4 ms·

They're doing things that are simultaneously good for business and good for consumers. That contrasts against the companies doing things that are good for busi

They're doing things that are simultaneously good for business and good for consumers. That contrasts against the companies doing things that are good for business (at least short term) and bad for consumers.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago
yes. it aligns, for now. But only for now. all those FAANG's had the same status too, once upon a time.
- 0x1ch 11mo ago
  Valve predates Google by two years (at least per the wiki), and was started by Microsoft employees who didn't particularly like Microsoft's operation. Hoping Valve has a long future ahead of them :)
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    Yeah, and they shifted from being a gamik studio to a middleman. The signs are already there, but greed arrives all the same.
    - ahartmetz 11mo ago
      Valve has had all the triggers and opportunities to change for the worse and it didn't. Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I don't see what would ruin it now.
      - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
        You can argue they did, depending on what you value. If you loved valve as a premier developer discovering unique experiences and narratives, thars been gone for 14 years now. If you valued not having your software locked down to middlemen or preferred physical media, Valved killed those off in the PC market. If you are a dev and wanted to set your own prices, Valve is current under litigation for price parties. Its not all sunshine and windows. >Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I In the same way Bill Gates did not force you to use Internet Explorer, yes. Both are free applications with alternatives. Let's not forget our history.
      - account42 11mo ago
        > Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore That's only a matter of time, and probably not a very long time.
        ahartmetz 11mo ago
        Sure, Valve may turn bad after Gaben. It is also possible that he thought of something for the long term that will prevent enshittification. Some companies have managed.
energy123 11mo ago
Sure but it's just being morally lucky. They found themself in a situation where there was temporary and situational alignment, why give them any credit for that? They didn't create that situation. It's like AMD open sourcing FSR or Meta open sourcing Llama. The outcome itself is good, but if they ever become leaders in these verticals, they will pivot to closed source quicker than you can blink, because the reason they're doing it is just coincidental to the public good, not because of a genuine motivation to do good.
- harrall 11mo ago
  I strongly disagree with this approach in life. I am “morally lucky” because every decision I make is to ensure I can always be morally lucky, 10 years later. I take certain kinds of jobs in certain kinds of industries. It’s my same approach to reducing stress or getting things done. I never get a parking ticket not because I’m amazing — it’s because I know if I have to go out later and move my car, I’ll forget, so I’ll just park right the first time. 10 years later and no parking tickets and no stress — if someone tells me “oh you’re just lucky,” I can only chuckle.
  - energy123 11mo ago
    I don't see it as an "approach", I see it as a description. If the FSR upscaler becomes better than DLSS, then my description leads to the prediction that AMD will make FSR closed source. The prevailing camp that says AMD are exercising their moral compass will predict that AMD will keep FSR open source. We'll see who has a description that aligns with reality if that day comes.
- TulliusCicero 11mo ago
  > Sure but it's just being morally lucky. No, it's not. They're choosing the path that builds user trust and positive sentiment for long term success, rather than choosing to fleece their customers and not worry about whether people hate it. Other corporations in a similar spot for games and game platforms could choose to make the same type of choices, but they'd rather boost next quarter's profits, even if that means pissing off their userbase with consumer-hostile policies. No one forced Valve to have a great form of family sharing. No one forced them to have generous policies around generating Steam keys. No one forced them to invent remote play together. They do these things because they're nice features that are useful for players and make people stay engaged on Steam, and more positively inclined towards Valve.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago

yes. it aligns, for now. But only for now. all those FAANG's had the same status too, once upon a time.

0x1ch 11mo ago
Valve predates Google by two years (at least per the wiki), and was started by Microsoft employees who didn't particularly like Microsoft's operation. Hoping Valve has a long future ahead of them :)
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  Yeah, and they shifted from being a gamik studio to a middleman. The signs are already there, but greed arrives all the same.
  - ahartmetz 11mo ago
    Valve has had all the triggers and opportunities to change for the worse and it didn't. Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I don't see what would ruin it now.
    - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
      You can argue they did, depending on what you value. If you loved valve as a premier developer discovering unique experiences and narratives, thars been gone for 14 years now. If you valued not having your software locked down to middlemen or preferred physical media, Valved killed those off in the PC market. If you are a dev and wanted to set your own prices, Valve is current under litigation for price parties. Its not all sunshine and windows. >Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I In the same way Bill Gates did not force you to use Internet Explorer, yes. Both are free applications with alternatives. Let's not forget our history.
    - account42 11mo ago
      > Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore That's only a matter of time, and probably not a very long time.
      - ahartmetz 11mo ago
        Sure, Valve may turn bad after Gaben. It is also possible that he thought of something for the long term that will prevent enshittification. Some companies have managed.

energy123 11mo ago

Sure but it's just being morally lucky. They found themself in a situation where there was temporary and situational alignment, why give them any credit for that? They didn't create that situation. It's like AMD open sourcing FSR or Meta open sourcing Llama. The outcome itself is good, but if they ever become leaders in these verticals, they will pivot to closed source quicker than you can blink, because the reason they're doing it is just coincidental to the public good, not because of a genuine motivation to do good.

harrall 11mo ago
I strongly disagree with this approach in life. I am “morally lucky” because every decision I make is to ensure I can always be morally lucky, 10 years later. I take certain kinds of jobs in certain kinds of industries. It’s my same approach to reducing stress or getting things done. I never get a parking ticket not because I’m amazing — it’s because I know if I have to go out later and move my car, I’ll forget, so I’ll just park right the first time. 10 years later and no parking tickets and no stress — if someone tells me “oh you’re just lucky,” I can only chuckle.
- energy123 11mo ago
  I don't see it as an "approach", I see it as a description. If the FSR upscaler becomes better than DLSS, then my description leads to the prediction that AMD will make FSR closed source. The prevailing camp that says AMD are exercising their moral compass will predict that AMD will keep FSR open source. We'll see who has a description that aligns with reality if that day comes.
TulliusCicero 11mo ago
> Sure but it's just being morally lucky. No, it's not. They're choosing the path that builds user trust and positive sentiment for long term success, rather than choosing to fleece their customers and not worry about whether people hate it. Other corporations in a similar spot for games and game platforms could choose to make the same type of choices, but they'd rather boost next quarter's profits, even if that means pissing off their userbase with consumer-hostile policies. No one forced Valve to have a great form of family sharing. No one forced them to have generous policies around generating Steam keys. No one forced them to invent remote play together. They do these things because they're nice features that are useful for players and make people stay engaged on Steam, and more positively inclined towards Valve.