Am I just deceived? I think I might love him?

  • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    This is really simple. If you have more than a 1000 million dollars. Every day you decide to keep it instead of saving lives and helping people. It will never be moral

  • OriginalUsername7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    Valve makes tonnes of money from loot boxes or whatever they’re called. Basically a form of gambling.

    It also just so happens that a great way of making a shit load of money is making it super easy for people to buy from you. Valves big competitive advantage is just… not fucking that up. A surprising number of companies fuck that up.

    And as someone else said, Gabe doesn’t have to be a billionaire. He could use his phenomenal wealth to build hospitals and help the poor, rather than building his own little private navy.

    Valve is doing a lot that will make people like them, but they’re still a huge corporation, and Gabe is still a billionaire.

  • 4grams@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    There is no such thing as a good billionaire. There are billionaires who might be temporarily aligned with you but make no mistake, none of them will love you back…

  • Klear@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 days ago

    Valve invented or normalised a ton of crap that’s plaguing modern gaming: game launchers, always online DRM, microtransactions, achivements, lootboxes…

    I’m not saying you should stop using Steam. Go ahead, buy the Frame, VR is awesome and it looks like a really solid headset, but do it without kissing Gabe’s ass if you can. Corpos are not your friends.

      • Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        For me, it’s when people complain that a game/system/platform doesn’t have them. Some games and systems don’t need or want to gamify playing games and that’s okay

        • Stowaway@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Marketing: the end product just isn’t right. We need to make it more fun. You know like a game.

          dev: What are you talking about.

          Marketing: There’s this new thing called gamification. Let’s do that.

          Dev: First off thats not new, its been around for ages. Whatever, what are you even talking about?

          Marketing: Yeah you know, make it fun! Give people awards for accomplishing certain tasks or reaching milestones. Lots of flashy lights and celebratory music. We do it in presentations and training all the time.

          Dev: That’s what xp, leveling, magic items, special skills, etc are. Your asking me to gamify a fucking video game?!?!

          Marketing: Yeah exactly! Its gonna be awesome!

          To be clear I don’t think achievement s are bad. I don’t personally care about them. This is just how I imagine the conversation went when they were thought of.

          • Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            I don’t care if they exist or not. The complaints that XYZ doesn’t have them is what makes me dislike them. Like who cares if Switch doesn’t have achievements? Go play the game and have fun

      • Klear@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        They’re nothing but a skinner box that’s supposed to keep you playing games for longer. It’s the same type of instant gratification built into most mobile game, but applied to everything else.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          In a system where you pay once for the game, isn’t that a good thing? It lets you enjoy the game for longer instead of making you constantly buy new games, thus spending less money for the same amount of enjoyment.

          • Klear@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            It’s meant to keep you playing after you stop enjoying said game. Besides, pay once? Shit like this is very often paired with the free-to-play and microstransactions model.

            • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 days ago

              I really dont think its that bad. I can see the argument that they should be able to be disabled for people with OCD or something. I used to feel some kind of FOMO for not 100% every game.

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              Right, that’s a fair criticism with regards to microtransactions. I don’t know much about those kinds of games though, so I can’t really say much about it.

              My partner bought Skyrim twice (Steam and Switch) and 100%'d both, and now is going through the same process with BG3. I’m just thinking about how the achievement system is acting like a multiplier to the game’s value in this instance.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      None of that was invented by Valve. “Normalize” is subjective but I would argue they didn’t do any of that either.

      Launchers existed for a long, long time before Steam- part of what made Steam so successful was having a centralized launcher for games from a lot of different companies together. Before then there was usually a separate launcher for each game.

      Online DRM has existed for as long as the Internet was ubiquitous enough to get away with it. Offline DRM existed before that. Even back in the 80’s games would ship with all sorts of anti-piracy mechanisms. The only 2 Valve games that ever had DRM were Artifact and DOTA 2, both of which were online multiplayer-only games, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

      Maple Story is pretty widely considered to be the first game with micro transactions, and they were in the form of loot boxes. By the time Team Fortress came out the concept was already popularized in MMO’s, Facebook games like Farmville, and FIFA.

      Achievements aren’t something I really care about, but game had those concepts for years. I remember playing Spyro 2 as a kid and tracking down all the skill points. Sure it doesn’t use the word “achievement” but even today Sony uses the word “Trophy” to mean the same thing.

      Corporations aren’t your friend of course, it’s just weird that people think Valve invented these things. And Valve’s implementations are some of the most benign and consumer-friendly cases in the industry.

      The launcher i consider a positive - it’s a great way to organize my library, including non-steam games. There’s tons of free features I use all the time, like Remote Play, free Cloud Saves, friend management. It’s great for managing inputs from all sorts of different controllers, managing systems with multiple displays, allowing me to control everything with a controller without having to set it down to use my mouse and keyboard. They have great mod support for the games that use it. There’s tons more features I don’t use. It’s not just a launcher like EA Play or UPlay- it’s a full platform. It’s so useful that I even added GOG Galaxy as a non-steam game.

      Any business needs to balance the needs of its stakeholders. Owners, partners, creditors, consumers, employees, governments, etc. Valve is one of the fairest companies left alive in 2025 at balancing all of these entities, and yet in every online discussion about them someone always feels the need to pipe in and be like “well aktually they are secretly very bad!”, just because they don’t have the power to stop other companies from being shitty. They don’t have the bargaining power to tell Sega to get rid of Denuvo on a games from prior generations selling for $20. They don’t have the bargaining power to Ubisoft or Larian to drop their annoying launchers. They don’t have the power to tell other publishers and devs to stop adding pay-to-win mechanics. They don’t have the power to stand up to payment processors that are demanding certain content be removed from the store.

      Valve DOES have the power to promote Linux as a legitimately viable operating system for gamers, behind Linux enthusiasts. They have the power to get Microsoft to drop their ridiculous store. They have the power to get Ubisoft to at least add their games to Steam, even if you need a dumb launcher still. They have the power to clearly and consistently label games with DRM in their store so consumers can make informed decisions without spending hours digging through the legalize or EULA’s or doing research on enthusiast forums.

      It’s fair to question whether Valve’s 30% cut is justified for every publisher, though we also know that some publishers have been able to make separate deals at times. I’m sure you can find other things that are fair to question. It’s really weird to accuse people of “kissing Gabe’s ass” just for recognizing that Steam is the best platform for a consumer to use right now.

    • halvar@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Blaming game launchers on Steam is like blaming streaming becoming unusable on Netflix. They were having success being (probably) the first ones to do it and when other companies saw that they tried to copy their success, only to find out that what made the original product successful was that they were the only ones doing it and that was (unlike the new landscape the companies just created) incredibly useful.

      The sad fact of the matter is that while having a one stop shop for anything sounds great, once a solution in a certain field gets successful the other companies trying to achive the same success will fly in like vultures and make it forever impossible to have just one service that unites everything into one neat package.

          • hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I think the commenter is talking about the steam marketplace featuring a lot of CS assets which people do buy and sell for real money.

            • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              What I’m talking about is that there isn’t a way to “withdraw” your money like the illegal sites let you. So no, there isn’t a way to gamble through Steam.

              In fact, Steam does what they have the power to do in reporting those sites and getting them taken down.

              • hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Oh sorry, I always thought there was a way to withdraw money from your steam wallet to your bank account.

                I haven’t used steam in a few years though, and haven’t interacted with the marketplace in longer than that, so wouldn’t really know!

  • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I’d give all the billionaires the same choice:

    (a) Give away everything except, say, 25 million.

    (b) Guillotine.

      • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Oh, everything.

        Got a $20m yacht? Sell it. Oh, youcre forced to sell it for $50k because nobody will give you more? That’s just the free market, clearly it’s only worth $50k.

        Paid $75m to build your house? Well someone is offering you $175k and you’d better take it.

        And you own a company worth $100m? No you don’t, it was already taken from you and turned into a worker-owned co-op.

        After all the sales and seizures, you’ve got $23.1m in cash, and just 1m more in the bank? OK, dude, we cool.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is my problem. If the wealth stacked up real fast maybe I would crack 100 mil but man I would so do the myspace guy thing.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        The Sovereign Fund for Humanity’s Poor. Even if the wealth is stacking up that fast all anyone has to do is set up a trust fund with that name, the goal of using said wealth to fund every single human with a trust fund that will eliminate poverty in their life, and a board of directors that MUST contain two fiduciaries but only one from any given major Megalopolis, as well as three data analysts from OxFam. Once that’s setup, all you have to do is setup automatic deposits of every single penny above $100,000,000 and every other rich person can do the same. This causes everyone to see that every other ultra rich person is just greedier than literal dragons.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 days ago

    A billionaire who gives away 99% of their wealth to the poorest, first and exclusively, isn’t a billionaire, and still has enough money (maybe more!) for the rest of time.

  • Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    In my opinion if anyone has billions of dollars and hasn’t given a majority of it away to charity or those in need, that person is on some level at least somewhat an evil person.

    Sure, much of it would be tied up in stocks and stuff that legally can’t be sold for specific purposes or timeframes, but if you have net worth in the billions and any stocks that could be sold for cash and then donated it should be. Or if you have an annual income that’s much more than you need to live an extremely comfortable life and then you just spend and invest the excess instead of donate.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Securities tax, payable in shares of the security. 1% of all stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments transferred to the IRS annually, to be auctioned slowly over time. The first $10 million held by a natural person may be exempted from this requirement. No exemptions for artificial “persons”.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    5 days ago

    If he continues to be a billionaire, yes.

    Amassing that level of wealth is not an accident, it’s by choice.

    • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      I agree with this sentiment, but given a choice, I believe Gabe would make the right one and spend his wealth to lose billionaire status.

      His supposed exploitation was not by his own design, but rather by luck - the sheer benefit of riding a privately owned and benevelontly steered surfboard on top of the waves of a collapsing capitalist society.

      Basically, there’s a meme about all other companies shooting themselves in the foot so Gabe always benefits, and part of that is in the way those companies fucked and manipulated their control of capital and markets. Gabe benefits just by being one of the few that can afford to participate in that system others rigged.

      So he simply rigs it the least, and wins by providing the platform with the least greedy problems. Far far less than he could given his position.

      IMHO, despite all controversies, Steams cut of profits from providing equal access to game visibility despite creator, nationality, background, etc, has legitimately opened the door for nearly anyone to be successful on their platform. For all the tools and services they provide, they ask for literally the smallest cut compared to any other publishing platform.

      Gabe could destroy that to his benefit on a whim, and instead he over designs it to make it possible for nearly anyone to try game dev if they do the work needed to develop for them.

      To hold so much capital simply for providing some form of equality to access the same in a system that overwhelming benefits others with more resources is in no way greedy imo. It’s being the person with the only fire extinguisher who knows how to use it in a burning building: popular.

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        A man who owns a billion dollars worth of megayatchts is not doing everything he can to ethically spend/donate his wealth. Yes, lots of his wealth is tied up in Valve stock and he can’t sell that without losing voting rights and making Valve stop being what it is, but he’s rolling in other assets and cash, too

          • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            It doesn’t have publicly-traded shares because it’s a private company, but it’s still correct to say someone has stock in a private company corporation (which isn’t relevant as Valve is unincorporated) that they own part or all of. Like with physical objects, they don’t stop existing just because they’re not for sale to the public. It’s an easy mistake to make, though, as the vast majority of the time people talk about stocks and shares it’s in the context of buying and selling publicly-traded stock.

            • Cooper8@feddit.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 days ago

              It is nitpicking, but in legal terms you could say he has shares in the company but not stocks. Stocks refers specifically to publicly traded shares, that is to say shares sold on a stock market. Shares is the more broad term as it can refer not only to stocks but also private equity units of various types. Valve is a Limited Liability Corporation, or LLC, which have Membership Units as the type of shares held by owners, which differs from stocks both in terms of tax treatment and limitations on how they can be transacted.

              • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                It’s nitpicking and also not quite right. Stock of a corportation is shares, whether or not they’re publicly traded. It becomes plural when it’s shares of multiple corporation.

                However, LLCs aren’t corporations at all (the C is Company), and in the US, stock is specifically of corporations. I’m in the UK, where the equivalent to an LLC’s shares are still considered stock, and I’ve been googling whether private corporations have stock in the US, which they do, so the confusion’s been that the public/private distinction isn’t the important one and I’ve been arguing the definition of a word that’s defined differently in the relevant country.

        • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          The dispicableness of billionaires is measured by their actions not their worth. And despite being of high worth, Gabes actions are unquestionably not greedy. He’s doing almost everything he can to minimize his wealth in favor of equality to access Steam as a game dev.

          If he wanted to, he could charge far more than $100 to develop for them, and buy several more yachts.

          But he hasn’t.

          Which makes his platform more popular. And in turn brings him even more cash to buy more yachts.

          His yachts aren’t indicative of his greed, but his benevolence in the face of it.

          Show me a single other company the size of Valve that has chosen to forgo profit over access to something like Steam to make money yourself. That’s basically non existent in the year 2025 aside from Valve. I’m not going to judge Gabe as a bad person for profiting from that. He could be profiting much much more and is choosing access for nearly everyone else instead.

          • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Which makes his platform more popular. And in turn brings him even more cash to buy more yachts.

            Realising that ratfucking your customers and suppliers at every opportunity makes them less willing to do business with you in the future, and therefore you’ll potentially make more money by not doing that, so then not doing that, is exactly what a greedy person would do if they weren’t also a moron. Gabe Newell is certainly not a moron. Lots of other billionaires are, or have other empathy-limiting conditions that mean they don’t realise people won’t want to do repeat business with them if they got screwed over the last time.

            There’s obviously a majority of billionaires that are much less ethical than Newell, but one superyatcht ought to be enough for anyone, and anyone buying a second one instead of putting the money directly to good causes is not benevolent.

            • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              I see granting access for anyone to make games for Steam as a good cause.

              The opportunity cost for what profit could be made by closing that is multitudes of yachts worth.

              Just because you do not value this as a good cause does not mean it is not.

              Does Gabe have more yachts than are needed? Yes. But again, you can’t just say he’s greedy because he has them. That’s being incredibly biased.

              Instead, how about you tell me what actions of his has made him greedy that don’t involve his assets?

              I can name hundreds of ways Musk should be drawn and quartered based on his actions that have nothing to do with his wealth, but rather his actual documented choices.

              What choices / actions / or anything of actual greed has Gabe done that you can point to?

              It’s like saying anything with a swastika on it is for Nazis without realizing Hindus have been using a right oriented Swastika to represent good fortune for hundreds of years.

              Gabe Newall has done the following with his 11 Billion fortune:

              • Co-founded “The Heart of Racing” car racing team that raises money for Children’s charity.

              • Donates heavily to the Seattle Children’s Hospital and several others around the world.

              • Founded Foundry10, a non profit education company that helps neuro divergent kids learn through new methods of education

              • Started InkFish to expand the scientific study of our oceans and is now the second highest individual donor towards marine research on the planet.

              https://80.lv/articles/gabe-newell-reportedly-plans-to-invest-usd300-million-to-marine-research

              That’s why he has those yachts.

              Same reason Hindus have their swastikas.

              Their actions speak louder than the symbols they use suggest. Even when those symbols are Yachts.

              He has 11 Billion. Everyone else even close to his level of market control has several magnitudes more. Why does he have so little when he owns a virtual monopoly on digital distribution?

              Because he’s not in it for maximizing his bank account.

              • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                The billion dollars in superyatchts is just the personally-owned luxury kind that billionaries like to hoard, not marine research boats that he has funded. Him giving away some of his money doesn’t mean that he’s not also frivilously spent more money than most people could hope to see in a lifetime.

                Fundamentally, I don’t think we’re going to agree here, as I fundamentally believe that there’s an amount of money beyond which there are no ethical grounds for keeping it, and it’s much lower than $11 billion. Newell has kept money above that threshold instead of giving everything he made beyond that threshold away (even illiquid stuff like part of his stake in Valve could, in principle, be given to a charity so the profit from Steam went straight into the charity), and I and plenty of other people would see that as greedy. Others might say that the fact that he’s given anything away that he wasn’t legally required to means that he’s not greedy. These are subjective ethical opinions, so even though they can’t be reconciled, it’s not a big deal. Different people think different things are wrong.

                The reason I’ve been replying at all is that some of the things you’ve stated to be facts are untrue, not that I’m trying to convince you that all billionaires are unethical.

                • EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  What have I said that isn’t true?

                  https://robbreport.com/motors/marine/billionaire-gabe-newell-oceanco-gigayacht-leviathan-1237360429/

                  The 364-foot Leviathan was designed for billionaire gaming visionary Gabe Newell, who acquired the Dutch shipyard this past April.

                  Leviathan is the latest addition to Newell’s Inkfish fleet and will be used to further scientific research in the marine sector. Occupying the place of the standard beach club is a fully equipped dive center, laboratory, and a hospital. There’s even a 3-D printing workshop where the crew can create spare or replacement parts. “Yachts have great potential to serve as platforms for scientific research,” adds Newell. “It’s about recognizing that you’re part of a broader community and ensuring the yacht’s presence adds value to the communities around it.”

                  You are just continuing to make assumptions based entirely on the assets he owns instead of his behaviour.

                  Something I keep pointing out, and is why I have also been responding.

                  I am completely on your side and feel that anyone with over a billion is an ethical and moral burden. However, I’m also wise enough to recognize that as a goal to strive towards not a destination to judge against. So I’m not going to chastise those actively working towards that goal, even if they are a billionaire.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          If it means more cash reserves in a problematic situation for Valve, I’m up for keeping it.
          If he leaves Valve, then yes