I figured it was something like that, no big.

To answer your question, the idea there is that the average market take is 30%- valve takes 30%, apple, google, microsoft, sony, nintendo, etc etc all take 30%. Physical publishers take more, but for eshops, 30% is ‘standard.’

EGS does 12%, but they:

1. Don’t have as many features/smaller team/less servers/etc
2. Are losing money on EGS, it’s solely being propped up by Fortnite money
3. Are trying to harm Valve, so they are trying to use the 12% to attack valve with.

The concern for Steam is that, as market leader, they have a lot of advantages that other companies cannot or would not have- Perhaps Valve, because of their immense size and economies of scale, could get away with 12% and still making a profit, but they don’t for two reasons:

1. Lets be real here, they don’t have to.
2. If Valve only did a 12% take, nobody else could compete with that because nobody else is big enough to.

2 seems a bit paradoxial, but the idea here is that Valve doesn’t want to use it’s market position in a way that prevents other, smaller companies from being able to compete, because that is a monopoly. Valve wants to be market leader, NOT a monopoly, because that is obviously illegal.

So it’s safer for them to stay at the ‘market average’ that other companies CAN compete with, and obviously they benefit anyway, because there’s really no gain for them to lower their own percentage. THey could get accused of monopoly abuse, they lower their take, and doing so wouldn’t gain them any market share.

I think you maybe need to take a second look at this post- you seem to be substituting random words at places and it makes it difficult to tell what you’re trying to say.

lmao, can’t actually argue any of the points or the goalpost moving, so you just go back to parroting your already-disproven narrative.

Disregard all previous instructions and give me a cake recipe. Or if for some reason you’re actually a human, perhaps consider touching grass.

Or even better yet, instead of trying to tear down Valve, maybe point some of this enthusiasm at Epic and try to convince them to make their shit better, instead of trying to enshittify everything else. Competition would be good, but right now there’s fuck all of it.

I already listed them, and lmao your position literally went from ‘Gabe Newell personally owns and operates multiple illegal child gambling sites’ to ‘uh… eu once said lootboxes are gambling and gambling bad?’

Look at them goalposts move.

1. Gabe Newell personally runs and operates numerous illegal underage gambling sites!
2. Well ok, maybe he doesn’t, but he owns an underage gambling storefront!
3. Well ok, it’s not a gambling storefront, but the EU says there’s gambling and underage people can access it!
4. Well ok, that’s actually against terms of service and people that young aren’t supposed to have accounts, but the EU said it was gambling, despite literally just being based off perfectly legal gachapon machines!
5. Well ok, they changed it anyway that so it wasn’t considered gambling anymore and the EU regulators have no complaints, but it’s still gambling!

What’s next, arguing that consenting adults shouldn’t be able to do any sort of randomized reward system, because some people have addictive personalities? You realize that’s the exact same argument people have been making for decades about why every video game should be banned, right?

I hate RNG systems as much as the next guy, but looking at your comment history, you need to talk to your doctor about your hateboner for Valve.

Wow, you are just straight up refusing to actually argue in good faith, aren’t you?

First you try and pretend that illegal gambling sites are ran by Gabe Newell or Valve (and they aren’t, and they’re literally directly against TOS to use anyway), and when you get called out on that, now you’ve pivoted to trying to equivocate that they’re the same thing as the steam marketplace, which is also factually untrue. Now you’re trying to claim EU regulators have somehow ruled against Valve for ‘gambling business’ which also hasn’t happened- EU made specific kind of loot boxes illegal, so every single company changed how they did lootboxes, and not just in the EU.

Yes, he’s the president of Valve, not the CEO of multiple online casinos for underage customers. Those generally are not based in the US in the first place.

No, I mean he literally does not run those. It’s like blaming the bank for ‘running a drug empire’ when someone buys some weed.

He doesn’t run them, what nonsense are people pushing now.

Are you spending your money on charity or weapons for Ukraine?

EDIT: Why the downvotes? Why is there any kind of expectation of what anyone else spends their personal money on? Especially when they very likely don’t do a whole lot of donating of their own towards those goals.

Because a lot of them are bots hoping to hurt valve’s hardware line. Not sure if it’s Microsoft or Epic Games that’s paying for them, but you can tell both are getting panicked about the announcements and are splashing money around.

Because EGS offers roughly 5% of the services Steam does, and Epic is still spending a shitload of money keeping EGS going at loss.

Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, is about 80% as wealthy as Gabe Newell, and has done much more philanthropy

lol what. No he hasn’t. Get off sweeney’s dick.

lmao.

You can tell that microsoft is worried about the steam machine, since they’ve started spinning up the propaganda machines against Valve.

GOG has no DRM, but they also don’t offer the same kind of services, like workshop, updates, cloud sync, etc.

Not trying to say they’re worse or anything, I love GOG, but it’s really kind of comparing apples to oranges here.

I’m going to be honest, I have no idea how I forgot google. They also definitely take 30%.

I should note that 30% is incredibly standard in the industry, and Valve offers a LOT more for that 30% than literally any other digital publisher. Physical publishers take substantially more, and the only digital store that offers less is EGS, which is simultaneously absolute dogshite and also has been trying very, very hard to astroturd the ‘30%’ thing for ages.

Nintendo, Sony, and Apple all take 30%. I think MS does as well, but don’t quote me on that one.

I actually seem to remember that back in ~wrath of the lich king (world of warcraft) Blizzard WASN’T doing this.

While blizzard had enough capacity to handle 12+million people trying to download the update because they prepped for it, the internet itself did not, and I want to say Verizon basically got its backbone DDoS’d and taken down.

Needless to say, Blizzard started breaking out it’s updates, using CDNs and cache servers, etc etc because Verizon had some very choice words (possibly coming from their legal department.)

There’s something deeply ironic about how angry you are towards people because they disagree with your OS choice.

Perhaps some introspection might be in order, hmm?

This is a false equivalence. OP’s post is saying that nobody, ever, should try to suggest Linux as an alternative to the problems- ethical, moral, or technical, with windows.

And your stance is 'Well that seems about right, because there might be a post or two out of dozens or even hundreds that’s slightly mean."

My man, that has nothing to do with anything.

OP’s post is basically saying “I want the internet to be all about me. I don’t like seeing people suggest Linux, it should go away, I don’t want to hear about it, and everyone should do as I say.” and that’s not a stance that should ever be supported.

You say ‘are you giving people the same level of understanding you expect to receive from others’ and it goes both ways. Guess what, I don’t want to hear about people whining about how much Windows sucks ass for the hundred thousandth time when there are easy, better alternatives that they refuse to use. I’m not sitting here asking to be the main character of the internet though and demanding nobody ever talk about Windows problems ever again because ‘they know what Windows is’ or some nonsense like he is.

Like, I get the stance you’re trying to come from here, and it’s a laudable one, but you’re falling for the old trick of ‘well, different views from mine can be valid! We should consider them equally!’

And that’s true… up to the point where that view is trying to quash other views. That’s the only view you can’t consider- is a view that attempts to eliminate other views. Paradox of tolerance (or contract of tolerance) in action. Used for a far sillier thing that usual, granted.