this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
731 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

58174 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

With a 30% cut they make enough surplus that the owner is a billionaire that can afford 6 yacht, there's no reason why you or anyone should defend Valve's decision to be so profitable instead of making games cheaper and that applies to any company where the owner is rich.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If steam took a smaller cut game prices wouldn't budge a single goddamn cent and you know it

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

It's not just about Steam taking a smaller cut, the whole distribution chain makes it so the people developing the product are the poorest ones in the development to consumer process.

If publishers and distributors took a smaller cut and prices stayed the same instead of going down, it would mean that developers would get more money for their work, developers are people like you and me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yachts. This can't be more silly. And what would you say if he didn't own those yachts? "Look at the bank account of that guy who owns almost a whole gaming platform because others are not qualified enough to compete with his company"?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly what people should say, billionaires shouldn't exist, it's that simple. 80% of US citizens live paycheck to paycheck, people have a hard time affording to pay for basic needs, meanwhile you've got companies that take a big enough cut on everything they sell that their owner can afford to spend in a day more than the average person will make in their whole life without having to even think about the impact that will have on their ability to pay their bills.

The wealth they accumulate comes directly from our pockets, stop defending them, they exist because we pay more for things than they're truly worth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't get what you want. Propose a reality where it'll be impossible to become a billionaire? Would it be like communism or something?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't need to be communism, just need a system in place to limit profits. Everyone but the most wealthy would end up with more money in their pockets if companies didn't make billions in profit that goes to their owners and investors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Good luck with that? I don't know how much far this reality is, but I'd guess it's not current century. Not that I wouldn't support it, it just doesn't seem realistic and positive st the same time right now.