Valve's unique approach to corporate governance is probably the reason why it's such an efficient company.

Valve’s unique approach to corporate governance is probably the reason why it’s such an efficient company.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      I know I’m going to regret asking, but how exactly do you logic out that stopping low quality slop games?

      It would literally do the opposite because the goal for each slop game would be $49,999.

      Your idea would make everything worse, and I’m just curious why you don’t see that.

      • truthfultemporarily@feddit.orgEnglish
        1·
        7 hours ago

        I’m not talking about slop games, I’m talking about giving single dev games a chance. Even successful single dev games make maybe 140000k which is 70k on your bank account. Having 18k more would make a massive difference for those games.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          7 hours ago

          And I said to tell the difference between slop and human indie devs…

          They’d have to start vetting games to tell.

          You said they don’t have to do that, you just think there’s a magical way to tell?

          What you’re saying just doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you didn’t even read the comment chain you replied to. I’m just reiterating what I’ve already said, and it’s probably going to help you understand just as much as the first time…

          • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 hour ago

            I’m confused why you’re confused? Their position is just don’t vet the games. That’s what they’re saying. It doesn’t presume some “magical way to tell the difference”. You just don’t check the games.

            Now, this part is just my interpretation, but I believe they’re operating on a “caveat emptor” methodology. They shouldn’t let malware through obviously, but they might believe it’s on the purchaser to not buy games that look like slop.