Horse Armour To Go: DLC Comes To Steam…

…and while that DLC isn’t anywhere near as menial as Bethesda’s infamously insulting initial extra content for Oblivion, I do so love that the phrase “horse armour” has become a part of the gaming vernacular. It’s games’ “jumping the shark”.

Anyway, to get to the point – while the hard drive-equipped consoles enjoy/suffer from ubiquitous in-game systems to download extra content, free and otherwise, it’s not something that’s been anywhere near standardised on PC. There’s a raft of separate, competing and often clunky stores and services for the games that do offer it, and it’s partially for that reason that we haven’t suffered the deluge of crapshoot that PCs’ ever-online nature could otherwise enable.

(I probably shouldn’t be quite so down on DLC at large – it’s just that so much of what I’ve seen on 360 seems to be tokenistic and/or overpriced. I’ve little doubt it will eventually yield excellent content, but it still seems a little stuck in the faddish stage for now. There’s also the risk that the bonus maps we often get in free patches might dry up in favour of micropayments, and that would be a tragedy).

Games For Windows Live would love to be that standard, but the wide-ranging venom for it from PC gamers and the complete disinterest from any publisher/developer with at least half an ear to the community ground means that’s unlikely to happen. When Steam jumps onboard the DLC bandwagon though – well, then we sit up and take trepidatious notice. Such is the download store’s power that it introducing something can be deemed a trend-starter.

First out the gate is indie-ish puzzler The Maw (which I wrote about rather enthusiastically about last week, but haven’t had the chance to complete yet. Sadly, comrades reckon its initial inventiveness drops sharply in the game’s latter half, which is itself deterring me from going back). One of the stock criticisms of the eating-based curio is that, at around three hours, it’s far too short. So, appropriately, Steam’s first-ever DLC is a couple of a extra levels, which when bought are slipstreamed into the game’s running order. It’s worth noting these extra levels have previously been released for the XBLA version of the Maw, so it’s grand to know PC gamers aren’t missing out on any Mawing. It seems to be a fairly noble first move for Steam DLC.

The price doesn’t seem bad for Americans at $1.25, but just like the main game ($10 there, £9 here), we Britishers are miserably mistreated – I know the exchange rate isn’t on much to our favour these days, £1.10 is scarcely equivalent to $1.25. But this is incidental moaning. More important is how much of a precedent this is. Does this herald a new era of DLC? A few weeks ago, I might have said “nah, Steam’s not that trend-setting”, but given how integrated it was with big third party releases such as Dawn of War II and Empire: Total War, it very probably is the start of a mechanism to drop micro-payment DLC into other, bigger games. (In fact, I do wonder if, in a couple of months, we’ll see all those store-exclusive units, paints and armour for those two games – e.g. – crop up as DLC on Steam for those purchasers who missed out on them).

Here’s the key phrase from the press release:

“DLC can now be added to any game on Steam, regardless of whether it was originally purchased via Steam, at retail, or via other digital outlets”

How do we feel about that? Well, depends on the quality of the extra stuff, really. Right now, I don’t want to see a surfeit of buy this! spend that! messages in and around my beloved tower of Steam games, but if it’s all good stuff then I’m all for it. In a way, it’s the natural evolution of the episodic model that Valve have tried to bring about, but messed up somewhat by being so (agreeably) perfectionist about the Half-Life 2 episodes.

In short: don’t let this option to directly flog DLC to the vast Steam masses be a cue for horse armour mk.2. Let’s see someone really make something special out of this opportunity.

Oh, and have an official press release:

March 16, 2009 – Valve, creators of best-selling entertainment products and advanced technologies, today announced the arrival of in-game downloadable content to Steam, their massively popular PC gaming platform. In-game DLC allows developers and publishers to use their own games as a platform for selling additional content to gamers.

The first game to take advantage of this new in-game DLC capability is The Maw, by Twisted Pixel Games. Their first DLC releases are levels entitled The Maw: Brute Force and The Maw: River Redirect. Each DLC level expands The Maw storyline by fitting in-between the original levels as “deleted scenes.”

Twisted Pixel CEO, Michael Wilford, says “We’re happy that we can now offer Steam customers significant expansions to the Maw story, delivering more Maw directly to gamers while they’re still playing the game.”

DLC can now be added to any game on Steam, regardless of whether it was originally purchased via Steam, at retail, or via other digital outlets. It is also a feature of Steamworks, the suite of free tools and services available to game developers and publishers.


  1. LewieP says:

    I wonder whether Steam games will start including DLC files in the initial download, but locked until you pay for it. Like what happens sometimes on the 360 with stuff already being on the disc.

  2. Jeremy says:

    Hopefully they’ll start it off by making a proper single player experience for Dawn of War 2.

  3. MadTinkerer says:

    This opens up a whole other new possibility: The “Play For Free” model of Asian MMOs. Release the main game for free, and you can defeat the whole game without paying a cent. But if you want to play certain classes, buy a pet, set up a shop to sell your loot to other players, or just really pimp out your spaceship’s cabin, you need to shell out a few (just a few) dollars for each thing.

    Not that I like that model (I prefer one big transaction for a proper game, with expansions and/or decently-sized episodes, over micro transactions for bits and bobs), but opening up the possibility of a completely different payment model opens up new design possibilities.

  4. El_MUERkO says:

    Ah, Horse Armour, the final nail in my interest in Oblivion, I find it hard to believe so many people bought it.

    Now I have no problem with DLC after a games release, I happily paid for The Lost and Damned just a few weeks ago.

    What gets my goat is pre-order exclusive ‘downloadable content’ that is nothing more than a code to unlock items and units that were finished before the disks were even burnt but are now denied from fans of the game.

    Dawn of War 2 and Empire: Total War have bought done this of late and while I love the games and respect the developers I’m far from happy with then or their publishers.

    In my mind everything made for the game from it’s largest map to it’s smallest texture before launch should be stuffed in the game to make it better for everyone, not be restricted to a privileged few.

  5. Jeremy says:

    I just realized something, I’ve included the word “proper” into my every day use. I blame RPS.

  6. Larington says:

    Heres hoping Valve are able to gatekeep some of the tripe away from us.
    “We were thinking of adding [Horse Armour equivalent]…”
    “Are you reeeeaaallly sure the players will want to pay MONEY for that?”

  7. Bremze says:

    “Of course we are, look at how many people bought the Horse Armour DLC, zero effort and lots of suc… I mean buyers!”

  8. Ginger Yellow says:

    I don’t really see the difference in principle between “DLC” and “expansions”. Obviously if DLC in practice comes to mean what “patches” used to mean, then there’s a problem. But I fail to see that there’s a qualitative difference. Is Entrenchment DLC for Sins or an expansion?

  9. cHeal says:

    Well DLC mostly tends to refer to extra content, added to the existing game whereas an expansion generally tends to added a mini game onto your game. Whether it be a new story or quests, new maps etc. DLC for me means a plugin. Something you plugin for use with what is already there, so character skins, maybe new weapons or junk like that.

  10. elmuerte says:

    The MAW DLC is also available from the Greenhouse for $1.25 for everybody in the whole world.
    link to
    link to

  11. kuddles says:

    I never understood why people had such a huge problem with the horse armor when to me it was the perfect example of great DLC. Everyone whines when it’s something that significantly alters the game or feels like content that should have been in the original release, but whenever it’s something that’s completely inconsequential if you choose not to buy it, everyone has a hissy-fit about that too.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that gamers are insufferable whiners by now, though.

  12. deSadist says:

    @kuddles I couldn’t agree more. That’s exactly how I feel. I bought Oblivion and didn’t buy the horse armor. Simple really.

    I feel no righteous rage over the fact that a company is trying to sell me something I don’t want. Happens all the time.

  13. Shariq says:

    It’d be nice if we could get the Puzzle Quest expansion on PC this way. :)

  14. kyrieee says:

    fuck dlc
    I won’t pay for it (games are fucking expensive as they are. if I pay full price for a game I’ll have no remorse playing their dlc)

  15. mist says:

    DLC brings the danger of going into the territory of micro-payment-only games..

    ..namely, that instead of the developers building a game that is completely designed around being FUN, a DLC-enabled game can also be designed around selling stuff.

    When DLC becomes the norm, a gamer can ask himself “was this feature implemented to improve my enjoyment of the game? Or was this feature implemented to subtly convince me of the need to buy DLC XYZ?”

    Which is an unwanted development, imho.

  16. Nick says:

    You obviously missed what people were actually indignant about.

  17. Down Rodeo says:

    Horse armour – “ride in style”. Oh dear.

    Surely you mean ‘uninterested’ Alec?

  18. Man Raised By Puffins says:

    I probably shouldn’t be quite so down on DLC at large – it’s just that so much of what I’ve seen on 360 seems to be tokenistic and/or overpriced. I’ve little doubt it will eventually yield excellent content, but it still seems a little stuck in the faddish stage for now. There’s also the risk that the bonus maps we often get in free patches might dry up in favour of micropayments, and that would be a tragedy

    Lost and the Damned is pretty darn good, although that’s more of a download-only expansion pack than what is usually considered DLC. I find DLC works pretty well for Rock Band, and I also hear good things about the SingStore, where individual tracks are well within impulse buying range and very tempting, particularly when you’ve got a stack of points in the bank.

    I agree though that it’d be a shame if the PC catches the 360 disease of charging over five quid for map packs and the like, which I’m still refusing to pick up on principal.

  19. Skurmedel says:

    I have a Xbox 360, and subsequently Xbox LIVE and I think the DLC-stuff has gone a bit too far. Things that really should be in patches, like an extra map here or there is elevated to DLC instead (there is DLC that do offer more but I feel that’s quite rare.) For example I bought “Filmer’s Pack” to Skate 2 for the cost of a lunch. While that’s not a very high cost, what I actually got wasn’t much.

    On PC I would expect this to come free of charge in a patch, because that’s how you keep people playing your game and attract new players. I really hope the publishers avoid DLC hysteria, but my confidence in the big name publishers is nigh.

  20. Caiman says:

    What annoys me is when the DLC is thinly-disguised original content from the game, excised and sold as “extras” in order to encourage people to pay more for a game that was too short as a result. That alone makes it a no sale, although the demo didn’t really grab me anyway. DLC if done right offering good value extra content is a great concept, but don’t treat us like idiots or we’ll ignore it.

  21. RC-1290'Dreadnought' says:

    DLC means Developer Made Mod, Right?

  22. JonFitt says:

    The problem I saw with horse armour was signified a change for game publishers to charging (albeit small) amounts for inconsequential extra content which would previously been chucked in (probably with a patch) gratis.

    The roadblock to charging for tiny things has never been the technology, it’s been the payment system. You might want to charge $0.99 for something, but with a brick and mortar store that’s pointless, and even using your website it’s costly. If Microsoft’s Live system handles all the payment processing and you just cash in, why not!

    As far as I can tell on the Xbox360 you can buy cheats (unlocks in Skate 2) just contemplate the ridiculousness of that for a moment. IDDQD?, that’ll be $1.50.

    I don’t mind buying more content, I do mind being nickel and dimed when I’ve already paid $50 for a supposedly complete product. We’ll see how this goes.

  23. Tei says:

    He… man. I just have bought Oblvium, in spanish.. no less (sadly, all the voices are still in english ). And I have proceded to un-crappify the game installing better textures and stuff for faces, companions, and stuff… and still the game feel the same. No idea… On Morrowind adding mods was fun, because you where able to expand your fun, ….you was able to practically add new continent, cityes, houses, everything… but for some reason I feel adding stuff to Oblivium goes nowhere. Can you understand why? because I can’t. Maybe I am spoiled by Morrowind cristal armor, the wall, the swamp area, balmora, the city-in-a-shell… haa…. man.. Morrowind is soo awesome, and more awesome in this awesome. I make me hate and hate more that stupid faces on Oblivium.. And what about the eyes? why the eyes are soo strange in Oblivium?

  24. MadTinkerer says:

    Mist: “DLC brings the danger of going into the territory of micro-payment-only games..

    ..namely, that instead of the developers building a game that is completely designed around being FUN, a DLC-enabled game can also be designed around selling stuff.”

    As I mentioned above, although it isn’t my preference, I don’t really have a problem with this. It’s insulting to charge a $50 “entry fee” and then however-much-horse-armour-costs for horse armour. But if you do the Maple Story thing of $0 entrance fee and $2 for extra inventory slots (starting out with a generous number to begin with) or whatever, then it’s just a different business paradigm.

  25. Jeremy says:

    In short: DLC either means you’re greedy or forgot to put something in the game. Obvi.

  26. Dinger says:

    Okay, time to tap the RPS collective consciousness:

    How many pay-for-DLC or expansions have been unqualified successes?

    ‘Cos I’m looking back, and I can’t think of many. Problem #1 with pay-for-DLC is that the audience is restricted to those who already bought the game. Problem #2 is that they still have to be playing the game at the point the DLC is offered.

    You know, I suspect the “DLC-for-free” model works because it energizes the base that already bought the game, and automatically gets them talking. So, DLC-for-free’s only problem is that it targets those who haven’t played the game yet (the majority of platform owners), and many of those won’t be interested.

  27. zak canard says:

    Data disks, Add-on packs, DLC. The name and delivery method may have changed over the years but it’s still essentially the same thing. It’s just unfortunate that the console way of pushing any additional content seems to be fixated on gouging us for every last bit of change we have, but for very little added value.

    Then again there were some real stinkers when it comes to data disks back in the day. Anyone else remember the Super Skidmarks data disk on the Amiga for instance? I seem to remember that only adding two tracks from the original game and motorised cows. Was it worth it? I’m not sure, motorised cows or not.

    I would have a go about the other end of the spectrum, stuff that should be DLC/Add-ons but pushed out instead as a full price title (here’s looking in your direction EA Sports), but that’s for another night I think.

  28. Baris says:

    @ Jeremy

    You weren’t satisfied with the single-player experience in DoW2 when compared to other games of it’s genre? Some People are just hard to please I suppose.

  29. Xocrates says:

    I like the idea of DLC as a sort of Mini-expansions. I bought The Maw DLC, and at 1.20€ and around 30 minutes playtime each I don’t think it’s particularly bad (let’s face it, on a per minute basis a movie ticket is more expensive).

    The problem however is if developers start to leave content out of their games purposely so they can sell it it later.
    Stuff that they couldn’t make in time for the final game is, perhaps, justifiable. But there is a fine line between providing extra content and milking the userbase for their cents.

    At this point I think the correct attitude is to wait an see.

  30. Wolfox says:

    @Tei: you’re not the only one to feel that way. I thought Morrowind was brilliant. I got Oblivion, and all I could say of it is… meh.

  31. gulag says:

    “How many pay-for-DLC or expansions have been unqualified successes?”

    Granted, not many. However, Half-Life 2: Episode 1 (Man City 2) was a success. It amounted to nothing more than an extention/ extra chapter to the game, using the same engine, but was worth the cash. Episode 2 isn’t quite the same thing, as it included a bunch of new stuff, inc. stand-alone games, as part of the Orange Box, and that was fine too.

    I’m more or less confident that the folks at Valve are going to excercise some commmon sense over what they agree to host as DLC content. They’ve been reluctant in the past to let some games onto their service (Queue a raft of example of stuff people don’t think should be on Steam.), and I think that will be the case here too.

  32. cliffski says:

    Why do people get so wound up about this? This is giving players a choice. Why is that bad?
    If Relic sold DLC for company of heroes, I’d buy enw maps and units every week. I’d LOVE them to do that. There may not be enoguh demand or dev time to do an expansion pack or sequel. Fine, do a new british tank and charge me $2-3 for it, I’m happy.
    I don’t get why people are so annoyed at the thought that a company is offering to sell them additional content for a game they have bought. It’d like fuming at nokia because they will sell you ring tones.
    If you don’t want the extra content, don’t buy it, but don’t assume nobody wants to buy it. I’m 100% behind the idea of buying a basic game, and having the option to expand it on a piece-by piece basis.
    Choice for the gamer is good.

  33. gulag says:

    I should add something else here. This is essentially the gaming pop singles market we’re talking about here. That’s bloody fantastic/The first step on the road to Hell, depending on your POV.

    I can’t wait to read reviews of additional content that injects something new into games I bought and enjoyed 6 months/ a year ago. Imagine if Bob Dylan decided he needed to stick an extra track into Blonde On Blonde to improve the experience. That would rock. And if I want to find out if it does make it better, it won’t cost me an arm and a leg to do so.

  34. Deadpan says:

    I’m afraid to check from work but I wonder if anyone’s started up a blog just for DLC shit. Now that APPLE is getting into DLC too. Call it HorseArmor or some variation.

  35. Saul says:

    I’d be really interested to see a profit comparison between selling DLC on Steam (once it’s been going for a while), and giving it away for free (which leads to new sales of the game). Personally I think Valve and Epic have the right idea, treating the game as a service. The concept of micropayments gets right up my nose.

  36. jalf says:

    @cliffski: Because people are worried it’s a slippery slope. You might end up in a situation where *all* extra content costs money. Why not charge for patches too? You want that bug fixed? That’ll be $5.
    And then, it’d be tempting to include as little as possible in the base game, wouldn’t it? After all, every feature you put in the base game is a feature you can’t charge extra for afterwards.

    Of course, this may be an absolute worst-case scenario, but it’s enough to cause people to worry. And of course, PC gamers are used to extras being free, let’s not forget that. You buy the game, and anything the developer adds to it, short of a full-fledged expansion, is made available as a service to the customer. That’s about to change. And obviously, no one wants to pay for something that used to be free. ;)

  37. Deadpan says:


    Of course, it’s hard to argue that EA hasn’t bee slanting that way in alot of their more recent games.

  38. Rich_P says:

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with charging for extra content, but at what point do the publishers make mods against the EULA? Can’t have DLC competing with the superior and free mods, right? Who knows what some PC game publishers will think of next; after all, they thought (think) install limits, Starforce, and piss-poor support (lack of 16:10 ratios, etc.) were all acceptable.

    Personally, I always wait a few years for the inevitable complete/platinum/gold edition. I bought Civ IV Complete for $25 and just ordered GalCiv II Complete for $40. This is partly because I’m a cheap ass, but I also like paying one price for the definitive version of a game. Hence my dislike of subscription fees, arcades, and microtransactions.

  39. redrain85 says:

    One good thing that could come of this, is devs no longer shafting the PC when it comes to DLC releases. I’m sick of seeing DLC being released on the consoles that doesn’t show up on the PC.

    But I, too, worry about it becoming a slippery slope. First it starts with worthwhile content, but then before you know it we’re being charged for patches and other small updates. And who knows where it could eventually lead. A monthly subscription fee for using Steam?

    Now, I have a lot of confidence in Valve and don’t think they’re going to go down that road. I’d like to think they’ve already demonstrated how savvy they really are, by giving away updates for free in order to keep sales on certain titles vibrant and alive for years. This way they still make money, without customers feeling like they’re being ripped off.

    I have no problem with the “games as a service” model as long as we’re not being nickeled and dimed to death. Keep most updates free, and charge only when the additional content is substantial enough to merit it. Content like the HL2 episodes fall into the latter category. While patches, addtional characters or weapons, additional game modes, map packs, and other similar small updates do not.

    And none of that “pay to play” crap. No Xbox Live-like subscription fees, no microtransactions to keep unlocking portions of the game as you progress.

  40. jalf says:

    @Rich_P: And that might also show a way for the DLC plans to backfire. After all, who wins if the customer ends up waiting a year or two after release before buying your game? The developer gets less money, and after more time, and you don’t get to play the game while it’s new and shiny. But like you said, if they’re stupid enough to give us install limits or Starforce….

  41. D says:

    @Cliffski: Yeah, except it would be like if Nokia could sell you the ability to have a ringtone seperately. Obviously the problem for the customer is discerning what should be part of “the full package” and what should be extra, which is easier for phones.

    For me, anything on sale that I would want in the game, will automatically not get a purchase from me. If I deem it important enough to want in my game, it should have been part of the released product (or post-patched). This means I won’t be buying any DLC at all. It may be silly backwards logic, but business paradigms are not my friends, lest we forget that companies would sell us the air we breathe if they could.

  42. redrain85 says:

    By the way, just to clarify my previous statement . . . when I said “games as a service” I did NOT mean the type of situation where the game files are kept permanently “in the cloud” on a server or heavy-handed DRM is used on the client.

    That is the type of “service” the game publishers can shove up their asses. When I buy a game, I should be free to install and play the game in prepetuity and be able to make a personal backup copy. No restrictions, other than perhaps only allowing you to play a game on one PC at a time like how Steam currently works.

  43. Y3k-Bug says:

    Skurmedel says: On PC I would expect this to come free of charge in a patch, because that’s how you keep people playing your game and attract new players. I really hope the publishers avoid DLC hysteria, but my confidence in the big name publishers is nigh.

    A question to the group: why is it so wrong to charge for that extra content? They charge you for the game, they charge you for expansion packs. As long as what they charge for the DLC is fair (say, if your DLC is smaller than a full on expansion pack, the price should reflect that), I’m all for it. While I certainly enjoyed years of free content patches, I’m not going to sit here and pretend that its ludicrous for a developer to want to charge me for that extra content now. It costs money to make that DLC the same way it costs to make the full game. Why should they make money off one and not the other?

    Would it be fair to say that the only reason they didn’t charge for DLC before is because there was no real system to do so on the internet before now? The investment to infrastructure necessary for this is pretty big.

  44. Y3k-Bug says:

    D says: @Cliffski: Yeah, except it would be like if Nokia could sell you the ability to have a ringtone seperately. Obviously the problem for the customer is discerning what should be part of “the full package” and what should be extra, which is easier for phones.

    Well no, it would be like if Nokia sold you a phone with ringtones, and charged you for extra ones if you so choose to buy them. Not buying those ringtones doesn’t at all diminish the functionality of the default phone.

    Which, you know, Nokia DOES do that.

    Your second point about needing to be a discerning consumer is spot on though.

  45. Tworak says:

    god damn I hate dlc

  46. bansama says:

    I’m all for Steam offering DLC and really don’t get the fuss. If people don’t want to buy it, then simply don’t buy it. What I despise is companies using options to sell DLC which are not available to a large number of their initial purchase base. Such as the FO3 DLC. Microsoft simply refuse to sell it in a number of countries. And lets not even get started on Ubisoft again. They’ve already permantly lost access to my money.

    Now if only Bethsada would wake up and get that DLC on Steam with an actual monetary price tag on it. I’ll gladly buy it. Incidentally, I have never bought any DLC on via my PS3 as the majority of it doesn’t interest me.

    But when it does, why not buy it? If it offers something you want, it’s all good. All they really are are smaller expansion packs and I’d rather buy a cheaper smaller DLC pack than a more expensive expansion pack full of a large number of features I don’t care for, just to get the few I do.

    As for The Maw, I bought both the levels and let my children play them. They spent a good hour per level so that’s been a good purchase for us.

  47. Cedge says:

    Could you explain how “new story or quests, new maps, etc” doesn’t ultimately fit under the umbrella of “extra content”?

    These extra levels for The Maw sound like a great example of “good DLC,” to me. They’re micro-expansions (in this case, new maps), at micro-prices. Perfectly fair, and fundamentally identical to expansion packs which have been an accepted part of PC gaming for decades (just on a smaller scale).

    Bad DLC, on the other hand, is the sort of useless, non-game-affecting stuff like for-pay character skins, as well as for-pay items that give advantages in multiplayer games (can’t stand that nonsense). For-pay cheats, and DLC that just unlocks content that’s already on disc is also quite crap.

    Does anyone remember the Wing Commander II: Speech Accessory Pack? I like to use it as an example when jaded PC geezers start complaining about how they think that consoles invented the trend of charging for things that “should have been included in games in the first place.” The origins of this trace back to PC, no doubt.

    I’m really sick of PC gamers assuming that all DLC is bad. Yes, for-pay cheats and skins are crap, but things like cheap additional maps and the like are fine by me, and cannot be criticized, without aiming the same criticism at expansion packs.

  48. Rich_P says:

    @Y3k: It depends on the implementation. Publishers are free to charge whatever they want for additional content; nothing inherently wrong with that. Doesn’t mean I have to buy it.

    DLC and even expansion packs aren’t conductive to the way I play games: intensely for a few weeks and then never again (multiplayer FPS games the exception). As such, I want my once-through to be “complete.” Ex: Waiting for Civ IV Complete allowed me to play a superior version of the game.

    Different strokes, different folks.

  49. Y3k-Bug says:

    I’m posting alot!!@%

    Saul says: I’d be really interested to see a profit comparison between selling DLC on Steam (once it’s been going for a while), and giving it away for free (which leads to new sales of the game).

    According to a developer who uses steam, that isn’t true for anything outside of the big releases:

    [Introversion’s Mark] Morris also challenges another established idea about Steam‭ – ‬that it radically alters the sales lifespan of a game,‭ ‬creating the fabled long tail.‭ “‬I’d estimate you still get‭ ‬50‭ ‬or‭ ‬60‭ ‬per cent of your sales in launch month,‭ ‬and then maybe‭ ‬20‭ ‬in month two,‭ ‬and then the rest of them selling over an incredible length of time.‭”

    “A game does well on Steam when they’re pushing it,‭ ‬and the pop-ups occur.‭ ‬But Valve can’t deliver that in perpetuity.‭ ‬In the old days,‭ ‬simply being on Steam was enough to ensure being bought.‭ ‬But now,‭ ‬and I don’t know about anyone else,‭ ‬there’s a massive correlation between when we’re on a pop-up and sales are good,‭ ‬and when we’re not,‭ ‬and sales aren’t so good.‭

  50. Y3k-Bug says:

    @Rich_P Thanks for that perspective, I never thought to look at it from that angle.