When I buy something, I don’t want to be stressed about whether or not it is available elsewhere cheaper. The only case where I think price parity is meaningless is worldwide, but that’s only because regional pricing should be a thing, so that’s a different matter.
Price parity is pro consumer. This is what consumer cares about. What they shouldn’t care about is developers’ revenue split because it doesn’t affect them.
No one would be selling on Epic for a lower “discount-like” price, even if it would be allowed. This notion was never about “hey dev, get your users a cheaper price”, it was always about “hey dev, get yourself more revenue if you choose our platform” (a lie too though since Epic is simply not a good selling platform). Else, you would have seen cheaper games amongst those Epic exclusives that never hit other stores.
Chromium as CFE I mean, not the browser. It consumes RAM and even CPU at all times, and Steam doesn’t work without it.
Not relying on CFE should been considered even more critical for handheld devices, as switching to more native solutions will save the battery time.
About that RAM argument, Steam includes Chromium that can consume up to 1.5 or even 2 GB for some people depending on circumstances (I checked myself when I had the Deck, it used 1.5 in desktop mode). I assume the OS on Switch is much more optimized. I wish Valve switched to something else, something more native.
I’m pro competition. However a lot of people are deceived into thinking Epic is a competitor to Valve. They do not deliver similar levels of value and service.
Price competition is silly in digital marketplace, where you know any product can go on sale randomly at a very high discount. Thinking “I’ll buy it here now because it’s 30% cheaper, cool” sounds like a recipe for selling your loyalty, for cheap. Though in reality it would never really be 30%, so you’re aiming to sell yourself even cheaper.