>Thanks for the nirvana fallacy. So a market not completely dominated by 1 player is some kind of pie in the sky utopia? >lower fees which will probably go st

>Thanks for the nirvana fallacy. So a market not completely dominated by 1 player is some kind of pie in the sky utopia? >lower fees which will probably go straight into the pocket of the developer rather than result in lower prices. That's not how pricing works for most goods. Some money will go to consumers and some will be captured by devs. Even the money captured by devs is better for the customers than going to Steam in the long run. The vast majority of Indie devs aren't wealthy. More money in developers pockets means more and better games. > they prefer their benevolent dictator over profit craving publishers. Steam is already catering to profit craving publishers. They are lowering their take for large games. The only people left paying 30% are the small indie devs.