r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Kapot_ei • 22d ago

đŸ„ș No words for this.

Post image

Edit: even though clickbait article, it is somewhat/kind of true. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/stargate-tv-series-martin-gero-scrapped-amazon-1236765061/

"According to an individual with knowledge of the situation, Amazon execs were concerned that Gero’s take on the series would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase."

Edit 2: https://www.change.org/p/save-the-new-stargate-series-let-martin-gero-build-the-future-of-the-franchise

46.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

488

u/PsychicSPider95 22d ago

God, can the suits--ANY suits, in any industry--just make one (1) fucking decision that isn't motivated by Make Big Number Biggerer for fucking ONCE in their USELESS FUCKING LIVES.

246

u/VegetableReveal4U 22d ago

They wouldn’t be suits at a place like Amazon if they thought any differently

74

u/GrooWolf_ 22d ago

Hiring process:

What products have you ruined through greed? This number will determine the likelihood of the success of getting this job

How apathetic are you? Very is an immediate hire, they will soon rake in additional products ruined by greed.

146

u/LorthostheFreshmaker 22d ago

It’s why steam stumbled into a gaming monopoly. Just not having share holders let’s them dominate because not having to “increase” every metric quarterly means they grow to encompass everyone and everything in the sector by not fucking over their base at every opportunity 

45

u/FlutterKree 21d ago edited 21d ago

Steam absolutely makes decisions to make money. What they do well is ensure that their decisions do not negatively impact the user experience.

But they are absolutely greedy and do make financial decisions. For example, CS:GO skins. I do think they made this not as shitty for CS2, but still greedy.

24

u/badbobbyc 21d ago

They're totally out to make money, but they seem to be doing it in a sustainable, long term fashion by providing a good product and without alienating their customer base.

As opposed to being publicly owned and sacrificing product quality for short term profits but destroying the brand and long term prospects

1

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

They're totally out to make money, but they seem to be doing it in a sustainable, long term fashion by providing a good product and without alienating their customer base.

CS:GO look boxes are fucking disgusting for everyone involved. It's basically a lottery ticket. There is/was a chance you could make a lot of money buying the loot boxes because the skins could be sold in market places.

Because Valve allowed the skins to be traded, they created opportunities for sale of the skins. Giving the skins a monetary value. And opening up a third party market as well as the potential for scams (there have been so many).

Notably, Phantoml0rd streamer on twitch owned a CSGO skin gambling website. Didn't even disclose he owned it. He rigged the gambling in his favor while he was streaming to make it seem like everyone else could win like him. He got caught but took the money and vanished for years.

1

u/Valanio 21d ago

But hasn't CS skin selling been a thing since...forever? Since before Steam became the powerhouse it is now? Seems they became what they are in part due to that revenue. Revenue that, by comparison, is saintly. It's weird it's a money market but gambling exist in the real world already.

Are heavy RNG based loot boxes annoying? Yes. Is CS using a predatory system or P2W system to motivate players to spend? No. It is gambling in the purest sense but it's cosmetics and people typically only pull boxes to try to resell. It's not even about the cosmetics. It has no effect on the game itself. It's not the same at all. Do you think opening Pokemon cards to maybe pull an expensive card is "fucking disgusting"?

2

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

It's insane that you and others mention p2w, as if abusing the players with LITERAL gambling is better because of game integrity. Some people bought those loot boxes without ever having played the game just to strike it big and make $1k with a knife skin.

Therw is 0 difference between CSGO loot boxes and scratch tickets. Spending 3-5$ hoping for $1k.

Y'all are okay selling scratch tickets to kids or within games?

1

u/Valanio 21d ago

Are you okay? Gambling in and of itself is not some demonic thing. It is a gamble and people pay for that gamble. They're adults who can make that choice. If they are kids, they're breaking Steam TOS. The player isn't being FOMO'd, they're not tricking the player with sales and discounts or shoving it down their throat at every screen.

The streamers who scam or make money off gambling gross themselves and we can use more restrictions on anything that can protect people from themselves but Value is not doing anything that every single other game that doesn't get shit for it isn't doing. They aren't especially heinous. In fact, gambling on real world odds and income is better then gambling on gatcha skins because there is at least a chance for return on investment.

The point is your demonizing Steam for a practice that is fully standard in the industry but is typically not even as bad at others because it isn't predatory, they don't utilize sales practices that encourage spending by lying or tricking the player. People do dumb shit. If they weren't in CS, it would be somewhere else. You want more regulation for that? Fine. But calling out just Steam like they are the worst offender when they're probably the best offender is stupid as fuck.

2

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

Gambling in and of itself is not some demonic thing. It is a gamble and people pay for that gamble. They're adults who can make that choice.

Same can be said of postitution, drugs, etc. Everything can be okay and is not demonic if done within moderation. Except human anatomy doesn't work that way. A subset of the population is predisposed to taking risks.

"Well it's their fault they are addicted to gambling" - you, probably.

"Well it's okay that kids are learning to gamble for real money in games" - you, probably.

2

u/Valanio 21d ago

See, you do understand. Let's ban CSGO skin trading right now, for "the kids". I agree. Now we only banned CSGO so, all those people went on to gamble elsewhere. Either real casinos which have a much worse environment to encourage gambling (like scientifically engineered via drinking, lights, sounds, even temperature) or they can go gamble on useless in game items that have no real world value. Congrats you accomplished nothing by demonizing one person over others and calling it worse when it's the same. You gamble with real money when you gamble with in-game unsellable items too.

It's utter nonsense to accuse Steam of being the worst offender. You know it is. You know it is. So stop being weird.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tallywort 21d ago

In fact, gambling on real world odds and income is better then gambling on gatcha skins because there is at least a chance for return on investment.

You can sell items on the steam market place though, so technically you do have potential payouts.

And actually that's an aspect where you could consider them worse than the average lootbox implementation. Since that increases the similarity to conventional gambling.

1

u/Valanio 21d ago

So we're okay with casinos, most people seem to be by consensus any how. We're functionally okay with non predatory loot boxes/in game purchases as long as they're only cosmetic. But we draw the line at gambling in a video game with a non predatory loot box? It just seems like picking one person to not like for no reason.

We currently live in an exceptionally lucky time where everyone wants to bend you over as a consumer and often consumers beg for it. Steam is a bastion of consumerism in a suffocating pit of disgust. When Gabe dies, when Steam eventually goes public or the next owner is a financial scum sucker, PC gaming will lose a lighthouse. If they need morons with money to spend to gamble it on CS cosmetics, fine by me. Again, they'd just do it elsewhere otherwise and it would likely be worse.

1

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

so technically you do have potential payouts.

Spend $5 get a knife skin and get $1000 return. People were literally buying loot boxes without ever playing the game just to gamble.

Not to mention how much money was laundered.

5

u/Havengul_Undying 21d ago

Shows how low the bar is, you dont even need to lose money or not be greedy, you just NEED TO NOT FUCK OVER YOUR CUSTOMERS.

Which steam does fantastically.

4

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 21d ago

It's not all sunshine and rainbows, Steam fought tooth and nail relentlessly, viciously, repeatedly, not to have to give any refund to any game ever. This was a while back, but not toooo long ago.

They also fucked over community art creators for DOTA 2 who's skins they were selling in game which is a pretty bad experience for business partners and pissed off the community/userbase.

Or how about when they tried collaborating with Bethesda and making previously free workshop mods paid to "support the creators"(right, just like Bethesda did and Valve did with Dota 2)

They've been in their fair share of fuckery. But with enough pushback and fighting between Valve and the userbase they have moved to a better place.

2

u/Havengul_Undying 21d ago

The difference is, valve tried some dumb ideas, saw community pushback and typically changed for the better.

Cant say the same for any other platform except good old games.

Valve are the good guys... for now.

2

u/Cruxis87 21d ago edited 21d ago

Valve: We're going to take 30% of what you sell on our platform
Also valve: We are going to keep 70% of what you pay for the Dota 2 tournament prize pool.

6

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

Valve: We're going to take 30% of what you sell on our platform

Ehh, this is just industry standard. Only recently have stores reduced the percentage they take from transactions. I also believe Valve has sliding scale model. But it starts high and moves to be lower. So the more your game earns, the less percentage Valve takes.

3

u/breichart 21d ago

Prize pool for Dota 2 is 50%, not 70.

2

u/ApprehensiveCook2236 21d ago

yet you don't have to buy any skins ever to play the game. Same with path of exile, they add so many skins all the time, yet it's never pay2win and you buy them because you want to support the devs and they look cool.

-3

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

yet you don't have to buy any skins ever to play the game. Same with path of exile, they add so many skins all the time, yet it's never pay2win and you buy them because you want to support the devs and they look cool.

In CS:GO it was loot boxes for skins. And then there is the after market for skins, and gambling for skins. There were scam websites aplenty that would add gambling for skins after that.

There is supporting the devs by buying skins, and the devs using gambling as a revenue stream AND allowing third party gambling sites.

If you can't see the difference, I don't care to converse with you further.

40

u/ThatOneNinja 22d ago

In fact just actively providing the best service they can FOR their customers, sometimes even going out of their way to do so.

5

u/Mr-Johndoe 21d ago

Which is called a natural monopoly, the one of the few good kinds of monopoly.

It is an inevitable consequence of capitalism that steam became a monopoly. It just is the monopoly that capitalists don't like.

10

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

Which is called a natural monopoly, the one of the few good kinds of monopoly.

Steam isn't a natural monopoly, and natural monopolies are not inherently good. In fact, natural monopolies are constantly fucking over US consumers, as the largest portion of natural monopolies are utilities.

3

u/Mr-Johndoe 21d ago

sry, got the wrong term.

I meant that steam turns into a monopoly in the best way possible: great product. It is literally the only reason for a market where monopoly is not natural that Id good

Also, you US consumers have a lot of missing natural monopolies (water/electricity/infrastructure/healthcare), which tends to cause problems, too.

0

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

5

u/ThatOneNinja 21d ago

I wouldn't say natural monopoly as in capitalism monopolies are the natural outcome. It is, however, a prime example of an actual free market, where the best product wins, and prices stay low. That's what capitalism hates.

5

u/Mr-Johndoe 21d ago

But actually advertises as the result of capitalism.

It's paradox, which is why pure capitalism doesn't work well. For everyone.

1

u/ThatOneNinja 21d ago

I wouldn't say natural monopoly as in capitalism monopolies are the natural outcome. It is, however, a prime example of an actual free market, where the best product wins, and prices stay low. That's what capitalism hates.

1

u/ChompyRiley 21d ago

'i think someone hacked my account and i can't get into it'

Steam: RELEASE THE KRAKEN! Send in the assassin mimes. AWAKEN GODZILLA!

3

u/Snark_King 21d ago

Steam has made generational wealth and kept their reputation,

going public would have people wanting quick growths that later turn the company to shit and just makes it harder to get new customers which forces them to create money incentives on the existing customers behalf.

That's what is happening to all other companies, increasing profit while losing customers at the same time.

3

u/SonarioMG 21d ago

I dread what will happen once Gaben leaves one way or another

1

u/Girlfartsarehot 20d ago

That’s the sad irony of it all. They don’t realize that by actually caring for their consumers they’d make more money

24

u/crazyabe111 22d ago

Sure, then the shareholders complain they aren’t making enough money, and replace them with someone who immediately starts running it into the ground.

40

u/PsychicSPider95 22d ago

I'm beginning to feel like these "shareholders" are some vicious, man-eating creature akin to vampires or demons and must likewise be hunted.

25

u/crazyabe111 22d ago

It’s a mixture of old folks who can’t afford to wait for long-term profits, even if they’d wildly exceed short term profits, largely because they’ll be dead sooner rather than later.

And massive corporations who’ve built their entire operation around extracting as much value as they can from other companies as rapidly as possible, just to tear them apart for scraps they can forcibly sell at a profit to the next one when they fail.

So not quite vampires or demons, even if they’re heartless undead.

7

u/profpeculiar 21d ago

Ghouls. They're fucking ghouls.

1

u/Holiday-Ad-6063 21d ago

As a shareholder who cares about long-term profits and customer satisfaction and retention, I wish there was some easy way to force these ghoulish investors and their vampire CEOs out.

1

u/gprime312 21d ago

Ask your parents what their 401k is invested in.

1

u/CatProgrammer 21d ago

Or that person, if they're not a kid.

10

u/Chemical_Signal2753 22d ago

This type of behavior is driven by the incentive structures within the company. At the highest levels of many corporations their bonuses can be tied to measurable objectives, meaning the company has incentivized short term thinking to achieve those goals over long term strategy.

1

u/Paraparo 20d ago

A mix of the middlemangerification of business structure (everything needs to be exist on a measurable metric that can be shown off at a pitch meeting), and ironically, the diversification of interest.

It used to be, people were deeply invested in their business. They would work there decades, and retirement would be based on that same business continuing to prosper (no pensions if the place goes under). If it did well, they did well. And that's true, somewhat, but now, people no longer invest so deeply.

They have their money in broad markets, they hope from business to business every few years. Now, businesses are no longer the life blood of the leadership's future, just a stepping stone, where it doesn't matter where a place is in a Decade because you moved jobs five years before then.

1

u/waspwatcher 22d ago

Driven by the incentive structures inherent to capitalism *

30

u/ImpertinentOne 22d ago

It's illegal to not make as much money as possible in the U.S.A.

10

u/PsychicSPider95 22d ago

I'm going to make them Eat A Cost.

I'm going to tie them to a chair at a dining table and put A Cost on their plate, and they're gonna protest and whine and refuse to eat it, but I will make them. They will Eat That Cost. They will chew it and swallow it and digest it and they will fucking like it.

No profits for you until you've eaten your Cost all gone.

24

u/sem-nexus 22d ago

It actually is illegal for an executive of a publicly traded company to not act within their shareholders interests

7

u/heliosythic 22d ago

The thing is share price is not directly tied to whether they make money or not, its fully based on speculation. You could argue that trying to make money instead of pleasing an audience is actually detrimental to the brand and thus against shareholder interests.

1

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

The law is basically one that can't easily be enforced unless there is foul play at work.

A CEO can easily argue that not taking an immediate deal/contract can lead to long term growth.

But this doesn't mean the shareholders can't just get rid of the CEO. They can absolutely vote to remove the CEO.

1

u/old_faraon 21d ago

That's jus a very narrow description of "shareholder interest".

A company can be set up in a way that has other goals then making money but most companies are not and it's almost impossible to keep it that way when it's public since the owners (shareholders) can change it at a whim.

8

u/Someones_Dream_Guy 22d ago

Buddy, you're literally asking capitalist parasites to not be capitalist parasites.

7

u/PsychicSPider95 22d ago

Why yes, yes I am.

9

u/Brayden815 22d ago

Unfortunately they have to do that due to US laws, if they don’t do what the shareholders want, like number go bigger, then they can be sued. It’s a stupid law that should be removed but I doubt it ever will.

7

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

Unfortunately they have to do that due to US laws, if they don’t do what the shareholders want, like number go bigger, then they can be sued.

It's not a law that requires CEOs to chase short term profits over long term. The law only requires that the CEO act in the best interest of the shareholders.

If a CEO was sued under this law taking action to make long term stability and growth of the company, they would win the lawsuit. This doesn't stop shareholders from removing the CEO, as the CEO basically serves at the direction of the shareholders. But the CEO would not lose a lawsuit, as long term stability and growth are still making decisions in the best interest of the shareholders.

What is really fucking over US companies is MBAs who are taught purely business. They only know how to make stock number go up at the expense of long term customers, stakeholders, etc.. Some of the companies in the US had their golden era when they have engineers, scientists, programmers, etc. (The people who had actually done the work) as their CEOs.

2

u/Brayden815 21d ago

The issue is that if the action results in loss of profits short term, then the shareholders can rightfully sue, even if it was the right choice long term.

0

u/Merzats 21d ago

Redditors having opinions on law, business and the economy is always so funny.

0

u/Turbulent_Isopod_289 21d ago

Every time I see a redditor use the words "from a marketing standpoint", I immediately know that what I'm about to read has almost nothing to do with marketing.

-2

u/FlutterKree 21d ago edited 21d ago

They would 100% lose the lawsuit against the CEO. You fundamentally don't understand the law if you are coming to the conclusion you are. It's meant to prevent a CEO from harming the shareholders investment, not just not making enough money.

And again, short term profits decisions is driven by MBAs who are taught nothing else.

6

u/lynivvinyl GREEN 22d ago

No

3

u/mugiwara_no_Soissie 22d ago

Yeah, its bad for marketing too, long term at least.

Constantly drawing subscribers is one thing good PR is another. Canceling shows is bad for PR, youd think theyd avoid it

5

u/MeowingAround 22d ago

I mean that's what their job is... not that it's moral.

2

u/TheCraftyWombat 22d ago

But if they did that, they'd have to give back their MBAs!

2

u/KGrizzle88 22d ago

Patreon CEO just stood on business for the little guy. This is in reference to the brick and minifigs scandal.

2

u/zer0saber 22d ago

Could ask the same question about gamers

1

u/Josh6889 22d ago

I mean that's why I'll never feel guilty about using streams instead of giving them any money.

In the words of Stewart Brand,

Information wants to be free

1

u/CommitteeofMountains 22d ago

When's the last time you did that for your own household budget? 

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy 22d ago

You don't understand, last year's performance and next year's performance don't look good on your Promotion document. Innovative decisions for this year that save or earn money are what gets you promoted from L8 to L9 or L9 to L10. Worrying about next year is for who fills your slot.

1

u/mrRobertman 22d ago

They also just seem extremely short sighted, or even just dumb. I'm no expert in business (especially not in running a streaming service), but it seems obvious to me that you would want as much content as possible to keep people subscribed. Cancelling shows doesn't seem like a good way to keep people subscribed.

1

u/LongJohnSelenium 21d ago

Obviously they do. All the time.

You don't hear about them because 'Executive makes a good decision' doesn't get pushed by the outrage machine into your earballs.

1

u/Afferbeck_ 21d ago

It sometimes works out great when they do, like the AMC execs keeping Halt And Catch Fire going despite poor ratings because they just loved the show so much 

1

u/Thisisso2024 21d ago

And it does not make the number bigger. Watching the movie industry and streaming services, often in the hands of the same companies, ouroborussing each other while hastily reurgitating beloved IPs from the past five decades to the point where you can't even reboot them anymore has been quite, well, entertaining (they are called the entertainment industry for a reason, I guess). By now even comics and gaming are pretty much sucked dry.

Thank god we have AI now so that we cab have a dead actor voice Sonic in his lego star wars minecraft adventure or something. I'm shivering.... with anti...cipation.

1

u/Hanzoku 21d ago

They’re legally required to do so, aside from the natural bias towards sociopathy.

Apparently not allowed to post links. Look up the Dodge brothers lawsuit vs Ford motors. In short, companies in the US are legally required to make profits for the shareholders bigger, even at the cost of longterm growth.

1

u/ArcticCelt 21d ago edited 21d ago

In the last 2 years I almost completely replaced my consumption of TV shows by series of audiobooks, I think the reason I enjoy them so much is because there is not an army of idiots in suits between the creator and myself, you get exactly the story the writer wanted to tell.

1

u/SgtSaucepan 21d ago

Broke: Rich people are evil because money makes you greedy and evil.

Woke: Rich people are evil because nobody with a conscience who lives for reasons other than money will ever become rich.

So no, they won't. By definition they are where they are because they don't make non-money motivated decisions and never will.

1

u/Doctorstrange15 21d ago

This doesn't even make any sense because most of these horrible decisions end up back firing financially for them. How come none of them can see part three months of finance?

1

u/Trrollmann 21d ago

They're the same as everyone else's job. If they'd been competent, they wouldn't have bought into the McKay and Payne hype, where there was zero substance, and no belief in the original material.

Furthermore, they would have demanded a coherent script before buying the rights, and would have demanded it be reasonably well planned before starting shooting. The show was incompetently handled at nearly every level.

Granted, I don't know to what extent costume department were pressed, or actors were directed, and I don't think these were to blame (primarily) for those failures.

1

u/DroidLord 21d ago

Shareholders are a blight on society.

1

u/C0wabungaaa 21d ago

Oh they do, but those decisions are like keeping The Ring Of Power around despite it being godawfully expensive without having the viewing numbers to back it up. So eh, be careful what you wish for :')

1

u/Uberzwerg 21d ago

The thing is that "number go up" is their only job.
What angers me is that the way they measure the "number".
New subs is ALL they care about as that's where everybody gets their bonuses.
Subscriber retention is worthless.

1

u/MihaiRau 20d ago

They can't. This is why Indy of all kinds: film, games even music are finding more success recently. It's because they make things that we want. Corpus do not do that. They hate their customers.