987
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
987 points (100.0% liked)
Steam Hardware
21721 readers
222 users here now
A place to discuss and support all Steam Hardware, including Steam Deck, Steam Machine, Steam Frame, and SteamOS in general.
As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title
The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Deck] - Steam Deck related.
[Machine] - Steam Machine related.
[Frame] - Steam Frame related.
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.
If your post is only relevant to one hardware device (Deck/Machine/Frame/etc) please specify which one as part of the title or by using a device flair.
These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.
Rules:
- Follow the rules of Sopuli
- Posts must be related to Steam Hardware or Steam OS in an obvious way.
- No piracy, there are other communities for that.
- Discussion of emulators are allowed, but no discussion on how to illegally acquire ROMs.
- This is a place of civil discussion, no trolling.
- Have fun.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent is defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they're making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it's certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn't happen if Steam didn't exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don't have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn't because it's so great for the developers. It's because they don't have a choice.
"Thats just the way things are" isn't an argument. "Slavery is just the way we do things! You can't say it's bad! We wouldn't make a profit otherwise!" Not a good argument, right?
To help developers. It seems like you're purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it'd be better for developers. I didn't say they'd make more profit. There's a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn't mean you should. It'd be good for the industry if they charged less. It'd allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.
Again, there isn't a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it's worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn't mean it's the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.
IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.
What do you define "defending" as? You're making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn't define that as defence? I'm not framing it as defence. It just is.
Yes. But nobody knows. It certainly is lower. But again, and this is the last time I say this: A service needs to be finanically successful. This business is more than just it's operating cost. On top of that, I'll say this one again: The service is just worth it. Nobody in the world offers such an easy handling of the entire distribution chain combined with such a massive audience.
While that's true, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that 30% is usually a fairly decent sweet spot for a platform when it comes to running a distribution system. I've build quite a few marketplaces in my time, and the standard fees were between 20% and 40%, all depending on how much work the platform had to do.
There's plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you're never going to reach the audience you'd do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
You make defending sound like I'm a company white-knight that'll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn't the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don't think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
Yeah, it won't be more profitable. It isn't a choice. There is a small choice for some games of distributing it yourself. This is incredibly cheap (which proves Valve's profit margin is insane), but 99% of players won't leave Steam. This means it isn't a choice for all but a few niche games. Starsector, for example, distributes it on their own, so they get a 100% cut. The players who want to play that are generally more intelligent and can get it off of Steam. For something like CoD, that's marketed towards mass appeal go the absolute minimum of technological literacy, you have to be on Steam. There isn't a choice.
You've already agreed it's worse than it being lower. You don't think it's bad enough to be upset over, but you agree it's worse than it could be. That's the difference. I won't stop at "better than it could be." I'll always argue for more from a company, and you should too.
Everything is worse than it can be. We're not living in a utopia.
I'm not expecting a business to always act in the best interest of everyone, that is just completely unreasonable. I'm not even expecting individual people to always act in the best interest of anyone but themselves. And the fact that valve has never raised prices, never worsened their service (intentionally), never tried to shaft anyone and in general never attempted to extort their presumed "monopoly" is the highest bar I can reasonably set for any entity, business or personal.
Maybe you heard of don vultaggio, the founder and CEO of arizona ice tea. That company has never increased their prices since 1992. In an interview, when asked why, he said: "We’re successful, we’re debt free, we own everything. Why have people who are having a hard time paying their rent pay more for their drink?". You're not going to see me ask him to lower the price because clearly he "can afford it" (his net worth is 6 billion. Not quite gabe, but still extraordinarily wealthy). The man is doing everything I can reasonably expect from a business: Not squeeze consumers, not treat staff shitty and not worsen their product for profit. Valve is doing the same thing, just on a much much larger scale.
I feel you have completely unreasonable standards when it comes to businesses. Which is your right to have, I'm not gonna sit here and say your standards are wrong. I just think that, in a realistic world view, while your intentions may be good, your expectations are unreasonable. And I also think that is just something we're fundamentally never going to agree on.