• deltapi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Depends on who gets the crown - or prices thereof - when Gabe passes. There are lots of cases where the beneficiary of an estate can’t afford to keep the asset due to a lack of liquidity, and is forced to sell.

  • Fleur_@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Encouraging customers to spend less money by having sales is certainly one interpretation

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’d say Zuckerberg’s $77B disaster is not a forced mistake but a self-influcted wound. If anything, it’s the Cambridge Analytica scandal that pushed him towards the rebrand they would have been better off without.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m pretty reluctant to be this flattening towards Gabe Newell and Valve.

    Once Google was seen as one of the good companies. “Googling” became synonimous with searching on the internet. Most if not all competitors went bankrupt. When Google was accused of monopolistic behavior, its fans treated it as an attack on “perfection”. Google Chrome was a fast browser requiring less memory than its competitors. People saw them owning YouTube as a good thing. The most common form of toxicity towards new users in the Linux community was only providing lmgtfy links to them (I did get the occasional custom WinXP ISO torrent link too). Even their motto was don’t be evil.

    And then came the YouTube content ID system. And then they were reluctant to throw off the far-right from their platform for breaking their ToS during Gamergate. Then they dropped the motto. Then they put ads into the Google search results. Then they let the far-right control their platform before the 2024 elections. And also they’re pushing AI hard.

    Will Gabe Newell stick to his ideas, or get an anyeurism and join the Trump oligarchs?

    • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      So, you are afraid to have an opinion in case future events make it invalid?

      How do you support literally anything with this mindset?

      Elon Musk might be haunted by the three spirits of not being racist this christmas and give away all his possessions. Nonetheless, I’m happy to call him wanker today, because it’s an accurate representation of reality at present.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Thing is Valve is a private company with a flat structure and shared ownership that encourages moving between departments.

      Basically, it’s just a club of people doing whatever they want and they happen to all love videogames.

    • krooklochurm@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      How do you write all this and fail to mention that search doesn’t even fucking work anymore?

      I’m not arguing with you. But internet searching aDOEA NOT WORK ANYMROE.

    • imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      It is fair to compare Google to Valve only in a category of “once been good”. Other than that, 2 different companies with 2 different mottos.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is such a controversial person to discuss. On one hand, loot boxes, the steam market for trading, and a lot of gambling and profiteering going on. At the same time, all of the OP comments are also true.

    Out of all the billionaires, I dislike gaben the least. The net good he’s done for gaming may not balance the scales entirely, but at least there’s a discussion to be had whether what gaben has done is for the better, or for the worse. Which is more than I can say about most billionaires I know of.

    • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      Hot take: …but it’s just fucking gaming tho… He’s not fucking with manifesting some bullshit ideology throughout the world, he’s not trying to leave his mark on history… And if he is, it’s as a chill dude who gave us all a better alternative to piracy.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        he’s not trying to leave his mark on history

        He kind of is, but in the way old-school millionaires did - he has purchased a MASSIVE yacht and turned it into an ocean-floor research laboratory, either donated it to a university, or just allows researchers to use it.

      • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Gabe was already wealthy with Microsoft money when he founded Valve, so when his new private startup found success he didn’t feel the pressure to go public, expand, dilute, and cash out. He made the judgement call that they already had enough talent internally to keep playing the hits while keeping all the profit for themselves, and he was right. I’m sure a little bit a business ideology reinforces Gabe’s long-term outlook for Valve, but he’s ultimately enabled by a happy intersection of pre-existing wealth, great timing, and careful hiring choices.

      • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean, he is developing the brain chip with his Starfish Neuroscience company but its supposed to be minimally invasive and let’s be real if its between his and Elon Musks (which is NOT minimally invasive and requires surgical implantation) I’m definitely going with his.

        I wouldn’t say at this point its all about gaming though. Valve is, but not necessarily Gabe. Which I don’t mind but I could understand how some people wouldn’t like it.

          • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Fair. But its important to point out this won’t be one that goes inside you it will be one that you put on the outside of your head that interacts with brain impulses, at least according to them.

            If I was someone with limited mobility or some other sort of handicap I would do that before I got the one that goes inside my skull. But that’s just me.

        • n0respect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You know, I think those are inevitable … any potentially evil technology shown in sci-fi will eventually be created irl; it’s like some kind of rule (trust me). Given this, the future is a duality: it’s either GabeN or a random billionaire. I want this potentially-abusive technology with devil that I know.

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I remember back around 2010 period, maybe a bit after that, Valve and reddit were both hiring economists. We can see exactly why, now.

  • halvar@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    157
    ·
    2 days ago

    Guys I know he is not perfect but it’s understandable that people like him in a world where the average CEO drinks the blood of newborns daily.

      • halvar@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 days ago

        “Don’t get an abortion! Have that baby and dispose of it at your nearest “Leave your baby here for our coalition of friendly CEOs to take care of” location for a 25$ amazon gift card!”

        • Godnroc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 days ago

          That fully sounds like a program a literal vampire would implement with wild success. Parents selling their kids for money happened in the past, so not even that much of a stretch. It does sound like a potential cobra problem though.

  • Spaniard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    They only began giving refunds when the European Union mandated it, back then only Origin (EA) gave refunds. Some times the EU is useful.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 days ago

      The EU definitely helped. I’ll add that this was actually kicked off by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2014. They took Valve to court over their insistence that they can ignore Australian Consumer Law rights - in particular that if a product is ‘not fit for purpose’ then the buyer is entitled to a full refund, with respect to games. Valve offered no possibility of refund at the time. The case dragged on, but Valve eventually lost and was told to pay several million in fines, they appealed it to the High Court of Australia in 2016 - and lost also on appeal.

      The judge was pissed at Valve, and wrote in their ruling:

      “Valve’s culture of compliance was, and is, very poor”. Valve’s evidence was ‘disturbing’ to the Court because Valve ‘formed a view …that it was not subject to Australian law…and with the view that even if [legal] advice had been obtained that Valve was required to comply with the Australian law the advice might have been ignored”. He also noted that Valve had ‘contested liability on almost every imaginable point’.

      Valve are generally a very positive force in gaming, but they’re definitely not the saints that OP image text implies.

      https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/australia-fines-valve-over-steam-refunds

      https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights

      • Spaniard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Thanks mate for adding the extra information, I had forgotten about the Australian ruling.

      • nialv7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I have a pro-Valve bias because I do like them. But I still do want to make a fair argument and would like to be corrected if I fail to do so.

        So, yes, Valve’s refund policy in the past was bad, and yes, they were forced to change. But since then they have fixed their mistakes, and have arguably the most generous refund policy out there. Last time I bought digital content from Nintendo store I had to waive my refund rights.

        They could have limited refunds to Australia but they didn’t. This has to count for something, right? Valve is a for profit company in a capitalist system, and yes they have bad practices. But surely we can agree they are one of the better ones?

  • Redacted@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    2 days ago

    Gaben and steam are not perfect, but are monumentally better than what we would be stuck with on sony-soft

    • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      2 days ago

      They’re succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground, which is somehow inspiring and disappointing at the same time

      • imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground

        As someone who began to use Steam from 2007, and play their games since 2000 - they not only made their platform better over years, they also now branching out lately. Their hardware is either the best in price/performance or outright innovative.

        They are not “succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground”, they succeeding in actually providing a good service and getting better the more time passes. All that while all competition does is to attempt to expand their user base without actually providing a good service.

        Just thought that if not Valve, we’d be stuck in the same shithole streaming services been lately.

      • MinFapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s because they’re a privately owned company. They can decide when to prioritize long term profits over short term profits.

        Most of their competition are publicity traded companies that have no such luxury. They have to make next quarter’s number higher no matter what.

      • Baggie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        All that’s between you and success is a consistent and reasonable performance, but seemingly everyone else in the world is too greedy to pull this off.

        • MinFapper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s because they’re a privately owned company. They can decide when to prioritize long term profits over short term profits.

          Most of their competition are publicity traded companies that have no such luxury. They have to make next quarter’s number higher no matter what.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Steam refused to issue refunds for a long, long time. In the end they started allowing refunds for everyone because governments started requiring it and it was easier to just allow them for everyone than having to do the legal footwork to have different policies based on geography.

    • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think they’ve even been forced to pay fines because they refused to give refunds in countries where it’s a legal right.

  • BendingHawk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    People saying that when Gabe dies so does Steam seem to be missing a piece of the puzzle.

    From everything I’ve read and can tell they work using an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Program). Meaning each employee working there today is becoming partial owners in Valve. If you think they will allow some new face to show up when Gabe dies and flip the table you are missing the piece where the owners of this company are extremely well compensated today and a core part of making Valve successful today.

    • Lee@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      A ton of companies have ESOP, but that doesn’t stop enshitification because the employees generally don’t own enough shares to exert control.

      • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Those shares are also generally for sale for a high enough price. Given the immense current value of the brand, when Gabe dies vultures of every variety will start circling. If they offer employees 2x their share price to sell, enough of them will do it to lose control to investors that just want to enshittify everything and milk it’s brand for every last penny as they drive it into the ground.

      • TwistedTurtle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        My company is an ESOP and shares don’t give us voting rights or any actual control, it’s just a monetary incentive. The C-suite/board still control everything and unilaterally makes all the executive decisions.

  • ekZepp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    STEAM- Give a reasonable good platform for gaming.

    OTHERS- Kill themselves with shitty optimization and spam policies.

    STEAM - Sit. Enjoy the sunny day. Drink a coffee. Improve a bit the navigator to help you find new games.

    OTHERS - Keep their shitty platforms unoptimized and double down on AI Slops.

    STEAM - Doing some yoga. Walk the dog. Add an AI disclaimer for the games.

  • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am a fan of Valve, but this is just way exaggerated. For example, encourages you to save money by having sales? Isn’t that about manipulating you into buying more games than you would otherwise, because you perceive the value as being better?

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, Valve are certainly one of the best options for buying games other than sometimes GoG or directly from the developer. But this level of simping for Valve is odd.

    • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      They don’t set the prices. Developers and Publishers of the game are the ones that do that.

      PlayStation has been known to straight up limit and even DENY developers and publishers of indie games on their platform but its strange I never see hate for them very much. And they also have crazy sales on AAA games too.

    • Bababasti@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Right? The best method of saving money is not to spend it in the first place, no matter how good the deal is. I mean, good deals are nice and all if you really need a thing.

    • [object Object]@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Where I am, games in Steam cost about five to ten bucks normally, and two or three bucks on sale. Ten bucks goes quite far here, and without sales many wouldn’t buy games at all. Now, is it good value to buy games instead of not buying any?