Because with Steam around any chance of a content delivery system that costs a game developer nothing more than cost of operation is doomed to failure. Its the same reason why people stick with the 360 after having gone through 10 bad ones. The nature of Steam is to get the consumer to become dependent on it. Steam is its own platform and once in you cannot take your games and find a competitor.
Boosted, though it's been two days, so I would hardly say "permanent".
So what would be preferable? Content delivery with a 30% cut or content delivery with a cut only necessary to run the system?
Was submitted 4th November
But they do reject quite a lot of indie games, it's pretty hard to get in.
You don't understand. Some kind of Linux-like content distribution system couldn't do for Sequence what Steam did. Valve's sales aren't charity; they earn insane, impossible amounts of money for both themselves and their clients. The Great Gift Pile and discounts led to me selling more copies during a 28-hour period than in the entire history of my Steam sales combined.
You are right. Such a thing is probably too good for this world. Much better to trade one pimp for another.
Well, according to water_wendi, this is the PC platform so everything the user wants to have/do should be separated by a degree of obfuscation or some hindrance. Mods should not be allowed to flourish as retail products with refinement; they should retain their jank. You shouldn't be able to have a service to conveniently browse and buy your games, especially smaller indie titles; they should be exclusively sold through the developers.
You're comparing Steam to an imaginary, magical non-profit organization that does everything that Steam does perfectly and yet takes a smaller percentage. Why not wish for fairies and unicorns? Why do you have something against a business that treats its clients and customers with nothing but respect and admiration?
It isn't easy to do what Steam does. They employ some of the smartest people in the world. Once again, it is incredibly doubtful that a non-profit could create a service even remotely close to what Steam provides. Look at all the other FOR profits that are having trouble matching them (except you, GOG!). And seriously, 30% is fine. They provide for transactions and payments, a support forum, bandwidth, delivery, easy patching and software updating, and more advertising than I ever could have achieved on my own. I would have given them 60% if they'd asked. (Attention, Valve, if you are reading: please don't take 60%)
If 30% is fine would a lower % be better or worse?
Oh please. i think my discussion here is germane. This topic wasnt some parade i came in to piss on.
And this shows a shocking lack of vision. The internet held great promise for gaming that has been pretty much pissed away.
It is my opinion that game developers should get as much money as possible for their creations.
I'm not going to continue to argue with you. It's like saying, "Coke is the most delicious soda on the market. But wouldn't it be better if it were MORE DELICIOUS?"
I don't think you can just apply the rules established in traditional commerce to the trading of bits over the internet. The surrounding conditions are different.
Its 30% more than 0%.
As time goes on Steams grasp only grows tighter. You can see this in the shocking "Steam or nothing" behavior thats emerged the last couple years.
That is what ultimately matters.
i understand that 0% is not feasible to run a service. i seriously doubt that it takes all the money Valve makes from other developers games to run Steam. So if a service like Steam could exist but be non-profit where the developers themselves had a stake in it with the cost for maintaining the service below a 30% cut that would be preferable.
