Calling what Google did trying is a bad joke. Stadia failed because and exclusively because it was a fucking horseshit premise with no redeeming qualities.
The combat is basically AC/Arkham/Shadow of Mordor, but holy shit do the animations make it satisfying. There's this gritty desperate quality to it I haven't seen anywhere else.
If your complaint is the money they take in exchange for sales, it's literally impossible for anything but the fact that paying them nets you significantly more money to be meaningful.
Valve built PC as a platform. If they never existed, you wouldn't get 10% of the PC sales. That absolutely means they're entitled to their share. Platform development is a massive value add, and useless jackasses trivializing their contribution by pretending that the massive development project of building a platform isn't every bit as important as single products on the platform can fuck right off.
The fact that using their services and paying them their cut is more profitable than not doing so absolutely, in and of itself, proves beyond discussion that their cut is fair.
Yes, sales should cost money. Moving units is a fucking massive value add. Valve deserves every penny they take and more. They're the best thing that ever happened to PC gaming and nothing else is remotely close.
Mad Max was decent, but it chose setting over gameplay with how insanely empty it is, and while car combat is fun, driving without the combat really isn't and there's a huge amount of it to make the big empty desert feel like a big empty desert.
Because they knew it didn't exist when they bought it.
You would win your example lawsuit, too, unless you had a contract explicitly promising future services. Talking about future plans when they're clearly future plans isn't legally false advertising or any kind of legal obligation.
And every one of them comes back because paying Steam 30% is by far the most profitable way to do business. They absolutely deserve every single penny of it.
30% commission on an all margin product is not even sort of unusual or unfair.
Quality control is another word for "high barrier to entry", and especially with their market position, being rejected by Steam for some arbitrary reason would effectively kill your project.
Not only should they not restrict the ability to sell your games there without a concrete reason; they shouldn't be permitted to do so. A company with that much influence shouldn't be allowed to be a gatekeeper of what constitutes a "good" game.
Their review system and strong return policy are more than enough.
Epic can't make a dent because their product is dogshit.
Customers don't care that Valve takes a well earned cut (that only applies buying directly from Steam); they care that their games are on a platform that's actually fucking useful. If Epic didn't insult gamers shipping that piece of trash and had put work into actually providing a product that could possibly be considered acceptable, they might have been able to make a dent.
You're not going to take market share with shitty gimmicks if your actual product is a crime against humanity no one wants.
But not every rpg from Japan is a JRPG. Not all JRPGs are from Japan.
If you don't want to be put into the JRPG box, make something that isn't a JRPG. They're in a box for a reason, and it's because they're markedly different from other RPG formats.