This yacht is many things, one of them being a floating lab. It's not like it isn't a super-luxury yacht for $500 million, also. Or like he hasn't a couple more super-yachts. I mean, good for the man, good that he's doing marine conservation on the side, or that he actually cares about his companies, employees, etc. But also, wow, what kind of amounts do billionaires spend on playthings, and what you could do with such money for the betterment of society.

Yeah, I don't understand people who ascribe more to GabeN than running a decent business. Steam has done right by me, so I remain a customer. I didn't play many games before Steam came to Linux, then I played more and more as Linux support improved (Proton was game changing),. My opinion of him ends there. Steam is a great product, as is the Steam Deck. If Valve stops making great products, I'll stop buying. Whether Gabe Newell is a good person is irrelevant here.

Yes and before Steam the Publisher kept 60%, 30% is fine

And I mean Gabe is overseeing the Valve team's success, allowing his employees to develop at their pace and following what appears to be their passion. They aren't shoehorning AI or whatever the latest buzzword to goose some imaginary number. Gabe was pissed at Windows enough, he used to work for Microsoft, so he's instrumental in helping break Microsoft's monopoly on gaming operating systems by supporting Linux compatibility and releasing first party hardware. He deserves credit for the culture he cultivates in his company and shares in its success. Likewise, shame should be where shame is due, like with the whole lootbox gambling economy thing. The main reason why it is viewed as refreshingly good is because they seem to be one of the few big companies that still believe that profit growth comes from valuing employees, suppliers (gamedevs) and consumers, rather than trying to squeeze every last drop of profit no matter how cruel. It should be the norm yet it seems to be the exception. It would be nice to have no billionaires, but right now we live in a world where government [tells states to clawback aid they gave to hungry families](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/10/federal-judge-snap-recipients-state-provided-benefits/87194473007/) so taxing the rich, or acting in any way that resembles normalcy, is a lot to expect right now. We can let Gabe make a silly luxury purchase. If Valve burns the trust it has earned, then I will move away from them too, I don't owe Gabe or Valve anything.

He’s just another billionaire. Probably just not the typical sociopathic ones or a narcissist. Once he had enough money for everything he could ever need he could have devoted himself to building a self sufficient non-capitalist future for valve/steam with irrevocable covenants in its governance that are not manipulated by the next sociopath to take leadership of the company, like Altman is doing with OpenAI. Point being, he might not be a sociopath like the majority of them, and he doesn’t seem to be evil, but he’s not a saint either. There’s also the platforms moderation issues with shitloads of bigotry. Feels like a blind eye but maybe it’s just me. They could take a spare billion in profits, throw it into low risks stocks with dividends or bonds, and pay a team to moderate it out of that in perpetuity without affecting his business or his life like how college endowments work. That is unless the goal for him is still more billions.

Funny, I was just reading about this sort of thing in "How to blow up a pipeline". It's the sort of argument that seems obvious in retrospect. When someone in the global south uses a coal stove to cook their food, they're doing it by necessity. When a billionaire sails out on a mega yacht, it's pure excess. Yeah, banning them won't make the difference between 1.5C and 2.0C of global warming, but it's low hanging fruit. We can also ban private jets, and the only significant impact to the economy would be that some billionaires have to travel around in first class like some kind of lowly multimillionaire or upgraded plebian. It does not matter if you think Valve makes good products or not.

And how much would Half-Life 3 cost to develop?

living the dream

Uh yea. Why would I have a gambling addition. That shit is stupid as fuck.

Brother, go back and read the OP. You cannot claim that 30% is fair while the man camps on an Armada of yachts worth over a billion dollars. This is not a distraction, *this is the problem*. There's just no way that makes any sense.

Uh yea. Why would I have a gambling addition. That shit is stupid as fuck.

International waters <--> pedos

Why is everyone acting surprised, this has been Gabe's thing for a long time? He's super into boats and submarines and owns a submarine company or something like that. i think I'm burned out from the news cycle, getting outraged by this just feels like a waste of my emotional energy that I could spend somewhere it will matter.

Multiple online casinos for underage customers that he runs disagree.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never called the 30% "fair." I've been trying to steer the conversation toward what a discussion about its fairness should actually be based on: the value of the services Steam provides. You are fixated on Gabe Newell's personal wealth as the sole proof that the cut is unjust. That's an emotional argument about wealth disparity, not a logical analysis of the platform's costs and value. Let me be clear: whether a CEO's personal spending is excessive is a separate moral and political debate. It doesn't, on its own, determine if the price of a service is justified. The cost of servers, development, support, and the global infrastructure Steam maintains is what's relevant here. If you want to argue that the platform itself isn't worth the cut, make that case. But simply pointing to a yacht and saying "see, it's unfair" is a non-sequitur. It's a distraction from the actual economic discussion.

> And I mean Gabe You know dude? This whole post is just pathetic.

> Let me be clear: whether a CEO's personal spending is excessive is a separate moral and political debate. It doesn't, on its own, determine if the price of a service is justified. LEt me be clear: It absolutely does. I can't think of a better indicator.