235

Ubisoft comes crawlin' back to Steam (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 day ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Funwayguy@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago

As much as I agree the 30% cut can be a bit steep, I do appreciate that part of it is going into ongoing R&D like Steam Deck and Proton benefiting the whole gaming industry. I'd like to think of it like Valve are investing into PC innovation similarly to the way Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo do for their new consoles.

[-] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 31 points 21 hours ago

If you have to choose an evil monopoly hell bent on world domination and bloodshed you might as well choose steam at least they are owned by a private individual instead of a hive mind distilled from the pure greed of capitalism.

[-] CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world 35 points 22 hours ago

But unlike valve the console R&D is limited to the consoles themselves. Valve is working to improve gaming for Linux in general and foster a more open and consumer friendly console system.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -5 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

A big part is going to buying yachts as well so Valve and Newell could 100% afford to charge a lot less than 30% and still do just as much r&d

To the downvoters: I hurt your feelings by saying that multibillionaire bad? :( Their money comes from your pockets, wake the fuck up.

https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php

[-] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

AFAIK it falls to a lower percentage if you sell more copies. As to why I dont mind the fee as a consumer; valve invests its earnings into linux gaming and does cool shit like that. I can't remember the last time i aplauded ea or ubisoft or epic for doing something like that. Oh yeah.. it was never. Id sooner applaud Microsoft for investing into a non lucrative venture like accessible gaming accessories. But they aren't on the same playing field.. so from them, I'd expect it.

If i were a developer, I'd let valve eat the 30%. The amount of customers they bring to the table, deal with chargebacks, host the files. That shit isn't free. Epic has to take such a low amount because they don't have as many users and can't produce such sales numbers and don't have to deal with as many chargebcks and don't have to waste as much bandwidth hosting the files.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

Again, they can afford their R&D while paying their employees more than the industry average and while making the owner a multibillionaire, they 100% could afford to lower their cut without any negative impact on everyone but Gabe Newell.

The lower % starts if a game sells enough copies to make 10m$, Valve has made 3m$ at that point.

Stop defending the people that make you poorer, they're not your friends, all billionaires exist at the expense of our wealth. All. Of. Them. Are. Evil.

[-] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Well I guess I'll just stop buying things then because all Im doing is contributing to some billionaire's cocaine fund. This is capitalism. I learned to live with it. When the time comes to sieze the means of production and give power back to the proletariat, I'll be there to help. Until then, I'd rather give Gabe my money so he can shove more ships up his ass than give it to Sweeney because at least Gabe will throw a penny back into linux gaming. Ill take the crumbs if I can get them because Im not a 21 year old student with a burning desire to change the system anymore.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 hours ago

There's a difference between dealing with it and defending it, you're doing the latter by saying 30% is ok because reasons.

[-] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

And those "reasons" were plentiful. Most importantly is their market share. From a purely business perspective, if a distributor has 200% more users and charges 100% more while offering the same features, they will be the better choice - purely from en economical perspective. 30% is ok because you will reach a larger audience and if so many publishers disagreed with Steam's cut, they wouldnt all come crawlin' back would they? In other words, the market dictates the price and the market has decided that price is 30%. It doesnt matter who does or doesnt defend it. Thats what it is.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 hours ago

As to why I dont mind the fee as a consumer; valve invests its earnings into linux gaming and does cool shit like that.

You're also talking like they wouldn't have as many customers if they reduced their cut which is completely ridiculous. More profit would go to the people actually doing the work or prices would go down.

Stop defending the billionaire, you're making a fool of yourself.

[-] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 8 points 14 hours ago

I don't know why you're being down voted, he is literally a billionaire

'No ethical billionaires' apart from this guy apparently

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I've had this conversation so many times and some people just can't imagine that they might be paying more than they need to just so Gabe can collect yachts... People feel they're getting their money's worth because everything they've ever bought is priced based on the fact that there's multimillionaires and billionaires higher up the chain...