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
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Epics 12% and they operate with how many more employees?
So what is valve doing with all this extra money than on Gabe?
Epics are posers at this point, or one could say a fake platform. Remove Fortnite from them and it will shut down immediately, especially at 12%.
You realize the others only charge that much since steam set the standard… yeah? All of them can charge less so what’s your point here? You clearly lied in your original comment, and are now making up points to defend it.
I'll wait for you to prove this.
Prove that they are profitable at 30% if they couldn’t go lower at least one or two would be near the red every single year, yet it’s climbing profits….?
But you know there is no physical proof of this, yet you claim it? I’m sorry you got to do a little critical thinking on your own. Most can obviously take atleast down to 25% if not significantly more and still be positive.
You made the initial claim, so it’s up to you to prove it’s unprofitable to be less than 30%, balls in your court if you actually want to discuss this.
No, prove that what you said is correct. It's historical data in your case, about how Steam started the 30% trend, allegedly.
My claim was that 30% was a standard before Steam, not at all about how much less profitable it would be for them if it was different.
Also putting the blame on Steam for others allegedly following its model is not logical if your point is about how obvious it always was that 30% is excessive.
Are any of those other store fronts newer than steam?
If not, why would they have any need or business sense to charge less?
You’re moving goal posts and refusing to accept responsibility for your original claims. That’s not discussing in good faith.
Retail stores.
Because their business is different from steam? Or maybe because they are more experienced in business and could show the world how it's done? Wait, why do we even assume that Steam had such huge influence around the time when other digital stores popped up (some of which also didn't live very long)? The pc gaming was massively considered niche for a very long time, only until recent years. I can't imagine Apple going "oh right, we are creating our own digital store mostly for mobile devices so we need to check how that PC gaming company does their business, to copy their practices".
Everything is fine with them.
Epic tried to pull an Amazon.
Get VC money and subsidize and undercut competition using anticompetitive practices to gain market share before the rug pull where they jack up their margins to the industry standard.
The difference is Amazon actually made a good software experience in the beginning few years and Epic spent literal years with very few feature updates and whining about "unfair market practices" when they were the only ones actually engaging in anti-consumer passes like paying off developers to be Epic-exclusive and buying developers and removing their games from steam.