New estimates from Alinea Analytics show that Steam could have broken a $1.7 billion September record, and Valve's own F2P games are raking in big bucks.
And they raised the price on the required subscription service, are closing game studios, and forcing people to only buy games through them. Oh, wait; that’s Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo…
That’s true. My point, however, is that the narrative around Valve is that they’re the “good guy”. In reality they’re just not as awful as the rest and are only doing the bare minimum. They’re part of the problem. You’ll never in a million years convince me that gaben is a decent guy when he owns 6 yachts. The biggest one even has a hospital, it’s ridiculous.
In the ideal world they’d do it oppositely, low/no cut on the first income and then increase it for the bigger productions.
But capitalism gonna capitalism, and the whales could be legitimate competitions. So they get it cheap, while the fish pay 30% to be on the biggest market
If I were in their shoes I wouldn’t either, reducing the cut now increases the chance you would need to increase it later which for a platform largely thriving off goodwill would not be the smartest decision.
And they raised the price on the required subscription service, are closing game studios, and forcing people to only buy games through them. Oh, wait; that’s Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo…
You got me in the first half, no gonna lie.
Aaaallllmost downvoted you then, lol. My apologies.
They are ridiculously profitable though, yet they still maintain their 30% cut.
There are very very few for profit companies in the world that would even fleetingly think about reducing their profit for no reason.
That’s true. My point, however, is that the narrative around Valve is that they’re the “good guy”. In reality they’re just not as awful as the rest and are only doing the bare minimum. They’re part of the problem. You’ll never in a million years convince me that gaben is a decent guy when he owns 6 yachts. The biggest one even has a hospital, it’s ridiculous.
We also know of very little philanthropy or charity Gabe does.
This could just mean he donates non-publicly, or barely at all, we can’t be sure.
In the ideal world they’d do it oppositely, low/no cut on the first income and then increase it for the bigger productions.
But capitalism gonna capitalism, and the whales could be legitimate competitions. So they get it cheap, while the fish pay 30% to be on the biggest market
If I were in their shoes I wouldn’t either, reducing the cut now increases the chance you would need to increase it later which for a platform largely thriving off goodwill would not be the smartest decision.