I think you are missing the point of my question. Why would valve get in legal trouble if they charged less? Both EGS and steam is stored, no? They should be bound by the same laws. Afaik there are no special laws just because you are the market leader.

So that means they operate under a different law which was the point of my question? Doubt.

I think you maybe need to take a second look at this post- you seem to be substituting random words at places and it makes it difficult to tell what you're trying to say.

Epic is in no position or standing to compete against valve. To be a monopoly, you have to actually own an overwhelming portion of the market you're in.

Oh, I mean within the realm / market sector of video games. Both Meta and Amazon have been uh, extremely expensive failures when it comes to anything other than MTX, game-as-a-job style video games. Amazon Game Studios proved throwing near infinite money at making games doesn't work if you have no idea what you are doing. Luna also failed. Facebook literally rebranded to Meta as they were trying to convince everyone they had essentially invented the VR Internet... and to prove this, they gave us essentially an alpha version of some Mii-verse style VR experiences. Google tried to do Stadia, promised us you would not need a local machine powerful enough to render a high fidelity game, because they had invented negative latency. Apple fairly recently released $3000k VR goggles that uh... kind of let you do some extremely basic office work. Etc etc. All of these very major tech companies that decided they were gonna be video game companies too? Pretty much all their endeavors were total internal failures, net losses for them, but, it doesn't matter in the long run because they all make so much money from their core business model, which for all but Apple, is spying on consumers and selling them hypertargetted ads. --- A lot of people give Valve a lot of shit for MTX in terms of things like tradeable CS2 weapon skins, and a lot of that is deserved. But they're forgetting that Facebook actually invented that entire thing, with Farmville. It was with Farmville that Facebook realized you can gamify anything, and then you can monetize that gamification. Farmville is what kicked off the transition into the gamified, data monger, attention economy.

> You can cross the ocean safely and in comfort on 30k yachts, 10ish metres. And even less than that! Anything can be a dildo if you're brave enough.

Yup, there are a lot of bad charities, and the good ones often can't handle billions in donations. And doing that takes time away from things you enjoy. There's a reason he didn't step away from his position until his 90s, he likes what he does.

The least stinky poop is still stinky poop.

Yes, sorry auto correct got me this time and english is not my native language while writing in a hurry. I should spend more time to try and be throughout in my writing. I don't know the laws but from what I read from the previous message is that valve can't do what epic does because that would be unfair and create a monopoly. To me this sounds very strange as depending on your position in the market you would abide by different laws? If epic would gain a lot more people and players, would they also need to charge more per game then?

I figured it was something like that, no big. To answer your question, the idea there is that the average market take is 30%- valve takes 30%, apple, google, microsoft, sony, nintendo, etc etc all take 30%. Physical publishers take more, but for eshops, 30% is 'standard.' EGS does 12%, but they: 1. Don't have as many features/smaller team/less servers/etc 2. Are losing money on EGS, it's solely being propped up by Fortnite money 3. Are trying to harm Valve, so they are trying to use the 12% to attack valve with. The concern for Steam is that, as market leader, they have a lot of advantages that other companies cannot or would not have- Perhaps Valve, because of their immense size and economies of scale, could get away with 12% and still making a profit, but they don't for two reasons: 1. Lets be real here, they don't have to. 2. If Valve only did a 12% take, nobody else could compete with that because nobody else is big enough to. 2 seems a bit paradoxial, but the idea here is that Valve doesn't want to use it's market position in a way that prevents other, smaller companies from being able to compete, because _that_ is a monopoly. Valve wants to be market leader, NOT a monopoly, because that is obviously illegal. So it's safer for them to stay at the 'market average' that other companies CAN compete with, and obviously they benefit anyway, because there's really no gain for them to lower their own percentage. THey could get accused of monopoly abuse, they lower their take, and doing so wouldn't gain them any market share.