• RandomException
      link
      fedilink
      English
      465 months ago

      Let’s replace “good guy” with “one of the few actually good services in gaming”, would you still disagree?

        • RandomException
          link
          fedilink
          English
          405 months ago

          I mean I get what you’re saying, but Valve is actually one of the few large tech companies that are providing an actually good service (Steam). People should be allowed to make money by providing value to their customers because that’s the motivation of building such services and products in the first place.

          The hatred should go towards the companies abusing their position and violating customers and then just cashing excessive amounts of money for a crap product/service that has no real competition. If Valve had started making their competitors lives harder, by generating lots of nonsense lawsuits for example, they should absolutely be blasted down to hell by everybody. As long as they are just earning lots of bucks by providing a service people want to use without restricting using other services and playing with healthy rules otherwise as well, it’s all fine and everyone working on the great service SHOULD earn more than average.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              275 months ago

              Steam didn’t get to where it is because of market abuse but because of providing a good service, or at least a service that was better than anything else at the time by far. Valve are reaping the rewards now, but are also still providing an arguably better service than it’s competitors. It’s a bit odd that you want to punish a company just for being successful.

              Valve isn’t perfect and they’re profit driven, but they’re privately owned and the goals isn’t maximizing profit, which isn’t something you can say about most of their competitors.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  155 months ago

                  Yes, the profit is excessive, but it’s because they have a good product where the competition has not really been putting in much effort and letting Valve get away with it for so long.

                  Valve’s goal isn’t to maximize profit because they don’t have shareholders that demand it. If they really wanted to maximize profits then there’s a whole lot more to squeeze out of Steam and the games they made. And yes I agree Valve can lower their cut and still make bucket loads of money, but I highly doubt that if they did reduce their cut it would actually lead to cheaper games except for a maybe a few. Because just like Valve, the devs and publishers are profit driven and why would they turn down a potentially bigger profit?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              165 months ago

              I guess steam could have avoided making billions if they had never improved their launcher since Half Life 2. Not improving products and keeping it as crappy as possible so people stay away from it is one business strategy of ensuring people are deterred from using it.

              Shame they kept improving and made something people want to use.

            • RandomException
              link
              fedilink
              English
              135 months ago

              I mean Valve has a game store called Steam, but what’s the actual position they have? There are competing game stores - both digital and physical - and Valve isn’t trying to run their competition out of business with shady business tactics? Just by being good at something and therefore running a successful business shouldn’t be illegal or hated by itself - it’s the way the business is being conducted that actually matters. Gaben is free to have yacht or two as long as his company is being run with a healthy mindset, their employees are being paid a fair salary (which I guess is another discussion in it’s own who decides that) and they are not screwing their competition nor their customers up.

                • RandomException
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  155 months ago

                  I don’t care how many yachts Gaben owns, he’s free to do whatever he wishes as long as he provides me a great service that I’m willing to use money towards.

                  And Microsoft did try really hard back in the day to make Linux go away. Luckily OSS community was already large enough that they were able to fight the legal cases and the whole thing didn’t dry up. Nowadays Microsoft endorses Linux because they decided they can squeeze value out of other people’s free work for themselves (and because pretty much the entire server industry runs on Linux anyways).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 months ago

      Shame you’re getting so downvoted. People are so determined to believe in good philanthropic billionaires that they forget the system that allows the accumulation of such ridiculous wealth doesn’t work for nice philanthropic people. It was like this with Elon musk, before he sacked his publicists (my guess) before the cave diver thing. People were saying he was going so save humanity or some shit. All he’s done is fuck up twitter. Same with this guy. I use steam and I think my steam deck is a cool little machine but that doesn’t inspire me to tongue the sweaty arsehole of an obscenely rich guy.

    • Carighan Maconar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      85 months ago

      Even if you believe that all privately owned capital is intrinsicly evil, you still ought to go after companies from most to least problematic within a specific category, no?

      That is, for digital storefronts, start with the likes of Epic or in a broader digital gaming space in general, Microsoft or Ubisoft. Go after Steam when you’ve cleaned up the rapists, backroom dealers and collusionists.