But why can't Steam reduce their cut to 12%?stealing
Perhaps someday you'll develop sufficient dignity and deceny to feel ashamed of such absurd melodramatics.
It shouldn't need to be said, but the use of Steam as a digital distribution platform is 100% voluntary. Distribution itself is generally of least concern; most developers/publishers desire foremost the publicity and exposure that only Steam can provide, and many also want to benefit from Steam's DRM (a fact that's almost always overlooked). I can't imagine what sort of bizarre pretzel your brain must be twisted into if you believe that any entity is ethically entitled to publicity and exposure via some other entity.
"BUT THEY'LL ACHIEVE FEWER SALES IF THEY DON'T DISTRIBUTE THROUGH STEAM!" That's true. Thing is, the additional money they stand to earn by being on Steam (in contrast to self-distribution) far exceeds Steam's 30% cut of the gross. They're still earning much more than they otherwise would, thanks to Steam. There is no logical way to argue that the 30% cut is "too high" in this context. It could just as easily be argued that 30% is too low, because your criteria (and theirs) are entirely arbitrary.
SOME AIDS ANIME SHIT
Because Valve actually offers things & services, they pay people to do linux development.
If Valve could do 12% then Epic should be able to do 2%.....