this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
17 points (87.0% liked)

Anti-Corporate Movement

844 readers
54 users here now

This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.

Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.

Current topics this includes but is not limited to:

Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.

Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.

But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.

But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.

But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.

But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31220768

It’s silly to compare Switch 2 sales to Steam Deck sales.

The Switch 2 is a locked-down, vertically integrated platform. There are no ROG Switch 2s. No Lenovo Switch 2s. No Switch laptops or tower PCs with discrete GPUs. If you want to play Mario Kart World, your only option is to buy a Switch 2. Period.

Steam Deck, by contrast, isn’t a platform. It’s just one hardware option—one entry point into the sprawling, open ecosystem known as PC gaming.

Every year, around 245 million PCs are shipped globally. If even 20–25% of those are gaming-focused, that’s 49–61 million gaming PCs annually. Steam Deck is a sliver of that. So of course it won’t outsell a console that’s the only gateway to a major IP.

But that’s exactly the point.

PC gaming is too decentralized for any single device to dominate. The last “PC” that did was the Commodore 64, which sold 12.5–17 million units over 12 years because it was a self-contained platform, unlike modern Windows, Mac, or Linux machines.

That the Steam Deck has sold 4 million units despite competing with every other gaming PC in existence is remarkable. It didn’t just sell—it legitimized a category. Handheld PC gaming is now a thing. That’s why Lenovo, ASUS, and MSI have followed. Even Microsoft is getting in, optimizing Windows for handhelds—something they would never have done if the Steam Deck didn't hold their feet to the fire.

So no, Steam Deck didn’t outsell the Switch 2. It didn’t need to.

It won by changing the landscape.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Every year, around 245 million PCs are shipped globally. If even 20–25% of those are gaming-focused, that’s 49–61 million gaming PCs annually.

That seems like a too-charitable estimate. I would guess that 95%+ computers built and sold are for business uses. Of the remaining 12M, I would further guess that 90%+ of those aren't for gaming, but for Grandma and Pop to use "The Facebook," and for Mom or Uncle to file their taxes and buy airline tickets. By my guesstimate, that could be around 1M gaming computers sold.

As an example, the place I used to work from ’16 to '21 bought about 700 computers yearly. One big year had us replacing about 3k desktops and about 300 laptops (changed from Dell to HP). My family (about forty of us from Grandma to my son) bought four in the past four years. Of those four, one was for gaming. My last gaming rig purchase was in March, and replaced an Intel 8xxx from 2015, which was itself just a mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade

It seems to me that almost all computers sold are for business, and only a tiny sliver are sold for gaming.

I don't have anything else determinative to add about it. I just wanted to opine about the question of percentages.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Tom's Hardware suggests that around 260 million PCs were sold in 2023, and 44 million of those were gaming PCs. That comes out to around 17%, which is smaller than 25%, but within spitting distance of 20% - and much larger than 5%. Definitely not a sliver.