I mean, they’re not really wrong. Valve has a monopoly on game distribution the same way that Google has a monopoly on Internet search. Alternatives exist, but they aren’t really competing with Steam.
Valve has so far been pretty pro-consumer which is how they got to where they are, but yhat doesn’t really change the fact that they essentially get to set the rules for digital distribution of games.
It’s also a big risk, as they could always enshittify. It’s a good platform now, but if Gabe dies or decides to give up his leadership position, that could all change very quickly.
Yeah, the day Gabe leaves is going to be a sad day for gaming, because Steam is probably gonna get real shitty real quick. I’m sure some finance-minded jackasses will do their best to maximize short-term profit and fly the whole ecosystem into the ground at Mach 3.
Thats not true. Privately owned firms tend to be really bad because they don’t have a feduciary duty to long term value. They suck everything dry. Private equity is the reason why daycare costs so much yet the daycare workers make minimum wage.
Steam just happens to be fine under private ownership because it makes enough profit for Gabe to be satisfied.
Private equity is commonly referring to “owned by a private equity fund” like Blackrock. It often involves extracting unhealthy amount of short term profit to make the numbers look better then sell the business so they can record a profit.
Holy fucking shit Lemmy is becoming like Reddit. Can you guys learn to think please. This whole thing stated because I replied to this message
As long as it remains privately owned, it should be OK. The day shares go public, god forbid, will be the beginning of the end.
With something “that’s not true because private equity is bad and that’s still privately owned” and you all act like I said that all private ownership is identical to private equity.
This is a very plausable thing that can happen to Steam. Doesn’t Gabe not have kids?
Like what the fuck?? Am I going insane? Am I dreaming?
I assume they mean private equity vs privately owned.
Private equity would mean you have to bow to your investor since they are paying you. Privately owners make their own decisions without needing to answer to an investor
Gross oversimplification of Private vs Public. We are really taking about three kinds of ownership models, if arguing in good faith.
The people that are invested in the company, usually the people that built it, are at the helm.
The people that built it took a payout from Private Equity who now have ownership stake, and who now set the growth agenda.
The compant is now public, and given to the irrational whims if the ENTIRE marketplace, while at the same time primarily being at the whims of the board and the largest few investor stakeholders.
Gamers have good reason to love Valve for Steam alone – not even accounting for their amazing games. They really do have the best gamer-oriented platform, and seemingly they care about gamers. I think they’ve done a lot to advance gaming on linux as well which is much appreciated.
But, at least the way I see it, they still extract rents from game devs to an almost feudal degree.
“Sure – come sell your grain game – but you’ll have to give me a third of your profit because I own the town square platform/servers.”
Side note: It’s pretty funny that for a while Valve had Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis on staff to analyze spontaneously emerging markets for digital items on Steam – and he went on to write about the phenomenon above in his recent book Technofeudalism.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I mean, they’re not really wrong. Valve has a monopoly on game distribution the same way that Google has a monopoly on Internet search. Alternatives exist, but they aren’t really competing with Steam.
Valve has so far been pretty pro-consumer which is how they got to where they are, but yhat doesn’t really change the fact that they essentially get to set the rules for digital distribution of games.
It’s also a big risk, as they could always enshittify. It’s a good platform now, but if Gabe dies or decides to give up his leadership position, that could all change very quickly.
Yeah, the day Gabe leaves is going to be a sad day for gaming, because Steam is probably gonna get real shitty real quick. I’m sure some finance-minded jackasses will do their best to maximize short-term profit and fly the whole ecosystem into the ground at Mach 3.
As long as it remains privately owned, it should be OK. The day shares go public, god forbid, will be the beginning of the end.
Thats not true. Privately owned firms tend to be really bad because they don’t have a feduciary duty to long term value. They suck everything dry. Private equity is the reason why daycare costs so much yet the daycare workers make minimum wage.
Steam just happens to be fine under private ownership because it makes enough profit for Gabe to be satisfied.
Neither do publicly traded companies. All they are required to do is make money for shareholders, and most of them push for short-term value
The profits are taken away from the trading price, yes
Although it still helps the long term price
Privately owned is not the same thing as private equity. https://irely.com/private-equity-or-privately-owned-does-it-matter/
The first sentence
This article seems to be about the ethos of private equity. Legally they’re nearly identical.
Private equity is commonly referring to “owned by a private equity fund” like Blackrock. It often involves extracting unhealthy amount of short term profit to make the numbers look better then sell the business so they can record a profit.
Yeah?..
Sure, legally yes.
In practice, a lot of the time, not even close.
Yes that’s what I said.
Well done missing the point.
Holy fucking shit Lemmy is becoming like Reddit. Can you guys learn to think please. This whole thing stated because I replied to this message
With something “that’s not true because private equity is bad and that’s still privately owned” and you all act like I said that all private ownership is identical to private equity.
This is a very plausable thing that can happen to Steam. Doesn’t Gabe not have kids?
Like what the fuck?? Am I going insane? Am I dreaming?
Thats PE firms, not the same as private owned companies. THERE WAS only one istance of a hybrid of PE and private owned sitaution, SEARS.
How exactly are they different?
I assume they mean private equity vs privately owned. Private equity would mean you have to bow to your investor since they are paying you. Privately owners make their own decisions without needing to answer to an investor
You say that as if publicly traded firms do
Gross oversimplification of Private vs Public. We are really taking about three kinds of ownership models, if arguing in good faith.
The people that are invested in the company, usually the people that built it, are at the helm.
The people that built it took a payout from Private Equity who now have ownership stake, and who now set the growth agenda.
The compant is now public, and given to the irrational whims if the ENTIRE marketplace, while at the same time primarily being at the whims of the board and the largest few investor stakeholders.
Steam has largely existed exclusively in the first category. So have most of the oldest businesses in the planet, which are often family-owned and maintained operations across generations.
Gamers have good reason to love Valve for Steam alone – not even accounting for their amazing games. They really do have the best gamer-oriented platform, and seemingly they care about gamers. I think they’ve done a lot to advance gaming on linux as well which is much appreciated.
But, at least the way I see it, they still extract rents from game devs to an almost feudal degree.
Side note: It’s pretty funny that for a while Valve had Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis on staff to analyze spontaneously emerging markets for digital items on Steam – and he went on to write about the phenomenon above in his recent book Technofeudalism.
Edit: formatting
Really? Has Valve abused their position to specifically further entrench their monopoly or other anti-consumer behavior?
There was a time I would have agreed with that comparison but Google has sucked for a while.