• 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s because Valve is a private corporation, Gabe Newell has managed it well, they don’t hire idiots, and they pay their employees well.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        Last time I checked, Epic Games has plenty of money to compete. Monopoly implies competition is actively being stopped. Valve hasn’t done much to stop competition other than making a good product that people use.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          No it doesn’t. Anticompetittive behaviour is a seperate issue. One often imployed by monopolists, but seperate nonetheless.

      • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        Is 30% on average “huge” considering the platform and total number of averages monthly users? I know that number does move around a bit as well.

        I guess considering the ease of use for users and the fact that other platforms exist, they might be considered a monopoly only because nothing else of quality has shown up. It’s not like they’re buying out competitors and paying politicians to create laws and expectations to give them a competitive advantage. They’re literally just better than the other shit. Except arguably GoG which is solid in its own right, though not in the same ways as Steam.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        take a huge cut of developer’s revenue

        They don’t. No other platform will provide all of the benefits Steam provides for only 30% OR LESS of every sale.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          30% is a huge cut. Epic takes 12%

          When valve was establishing steam, 30% was justified. They had to invest in the product. They took a risk. They don’t have to now and they are profiteering.

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Epic has admitted they’re taking a loss at 12%. Also, Epic’s store is shit, complete barebones, barely works as a way to buy games.

            • kaffiene@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              And valve have admitted they’re making more profit than anyone else in the space. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed a profit, I’m saying there’s an argument that they (and Apple via the Apple store) are taking too much from the work of others

              • Gabu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                And that argument is idiotic, as proven by the fact that even bribing people to their shitty Epig Store, Epic can’t compete with the value Steam provides.

                Differently from Apple, Steam hasn’t put any barriers in place to stop competitors nor have they forced exclusivity on publishers for their platform.

                  • Gabu@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Yay, I’ve found another illiterate person!

                    hasn’t put any barriers in place to stop competitors nor have they forced exclusivity on publishers for their platform.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it is more because of heavy encouraging of being proactive.