Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No?
melfie@lemy.lol 13 hours ago
I have no problem with people who contribute a lot of value to society being proportionally rewarded. However, having a net worth in the billions is just plain ludicrous, especially since the billionaires aren’t the ones creating all the value, they’re just controlling it. For example, did Gabe invent everything that makes Valve as successful as it is, or was most of it designed and developed by engineers who are paid a fraction of what he is paid? Even if most of Valve’s IP started with Gabe and other engineers were doing the grunt work to “make it so”, that still shouldn’t mean that society allows this one man to control billions worth of our societal resources.
Angelevo@feddit.nl 13 hours ago
If I am not mistaken, Steam is one of the highest paid companies in the world, if not the. Perhaps still not fair relative to contribution, yet exemplary compared to the rest.
I do believe that Gabe is one of the better/more benevolent winners of an inherently unfair and now definitely broken system.
Grimy@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Valve encourages and keeps the system broken just as much as Microsoft or Nintendo does. They all try really hard not to compete.
They do have high salaries, but it’s also a ridiculously small company for the money they make. Gaben is still making money hand over fist, and the employees making big money are all on the admin team.
Steam could charge a 5% fee and give the rest to developers. The services and salaries would still stay the same. It would give Gaben enough money to cover his billion dollar boats fleets maintenance cost, just not enough to buy himself a new yacht every two years.
IronBird@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
steam charges the industry standard…if they lowered it, and their market share naturally increased even further they would be even more open to some kind of anti-monopoly lawsuit (which are very often put forward by less effective companies, who just want the monopoly themselves. ie. Epic)
masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
No, they wouldn’t.
Anti-trust law exists to prevent companies from overcharging consumers, something they can do when they don’t have competition.
Valve keeping their prices far higher than costs is something that can open them up to anti-trust scrutiny. Competitively lowering their prices while still maintaining profitability cannot, as that is the exact goal of anti-trust laws in the first place.
Grimy@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Every company in a soft monopoly charges the industry standard, that is how soft monopolies work.
They all stop charging what it’s worth and pick a number together that means maximum profits.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
That means that gamers have been ripped off for decades.