I know (think?) you’re arguing that Valve needs the large profit cut to develop features, but Gabe is absolutely a billionaire. You don’t reach yacht and submarine levels of money unless you’re exploiting someone.
I don’t think they’re arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they’re arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.
In a capitalist system there’s no transaction that can’t be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.
There’s no game marketplace that isn’t looking to exploit someone.
The question isn’t “is someone being exploited”, it’s “how severe is the exploitation” and “is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice”.
Because we don’t have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.
I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn’t reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn’t have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.
It’s not that they need it to develop features, it’s that if developers want to claim that Steam is overcharging, they need to be willing to give up access to the features Steam provides, because Steam is providing a service to developers through that promotion. As a personal anecdote, I’ve bought tons of games that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere except on Steam, and would never have found at all if not for Steam promoting them to me.
The popular complaint is that if your game isn’t on Steam, it doesn’t sell on PC. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider whether simply existing on Steam is all it takes, because if not, then Steam is clearly providing a service to them above and beyond simply having their game available to buy on its storefront.
I know (think?) you’re arguing that Valve needs the large profit cut to develop features, but Gabe is absolutely a billionaire. You don’t reach yacht and submarine levels of money unless you’re exploiting someone.
I don’t think they’re arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they’re arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.
In a capitalist system there’s no transaction that can’t be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.
There’s no game marketplace that isn’t looking to exploit someone.
The question isn’t “is someone being exploited”, it’s “how severe is the exploitation” and “is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice”.
Because we don’t have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.
I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn’t reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn’t have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.
It’s not that they need it to develop features, it’s that if developers want to claim that Steam is overcharging, they need to be willing to give up access to the features Steam provides, because Steam is providing a service to developers through that promotion. As a personal anecdote, I’ve bought tons of games that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere except on Steam, and would never have found at all if not for Steam promoting them to me.
The popular complaint is that if your game isn’t on Steam, it doesn’t sell on PC. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider whether simply existing on Steam is all it takes, because if not, then Steam is clearly providing a service to them above and beyond simply having their game available to buy on its storefront.