Comments on: The Steamy Issue Of Digital Distribution

By: zarathustra

zarathustra — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:57:24 +0000

“Their “games as a service” philosophy, to me, means that you don’t really own the game. Rather, their leasing it to you. When I pay money for a product (which I believe is what a video game is), I expect to own it in full, and that means I should have the freedom to do whatever I want with it.”

Tell me a service – INCLUDING retail – wherein this is true. AFAIK, ALL distribution models (including shiny plastic disks) are some form of rental agreement.
Now stop moaning half-truths about Steam & do some bloody research.

“alot of indie devs are trying to get on steam, but steam keeps saying no and wont give a reason to them.”

ITYM, ‘because they’re crap’…

By: Coillscath

Coillscath — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:32:09 +0000

Well put. I don’t know much about how the industry works at a level like this (And because of non disclosure agreements we probably won’t get real numbers. What we’re being told by the indie developers seems very promising though) but I think it’s just a case of the bigger companies being jealous that Valve beat them to a good idea and are now reaping the rightful bonus of taking such a risk. Developers are going “That’s not fair! We should be making lots of money too! How dare they?” and try to make it out like the indie developers are suffering. From the citations in the article, however, it seems the exact opposite. Indie games have been given a place they can flourish.

It reminds me a lot of the tantrum the music industry is throwing over online distribution of music. I might be wrong but to me it sounds like big corporations shouting “They’re doing too good a job and making us look bad! Somebody make a law to stop them doing that!”

By: Abercrombie and Fitch

Abercrombie and Fitch — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:38:20 +0000

Thank you!

By: Kadayi

Kadayi — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:13:24 +0000

@Andre

Any particular reason to parrot exactly what the other guy said 2 months ago?

By: Andre

Andre — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:26:55 +0000

What they surely understand is that a dominant market share in an internet-based market is no guarantee of future success.

By: Fraser

Fraser — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:17:17 +0000

There are shades of Google here. Google similarly has a dominant position or near-monopoly on various internet media channels (loosely defined) that could be worrying. However, both Google and Steam built their success on providing a good service, listening to customers and being trustworthy. They both honestly seem to want to be the best, nicest, most convenient, most likeable company they can be, and people like them for it. Google has acknowledged it, by adopting “Don’t be evil” as its unofficial motto; Valve hasn’t said as much directly, as far as I know, but you can see the same principles at work in everything they do, from the reportedly fair profit margins that go to developers from Steam sales, to the way they dealt with the L4D2 boycott.

What they surely understand is that a dominant market share in an internet-based market is no guarantee of future success. If gamers started to dislike Valve and/or Steam, they could shift to a competitor in a millisecond. It’s tougher for developers, but ultimately, if they weren’t getting a good deal they would be loathe to use the service, and it would suffer as a result.

The current state of mutual trust and good service between Valve and customers, and between Google and internet users, needs humility, good intentions and wisdom from the company to be maintained. As long as it lasts, though, everybody benefits.

By: Hug_dealer

Hug_dealer — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:24:07 +0000

There is a huge article in pc gamer from a year or so ago about the issues with steam.

they stem from having no set standards for which to accept or decline games for steam. so they can turn down any game they dont want on it for any reason they feel. alot of indie devs are trying to get on steam, but steam keeps saying no and wont give a reason to them.

By: Alex Hayter

Alex Hayter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:08:56 +0000

I can understand in principle the hesitation many industry people would feel towards a single game developer owning the dominant digital distribution platform that publishes the biggest games on the PC.

If that company was Microsoft, or Apple, or EA, I’m sure people would be ALOT more hesitant, and alot more critical of the service.

Valve has, however, proven themselves as a trustworthy bearer of this big responsibility.

Pitchford is right to bring this scrutinizing attention on the developer, as an eye should always be kept on them. But his comments did seem a little bit tinged with an undeserved vitriol – because Valve have done an amazing job so far. Maybe Gearbox games haven’t been selling too well on the platform? With the over-saturation of so many WWII shooters on Steam, it wouldn’t shock me to hear that Brothers in Arms did poorly compared to other AAA titles.

Personally, Steam is the centre of my PC gaming life. It isn’t perfect, but it’s far better than any other service available – including hard copies of games.

By: Melf_Himself

Melf_Himself — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:44:24 +0000

Honestly, I don’t give two shits about whether developers are exploited or if Valve are the devil with their evil business plans. All I know is that I can get awesome games on Steam, fast, for a fraction of the price of getting it in a store. If that means Valve gets to laugh all the way to the bank, fine with me.

Oh, and lol @ Valve being threatened by a game made by someone else. Seriously, they know they have the best shit in town, they’re not worried about cannibalizing their own market or whatever.

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:46:33 +0000

Anyone is free to complain about bias if they want.

By: Kid A

Kid A — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:36:28 +0000

At the end of the day, bub, RPS and it’s readers pay to read what RPS writers think. If it was a publicly funded institution, then fine, complain all you like about bias. But it ain’t, so don’t.

By: SquareWheel

SquareWheel — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:35:27 +0000

Well I don’t think you’re supposed to be sharing accounts in the first place, even if it is in the same local network.