3 ms·
I can see why Valve deserves a cut, as distributor there are costs associated (though probably not anywhere near 75%). However I don't see why I need to give B
by swalsh 12y ago
I can see why Valve deserves a cut, as distributor there are costs associated (though probably not anywhere near 75%). However I don't see why I need to give Bethesda a cut simply because it runs on their platform.
If I develop a Windows application, I don't owe any money to Microsoft. If I make a cocoa app I don't owe money to Apple, There's countless examples of people writing software that runs on top of other peoples copyrighted software. I don't think you can make an argument that it makes your work a derivative work. It's pure crazy to think that I would have to give a substantial cut of my revenues for that "privilege".
- pliny 12y agoIn a free market you rarely have to justify rent seeking. If Bethesda are 'rational' then they estimated how much they'd make at various royalties and decided that they make the most when they take ~45%, so 'deserves' never entered into their decision and it's reasonable to assume that it never entered into Valve's decision to take 30% either.
- eli 12y agoThere's no rule that says what you charge people for a product or service has to be commensurate with your costs.