190
Tim Sweeney: "Besides taking 30%, they’re [Valve] also taking a potentially even larger fraction of developers’ revenue and livelihood by undermining their business with these AI hate campaigns." (archive.ph)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Steam/Valve are not the good guys, they seem more normal because they are not complete shit like all other large gaming companies.

The 30% cut is clearly not market driven. Network effects are not an inherent property of Steam itself.

They also pioneered lootboxes and tried to do their best to scam on refunds (typical American bullshit).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I meant market in the real sense not the American polemical form.

    A real market-driven price/cut is determined by supply and demand, the 30% figure was chosen by some American oligarchs that Valve decided to copy.

    Have you ever wondered why it's not 29.1% or 34.5% and the 30% figure never changes (other than than for well connected insiders?). How can market driven price never change, especially in a highly dynamic globalized market like gaming?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    Totally! The market has spoken!

    It just so happens that all major service providers have the same 30% figure irrespective of their specific vertical focus, the geographic component of their industry or even the developments in their vertical over the past 20-25 years?

    That's how a market works! Right?

    P.S. You can also set it to 100% (you physical can if you want), that's not what we are discussing though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    have you ever wondered why no one can provide the services Valve does for cheaper than Valve does? Is it because of their famously anticompetitive practices, their notorious lobbying and threats to politicians, their strong-arm manipulation of vendors against each other? Perhaps they have some other method of defeating market forces?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •