It already comes with a hefty fee of 30% per sale on the platform. I don't think they can raise that without serious backlash. And there also isn't really a need, Steam prints money. It prints money because it's where users are. Users are there because they like the features. Some good features are only there because of laws (e.g. refunding); Valve can't remove these.

So how would you make the service even more profitable?

Enshittification happens because corporations want (more) money out of a service that built a userbase. These were often running at a loss. To turn a profit, they need to change.

Steam can sell you licenses to games you don't own already. It's up to each publisher. Valve doesn't care, they just deliver.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Think of it more like Netflix. Netflix was great, then the market fractured and Netflix enshitified in response.

What it would take here is for a publisher to become a real distributor in the space, but competition is weak right now. Just like it really took Disney wading in to disrupt Netflix, it would take someone equally large, like Microsoft, to disrupt Steam. Sorry Ubisoft, but you don't cut it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Publishers already tried this (EA, Ubisoft, etc) and it didn't really work. They came back to Steam.

[–] Dudewitbow 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

because they didnt learn, in order to make more profit per sale on your platform, you either:

make a platform consumer friendly enough that people are willing to use it (the part that is most important)

make a game thats "good enough" that people will use your platform as a service (e.g Riot)

EA and Ubisoft (mostly) failed at both, with both hanging on a thread (Apex for EA, R6S for Ubisoft)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)