I have a joke for you: Why are there Pyramids in Egypt? Because they wouldn’t fit in the British museum.

Actually, it’s a terrible indicator, because it’s completely disconnected from the service you’re evaluating. Your anger is about wealth inequality and the ethics of extreme capitalism, which is a totally valid topic. But you’re using that anger to answer a different question: ‘What is a fair price for this service?’

But you are insisting on using that separate topic as the only metric for this one. Since we’re fundamentally talking about two different issues and you’re refusing to engage with the point about service value, I don’t see this conversation being productive any longer.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never called the 30% “fair.” I’ve been trying to steer the conversation toward what a discussion about its fairness should actually be based on: the value of the services Steam provides.

You are fixated on Gabe Newell’s personal wealth as the sole proof that the cut is unjust. That’s an emotional argument about wealth disparity, not a logical analysis of the platform’s costs and value.

Let me be clear: whether a CEO’s personal spending is excessive is a separate moral and political debate. It doesn’t, on its own, determine if the price of a service is justified. The cost of servers, development, support, and the global infrastructure Steam maintains is what’s relevant here.

If you want to argue that the platform itself isn’t worth the cut, make that case. But simply pointing to a yacht and saying “see, it’s unfair” is a non-sequitur. It’s a distraction from the actual economic discussion.

That’s a very specific and bold claim about Valve’s internal finances. Do you have access to their private balance sheets and investment budgets? Unless you do, we’re both just speculating.

Factually speaking: Valve provides a massive, global storefront, handles all payment fraud and chargebacks, provides cloud storage for games, and maintains the entire friend/community network. The 30% is the price for that bundle of services.

Whether that’s a fair price is debatable, but the personal wealth of the CEO is a distraction from that debate.

That’s a pretty significant pivot from the discussion about Steam’s operating costs and revenue share.

The original point was about whether Valve’s 30% cut is justified for the services and ecosystem they provide; things like the storefront, servers, payment processing, anti-cheat, and continued development of new features for both players and developers.

Bringing up a private individual’s personal expenditure doesn’t really engage with that topic. It’s an attempt to shift the focus from a business discussion to a personal one, which is a completely different (albeit valid?) argument.

Some, some not.

WinAmp is long gone, no? Audacious is the closest looking replacement. I’m sure it’s what you probably meant? maybe? lol.

I like it. My vote is to keep it.

I got some from Brighton beach once, that was pretty tasty. Yes I broke your rules.

Damn, we’re old fella…

Stoic Porridge (Grit Gate) - Caves of Qud OST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLXwXzYheUg

Solace.

Good old Tobasco.

Weed.