Steam gets almost all the PC games sales now..How do you feel about this ??

[Macro]

I think what he means it that as the company is privately traded it has no legal duty to maximise shareholder value.

Absolutely, but then that's not what he said when he launched into "you don't know what you're talking about", and to be fair I didn't refer to legally, rather that the company is (and perhaps I should have said generally rather than solely) there to produce money for it's shareholders and is accountable to them.

 

[Thesnipergecko]

Not getting too involved but here's my 2p worth.

Digital distribution platforms deliver my games to me for release day, I make a few clicks of a mouse and my game is ready to play. It gets delivered to me without the need to wait in for the postman or the aggravation of "you wasn't home so we've taken your parcel back to the depot".

I pay, I get my game hassle free and don't have to bother disc swapping when I want to play. It simply works.

What's all the beef about? Buy your game and play it.

 

[Macro]

Not getting too involved but here's my 2p worth.

Digital distribution platforms deliver my games to me for release day, I make a few clicks of a mouse and my game is ready to play. It gets delivered to me without the need to wait in for the postman or the aggravation of "you wasn't home so we've taken your parcel back to the depot".

I pay, I get my game hassle free and don't have to bother disc swapping when I want to play. It simply works.

What's all the beef about? Buy your game and play it.

I agree and I think in general Steam do a great job, there's a few concerns around steam potentially killing off the other services and routes to market and becoming a monopoly, just because it's a bit "eggs all in one basket".

 

[MURDEROUS G]

Frankly I haven't made anything up and your aggressive posting along with mock indignation hoping to shift the discussion to vague and clearly inaccurate attempts to paint me as "making things up" is laughable and does your credibility no help.

First you said "revenue isn't the same as profit hurr" despite the fact that I made a clear distinction in my post between revenue and outgoings, then you said "uh private companies have shareholders durr" and actually falsified a quote to make it appear that I had said the opposite.

You have continually argued against stuff that I haven't said, and have tried to make it appear that I've made arguments I did not make. I am sure you can appreciate that this is liable to get a person annoyed when you repeatedly misrepresent their position and pretend that they said things they did not say.

I think what he means it that as the company is privately traded it has no legal duty to maximise shareholder value.

Yes, this. A private company can do whatever the hell the private individual(s) who own it feel like doing and they have no obligation to anyone.

 

[Macro]

First you said "revenue isn't the same as profit hurr" despite the fact that I made a clear distinction in my post between revenue and outgoings,

Not quite sure what your point is, other than to now say you agree with me that Revenue is not the same as profit and for the sake of a company having the potential to go under profit might be a better indicator.. Ok.

then you said "uh private companies have shareholders durr" and actually falsified a quote to make it appear that I had said the opposite..

No, no I didn't.. And ironic really as that's exactly what you've just done with the whole "durr" thing. Weak response... 2/10 to be honest.

I should point out that you're the one who started throwing in the sarcastic replies trying to misconstrue posts. None of which seem to be adding any value to the discussion. /shrug

 

[Macro]

Yes, this. A private company can do whatever the hell the private individual(s) who own it feel like doing and they have no obligation to anyone.

Sorry, this is incorrect. A company has an obligation to it's shareholders, public or private. It's for the shareholders, or "owners" of the company to decide and agree with senior management what those obligations are. For example, a hired manager running the company (let's say Ste4m) could not expect to run the company into the ground and bankruptcy without the "private" shareholders intervening or holding him, and the "company" accountable.

You said:

they have no shareholder accountability whatsoever.

Clearly they do have an accountability to the shareholders (owners) of the company.


Are you purposely trying to misunderstand?

 

[MURDEROUS G]

No, no I didn't..

Yes you did. Here's what I said.

they have no shareholder accountability whatsoever.

And here's what you claimed I said.

As for them being privately held rather than public so they have no "absolutely no accountability or shareholders whatsoever"

You then went off on one about "even private companies have shareholders" despite the fact that I never said they didn't.

 

[Macro]

Snip....

Ok, that was a typo and should have been "to", not "or", not a falsification. That should be pretty clear as your point was they have no obligations to shareholders whatsoever because they are a private company where I pointed out that even a private company has obligations to it's shareholders.

Please try to stop misrepresenting the discussion by nit picking typos. My point was very clearly about obligations and accountability, your statement was a private company has no obligations to it's shareholders whatsoever.

Jeeze, it's not difficult...

 

[Macro]

Yes, this. A private company can do whatever the hell the private individual(s) who own it feel like doing and they have no obligation to anyone.

Just noticed this amazing U-turn, so you do agree that the company has obligations to do "whatever the hell the private individuals" (Shareholders) "feel like doing". i.e. has accountability to the shareholders (Owners).

I'm curious, how do you reconcile this with

they(Valve) have no shareholder accountability whatsoever.

 

[Macro]

Sorry folks... no idea what this has to do with PC distribution on a digital platform any more other than a tenuous link using the words "steam" and "Platform" to "derail" the thread.

So, Steam... evil genius or benevolent saviours of PC gaming...?

 

[MURDEROUS G]

Just noticed this amazing U-turn, so you do agree that the company has obligations to do "whatever the hell the private individuals" (Shareholders) "feel like doing". i.e. has accountability to the shareholders (Owners).

Shareholder accountability is recognised to mean a publicly traded company being accountable to the public shareholders. It doesn't apply to private companies because "shareholder accountability" in that context would mean "the owners have an obligation to do what the owners decide that the owners should do" which is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated.

You're trying to argue here that the owner of a private company has "shareholder accountability" because he is obligated to do what he himself decides to do. I hope you can realise for yourself how retarded this is.

edit:

Ok, that was a typo and should have been "to", not "or", not a falsification.

Yes it was a typo, that's why you went on and argued against it for several sentences

double edit i just saw your second post:

Sorry folks... no idea what this has to do with PC distribution on a digital platform any more other than a tenuous link using the words "steam" and "Platform" to "derail" the thread.

I don't agree with your points of view but I but can certainly agree we've gone far enough off course that this discussion isn't of any benefit to anyone so I'll drop it at this point if you'll do the same.

 

[Macro]

Shareholder accountability is recognised to mean a publicly traded company being accountable to the public shareholders. It doesn't apply to private companies because "shareholder accountability" in that context would mean "the owners have an obligation to do what the owners decide that the owners should do" which is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated.

You're trying to argue here that the owner of a private company has "shareholder accountability" because he is obligated to do what he himself decides to do. I hope you can realise for yourself how retarded this is.

No, it's perfectly clear I'm not arguing that. You are arguing with very clear statements that a private company has no obligations or accountability to it's shareholders (owners). You are wrong and no amount of waffle and sarcastic answers trying to back track and cover is going to change that. You are making the fundamental mistake of confusing "the company" i.e. Valve Corporation as being the same thing as "the shareholders or owners".

Haha yes it was a typo, that's why you went on and argued against it for several sentences

Other than that typo nowhere did I say you had said private companies didn't have shareholders, I disputed your claim that private companies don't have to do what their shareholders (owners) want, which is clearly wrong...

 

[MURDEROUS G]

No, it's perfectly clear I'm not arguing that. You are arguing with very clear statements that a private company has no obligations or accountability to it's shareholders (owners). You are wrong and no amount of waffle and sarcastic answers trying to back track and cover is going to change that.

Once again, for the criminally stupid: saying a company has "no shareholder accountability" means they are not answerable to public shareholders. Valve are a private company and are not accountable to public shareholders by the simple virtue of not having any.

Clearly you don't believe me when I say this, so let's find some supporting evidence - to Google we go.

Wilmington Trust

Public ownership can have a dramatic change on a company, and the transition is not always easy. The company's managers suddenly must face new responsibilities that they didn't encounter when the company was private - namely, shareholder accountability.

Reuters

As a private company, Facebook isn’t burdened by disclosure, public scrutiny, shareholder accountability. That is the benefit of their status as a privately held concern.

You are trying to argue about terminology that you do not understand.

If you seriously want to debate this at greater length, then go and take it up with the finance blogger for Reuters (quoted above). I'm sure he'll be very interested when you tell him that he's got it all wrong.

 

[Macro]

Wow, are you really trying to be that obtuse with this? Do us all a favour and leave the aggressive sarcastic posting style back at school eh?

Ok, this is the best way I can think of to illustrate my point.

Think of it this way. You and two other people have a £3billion Corporation making $1billion per year in revenue and doing very well although non of you actively manage it. Frankly you're all busy sitting on the beach with drinks counting the cash come in. You appoint me as CEO and a few of my mates as directors to run it for you because we're great blokes.

Are you seriously telling me the board, CEO and corporation would have no responsibility or obligations to you as majority shareholder and owner because it's not a public company?

Are you suggesting as Shareholders the three of you would not intervene and replace the board if we started running it into the ground and bankrupting the corporation through ill advised choices or just plain stupidity and mistakes? That is the Responsibility and Accountability of the corporation and management to it's shareholders, even for a privately traded corporation.

You said this:

their stock is not traded and they have no shareholder accountability whatsoever.

It's wrong on two points, the stock is indeed traded, it's just traded privately not to the public and the corporation, board and management do have accountability to the (privately traded) shareholders.

The practical "exception" to this would be if the shareholders and board are the same thing in which case they still have obligations and responsibilities to each other, they are just more likely to be making the decisions in the first place. If there's a single majority (51% and up I guess)shareholder he would still have responsibilities to the other shareholders if he runs the corporation (badly) as well, it's just much harder for them to do anything about it.

 

[Vertiginous]

i think its a good thing, just wish some of there download server were faster, i get around 12MBs downloading from origin but less than 6 on steam

 

[Macro]

i think its a good thing, just wish some of there download server were faster, i get around 12MBs downloading from origin but less than 6 on steam

I seem to remember you could change where you download from/location maybe that might help (no idea if you can still do that).

 

[Infidelus]

Never used steam. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If I want to buy a game, I buy a game wherever I see the best deal (usually the rainforest place), and it's usually a retail edition as opposed to digital.

I have bought a couple of games from Gamers Gate when I've seen deals on, but that's about the only digital outlet I've used for games.

 

[MURDEROUS G]

Wow, are you really trying to be that obtuse with this?

Yes look at me being all obtuse by sourcing quotes from financial institutions and news agencies that directly refute your argument

It's wrong on two points, the stock is indeed traded, it's just traded privately not to the public and the corporation, board and management do have accountability to the (privately traded) shareholders.

When people say "shareholder accountability" they are talking about public shareholder accountability. When people say the stock is not "traded", they are talking about the stock being publicly traded (if a financial analyst says "X company's stock is currently trading at $6", they aren't talking about private trading, are they?). Private companies do not have "shareholder accountability" in the sense that the entire world defines the term, although you seem to think it means something different. If you find this hard to believe then go and re-read the quotes from my previous post - if you're going to continue to argue that you're right when Reuters is telling you in very plain terms that you're wrong then I guess I don't know what else I can say to you. Seriously, take a step back from the keyboard for a second and think about that: you're claiming that you're right and Reuters is wrong.

Anyway, I'm done. This is the dumbest derail I think I've ever been involved in on a forum, and for the sake of everybody else I'm going to stop here. You can go ahead and have the last word, so knock yourself out and say that I denied the Holocaust happened or something.

 

[Macro]

It's a tricky compromise I suppose. I quite like the convenience and immediacy of a digital download (although this does sometimes lead to Saturday morning buyers remorse when I realise the game I thought would be good after a few beers isn't quite so good after all).

I have a few games on Gamersgate and Origin as well as steam. It's a pain having to go to three different places but I don't want to just give everything to steam and see the other alternatives fail.

I suspect what I actually want is a buy and download service that doesn't need me to be running a bloated client app all the time. Ideally I'd like to just use it as a digital shop to log in, download and (re-download) in the future, more like Gamersgate than Steam.

Perhaps that's why steam dominates, once you've bought a game you pretty much have to have it installed and running all the time making it the obvious place to go for future purchases?

 

[Macro]

Yes look at me being all obtuse by sourcing quotes from financial institutions and news agencies that directly refute your argument



When people say "shareholder accountability" they are talking about public shareholder accountability. When people say the stock is not "traded", they are talking about the stock being publicly traded (if a financial analyst says "X company's stock is currently trading at $6", they aren't talking about private trading, are they?). Private companies do not have "shareholder accountability" in the sense that the entire world defines the term, although you seem to think it means something different. If you find this hard to believe then go and re-read the quotes from my previous post - if you're going to continue to argue that you're right when Reuters is telling you in very plain terms that you're wrong then I guess I don't know what else I can say to you. Seriously, take a step back from the keyboard for a second and think about that: you're claiming that you're right and Reuters is wrong.

Anyway, I'm done. This is the dumbest derail I think I've ever been involved in on a forum, and for the sake of everybody else I'm going to stop here. You can go ahead and have the last word, so knock yourself out and say that I denied the Holocaust happened or something.

Not sulking are you?

It's very simple, it means accountability to shareholders...

Nowhere have I said "shareholder accountability" doesn't have specific meanings when it refer to public companies, we're not talking about a publicly traded company though are we so your obsession with public trading terms seems, well, odd. I just highlighted you're talking rubbish when you say a privately traded corporation has no "accountability" to its "shareholders" when clearly it does and it cannot do "whatever the hell it likes" without accountabilities/responsibility to it's shareholders unless it's shareholders instruct/allow it so to do.

In this case you are trying to tell us the management at Valve could decide to invest $10Billion in jam doughnuts and not be held accountable by the shareholders (unless of course the shareholder ARE the management, but that doesn't change the principle)? I see why you've resorted to saying this is a dumb derail now...

Clearly there is a specific legal requirement of "accountability to shareholders" used for a publicly trading company, this is generally to protect shareholders as they are unlikely to all be board members able to directly control the corporation. You've hoped to abstract the point that even private corporations have accountabilities to their shareholders away from what is a ridiculous statement by trying to turn the point into one about semantics of one specific use of the word rather than what it actually means. This is what happens when you read something on the internet and take it at face value without stopping to think of the wider context of a word or phrase.