Isn’t that how competition works? Ideally, no company becomes so large that they don’t feel the pressure to remain competitive. Of course there’s countless examples of big players stagnating and becoming rent collectors with a captive market. But, I see that as all the more reason to have competition.

I think it’s rather optimistic to believe the Epic Games Store going to overtake Steam. If that’s the criteria for raising their cut, I wouldn’t expect it to happen anytime soon. Outside of annoying exclusive distribution rights on some games, having another store has given game developers another way to sell and players a way to purchase games cheaper. With that said, I’d guess their real gambit is to create enough pressure to drive the standard 30% down.

Maybe 30% made sense at one point. Maybe it does now. It strikes me that there have been efficiencies that haven’t been passed along to the consumer. Having a competitive market would let us find out.

I'm still optimistic, but I wouldn't be completely gobsmacked if I was wrong. I would have argued 20 years ago Valve would have done more to lock in their market (I was kind of right, but they are much more clever with it and it doesn't impact consumers). I also would have argued 20 years ago that Sony would topple Nintendo in the portable market.

>Here's an example showing how they're just like any other company:

They aren't really too special on the consumer facing front, I agree. But I still assert they've been pretty goo on the dev facing front. I've heard very little bad about them on the dev end.

> Epic has to increase commission fees in order to break even and make a profit eventually.

That's not true. I'd say it's virtually impossible to lose money if you are charging 10% of the price of games.

Their store is losing money because they are giving out a ton of free games, in the hope of attracting clients.

Their presence as a game store is irrelevant to their developer friendliness as an engine vendor