• Scott@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    He can go fuck himself with a 6" railroad spike.

    At least Gaben is pushing the Linux gaming community forward!

    • mihnt@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      BUT 30%!!!

      Yeah, that 30% means I can ditch Windows. At least it’s being used for good and not just* yachts.

        • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Just because there’s an outdated industry standard doesn’t mean it should be perpetuated, let alone supported, for eternity. Valve’s server hosting costs on a per-installation basis have fallen substantially since they first launched Steam, so there’s no reason why the 30% cut is still necessary; even 20% would leave them a sizable profit margin. I’m not a fan of the Epic Game Store for bribing companies to not release their games on Steam for a set amount of time, and choose not to use it as a result, but it’s time that the 30% industry standard be dropped. In purchasing a game I want to support continued development of that franchise, and $15 of a $50 purchase going to the storefront is not only excessive and inflationary, but harms developers as well.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I guess you wouldm’t be complaining if they never improved efficiencies then, since decreasing costs should apparently be passed on to distributers. Shame on them for improving their business sonthey could use those profits to create the steam deck and other benefits for gamers instead of propping up the profits of game companies!

            Should game companies lower their proces based on volume of sales when they make ‘enough’ profit?

            • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Valve could still operate as it currently does, including having sufficient profits to account for R&D and long-term costs, at a lower cut of platform sales (as another commenter mentioned, Gabe Newell’s billion dollar yacht collection is demonstrative of the platform’s profitability, especially when one considers how much it costs to maintain ships). Products such as the Steam Deck make money for Valve too, as Steam Deck users (myself included) statistically buy more games on Steam as a result. I don’t support profiteering efforts by game publishers either, such as the Factorio price increase attributed to inflation, $70 game releases attributed to inflation when digital releases have reduced their costs, and micro transactions in general. In any case, however, given that cost increases are always the consumer’s responsibility, cost decreases should not simply be a means for companies to bolster their profit margins.