190
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
190 points (91.3% liked)
PC Gaming
12645 readers
435 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- 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
It's also a big risk, as they could always enshittify. It's a good platform now, but if Gabe dies or decides to give up his leadership position, that could all change very quickly.
Yeah, the day Gabe leaves is going to be a sad day for gaming, because Steam is probably gonna get real shitty real quick. I’m sure some finance-minded jackasses will do their best to maximize short-term profit and fly the whole ecosystem into the ground at Mach 3.
As long as it remains privately owned, it should be OK. The day shares go public, god forbid, will be the beginning of the end.
Thats not true. Privately owned firms tend to be really bad because they don't have a feduciary duty to long term value. They suck everything dry. Private equity is the reason why daycare costs so much yet the daycare workers make minimum wage.
Steam just happens to be fine under private ownership because it makes enough profit for Gabe to be satisfied.
Privately owned is not the same thing as private equity. https://irely.com/private-equity-or-privately-owned-does-it-matter/
The first sentence
This article seems to be about the ethos of private equity. Legally they're nearly identical.
Sure, legally yes.
In practice, a lot of the time, not even close.
Yes that's what I said.
Private equity is commonly referring to "owned by a private equity fund" like Blackrock. It often involves extracting unhealthy amount of short term profit to make the numbers look better then sell the business so they can record a profit.
Yeah?..
... and Gabe N owns more than 50% so it's not really the same as owned by Blackrock. It's still a founder owned and operated company.
Yes. And it could end up being sold to an entity such as blackrock and still be "privately owned"
I think we're probably not on the same wavelength. Privately owned doesn't mean bad, a one person owner operated plumbing business is not bad.
Publicly traded corporations are also really bad because the goal is increase in share price at the cost of long term success often. If you can show profit or revenue growth at the cost of losing customers by cutting costs that's positive over there.
Single person ownership of a company where the person cares about the company providing good value instead of making money is very different from maximising profit or resale value.
So the dissonance I think mostly stems from the example of daycare that you made and your conclusion that private ownership is worse than publicly traded companies. If the daycare was publicly traded it would probably look the same since none of the owners really care about the staff. On the contrary an owner operated business often do care about staff and their development at the cost of their fiduciary duty.
Private equity would gut a business for cash. Publicly traded would syphon away all customer value to increase the stock price. Owner operated business normally does neither since it's their baby.
Well done missing the point.
Holy fucking shit Lemmy is becoming like Reddit. Can you guys learn to think please. This whole thing stated because I replied to this message
With something "that's not true because private equity is bad and that's still privately owned" and you all act like I said that all private ownership is identical to private equity.
This is a very plausable thing that can happen to Steam. Doesn't Gabe not have kids?
Like what the fuck?? Am I going insane? Am I dreaming?
I'm not ruling it out ;)
Getting bought out by a private equity firm would be pretty dire for them as that never ends well, but that's not what I was talking about and I thought that was pretty clear, but you responded as though it was. 'Legally' they may be the same, but they're functionally very different, as the article I linked pointed out, but you chose to keep digging.
Whatever. You're right. Have a cookie.
Yes that's what I said.
Thats PE firms, not the same as private owned companies. THERE WAS only one istance of a hybrid of PE and private owned sitaution, SEARS.
How exactly are they different?
I assume they mean private equity vs privately owned. Private equity would mean you have to bow to your investor since they are paying you. Privately owners make their own decisions without needing to answer to an investor
Gross oversimplification of Private vs Public. We are really taking about three kinds of ownership models, if arguing in good faith.
The people that are invested in the company, usually the people that built it, are at the helm.
The people that built it took a payout from Private Equity who now have ownership stake, and who now set the growth agenda.
The compant is now public, and given to the irrational whims if the ENTIRE marketplace, while at the same time primarily being at the whims of the board and the largest few investor stakeholders.
Steam has largely existed exclusively in the first category. So have most of the oldest businesses in the planet, which are often family-owned and maintained operations across generations.
You say that as if publicly traded firms do
Neither do publicly traded companies. All they are required to do is make money for shareholders, and most of them push for short-term value
The profits are taken away from the trading price, yes
Although it still helps the long term price