Did anyone actually read the article?
-Not all 30% cuts are created equal either, I’m told. One source explained that although Steam only takes 30%, other fees and deductions mean they are usually collecting closer to 65% on their end, while they say console sales return much closer to the full 70% but are stingier with refunds and the like. Meanwhile, GOG.com also takes a 30% cut, but requires publishers to invoice the site manually for the sales made to actually receive payment, something one source explained was a more time-consuming process than Valve’s regular automatic payouts.
The primary difference here being that Valve operates on an open platform, perhaps one of the last to exist in this scenario. If there was anywhere in the retail industry that we should see an actual challenge to a fee this high it would be in the PC space, yet it exists in large part to one large sized player. The notion that hosting a game sale requires 30% of the sale itself is ridiculous. Literally the only legitimate challenge we have to this is Epics store, yet somehow they are the bad guys here. Everyone is somehow accepting of the notion that hosting a digital transaction requires this tremendous cut of the revenue, yet is up in arms over companies willingly signing exclusivity agreements for a larger portion of the revenue literally generated by the sale of their product.
I dont see how any publisher or developer in the industry can look at these numbers and find them acceptable and given the only legitimate challenge to the "norm" is an aggressive publishing company they seemingly do not. The 30% cut is not new information its simply that the gaming communities are just now taking notice, there has been numerous statements against speaking out against it over the years.