this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
631 points (95.0% liked)
Games
22039 readers
185 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Brother, go back and read the OP. You cannot claim that 30% is fair while the man camps on an Armada of yachts worth over a billion dollars. This is not a distraction, this is the problem. There's just no way that makes any sense.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never called the 30% "fair." I've been trying to steer the conversation toward what a discussion about its fairness should actually be based on: the value of the services Steam provides.
You are fixated on Gabe Newell's personal wealth as the sole proof that the cut is unjust. That's an emotional argument about wealth disparity, not a logical analysis of the platform's costs and value.
Let me be clear: whether a CEO's personal spending is excessive is a separate moral and political debate. It doesn't, on its own, determine if the price of a service is justified. The cost of servers, development, support, and the global infrastructure Steam maintains is what's relevant here.
If you want to argue that the platform itself isn't worth the cut, make that case. But simply pointing to a yacht and saying "see, it's unfair" is a non-sequitur. It's a distraction from the actual economic discussion.
LEt me be clear: It absolutely does. I can't think of a better indicator.
Actually, it's a terrible indicator, because it's completely disconnected from the service you're evaluating. Your anger is about wealth inequality and the ethics of extreme capitalism, which is a totally valid topic. But you're using that anger to answer a different question: 'What is a fair price for this service?'
But you are insisting on using that separate topic as the only metric for this one. Since we're fundamentally talking about two different issues and you're refusing to engage with the point about service value, I don't see this conversation being productive any longer.
It's not separate at all. It's very simple: if it was a good value, he wouldn't have all of that money. The fact that he's absurdly wealthy is a direct indicator that it's a poor value.