Can't remember a single Valve game that is $60 (today $80?) that has a Battle Pass, built in micro transactions that are pay-to-win, half-assed DLCs that should've been in base game, or a game being unfinished mess on release. Valve is not a saint. But even with lootboxes they bring way more good to gaming industry in comparison to literally any other gaming company. ::: spoiler Bonus round! Can you guess a game that has all these 4 points? :::

For cosmetic only items, and in return they let everyone play for free. It doesn't bother me as a business model.

It can be both, you're rejecting it *because* you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn't *need* fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You're *deliberately* missing the point.

Alright then, he get's an extra sharp guillotine.

For cosmetic only items, and in return they let everyone play for free. It doesn't bother me as a business model.

> But it seems like almost every other storefront operates under those margins for digital sales (not just in gaming) Notable that Epic Games takes only a 12% cut, and 0% of the first $1 million in sales (effectively 0% for the vast majority of indie games). A cynical take is that they're just doing this to attract developers to their store, which is almost certainly true, but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll take a higher cut if they become dominant. Unfortunately the Epic Games platform is missing the majority of extra features that Steam has (built in streaming, family share, input binding, big picture mode, etc) Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, is about 80% as wealthy as Gabe Newell, and has done much more philanthropy, although it only represents probably less than one percent of his net worth.

How come Epic can charge 12% then?

I would probably donate most of it to a worthy cause. I don't need anywhere near that amount of money, anything over $5M gets donated.

Most comments ITT boil down to two things: * "cat shit is shit, so it's the same as elephant shit" * "cat shit is not the same as elephant shit, so it's not shit"

Gabe is a pretty good billionaire. He has made a lot of people happy. He doesn't spend his money trying to manipulate society. I think Gabe deserves a new yacht.

Perks of not taking your company public? I hate two comma mfers as much as the next red blooded American, but Gabe ain't the one.

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

Whether the concept of billionaires is bad is irrelevant when deciding whether one specific billionaire is bad.

How? All you're really doing here is stereotyping rich people. For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn't mean *all* Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.

that moment when the One Good Billionaire casually orders a boat that costs several times more money than most of us will ever see in our lifetimes i get that there's worse out there but i'm tired of people acting like newell is a saint... he's just another billionaire.