Maybe, maybe not.
Frankly I don’t even know if this clause can be enforced in Europa. I wanted to point out that we shouldn’t rely on the customer protection laws of each country to address that: this clause shouldn’t exist in the first place.
But to be frank, it most likely doesn’t come from Valve and rather from the games company themselves.
Yeah you’re of course right, they are not a charity and shouldn’t have to provide their service for free.
I expressed myself too quickly (the rage!). What I meant is the this cut of 30% is fucking predatory, mafia or middle-age money lender style. You get one third of the rewards of my efforts just for delivering my product? And don’t talk about promotion because this store is now stuffed with too many games for visibility.
You can argue “but this is it the standard rate of the industry”. Well it is predatory everywhere else and I hate Google and Apple as much for it.
A cut of 10% would be more humane. Or whatever to reach a “normal” profitability. But now the discussion becomes complex because we don’t have the concrete numbers.
What is sure, is that it is possible without pain to take way less than 30%. This is something EGS got right, even if I dislike them for many other things (Epic and Tim Sweeney).
Yes you can workaround it. But this is still a society right they forbid you. And who can say that in 2100 they won’t implement a cleanup job that lock all accounts that are over 100 years old ? 🤪
But this is a problem right ?
Because the libertarian view of the world DOES have an impact on Steam: they have so much inertia to fight against hate speech and extreme right, they do nothing against gambling, and so on. All under the pretense “free speech” which is so convenient.
IMO this is the view of the modern libertarian: all the money, none of the accountability.
I have a mixed feeling about Gabe and Valve.
While I am insanely grateful for proton (even if it was strategically important for them, they didn’t do it out of kindness of heart), some other stuff disturb me:
I have read your link but they didn’t say the EGS is at loss specifically because of the 12% cut nor that the Fortnite money is subsidizing the lower cut.
It could be that the EGS is at loss because creating a new store and client from scratch costs money ?
To be honest here, we don’t have the numbers to say exactly how much margin Valve is making. But my guess is the following: if EGS estimated that with a 12% cut they could be profitable if they had enough customers, it makes me think that the cut of valve is way overinflated in regards to their costs.
And yes Fortnite is awfully predatory. But the topic is Valve and Steam there 🙂