this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
774 points (98.1% liked)

PC Gaming

8635 readers
262 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
774
In 2018 a group of Valve staff tried to figure out just how efficient they were being—and found they were making more money per head than Apple, Facebook, and nearly every tech giant out there (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 8 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
224 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Once again, they profit by accepting Steams cut, proving that Steam earns and deserves it. There Itch.io, GoG, Epic, or they can go Minecrafts route and sell their game on their own site. Steam does nothing to hamper competition. Steams cut is entirely optional, a dev doesnt HAVE to put their game up on Steams marketplace. Steam is earning that cut by being a marketplace that brings devs more sales

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, they don't have to use the largest and most popular storefront at all. Good economic e sense right there. People didn't have to use Internet Explorer, but that was deemed a monopoly. The existence of alternatives doesn't make them automatically economically viable

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, and their cut for letting you use the largest storefront out there that THEY BUILT AND GOT THERE, is 30%. If you are earning more money paying that 30% and being on their storefront than you would by rejecting that cut and listing somewhere else, than that is full proof that Steam is earning that cut.

Also, internet explorer came bundled with Windows and THATS why it was deemed a monopoly. You have to specifically choose to download Steam, it gets no starter advantage over the competition.

Steam is the most popular storefront because its the BEST storefront, there is no ulterior motivation putting it at the top, its just that all of its competition barring Itch and GoG are garbage. Steam is still better than the non garbage competition though and why it can get away with its incredibly minor option for built in DRM and its 30% cut. They use their cut to make an amazing storefront, and the developers who choose to pay that cut benefit from the customers that having the worlds best PC marketplace brings.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That stream is good doesn't make it not a monopoly

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What makes it not a monopoly is that it isnt. It has competitors, it does nothing to block competition. It is not responsible for its competition not being as good as it is.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

The existence of competition doesn't make it not a monopoly. Nor anticompetittive behaviour