• PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    And those “reasons” were plentiful. Most importantly is their market share. From a purely business perspective, if a distributor has 200% more users and charges 100% more while offering the same features, they will be the better choice - purely from en economical perspective. 30% is ok because you will reach a larger audience and if so many publishers disagreed with Steam’s cut, they wouldnt all come crawlin’ back would they? In other words, the market dictates the price and the market has decided that price is 30%. It doesnt matter who does or doesnt defend it. Thats what it is.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      As to why I dont mind the fee as a consumer; valve invests its earnings into linux gaming and does cool shit like that.

      You’re also talking like they wouldn’t have as many customers if they reduced their cut which is completely ridiculous. More profit would go to the people actually doing the work or prices would go down.

      Stop defending the billionaire, you’re making a fool of yourself.