From the notoriously flat structure of Valve to the support of free software to the extremely laissez faire way of running steam to the main Dota tournament being named “The International”… Is Gabe Newell a card carrying Anarchist?
That’s not anarchy, that’s libertarianism. And to answer your question, at least going on People Make Games’s investigation of Valve’s culture, he does seem to be very libertarian.
This is entirely silly. Specially when you consider they removed the flat structure at Valve recently. Also even when it was flat it was still structured as more important people’s opinions carried more weight. It made it feel like high school according to one developer where there was cliques and entourageous. That’s not anarchy.
Additionally Valve is not overall for Foss projects. Steam itself is still very closed and very restrictive. Proton was created to keep costs down and because Windows at one point threatened to enforce the windows store for outside apps. Potentially destroying steam.
Steam and Valve only contribute to open source as far as it benefits them. They are ex Microsoft employees that understand the embrace and extend side and are embracing Linux and it’s community. Extending wine. And potentially one day extinguishing the broad availability of Linux to replace it with steam os. You see this on their storefront already. Years ago when a game supported Linux on steam you’d see an icon of tux. Now you see an icon of steam os. A subtle reminder that Valve does not care about Linux but instead of being a thriving business.
Gabe is a capitalist. You don’t become a billionaire without abusing workers.
And potentially one day extinguishing the broad availability of Linux to replace it with steam os.
I think that is a huuuuuge stretch.
It’s not at all. I said potentially, Not a certainty.
People have forgotten or not read about the Windows 8 battle: https://www.pcworld.com/article/394953/why-does-the-steam-deck-run-linux-blame-windows.html
The Steam Deck and the software inside of it are the culmination of a nearly decade-long “hedging strategy” embarked upon by Valve chief Gabe Newell and company many moons ago, when Microsoft tried exerting more control over developers with Windows 8.
Valve is very fearful of that situation where Windows Store is the only way to buy games on Windows OS.
Overall Valve isn’t going to push for Linux any further than Windows is going to push for a world where games can only be purchased through Windows Store. That at one point was a real fear and still somewhat is at Valve. Microsoft is positioning itself with GamePass to make the Windows Store more and more attractive. Even WSL can only be activated by visiting the Windows Store to download Ubuntu. While Valve is in the Embrace and Extend part, Windows is in the Extend and Extingish part. Valve of course, isn’t going to do anything insane like “You can only use Steam OS to play these games.” Yet. But they are going to push for Steam OS and potentially down the road only have features in Steam OS that they won’t allow with Vanilla Linux or Windows. Imagine if Steam Link Mobile Streaming only worked well with Steam OS desktops because of proprietary kernel modules.
Specially when you consider they removed the flat structure at Valve recently.
Do you have a source for this? I haven’t been able to find anything mentioning any kind of restructuring.
"But one of the most interesting parts is how Half-Life: Alyx changed the studio’s view on development. Robin Walker is one of Valve’s most legendary designers, having worked on Team Fortress since the ’90s. In The Final Hours, Walker told Geoff Keighley — cheers to Ars Technica for spotting this first — how their historical flexibility didn’t always work out.
“We sort of had to collectively admit we were wrong on the premise that you will be happiest if you work on something you personally want to work on the most,” Walker said in the app’s fifth chapter, “Fixing Valve”.
Greg Coomer, who still works at Valve, said the company began “having a lot of cultural conversations about why we were unhappy”. “There were just too many things going on at the company to feel like we were healthy as an organisation.”
“We decided as a group that we would all be happier if we worked on a bigt thing, even if it’s not exactly what we wanted to work on,” Walker added."
I’m not sure that’s the same thing as “removing the flat structure.”
there was cliques and entourageous. That’s not anarchy.
Isn’t that basically one of the key features of anarchy? There may not be an official structure, but people are allowed to form groups and associate based on their values and goals. The fact that this ends up feeling like high school is a pretty big black mark against anarchy in my book.
Though a corporation being anarchist is kinda absurd.
Sounds like a key feature of humans tbh
not the good kind
he literally bought one of those new zealand prepper bunkers
Why does that make him bad?
Typically the tech bro billionaires buying those tend to fall into the realm of people who expect to be unquestioned dictators of their own little fiefdoms in a post-apocalyose scenario. To the point of shock collars to keep other people in line, etc.
Like /u/spez.
Look, I think billionaires existing is ridiculous, look at my username, but that seems like a leap to me.
You may enjoy these two reads:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich
Always enjoyed this gem:
Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek out some form of community: “Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.”
This one is also interesting:
https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
Relevant to the thread:
Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”
[…]
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.
They live in a different reality. These questions are normal for them. Not all of them, obviously, but the doomsday prep shit is aaaallll over Silicon Valley and the rich in general.
And they are also dumb in that situation where people with guns would wear such collar and instead torture you until you spit out the combination. There are no unbreakable lock where the weakest link is human. Human can be fucking nasty in situation like that.
Also, the guards could simply cut off power supply(to the storage/locks) and brute force it to be traditional bunker. Before the overlord wannabe comes to their new hideout.
Also the tiny tiny percentage of cases where this doesn’t happen will just mean that the combined forces of the former guards from the other bunkers come kill everyone and take their stuff by force.
Astonishing level of self-delusion by people to think they can use their position of wealth and power in one society to protect themselves and maintain that wealth and power if they cause that society to entirely fail.
Ultimately, most of these people have that wealth and power because they are so frightened and insecure that they cannot let a moment pass without fighting and clawing to have more power as a false sense of security.
He’s a billionaire who owns a company that has pulled some shady (and illegal) anti-consumer bullshit in the past, I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that he’s a anarchist - more likely, the flat management structure and use of FOSS software is simply profitable.
Nope.
He’s a hardcore capitalist, albeit one who happens to support free software (probably because he believes in it, but also because it means a bigger user base for his platform and $$$)
He’s significantly more likeable than most of the other CEO billionaires but when you look at his peers that isnt too hard.
This pretty much sums it all up. Gabe seems like a nice guy, but definetly not an anarchist.
He may be a libertarian but he’s definitely a capitalist. Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.
Fair point, but we also live in a capitalist system. If Gabe really wanted the money he’d go public. Considering how much they’re giving Epic, Valve would instantly become gigantic. He’d become billionaire-er. He could have locked down the Steam Deck. He could have done a lot of things. I’m saying he’s had a lot of choices he made during his lifetime, and he seemed to pick oddly open ones.
If Gabe really wanted the money he’d go public
Not necessarily. Going public means he would then have shareholders to answer to. Or maybe he’s betting on steam going up in value, maybe taking steam public is his retirement plan. Who knows.
He could have locked down the Steam Deck.
Ehh, sure maybe, but there’s probably no financial benefit in doing so. He saved a lot of time and money going with Linux instead of building their own OS from scratch. And because Valve went the open source route, they’re free to re-use a ton of open source work, including code licensed under GPL.
And look at Google’s Android, much of Android is open source, surely you don’t think Larry Page and Sergey Brin are anarchists too?
And you’re ignoring the predatory nature of a lot of valve’s business. One of the most obvious examples is the CSGO skin cases. Valve is making massive amounts of money off of getting children hooked on gambling.
I’m gonna say probably not, if he were Valve would be full-on employee owned. I will say he seems a little less uh… warped than most prominent billionaires, but that’s not exactly a high bar to clear. Overall he seems like an okay guy but I don’t know him and have no way of telling whether he’s secretly a dick or something.
No.
He’s a capitalist and a billionaire.
You cannot be a capitalist and an anarchist.
No.
I do think Valve not being publicly traded allows them to be different in some ways such as the flat structure (“enshittification” as defined by Doctrow doesn’t apply to Valve because there are no shareholders to please) but there’s nothing “left” politically about Valve. Some of it I think is just not having to look good to shareholders allowing Valve to make actual good business decisions.
Valve’s support of free software is because during the Windows 8 era Newell gained the fear that Microsoft would phase out Win32 in favor of UWP, cutting into Steam’s business big-time. Microsoft definitely isn’t going to pull that now that Windows Phone and the Start Screen concept both died and they’ve stated they no longer see UWP alone as the future, but I do think Valve administration still thinks it’s best for their business to not rely on Microsoft’s whims.
