this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
532 points (96.3% liked)
PC Gaming
14320 readers
762 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
See the thing is, he could live very comfortably as a hundred millionaire and help thousands of people with his excess income. Instead he hoards it. Is he actively evil like some other billionaires? No, but merely hoarding that much while others starve disqualifies him from "good person" status.
This criticism applies to every billionaire, not just Gaben.
I'm not sure billionaires actually have billions of dollars just sitting in a bank account.
It's usually assets that contribute to net worth, not actual cash
Whether that is true or not is immaterial to my point.
I'm not sure that's true.
Let's realistically entertain your point: You say he should sell his assets to get money, so he can give it to the poor, basically (correct me if I'm wrong).
The yacht and other stuff, probably bought with a loan, insured by Steam's value. His real assets is, like, Steam.
I don't know if you already see where this is going, but from clarity: If people would buy parts of that - the parts are called "shares", and the people who buy them "shareholders". That is a public company. Which now has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to make as much money as possible. Meaning all that enshittification coming along with it eventually, too.
You've effectively explained how billionaires justify not paying taxes. Now explain how they can be good people.
Not really though
When you're talking about hoarding wealth, the problem isn't just different from hoarding money, it's a deeper and more complicated problem.
Assets in the case of these assholes is ownership. If they just held onto cash, all they could do is buy shit, which isn't really a problem.
What they own is vast amounts of the economy, land, and the labor of people.
They think they own the people as well as the labor and products of that labor. They do to a large extent.
When you start whittling down a tier list of which billionaires are worse than others, and there are layers of shittiness there; it's about their impact and how they wield that wealth as power.
And what in all of this enables a billionaire to be a good person? Or did you miss my initial point that being a billionaire makes it impossible to be a good person? I ask because this is still immaterial to that point.
Bro, are you fucking 12 or something? Your logic is based on a false statement "impossible to be a good person and be very rich". This article is literally about that topic, Tim is shit, Gabe isn't.
Also, don't be a dumb ass and assume you know what's best to spend other people's money on. I can give countless examples of ways to spend a billion dollars that are to the betterment of humanity, but your problem is really with the shit government of the USA (I assume your from the USA, cause tour a dumb ass).
It's the government job to help people, but the US government is doing the opposite. Look how China and other Socialist countries help their citizens and address basic human needs.
I would maybe give you this - Your anger is better suited aimed at the US government, and your anger might be linked to how big money has captured the US government (hence your anger with Billionaires), but trust me, it's not expensive to buy these fucktard politicians, and billionaire interests are a problem - but you really need to jump off these stupid little catch phrases that are not true.
Yeah, that's not how conversation works, my lemmite acquaintance. One isn't required to slavishly pound away at the initial focus of a comment. It's not only acceptable to work tangents and expand on sub-topics, it's expected to some degree or another.
People seem to think that every interaction online is a debate. It isn't. Me? I'm just drifting along, chilling, shooting the shit with other human beings.
In that spirit, why do you think "goodness" is either a singular thing that is the totality of a person, or that there aren't gradations of it? Not all saints are of equal goodness, nor are all villains purely evil. In terms of the human condition, nobody is so completely single faceted that it's useful to apply good/bad paradigms to the entirely of the person unless the entirety of their actions so heavily skew things that good or evil is such a large percentage that it's moot that other aspects exist.
I think we can agree that there's difference between someone like Trump and someone like bezos. Both absolutely horrible people overall, but the degree of horror is not the same.
As such, when you look at the bad of a given person, it has to be taken along with the good.
Now, I think we'd also agree that billionaires as a thing is a net evil so horrid as to need abolishment. But it doesn't preclude individuals from being the same kind of mix that you and I are. See, I know I have the capacity for darkness and evil. I also know that I choose, even when darkness is lapping at the shores of my true self, to do the most good I can. I hope that the opposite is true for you, that your inner goodness is so great that only puddles of evil reside which are easily relegated to meaninglessness.
But people are never so purely good that they're incapable of bad things. The same is true of even the most vile examples of humanity from history. In the worst cases, any good may have been accidental, but still.
The ruling class of the ultra wealthy should indeed be abolished. But it's just silly to pretend that they aren't human, and thus a spectrum of good and bad
Having lots of money earned does not make a person bad. So I just disagree with your reasoning. But it's not like i'm dumb and wouldn't understand where you coming from.
The only thing Newell is reported to have spent money on is stuff for himself and maybe the people close to him. He withholds the billions of dollars he owns from poor people he could help but won't. What is the worth in being a leech to society?
They never said that. So maybe you're disagreeing with their reasoning because you don't know what it is.
They say billionaires are bad because they have a lot of money and don't use it to help people. This isn't even talking about billionaire who engage in actually/actively morally wrong deeds to acquire money.
If you produce a product so excellent that consumers give you 1 billion dollars ($1.000.000.000) in pure profit, there would be no problem if you kept a nest egg to ensure your livelihood and then used the rest to provide aid where it's needed. You would still be a bad person for sitting on it, instead of spreading it to help people that aren't well off. A person can live very well on $300K pretty much anywhere in the world: that means $999,700,000 is not materially improving your life and you are hoarding it for no good reason.
You phrased that better than I did.