It's for gameplay programming, not engine subsystems. These events must eventually be serialized (in the serializability sense, not marshaling) and handled by a single thread for the net code to work. Basically every engine does this (or risk having unreliable networking). The goal of this (last time I looked was when it was announced) is to make it easier to have distributed networking for multiplayer games.

Also building this using c++ and LLVM will result in better performance than any blueprint system can achieve.

We can hate AI and the direction of the engine but don't just assume the devs at Epic are dumb.

Do you like having battery?

These laws are proposed not by the politicians themselves (they indeed don't understand technology) but by the capitalists that own them

"the french" more like capitalists trying to extort more money. Nothing exclusively french about that

No it's a stupid idea. It's just ISPs trying to rake in more money. They already get paid by their subscribers for the service, but they're always trying to get more by taxing anyone who dares to look at the internet. Some ISPs were already trying to extort google and Netflix for using "their" network by throttling their services unless they pay.

Sadly if you just expect politicians to resign themselves you open the door for trash politicians who don't. The guy should have been explicitly fired and investigated instead

Bless your soul if you didn't know what that acronym meant

You're free to build your own platform to undercut Valve and others if you think the market is wrong. Epic has been trying (barely I know) but haven't succeeded afaik

That's a product of the prohibition. If it was legal we could have farm to nose traceability and accountability.

The market has spoken, no one has been able to provide a better service for less, so 30 stays. Technically they could even have increased the cut because of that if you follow market rules.

But even then, you can get a lower cut on Steam if you are a very big publisher, so the 30% figure is not set in stone.

And again, the market is not gaming as a whole but gaming platforms, of which there are very few players, and none have tried to really compete with steam as a platform. Most publishers platforms were entirely driven by maximizing their profit, not competing. Most of them are basic digital storefronts, and not platforms.

The 30% cut is clearly not market driven

How is it not? The market is gaming platforms for developers (i.e you're not in the market as a gamer), and every other platforms are either 30% with good features, or 12% but no features.

It's the eternal dilemma for game devs. They loathe the 30% cut (even though it's the same for every console, except you don't have any choice there) but at the same time steam does offer discoverability and platform features the devs and gamers love.

I would have loved if Epic could compete with steam, but they instead chose to just throw money at gamers instead.