Also, the sad thing is that visa and mastercard are like the two big payment processors. If you eliminated that, stores would lose a lot of potential customers, I guess?

Because Visa and MasterCard make up over 90% of the transactions in the world.

Valve needs Visa and MasterCard and Visa and MasterCard could careless about Valve.

This has been covered 100+ times in countless threads.

When it comes to Visa and Mastercard and their revenue what percentage is from Valve? 0.1%? or less which is drop in the ocean that Visa and Mastercard would not miss.

Valve needs their services, they do not need Valve.

Originally posted by d3str0y3r:

Because Visa and MasterCard make up over 90% of the transactions in the world.

Valve needs Visa and MasterCard and Visa and MasterCard could careless about Valve.

This has been covered 100+ times in countless threads.

Show me the stats.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

When it comes to Visa and Mastercard and their revenue what percentage is from Valve? 0.1%? or less which is drop in the ocean that Visa and Mastercard would not miss.

Valve needs their services, they do not need Valve.

ok but little bit counts, and inch by inch they will regret it.

Guys im talking about how are we going to fight this asymmetric warfare. I know its not symmetric. So no need to remind me that. Its about against a tyranny, I know they are the dominant power, like no kidding. That's why we are against it.

May I remind you that Mao was once a tiny communist party, now they owned china. Its not about we have now. ITS ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO NOW.

Make something valuable. I need contribution, NOT DEPRESSION.

Originally posted by PotatoScav:

Can steam ban visa and paypal as a payment method...

No, we are still many who like and use said paymentoptions.
But you are free to not use them.

Thanks but no thanks

/Have a nice day.

Originally posted by PotatoScav:

ok but little bit counts, and inch by inch they will regret it.

Regret it? Will They?

Visa's revenue: $38.89 Billion. Mastercard revenue: $30.24 Billion.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by PotatoScav:

ok but little bit counts, and inch by inch they will regret it.

Regret it? Will They?

Visa's revenue: $38.89 Billion. Mastercard revenue: $30.24 Billion.

now maybe not, but we need to make a start. That's why we need to do it inch by inch, thousands step start from one foot.

The most commonly cited figure (from Newzoo, Statista, and other market research firms) is that there are around 3.3 to 3.4 billion video game players worldwide as of 2023–2024.

Now if all of us pay 1 less dollar, we are talking about 3.3 billion lost . , just 1 less dollar.

And thats of video game alone, if we gamer pay less with visa on travel, online shopping,

I will gives you 6 billion lost.

6 billion lost in revenue is huge considering its something that can be avoided BY DOING NOTHING. That sure will ring a bell on stock holder etc. Maybe change of CEO or something. Put pressure and so on.

When we are talking about making a company decision maker second thought, its not necessary making it bankrupt. By simply putting enough pressure, we can achieve what we want,

At the end of the day. we are the customer, we are the one who paid their service.

And the revenue number can be inflated as well, because accountant can always manage to
put in unrealistic figure to make revenue goes big, like property estimated increased value. In reality they don't actually make that many money.

So no need to SURRENDER before the war start./

Showing them making billion money means nothing.

Collective shout manage to black mail them with just 5 people and a dream, Hell did they figure those company make billion as well, sure they do.

I don't see how we gamer lost to collective shout if we UNITE UNDER THE SAME FLAG.

Visa would definitely care about losing 3 billion dollars of revenue.

Visa’s annual revenue is around 36 billion dollars (2023 figures). A 3 billion drop would be about 8–10% of that, which is significant.

In recent quarters, Visa reported around 9.6 to 10.2 billion dollars per quarter. A 3 billion loss in one quarter would be huge relative to those numbers.

A revenue hit of that size could affect profit, investor confidence, future forecasts, and their ability to return capital (dividends or share buybacks).

So yes, Visa would care a lot about losing 3 billion in revenue.

A revenue loss can trigger a chain reaction:

Lower revenue → reduced profit margins.

Reduced profit → weaker investor confidence → share price drops.

Share price drops → harder to raise capital or fund growth.

Cost-cutting responses (layoffs, scaling back projects) → possible damage to innovation and long-term competitiveness.

Market competitors may use the moment to gain share.

That’s why companies like Visa, even though they’re very large and stable, still pay close attention to revenue trends. A single quarter of loss might be manageable, but repeated losses can turn into the kind of downstream spiral.

It’s true that relative size cushions the blow. A 3 billion loss won’t bankrupt Visa. They have strong margins, global presence, and a lot of cash reserves. To investors, it might look like a bump rather than a collapse.

But the nuance is:

Even if 33.9 billion is “big,” capital markets judge companies by growth and stability, not just raw size. A slowdown or drop of 8–10% is still a red flag.

Public companies get punished quickly by markets for missing targets. The share price can drop more than the actual revenue percentage loss.

Competitors (like Mastercard, Amex, or fintechs) could exploit the weakness, making the long-term effect larger than just “3 out of 33.9.”

So the counter-argument has a surface logic, but it underestimates how sensitive large corporations and their investors are to change, not just absolute scale.

So just stop shadowing visa as this IMMOTAL COMPANY, they have weakness, find them , and use them.

Originally posted by PotatoScav:

Why we must bow to visa, master card and paypal anyway.

They are the one that should pray for us to use them as a credit card company.

American Express is expensive but they don't do those dirty censorship stuff.

Maybe steam can look into direct bank transfer as well.

I am very much start avoiding using visa and mastercard at this point

I get where you’re coming from, the way these processors throw their weight around is frustrating. I agree, Steam absolutely should be looking for alternatives.
But completely cutting them out isn’t realistic right now, too many players still rely on them.

That said, you’re hitting on the real point: alternatives change the calculus.

• If Steam adds censorship-resistant rails, Visa/MC can’t hold the platform hostage with ultimatums anymore. Their threats only work when they know Steam has no fallback.
  
• Even if 90% of users keep using their cards, the existence of another path breaks the monopoly.
  
• Think of it like piracy: people already find workarounds when access is blocked or priced unfairly. If users can figure out torrent clients, they can figure out a “pay with wallet” button just as fast.

So instead of pushing to rip Visa/MC out entirely (which would backfire on players), the win is giving people options. That alone forces the payment processors to treat Steam differently, because suddenly they don’t have the nuclear option anymore. Trying to enforce the off button would only ensure users realize how quick and easy it was to replace them, only accelerating their replacement and loss of market dominance. That’s how leverage works, changing the systematic rails to shift that risk calculus.

I’ve written more about this in my main thread “Future Proof Steam: Add Censorship-Resistant Payment Methods” which dives into how Steam could actually implement this and why it matters. Worth checking out if you’re interested in breaking the dependency cycle. Any questions you have about the merits on my position, I’m sure they are laid out in the thread. If not, I’d love to talk about it.

Originally posted by PotatoScav:

It’s true that relative size cushions the blow. A 3 billion loss won’t bankrupt Visa. They have strong margins, global presence, and a lot of cash reserves. To investors, it might look like a bump rather than a collapse.

But the nuance is:

Even if 33.9 billion is “big,” capital markets judge companies by growth and stability, not just raw size. A slowdown or drop of 8–10% is still a red flag.

Public companies get punished quickly by markets for missing targets. The share price can drop more than the actual revenue percentage loss.

Competitors (like Mastercard, Amex, or fintechs) could exploit the weakness, making the long-term effect larger than just “3 out of 33.9.”

So the counter-argument has a surface logic, but it underestimates how sensitive large corporations and their investors are to change, not just absolute scale.

Bingo. You nailed it, the issue was never “Steam isn’t big enough to matter.” Steam absolutely is a meaningful customer. But even if it weren’t, that’s not the point: leverage is asymmetric.

What matters is that redundancy gives Steam the ability not to care about Visa or Mastercard’s threats, not if Visa/Mastercard care about lost revenue. Even if those companies barely flinch at lost revenue, their entire power play depends on being the only working payment door. The second Steam has a permanent escape hatch that doesn’t run through a centralized processor, that weapon loses its teeth permanently.

And history shows users adapt fast when the “main button” fails. Piracy thrived because when the official buy button didn’t exist (wrong region, wrong price, pulled from sale), players went to torrents. Not just for access, but for the philosophy of decentralization, freedom, and a culture of “we’ll get it anyway.” Pretending that energy doesn’t exist in gaming and internet culture is living under a rock, and these big companies know this.

Now imagine the same dynamic, but with a legit buy button. If traditional payment pipes try to squeeze, users don’t need to jump through pirate hoops, they just click the DeFi option in Steam’s UI. Same price, same game, different path.

That’s the real shift:

• Centralized processors can still be used, but they’re no longer single points of failure.
  
• Users see there’s practically no difference between paying from a wallet vs. a bank-linked account.
  
• The bluff dries up instantly because even if Visa carried out their “threat,” Steam still processes sales, and the users barely notice except that apparently they weren’t needed in the first place.

That’s not a bandaid fix like swapping Visa for Amex. That’s structural resilience that changes the entire calculus so Steam can’t be cornered in the first place, regardless of their valuation or market share.