By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.
Comment on Steam is adding support to show estimated FPS for your hardware before buying a game
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 22 hours agoAs long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic, it’s a better deal for developers as well.
(math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam’s services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
Plus, their investment into Linux gaming and FOSS in general are preventing PC gaming from being locked down to a singled OS that becomes a walled garden.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.