I would love for Steam to have **actual competition. Which is difficult, sure, but you could run a slightly less feature-rich store, take less of a cut, and pass the reduction fully on to consumers and you'd be an easy choice for many gamers.

But that's not what Epic is after. They tried to go hard after the sellers, figuring that if they can corner enough fo the market with exclusives the buyers will have to come. But they underestimated that even their nigh-infinite coffers struggle to keep up with the raw amount of games releasing, and also the unpredictability of the indie market where you can't really know what to buy as an exclusive.
Nevermind that buying one is a good way to make it forgotten.

So yeah, fully agreed. Compared to Epic, I vastly prefer Steam's 30% cut. As the consumer I pay the same anyways, and Steam offers lots of stuff for it like forums, a client that boots before the heat death of the universe, in-house streaming, library sharing, cloud sync that sometimes works.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is asinine. You pay higher costs for games, and Valve gets to pretend to give you something for free. That is not something to like or admire.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Am not sure I have ever overpaid a game on Steam. It's either same price everywhere or I get it at stupid discounts during sales. There's no pretending. Valve even said it there are things in place should Steam ever disappear you get to keep your games.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, you have, because developers price their games to still make money even after 30% goes to Valve.