this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
161 points (89.7% liked)

PC Gaming

14586 readers
1067 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
161
Gabe Newell was an enthusiastic supporter of OpenAI in 2018, donating $20 million and even acting as the sole member of an 'informal advisory board' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You say that Gabe has earned his wealth ethically. In the next paragraph you defeat your own stance by providing an example of how he earned it unethically. We can agree on this point.

I would further say that no one can earn a billion dollar net worth ethically. No one, not even Gabe. Hence, to the root of the conversation, why this comes up.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think the majority of his money comes from those exceptions. Without the lootboxes and the item market, Valve (and Gaben) would probably make most of the amount of money they do right now. Just because I don't like that part does not defeat my previous argument. My point is, the examples about item market and lootboxes in some of their games are not core to their strategy and their business does not stand on those legs.

Or is your argumentation that Gaben is a bad person, just because of these two points and everyone who hates him hate him for that? Are these the central points you are calling him an evil person? I don't think so. That's not the core issue. Your core issue is, that he is rich. So it does not matter in what ways he earns his money. Therefore reasoning alone how he earned his money is meaningless to discuss at this point. You just try to find a justification and point to it, after i pointed it out. Therefore I don't know how rational it is to hate a person just for being rich (which is the main issue here, because you say nobody can get rich ethically).

[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 6 points 14 hours ago

I did not assert that he is evil in this conversation, nor did I assert that I or anyone else hates him, justified or otherwise.

Nor did I ever try to use or define "rich", or that "rich" people are evil or that they deserve to be hated.

I believe that a billion dollars of net worth while there are starving and homeless people is an unethical act. I also believe that no one can accumulate a billion dollars of net worth ethically. I hope I have made that stance clear.

I believe that this conversion alone acts as a good explanation of why the original commenter made their comment. I hope it's been cleared up.