I hate the idea of more game stores because exclusives piss me off, and that's the only viable tactic another store could use to get people to leave steam. When Netflix was all there was, it was great. We saw in real time how that shitshow ended. I had to bring out my old ship and chart new waters. I do not want to do this with my game library.

Something like 70% of their net income comes from AWS that pretty much runs a huge portion of the internet.

And you didn't answer my question.

No no, you don't understand! He's one of the *good* billionaires! (/s for some of you, and for others perhaps you should reconsider why you feel the need to defend a billionaire, regardless of your opinion on video game platforms)

It's basically like G-Force now for a selection of GOG and epic games

Neat. Explaining how they got the monopoly doesn't change that they have a monopoly. Amazon or Epic could do all that - and they genuinely could, god knows they have the money - but the result would not be the same. They exist in the context of Steam already running shit. Adoption is a feature you cannot design. That's why Valve had to force it on people via Half-Life 2. > Tim Sweeny even said EGS is made for developers, with the implication it is not for consumers. What an absurd read. As if middlemen taking a third of revenue is pro-consumer.

Because such a ridiculous take doesn't warrant a response.

>What an absurd read. As if middlemen taking a third of revenue is pro-consumer. Considering this was a shift from retail where getting games to retail cost a great deal more, how exactly is that bad? Also you know nothing stops gamedevs from selling their keys elsewhere and getting all of the revenue right?

That shift was a quarter-century ago. 'It used to suck worse' is a bad excuse even when it's fresh. I don't care what Steam would cost if they were a brick-and-mortar store; they have only ever done digital distribution, and they have done it for a *while.* Their cut is so huge that they can afford to let devs sell keys elsewhere, knowing it makes no difference to their immense profit margin. Largely because their monopoly is self-reinforcing, and the number of off-site sales is a rounding error. Meanwhile: What Epic means by "for developers" is, developers keep more of the money. Walk me through how that's bad for you.

Lol. Sure, buddy.

From the get go you start by saying that if they try to lower their cut people will accuse them of trying to become a monopoly, which is completely idiotic considering they're already in a monopolistic position. Then you act like rich people have no power over the fact that they're accumulating wealth while the majority of the world is struggling to live. I have zero respect for people who defend those who take advantage of the majority. Off to the block list with you.

Lol. Take advantage of who?

I don't think they tried releasing a compelling product.

I think their biggest hurdle was that they are owned by Jeff Bezos

Yeah, Steam is a monopoly, but 1) they've been a monopoly since forever and there hasn't been a Comcast-ish disaster, and 2) more competition doesn't seem to actually benefit us here but could potentially make things a lot worse. In principle, Steam is a Sword Of Damocles just like any other Monopoly. In practice, the alternatives are EA and Epic, *no thank you* (I know itch.io is a good competitor, but they don't have any pull on AAA publishers so I don't expect them to take the market if Steam implodes). Also, Valve is innovating in ways that nobody else seems willing to - not just their Linux ports (represent!), but also their attempts on HTPC gaming (which was unnecessarily a huge pain in the ass on PC, for no good reason) and their steam controller. And their portable PC gaming with the Steam deck (which to be fair GPD probably did first). All in all, I'm happy to pay the Steam tax for what they're doing. I have no illusions that Epic Games Store would provide serious competition in terms of the goodies I want, because *they already aren't, and they're still in their sweetheart phase*.

They disrupted the status quo back in 2003 (2001?), then in 2009 they were doing Linux ports, then in ~2015 they were doing HTPC stuff (and also funding Linux graphic driver dev the entire time, Linux gaming in its current state *would not exist* without Valve), there was their Steam Machine experiment somewhere in there (it flopped but that doesn't make it cost any less), then they were doing Steam Deck stuff. They're still paying Linux graphic devs BTW.

>What Epic means by “for developers” is, developers keep more of the money. Walk me through how that’s bad for you. Why should we accept an objectively worse storefront run by psychopaths because developers make more money under some circumstances? EGS is not supporting open-source software, Linux, VR. Their online backend is awful, with their chat and multiplayer still sucking years later. No remote play or remote play together. They don't allow user tags or reviews. They are missing incredibly basic library sorting controls. No easily accessible news/update notes from developers. They have adopted virtually none of the pro-consumer moves such as identifying dead games, DRM, or third-party launchers before you buy. No custom profile pictures. Also worth noting the featured/recommended list in the Steam store does a good job, even sending me the odd game with like 5 reviews that might actually suit my interests. I have on more than one occasion bought games I'd probably never see without this, and I'm in some communities with indie devs. I've demoed and tested games no one has ever heard of. If Steam can find me gems in the rough while I'm that low to the ground, they're doing a good job. If that feature alone isn't worth Steam's cut to you, frankly you deeply misunderstand the marketplace in general and just how damned hard it is to sell a game as a nobody. EGS and Prime will never support indie devs or niche titles this way, because it doesn't make them money. Steam will, because it does. Think about that.

>> Why should we do a thing that's completely unrelated to the question being asked? Incorrect. What Epic means by "for developers," is... developers keep more of the money. Walk me through how *that, specifically,* is bad for you. I am not interested in general attacks against Epic. I make no general defense of Epic. Fortnite's business model should be illegal. But what you're doing is bad argumentation. You're reaching for ways to say 'Epic bad' as if that's gotta be relevant. As if attacking Epic in general constitutes a defense of one specific thing Valve does. As if promoting Valve in general means this one specific thing can't be wrong. As for indie support - Valve doesn't need to push big games on their store, because *they have a monopoly.* There is no sense telling people 'if you're gonna buy it on PC, buy it on Steam!,' because of course you will. Indie games 'don't make Epic money' because Alan fucking Wake barely makes them money. Their market share is garbage. Steam has the freedom and the incentive to push more game sales, of any kind, and there's a lot more little games than big ones. None of what Valve is doing would suddenly disappear if they took *only* one-quarter of gross revenue. Or a fifth. Or less. They're shaving straight off the top for nearly the entire PC gaming market. Their war-chest is ridiculous. They have such a "petro curse" that they briefly forgot to make games. Yet they treat the studios that make them *all of their money* the same way Nintendo and Sony squeeze console developers. Would criticizing *this specific cut* be easier, if we talked about Apple's iron grip on the App Store? Because it's the same damn policy. Feel free to talk shit about when Apple does it, if you insist on judging whole entities instead of what they do.

They also charge storage fees to keep your products on their shelf in the warehouse.

>Would criticizing this specific cut be easier, if we talked about Apple’s iron grip on the App Store? Because it’s the same damn policy. Except that it isn't? Apple doesn't let you circumvent their store, while Steam not only allows games to have their own monetization system, it allows off-site sales of the game on Steam. That is significantly more permissive, by a degree of magnitude that makes me wonder about your sincerity.