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.
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.