this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
691 points (99.0% liked)

PC Gaming

15899 readers
677 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
691
Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC? "As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company," analyst says it looks impossible (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 1 week ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
316 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skunk@jlai.lu 63 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Gabe will probably have it own by all of valve employees, so enshitification would be less likely.

Maybe I’m wrong but hey let me have some hope.

[–] creamfresh@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

turn it into a coop you say?

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Owned by employees (continuously) vs shares given to current employees are two very different concepts.

But yeah, let us have some hope, otherwise it's GoG or the high seas.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Any source for his intentions?

[–] fartsparkles@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There’s no public knowledge of his intentions. However Gabe speaks on how Valve operates plenty and in general, if the industry is doing one thing, they often explore doing the complete opposite.

Valve’s primary thesis is exceptionally talented people are most productive when they don’t need to think about money, are surrounded by other exceptionally talented people, and there’s minimal people telling those people what to do.

I doubt Gabe would want the soul of Valve to die with him so his succession plan will factor that in.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

exceptionally talented people are most productive when they don’t need to think about money, are surrounded by other exceptionally talented people, and there’s minimal people telling those people what to do.

This all immediately goes out the window as soon as they go public

[–] fartsparkles@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is covered in the video I linked…

“Valve is not a publicly traded company. Being a publicly traded company adds a bunch of headaches and it [doesn’t] really solve any problems for us… It [would mean] that control around decision making now involved third parties… The whole point of being a privately held company is to eliminate another source of noise in the signal between the consumers and producers of a good.”

Valve are absurdly profitable. What purpose would being public serve? They don’t need to raise extra capital, they don’t have shareholders to provide liquidity to, they don’t need the brand recognition, they don’t need stock for acquisition currency, they don’t need it to attract or retain talent, Gabe doesn’t need an exit strategy when he’s already cash flush to be buying mega yachts.

For every reason companies go public, none of them would benefit Valve.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Exactly - which is why going public is generally not in the interests of any sustainable company or their customers.

It is, however, in the interests of (1) company insiders that want a huge payout, (2) companies that are not sustainable pre-IPO and need to transition their business model or practice and set the IPO as a ticking clock where they fund or fail, and (3) companies and CEOs who borrow cancer's business model and are dissatisfied by anything except infinite expansion.

None of those benefit the customer and it makes it rational to expect an IPO to destroy what's good about a company and its products.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

I personally think he might go with a trust that way it will still stay in the family