this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
260 points (100.0% liked)

Games

37263 readers
1174 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aquila@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What would a better option look like? Steam user experience is great. Games are cheap entertainment. What more could you ask for?

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

My only real concern with Valve is what will happen when Gabe passes or retires. Who knows how his replacement will direct steam.

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A lower cut. 30% revenue cut means we pay more than necessary for games and we also miss out on some indie games that cannot be profitable with such a large cut.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago

We already know lowering the cut doesn't make us pay less. All it does is put more money into the pockets of the publisher.

And I very much doubt Valve's cut is a reason indie game can't be profitable. There are asset flips going up on Steam on a daily basis. If asset flipping wasn't profitable we wouldn't see them propping up like mushrooms after rain. When asset flips are more profitable than an indie game there's something wrong with that game.