[ken]

Economically this is true, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with it. The whole reason I got into computers in the first place is because it put everyone on equal footing.

As a kid I could write a program on my C=64 that was equal in every way to a commercial program that my parents bought. Personal computers were the great equalizer. (You don't even need a company! Magazines published amateur submissions all the time.) There's no other field I can think of where a kid could use a standard piece of equipment that they find around the house, and use it to build something on par with the top professionals in the world. Maybe a piano.

Valve and Steam (and all the other "app stores") were surely built by a lot of the people who grew up on personal computers in the same the way I did. I'm saddened to see that they're using their business success to help big companies get bigger. The economic value of the personal computer has changed from "equality for the little guy" to "leverage for the big guy".

This is what Bret Victor meant by "When I see a violation of [my] principle, I don't think of that as an opportunity. [...] I see a tragedy. To me it feels like a moral wrong, it feels like an injustice."

[zeroname]

I don't get your historic analogy. Yes, you could make a game that rivaled the games of the big guys, all on your own. However, there's no way you could've gotten your game into the major sales outlets without a publisher. That publisher would've never given you a 70% cut. In that regard, you're far better off now.