This is an interesting take, especially coming from a non-gaming focused tech website like Ars Technica. I feel like it’s been too long since people were truly hyped about half life 3 though, and this wouldn’t be enough, even if Valve did go through with it.
People are increasingly unhappy with windows though, and the EoL of windows 10 may push people to Linux anyways.
It’s always funny to see periodicals talk about Valve like they’re a normal puplicly traded tech company.
Valve is private. That fact alone is neither inherently good, nor bad. What it means though, is that Valve will very likely behave very differently than other companies in the same market. Heck, I very much doubt half life Alyx would exist if they were public. If we get HL3, it will likely be a similar case.
I’m leaning towards being a public company is inherently bad, so being a private company is preferable as the primary “not bad” option.
My main experiences with public companies lately is that they prioritize quarterly and yearly profits over long term health of the company and a good relationship with their customers. I don’t think that approach will be healthy for the company long term, and hurts consumers short term.
Privately owned companies can be just as shitty as publicly owned companies, but they’re not required to put short term shareholder profits first. The well run ones (especially family run ones) are more likely to prioritize building a good reputation and consumer loyalty, which is how you get companies that don’t suck to interact with.
You make good points, but I doubt you’d continue to feel that way if you were a shareholder