Ashtefere comments on Tim Sweeney emailed Gabe Newell calling Valve 'you assholes' over Steam policies, to which Valve's COO replied internally 'you mad bro?'

I think you are reading too much into the word choice, which was phrased a lot more like "I will always be grateful for steam doing this thing" and not "I will follow steam even if they join Sauron's legions".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Gabe doesn't know you, you don't know him, Gabe represents a concept to you all. To be loyal to him is at best a parasocial relationship. He is not your dad, he's not your professor, he's not any kind of mentor to you, he's just someone who doesn't speak much publicly, and gets good PR because his capitalist interests happen to align with consumers right now. 15 years ago, Elon Musk fell into the same boat.

Look, I enjoy gaming on Linux as much as the next person, but I've also seen gamers make this completely unnecessary fanboy move over and over for decades.

not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.

The concept of a "hat shop" was literally invented by TF2 and every other game copied them. And they're arguably exploiting small devs for every "red" cent while cutting breaks to the billionaire publishers. They also make devs eat the full cost of a refund. You're not going to defend that behavior, you can only say "doesn't affect me specifically" and ignore it.

But what if we didn't ignore it? What if instead we praised their good behaviors AND rebuked the bad? What if we just behaved like responsible consumers? Imagine...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I don't think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.

Steam costs money to operate. I really don't understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don't do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don't have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.

That's really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn't be loyal to companies, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don't personally know is primarily a concept.

But also, "Behaving like a responsible consumer" is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it's rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.

It doesn't help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn't tiny or garbage.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago

Steam costs money to operate. I really don't understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Or rather, I really don't understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.

I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don't personally know is primarily a concept.

Agreed. I don't follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.

"Behaving like a responsible consumer" is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma.

Totally agree.

It doesn't help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn't tiny or garbage.

I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don't. And I don't understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

Being loyal to people can be pretty bad actually (see, idk, Darth Vader's biopics).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

I'm obviously not saying "be unquestioningly loyal to anyone with a pulse". My point is that, if you're going to have loyalty, direct it toward a fellow human being, not an ephemeral hive mind whose only "loyalties" are legally required. (And a picture of a person you've never met and who doesn't know you doesn't count as a person, for obvious reasons).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

lemmy:	0.19.20
mlmym (mschae):	26.3.3