top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 109 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Gabe will eventually die and the MBA that takes over will see the quick paycheck.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Gabe will probably have it own by all of valve employees, so enshitification would be less likely.

    Maybe I’m wrong but hey let me have some hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Any source for his intentions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    There’s no public knowledge of his intentions. However Gabe speaks on how Valve operates plenty and in general, if the industry is doing one thing, they often explore doing the complete opposite.

    Valve’s primary thesis is exceptionally talented people are most productive when they don’t need to think about money, are surrounded by other exceptionally talented people, and there’s minimal people telling those people what to do.

    I doubt Gabe would want the soul of Valve to die with him so his succession plan will factor that in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    exceptionally talented people are most productive when they don’t need to think about money, are surrounded by other exceptionally talented people, and there’s minimal people telling those people what to do.

    This all immediately goes out the window as soon as they go public

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    This is covered in the video I linked…

    “Valve is not a publicly traded company. Being a publicly traded company adds a bunch of headaches and it [doesn’t] really solve any problems for us… It [would mean] that control around decision making now involved third parties… The whole point of being a privately held company is to eliminate another source of noise in the signal between the consumers and producers of a good.”

    Valve are absurdly profitable. What purpose would being public serve? They don’t need to raise extra capital, they don’t have shareholders to provide liquidity to, they don’t need the brand recognition, they don’t need stock for acquisition currency, they don’t need it to attract or retain talent, Gabe doesn’t need an exit strategy when he’s already cash flush to be buying mega yachts.

    For every reason companies go public, none of them would benefit Valve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    Exactly - which is why going public is generally not in the interests of any sustainable company or their customers.

    It is, however, in the interests of (1) company insiders that want a huge payout, (2) companies that are not sustainable pre-IPO and need to transition their business model or practice and set the IPO as a ticking clock where they fund or fail, and (3) companies and CEOs who borrow cancer's business model and are dissatisfied by anything except infinite expansion.

    None of those benefit the customer and it makes it rational to expect an IPO to destroy what's good about a company and its products.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    I can imagine a nightmare where they add a monthly subscription for something to get a foot in the door. "Just $1.99 for unlimited cloud saves! Storage isn't free you're supporting the devs!"

    A lot of people will pay it because "gamers" are, famously, little better than children.

    Then it's downhill from there. More subscriptions. Free service thinned. Popularity gone.

    It's what always happens when that kind of person gets in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    What makes you think that? From what I've heard, management is already pretty separated from any of the actual devs at Valve. Orders come down from on high ( they're not even in the same building) and the rest have to scramble to make it happen with their isolated "flat hierarchy" setup.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 83 points 1 week ago* (21 children)

    Shocking, that when a company's real purpose and focus is to make a product for customers, as opposed to making money for the investors, it is better for the customers...

    Gabe dying is the major thing I fear in my life... It's the last compamy I know about that's not getting enshitiffied.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Ehh, I'm a big fan of valve but their hands are not perfectly clean. They do run the gambling machine for a shitfuck ton of money, even putting aside the rest of steam.

    Now ofc, that whole "the rest of steam" part is still there and is obviously their main income, I recognize. And MOST importantly, fuck Sweeny and that dogshit other place. I just think we do give valve maybe not enough discredit sometimes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I'm not saying they don't have problems, and you're right.

    It's still the best we have, while GoG is awesomer, they don't have everything, plus there's also the massive work done for Proton that singlehandedly saved Linux gaming, that they could have made proprietary, especially for SteamDeck.

    As a developer, they also do take a massive cut.

    But I'd say that's minor compared to how it would look if it was owned by i.e Microsoft. And in how capitalism os turning out, it is a pretty rare sight.

    I hope Gabe will at least last through the inevitable switch to cloud based gaming, that will probably start happening soon. I wonder what will they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (12 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I love GOG but I am concerned about their lack of transparency regarding AI slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    At least you know they can never enshitify what you have already bought and downloaded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    True, and I use it whenever I can, but GoG is (as far as I know, maybe they contribute) not working on making sure games run on Linux (Proton), or increasing the Linux market share.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Proton is open source, you don't need to use steam to benefit from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Tbh I have no idea what the current situation of Proton is. I thougjt it's FOSS, but most of the development is/was done by Valve employees, so people paid for their work, that they made open source, instead of hoping for volunteers.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the situation is still the same - most of Proton development is done by people with Valve's resources, and the general public contribution is small-ish --i.e people who do GE-Proton, or other runtimes.

    But the core is work paid for by Valve. Of course, ot might live on wirhoute Valve support, it is a FOSS project, but what I understood, currently, the majority of development time is on Valve payroll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    The major thing? Not global thermonuclear war? Not global warming leading to massive political and economic instability? Not democratic backsliding?

    I like my PC games as much as the next guy, but let's be reasonable: It's just a luxury good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Someone: "I just had the worst day"

    DdCno: "Oh, the Worst day? Did you get diagnosed with cancer? Did you get hit by a bus and suffer full body paralysis? Did you lose your home and entire family in a fire? I don't understand figures of speech!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    Honestly am not too worried about what you've mentioned.

    Those things will upset my life so radically, that there's no point in worrying about that, plus I have a lot of first world privlidge buffer before it realistically affects my life. I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck, but I don't care. A lot of things will go to absolute life-changing shit for everyone around me if it also affects me.

    Steam getting majorly enshitified will affect the major thing in my life, that I rely on to be able to handle the rest and retain at least some of my sanity, while changing nothing about the rest of my circumstances. It's something I interact with daily.

    Yes, I am reasonable, this is the thing I worry about the most, but I do recognize that it's a privilige.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 356 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    Do they realize that what they really said was: having shareholders destroys businesses.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The full quote in the context of the article makes it even worse:

    "As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company, they probably have a certain ambition, but not an extraordinary ambition," Rosier says. "So I think they can still decide to make some decisions that are player-first, and that helps, right? To get the goodwill from the players."

    So, customers like using a product that focuses on the customers to create profits, rather than extracting profits by abusing the customer? How unambitious... /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    This is what is endemic in our current shareholder first sustem, it's not about profits, it's about leveraging the stock, products, customers, image and every other tool at their disposal to manage the value that the shareholders control so they can game the stock market as they see fit. Everything else is secondary.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I was thinking around the same, more specifically that what they're saying is that "in the long run companies managed to produce value for shareholders actually produce less value that companies managed to produce value for a single private owner".

    This is actually pretty consistent with what we see in many industries with both kinds of companies and a pretty daming indictment of publicly traded companies as a mechanism for increasing value creation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Private companies have shareholders as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    That's a new one for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

    Both public companies and private corporation have shareholders.

    But only for companies participating in the equity ownership, right? I'm not fully versed with that, so need to ask here. I don't know how this works with Gabe and Valve. I think the important detail here is, that Valve is not publicly traded and can decide who buys shares from their company and could reject any money. I don't think this is possible with publicly traded companies, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    Ownership of companies via shares is only for LLCs (which is a possibility but in practice uncommon) and Corporations and both Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships do not have shares.

    That said, it is indeed possible for a company to have ownership by shares and not be publicly traded (i.e. not in the stock market) so for example a corporation with no traded shares would be a private corporation.~

    This is what I found out for the US by searching for "types of companies" and "LLC shares".

    The countries I lived in and owned companies in Europe have similar things but with different names (for example what a Partnership in the US is roughly what's called a "Society by quotas" in Portugal and is actually the most common kind of company).

    In my experience people that never had their own registered business don't usually know any of this because they have no need to look into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    i think in private corporations only a very limited amount of shareholders can have shares

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If they are shareholders, they hold at least one share. Every one of them. There's no limit on number of shareholders or shares held. But those shares are not publicly traded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    There are limits on shareholders in private companies.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshold.asp

    Looks like the number is 2000, but that excludes employees. It used to be 500.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 week ago

    100% hard agree. Not launching an IPO is the single best thing Gaben has ever done. Letting in corporate executives would utterly destroy Valve and run them into the ground to fund their golden parachutes. It's happened time and again. Professional "executives" do not run companies for the benefit of the customer they run them into the ground to make themselves richer. Kudos to Gaben for being intelligent enough to recognize this and keep Valve private.

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 week ago

    My steam account is 22 years old. I probably have 400+ games on there. I do believe in GOG and try to buy games there where I can, but if I have a choice between the major platforms, I will pretty much always choose steam. I bought a bunch of games on Xbox Live and my PS3 back in the 2000s that I no longer have access to. There's a certain subset of gamers for whom Steam will always be the platform of choice.

  • source
  • [–] 146 points 1 week ago* (27 children)

    Huh. What an unexpectedly damning indictment of the extraction-oriented enshittification market aka capitalism

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 week ago (25 children)

    It's not, really. Steam runs under capitalism. They're just a super outlier in that they're a billion dollar company that doesn't have shareholders. They're basically the wet dream that conservatives are trying to sell you but that just fails 99.9% of the time due to greed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago* (24 children)

    They're basically the wet dream that conservatives are trying to sell you but that just fails 99.9% of the time due to greed.

    I wonder what is the driving force for capitalism...

    Is it the Singular pursiut of profit to enrich oneself?

    Is there another wird for that?

    Could that be the very motivation the system is build upon?

    So the whole system doesnt Work how it is promoted, but is just a facade to keep the status quo and that means the rich stay rich and the poor stay barely not revolting.

    So of course No Steam doesnt run under capitalism it crawls under capitalism. It works despite of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 week ago (20 children)

    You're confused. Steam is an American company and America is (you may have noticed) a capitalist nation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago* (15 children)

    The point is that you can participate and thrive in capitalism without doing every resource extracting enshittification strategy in the book, which seems to be just Business 101 these days.

    Is Steam perfect? Probably not. But most other major players in this space seem to leap at every chance to charge people more while worsening their product and then we get thought pieces wondering how Steam remains popular by virtue of not actively making things worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    The point is that you can participate and thrive in capitalism without doing every resource extracting enshittification strategy in the book

    The point is, that's still capitalism.

    When someone asserts 'capitalism is intrinsically awful because it's inseparable from x y and z' they cannot then praise a successful company doing capitalism without x y or z. You're supposed to experience this thing called cognitive dissonance. Contradictory ideas should not fit in your brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    So you would disagree that the driving Factor of capitalism is Profit?

    Because that is all i said factually. I said in a tone you dont like, but nonetheless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    What other economic system do you imagine Valve is operating under?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Are you even reading my comments or are you just exhausting your dialogue options?

    I explicitly said they are crawling despite capitalism.

    Engage with the content of what is said and not with the straw man you want to imagine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    The content of what you're saying is "despite capitalism." But what they're doing... is just capitalism. They're not a fucking co-op forced to exist within the context of capitalism. They're a private corporation. Their founder and CEO lives on a yacht.

    They are an example of capitalism going well, not some kind of counterexample to capitalism itself. In no sense are they "crawling." Again: yacht. They have a fuckton of money, and a supermajority of sales in an open market, to the point they're a de facto monopoly. Y'all need to stop implying they're doing anything besides bog-standard capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    And yet they ignore the most lucrative thing in existence currently, so they ignore the profit incentive.

    I never said anything about it being a counter example to capitalism.

    The Steam zealots can try to deny Iit but steams Most important edge in the Market is their Network effect and first mover advantage. That's why they can afford to sleep on the technology that reduces production cost.

    Again because you have missed that on multiple occasions already which is quite the achievement given the scarcity of comments:

    I never said anything about it being a counter example to capitalism. So please do not pretend like I said that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (6 children)

    They are insanely profitable.

    The fuck do you mean, "they ignore the profit incentive?" Like it's not true capitalism unless they reject everything besides money money more money all the money only money matters.

    People point out that what they're doing is plainly capitalism, and you repeatedly counter, they are "crawling despite capitalism." What does that fucking mean? What are you trying to say, if not this?

    I feel I've been clear in establishing, it's still capitalism, even when it's not maximally evil. No zealotry is required, to point out, they are absolutely doing shit for profit, even if that doesn't mean setting puppies on fire to fuel the torment nexus for the biggest profit you can imagine. Capitalism that's less awful than the worst examples still counts - unlike what the root comment treats as inseparable from the premise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    Capitalisms motivator is Profit

    So when they are not doing everything in their Power to make a Profit, that is not true capitalism.

    You cannot Just ignore the core aspect of capitalism and still claim it to be capitalism.

    What the fuck is capitalism supposed to be then?

    Capitalism is when Money?

    Capitalism ist when trade?

    Or the hilarious capitalism is when freedom?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    You cannot Just ignore the core aspect of capitalism and still claim it to be capitalism.

    So it's not capitalism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    true capitalism

    I know the American schools are bad, but holy shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I never said anything about it being a counter example to capitalism. So please do not pretend like I said that.

    Unfortunately i cannot make it blink in Red or make it Take on the taste of hamburgers. I dont know what an American needs to auccessfully decipher a sentanced that doesnt corralte to its programming... And to be quite honest i give up.

    When you repeat yourself the, what? Third or fourth time? It is clearly an issue of differing cognitive Processing, that i am not qualified to synchronize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    Right, it's not a counter example to capitalism, we just cannot ignore the core aspect of capitalism and still claim it to be capitalism.

    If a business does not do literally everything possible to make number go up, that's not true Scotsman, I mean capitalism. How could private ownership and wage labor and charging a premium for other studios' work be capitalism, and also how dare you say I claim it's not capitalism?

    I am reading the words you write.

    Are you?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Didn't say it wasn't still Capitalism. But there is still nuance between one company doing everything it can to squeeze alout as much 'potential profit' possible at the expense of their products and the consumers v one that maintains the quality of product and service a the expense of 'potential profit'.

    Whatever Ism you prefer still requires people to set and maintain a standard. The lack of standards and accountability is how you get the race to the bottom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    So of course No Steam doesnt run under capitalism it crawls under capitalism. It works despite of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    I really don't know what you're trying to say here. These terms are not mutually exclusive. It really just feels like you're being pedantic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 week ago
    1. Provide a good and cheap service.
    2. Improve the service over time with some of the money you make.
    3. Make pro-consumer choices knowing full well you can afford it.
    4. ???
    5. Watch competition repeatedly shoot itself in the crotch.
    6. Profit.
  • source
  • It helps that the industry seems to always be inhabited by the greediest, most misanthropic companies on the planet.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    You know how it usually is relatively straightforward to create the alternative to something that already exists and make it better, but the network effect is usually the reason why your alternative will fail?
    well, with valve you don't just have the network effect, but also trying to replicate everything steam does is a giant undertaking. you'll be looking at several years of work (if you can get a couple dozen employees) just to catch up to where steam is now (or like 5 years ago I guess? :D). and then what? you have a fully functional empty store, congratz.
    this is why alternative stores usually just narrowly focus on the store aspect. itch, GOG, and those big publisher launchers like ubi connect, are all basically just ways to buy games without getting valve involved. but their narrow focus also allows them to do something different without having to compete with steam.

    I mean obvs there are things valve should improve that most likely aren't gonna happen without serious competition, but at the same time I don't think this is gonna happen unless a benevolent billionaire decides to throw their hat into the ring. sadly, benevolent billionaire is a oxymoron.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    According to Epic you can just vibe-code a competitor now ;P

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Both GOG and Epic stores are quite full of games. Give developers the chance to sell things, and they'll take it.

    GOG doesn't have everything since they require DRM-free, but I do most of my indie-game purchases on there. GOG have said in the past that their most-requested feature from developers is "can you make your achievements / social integration just basically exactly the same as Steam, so that it's easier for us to integrate?". Means game updates sometimes take longer to arrive, but hey.

    Heroic launcher starts faster than Steam, so I'll grab whatever's free on Epic that week while waiting for it to load; but fuck giving Tim Sweeney any money obviously. Seems to have quite a variety of stuff, tho.

    The problem with displacing a company with established network effects is that simply "just as good" isn't enough - you need to be much better to start moving people over. And I'm not really clear what "much better than Steam" looks like. They have great Linux support, great workshop integration, regular sales, the forums are well-regulated, and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    You can't compare alternative stores like GOG and Epic directly to Steam though, because of all the additional stuff Steam offers that GOG, Epic, and all those other indie stores can't replicate.

    That's also why I don't see those as competition to Steam, and more like enhancements. You can buy you DRM-free game on GOG and enjoy some of the benefits on Steam at the same time.

    Thinking about it Epic might have the closest shot what with their whole Fortnite and UE stuff offering a lot of the backbone that Steam offers, but even they bungled it so hard they had to bribe devs for temporary exclusivity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    but also trying to replicate everything steam does is a giant undertaking

    I don't even use that many features of steam, so I don't think replicating them all is required. Probably starting at the top few and prioritising by usage/request would be enough. Attracting devs and the up-front costs for not just dev but infra is probably the most prohibitive thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    You might not use that many features, but you can't know what other users and developers might need. For some, the built in multiplayer and voice system might be a make or break feature, and for others it might be remote play together.
    With how many users, developers, and features there are, it's not enough to start replicating a couple features and promising more later. When is the last time you bought into a promise and weren't disappointed? If you want to be serious competition, you better give it your all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I can't know, of course, but it is possible to start in one area to an MVP to a good chunk of people and add features by requested priority. Trying to do all of it all at once so feels like the wrong approach (with 20 years of software engineering and some project management experience)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I mean we are talking about trying to overthrow THE gaming giant. Smol MVP and expanding from there might be the right approach most of the time, but in this case you run the risk of becoming Epic 2, the store that took several years to add a shopping cart. And in that time where you're expanding you're in that awkward space where people would have to use both Steam and your system.
    So I think it's better to come out of the gate swinging. Obvs you should run lots and lots of internal tests, but as soon as you release to the public, you should be able to replace Steam for lots of people.
    I could be wrong, but I rarely am :)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›