743
Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly (twitter.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/games@sh.itjust.works
506 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

I wish something like that existed, once you go public you are obligated to grow and that has limits so you always end up squeezing your users! :/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Perhaps a transition to a not-for-profit organization structure might be what folks would prefer? It seems like a potentially better alternative than going public, but I'm not sure how it might work in practice for something like a digital storefront.

    In a weird way, one could almost argue that's roughly how Valve's been operating anyway, except I imagine they've been lining their pockets more than a not-for-profit organization's owners/employees do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    I bet they make a shit ton of money but they certainly seem to reinvest enough of it too. There is a interesting concept called purpose companies here in Europe but it's not especially wide spread or planned by regulators so the transition is extremly complicated and expensive. The search engine Ecosia is a relatively well known one, it's basically a company in self ownership where no one from outside can become CEO and no one can sell or go public, they are obligated to their chosen purpose and that's where their profits go (in the case of Ecosia that's planting trees), not sure how it works exactly or if it's doable in the USA at all tho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I said this elsewhere but that’s not true. The idea that publicly traded companies have a duty to maximize shareholder value is a myth, and anyone privileged enough to sit on a board of directors likely knows this. See this article for an explanation. Every time a board squeezes a company for short term profits at the cost of long term good will, long term profits, etc., that is because they chose to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well the relation is wrong but it's a real thing, they have a duty to grow infinitely or the sroxk price will crash and since that's impossible to achive they essentially have to squeeze their users for short term gains to seem like they still grow sooner or later

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it’s a real thing, they have a duty to grow infinitely or the sroxk price will crash

    This isn't a thing.

    Here's another article explaining why and how it isn't a thing, and also why people like you think it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, I don't care to continue this conversation, even the attempt to convince people like you is rather pointless

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    “People like me” meaning “People who cite their sources and investigating claims before making them?” Yes, I can understand why you might find it difficult to convince “people like me” to believe something that’s trivially shown to be false.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent