• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,595
Monopoly control is a hot topic in the games industry these days. Lawsuits against Apple, Valve, and Sony all take slightly different tacks in arguing that these companies exercise unfair monopoly control over their platforms' market for downloadable games.

Each suit also argues that this monopoly control leads to higher game prices for consumers. Platform holders charge higher commission fees than they would in a truly competitive environment, the arguments go, and those higher-than-normal publishing costs are passed on to consumers via higher-priced games.

The Epic Games Store's two-year-plus experiment in reduced platform fees provides plenty of evidence on this score. Just look at any of the dozens of games available on both the EGS (where Epic charges publishers a 12 percent fee) and Steam (where Valve charges a 30 percent standard fee).

In almost every case, those games will be offered at the same base price. Instead of passing on the savings, the publishers just pocket the 18 percentage-point difference between the EGS cut and the Steam cut. The only real exceptions come when a store is having a temporary sale, after which the games revert to identical prevailing pricing standards in almost every case.

Wolfire's David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to "remove [Wolfire's game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam's DRM."

Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn't responded to a request for comment on this story.

Regardless, even if we remove Steam's alleged price-fixing from the equation, publishers still seem reluctant to pass on the savings from the EGS's lower cut. This is apparent when you look at the Epic Games Store PC exclusives that are also sold on consoles, where the platform holders each take their own 30 percent cut.

An Ars analysis found that out of 41 such games, only five were offered for a lower price on the EGS. The rest of the games were priced identically on PC and console, except for eight that were actually cheaper on console thanks to a temporary sale. Again, publishers largely aren't lowering their prices even though Epic has lowered its relative platform cut.

arstechnica.com

Steam’s “price parity rule” isn’t wreaking havoc on game prices

Game publishers aren't "passing on the savings" from "cheaper" online storefronts.
 

Mentalist

Member
Mar 14, 2019
18,007
The idea that publishers would lower their prices to benefit the consumers due to the lower cut was always the most laughable part of the EGS propaganda.

EDIT: while there are apparantly certain territories that get way better regional pricing on EGS tha on Steam, so we can't say the net benefit is zero; for the majority of PC gamers, the Steam ecosystem with all of the various keystores that are constantly discounting games and competing with each other (and steam directly) are a much healthier market with significantly more attractive prices.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,084
I mean, Simon is saying the obvious reason why:

"Most game publishers in today's market seem to prefer the same pricing across many stores, no matter what platform cut they receive," GameDiscoverCo founder Simon Carless told Ars. "Reduced platform cuts might give them more latitude for greater one-off discounts and other promotions. But price parity often appears to be a commercial decision for uniformity and ease of explanation."

Even other consultants say the main reason:

"I suspect that developers and publishers see no reason to pass [reduced storefront fees] on to consumers," F-Squared analyst Mike Futter told Ars. "Consumers believe that $60 (soon $70) is the fair market price because [development] costs went up."
(...)
Lowering the base price of a game from $60 to $50 "isn't going to move [enough additional] people" to buy a game, Futter said. "I don't think it would be statistically significant... even if Valve wouldn't require price parity, the PR nightmare isn't worth it." NPD analyst Mat Piscatella agreed, telling Ars that "price sensitivity in games is such that lowering the base price will rarely drive enough incremental sales to offset" the lost revenue per sale.

 

VerySerious

Member
Oct 25, 2017
615
No surprises there; if microtransactions in non-F2P games didn't reduce overall game prices then a lower store fee certainly wouldn't.
 

Jamrock User

Member
Jan 24, 2018
3,163
I brought this up the other day and someone told if games took advantage of the store cut on epic and offered lower prices that would be grounds for accusations of price fixing.

I don't know how if we live in a good enough world where publishers would offer prices based on what cut the store is taking.
 

Bonfires Down

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,815
Actually in Sweden I've seen quite a few games sell for cheaper on EGS than on Steam. Many are the same price, some are slightly more expensive. Might just be a regional pricing quirk.
 
Oct 29, 2017
6,257
Issue is that it is being repeated during Epic vs. Apple court case where Epic still claims that 30% causes higher prices.

The idea is just...absurd.

Why would developers condition people to expect lower pricing out of the gate, when they could make more money per unit sold without changing prices? Plus expecting the game industry to just do that out of the goodness of their hearts is pollyannish to the point of delusion.
 
Oct 31, 2017
8,466
There's nothing "alleged" about the price parity clause on Steam, but the weirdest fucking thing of this all is that people seem to think it's supposed to be unusual, when basically the same exact "[loose] "rule" is expected on any other major distribution service.

It isn't "price fixing" either and it should be easy to understand why it exists: no one wants to be the "sucker" who's selling a product at a worse price than the entirety of the other competitors on the market.

Ironically enough, Steam/Valve doesn't even enforce it particularly fiercely, as it's very easy to spot exceptions all over the market.
 

bobnowhere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,526
Elsewhere for 8 minutes
I'm shocked! What a shocking development.


Actually in Sweden I've seen quite a few games sell for cheaper on EGS than on Steam. Many are the same price, some are slightly more expensive. Might just be a regional pricing quirk.

It's the other way in Australia, usually games are $1 to $1.50 more expensive on Epic. I suspect it comes down to the time when both companies set their default exchange rates. Both are bad and at least 10% too high compared to humble where the price floats.
 
Last edited:

ramoisdead

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,583
OMG. BUT THEY SAID IF THEY WERE TO TAKE A HIGHER CUT, CUSTOMERS WERE GOING TO SAVE MONEY. WHY WOULD THEY POCKET ALL THE MONEYZ??

Oh yeah, cuz that was the whole plan all along.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,230
Nice to see an article looking at this a bit more realistically for a change rather than uncritically repeating the talking points Epic's been pushing.

On the supposed parity clause more specifically, if it was a thing, wouldn't we be seeing all those free games Epic secured to free on Steam as well? 🤔
 
Last edited:

Sandersson

Banned
Feb 5, 2018
2,535
There's nothing "alleged" about the price parity clause on Steam, but the weirdest fucking thing of this all is that people seem to think it's supposed to be unusual, when basically the same exact "[loose] "rule" is expected on any other major distribution service.

It isn't "price fixing" either and it should be easy to understand why it exists: no one wants to be the "sucker" who's selling a product at a worse price than the entirety of the other competitors on the market.
The absolute weirdest part about anything related to Valve is the fact that people throw their brains out the window before typing. Valve adheres to standard industry rules (well they are even better because the cut is less 30% with free generation and they dont seem to limit where you can sell non Steam keys) yet they are somehow a monopoly that offer no value to anyone (yes, ive seen this argued mutiple times), they are price fixers, someone called them robber barons and ive even seem them called nazis because you can find a dipshit posting something bad on their forums.

Like holy hell. Talk about a witch hunt.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,084
Re regular pricing being at parity currently, that's no surprise. First, they're selling so little volume on EGS that lower prices won't move the needle for their breakeven points, and it's not their job to promote the store. Second, I expect devs are concerned that gamers will wait for the lower price to be matched on Steam before they buy it, and of course they don't get that nice low rate on Steam.
Let me just link to what consultants say (which I have said previously because it is fucking obvious and one of the reasons price will not go down):

"I suspect that developers and publishers see no reason to pass [reduced storefront fees] on to consumers," F-Squared analyst Mike Futter told Ars. "Consumers believe that $60 (soon $70) is the fair market price because [development] costs went up."
(...)
Lowering the base price of a game from $60 to $50 "isn't going to move [enough additional] people" to buy a game, Futter said. "I don't think it would be statistically significant... even if Valve wouldn't require price parity, the PR nightmare isn't worth it." NPD analyst Mat Piscatella agreed, telling Ars that "price sensitivity in games is such that lowering the base price will rarely drive enough incremental sales to offset" the lost revenue per sale.

If they reduce the price to account for the revenue cut (so price reduction of 18%), they would need to sell 18% more copies to make up for the "lost revenue" (aka, the extra "free" money they would have gotten by selling it at the normal default price). Most purchases are quite price insensitive to see an increase of 20% just for that kind of price reduction.
It also goes against their efforts to make people believe higher prices for games are necessary.

But sure, keep drinking the cool-aid that prices will go down if everyone used EGS cut.
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,984
Let me just link to what consultants say (which I have said previously because it is fucking obvious and one of the reasons price will not go down):



If they reduce the price to account for the revenue cut (so price reduction of 18%), they would need to sell 18% more copies to make up for the "lost revenue" (aka, the extra "free" money they would have gotten by selling it at the normal default price). Most purchases are quite price insensitive to see an increase of 20% just for that kind of price reduction.
It also goes against their efforts to make people believe higher prices for games are necessary.

But sure, keep drinking the cool-aid that prices will go down if everyone used EGS cut.
f736a8b6a1c77350ce7312cf739423b2cd7dc560e4e2adc37e8b1dbeec262b64_1.gif
 

1-D_FE

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,259
Of course it's not passed on.

It also makes complete sense that they force rules onto keys sold elsewhere. Why should Valve be undercut on prices if they have to handle all the hosting/expenses on said sales.
 

gifyku

Member
Aug 17, 2020
2,745
All the Epic hate on this forum shows how convoluted this topic has become.

The 30% cut in itself being reduced may not pass into consumer savings but it will open up the potential to do so as well as help creators keep more of their money.

Also Steam's 30% cut for apps that run on Windows (where competition is possible) is not equivalent to Apple's 30% for apps that run on iOS given you cannot access iOS apps from another marketplace.

Also 30% of initial app purchase (the foremarket) is not the same as 30% of iaps (the aftermarket.) There are numerous examples in iOS land where iAP is more expensive on iOS than elsewhere (both Spotify and Netflix used to do this till they just got tired of it and stopped iaps on ios completely)

But generally, if we are being consistent, Activision and 2K and Sony can also point out how their strategies on pricing and mtx havent generally impacted the market (most games dont have nba 2k level mtx, PC games are not $70 yet) so we should just say "it is up to companies to define whatever they want, there is no need for scrutiny, if you dont like, go elsewhere" . It will end some threads relatively quickly i presume
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,084
Let me quote your quote:

"the PR nightmare isn't worth it"

If some game released on EGS at $50 and Steam at $60, the PR backlash would be immense. They'd likely be review bombed on Steam which could kill their game forever, or at the least it'll deter many buyers who would have bought on Steam to instead wait for the same low price.

You're missing the point though. The choice here is first of all whether the platform holder rakes in yet more profit with up to 30% rates, whether that's Steam/Apple/PSN etc., who are all doing very, very, very, very well, or whether the devs see more of that money. We've already spent our money, we're just talking about where it goes. The second choice is then what devs might do with it, and no I don't expect 100% of it to be passed back to us. We're currently getting 0% back though, so it has to be an improvement.
"PR nightmare" comes followed by the real point: " price sensitivity in games is such that lowering the base price will rarely drive enough incremental sales to offset" the lost revenue per sale". The "PR nightmare" was more related to the BS stuff regarding "price parity clause" (which is the crux of the article). When talking about the actual effect of a possible cut both are very clear on one end: it makes no financial sense.

And regarding the point. I get the advantage of an actual decent platform, instead of something made with ducktape in EGS. So for me, the value I get from Steam platform is higher than on EGS. I spend my money and the value I get is clearly higher on one side, so clearly we are getting something back, not the 0% you say.
 

Sidebuster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,406
California
The usual "haha, trickle down isn't working" arguments come out to play, while we all spend so much on Steam and Valve is likely sitting on billions in cash, earning billions more in profit year after year, and that sure as hell isn't trickling back down to us. Their costs to update the store are probably roughly flat YoY while revenue and profits continue growing sharply.

Even if devs got a lower rate everywhere and didn't pass on a single cent in the form of lower prices or use it for greater investment and more jobs, I'd still prefer that distribution to Valve hording another billion dollars. Our money is gone either way, we're only talking about whether it goes to Gabe's pocket for another yacht or to hundreds of dev studios pockets, and I'm sure some of that will lead to more jobs etc.

Re regular pricing being at parity currently, that's no surprise. First, they're selling so little volume on EGS that lower prices won't move the needle for their breakeven points, and it's not their job to promote the store. Second, I expect devs are concerned that gamers will wait for the lower price to be matched on Steam before they buy it, and of course they don't get that nice low rate on Steam.

So your argument is "the money will trickle down to the developers"? Edit: This has been proven false when it comes to developers who have publishers. And still isn't going to save the indie developers who swear their game is a diamond in a pile of garbage and would be a success if only the stores could be forced to show only their games on the stores front page. Thirdly, I'm going to rolling my eyes and think poorly on anybody using an argument and saying things like "sitting on billions; and if only they wouldn't get it but the other company sitting on billions would".
 
Last edited:

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,906
The 30% cut in itself being reduced may not pass into consumer savings but it will open up the potential to do so as well as help creators keep more of their money.
If Steam lowers the "30% cut" (which in reality is closer to 18%-19%) then the whole 3rd party market would get killed. No 3rd party market = no potential savings.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,556
I guess it's always nice to see the press stating the obvious rather than regurgitate some PR.

And the article is pretty tame since it does not even touch on the fact that in Steam key case, other stores compete with each other on price leading to a decrease in price for the consumer.
So while a publisher or dev apparently usualy don't think the increase in sales it could lead to, warrant a decrease in price from the lower cut, with the way steam and 3rd party market work they are the one using that margin to compete with each other leading to lower prices.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,312
The usual "haha, trickle down isn't working" arguments come out to play, while we all spend so much on Steam and Valve is likely sitting on billions in cash, earning billions more in profit year after year, and that sure as hell isn't trickling back down to us. Their costs to update the store are probably roughly flat YoY while revenue and profits continue growing sharply.

Even if devs got a lower rate everywhere and didn't pass on a single cent in the form of lower prices or use it for greater investment and more jobs, I'd still prefer that distribution to Valve hording another billion dollars. Our money is gone either way, we're only talking about whether it goes to Gabe's pocket for another yacht or to hundreds of dev studios pockets, and I'm sure some of that will lead to more jobs etc.

Re regular pricing being at parity currently, that's no surprise. First, they're selling so little volume on EGS that lower prices won't move the needle for their breakeven points, and it's not their job to promote the store. Second, I expect devs are concerned that gamers will wait for the lower price to be matched on Steam before they buy it, and of course they don't get that nice low rate on Steam.



The 30% cut means WE get lower prices, because the way store competition works and steam key works, they eat on their own cut for lower prices.
Why did I pay Nier Replicant for 48€ instead of 60€ ? Because Greenmangaming ate on their cut to compete because Valve takes nothing in Steam keys.

I couldn't give a single fuck about devs getting more money. That shit isn't a charity and the whole crying about people who likely make more money than me is ridiculous.


Meanwhile, EGS + Uplay exclusives means no 3rd party keys, despite Ubisoft getting 100% and 88% on Uplay and Epic Store. Yet prices are fixed and higher than ever.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
The usual "haha, trickle down isn't working" arguments come out to play, while we all spend so much on Steam and Valve is likely sitting on billions in cash, earning billions more in profit year after year, and that sure as hell isn't trickling back down to us. Their costs to update the store are probably roughly flat YoY while revenue and profits continue growing sharply.

Even if devs got a lower rate everywhere and didn't pass on a single cent in the form of lower prices or use it for greater investment and more jobs, I'd still prefer that distribution to Valve hording another billion dollars. Our money is gone either way, we're only talking about whether it goes to Gabe's pocket for another yacht or to hundreds of dev studios pockets, and I'm sure some of that will lead to more jobs etc.

Re regular pricing being at parity currently, that's no surprise. First, they're selling so little volume on EGS that lower prices won't move the needle for their breakeven points, and it's not their job to promote the store. Second, I expect devs are concerned that gamers will wait for the lower price to be matched on Steam before they buy it, and of course they don't get that nice low rate on Steam.

As a customer I benefit from good service and lower prices. Valve's service is undoubtedly the best of its kind and free Steam key generation allows customers to find better deals on other stores. Customers should not be expected to support something that goes against their own interests. Make it worth my while and I will gladly support you.
 

mephixto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
306
Let me quote your quote:

"the PR nightmare isn't worth it"

If some game released on EGS at $50 and Steam at $60, the PR backlash would be immense. They'd likely be review bombed on Steam which could kill their game forever, or at the least it'll deter many buyers who would have bought on Steam to instead wait for the same low price.

You're missing the point though. The choice here is first of all whether the platform holder rakes in yet more profit with up to 30% rates, whether that's Steam/Apple/PSN etc., who are all doing very, very, very, very well, or whether the devs see more of that money. We've already spent our money, we're just talking about where it goes. The second choice is then what devs might do with it, and no I don't expect 100% of it to be passed back to us. We're currently getting 0% back though, so it has to be an improvement.

Bigger backlash than taking out the game from steam a month before release to put it exclusive on EGS? LOL no!!!

Paying $10 more for a game in the platform/store of my preference or wait a whole year? Hardly a PR nightmare or backlash.
 

Pyro

God help us the mods are making weekend threads
Member
Jul 30, 2018
14,505
United States
This is the first I've heard of this assumption that a lower cut would be passed onto the consumer and I gotta say, who actually believed that?

4r09db.gif
 

Sandersson

Banned
Feb 5, 2018
2,535
Let me quote your quote:

"the PR nightmare isn't worth it"

If some game released on EGS at $50 and Steam at $60, the PR backlash would be immense. They'd likely be review bombed on Steam which could kill their game forever, or at the least it'll deter many buyers who would have bought on Steam to instead wait for the same low price.
I dont get this at all. I bought Nier replicant from GMG a day before launch for 50 euros (it was 60 on Steam). And it was so at least a week before launch, no review bombing. Like literally most key sellers sell keys cheaper than Steam which is the business model. No one cares?
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
Steam's great. I'm sure it would continue to have great service if they were only making a billion dollars profit every year instead of two billion dollars profit every year, so it would cost you and I nothing at all if more of our money went to the devs instead of to Valve. And that would likely lead to more price competition and job creation than another billion dollars being hoarded at one company.

I really don't care at all about Valve's profits. I am worried that a reduced cut will bring the end of Steam key generation which would mean that I don't get good deals on Steam keys from other stores. I am worried that a reduced cut will result in the type of bad service being offered by stores like EGS. What is the counter-argument to that?
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,312
"another storefront" still being a Steam key. I said if it released on EGS cheaper it would get review bombed. The talk of price parity is about different platforms. From the article:

Wolfire's David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to "remove [Wolfire's game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam's DRM."



So ?
It doesn't matter where you redeem it, it's another storefront.
 

Mentalist

Member
Mar 14, 2019
18,007
For a Steam key. The developer used the savings from a better rate to compete better on price.


I'm worried that Steam's key generation policy only exists so long as Steam allows it to exist. They can change that policy overnight for any number of reasons: if the third party sellers get too successful, or if there's a change in Valve management, including if the company ever goes public, etc.

You already replied to the counter-argument to your question. Valve making billions in profits instead of many billions in profits will not prevent them from putting a few engineers to work on this or that feature. I'm not saying everyone should be at 12%, that seems a bit slim imo, but you can't deny that the likes of Valve, Apple, Sony, MS are all making billions year in year out from a high rate which apparently has no relationship to their actual business costs.
While people continue reaping the benefits now (getting more, cheaper games), your argument of "what could happen" won't move the needle.

If you want people to pay the base price on a different storefront, you need to offer incentives. GOG, for instance, offers a downloadable installer for each of their titles, bringing you a semblance of DRM-free "ownership" of your digital games- though their games aren't on sale as frequently, very few devs sell GOG keys, and they tend to lack steam features (loads of devs don't bother with Galaxy achievements, for example).But the DRM-free games are a USP, and it allows the store to exist, despite having a relatively tiny marketshare.

EGS doesn't really have a major user-positive USP. its marketing is encouraging a charitable mindset "use us and devs get more money", but aside from a good feeling, they aren't really selling you a unique or particularly enjoyable user experience. I mean, free games are nice, but although they are more frequent than others, this isn't a new tactic, and none of their free games are new releases.

Realistically, the biggest problem for most devs that aren't under the umbrella of the 50-odd publishers who dominate the market and 95% of the games media, is discoverability. There are A LOT of games being made, and it's increasingly difficult to stand out. Would Valve apply as much effort into their discoverability tools as they do if their cut was lower? or would they focus even more on promoting the "elite" games? I think that question is just as valid as "what if they take away steam keys?"
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,084
"another storefront" still being a Steam key. I said if it released on EGS cheaper it would get review bombed. The talk of price parity is about different platforms. From the article:

Wolfire's David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to "remove [Wolfire's game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam's DRM."
From the article:

Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn't responded to a request for comment on this story.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,811
I'm worried that Steam's key generation policy only exists so long as Steam allows it to exist. They can change that policy overnight for any number of reasons: if the third party sellers get too successful, or if there's a change in Valve management, including if the company ever goes public, etc.

Absolutely. However, I don't see why I should push for this event to happen sooner rather than later.

You already replied to the counter-argument to your question. Valve making billions in profits instead of many billions in profits will not prevent them from putting a few engineers to work on this or that feature. I'm not saying everyone should be at 12%, that seems a bit slim imo, but you can't deny that the likes of Valve, Apple, Sony, MS are all making billions year in year out from a high rate which apparently has no relationship to their actual business costs.

Again though, I am not concerned about either Valve's or developers' profitability. I want to know how a change in the status quo will benefit me as a customer. Will it?
 

Sandersson

Banned
Feb 5, 2018
2,535
"another storefront" still being a Steam key. I said if it released on EGS cheaper it would get review bombed. The talk of price parity is about different platforms. From the article:

Wolfire's David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to "remove [Wolfire's game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam's DRM."
I honestly still have hard time understanding these mental hoops we are jumping around. So people dont care that Steam keys are sold cheaper on other storefronts but somehow selling EGS keys cheaper would cause a riot? Would selling EGS keys at a lower price on GMG cause a riot? Are people rioting because Valve isnt subsidizing free games? None of this makes any sense...

Oh and my understanding is that David's comments as of right now are 100% unsubstantiated. If there has been more to the story im eager to read it.

Edit. Oh wow, Talk about bad faith:

 
Oct 31, 2017
8,466
You could also ask: will the 30% status quo benefit you as a consumer?
Why not? And not just for Valve either.
I mean, I wouldn't be against everyone lowering it a tad, but it's not something I demand or expect either, nor I feel it should be "justified".

Why does everyone go around assuming (if not even IMPLYING) that middlemen don't deserve their share for their work, exactly?
That's true in general, but it's particularly weird seeing it questioned when it comes to Steam. They DO offer services for that cut, they DO improve the customer experience in several meaningful ways and they DO procure a lot more customers than what would be otherwise be accessible to the ones selling their games on their own, don't they?

Are real estate agents also robbers? What about car dealers? Should they work basically for free or give up on their jobs entirely, because "they don't do anything to deserve their share"?
I mean, if you can sell your own house or car by yourself be everyone's guest and do it, but if you make use of an agent to spare yourself the headache then don't act like they robbed you when they'll expect to be paid a percentage of the sale for their work.

Honestly this mentality that treats only some specific privileged categories as particularly deserving of compensation strikes me as fairly naive, if not even petty.
 
Last edited:

headspawn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,615
OMG. BUT THEY SAID IF THEY WERE TO TAKE A HIGHER CUT, CUSTOMERS WERE GOING TO SAVE MONEY. WHY WOULD THEY POCKET ALL THE MONEYZ??

Oh yeah, cuz that was the whole plan all along.

For developers and publishers to get a bigger cut?

I thought it was clear that was the entire idea, the idea that could lead to games being cheaper was some fringe benefit theoretical argument.