208
submitted 3 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 91 points 3 months ago

You know who will give you money? Customers if you stop treating them like piñatas.

[-] PeachMan@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Valve is an excellent example of a company that is privately owned, so they don't have to satisfy shareholders with constant growth for growth's sake. And yet they're still growing and making a profit, because they make a good product.

Phil and Xbox don't have that luxury because their masters sold out decades ago.

[-] GnomeKat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 3 months ago

Valve is also a good example of platform monopoly. People need to stop treating valve like they aren't also a big problem with the modern games industry. They are PC gaming's landlord taking a 30% cut of every sale. You have to be smoking crack if you think that doesn't hurt game developers.

[-] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 3 months ago

They are a monopoly because they've had the best product on the market consistently for 15 years. There used to be huge resistance to them and their drm from gamers, but they have shown over many years that they are trustworthy, unlike others that have tried this.

This is not an Apple or Google store situation where proper competition could not exist. They were always up against giants like Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft or more recently Epic.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago

Nothing stops you from busting your games on other platforms when available. I always choose GOG over steam personally. What cut they take from publishers isn't consumers' concern.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Yeah but they give you so little money compared to investors and shareholders. 😅

[-] Dumbkid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 63 points 3 months ago

I think the real problem is businesses have to grow. If most big companies weren't publicly traded then just being profitable would be enough.

Imagine making enough money to pay you and everyone else in your company a great wage one year, but it being bad because it wasn't more profit than last year.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago

I've seen companies phrase 8% growth as a negative because they missed their 10% growth target that they just pulled out of their own ass.

[-] kadu@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Infinite growth in an obviously finite world is such a moronic concept, yet the driving force of capitalism

I actually can’t believe this is coming from a high level employee at a corporation.

Like we all know this is true, but isn’t it big to hear one of them talking about the insanity of the system.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 18 points 3 months ago

It's PR. Anti-capitalist sentiments score well in focus groups.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago

I like it. I prefer the honesty.

[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 52 points 3 months ago

Nobody forced this guy to be a soulless capitalist. He chose his career path. Oh woe is you, Phil. Must be so hard for you. /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Juice88@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

I can see why that would be a bummer. In my mind, the perfect video game-ceo position would be for a company that makes enough profit to pay its employees well and self sustains the business to keep making more games. Having to constantly report a higher user base and profitability growth year after year on a global scale would be a total drag.

[-] ChuckEffingNorris@lemmy.ml 36 points 3 months ago

Steam is a prime example of this. Not privately run it would have been bloated to extinction years ago.

Shareholders are leechers to quality. Dividends are not enough, the underlying asset must grow no matter what.

When Gabe croaks it Steam is fucked. It will go public.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 7 points 3 months ago

Do you have any idea at all how sus your username is?

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 months ago

I thought companies made money by selling a product to customers? Hmm, seems like there is some kind of contradiction here, perhaps Phil should look into that.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Investors don’t care about that anymore. Line must go up more and right now. If not, they will replace you with someone who promises to do that.

The best ways to raise stock prices include downsizing, jacking up prices, and cutting product quality to save cost. None of these are even remotely beneficial to the customers.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 27 points 3 months ago

You can grow without being hostile and negative. Start your own studios, make innovative games, compete with quality not acquisitions.

[-] whereisk@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Yes, but can you roll a platform of the distribution, breadth, depth and persistence over good and bad cycles of the scale of Xbox or PlayStation while being a private company? A few have tried.

[-] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 12 points 3 months ago

No, but do you have to? You can still be a profitable company without aiming for world domination.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hexadence@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

the best and the only answer. git gud. 💪

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago

Phil Spencer, you have the luxury to quit if you don’t like the things you’re being forced to do for money.

Or, you could use your influence to try and push things in a different direction.

But Phil Spencer, you will do neither. You’ll shut up and keep dribbling.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Talaraine@fedia.io 19 points 3 months ago

I dunno, maybe stop going public and just sell a decent game?

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago

you get a lot of publicly traded companies that are in the industry that have to show their investors growth—because why else does somebody own a share of someone’s stock if it’s not going to grow?

I thought the way it was supposed to work was, a company starts out investing in its growth and during this period shareholders get gains from the price of the stock going up, and then when it has maxed out just switch to shoveling the profits into dividends instead? If the industry has stopped growing, I don't see why there isn't a path to acknowledging that to investors, what am I missing?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 months ago

Growth is more valuable than dividends, and there's always more room for growth in the eyes of investors.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I get the feeling the part of capitalism Phil Spencer hates is the part where consumers can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the product.

[-] squid_slime@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I'm glad he can see the issue but then part way through the interview he loses it, and jumps to feeding the capitalist system

[-] eskimofry@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

Sounds like skill issue.

[-] bjmllr@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

phil spencer explains market discipline

[-] theboomr@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Cry more rich boy, your tears are delicious.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
208 points (95.2% liked)

Gaming

19150 readers
26 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS