I’m not trying to hate on Gabe Newell or Valve or anything (and not to say that it isn’t a pretty objectively win-win) but I think there’s some pretty easily explainable motivation behind this that isn’t just “out of the kindness of their hearts”
I think the product they intend to sell is actually the software and services (there’s a reason the Deck seems to be sold basically at cost), they’re betting on these PC-based portable gaming devices taking off and being a viable segment of the market that other hardware companies will want to invest into, and if they do, what highly functional and easy to integrate (since it’s all open source) operating system (and its subsequent game store integration) might they be more likely to use?
And why push upstream? They’re by far the largest PC games provider, so more games running on more (Linux) devices can only really serve to financially benefit them
So if Gabe suceeds, we get a gaming ecosystem with different hardware sellers, all using a platform that other software sellers are not blocked from using (Linux)? And the only reason Valve wins, is because they invested into providing the best possible distribution platform on Linux?
This does not make them evil by any standard I know. It just sounds like a solid long term business plan.
So if Gabe suceeds, we get a gaming ecosystem with different hardware sellers, all using a platform that other software sellers are not blocked from using (Linux)? And the only reason Valve wins, is because they invested into providing the best possible distribution platform on Linux?
Yes. 100% correct
I would also like to add that I think the main reason for the Steam Deck runs Linux is because Gabe Newell himself has literally stated that he loves Linux and FOSS, which results in only Gabe, but the majority, if not all, of Valve wanting Linux to be a the gaming platform that it deserves to be.
There’s also the fact that he was extremely worried about Microsoft trying to go the Apple route and restrict program installs to their store, including games. That would have killed Steam overnight. That’s when the investment into Linux really started ramping up.
That’s not evil or anything, but it is identifying a potential company-killing vulnerability and trying to reduce the impact somewhat.
Not only would it kill steam, but also kill so many other applications. It could even just straight up kill Windows as a whole.
Switching to Linux on all my computers was literally one of the best decisions I have ever made. Granted it was 5.5 years ago, but I’m glad I was able cuz microsoft started to get worse like a year later.
What Microsoft started doing recently, pushing users built-in ads to use their products, makes me more glad that I’m a Linux user so I don’t have to deal with Microsoft’s bullshit.
So if Gabe suceeds, we get a gaming ecosystem with different hardware sellers, all using a platform that other software sellers are not blocked from using (Linux)? And the only reason Valve wins, is because they invested into providing the best possible distribution platform on Linux?
Yes. 100% correct
I would also like to add that I think the main reason for the Steam Deck running Linux is because Gabe Newell himself has literally stated that he loves Linux and FOSS, which results in only Gabe, but the majority, if not all, of Valve wanting Linux to be a the gaming platform that it deserves to be. It also the reason why Valve forked WINE and made Proton.
I think one of the main reasons that was missed here is that. Once Microsoft started pushing the windows store as a way to get software on windows Valve started making these moves for Linux. If Microsoft decided one day to lock all software to the windows store this is valves backup plan / bargaining chip.
I think Valve being a private corporation rather than publicly traded is a huge contributor to that. If they were publicly traded it wouldn’t matter what Gabe thought, they’d have a legal obligation to make money for the shareholders and the way that has played out has been “legal obligation to consume the company’s future for short term profit”. As a private corporation they have the ability to think about the future
That’s not a requirement of publicly traded companies. Any corporation has the same obligation to put shareholder interests first, whether it’s closely held (like Valve) or publicly traded but still under the founder’s control (like Facebook) or publicly traded with no one owner that exercises significant control (like IBM). The court case that established that corporations have a duty to shareholders above everyone else (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) involved a closely held corporation (not public) and also confirmed that the corporation’s management can exercise its own judgment and discretion in prioritizing long term over short term gains, or vice versa.
eBay vs Newmark is the more apt reference, here. Also a private corporation, just with a profit seeking minority shareholder. The case ruled that the corporation has a social requirement to maximize that shareholder’s value in financial returns. For public corporations it’s generally held that this means profits.
What does “maximize shareholder value” mean if not profits? You can dress it up how you like but that’s the way businesses treat it.
I guess it could mean Carl Icahn buying Apple stock then threatening action against them until they paid him but that’s actually worse.
What does “maximize shareholder value” mean if not profits? You can dress it up how you like but that’s the way businesses treat it.
It doesn’t mean short term profits over long term profits, or dividends/buybacks over reinvestment, or anything like that.
The Delaware courts have repeatedly confirmed that majority shareholders, officers, and directors are allowed to do things like pay their employees bonuses, give corporate money to charity, demand less than the market-clearing, profit-maximizing prices, etc., even over minority shareholder objections that the corporation isn’t properly maximizing shareholder value.
eBay v. Newmark doesn’t change that. That was a fight about shareholder rights to buy or sell shares (or majority shareholder powers to prevent minority shareholders from acquiring or selling shares without the majority shareholders’ approval), which directly affects the value of the shares themselves (without getting into the question of the corporation’s obligation to grow that shareholder value in business operations). It’s one step removed from what we’re talking about, about the directors’ power to control shares, rather than the directors’ power to control the company.
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to hate on Gabe Newell or Valve or anything (and not to say that it isn’t a pretty objectively win-win) but I think there’s some pretty easily explainable motivation behind this that isn’t just “out of the kindness of their hearts”
I think the product they intend to sell is actually the software and services (there’s a reason the Deck seems to be sold basically at cost), they’re betting on these PC-based portable gaming devices taking off and being a viable segment of the market that other hardware companies will want to invest into, and if they do, what highly functional and easy to integrate (since it’s all open source) operating system (and its subsequent game store integration) might they be more likely to use?
And why push upstream? They’re by far the largest PC games provider, so more games running on more (Linux) devices can only really serve to financially benefit them
So if Gabe suceeds, we get a gaming ecosystem with different hardware sellers, all using a platform that other software sellers are not blocked from using (Linux)? And the only reason Valve wins, is because they invested into providing the best possible distribution platform on Linux?
This does not make them evil by any standard I know. It just sounds like a solid long term business plan.
Yes. 100% correct
I would also like to add that I think the main reason for the Steam Deck runs Linux is because Gabe Newell himself has literally stated that he loves Linux and FOSS, which results in only Gabe, but the majority, if not all, of Valve wanting Linux to be a the gaming platform that it deserves to be.
There’s also the fact that he was extremely worried about Microsoft trying to go the Apple route and restrict program installs to their store, including games. That would have killed Steam overnight. That’s when the investment into Linux really started ramping up.
That’s not evil or anything, but it is identifying a potential company-killing vulnerability and trying to reduce the impact somewhat.
Not only would it kill steam, but also kill so many other applications. It could even just straight up kill Windows as a whole.
Switching to Linux on all my computers was literally one of the best decisions I have ever made. Granted it was 5.5 years ago, but I’m glad I was able cuz microsoft started to get worse like a year later.
What Microsoft started doing recently, pushing users built-in ads to use their products, makes me more glad that I’m a Linux user so I don’t have to deal with Microsoft’s bullshit.
Yes. 100% correct
I would also like to add that I think the main reason for the Steam Deck running Linux is because Gabe Newell himself has literally stated that he loves Linux and FOSS, which results in only Gabe, but the majority, if not all, of Valve wanting Linux to be a the gaming platform that it deserves to be. It also the reason why Valve forked WINE and made Proton.
Well, he likes Linux
And doesn’t trust Microsoft not to be anticompetitive and tank his business if they think they can get away with it.
I think one of the main reasons that was missed here is that. Once Microsoft started pushing the windows store as a way to get software on windows Valve started making these moves for Linux. If Microsoft decided one day to lock all software to the windows store this is valves backup plan / bargaining chip.
I think Valve being a private corporation rather than publicly traded is a huge contributor to that. If they were publicly traded it wouldn’t matter what Gabe thought, they’d have a legal obligation to make money for the shareholders and the way that has played out has been “legal obligation to consume the company’s future for short term profit”. As a private corporation they have the ability to think about the future
That’s not a requirement of publicly traded companies. Any corporation has the same obligation to put shareholder interests first, whether it’s closely held (like Valve) or publicly traded but still under the founder’s control (like Facebook) or publicly traded with no one owner that exercises significant control (like IBM). The court case that established that corporations have a duty to shareholders above everyone else (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) involved a closely held corporation (not public) and also confirmed that the corporation’s management can exercise its own judgment and discretion in prioritizing long term over short term gains, or vice versa.
eBay vs Newmark is the more apt reference, here. Also a private corporation, just with a profit seeking minority shareholder. The case ruled that the corporation has a social requirement to maximize that shareholder’s value in financial returns. For public corporations it’s generally held that this means profits.
What does “maximize shareholder value” mean if not profits? You can dress it up how you like but that’s the way businesses treat it.
I guess it could mean Carl Icahn buying Apple stock then threatening action against them until they paid him but that’s actually worse.
It doesn’t mean short term profits over long term profits, or dividends/buybacks over reinvestment, or anything like that.
The Delaware courts have repeatedly confirmed that majority shareholders, officers, and directors are allowed to do things like pay their employees bonuses, give corporate money to charity, demand less than the market-clearing, profit-maximizing prices, etc., even over minority shareholder objections that the corporation isn’t properly maximizing shareholder value.
eBay v. Newmark doesn’t change that. That was a fight about shareholder rights to buy or sell shares (or majority shareholder powers to prevent minority shareholders from acquiring or selling shares without the majority shareholders’ approval), which directly affects the value of the shares themselves (without getting into the question of the corporation’s obligation to grow that shareholder value in business operations). It’s one step removed from what we’re talking about, about the directors’ power to control shares, rather than the directors’ power to control the company.
It does mean that in many cases, or at least people are afraid enough it means that to not want to fight it.
There was Artifact 🤦