Games

21177 readers

361 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
Mark spoilers
No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

jack@hexbear.net

RiotDoll@hexbear.net

Valve makes almost $50 million per employee, raking in more cash per person than Google, Amazon, or Microsoft — gaming giant's 350 employees on track to generate $17 billion this year (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by Champoloo@hexbear.net to c/games@hexbear.net

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 14 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not an unreasonable cut, the reason they're successful is they provide such a good service that any time someone thinks "well I don't wanna pay that 30% cut, I'll just do it myself" they fail. That 30% is for all the million features that benefit both devs and players which nobody wants to build an alternative for.

I mean it is unreasonable in that this sort of thing should be publicly owned and operated infrastructure, rather than a digital walled garden for the master who owns it to make obscene profits from

part of what you describe is people "not wanting to build" an alternative, but part of it is also that 1) building an alternative means dealing with breaking into what is effectively a monopoly, and you can see how successful that's been for Origin/Epic/whatever, who seem to be slowly gaining steam but that's only after years of literally giving away free $60 games just to get people to download their launcher and 2) having alternatives ultimately degrades the quality for everyone because instead of having one integrated service you now have all these competitors with all their varying (or missing) features and just the general hassle of having to keep up with what's on any of them

[–] booty@hexbear.net 5 points 4 weeks ago

building an alternative means dealing with breaking into what is effectively a monopoly, and you can see how successful that's been for Origin/Epic/whatever

Yeah it's not successful for Origin or Epic because their idea of breaking a monopoly is to strongarm their own pseudo-monopoly by bringing Console Wars to the PC, which is one of the dumbest ideas possible. If Origin or Epic ever made their service good instead of just walling off exclusive games and forcing users to use their obviously terrible software (a move which creates the most negative possible feelings toward your company) they would be a lot more successful.