this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
108 points (97.4% liked)
Games
16830 readers
1369 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Valve should partner up with them for 1st party SteamVR support. It has good hardware and would be a good stop-gap replacement for the aging Index while Valve's next gen headset will still take some time to be released most likely.
That would be incredible, doubt Sony would go for it though.
Sony has already stated they are working on PC support and hope to release it this year: https://blog.playstation.com/2024/02/22/coming-soon-to-ps-vr2-zombie-army-vr-little-cities-bigger-wanderer-the-fragments-of-fate-the-wizards-dark-times-brotherhood-and-more/
Sony does seem that they are into supporting PC. They know it’s not enough with PlayStation revenue with these big budget games.
Yeah but I’m sure they care more about VR software sales than actually moving the hardware.
I mean, warehouses cost money...
They're not even into supporting their first generation of VR titles, hard to imagine they'd ever bother with PC
If the market was bigger because of PC, it might be worth it.
And cannot imagine that equation going anywhere but up.
More why would valve spend money.
Valve is profitable since they don’t spend money, they could make some games, but than they would lose the marketing, the games would never meet expectations either. Blah blah blah.
Basically valve works because they just sit on their pile of wealth hoarding it. The only thing they’ve done in a decade is the steamdeck. Big whoop, any other corp would be blasted for what they do. But they get a pass for some strange reason.
Private companies play by different rules
So it’s acceptable for them to hoard their wealth? Strange distinction.
no but they just don't have the pressure to grow like public companies. The rest is a failure in tax law. So it's on Americans to elect leaders to change the Tax Law to incentivize Valve to use it or lose it.
Huh? Who’s pressuring public companies to grow? People take offense to them paying their ceos more money or hoarding it (like Newell…!?!? Himself)
So they move overseas and now you lost the labor they created too, good job.
Stock market shareholders want constant growth from their investments. Enough of them also only care about short term growth, even at the cost of long term.
Valve, being privately owned, only answers to its own shareholders, no-one can just buy in and start demanding more profit seeking. They have collectively decided that slow but reliable growth is better. This results in them not actively pumping their customer base for ever more profit. They have no intention of killing their golden goose.
Which is Newell controlled…. Privately owned means nothing, it’s actually worse since they can’t be audited so you don’t know the specifics.
It’s funny that people think a private company can line one persons pocket (or multiple), but not a public company… what’s the legitimate difference? Not just some excuse that is being used to justify it, what is the actual difference that makes it okay.
SpaceX is private, and musk gets ripped on, yet Newell does the same and he’s revered? Where’s the logic in that? Lmfao.
Both line pockets. The difference is the focus. The shareholders for valve have been invited. You can't just decide to buy a bit of valve, then tell them what to do. Publicly traded shares mean that the people investing are often only interested in the value and dividends, anything that boosts that is good. If the company dies from it then who cares, they'll jump ship and invest elsewhere.
Valve's current mentality is that keeping the customers happy keeps the money flowing. It has now reached the point where compounding effects make up for the short term reduction in dividends.
Customers are happy, share holders are happy, and no-one can barge in, demanding a piece of the pie.
Customers are far from happy, they want sequels to their games, they want a better store, they want new IPs from valve.
Sure if you bury your head in the sand everyone’s happy, but don’t ignore everyone else’s opinion since you think Gabe Newell is any different than Musk.
Also, not to mention the cut they take from every sale for doing nothing, they’ve been caught in internal emails saying they could charge 7% and still be profitable, but every just accepts 30% and gets mad at others for pushing for cheaper cuts. The hypocrisy of defending Valve and Newell is just hilarious from people.
Ok, and how many of those points would be improved by going public?
People want sequels because they trust value to to them justice, not roll out stale cookie cutter versions like FIFA etc.
Would investors demand that valve take a smaller cut, or would they demand they take a bigger one in future?
Would they cut support for older games?
Would they add ads to the overlays?
Would you then be able to get "Steam Premium" for an ad free experience?
Please let me know what bit of steam's business model would be improved by them constantly chasing a higher profit every quarter?
Pardon? Thats literally what they are doing by hoarding their wealth instead of investing it in products and changes.
And what’s all this goalpost moving about public companies?
That's just not factual, at all.
All of this, plus the steampowered ecosystem and the deck, and not counting all the R&D we know they do through interviews and articles which hasn't manifested into commercial products yet.
There are valid criticisms of Valve, but them not doing things with their money is not one of them and just betrays how ignorant of their body of work you actually are.
And bring first class Linux support along with it, since the options there are pretty sparse, although getting better with the Monado project in particular.
The PS VR2 wouldn't be an upgrade from the Index, it would be a downgrade in FOV, refresh rate, and controllers. Only the resolution is a bit higher than the Index