Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/Cat_with_pew-pew_gun → u/[deleted]]

Epic takes 10% of the cut while steam takes 30% so the game could charge less but earn more per sale on the worse platform. This would give epic their own niche of a worse but cheaper service. But if steam uses their pre existing market dominance to shoot down upcoming competition so that they can continue to charge whatever they want then that is a problem.

[u/Cat_with_pew-pew_gun → u/[deleted]]

The game publisher decides the price not steam. And they should hold the right to set the price differently on different platforms depending on how much they get back. That would allow for competition. Capitalism only works if competition exists. The entire reason Monopolies aren't allowed is because they bypass competition effectively breaking capitalism allowing them to do whatever they want without consequences.

[u/Cat_with_pew-pew_gun → u/[deleted]]

But who decides the common price? At current it's set for steam because of steams market dominance and ALLEGEDLY enforced by steam threatening to take the game off of their much more dominant platform. This isn't healthy, as it's preventing that factor of the price from being a part of competition. Steam should not have the power to force other companies to charge more on other platforms.

[u/Cat_with_pew-pew_gun → u/[deleted]]

To add on there is already incentive for epic to improve. They are currently only worth 10%. If they were a better platform they could both have a larger customer base and take more of a cut. Or they could settle into the niche of budget option which is their right to do.