The PC Is A Closed Platform, And This Is Good

[Aerothorn]

So says Rob Fahey in Open and Shut (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-10-14-open-and-shut-editorial?page=2)over at GamesIndustry.biz. It's an interesting read, and basically his argument boils down to:

1. However, if you're creating a game for Windows or OS X, distributing it through Steam is pretty much the only way to ensure any level of commercial success. Steam is a closed platform, therefore PC is functionally a closed platform just like consoles;

2. Closed platforms protect from piracy and malware and are therefore a Good Thing.

3. "PC gaming today wouldn't exist without Steam."

I'm admittedly pretty skeptical about all these points, but I wanted to hear what the RPS community thought of this, given that I know that so many of you guys make use of open source benefits like mods.

[slick_101]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Look at minecraft, That has had nothing to do with steam. Yet it is probably one of the most iconic games currently available.

[vinraith]

Minecraft would like a word with Mr. Fahey. The PC isn't a closed platform yet, because Steam hasn't gotten total hegemony over the platform yet, despite people like Fahey trying to make it so. The day the PC becomes a completely closed platform, wholly dependent on Steam or any other client software, would be the day I ceased buying PC games entirely. Fortunately, I don't think it'll ever happen.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. However, if you're creating a game for Windows or OS X, distributing it through Steam is pretty much the only way to ensure any level of commercial success. Steam is a closed platform, therefore PC is functionally a closed platform just like consoles;
no?


2. Closed platforms protect from piracy and malware and are therefore a Good Thing.
no?

it's like this guy doesn't know about [yeah i'm not posting the link to any of the forums that specialize in cracking steam]


3. "PC gaming today wouldn't exist without Steam."
well, pc gaming would obviously still exist (hyperbole is how you spell innernet), but if it weren't for the massive push toward digital distribution that was spearheaded by steam things would be a bit dodgy perhaps (although if it wasn't steam it likely would've been someone else). digital distribution revitalized pc gaming; steam is a big part of that but not the only part.

methinks this human either doesn't know what "closed platform" means or he does but wants to generate traffic. mealsothinks it's the latter.

[cjlr]

1. NO. A good game with decent publicity is the only way to ensure commercial success, but that's far too obvious to write an article about. The general shittiness of sales data available for comparison makes the statement dubious at best. I won't deny that Steam is a huge boost to exposure of smaller titles, but that's nothing inherent to the platform, merely its size, and it says nothing of the disadvantages of closed system. D2D and Impulse are sort of non-entities at this point, but Gamersgate (which is, for the uninitiated, a much better service than Steam) has the same effect (though commensurately smaller, of course). EA is big enough to force a similar effect with Origin, in all likelihood.

2. NO. Find me one game on Steam that doesn't have a pirated version available. Yep. Find me any other distributor who HAS included malware. Yep.

3. NO. Well, PC gaming as it is today wouldn't be what it is today without Steam, but that's a tautology.



The day the PC becomes a completely closed platform, wholly dependent on Steam or any other client software, would be the day I ceased buying PC games entirely.
Preach it, brother.

[Aerothorn]

To be fair to the author, he admits that Minecraft doesn't fit into his system, though he dismisses it as the singular exception. But yeah, it's really weird - I have this idea that gamesindustry.biz is very much a legitamite website, and this article seems to be both hyperbole and just wrong; Steam is a closed system, but the games on it are still modifiable unlike the closed systems he's comparing to, so it's not at all the same thing.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Aside from Minecraft, there are quite a few indies which were very successful on PC before they hit Steam. Braid springs to mind. World of Goo. Frozen Synapse. Mount & Blade.

People may expect the convenience that Steam offers, which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it encourages others to do better and offer similar experiences. They may expect steep sales, which has become almost a necessary thing these days (again, Minecraft is a big, big exception). But I don't think very many people are in love with Steam simply because it is Steam.

Believe you me, the PC gaming world will look quite different in five years' time. And it sure as hell won't be a Steam monopoly. There are many extremely powerful players in this industry who aren't Valve.

[Althea]

To be fair to the author, he admits that Minecraft doesn't fit into his system, though he dismisses it as the singular exception.
Blizzard? Arguably Ubisoft and EA, too.

[Heliocentric]

Utter bollocks.
All three points.
Literally falsehoods.

[vinraith]

Aside from Minecraft, there are quite a few indies which were very successful on PC before they hit Steam. Braid springs to mind. World of Goo. Frozen Synapse. Mount & Blade.

AI War too. In general, an indie has to prove it has the ability to bring in sales before Steam will give it the time of day. While Steam certainly massively increases the exposure of established indie games, it very seldom breaks them anew.

[Althea]

Is Mount & Blade even an indie? All three have been published by Paradox, who can hardly be termed indie.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Mount&Blade was one guy and his wife (and a couple others) in Turkey, originally only distributed online, starting with a beta. Box version was published later, well after the final 1.0 digital release.

I have no idea about the company situation when they were making Warband, but the original M&B was as indie as they come. I'd bet, though, that they're not taking any money from Paradox to fund development of new games, as per the traditional developer/publisher relationship. I think Paradox simply does the physical distribution.

[Tei]

Steam shadow is very big, but there are still people that have comercial succes away from it.

Anyway the PC is a open platform wen you consider things like not paying for a SDK, not paying for the tools, not paying for the documentation, not paying anyone for distribution... You can, if you want, make a game and sell directly by snail mail. In this sense, is 100% open. In the other sense, if you have a good game, and Steam may like it, maybe is stupid to not put it on Steam. In this sense the PC is 60% open, 40% closed.

[Althea]

Ah, fair enough. I would guess Warband and WF&S were assisted a bit more by Paradox after the success of M&B. Have you seen the German CE for WF&S? It's really nice.

[Smashbox]

Everyone (except Unrav) seems to be forgetting the $300 million-per-year gorilla in the room: WoW.

League of Legends is speculated to be raking it in, too, though they don't release those figures.

Edit: Also, The Sims.

It's not Steam that makes those games huge

[deano2099]

The argument seems to be like saying PC Gaming five years ago was a closed system. Steam has made being an indie a lot easier if you can get on it, and yes it's the only way to have a crazy mega-hit, make you rich over the course of three months hit (Minecraft excluded, but that *is* an exception as, frankly, it didn't sell most of those copies on the basis of being a *game*). But indies existed before Steam, and some made a decent living at it. Vogel being the obvious example.

I'd also say that RPS, being one of if not the most popular PC gaming sites on the net, and giving equal weight to indie and commercial stuff, probably contributed a huge amount to growing the indie scene as a commercially viable thing.

I think it's down to how you define 'commercial success'. If you're happy to just make a living, you don't need Steam. If you want a money-hat, you probably do.

[Taidan]

I'd say it all applies to Steam itself as a platform, (and I do see Steam as a "virtual platform", on par with the Xbox and Playstation) but the PC is much bigger than that, still.

...and you have to remember, all games come to the PC eventually. Almost every gaming platform that has ever existed pre-2000 happily lives in my PC, alongside Steam, and it won't be long until the few hold-outs join in the fun.

[Heliocentric]

Closed systems don't have toribash, Minecraft or spelunky (yet). /thread

[burningpet]

World of goo, terraria, Ai wars, many other good indie games.

[Wizardry]

Knights of the Chalice, bitches.

[Heliocentric]

World of goo, terraria, Ai wars, many other good indie games.

World of goo is on wiiware, and this is a closed platform.

[Donjonson]

He's totally wrong but it's a sort of interesting thought experiment- to equate Steams monopoly with closed systems...

Edit: Eh, not really though.

[redox]

So says Rob Fahey in Open and Shut (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-10-14-open-and-shut-editorial?page=2)over at GamesIndustry.biz. It's an interesting read, and basically his argument boils down to:

1. However, if you're creating a game for Windows or OS X, distributing it through Steam is pretty much the only way to ensure any level of commercial success. Steam is a closed platform, therefore PC is functionally a closed platform just like consoles;

Yeah, the gaming press do like Steam.

2. Closed platforms protect from piracy and malware and are therefore a Good Thing.

No, that's DRM.

3. "PC gaming today wouldn't exist without Steam."

No. If Steam didn't exist we'd still have the old way. Remember that? It's still around, it's just that you need Steam.


1234567890

[Oak]

No.

..............

[Bylethski]

the thing is that steam is the main platform and it attract a big part of PC players.
(I went in because of CSS.)
also steam is an entity who help you, by having a huge number of games, good offers, an a platform who can group all the games you have.
some titles are not sold in steam but they are the exception who confirm the rule (sorry french expression)
anyway form a large part of PC gamers steam is the way ... easy, friendly and PC game industry would not be the same without it.

2. i'm not expert but it hard to play online with pirate games ... nop ??

3. PC gaming industry would exist without steam but it would be way smaller I think

[pkt-zer0]

Steam being a closed platform is good, I'd say. That's kind of the reason it works as a marketing device for indies. There is some reasonable bar of quality that needs to be passed by the titles to make it there, so being advertised in the store also effectively grants you an "Official Valve Seal of Approval".

However, this doesn't, and will never make the PC itself a closed platform, so the article is kind of nonsensical.

[soldant]

However, this doesn't, and will never make the PC itself a closed platform, so the article is kind of nonsensical.
The PC probably won't result in a closed platform per-se because there's always an alternative OS, whether it's Linux or something else... but given that most of us are running Windows and are complacent with Microsoft and Steam (as evidenced by the fanatical devotion to Steam with "No Steam, no sale!" being a common cry) if someone decided that a closed platform would work well (like it does for the iPad/iPhone, and possibly with Macs depending on how the Mac Store goes) we might end up in that sort of environment in the not too distant future. We'd probably be forced to embrace it begrudgingly by Microsoft, but I think people would happily sign over control to Valve/Steam and live in their walled garden without complaint... for a time.

But in any event people will always subvert the system and there will always be independents in the PC gaming sector. We aren't the ONLY business in town for indie games though; quite a few turn up on Live Arcade or the PSN Store.

[Rossignol]

EDIT: He doesn't say the PC is a closed platform, which makes your header misleading.

A closed system is one into which a competitor cannot launch. That's the whole point. The fact that *anyone* can sell games alongside Steam means that this is nonsense. The exceptions mentioned here are all significant, but none more so than MMOs, which represent a gigantic market that has nothing to do with Steam: WoW, Eve, all the free and boutique MMOs. That is the majority of the money made across the world on the PC platform.

[Vexing Vision]

And you have lovely case-studies like the Witcher 2, which sold a significant amount DRM free via GOG.

Something our big publishing friends are prone to forget - there was a major title launching in a version without DRM, and it not only made its targets, it also surpassed them big time.

PC gaming WOULD be dead if not for awesome things like Paradox and CD Project.

[Kaira-]

World of goo, terraria, Ai wars, many other good indie games.

Eh, isn't Terraria exclusively available on Steam?

[Althea]

Eh, isn't Terraria exclusively available on Steam?
And hasn't it had a lot of success because of frequent mentions of Minecraft in the same breath, plus it spent its first few months almost perpetually on sale?

[Heliocentric]

PC gaming WOULD be dead if not for awesome things like Paradox and CD Project.

I know hyperbole is fun, but it's that kinda talk that spawned that stupid article in the first place.

[vinraith]

There is some reasonable bar of quality that needs to be passed by the titles to make it there, so being advertised in the store also effectively grants you an "Official Valve Seal of Approval".



Which is why Puzzler World is on Steam and Din's Curse isn't.

I've never seen inclusion on Steam as a "Valve Seal of Approval," if it is said seal is worthless considering all the dreck on Steam. Rather, inclusion on Steam generally seems to be a pure calculation on profitability (hardly a mark of actual quality) with an overlayer random chance as to whether Valve shall deign to anoint the unclean into their little club.

[TillEulenspiegel]

with an overlayer random chance as to whether Valve shall deign to anoint the unclean into their little club.
Yeah. If Steam were more like the Mac App Store, with very loose rules but a curated storefront, I'd think much more highly of it. Apple and Google have shown the way with iOS, OS X, Android, and Chrome. They allow just about everything, but shake out the better stuff algorithmically and personally. It's good for developers and good for users.

I think Desura is trying to be that. But they're not quite good enough yet, certainly not from a user's perspective.

[Alex Bakke]

I too shall jump on this 'lol what a noob' bandwagon.

[Aerothorn]

EDIT: He doesn't say the PC is a closed platform, which makes your header misleading.

You are correct, sir - I was to eager too fight hyperbole with hyperbole! Though, as noted, he says that's it's "functionally a closed platform," so it's rather an academic distinction.

[Nalano]

The premise of this is laughably wrong.

[soldant]

Something our big publishing friends are prone to forget - there was a major title launching in a version without DRM, and it not only made its targets, it also surpassed them big time.
...and yet it still launched on Steam to appease the "No Steam, no sale" sector. I don't particularly like it but Steam still has a stranglehold on PC gaming at large these days, and people are practically demanding that it continues. Rossignol might be right that the PC isn't really a closed platform, but in terms of gaming we might as well end up going that path if we're so eager to embrace Steam's dominance.

[Nalano]

...and yet it still launched on Steam to appease the "No Steam, no sale" sector. I don't particularly like it but Steam still has a stranglehold on PC gaming at large these days, and people are practically demanding that it continues. Rossignol might be right that the PC isn't really a closed platform, but in terms of gaming we might as well end up going that path if we're so eager to embrace Steam's dominance.

There will always be a front-runner, but willfully ignoring it not only doesn't make business sense, but comes across as rather peevish. That mode of thinking sounds a lot like "it's popular, now it sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsPopularNowItSucks?from=Main.ptitle6cd1cskka05i) ," and while we have the possible threat of Newell suddenly making an about-face with his business policy, and we should therefore continue to hold his feet to the fire, Steam's dominance shouldn't be hated just because.

[TillEulenspiegel]

but in terms of gaming we might as well end up going that path if we're so eager to embrace Steam's dominance.
Steam is iTunes a few years ago. Right? The only serious game in town, pre-Amazon MP3, pre-music streaming sites and everything else.

For Steam to continue to maintain its dominance of the market, they rely on the benevolence of a lot of companies who are not only much more powerful than Valve, they're direct competitors. Blizzard has never been on Steam, but they only release a game once every 20 years, so they don't count. But EA is slowly withdrawing. Others will follow suit; it makes total financial sense, short term and long term.

It's an untenable position. If there's one thing we can rely on in this crazy world, it's that game publishers love money. And they can make more money on big titles by not selling on Steam and giving Valve a large cut, by only selling direct at least for a while after release. There's a logical chain of events that follow, and all likely paths end in Steam losing a lot of power.

But for the moment, let's be honest: nobody's providing as good an experience as Steam right now, with the very useful client and the frequent sales. People love Steam for a reason. They want convenience, and that's a good thing. That's where the rest of the digital world is going. In many respects, Steam has set a high standard that should be emulated.

[deano2099]

If they went that route with it, Battle.net could easily be a huge competitor to Steam (instant storefront for every WoW player, and they have the know-how to make it work).

[Nalano]

If they went that route with it, Battle.net could easily be a huge competitor to Steam (instant storefront for every WoW player, and they have the know-how to make it work).

Except they seem much more interested in the DRM aspect of Battle.net 2.0 than the convenience aspect.

[soldant]

There will always be a front-runner, but willfully ignoring it not only doesn't make business sense, but comes across as rather peevish.
I never claimed that, I was just claiming that for the apparent independence they're still using Steam and the consumer's choice still remains Steam. I'm more commenting on the fanatical devotion to Steam to the point where people violently reject other potential newcomers or won't buy something because it's not on Steam. You can even see this on RPS, which is unusual given how the community reacts to other issues.


It's an untenable position. If there's one thing we can rely on in this crazy world, it's that game publishers love money. And they can make more money on big titles by not selling on Steam and giving Valve a large cut, by only selling direct at least for a while after release. There's a logical chain of events that follow, and all likely paths end in Steam losing a lot of power.
I'm tempted to agree with you because few services last forever in the IT world, but look at how devoted people are to Steam, especially given how people absolutely hated it when it first came out (because it was terrible when it came out). Steam gained critical mass primarily on the back of Valve and the goodwill towards them, and has since been a (well deserved) runaway success. But there's an odd belief that absolutely nothing could ever go wrong with Steam, that Steam will always be the superior option, and the idea that any other possible platform could exist is absurd. One service to rule them all, etc. Steam will die at some point for sure, but I don't think it's under any immediate threat at all, and it'll go down with a legion of defenders screaming until the end.


But for the moment, let's be honest: nobody's providing as good an experience as Steam right now, with the very useful client and the frequent sales. People love Steam for a reason. They want convenience, and that's a good thing. That's where the rest of the digital world is going. In many respects, Steam has set a high standard that should be emulated.
But if you try to emulate it, people just complain that it's not Steam. Origin is making a fair attempt (though their prices are still ridiculous) but the most common complaint about Origin simply seems to be "it's not Steam" (the EULA rage is mostly FUD these days). If people simply rally against a newcomer because "it's not Steam" then how would anything ever have the chance to emulate and beat Steam? Steam doesn't even have to do anything anymore, it just has to be there, the community rallies against anything else that comes out to threaten it.

I wish EA would just drop their prices on Origin and make them a bit more realistic. It'd build goodwill again and encourage people to consider Origin. I can't understand how people can rant and rave at EA for tying BF3/ME3 to Origin, and forget that we allowed Valve to do the same with HL2 and all of their products as well with Steam (even though there was initial resistance, everyone seems to have forgotten about it).

[Nalano]

I never claimed that, I was just claiming that for the apparent independence they're still using Steam and the consumer's choice still remains Steam.

Because there is no reason not to use Steam. It's not exclusive.

The opposite of love is indifference.

As for "fanatical devotees," I honestly find that to be more projection on the part of their critics than actual unthinking love for the system. In that sense, I actually agree with Jim Sterling (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3857-BOYCOTT) - the debate's outgrown the issue itself, and has devolved to name-calling and demonizing the folks debating.

[magnolia_fan]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Look at minecraft, That has had nothing to do with steam. Yet it is probably one of the most iconic games currently available.

But Minecraft is the exception, not the rule. You don't see all idie games (be them or not on Steam) sell 4 million copies.


the thing is that steam is the main platform and it attract a big part of PC players.


I've had many people telling me "let me know when your game is on Steam so I will buy it" (even if the game is already available somewhere else). For some reason, Steam has this sort of monopoly, in some ways, so people will only buy games there even if the same games are available somewhere else.

So getting a game into Steam is VERY good for an indie...

[DigitalSignalX]

Nein nein nein nein 999

[metalangel]

The necromancy spell was super effective!

[soldant]

A guy, outright stating he's an indie dev, resurrecting threads about indie games?
Is this the new wave of advertising?

[TillEulenspiegel]

It's an old wave of very clumsy advertising.

You could probably get away with it on a high-traffic forum, but here it's pretty blatant. Not sure what's with the thread necro, though.

[magnolia_fan]

So you're pretty much saying I should've lied you all and go like:
"hey check out this game that I found, which is amazingly cool [10 lines or more praising how cool the game is], it was made by these indie guys [10 more lines praising how talented the guys I supposedly don't know are]. Do yourself a favor and get the game right now!!!"

Well, sorry if that upsets you but me and my mates happen to be the unknown indies releasing their first game, so we don't get RPS, Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot and what have you post a last minute 10 paragraph feature every time we mention something on Twitter or a blog... And since obscurity is worse than piracy (or in this case obscurity is worse than getting complains in a forum), I'll be the blatant indie dev using the (almost) anything goes philosophy.

At least I'm honest, sirs, and not giving you false advertising by pretending to be a gamer that "found the best indie game out there"

[seikialice88]

1. NO. A good game with decent publicity is the only way to ensure commercial success, but that's far too obvious to write an article about. The general shittiness of sales data available for comparison makes the statement dubious at best. I won't deny that Steam is a huge boost to exposure of smaller titles, but that's nothing inherent to the platform, merely its size, and it says nothing of the disadvantages of closed system. D2D and Impulse are sort of non-entities at this point, but Gamersgate (which is, for the uninitiated, a much better service than Steam) has the same effect (though commensurately smaller, of course). EA is big enough to force a similar effect with Origin, in all likelihood.

2. NO. Find me one game on Steam that doesn't have a pirated version available. Yep. Find me any other distributor who HAS included malware. Yep.

3. NO. Well, PC gaming as it is today wouldn't be what it is today without Steam, but that's a tautology.



Preach it, brother.
Thanks you for the post.

[deano2099]

So you're pretty much saying I should've lied you all and go like:
"hey check out this game that I found, which is amazingly cool [10 lines or more praising how cool the game is], it was made by these indie guys [10 more lines praising how talented the guys I supposedly don't know are]. Do yourself a favor and get the game right now!!!"
No - just make one post saying 'hey, I made this game, what do you think about it?'

I actually like the fact that you're trying to participate in the community too, but there's tons of threads on the first few pages, I really don't understand why you felt the need to go in and bump up threads from weeks or months ago. It disrupts the natural order of the forum, why not participate in stuff from today?


Well, sorry if that upsets you but me and my mates happen to be the unknown indies releasing their first game, so we don't get RPS, Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot and what have you post a last minute 10 paragraph feature every time we mention something on Twitter or a blog... And since obscurity is worse than piracy (or in this case obscurity is worse than getting complains in a forum), I'll be the blatant indie dev using the (almost) anything goes philosophy.You might be right. On the other hand, I'm making a note to buy your games or cover them on the site I write for purely because of that attitude.

Edit: by the way, you do realise that the writers at RPS actual read the forum? And that they're probably the biggest PC games site out there? And stuff like this is unlikely to endear yourself to them, right?

[fanatic4k]

The 3rd statement sounds up-to-the-top O_O* I don't believe that without Steam, PC gaming will be dead in the water. Bulls***!

[soldant]

Well, sorry if that upsets you but me and my mates happen to be the unknown indies releasing their first game, so we don't get RPS, Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot and what have you post a last minute 10 paragraph feature every time we mention something on Twitter or a blog...
Plenty of indie devs just flat out post a link and ask for community feedback. You're an indie dev, you don't get big by coy advertising, you need to actually connect with gamers to get any sort of exposure. There's no reason to try to hide the fact through a link in your sig and saying "Well I'm an indie dev..." in every thread. Just tell us about the game, we might be interested. RPS is also usually pretty good for constructive criticism.

I actually do have a question for you though: why Facebook? I went to check out Parasite and get directed to a Facebook page. Is that really necessary?

[Nalano]

I actually do have a question for you though: why Facebook? I went to check out Parasite and get directed to a Facebook page. Is that really necessary?

Seriously. $10 webhosting and a WordPress template makes you look ten times as professional as a Facebook page that nobody reads.

[metalangel]

Well, sorry if that upsets you but me and my mates happen to be the unknown indies releasing their first game, so we don't get RPS, Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot and what have you post a last minute 10 paragraph feature every time we mention something on Twitter or a blog... And since obscurity is worse than piracy (or in this case obscurity is worse than getting complains in a forum), I'll be the blatant indie dev using the (almost) anything goes philosophy.

At least I'm honest, sirs, and not giving you false advertising by pretending to be a gamer that "found the best indie game out there"

You're playing the poor diddums hard-done-by indie dev card instead.

[DaftPunk]

Guy is full of shit.

[DetCord]

The fact that there is a website dedicated to hacking Steam and distributing their games via the net... come on now, no commercial digital product or service is devoid of piracy.

[cardason]

So says Rob Fahey in Open and Shut (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-10-14-open-and-shut-editorial?page=2)over at GamesIndustry.biz. It's an interesting read, and basically his argument boils down to:

1. However, if you're creating a game for Windows or OS X, distributing it through Steam is pretty much the only way to ensure any level of commercial success. Steam is a closed platform, therefore PC is functionally a closed platform just like consoles;

2. Closed platforms protect from piracy and malware and are therefore a Good Thing.

3. "PC gaming today wouldn't exist without Steam."

I'm admittedly pretty skeptical about all these points, but I wanted to hear what the RPS community thought of this, given that I know that so many of you guys make use of open source benefits like mods.

Well, considering Steam games get cracked just like any other... how exactly is it protecting from piracy?

[FuriKuri!]

I've always found the pricing on Steam to be particularly egregious and if steam 'wins' (as such) this will certainly be extremely bad for PC gamers in that regard alone. I've never understood how it is £5-10 cheaper to get the exact same game ordered and delivered to my door on the day of release from amazon or wherever than it is to purchase a game directly on steam*.

While I think people tend to overinflate the cost of manufacturing a physical copy of a game (for a PC title £1 generally covers your standard DVD case + disc + small manual) steam games still shouldn't cost more than their physical counterparts...

It's something of a shitty situation regardless however - having just the one service has monopoly issues, having multiple has issues with needing like 20 bloody clients on your machine vying for resources (all potentially spying on you, all potentially riddled with security holes).

* To be fair I will state that Valve themselves put their money where their mouth is and I did purchase Portal 2 directly through steam as the preorder discount was competitive - the first and only major release with which I have done so.

[Althea]

* To be fair I will state that Valve themselves put their money where their mouth is and I did purchase Portal 2 directly through steam as the preorder discount was competitive - the first and only major release with which I have done so.
What was it? About £30 including discount? My retail edition cost the same on release day.

[orcane]

45€ with discount vs. 25£ on Amazon.co.uk

People keep making excuses for Steam's hilarious pricing scheme (in Europeland) but fact is they abuse their "one currency to rule them all" and "1$ = 1€" just like 3rd party publishers do.

[FuriKuri!]

No I think it was closer to £25 with the discount, which was about what was being charged for delivered copies anyway. Of course only a few days after release it was available for £20 from some places which is never reflected on steam. Point being they weren't gouging with the digital version like other publishers do right off the bat, or at least that was my impression.

Though, the fact that Valve's boxed copies have completely sucked since the release of Steam probably also factored into that equation.

To reiterate my point; I don't mind that digital vs physical prices are approximately the same given that physical production costs are less than what people generally seem to assume. But digital should never have a greater cost. You could argue that valve could shave off a lot more still since they're self publishing and lack that particular middle man (e.g. Sierra with regards to the original Half-Life), but that's not really the point here.

[deano2099]

Seem to vaguely remember Portal 2 was £30 with 10% pre order discount (£27) or 20% off for a double pack (£24). The double-pack was certainly the cheapest way I could find to get it about a week before release.

[magnolia_fan]

No - just make one post saying 'hey, I made this game, what do you think about it?'

I actually like the fact that you're trying to participate in the community too, but there's tons of threads on the first few pages, I really don't understand why you felt the need to go in and bump up threads from weeks or months ago. It disrupts the natural order of the forum, why not participate in stuff from today?

You might be right. On the other hand, I'm making a note to buy your games or cover them on the site I write for purely because of that attitude.

Edit: by the way, you do realise that the writers at RPS actual read the forum? And that they're probably the biggest PC games site out there? And stuff like this is unlikely to endear yourself to them, right?

Hi, well I also made the "heyI made this game" thread and it's here (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2227-Indie-game-quot-SteroidS-quot-(think-of-it-as-Asteroids-meets-Super-Smash-TV)&p=64138#post64138), but I didn't want to come here and post that sole thread but rather actually participate in the forums. As for commenting on posts that were weeks old, I just found them interesting and many of the top threads are about Skyrim or other games I don't play so I had nothing to say about them.

I also figured the writers at RPS read the forum, but it's not like I am bashing them in any way, just being honest, sir.


Plenty of indie devs just flat out post a link and ask for community feedback. You're an indie dev, you don't get big by coy advertising, you need to actually connect with gamers to get any sort of exposure.
(...)
I actually do have a question for you though: why Facebook? I went to check out Parasite and get directed to a Facebook page. Is that really necessary?

I did that when I first came here ( link (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2227-Indie-game-quot-SteroidS-quot-(think-of-it-as-Asteroids-meets-Super-Smash-TV)&p=64138#post64138) )but maybe I should put the link to that thread instead of the site.
As for the Facebook page, that's because the game is still on alpha so right now it's more about sharing how it goes and getting feedback. It was either link to FB or IndieDB so I opted for FB.


Seriously. $10 webhosting and a WordPress template makes you look ten times as professional as a Facebook page that nobody reads.

I know that and I already made a site a few months ago (http://www.thedomaginarium.com/) (that's where my signature has been linking all this time). He's talking about a FB page that's linked from within the site.


It's something of a shitty situation regardless however - having just the one service has monopoly issues, having multiple has issues with needing like 20 bloody clients on your machine vying for resources (all potentially spying on you, all potentially riddled with security holes).


Anyway back to the subject...

You have a very valid point here, but they do it for "convenience" and because they supposedly try to make it harder to pirate games (as someone said already, there's a site dedicated to cracking Steam games).
The convenience part is about "delivering content faster" not only games but also updates and stuff.

[Nalano]

I already made a site a few months ago (http://www.thedomaginarium.com/) (that's where my signature has been linking all this time). He's talking about a FB page that's linked from within the site.

[...]

You have a very valid point here, but they do it for "convenience" and because they supposedly try to make it harder to pirate games (as someone said already, there's a site dedicated to cracking Steam games).
The convenience part is about "delivering content faster" not only games but also updates and stuff.

Ah, in that case, carry on then.

[...]

So much background-running bloat. The tiny icons on the bottom right of my bar are getting almost as numerous as the big ones on my desktop.