Speaker A
There are two things that happen, and I think that they are all too similar. We have Tim Sweeney of Epic Games who stepped forth, and he's criticizing Steam for their use of ID tags, saying that it doesn't make sense for a game store to
The video critiques the games industry for ignoring player feedback and blames companies like Epic Games and Ubisoft for poor engagement and market failures.
Ask about this video. Answers come from its transcript only — with the timestamp, so you can check them.
Generated from the transcript and can be wrong — check the timestamp.
Key Takeaways
- Player feedback is abundant and valuable but largely ignored by major game companies.
- Epic Games' criticisms of Steam reveal their own failures to compete effectively.
- Trust and transparency with players are crucial for success in digital game marketplaces.
- Blaming market conditions or players for poor sales is a deflection from internal issues.
- The industry must engage sincerely with its audience to avoid continued underperformance.
What the video covers
- Tim Sweeney of Epic Games criticizes Steam's use of AI ID tags, arguing it doesn't make sense for game stores to label AI usage.
- The video highlights Ubisoft's excuses for poor sales, blaming market conditions rather than their own game quality.
- Gamers are vocal and provide abundant, free feedback through reviews and social media, which companies largely ignore.
- The industry refuses to listen to players, blaming them for not buying games and hiding development details.
- Epic Games, despite its resources and popular products, has failed to build a competitive store against Steam.
- Tim Sweeney's comments reveal a defensive stance that frames Valve as a monopolistic villain harming small developers.
- Steam's payment system, while restrictive, offers security and convenience to customers, contrasting with Epic's approach.
- The video argues that companies ignore player trust and feedback, leading to underperformance of their platforms and games.
- There is a pattern of companies competing with Steam using half measures and shortcuts without truly engaging the player base.
- The video calls for the industry to open its eyes and ears to player feedback to succeed in the modern gaming market.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Tim Sweeney's Criticism of Steam
- 01:19The Vocal Gaming Audience and Player Feedback
- 02:55Frustration with Industry Ignoring Players
- 04:09Epic Games' Store Performance and Critique
- 06:00Tim Sweeney's Defensive Statements and Valve Comparison
- 07:40Steam's Payment System and Player Security
- 09:13Industry's Failure to Build Trust and Engage Players
- 10:58Call for Industry to Listen and Adapt to Player Feedback
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
label games that are using generative AI. It doesn't make sense for customers to have full context of their purchases before they actually make a purchase. I can't imagine why you guys are having so many troubles beating Steam. Maybe you
Speaker A
should probably just get a couple more journalists to try to write an article about how it's a monopoly.
Speaker A
Then we have Ubisoft. We haven't heard from these guys in a long time, so, you know, it's going to be pretty good.
Speaker A
They're going to their local government with a long list of excuses, likely trying to prepare themselves for massive layoffs that'll be coming very soon, I'm sure. Talking about their poor performance and saying that, well, it's not our fault. It's not our games. No,
Speaker A
it's just that, yep, players just aren't buying new games anymore. It's market conditions that are the problem. Even though we've seen multiple breakout successes this entire year, many of those successes actually coming from their former employees, new studios, and
Speaker A
studios without any marketing. But sure, yeah, it's just new games we don't like. Definitely not just yours.
Speaker A
You would think that making games is the best job in the world with one of the easiest customer bases to serve. I realize a lot of people meme on that because they go, "Oh, you just can't please the gamers." You absolutely can.
Speaker A
They're a lot easier than you think we are. And I don't think that there is an audience that's as vocal as the gaming audience is. We have no problem telling you what our opinion is. We have absolutely no issue celebrating the
Speaker A
games we love and hating on the games we do not. And there is so much information that we throw out there. So much valuable feedback. But that feedback doesn't mean anything if they aren't willing to listen. And it's like we
Speaker A
don't exist. Either it's their ego or they just genuinely think that they know better than us. And that's what we're going to talk about today. We're going to talk about an industry that just refuses to listen. One that blames its
Speaker A
players for not buying their games. One that thinks that we don't deserve to know how these games are being made. And one that is going to continue to ignore us until they can't. I genuinely believe that in the age of the internet where
Speaker A
social media is everywhere and commentary is essentially unavoidable at this point, it has never been easier to figure out what players want, what they don't want, and what they absolutely cannot stand. We are a passionate bunch.
Speaker A
We love talking about games, and we love making sure that everybody else knows exactly how we feel about them. You do not have to look far to find a thousand-word Steam review with a mountain of engagement or tens of
Speaker A
thousands of hours of YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok videos that are breaking down every single design choice from every single angle that's possible. This is feedback that none of these companies have to pay for. They don't need focus
Speaker A
groups. They don't need surveys. They don't need to do anything. They just got to open up their eyes, open their ears, and engage with the overwhelming amount of information that players are handing them for free. And I'm telling you guys
Speaker A
this right now because I need you to understand why I am so frustrated with this industry. I know it's uncomfortable for them to have to sift through a lot of this feedback to separate the useful from the useless, to read things that
Speaker A
might actually end up hurting their feelings. But these companies have everything they need to succeed.
Speaker A
Everything. And it just drives me up the wall when I watch them say and do things that offer players nothing, ignore the clearest feedback imaginable, and then somehow act surprised when their games and their platforms underperform. And I
Speaker A
think that you can see this pattern everywhere, especially with companies that are trying to compete with Steam right now. And everybody wants a piece of Steam success. Of course, they would.
Speaker A
Steam makes a lot of money, but nobody wants to actually listen to the players or build what the players are asking for. Or they all show up with these half measures, these shortcuts, and some inflated belief that players are just
Speaker A
going to magically abandon a platform they trust. And that trust part is something that these companies do not take seriously. They ignore it entirely.
Speaker A
And I think that nowhere is that delusion clearer than Epic Games. I think that these guys are embarrassing. I realize that some people like them. I like what they've done with Fortnite, but outside of that, I just think that
Speaker A
these guys are ridiculous. They have industry experience. They have one of the most played games on the planet.
Speaker A
They own and develop the most widely used engine in the entire medium. And with all of that knowledge, that influence, and that money, they still haven't managed to turn their store into anything other than a launcher for Fortnite and a place to grab a free game
Speaker A
every couple of weeks. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. None of this makes sense to me. These guys have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this store, and after seven years, they don't even come close to touching
Speaker A
Steam. They haven't even gotten to the point where they could sniff Steam's boot. But after Tim Sweeney's recent comments, everything started making sense. A Twitter user had posted, "Steam in all digital marketplaces need to drop the made with
Speaker A
AI label. It doesn't matter anymore." This post blew up. Over a million impressions, barely any likes, a massive pile of comments, most people not having anything very nice to say. But the comment that caught everybody's eye and got the most coverage was Tim Sweeney
Speaker A
himself saying that he agreed the AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure and digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the right situation. It makes no sense for game stores where AI will be involved in nearly all future
Speaker A
production. Sweeney would then double down on this in response to another user who had said, "This heavily implies that Epic are now using AI coding tools in the latest updates of the Unreal Engine.
Speaker A
Therefore, according to Steam's guidelines, any game built with Unreal Engine must declare the use of Gen AI." Sweeney responded with, "And this is absolute gold, not true. I just hate to see Valve confiscate ever more opportunity from small developers by
Speaker A
facilitating new categories, cancel campaigns, and review bombings. Steam used to just facilitate downloads, then they foreclosed on payments, then price competition, then crypto, now AI. You're not pulling one over on me, brother.
Speaker A
Sweeney's out here throwing around this pity party framing like he's some champion of the poor little indie devs, as if Valve's out here crushing their hopes and dreams,
Speaker A
and he's the last hero to stand between these small studios, crypto, AI, and annihilation. Actually, we should probably let some of that stuff come through, but it's manipulative. It's self-serving. And frankly, it's embarrassing. So, we're going to go point by point because every single thing that he brings up and
Speaker A
complains about exposes exactly why Epic has never gotten anywhere near Steam. The first thing that he brought up is how Steam foreclosed on payments. He's talking about the Steam wallet and how Valve has their own approved payment processors. Yes, this has caused some
Speaker A
censorship issues. We've talked about that on this channel. But it also means that players get one secure wallet. We don't have to reinput our payment information. We get consistent fraud protection, easy refunds, and no sketchy third-party sites. It's a hell of a lot
Speaker A
more secure and convenient for the customer, but it comes at the expense of the publisher and the developer. You'
Speaker A
jacking up their prices on Steam while undercutting them everywhere else. Sweeney hates this because, well, it stops Epic from doing the one strategy that they had, undercut the competition in Prey. But for the players, it means that your library doesn't have to be
Speaker A
scattered across five launchers just to be able to avoid getting ripped off. Epic calls it anti-consumer. Everybody else is going to call it consumer protection. Next, he whines about Steam banning crypto, blockchain, and NFT games. That complaint honestly will tell
Speaker A
you just about everything that you need to know. These games almost always are scams, pump and dump schemes, and projects that are missing half a skeleton of actual gameplay. Valve just said, "No thanks. We don't want to have
Speaker A
anything to do with that." Epic said, "Come on in, baby." And when one platform shields their players from dumpster fires and the other one rolls out the red carpet for them, I don't really think I have to tell you which
Speaker A
one actually gives a damn about its customers. And then we have his masterpiece, the reason for this video, the AI disclosure tag. And honestly, man, Steam just wants clarity. They just want their customers to know what they're buying. And they also want to
Speaker A
protect themselves legally. Sweeney is framing this like it's some oppressive overreach, like Valve is leading a witch hunt. No, dude. It's transparency. It's just basic labeling. And the fact that you are willing to die on this hill makes it painfully obvious how
Speaker A
disconnected you are from what players actually want. Because customers do seem to want these tags. every point that he raises, every issue he fabricates, every accusation he's throwing at Steam, all of it just reinforces the exact same truth that these guys are out here for
Speaker A
themselves, not for their players, not for the customers. And that's somebody that we can't trust. And I I don't know about you guys, but I don't really like to buy stuff from people that I don't trust. Now, I replied to Sweeney and I
Speaker A
had said, Tim, this right here is why you will never beat Steam. It makes no sense for game stores, but it does make sense for customers. We don't need a cash register. We need transparency and a voice. And that's exactly where I
Speaker A
stand. I do not care if a game uses AI. They've used different AI tools for years. What I do care about is players having all of the information that they need before spending money. That's it.
Speaker A
Being an informed customer should not be a controversial issue, but apparently it scares the hell out of some of these companies, which honestly guys, that tells you a lot about what's going on right now. They would rather you not
Speaker A
know anything at all about any of these purchases, be blind to their practices, blind to their processes, and happy to just swallow down whatever they serve you. And I am not going to pretend like that is acceptable. I also saw some
Speaker A
people that were rallying around Sweeney. Mark Curr, formerly a Blizzard, had jumped into the conversation saying that Sweeney is stating the obvious. I responded that doesn't change the purpose of the disclosure. Only the customer gets to decide what is and
Speaker A
isn't useful before making a purchase. This isn't about AI. It's about choice. I am all for destigmatizing AI, but people still deserve the option. He then doubled down saying that the tag is uninformative and that these tools are
Speaker A
everywhere and every game is going to be labeled as AI soon. So, I clarified one last time saying, "You're missing my point. While there should be better distinctions given how quickly things have evolved, some people want nothing to do with it regardless. I don't agree
Speaker A
with those people. I only care about how it's implemented, like Arc Raiders versus Call of Duty. I view this as no different as people wanting to know if a game has consultants involved with its development. Many people would say
Speaker A
that's useless, unhelpful information, no need for a distinction. I am for people knowing everything that they want to know before making a purchase, whether I share their values or not.
Speaker A
Maybe I'm just too radically proconsumer. Maybe that's what the problem is. I just can't see clearly.
Speaker A
But the one thing that I do think that I can see clearly is that these CEOs, especially guys like Tim Sweeney, they do not understand the perspective of the customer whatsoever. They're looking at this situation and they're like, "Well,
Speaker A
why would the customer need to know what kind of tools we're using? Why would they need to know that we were using Gen AI?" And furthermore, why do they hate it so much? They just don't get it. And
Speaker A
the reason why, and it's pretty simple, the customer just does not see a benefit in it for themselves. People are going to say, "Oh, it's slop. Oh, it's the human cost." No, it's not. It's just that they don't see a benefit in it for
Speaker A
themselves. As simple as that. Why are people supposed to get excited about these video game companies? They're going to come out with the exact same games. They're going to charge the same [ __ ] price and make even more money
Speaker A
than they ever have before. How does that sound like it benefits me? Because it doesn't. And I can totally understand where people are coming from. Now, personally, I don't really care if these companies use Gen AI. And I fully know
Speaker A
that in the future, this technology is going to be used to make some incredible games. It's being used right now in some cases. I mean, Expedition 33, they used it in their prototyping or in their concept phases. And look how that game
Speaker A
turned out. There's been other examples of it as well. Arc Raiders is another one. But regardless of how good some of these games are or how common this all becomes, from my perspective, nobody gets to tell the customer what is and
Speaker A
isn't useful information to them before making a purchase. They have a right to know. You don't get to say otherwise.
Speaker A
And Timmy boy, this idea that for whatever reason that people know if AI is used and that is somehow going to stop that game from selling, that Steam is confiscating success from indie studios. That is the most performative
Speaker A
take on Gen AI I have ever heard. Honestly, you deserve an award. The idea that people wouldn't buy. I mean, most people know that cell phones are made sourced with parts through child labor and they still go and buy those phones
Speaker A
because same thing with AI. Nobody cares about any of that stuff. It if the product is worth it, if it's a product they need, the people are going to get it. It's just as simple as that. But even still, I'm sticking to the point.
Speaker A
If the people want to know if it's used, they deserve to know if it's used.
Speaker A
Simple as that. And this is the exact same reason why I'm not tossing aside people's concerns over hiring practices at some of these companies, over the use of consultancy agencies or agendas that people feel that are in some of these games or
Speaker A
whatever it might be. Well, in a lot of cases, in most cases, this entire industry has told people, those people that it doesn't matter. Now, it's happening again, but it's kind of flipped on a different side. No, that's
Speaker A
not how this works. Whether I have the same values of you as or not, it doesn't really matter to me, man. Like everybody deserves to know whatever they want to know about a product that they are purchasing. That's what my perspective
Speaker A
on this is. And it's important that these companies come to terms with the idea that customers are emotional people. We do not make rational decisions when we purchase products. We sometimes make emotional purchases and you need to get behind
Speaker A
that. hiding from it, that's not going to do anything from you. And believing that your opinion or your values are more important. Well, that's the fastest way to be able to find failure. I'll tell you that right now. And there's one
Speaker A
company that knows that better than anybody else. That's Ubisoft. Those guys have been struggling for a long time.
Speaker A
They have been ignoring the values of their players, ignoring the values of just all of their audiences in general.
Speaker A
And they have failed to listen to their audiences the same way that these guys are failing to listen to audiences. the same. They've spent the last few months now crying to their local government, telling them this long list of excuses
Speaker A
and they're lying to themselves. If you sat down and pretty much asked anybody, even people who don't even follow the industry, why Ubisoft is struggling, why their stock price has cratered 92% in the past 5 years and is inching towards
Speaker A
delisting, you'd get the exact same answer every single time. Their games aren't good and they haven't made anything worth caring about. That is the universal take. You can't really put it much simpler than that. But instead of acknowledging that players are just not
Speaker A
connecting with their games, instead of recognizing the obvious sentiment around their quality, Ubisoft's recent filings with company house Ubisoft UK insist that the problem isn't them at all. No, instead it's actually that players just don't buy as many games anymore. In an
Speaker A
article from Insider Gaming titled, "Ububisoft says people are playing fewer games, which makes more newer games struggle to stand out." Grant Taylor Hill writes, "In a recent filing with Company's House, Ubisoft's United Kingdom based arm wrote a lengthy
Speaker A
breakdown about the future developments of the firm. The somewhat morbid telling of a tale of gaming suggested that a paradigm shift is occurring, one that is skewing the future of new single games in the wake of subscriptions and live
Speaker A
service titles." Wasting no time, Ubisoft's representatives directly said that consumers are playing fewer games and the ones that they do play, they're playing for longer, which means that the new single releases are struggling to compete and achieve with the sales that
Speaker A
they once had. The traditional full game model of selling a 50 or 60 game to a consumer as a one-time purchase continues to become less ubiquitous with multiplayer subscription services, longrunning games as a service titles, free-to-play games, and cloud streaming offerings, all
Speaker A
providing new and attractive ways for consumers to access gaming content. Consumers are playing fewer games, playing them for longer, and as a result, outside of a few notable exceptions, newer games are struggling to stand out and achieve the sales that
Speaker A
they may have once had. While the market is more volatile, and the potential for any specific title is less predictable as a result. All that was followed by a note that Ubisoft Limited would see falling revenue in the coming months.
Speaker A
Man, these guys kill me. I actually love Ubisoft. I hope that these guys never go out of business, mostly just because they become some of the best punching bags in the entire industry. But like, what are you guys talking about? At one
Speaker A
point, they bring up how physical sales are slumping and it's somehow hurting their bottom line. Buddy, I'm sure it's not just your physical sales. And then they go on to talk about how people are buying fewer games, so newer releases
Speaker A
just can't stand out. I mean, you got half of that, right? People are buying fewer games, but that just means that the games that are releasing are just releasing under higher scrutiny. They are getting the attention. I mean, you
Speaker A
had no problem standing out, just not for the right reasons. Go watch one of your trailers from a decade ago. The emotion, the character, the artistry, some of the best world and character design in the entire industry. And then
Speaker A
fast forward to today where you guys are turning 2B into two Brad and you got Assassin's Creed, a franchise that used to mean something that once used to stand as a pillar of AAA design that is now grinded down to a pseudo live
Speaker A
service zombie with some of the laziest art direction, animation, and storytelling that you guys have ever shipped. a game that can't even respect the crossovers that it's pandering to.
Speaker A
Struggling to stand out. Everybody saw Assassin's Creed Shadows. Everybody saw Star Wars Outlaws. Everybody knew of Skull and Bones. The problem wasn't visibility. The problem was nobody wanted to buy it. It's not that you failed to stand out. You just stood out
Speaker A
for the worst reasons possible. And then you pivot to, well, live service is the only thing that's finding success. Dude, what world are you living in? The last two years have been nothing but a massacre for live service. The only real
Speaker A
successes we have seen have been Hell Divers 2, Marvel Rivals, Battlefield 6, Where Winds Meet, and Arc Raiders. And three of those games just came out recently. And even those games have been struggling to be able to hold on to
Speaker A
their players for an entire year. Meanwhile, we've already seen a graveyard of live service games just died on arrival. I mean, nearly all of the most successful and celebrated games right now are new non-live service games. This year alone, we got Mega
Speaker A
Bong, Schedule One, Monster Hunter Wild, Split Fiction, Hades 2, Expedition 33, Donkey Kong Bonanza, Elden Ring Night Rain, Silk Song, KCD2, Silent Hill F, Digimon Time Strangers, Dispatch, Dying Light. Guys, I could just keep going, but I'm not going to cuz it's a really
Speaker A
long list. There's a lot more that I could name. There is no shortage of good games to buy, and people have been buying those games. People have been buying plenty of these games right now.
Speaker A
Good games, games worth their time and money, just not yours. It's always the same thing with these people. I'm sorry, but how do you not look at what you shipped with Attack on Titan and that collab with Assassin's
Speaker A
Creed Shadows and not stop for one second and say, "You know what? Something might be wrong here." I am genuinely shocked that they somehow found a way to make a game as bad as Shadows even worse. How do you even
Speaker A
manage that? And I don't want to hear a single person try to pretend that this game is any kind of financial success.
Speaker A
There is no world where a company puts that little effort into something that is actually doing well. That bar only drops that low when a studio is trying to distance itself from its own product.
Speaker A
And the fact that they canled all their future DLC, well, that makes it pretty obvious that's exactly what happened.
Speaker A
This is the biggest issue that this industry faces right now. These companies and the people that are leading them, they refuse to self-reflect. They refuse to listen.
Speaker A
Instead, they just gaslight themselves, the press, their shareholders, now even their own governments. Players have been raising concerns about Ubisoft games for years, about Shadows long before that game came out loudly and repeatedly.
Speaker A
Every bit of that feedback was ignored. So when these games launch and when these companies fail, why is anybody surprised? As I said earlier, players are out here giving this industry more feedback than it could ever ask for,
Speaker A
maybe more than it can even process at times. And instead of using that information, these companies just run back to their shareholders with these safe talking points that paint themselves as the victim of circumstance rather than the architects of their own
Speaker A
failure. So why is Ubisoft failing? Because their games suck. Players have been saying this for years. They've become so aggressive with their monetization that it's infected everything that they make. Even their single player games now come with battle
Speaker A
passes and pay to progress mechanics that are slapped onto fully priced titles. And while they're squeezing harder and harder every year, the quality of their games keeps collapsing.
Speaker A
Weaker, cheaper, and more compromised with every release. Put yourself in the player's shoes for just two seconds. Do you think anybody wants to pay full price for a game that gets monetized to hell, ignores its core fan base, and
Speaker A
can't even clear the basic bar of just feeling worth your money? No. Absolutely not. Epic is suffering from the exact same issues. Why will the Epic Game Store never overcome Steam? Well, maybe because it took them 7 years to add
Speaker A
something as basic as gifting games to your friends. Maybe because they have made it painfully clear that they do not understand the perspective of the customer or the expectations of the market or the actual value that players want from a platform. These companies
Speaker A
keep asking why players don't choose them, but the answer is right in front of them. You aren't building any of this for us, so why would we want it?
Speaker A
Seven years. It's been 7 years and Epic Games Store still does not have a review function like Steam. They still do not have concurrent player transparency like Steam. They don't have custom tagging like Steam. They only just recently
Speaker A
added the ability for you to be able to gift friends games. Think about that.
Speaker A
The entire time they've just been operating as a platform where the customer is nothing more than that.
Speaker A
They're just somebody that's there to make a purchase. It's a cash register. That's it. And this likely is just a reflection on what Tim Sweeney had said in his original comment. Steam used to just facilitate purchases. Now they do
Speaker A
all these bad things. That's where you're just completely missing the point. We need more than that. We should have more than that. We deserve more than that. And you want to know why you see review bombs on Steam? It's because
Speaker A
we know it works. It's because we see it as an opportunity to make sure that we are heard no matter what. It forces these developers to listen to us. It drives other players away to make sure that they're not making a bad purchase.
Speaker A
And it accelerates how quickly some of these games are fixed. And while Sweeney will look at that and say, "Oh, well, that's allowing these customers, quote unquote, to come in and deprive the publisher and these studios of sales."
Speaker A
We see it as us saving other players heartache and headache, saving them money while also doing what we can to be able to protect ourselves. It makes for a far more fair ecosystem. And I think that's what a lot of these companies,
Speaker A
they don't like it. And I think there's a lot of them that are out there that are trying to snuff that out as much as possible because there are still some flickering lights in the distance where we do still have some control. We do
Speaker A
still have some voice in this industry. And yeah, I don't think people like that very much.
Speaker A
Ubisoft, I have no idea what's going to happen to those guys. You know, at one point in time, you would think that they would just look in the mirror and say, "All right, screw it. It's us." Yep, we
Speaker A
know it. It's our games. Our games aren't any good. We need to fix it. This is what we're going to do. Here's the plan. We're going to listen to you. I mean, what do you guys have left to
Speaker A
lose? Your ownership. I mean, you guys are already kind of on the line with that one anyway. It's either these guys are going to go out of business or everything's just going to go to 10-cent, which that's probably the
Speaker A
likely case in this one. But still, I don't see them turning it around because these guys just have chronic gaslighters. They just will not give it up for the fact for these guys to still be doing this and talking this way this
Speaker A
late into the game. You're not pulling out of it. You know, I fully understand the inability to wade through all of this player feedback because there is a lot of it that's out there and players are oftentimes emotional and irrational
Speaker A
and we can be that way. But, you know, it's up to you to be able to pick out what's real and what's not. And as somebody that frequently looks at YouTube comments, believe me, I understand your perspective on this. At
Speaker A
the same time, you know when feedback is real. You know when it's something that you know when a criticism is right. you know, when it's something that's actionable that you can actually work on, that's up to you to be able to
Speaker A
capture and that's what these companies need to start doing. But I just don't think that there's a lot of them that are really like interested in knowing or understanding or taking action on our perspective. And with so many companies
Speaker A
that are like that, that's so many more companies that are going to fail. And the companies that will actually take action on that, those are the ones that are going to succeed. Anyway, hope you guys enjoyed the video. If you guys did
Speaker A
enjoy the video, like the video, subscribe to the channel, comment down below, follow me on Twitter, follow me on Twitch, follow me on Kick, and catch me in the next video. Stay cool, stay righteous, stay safe. Peace.
Speaker A
Family. Family.
Topics:Epic GamesTim SweeneySteamUbisoftgaming industryplayer feedbackgenerative AIgame storesdigital marketplacesgame development
