Ads upon ads upon ads

      • niels@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        107
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is that Valve is privately owned. They don’t have to please a board of shareholders who want to see the platform milked for the slightest increase in profit margins.

        • dismalnow@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          73
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Bingo. Enshittification is mostly confined to companies that have gone public or whose sole aspiration is to do so quickly.

          It shifts responsibility from satisfying customers/users to satisfying shareholders (who are never satisfied).

          You can build the perfect product and ride a gravy train as a private company in relative perpetuity. As a corporation, you’re just going to strive for perpetually increasing profits on a quarterly basis with no real care or focus past that

          • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            1 year ago

            For that you need passionate people who are wealthy and not primarily driven to acquire more wealth. That seems to be very rare in large scale businesses.

            • gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              It isn’t wealth that breaks or makes it. The system, and in this case the shareholding system makes it or breaks it. Valve owner Gabe is insanely rich (in the billions I assume) yet, because the system he put up, it is consumer friendly.

              The system is the one, not the people.

              • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, the problem is when shareholders only want profit at any cost. These are the wealthy people I was talking about.

                • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, the other thing that’s kind of stupid is - lets say a companies stock once issued goes to 0 and is delisted. So what? That’s not the company going bankrupt. The stock market valuation has no direct application to a company once the shares are issued and bought the first time. But ignoring shareholder demands that would destroy the company wouldn’t likely tank the stock of a otherwise good company - because there’s someone out there who just wants value to hold and preferably dividends vs infinite growth (that doesn’t exist). Now, you could buy enough stock to throw out the CEO and whatever, but that’s likely to be expensive and a PITA. So while there’s going to be some high profile examples, A) that gets close to taking a company private anyway, and doing a shitty job and B) generally limited numbers of companies will have people going to these lengths.

                  I think the bigger issue isn’t wanting companies to be profitable - that’s kind of the point of companies. The issue is shareholders trying to make capital gains on everything. This isn’t possible long term because infinite growth isn’t possible. I would argue what people and decent investors should want is the steady dividends and not worry about if the stock is up or down.

                  • cottonmon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This isn’t possible long term because infinite growth isn’t possible.

                    I could never grasp why the growth needs to be constantly growing instead of the business just consistently being able to generate profits. It’s not sustainable.

                • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’d have to think Newell has a lot more skin in the game or passion for his platform. He actually believes in the business and what they do, instead of just viewing it as a way to make money

        • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’re telling me that I can generate stable revenue if I work on my product and try to satisfy customers? Sounds kinda radical… who do we even screw over to get the money??

      • ultrasquid@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam has some competition, its just that said competition never took off because Steam is so much better.

      • Dasnap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        (Except to steam seemingly)

        For now. I’m curious what’ll happen when Gabe eventually retires.

        We also can’t ignore the fact that the Steam Marketplace is a hellhole and the origin of a lot of today’s microtransaction hell.

        If you buy all your games on one platform then you’re thoroughly fucked if it turns heel.

        • Lem453@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We all know the answer to this. There will be a hundred threads with thousands of comments with people saying it’s not bad, the company promised x and y and we should be cautiously optimistic, but in the end it always ends the same way.

          Exactly the same thing happens with IBM buying Red Hat. No shortage of articles talking about how this will be good for Red Hat and the entire open source community but of course last month they started the enshitification process that will now March on relentlessly. Even now there are defenders of red hat, talking about how it’s not that bad and there are workarounds, but in the end they fail to see this is just the first step.

          Once started on this path, the rule is always enshitification, any exceptions are exceedingly rare. If steam ever gets bought/sold it will follow the same path and it’s defenders will stay by its side until it looks like the screen shot above.

          • festus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. As much as I like what Valve is doing and currently trust them, I prioritize buying games on GOG and keeping archives of the installers.

        • gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point still stands though, you can easily filter out anything you don’t want to see.

          But I doubt the same would apply if it was owned by shareholders.

          • Dasnap@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A future change in leadership could very easily lead to it going public and then all the regular bullshit follows. Don’t just assume it’ll always be great; always be ready to jump ship.

            I get worried with the amount of gamers who want Steam to be a monopoly. The existence of competition seems to upset some people and it’s really odd.

            • gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              A future change in leadership could very easily lead to it going public and then all the regular bullshit follows. Don’t just assume it’ll always be great; always be ready to jump ship.

              Ok, but what has that anything to do with what I said?

              • Dasnap@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Only really the first part of my comment. I ended up on a rambling tangent for most of it.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure it does, but only those who have a zero-tolerance policy against using proprietary software. In the long run, Free Software is the only kind that can be relied upon not to betray you.

      • nottheengineer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, free software is the only thing that’s sure to not get worse over time. I took way too long to realize, now I have a shitload of stuff to migrate. I already ditched microsoft, but that google account is a real bitch to replace.