this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
254 points (98.5% liked)
Games
32759 readers
2085 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a difference between dealing with it and defending it, you're doing the latter by saying 30% is ok because reasons.
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.
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.