Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayindirh | Hacker News Reader

I believe the same but,

> they are just protecting their business and protecting their business "accidentally" also protecting the customer's benefits.

part is wrong. From my observation, they are protecting their business through protecting their customers' benefits.

Plus, they're building a moat collectively and from an open source stack. So, given the stack gets enough momentum, having Valve or not as a company won't matter anymore.

It's trying to get the elephant out of the bag, and once it's out, then there's really no way to put it back, because it's being out is better for everybody. Game companies and gamers alike.

View on HN

> From my observation, they are protecting their business through protecting their customers' benefits.

Yeah that's what I mean too, that's why I put the "accidentally" in a double-quote.

This sounds like what Red Hat is doing, they created an open-source software, prove the importance of it in the community then sells the support package to enterprise who interested in using it.

Hope that they will not close the door when Microsoft, AWS or Oracle making their own GabeCube and call it SatyaCube, BozosCube or LarryCube

Microsoft already has the XBox and despite being backed by one of the biggest tech companies in the world it's a rather weak product. To add to this, with every major studio acquisition they have done there has been a noticeable increase in game monetization and decrease in quality.

AWS has tried to get into the gaming market and only succeeded in creating giant money sinks even if some of their products were technically appealing.

Oracle making anything consumer-facing, much less something that isn't a total nightmare, seems inconceivable.

Valve is able to completely outmatch competitors in a chosen field because of what they are like as a company. No shareholders that expect quarterly growth. No massive bureaucratic corporate structure, just highly skilled engineers for the most part.

Microsoft is also moving more and more away from hardware exclusivity. Even their Xbox Game Pass service is now not tied to the console.

More broadly, AAA gaming as a whole is also moving away from hardware exclusivity. Third-party developers (like Square-Enix) have been making recent releases for all major platforms, and even some first-party console titles are now coming to PC (eg, the Horizon games from Sony).

I'm optimistic about the future of non-locked-down gaming.

I think this calls out a subtle, but significant difference between private and public companies.

Public companies as an asset class have to compete with an open market of other investments, so the incentives drive a min-maxing approach to revenue and value. The shareholder mandate dictates the company pursue maximal return in order to stay competitive amongst a sea of other potential investments.

A private company doesn't have this same concern. They still need to pursue profit, but not necessarily MAXIMUM profit. This means that in a sea of hypothetical directions, they are free to choose one that is slightly less profitable but has an abundance of positive externalities, vs. one that is maximally profitable but carries many negative externalities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com