• MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    As long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic (or other place that offers 12%), it’s a better deal for developers as well.

    (math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)

    • Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.

      • MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam’s services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Plus, their investment into Linux gaming and FOSS in general are preventing PC gaming from being locked down to a singled OS that becomes a walled garden.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.