• prunerye@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    This is silly. Valve is already a profit driven company. You don’t see the walled garden? The DRM? Valve supports proton because it’s in their monetary interest to do so.

    • BuckenBerry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Since it’s not publicly owned it doesn’t have to focus on quarterly profits.

      If it gets sold to Microsoft they’re probably going to start stripping it down to please investors banking on how most people will be too lazy to leave it. We’ve seen the same thing happen with reddit and twitter. I’m pretty sure enshittification is inevitable.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      There’s “profit-driven” and “seeking exclusively the profits of the next quarter”. While capitalism has a lot of downsides in the long run, the vast majority of bullshit people get outraged about is due to publicly traded companies being organized in such a way that their CEOs and shareholders sacrifice all sustainability and instead try to loot your kitchen.

      Whatever Steam policies you think are bullshit right now (and I can name a couple more, too), they’re not too much in comparison to what they’d be under more typical management.

      • prunerye@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        You’re thinking in reverse. Walled gardens keep you in, not out. Without logging into your Steam account (pretending you don’t have one), try to download a mod for a game you bought on GOG and see how it goes for you.

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Gabe is helping, sure, but he isn’t holding up gaming. People were gaming on Linux before Proton even existed, myself included. Also, even if Valve went away completely, Proton is open-source and there are people like GloriousEggroll who work on Proton entirely as a community member. Proton will live on, specifically because it is open-source. All the progress made on Proton won’t suddenly disappear, all the games that were previously playable on Proton will still be playable on Proton.

    It’s a somewhat reasonable fear but it’s not a realistic fear. Proton isn’t going anywhere.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Proton will live on, specifically because it is open-source.

      Don’t just thank open source; thank copyleft for the fact that Valve couldn’t make a closed-source fork of it even if it wanted to.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Even if they want to open-source it, an issue is the amount of work of organizing the repository, making sure it’s properly organized and doesn’t have any files they don’t want to distribute, and then maintaining that with future versions.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          What? Proton (i.e., WINE) has been LGPL Free Software since before Valve even touched it.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Sorry, what I mean is, if Valve wasn’t forced to keep it opensource, I think a big factor against would be the extra work

    • RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Additionally, if Steam would start to morph into what is posted here, it would simply be integrated into Heroic and / or lutris just as Epic is right now. There would be no need to actually launch steam anymore but just use it as a background service to pipe your games into something else.

    • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      75 years of nation-wide life expectancy is also likely to include early deaths due to accidents, cancer and such. People who die of “old age” typically do later than 75.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Yep, and that was true even going all the way back through history. People weren’t routinely dying in their 30s or whatever before modern medicine; it’s just that a lot more of them were dying in infancy/early childhood and that brought down the average. (That’s the situation anti-vaxxers are trying to go back to, BTW.)

      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        When people talks about life expectancy 99.99% of the time they mean life expectancy at birth, at every year the life expectancy change. Using this life table someone with 61 years, have a life expectancy of 19.7 years, that means he’s expected to live until he’s 80.

    • Rolder@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Plus Gaben has been doing some serious work on his health recently so the fat part no longer applies.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Fit billionaires do. What happens to gaben’s heart and arteries are anyone’s guess. He is getting healthier but you can’t undo damage completely.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Even if you buy them on gog you don’t own them. Download and keep - sure, but you could do that with many games on steam too (also you could download torrent versions which wouldn’t be different from buying on gog). The point is about actually keeping these copies alive, properly updated and working, for which these services exist.

      So, I think owning a disc is also risky, that means your copy can degrade. Owning games in this context have lost its meaning for me.

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        When you own the game you have the choice whether to back up the game and whether to keep a computer that can run it.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I think there are important considerations to keep in mind.

    First and foremost, Valve is not a public company. I don’t know if it has investors, but it is not driven by profits like many typical public companies are. These companies tend to allow themselves longer investments without any clear visibility of immediate profits. They also do things for the greater good, even though it does not bring profits.

    But also, I think the whole of valve is a set of gamers and people who genuinely care about the gaming business and making great products. I think they all share Gabe’s values and goals. It’s not like Gabe is the only one holding everything together or else it would instantly crash into the profit driven company it could be.

    Both of these scenarios keep me hopeful that this is a longer lasting stance and doesn’t hinge on just one person. It’s not a proof it will never be a typical profit company but these are barriers which are not typically present. Let’s hope for the best and keep rewarding them for their contributions to gaming, open source and for their good actions.

    • Eylrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      More important than who works there is who inherits Gabe’s ownership of the company. A new owner can completely change a company and drive out or fire anyone who doesn’t go along with the new direction. Look at what happened with twitter when Musk took over. Or his inheritors could take Valve public and introduce all the issues with that.

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I don’t understand where this myth came from that if a company is a public that they aren’t potentially ruthlessly profit driven.

      Valve is not special. Gabe is to a certain degree (though I would also caution people from deifying anybody period). We can never take for granted that the valve and steam experience we largely enjoy today will be there tomorrow. That’s a simple fact.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s not that they can’t still be profit driven, it’s that they can’t be sued by investors for not being ruthlessly profit driven. Private just means that they have the choice at all

      • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Publicly traded companies are, by law, driven to make as much money as possible for shareholders. Privately held companies are not held to this same limitation. So while a company like Valve could be highly profit-driven (let’s be honest, all for-profit companies in a capitalist system are driven by this motivation), it doesn’t seem to be driven to maximize profits in the short term. This means that they can focus on things other than profit if they so choose.

        • blindsight@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

          – Lynn Stout, professor of corporate and business law, Cornell University

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            For-profit vs. Non-profit is an entirely different distinction under US law, with specific legal definitions for each. This is entirely separate under US law from publicly traded vs. privately owned, which has separate specific legal definitions.

            Valve is a for-profit privately owned company. That is what allows it to not maximize shareholder value, and is the unstated distinction that allows your quote to be true.

            For-profit publicly traded companies do have a legal responsibility for such.

      • Crismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        In the US, there are multiple Supreme Court precedent cases that force profit-maximizing. Shareholders can sue the CEO and board to maximize profit seeking.

        So yes, increasing shareholder value is enshrined in US law. Only private corporations can get around that rule. Also, a corporation cannot be forced to break the law to maximize profits, that’s just something most CEO’s are willing to do for fun.

        • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          I didn’t say people don’t redline publicly traded companies. I’m saying not being public doesn’t mean leadership won’t. I’ve personally seen it plenty of times.

          Also, “fiduciary duty” (the “Supreme Court cases” I’m assuming you’re vaguely referring to) does not mean a CEO needs to always slam the gas at all times to maximize every single red cent at the cost of all medium and longterm considerations. This is a commonly parroted assertion by people online without a basis. “Fiduciary duty” and other obligations to the shareholders simply mean they can’t make obviously bad decisions that will hurt the shareholders. They do t get bailed off by the Investor Police if they make a single longterm decision at the expense of a little short term profit.

          All of this isn’t to say we don’t see it happen all the time anyway. But if it was so strict we’d see more CEO’s hauled off, not golden parachutes everywhere as they break their companies apart.

          • miss phant@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            I think your original comment has a typo on “isn’t”, hence the confusion.

            if a company is a public that they aren’t potentially ruthlessly profit driven.

    • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It would be so awesome if they went employee owned. I get the impression the employees are people who are passionate about video games. I feel that they would choose leadership that is both good for the community and good for the long-term health of the company.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I think this post massively overestimates the power a CEO has. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders. Valve is private, so its shareholders are its workers. It would be useful to know how many shares Gaben has of valve, but I still don’t think the next CEO would suddenly also be the majority owner.

    Also, I know things have changed a lot in the last 12 years, but 12 years ago regarding the total dissolution of Valve, Gaben said:

    “It’s way more likely we would head in that direction than say, ‘Let’s find some giant company that wants to cash us out and wait two or three years to have our employment agreements terminate."

    Also, forcing users onto windows is THE way to kill valve’s profits. The whole point of the Linux push was a direct response to the windows store, and msft’s threat of forcing valve to give them a cut of purchase through steam. Msft will still do that the first chance it gets. So even the most profit-minded new leader wouldn’t make that choice, as it’s plainly shortsighted.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Also Valve isn’t the charity they believe it is. It’s a de-facto monopoly, and it has serious moderation issues (basically if you bought enough games, they will less likely ban you for hatespeech and such).

      • Daxtron2@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        They’re not a defacto monopoly? There’s many different ways to buy games online and valve does not have anti-consumer practices like exclusivity deals. I have not heard anything about them not banning for hate speech? Every time I’ve ever reported something its been taken down within 48hrs

      • Rossel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Valve isn’t pulling any anticompetitive moves though. They just try to secure profits by being the best instead of destroying everyone else that dares to compete with them.

        • FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Valve isn’t pulling any anticompetitive moves though.

          Well, they are allegedly forcing price parity on publishers, so they can’t sell cheaper on their own website or some other storefront that takes smaller cuts. That’s anticompetitive as shit, and they are being sued over it.

          • Rossel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            That parity thing was debunked 2 years ago when a similar lawsuit against Valve was dismissed, their parity thing is for resold Steam keys, which Valve issues with no profit margin. Milberg London are trolls that tried to do the same lawsuit against Sony and PlayStation last year. Also got nowhere.

        • sep@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Beeing not assholes against their own users are basically anticompetitive these days. ;)

    • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Shareholders is the owners and since they are private we don’t know who they are. Right now it could be all Gaben or it could be a mix but Gaben is majority resulting in the culture is what he wants. Private companies don’t have to be maximizing profits focused but will die if they don’t make money. When people die it is whoever inherits or has majority share that pushes what happens.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        I had briefly searched to see if it was known how much ownership Gaben had. Did you find it somewhere, or are you just assuming he’s majority?

        I do know the employees are compensated in shares of the company, but you’re right that I don’t know what proportion is owned by employees.

        • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Below is what I can find it isn’t well sourced but ownership isn’t the same as shares. You can have profits shares without having any ownership stake.

          Valve Corporation, the American video game developer and digital distributor company, is a private company with a secretive ownership structure. Gabe Newell, the company’s co-founder and CEO, is the majority shareholder, and his ownership stake is estimated to be over 50%. Other investors include Valve executives and employees, as well as major shareholders such as The Custody Bank of Japan, Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. Wikipedia Valve Corporation - Wikipedia Founders. Gabe Newell. Mike Harrington. Headquarters. Bellevue, Washington. , US. Key people. Gabe Newell (president) Scott Lynch (COO) Products. show. Video games. show. Hardware. show. Software. Total equity. US$10 billion (2019) Owner. Gabe Newell (>50%) Number of employees. ~360 (2016) Subsidiaries. Valve S.a.r.l. Valve GmbH. Campo Santo. ASN. 32590. Website. valvesoftware.com. Valve was founded in 1996 by the former Microsoft employees Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington. Their debut game, the first-person shooter (FPS) Half-Life (1998), was a critical and commercial success and had a lasting influence on the FPS genre. Harrington left in 2000. namria.gov.ph Which company owns Valve May 28, 2024 — Valve is a private company with a secretive ownership structure. Its investors include cofounder Gabe Newell and Valve executives and employees… In 2003, Valve moved to Bellevue, Washington, and reincorporated as Valve Corporation. namria.gov.ph How much of valve does Gabe own - NAMRIA May 24, 2024 — Valve is owned (mostly) owned by it’s CEO, Gabe Newell, one of the founders of the company. The only real connection with Tencent is their . Newell’s ownership stake isn’t disclosed and he’s attributed 50.1% of Valve in this analysis to reflect his control of the company and status as co-founder… NAMRIA Who is the majority shareholder of Valve - NAMRIA May 25, 2024 — Gabe Newell has led Valve Corp., which develops video games, since he cofounded it in 1998 with former Microsoft colleague Mike Harrington… Over the years, the ownership of Valve Corporation and Steam has remained primarily with the founders and major investors. Gabe Newell . Major Shareholders (Top 10) ; The Custody Bank of Japan, Ltd. 2,596, 2.88 ; Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, 2,553, 2.83 ; KITZ Corporation Employee Stock .” Valve ostentatiously makes little use of direct authority. majority shareholder, Gabe Newell) is used At the same time, contextual .

          Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital distributor company in Bellevue, Washington. It was started in 1996 by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington, two Microsoft employees in the past. steam.fandom.com Gabe Newell | SteamWiki | Fandom Gabe Newell, known online as Gaben, is the co-founder and majority shareholder of Valve Corporation. He attended Harvard University, but dropped out and worked at Microsoft until 1996, where he and co-worker Mike Harrington left to found Valve. Newell and former Microsoft colleague Mike Harrington founded Valve in 1996. Their first game, Half-Life, was released in 1998 and was a critical and commercial success. Harrington left the company in 2000, and Valve moved to Bellevue, Washington and reincorporated as Valve Corporation in 2003.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Highly recommend putting that in a quote and giving a source rather than copy pasting a wall in plain text. For all I know you just asked ChatGPT and this is what it spat out.

            And in this context, just the part about Gabe being majority shareholder would have sufficed.

    • Sianna@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Employees are stakeholder, not necessarily shareholder. Management, likely. The grunts, I think not so much.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        How are you differentiating stakeholder and shareholder? The employees are certainly shareholders.

        Valve doesn’t really hire “grunts”. The people who are actually considered employees of valve are very few and highly skilled. The number of Wikipedia from 2016 is very out of date and estimates 360. But valve’s LinkedIn still says “over 300”.

        • ben_dover@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          there are common definitions for both terms. the employees aren’t shareholders as long as they don’t own a part of the company, but they are stakeholders since they have something to do with the company. their partners, publishers, etc. are stakeholders too

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Yes, I was making sure that was the distinction you were making, because I’m trying to disambiguate for you: the employees of valve are both shareholders and stakeholders.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Sorry, the way i phrased that does sound causal. It should say “and”.

        Any real lib knows, public or private, there’s no way out of our capitalist downfall.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        You are most definitely right that the major shareholders aren’t the workers. The major shareholders are Gabe Newell, and some bankers in Japan.

        Still, it is known that Valve employees are partially compensated with stock for working in the company, so most of the employees are still shareholders. They just aren’t the major ones.

  • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    This is not “a prediction” - this is inevitably what’s going to happen.

    Everyone here who has drank the Valve kool-aid and pretends like they can do no wrong is dangerously short-sighted. Steam’s virtual monopoly on PC gaming is a huge issue. You think Epic has a monopoly on the concept of “Store Exclusives?” Fucking spare me. It’s a matter of time before Steam locks in its own exclusives, kills Proton, and locks every. single. game. behind always online DRM.

    If you want to distribute your new PC game, guess what? You don’t get to contract with both GOG and Steam. You don’t get to say your game is Linux compatible because it runs well in the Proton compatibility layer. Oh, and if you say “games could run on Linux before Proton!” then you’re deluding yourself by remembering a time when games were distributed with their own launcher and weren’t packed to the gills with platform specific code so that the game integrates seamlessly with a specific third-party launcher and its DRM tools. You bought a Steamdeck? Cool. The version of Arch it runs is no longer supported. You have to upgrade to “Windows for Steameck.” Yes, you have to pay for a fucking Windows license. Yes, it has fewer features than baseline Windows. No, it’s not less expensive.

    You think what’s happening to YouTube is bad? Fucking strap in, boys. Welcome to digital content distribution in the age of unfettered capitalism. I wonder how many of you are gonna eat this shit up, huff lethal quantities of copium, and say it’s “not that bad” once it starts happening and you’re faced with either standing by your own stated convictions and giving up almost all PC gaming in general or bend the knee so you can get your precious Steam Library back. Probably most of you.

    • Bread@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I would argue that they are financially motivated to keep proton and Linux gaming going and not just out of the kindness of their hearts. They are competing with Microsoft and their store. When your competition has complete control of the OS you need to run your store on, you are at the total mercy of them. They can’t afford not to keep on their current track. Especially now that they are successfully doing it, going back would be a death sentence.

    • Ninmi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      What you’re saying is “inevitable” hasn’t happened for the entire 20+ years of Steam. I’m going to guess Valve is going to continue being a private company and doing whatever the fuck they want, without investor pressure towards enshittification.

      Steam’s monopoly is actually what’s holding PC gaming together. Other types of digital distribution services are so fucked up by exclusivity deals that any “competition” is always going to mean “megacorporation uses existing wealth to deny competition”.

      Epic is trying really hard to bring the exclusivity nightmare over to PC gaming as well, but so far Valve still holds.

    • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      They’re far from perfect, I’d be the first person to tell you.

      But they’re still light-years ahead of anyone else, because they’re perfectly happy just making tons of money instead of trying to squeeze every last cent out of the storefront at our expense.

    • wonderfulvoltaire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      They’re getting sued often because they’re greedy sloths suffering the ego trip just like epic did when Fortnite was on the top of the world second only to Minecraft of course.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Many won’t like it, but this is the reason we need competition like Epic games and GOG.

    The steam fanboys certainly aren’t going to make this problem any better.

      • Spedwell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        EGS can’t compete on features for sure (it really is quite a shit platform), but they would be very competitive if their 12% fee (vs. Steams 30% fee) could be passed to buyers as lower prices. As it stands, Valve’s policies essentially strongarms the market to prohibit this (publishers selling on Steam may not have a lower price on a different platform, or the game can be de-listed from Steam). The Wolfire v. Valve case is highly relevent here.

        My plea is for you not to get mad at Epic for being shit. We should be accepting of crappy platforms if their fees reflect that (Epic charges 40% what Steam does). Focus your frustration at Valve for preventing the market from fairly allowing you select the quality of the platform you’d like to pay for.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Bad competition is still better than no competition, because of the aforementioned issue.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yeah, but fair competition? EGS paying publishers to have exclusives doesn’t seem like fair competition to me.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Competition like gog, I’m all for it. But what is epic providing? I fail to see it.

  • sproid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    That post is pure hysteria. First no one knows when Gabe is going to die, and even if he live very long he may step down due to old age still.

    • also worrying so much about something that may happen 14 years later according to op is unnecessary and distorted thinking.
    • why assume there is going to be a power vacuum? can’t he and his leadership make pans of succession?
    • then believing a whole made-up story going down the rabbit hole of the worst case scenario is again unnecessary and distorted thinking. Is okay to think of worst case scenarios but to take them as if they were real is gifting ourselves anxiety for free.
    • in any case, the mental exercise of thinking of some undesirable possibilities allow us to take precautions and prepare to the extend that is appropriate and reachable. Which would be the most efficient behavior that thwarts “actual fear” as OP writes it.
  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    What will happen to the Steam Deck? Will they discontinue it and support for existing units, or replace the OS with Windows (causing degraded performance and exposing their users to Microsoft adtech enshittification)? The Steam Deck is a star product of theirs, which hopefully will count for something.

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s important to remember though that the steam deck itself is not the end goal for them. It’s part of building a larger Linux gaming ecosystem and solidifying their hard-core followers. Last I checked it it only sold 2 or 3 million. That’s impressive, but if you’re thinking about it as a competitor to say, the switch (which you see it compared to all the time) it’s clearly not a massive money maker. So it’s not hard to imagine a short term thinking leadership ending it.

      • blindsight@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        An Omdia report from April 2023 claims Valve sold 1.62 million units of the Steam Deck in 2022, which was expected to grow by 14 percent to 1.85 million units in 2023. If we assume the 14% growth continues, and those numbers are accurate, then Valve is closing in on 4½ million units sold.

  • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Proton is open source. Anyone can pull it together and integrate it. Gog have been doing DRM free games for a while, they’ll be quite keen to fill this niche. Epic probably won’t care. If none do, someone will want to.

    • brrt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      What are you smoking? GOG Galaxy doesn’t even have a Linux client. In fact it has been one of the most requested features for years and nothing has happened.

      Edit: it’s also the reason I stopped buying from them when I got my Steam Deck.

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        So you’re saying if Valve enshittified, they wouldn’t fork and try to capitilise on that market?

        They probably do not see the point right now as Valve have it sewn up. Lemmy grew when Reddit scored own goals. When Valve do, opportunities are there and would be taken.

      • zbb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        They do provide Linux support in other ways though. They even troubleshoot me once with a game I tried to play on Linux and offered a refund.

        Gog Galaxy not on Linux is a shame, yes, but its DRM-Free and Linux installers are enough for me to continue to buy from them.

        Edit: Heroic Launcher makes a great replacement of Gog Galaxy, maybe even better to the Windows client, from what I’d tried. No multiplayer though.

    • puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Valve is a private company whereas GOG belongs to CDProject - a publicly traded company. GOG might want to fill the void but they’re more likely to do dumb, shortsighted decisions in contrast to Valve.

      • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Maybe, but DRM free content isn’t exactly shareholder value…

        It’s better shepherded than Epic. They probably don’t fill the space because Steam do it better, but you invest more if the return is higher.

        The case I’m referring to is in the future if Steam badly enshittified.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Gog have been doing DRM free games for a while

      As far as I know GOG also sells drm content and Steam also sells drm-free content. So what’s the point

      they’ll be quite keen to fill this niche

      I also don’t remember them doing anything for Linux apart from releasing a broken port then badmouthing people who complained that the game they bought is broken.