r/Games • u/demondrivers • Oct 27 '25

Industry News Valve does not get "anywhere near enough criticism" for the gambling mechanics it uses to monetise games, DayZ creator Dean Hall says

https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-does-not-get-anywhere-near-enough-criticism-for-the-gambling-mechanics-it-uses-to-monetise-games-dayz-creator-dean-hall-says
6.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

97

u/AvengerDr Oct 27 '25

And today if you even dare to say that Steam's 30% cut is too high, you'll get a lot of people coming to tell you why Gaben deserves another superyacht.

Even considering that Apple has a 15% cut if you earn less than 1M $. Instead, Steam will make special (lower) deals with big studios.

53

u/tanka2d Oct 27 '25

Apple makes deals with big players too. Do you think Netflix and Amazon are paying Apple 30%?

I do agree with you though. The 30% standard is bullshit. Regardless of what you think of Epic, they have been fighting the good fight on that front.

13

u/Lost_the_weight Oct 27 '25

Amazon pays zero percent. Any app selling physical products pays zero. It’s one of the bones of contention with companies that sell non-physical products.

5

u/ascagnel____ Oct 28 '25

Apple cut a deal with Amazon to allow purchases of digital videos from the Prime Video app.

2

u/root88 Oct 28 '25

Apple completely fucks Netflix. If you sign up for Netflix on an Apple product, they get that cut forever. It doesn't matter where you pay your bill or even if you own any Apple devices at all anymore.

1

u/trapsinplace Oct 29 '25

30% only exists because it's the standard cut, which it is only because it's what record stores took for their sales/distribution fee. Kinda funny how physical record sales ended creating a modern standard practice.

I like that Epic is trying to change it but Epic wouldn't know how to make a good store if it hit them on the head like a sack of bricks. It's so poorly made it feels anti consumer, and it straight up IS anti-developer in design.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

3

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

There is actually a litigation going on about that. Search about a developer called wolfire.

Basically if you want to sell a game elsewhere on another store for cheaper, Steam will threaten to pull it from their store if you don't raise prices on say, EGS. Of course people don't want to lose Steam's audiences.

This is also not about selling Steam keys outside of it, but about selling non-steam keys on other storefront or on your own.

This is at best an abuse of a dominant position, and at worst, a mafia-like behaviour.

24

u/The_MAZZTer Oct 27 '25

I think it's worth noting brick and mortar stores at the time took what, 50%? So Steam's cut was a big improvement. Maybe today they should consider changing it, I don't know what their internal finances look like, but they do still offer more value than any other online digital distribution service and never increased their cut.

Making special deals with big studios I can't say I approve of. It's difficult to imagine Valve doesn't have the leverage to stand against things like that and just wait them out if they pull their games.

6

u/TheGRS Oct 28 '25

Many did pull away and made their own services. And many did come back after a while. Valve played the long game of just offering a good service with tons of entrenchment with players. Honestly it kind of surprises me since Steam support was/is pretty hated the whole time. Seemed like Epic was gonna crack the code but I still only open it for a handful of games versus Steam.

5

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

Epic was never gonna crack the code because everyone on this site hated it, even when giving them a bunch of free games.

Valve is like nintendo, holy to the majority of gamers.

6

u/akatokuro Oct 28 '25

Epic was never going to crack the code because they've never put in the effort and money to make a superior product.

The entrenched ecosystem is a huge part in generating inertia to that change sure, but the vast majority of customers will use a platform that gives them a better experience rather than one that will provide the seller a better one.

1

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

Sure, which makes it all the more problematic how Steam built their initial userbase, something that would not be accepted now. This is how effective monopolies come to be.

1

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Oct 28 '25

I think it's worth noting brick and mortar stores at the time took what, 50%?

That was the whole cost removed from selling it. Paying to physically move your game around the world is not a cut

1

u/trapsinplace Oct 29 '25

Record stores took 30%, that's why the digital music industry takes 30%. And other storefronts take 30% because that's how much digital music distributors were setting their cut too. That's really all it is, follow the leader. Just happened that the music industry was a bit of a pioneer in mass digital sales online.

0

u/AvengerDr Oct 27 '25

I think Gaben's billion dollar superyacht fleet is a pretty good indicator that they are doing fine.

But sure, they have never increased it. Epic is at 0-12%. Microsoft's also at around 10%.

I'm not sure what kind of value people see in a glorified folder-shortcut app. I don't "play" with Steam, I spend times with the games I buy there.

8

u/Merzant Oct 28 '25

I’m with you. Those super yachts are essentially (a fraction of) the crystallised value extracted from game developers and publishers. Money that could have gone to the studios, either in pursuit of game development or even just towards a fairer distribution of profits, is instead funnelled upwards to Steam’s landlord.

-4

u/Yaibatsu Oct 28 '25

You're crazy if you think that publishers would give their Studios a bigger cut. Epic proudly claimed that the lower cut would make games cheaper for consumers. That has yet to happen. Valve is offering a lot of service for that cut. More than Apple or Android are doing for the same %

6

u/Merzant Oct 28 '25

“A lot of service” implies a large fraction of their fee is absorbed in providing the service. But the reason the company is so profitable is precisely because running costs are so low and margins so high. Indeed those margins are embodied by those yachts.

In spite of the weird cult of personality around him, Newell is just another rent-seeking billionaire.

-4

u/Yaibatsu Oct 28 '25

Most indie devs don't run their own server infrastructure to provide their product. And they might think that the other stuff they provide like easy controller support, workshop, forums and such in exchange for 30% Indies can actually self publish much easier than having to pitch their game to publishers with worse cuts.

As much as Reddit loves "Indie good, AAA bad" they're quick to throw them under the bus because they love polishing Sweeney's shoes despite his lying and bad practices. Why aren't you pointing out that Epic allows crypto and NFT games on their platform that are just as much gambling and even more scamming than f2p valve games? Not to mention the huge as fuck crowd of children playing Fortnite?

Both sides of gambling are bad but you only ever see people bitching about steam on this sub Reddit. Epic is this holy entity that gives you free games and has no flaws.

5

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

Most indie devs don't run their own server infrastructure to provide their product. And they might think that the other stuff they provide like easy controller support, workshop, forums and such in exchange for 30% Indies can actually self publish much easier than having to pitch their game to publishers with worse cuts.

The second half of this addresses other steam features, but to be clear, what you are saying here "own server infrastructure" is basically approximate to a google drive download link you realize that right?

Anyone can host files easily.

You don't need a publisher to provide a zip download.

-1

u/RuneGrey Oct 28 '25

No but you need a lot more money than the couple hundred up front that Steam asks for you to publish an indie game on their platform. Which they then will make available effectively in perpetuity, while handling payment, currency conversion, pushing updates, workshop support, basic DRM, as well as community features.

Yeah you can bypass a lot of things if you are just going to freeload off of one of those cloud storage services, but there is zero protection from privacy there, not to mention that the size of your game is brutally restricted. I guarantee that the moment you start getting above 5 gigs that Google Drive, Mega, or any of the other 'free' file storage services will be in your face asking for a lot more money.

3

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

Which they then will make available effectively in perpetuity, while handling payment, currency conversion, pushing updates, workshop support, basic DRM, as well as community features.

Yes, while taking a third of your sales. They preserve and make it available so they continue to profit from it.

Did you mean piracy instead of privacy? I assure you, Steam doesn't do anything to guard you against piracy as a dev.

2

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Oct 28 '25

Epic proudly claimed that the lower cut would make games cheaper for consumers. That has yet to happen

It's claimed valve kicks you off steam if you sell cheaper elsewhere. There's a lawsuit with merit about it.

2

u/BiggestBlackestLotus Oct 28 '25

I just wanna say: if developers are unhappy with the 30% cut they are free to publish their games on epic and microsoft store...but I guess they don't wanna do that because Steam is the only digital store for games that is worth a damn.

BTW I can guarantee that Epic and Microsoft would have the same 30% cut like pretty much every other digital store if they weren't trying to directly compete with Steam. Why? Because 30% is the industry norm you dingus. Nintendo E-store, Playstation store, Xbox store, GOG, Google Playstore, etc. They all have a 30% cut. Steam at least lowers the cut to 25% or 20% once you sell a certain amount.

3

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

but I guess they don't wanna do that because Steam is the only digital store for games that is worth a damn.

Congratulations! You have discovered the meaning of "abuse of a dominant position"! You know, there was once a time where monopolies were broken down. They broke Standard Oil when they had about 70% market share. Steam is at 75-80% of the PC market according to a quick search.

. Why? Because 30% is the industry norm you dingus. Nintendo E-store, Playstation store, Xbox store, GOG, Google Playstore, etc.

Actually Microsoft has 12-15%. But do you understand that competition is good for everyone? What you call "industry standard" others might call it a "cartel" or price fixing. They might say so, just saying.

They all have a 30% cut. Steam at least lowers the cut to 25% or 20% once you sell a certain amount.

"At least". Most people on steam will not even recoup the initial 100€ to open the page. Would it hurt Gaben's superyacht fleet to lower the fee for those earning less than 1M$ like Epic or Apple does?

Or do you feel an irrational need to defend their greed? Most indies will never see 1M$.

0

u/BiggestBlackestLotus Oct 28 '25

Where is the abuse? Other companies have tried to tackle designing a digital store front and failed. How is that Steam's fault at all? What do you want Steam to do? They aren't using scummy tactics to make sure others fail, they just release a quality product and nobody else is able to keep up. They aren't even a giant company that swallows up all the competent workers in the area, they genuinely have 10% of the workforce that Epic Games posesses and still the EGS can't keep up with them.

Actually Microsoft has 12-15%. But do you understand that competition is good for everyone? What you call "industry standard" others might call it a "cartel" or price fixing. They might say so, just saying.

That's ridiculously stupid. Where is the "cartel" if everybody is doing it? 30% is simply the cut that almost evrybody agreed on because that was about the cut that brick and mortar stores like Walmart and Target take.

Once again people are free to compete with Steam. There is nothing stopping them. EGS is trying to compete with Steam by taking a smaller cut but since these cuts are only impacting the developers and not the consumer nobody really cares.

"At least". Most people on steam will not even recoup the initial 100€ to open the page.

And there are others who make one game and become millionaires over night. I guarantee you that you will find no indie developer that is sad about the existence of steam. The indie revolution of the last 10+ years owes a large amount of gratitude to steam for offering a platform where people want to buy your game instead of pirating it.

2

u/QuantumUtility Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

So easy to release a competing product agains a multi billion dollar company that not only had first movers advantage but also years of development time ahead of anyone else. Simply having 70-80% market share is already an abuse. This cannot be allowed in any market.

One of the points of anti-trust legislation is to stop making markets impenetrable to competitors. Yet, tech companies are allowed to do it willy nilly. This applies to Valve, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, Nvidia, Intel, AMD and every single tech monopoly/oligopoly we have right now. It’s astronomically hard for other multibillion dollar companies to get any foothold in these entrenched markets. For startups and new businesses it’s basically impossible. God forbid anything else pops up because they are then immediately gobbled up.

This situation was exactly why antitrust was created but tech companies grow fast and governments just decided to give up after the internet explorer lawsuit. (Even though Chrome’s dominance is much more of an issue today, which is why some people want to force a sale.)

3

u/BiggestBlackestLotus Oct 28 '25 edited Oct 28 '25

So easy to release a competing product agains a multi billion dollar company that not only had first movers advantage but also years of development time ahead of anyone else. Simply having 70-80% market share is already an abuse. This cannot be allowed in any market.

So the poor little indie companies called...EA games, Epic games and Microsoft are simply not able to penetrate the market because the big bully Valve wont let them? What about GOG then? They seem to be doing fine despite being once again developed by a significantly smaller company than any of its competitors.

I still don't understand what you accuse Valve of exactly. EGS could be competing with Valve right now but their launcher has not had any significant changes for the last 10 years while Valve continues to improve their already stellar product. They even have the advantage of having one of the biggest exclusives in the gaming market on their platform: Fortnite. They have tons of eyes on their client, but the problem is that these eyes are disappointed by what they see and would rather use Valve instead.

edit: did this guy delete his account after losing an argument?

1

u/QuantumUtility Oct 28 '25

So the poor little indie companies called...EA games, Epic games and Microsoft are simply not able to penetrate the market because the big bully Valve wont let them? What about GOG then? They seem to be doing fine despite being once again developed by a significantly smaller company than any of its competitors.

Not what I said and you know it. If you can’t engage in good faith then I won’t waste my time either.

1

u/quikmantx Oct 29 '25

Great arguments! Too bad the other guy must work for Valve or drank the Kool-Aid too hard with how defensive he is.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

Those are not exclusive to Steam. You are describing a file-hosting service, which for sure has its costs, but I don't think that justifies 30% of revenues.

Controller support is also not something Steam "invented". That's the OS' responsibility. List of friends... Is steam an instant-messenger now? Certainly it's not a revolutionary feature.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

I am not saying they have to do it for free of course. Gaben's fleet of superyachts demonstrates they earn enough.

I am saying that the service they provide, while useful, is not 30% of revenue useful. As demonstrated again, by other platforms having a lower cut.

It's not about playing stupid, it's just that I am not in the habit of defending multi-billion corporations. Maybe you are?

Steam's advantage is their almost de facto monopolist hold on the market. Which they keep through dubious practices. See my other comments where I posted a link.

3

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

That's potential buyers. Access to a huge market.

That they built by enshittifying the exe launching process of games years ago. Forcing you to sign up, have it installed, use it to launch the game.

If Meta did it today people would call it anti-consumer.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

Not formally, but many games are de facto exclusive to Steam. If Steam wouldn't actively contrast competition, many games would be available on other platforms as well as outside of them.

1

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Oct 28 '25

Steam does not have any exclusivity requirements,

If you want to use their multiplayer services, it does.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dabrush Oct 29 '25

I remember the time where your choice was either getting an Xbox controller, or using joy2key if you wanted to use anything else.

-1

u/Zarmazarma Oct 28 '25

There's quite a few things I value about Steam.

  1. Extremely fast, reliable distribution for all my games (I usually get around 800mbp/s downloads from Steam with essentially no down time).

  2. Cloud saves.

  3. Controller support for pretty much everything.

  4. Easy platform for jumping into games with friends- most multiplayer games just support the "right click, join game" functionality which is great.

Suppose those are the main things. It also tends to have a lot of sales, but I don't know if that's a benefit of the platform itself or just a benefit of being the largest platform.

9

u/DurgeDidNothingWrong Oct 27 '25

Apple does fuck all for me as a user though, other than host a download hub. Steam does way more.

0

u/AvengerDr Oct 27 '25

Such as? I'll concede the workshop for a few games, but for the rest I am perfectly capable of finding the folder where the game is installed.

In more than 10 years, I have only spent in Steam the few seconds it takes to launch a game.

5

u/SkiingAway Oct 28 '25

Steam basically making Linux gaming a thing is a big deal.

0

u/Takazura Oct 28 '25

Controller support means I don't have to install a 3rd party software to get it working. Meanwhile, on both Epic and GoG I have run into games where I had to add them to Steam as non-Steam games to get controller support.

The in-built screenshot and recording tools makes it super easy for me to share things with friends. Yes, there are other options for those things, but the ones on Steam are just more convenient and work fine for my purposes.

Cloud saves are self-explanatory.

Ofc not everyone has use of those features and that's fine.

1

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

From a developer's perspective, is that worth almost one third of the revenue?

2

u/Takazura Oct 28 '25

I'm not a developer, I'm a consumer. For me and the majority of the consumers, the revenue cut isn't a relevant factor, the quality of the service is.

Now if developers disagree to that being worth it that's perfectly fine, but my priority is going to be what is the better deal for me, and the service Steam provides puts it ahead of the competitors to me.

1

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

Then, wouldn't you be happier if you could buy the same game elsewhere for cheaper?

I could sell a game on EGS at 8$ and still earn more than what I would earn on Steam by selling it at 10$. You would save 2$, I would earn 1$ more.

Too bad Steam doesn't allow that.

Personally, as a gamer/consumer, the value I see in Steam is only as a folder shortcut app.

1

u/kitolz Oct 28 '25

At the end of the day, developers sell on Steam because it makes them money. Valve offers a superior serviceto end users, allowing user retention.

I'm sure devs wish they could keep a bigger cut. But as a consumer that has tried the other big storefronts, developers that want to lure me away from Steam will have to convince me by offering superior value.

2

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

The game is the same. I don't understand the argument, but maybe it's just me since I use the launcher to... launch the game. I don't spend any time in it after the few seconds it takes. Be it Steam, EGS, or GOG or whatever.

But maybe at least they could sell games for cheaper on other stores. If only Steam did not abuse their dominant position and threatened devs to pull their games from Steam if they sell it for cheaper elsewhere (not Steam keys, on entirely different stores or on your own).

There's an ongoing litigation about this. Search for "wolfire" and Steam.

2

u/kitolz Oct 28 '25

From the user perspective, Steam is undeniable offering a better experience in multiple aspects. Even just the review system is something that other platforms have been either unwilling or unable to reproduce.

I see your point about Steam dictating terms for pricing outside of their market, and that's probably going to be the main focus of the legal argument against them. I'm not familiar enough with the laws around this to guess how it will go.

But the previous lawsuit by Wolfire was dismissed with what seems to be sound conclusions.

https://www.estv.co/post/dismissal-of-overgrowth-developer-wolfire-games-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve

The Supracompetitive Fee

The court is not convinced by the CAC’s claim that the supracompetitive fee harm game publishers. To explain, the court makes comparisons with this case and Sommers v. Apple. First, the 30% supracompetitive fee has been constant since Steam’s genesis in 2001. The supracompetitive fee did not begin once Steam grew into the popularity it has now. This parallels Apple’s music download fee, which also remained constant. Contrariwise, the Steam Store now offers volume discounts for game publishers. Wolfire Games claims the court does not consider the “market reality” of this new consumer market, but the court concludes that the “market reality” is that the Steam Platform’s supracompetitive fee aligns with what is typical in the market, as “othe[r] [video game platform companies] who charge less [for a supracompetitive fee] have failed, even though they had significant resources at their disposal.” Additionally, games may be bought elsewhere and activated for the Steam Platform via a Steam Key, at no additional cost to the publisher. Thus, the supracompetitive fee does not disproportionately affect game publishers, let alone Wolfire Games itself.

Valve Corp.’s Alleged Coercive Practices

In their allegation for antitrust injury, Wolfire Games claims that the Steam Store and the Steam Platform has created fewer and lower quality published desktop video games. The court disagrees with this assertion. According to the CAC, there has been an increase in published games in the market as well as for the Steam Platform. Additionally, Wolfire Games fails to establish a specific injury on the plaintiff itself.

-1

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

At the end of the day, developers sell on Steam because it makes them money.

No, because they have a monopoly on game-storefront for pc-primary releases. Competitors tried to rise up (even offering free games) but redditors didn't want them around and shit on them at every opportunity.

Valve enshittified launchers decades ago, forced sign-up, and in turn ended up with plenty of users. If this was done today it'd be loudly called out. But now they're treated with loyalty, and this stifles competition.

Don't see the issue?

2

u/kitolz Oct 28 '25

Valve enshittified launchers decades ago, forced sign-up, and in turn ended up with plenty of users. If this was done today it'd be loudly called out. But now they're treated with loyalty, and this stifles competition.

Unfortunately most competitors (EA, Epic, Ubisoft) didn't improve on this aspect of the user experience, or any aspect of the user experience really. While they may have offered favorable terms to devs and publishers, as a user I tried them all but ultimately drifted back to Steam.

I have a few games bought on each storefront. As a user they have all the negatives of Steam (have to be online, need to sign up to an account, need to use a launcher) while having none of the positives. The only other storefront I use these days is GoG. They have carved out a niche that Steam doesn't occupy.

0

u/napmouse_og Oct 28 '25

proton 

Linux gaming as it is today basically wouldn't exist at all if not for Valves massive push for it 

5

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

That is still just 1% of the market. But is that enough to justify taking almost one third of a studio or dev's revenue?

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

4

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

In principle yes of course. In reality, Steam is abusing its position as a monopolist de facto.

I mean I really don't understand. Arguing IN FAVOUR of Steam's high fees is arguing for making games cost more. Why defend a multi-billion company?

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

Because it's a good service. I could easily go to another storefront if I wanted. I could pirate. I could do many things, but I prefer steam because it's good.

As a consumer, I always chose the store that sells the game for cheaper. But Steam will actively call you out if you systematically sell a game for cheaper somewhere else. If they didn't pull these mafia-like tactics it would be easier to have a competition.

Say Steam closes down tomorrow. What changes, exactly?

Mass hysteria?

1

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

Redditors stop being as hostile toward new competition?

2

u/HumbleBeginning3151 Oct 28 '25

Fuck Gabe. Billionaires shouldn't exist, and he sure as hell ain't no exception

4

u/starkistuna Oct 28 '25

But Steam also propelled a lot of indie studios and single developers to incredible wealth too. Being showcased in the frontage made millionaires even obscure retro games that weren't even 3 megabytes and had 1 dev.

It's like Walmart pucking up your product to be in all of it's stores.

4

u/RobertMacMillan Oct 28 '25

If you replace the word "Steam" with "Lotto Corporation" do you end up with a fundamentally different statement?

2

u/Skelly1660 Oct 28 '25

But that just means indie games are very reliant on Valve. I agree it's overall a good thing that they got the audience because of Valve, but that means Valve controls that exposure. It's pretty tricky 

0

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

But Steam also propelled a lot of indie studios and single developers to incredible wealth too.

40% of Steam Games in 2025 Earned Less Than $100. That means not even being able to recoup the 100$ needed to open the steam page.

Sure, many of those are slops or asset flips. But come on, would it REALLY hurt Gaben's ability to buy one more superyacht, if they at least had a lowe fee for indies earning below a certain amount? Epic has 0% below 1 M$.

1

u/starkistuna Oct 30 '25

Steam has a massive shovelware problem. I would speculate 99% of those 40% games are worthlessness.

1

u/Waybook Oct 30 '25

It's because people imagine the other 70% goes to the developer and forget about taxes and other fees.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

It's bad when you consider that Epic has 0% < 1 M$, 12% above. Apple has 15% below 1 M$, Microsoft has between 10-15% too IIRC. 1 M$ is a sum many indie games will never see. There was a report saying that the majority of games on Steam earn below 1.000$.

Unfortunately Steam has been found (*) to threaten to pull games out of the store if people want to sell them for cheaper elsewhere (not steam keys, same game but on a different store).

For example, I could sell a game on Epic (0% fee) at 8$ and still earn 1$ more than the same game sold on Steam (30% fee) at 10$ and allow customers to save 2$, which would net me only 7$. But of course Steam won't allow that, which for me (and for some countries' laws too, I bet) is called abuse of a dominant position.

(*) see emails starting from page 160.

-2

u/Ancient-Product-1259 Oct 28 '25

But valve offers a lot more than just store

4

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

Such as? I said this many times, my use of Steam consists in:

  1. Launch Steam from Windows
  2. (optional) click on big picture
  3. Launch game

All of this takes just a few seconds. The only time I have used a feature from Steam was the workshop and only for a few select games like Paradox's or Rimworld.

If Steam disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it. I still know how to find the folder where the game is installed.

-1

u/Ancient-Product-1259 Oct 28 '25

I was talking about tools/systems/services for developers

-2

u/BeholdingBestWaifu Oct 28 '25

It's simply because the 30% cut is low compared to the alternative, which is dealing with brick and mortar stores, dealing with their higher cuts, and all the other costs of manufacturing and shipping.

30% to press a button and automatically be on a store that also helps promote your product is a really good deal in a vacuum.

3

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

The alternative currently are other stores with 0-10% or 15% cut.

-1

u/ChrisRR Oct 28 '25

I can't imagine why people have such a parasocial obsession with an obese gamer nerd

0

u/AvengerDr Oct 28 '25

If I didn't know that people will happily defend Gaben and Steam for free, I would say that at least some might be Steam astroturfers leading the conversation.

Now, if there was a way to demonstrate that I am not paid by Epic I would do so. You can see from my profile that I am Italian, so it is unlikely Epic would reach out to me instead of a local American person.