• Xenny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    Both. Steam is already the market leader in its industry. You just keep doing what you’re doing and you win.

    • Javi@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Microsoft were already the dominant operating system in computing. Now they’re losing market share due to frequent bad decision making.

      All they had to do was keep windows ticking over. But instead they looked to milk more revenue from their customer base in the form of advertising and telemetry data. That’s because shareholders demand ever increasing profits. Enshittification is always the result of a company going public… Never a question of if, only when; as soon as the passion has died in ownership (usually due to sale or change of management), the only drive becomes profit; and the user experience is stripped to accommodate. The same will be true one day for steam, unfortunately.

      • rapchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        but they have shareholders, that demand, with the backing of the law, that the company produces as much profit as possible, otherwise they can sue them

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I keep seeing this notion that companies “must” maximize profit above all else “by law” repeated over and over again here and in other online spaces, and here’s where I’m finally getting off of my arse to draw the line in the sand.

          That’s not actually true.

          You can file a derivative suit against a company of which you are shareholder for a multitude of reasons, but just “they didn’t make us enough money” is unlikely to be a successful one.

          • rapchee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            i don’t remember where i got it from, but what i remembered was that they can be sued if the shareholders feel that they avoid money-making opportunities

    • invertedspear@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      When Miamoto Iwata died, Nintendo just had to stay the course. They were never dominant, but they were ubiquitous and everyone enjoyed their products. Now the new guys don’t even play games, and the switch 2 price point is ridiculous, and they never fixed the issue with the joy con sticks, and prices never drop like they used to. You can’t count on new leadership being capable of continuing success, even when all they have to do is keep things on the exact same course.

      • balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nintendo is gonna keep making the same 5 games with ever-improving graphics until they die. Doesn’t hurt that people are fine paying $80 every few years for the same game.

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The Switch 2 is selling faster than the Switch 1 during it’s launch period. So Nintendo’s new leadership is not negatively affecting the company. Also even under Yamauchi and Iwata Nintendo never fixed drifting analogue sticks, so that is new leadership continuing the course.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Except you need to make even more money. You can’t do that by simply letting things continue as they are.