• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They offer a hell of a lot more per dollar for their 30% (which isn’t actually 30%, and increases your sales volume by way more than enough to make up the difference) than Epic does for their cut.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Increases sales” just underlines that they have a monopoly.

      No shit you sell more by dealing with a monopoly. They’re the biggest store. That’s what happens when you’re a monopoly.

      And I don’t remember saying one word about Epic.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it doesn’t. It means that they add massive value and more people buy more games as a direct result of the value that they add. Valve has done more to grow the PC gaming space than anyone else and there isn’t anything close.

        They could take 50% and they would still offer by far the best value out there with nothing else close. Their cut is extremely generous to developers.

        Epic is the only one offering a meaningfully different cut from anyone else, and they’re doing it by being absolute dogshit at everything connected to their store in any way.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          “They could take more and still control the market” is a confession, not a counterargument.

          And it directly contradicts saying they need that much money, in order to… “provide value.” An aggressive hand-wave that ignores how Sony and Microsoft take the same cut for platforms they own and control completely.

          This 30% off-the-top is a de facto standard that’s basically just left over from when Nintendo had 90% market share and had to physically manufacture cartridges months in advance. I don’t care what Valve says they’re providing - they did not do half as much per game as the people who made the fucking game. They don’t deserve a third of their money.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They could take more and still deserve it.

            What they “need” is irrelevant. They deserve every penny.

            If valve never existed, the best case companies would make way less than half as much on PC gaming, and a meaningful proportion would literally make nothing because distributing software for revenue is extremely difficult for a normal person or small team to do. Anyone paying 30% is getting a bargain, because distributing the same volume by themselves would cost more than that in labor and other costs.

            The entire PC gaming market exists because Valve created it.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I got a binder full of PC CD-ROMs that says “bullshit.”

              Valve has contributed to the PC gaming market. But they got there by shoving their middleman service into a game everyone bought anyway, at a store, because Steam did not exist. It sucked. It sucks a lot less now, in part because they take an entire fucking third of every sale, and if you think all those sales could only possibly happen by taking that much money from them, you’re not even listening to yourself.