Also, take note how they actually tell you, clearly and concisely, what has changed. Most ToS are intentionally made difficult to read to, you know, discourage people from reading them.
I was kinda worried when I saw the subject line of the email.
Steam is actually pretty decent, by company standards.
Steam is actually pretty decent, by company standards.
They aren’t doing this because they are decent. It’s because they were getting reamed on fees through people choosing the arbitration. I believe it was a law firm basically encouraging people to request arbitration because they would get paid every time a claim was submitted, regardless of the outcome.
Yeah, but Gabe is down to 25% ownership.
He could be pushed out at anytime. It’s this weird situation where if a serious challenger to Steam really takes off, the 75% may demand Steam gets shittier to make more money.
But Gabe won’t last forever anyways, who knows what will happen without him. Which means people do want some kind of challenger to prevent a monopoly, but that just makes the other scenario more likely
Steam is already a huge outlier
Who owns the other 75% ?
Not sure, apparently the 25% figure is really new, Wikipedia is sourcing something from 2017 that says he has 50+.
This is the most up to date I can find that attributes a source
https://www.guru3d.com/story/microsoft-reportedly-readies-billion-bid-to-acquire-valve-steam/
Insights from Dior, a prominent figure in the Counter-Strike community, reveal that Gabe Newell owns less than 25% of Valve. This suggests that a significant portion of Newell’s wealth is tied to his equity in the company. The decision to sell Valve wouldn’t rest solely with Newell; numerous employees who likely hold stock options could also have a say through a voting process if an offer were made.
So it sounds like a lot was given to employees from the beginning, which track with Gabe.
Then he may have cashed out a couple times, but I doubt that when he could just do the billionaire thing where he borrows against his stock counting on the value increasing enough to pay off the last with a new?
But then again Gabe is different and might not do that out of principle.
It’s not publicly traded, so I guess we don’t really know unless Valve discloses who owns what. Which I just realized is pretty concerning on its own.
AFAIK, most of valve’s stock is held by employees, not private investors. It’s usually a pretty hard sell of “make the company you work at shittier to make more money”, especially since most of the employees probably know gabe personally (valve has less than 400 employees) and likely approve of his leadership.
It’s usually a pretty hard sell of “make the company you work at shittier to make more money”, especially since most of the employees probably know gabe personally (valve has less than 400 employees) and likely approve of his leadership.
And most of the ones with the high percent have been there since the beginning, probably close to Gabe’s age, looking towards retirement. They make good money, but retirement is expensive.
I mean. That link from this year said Microsoft was thinking 16 billion. 1% of that is 160 million.
Or they may die and their kids see dollar signs when a vote comes up
Steam is great now, it’s not debatable. But its naive to expect it indefinitely. 10 years, 20 years from now? It wouldn’t be surprising if Valve was a lot shittier than it is today
It won’t last forever
yeah, its hard to predict what will happen to it, especially after gabe steps down or dies, but depending on how much of the company is broadly owned by employees vs individuals, it can help to shield it from bad decisions. Unfortunately, we don’t know the exact numbers. If gabe + mike own 51+% then it could potentially lead to overriding employee will in a bad decision for money (either through their actions or through inheritance like you say). Or the employees could just collectively make a bad decision too.
So, remember… they just ‘switched’ from forced arbitration to going into the courts. Yes it is good, but note ‘Good guy Gabe’ didn’t start this way.
Maybe consider ‘why’ he’s making the change? It’s actually because this forces the money question to the one suing them. It costs them less by doing this. Now I think this is actually good, but don’t blindly fawn over the guy for this.
Ars technica provided the two key pieces of context here:
“Zaiger targeted Valve and Steam users for its scheme precisely because the arbitration clause in the SSA [Steam Subscriber Agreement] is ‘favorable’ to Steam users in that Valve agrees to pay the fees and costs associated with arbitration,” Valve said.
Valve said that Zaiger’s “extortive plan” was to “offer a settlement slightly less than the [arbitration] charge—$2,900 per claim or so—attempting to induce a quick resolution.”
IANAL, what does this mean?
If you have a dispute with Valve you have to hire a lawyer to take them to court. No “third party” mediation
Isn’t it often in both parties to settle things out of court? For the one that’d sue it’s usually more money at less cost and the company gets around possibly having a bad precedent set and the bad publicity to potentially losing in court.
This is probably aimed at people creating issues in the hopes of getting a settlement for something that has a slim (but Nonzero) chance to hold up in court.
It’s a company - I think this aims at people only bringing serious claims and reducing the paperwork for them - but since it’s Valve people will glorify everything they do
Usually it’s forced arbitration, you can’t sue
It really favors the company. Steam is explicitly saying no arbitration which levels the playing field.
Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.
What’s bigger is this explicitly says it allows class actions. Something that most prevent and require individual arbitration, consumers are better off when they can pool resources for lawyers against a giant corporation, especially since most would require an upfront payment for a large class action.
Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.
of course - but usually it’s way faster than getting a proper court-ruling - and since lawyers are paid per hour that makes a big difference
I’ve literally never seen any person argue that forced arbitration is a good thing for consumers…
It’s always corporations
I just saw the Uber case and realized that this in definitely way differently in the US. I was not aware that completely getting around the law was such a common practice. I thought that Disney thing was a rarity
