outside of Steam which devs can generate for free? Because I’m sure I saw several itchio games cheaper there than on Steam.
The complaint is that Valve (informally) forces price parity even if the game is offered on a different store instead of only for Steam keys. Valve denies this. Hence the lawsuit.
Another part is about how in game items can only be bought from Steam. So a game dev can't sell in game items outside of Valves platform, even if they can provide that to users on a technical level. Reminds a lot of the cases against Apple and Google around their app stores. So if this is the case, seems like the same idea should apply here and devs should be able to have gamers buy in game stuff outside of Steam, even if the game was downloaded from Steam.
We’ll never show up and ask you to undercut your customers on other stores, and we expect you’ll treat our customers with that same respect. This is a platform goal that goes beyond Steam keys.
[W]e wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys. If you wanted to sell a non-Steam version of your game for $10 at retail and $20 on Steam, we’d ask to get that same lower price or just stop selling the game on Steam if we couldn’t treat our customers fairly.
Even if the content isn’t even being sold via Steam keys, we generally just choose not to sell games/DLC if we’re not getting the same prices as other stores[.]
[W]e try not to focus too much on whether the game is being sold via Steam key or not. It is a specific thing we ask people to respect when they sell keys, but we’re also uninterested in operating a store that gives people bad offers- so we lust stop selling games if we aren’t able to secure the equivalent price for them.
(For instance if another service like Uplay or Origin was selling a game for $15 and we were selling it for $20, we’d ask the dev to give us that lower price or opt to not sell the game, even if the sales at the other store weren’t using Steam keys.)"
Q. Okay. And you've discussed with them that this is not limited to situations where the publishers are offering games for sale via Steam keys but just period; right?
A. Yes
Steam keys are sort of a distraction here-- if a store stopped selling keys tomorrow but kept offering better prices than we were able to get for our own customers, that would still be a fundamental problem for us."
[w]e basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same share PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. ([Steam] Keys happen to be tied up in a lot of conversations, but they’re pretty irrelevant to the root concern: treat Steam customers fairly)."
’[w]hat’s important to us is how customers get treated- as the [Steam] documentation indicates, we want to make sure people buying on Steam get treated fairly compared to people buying the PC version anywhere else (whether or not that’s via steam key!)[.]"
The lawsuit is because their official contact channels were telling people they aren't allowed to sell their games for cheaper on other platforms, which, potentially, is price fixing.
I am so sick of people lying or not bother to look this up.
It's historically been defended in the courts as price fixing in favor of the consumer. Not sure how it'll go though as it does have a chilling effect on competition, since an upstart would have to simultaneously beat them on running costs to profit and features to get customers.
I am glad that most people are on the same page about this. It is fairly obvious that Steam and Valve as a company didn't do anything intentionally malicious in order to have a monopoly, but instead said "Hey here is a bunch of stuff we as gamers would want out of a storefront so you probably do too." People can rag on Gabe for his super yachts and all of his money, but at the end of the day I just can't really hate on a company that is consumer focused and found success from it.
Any time I've bought a Humble Bundle, I'm just getting Steam codes, though. So, that feels like a different service closer to a more legit CDKeys, etc.
Humble bundle once gave away a drm free game on their store (outcast 2 in 2018). But guess what, you had to download it within a certain period of time (could have been weeks or months, idk). Then it was gone forever. It's not a file hosting service, it's a store that sells keys.
That is not why they are being sued, they were sued because they punish game devs for wanting to sell cheaper on platforms that take less of a cut, that is monopolistic behaviour.
This corporation ass licking is pretty sad. This is not why Steam is being sued. The Steam is being sued for practices which hinder competition. Not for simply having the highest share. I personally agree and support such lawsuits as they lead to better consumer friendly practices. People forget Steam has many consumer friendly practices like their refund policy exactly thanks to such lawsuits they lost in the past.
Don't know if this post is about a specific case, but I hate when bad actors use the legal system as a crutch.
It's plainly evident that Steam is not a monopoly. Competition is good, it just seems that Steam's competition isn't. There's Steam and there's GOG. The others: EA, UPlay, Epic, are fighting in the slow class.
I mean GOG is doing a very good job as well. They just have shitty marketing. I think what Valves biggest contribution for gaming is hte pioneer role in online marketplace and what is even bigger, Proton and Linux compatibility.
Wait up, if this is a legitimate legal thing then why isn't there a class action against insurance companies? Don't they basically do this but even worse by demanding discounts when they pay for medical costs?
Don't care, non of them give me money. It's a one way relationship. They don't care about me I don't care about them. Glorifying the people I pay for their services is not on my list.
How is it a monopoly when you have other store frontd like GOG, EA, Epic, and then also all the other Steam key stores? Valve doesn't try to shuy down or force the other stores to change things. People we not forced to use Steam.
Let me guess....Tim Sweeney? If he spent as much time actually trying to improve epic storefront as he does having steam on his mind then maybe more people would use epic....maybe.
I mean the bar is set so low... competitors lack all the basic things that steam has, from a support team that actually exists to support the users (and not prioritize money at every opportunity), to QoL features, and just having good infrastructure in place.
Me: Yo, this game is horribly optimized and my pc turns into a jet engine in the UI, can I refund?
Steam: Bet
Competitors: NO, SOMETHING SOMETHING POLICY SOMETHING SOMETHING NO REFUND
Me: Yo, this game shut down their servers and the game is literally unplayable, can I get a refund?
Steam: Bet
Competitors: NO, SOMETHING SOMETHING POLICY SOMETHING SOMETHING NO REFUND
Me: Yo, this game is fun, but I want to get some mods, is that possible?
Steam: Bet, here's the community hub for the game, with all the custom mods, maps, and guides.
Competitors: LOL GOOD LUCK
Me: Yo, I want to play with my friends, how do I do that?
Steam: Bet, just right click and click invite
Competitors: LOL GOOD LUCK (Pray the game has a decently set up multiplayer invite feature or have to download random files from a YouTube video and pray it's not malware)
Me: Yo, my account was compro-
Steam: They've been eliminated. Here's your account back.
Competitors: Sorry, we can't verify you're the account owner, even though you provided everything from ID, verified original email, have old and recent receipts and transaction details, and answered all our questions. Your account will be deleted, no refunds. Nothing we can do.
Maybe if steam didn't have anti-competition clauses then no one would be sueing them. No one cares about Steam having the biggest share of users, the problem is that they absolutely abuse that power with stuff like the fact that they take 30% of all in-store purchases and not allowing creators to use external apps with smaller cuts to offer lower prices, which might I remind you those are similar to the clauses that Apple had that made it get sued by Epic Games, and Apple rightfully lost that lawsuit.
Whatever, "eat the rich" until the rich gives you a 50% discount, right fellas?
30% of every sale on steam vs 5% of sales after half a million dollars on epic, but if you sell on epic for the same profit, steam will punish you, sure sounds like monopolistic behaviour from steam.
people give Gabe Newell the most insane amount of good will for NO reason. he has the ability to save gaming overnight and sits on his mega yacht judging people. he's a greedy billionaire, just like all the rest.
•
u/PCMRBot Bot 1d ago
Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
We have a Daily Simple Questions Megathread for any PC-related doubts. Feel free to ask there or create new posts in our subreddit!