Valve is private and already takes a 30% cut. It's not possible for valve OR epic to enshit according to the definition of the word.

Are they? Interesting word definitions here.

> Valve is private and already takes a 30% cut. Yes. That is rather high, but AFAIK the same on Xbox, PlayStation and GOG. Itch.io is on 10%. > It's not possible for valve OR epic to enshit according to the definition of the word. What do you mean by that? Enshittyfication is when companies try to offer a good platform first to reach many content producers and consumers and then, once the consumers and producers depend on the platform, it goes bad for them in order to favor profits of the company owners or stakeholders. Just because a company is private, it can still change to favor short term money extractions from all their customers.

Care to elaborate further on specific events or even just link some articles for a lazy bones like me? (I only get free games from epic and then never play them)

Wait, I'm confused. The article is about how Epic *won't* take a cut to a point. Surely, you're not giving money to Epic if you buy the game on EGS?

Completely unrelated, but is your username a reference to the movie Can't Hardly Wait?

At least Valve takes some of the money that they make from Steam and use it for Steam. You cant run an entire gaming platform based on developers alone, you also need to make it at least somewhat bearable for consumers.

100% of $0 is still $0. I'll spend my money on platforms that have proven to respect their customers.

epic can have a seat at the table when they actually start competing with valve in terms of features and customer service.

even if they do become pro-consumer you shouldn't spend there. because it'd be a temporary affair and soon as they win market share from steam it'll disappear.

in this case you can.

No just a play on the name amanda

but no, steam has maintained its 30% cut *since its inception* do you know the rate publishers like EA demand? 50%. EA is just pissed valve is a better and more reasonable publisher than they are. so long as EA and other publishers exist and are taking a bigger cut than valve. I'm happy to give valve a pass atm at the better option.

You are mistaking publishing for distribution. Publishing is not distribution.

*smile* the whole point of publishers back in the day before the internet *was* distribution and marketing. no I am not mistaking one for the other.

No, you absolutely are. Publishers will typically pay for retail manufacturing costs (so printing, boxing and shipping), but that's not the same as digital distribution. Digital distribution doesn't map to shipping game boxes, it maps to retail. Which is why games on Steam have deals with publishers, NOT with Valve.

> so they can keep feeding a monopoly that licenses drm keys to them. I guess I don't understand Epic's model. How is Epic different from Steam in this regard?

> Invested too much money If Steam turns to shit I have no problems reacquiring my collection through Piracy. There is no sunk-cost here. Epic is actively anti-consumer so I refuse to use it.

If my purchase on Epic helps the game reach $1 million in revenue then I am giving money to Epic.

> One approach is objectively better for the little guys than the other. I'm a littler guy than any game company, Epic treats me like shit. So I'm not going to use Epic.