Sometimes I forget that not having an approved opinion on the internet is "trolling".
So instead the failures get punished along with the successes?
So if they're getting 70% they won't publish shitty games but if they got 100% they would? Weak line of logic.
So shit developers shouldn't be allowed on Steam? Almost every successful developer made shitty games before they had their hit. Some were on Steam, some weren't. We should hit those people for the full 30% on their way up... why?
You're just defending the status quo. I don't know why people do it but that's all you're doing here. You refuse to see things from another perspective and we could go around and around for pages on this but I don't really care. My position is morally superior and I'll stick by it.
Here's an interesting little tidbit for you - let's assume for a moment that your breakdown of revenue sharing by Steam is accurate.
It self-evidently isn't, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is.
Do you know what Steam doesn't do that Epic does?
Force platform exclusivity.
When you release a game on Steam, you're not only releasing it onto one of the biggest marketplaces, but you are, in fact, being able to release on said marketplace
and every other one that isn't Epic. The only stipulation is that you don't intentionally undercut the prices. Which means if you release on Steam, you can also release it on GOG, or GreenManGaming, or your own fucking website where you take 100% of the cut.
Going to Epic restricts your work, for a sizable chunk of time at the very least, to that platform (and pisses off your customers if you were an asshat and advertised on Steam first), and the alleged larger userbase Epic has doesn't inherently mean more eyes on your game because the majority of those users are there to play
one specific game, and you fucking know that's the case. Going with Steam, meanwhile, means you can release on literally every other platform.
