← Back to context

Comment by Vinnl

3 years ago

That last bit is interesting to me. If I was a previously-mostly-closed-source company trying to wade into open source, I'd be at least wary about being perceived as stomping in and dictating my will. Especially knowing how easy it is to overrun the (original) volunteer contributors that doubtlessly they're interacting with as well, when bringing in full-time paid developers.

Yet, it sounds like they've managed? Possibly because there's a clear road forward that people generally align on, though even then, disputes about things like code architecture can easily arise.

5 comments

Vinnl

Reply
faeriechangling  3 years ago

Valve has built up trust over a long long period of time and they can get away with things other businesses cannot.

  • 29083011397778  3 years ago

    Until you said it, I hadn't realized just how big a factor this is. Replace Valve with nearly any other company in this space, and at least one person would have alluded to "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Valve built SteamOS and basically monopolized PC gaming (IMO by building a better product) - yet everyone loves them. Even the die-hard FOSS people don't rage about Valve's flaws, because Valve has shown they can strive for perfect and hit good enough along the way.

    I'm sure there's history I'm missing, and Valve / Steam undoubtedly has flaws. But while good will can take a long time to build, god has it helped Valve here.

    • Rastonbury  3 years ago

      I don't know about market share but they are don't really have the ability to wield their monopoly power to hurt consumers, I'm a casual gamer I must admit but I have games on other stores/launchers. I think the thing people like the most is that people actually have a choice from Windows, the original monopolist