Why No Minecraft On Steam? Those ToS

Notch has been writing about why Minecraft hasn’t appeared on Steam. I assumed it was because it wasn’t finished, but apparently not. It’s because of those pesky terms of service: “Being on Steam limits a lot of what we’re allowed to do with the game, and how we’re allowed to talk to our users. We (probably?) wouldn’t be able to, say, sell capes or have a map market place on minecraft.net that works with steam customers in a way that keeps Valve happy. It would effectively split the Minecraft community into two parts, where only some of the players can access all of the weird content we want to add to the game.” (Were we expecting a vanity items shop in MC?)

Also, remind you of anything? Discussions with Valve are apparently ongoing.


  1. elnalter says:

    steam should just loosen its terms or cut some deals. dunno why they have to be so hardassed

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      Hosting content for a game and promoting it in the store while making absolutely no money from it wouldn’t be a great idea, so that has to be excluded by the terms. So in this case they’d have to make some arbitrary limitations, or deal with this on a case-by-case basis – I’m not sure how well that would work out.

    • wu wei says:

      But Spiral Knights, for one, already does this. The in-game marketplace is purely in-game but Steam have no problem with supporting it. Ditto for EVE, if you want a non-F2P instance.

      When Notch says “We (probably?) wouldn’t be able to[…]”, does that mean he isn’t actually sure?

    • Turin Turambar says:

      Because money. Valve likes it.
      (like Notch, like EA, like every company).

    • Thomas says:

      Remember his wording “(probably?)”

      I think he’s just reiterating unsubstantiated rumors from the EA vs. Valve debacle, which is also kinda apparent with the “How we’re allowed to talk to our customers”, which was almost word by word one of the initial statements EA came with.

      Games like Fable 3 can coexist just fine with GFWL support and DLC, atleast aslong as the DLC is ALSO offered on Steam (And FYI: Crysis 2 and DA2 both predate Fable 3, so it’s not a question of whether or not such terms were grandfathered or not)

      In essence it makes his point entirely moot, unless his point is, as mentioned somewhere else is that he does not think Valve should be allowed to have a cut on the sales THEY produce, whether they be game or DLC.

      Edit: wu wei, Spiral Knights still uses the Steam microtransactions to use their in-game marketplace, so Steam still gets a cut.

      I have no idea about Eve, but it seems, if the rumors are at all true, then the agreement was likely not grandfathered, Dragon Age also completely bypass the Steam store, but yet it was only Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2 that were removed, i have a feeling these were games that was released after they had made the changes, but they were negotiating the terms and allowed a release while negotiations were ongoing.

    • Juan Carlo says:

      People would probably hate them and shout “double standard” but Steam really should bend the rules for Minecraft.

      It’s minecraft!

      They’d probably still make money off of it even if they decided not to take that big of a cut from sales given the number of people it would draw to their store (plus, I think a significant portion of minecraft players are of the casual variety who probably don’t have steam already installed).

    • niko86 says:

      I think Notch is just playing his, Good Guy Notch Scroll. Its a rare shiny scroll, has a 99% chance of swaying opinions to his own ends. And its getting old.

      At the start of this Scrolls debacle thought Notch as being super naive.

      The more time passes along with stupid one sided comments like these the more I think Notch is extremely arrogant. And I’d like to see him take a fall for his and his companies own good.

      Yes I’m a mean spirited sod.

    • Kent says:

      Never heard of the “Jante” law? Pfft, ignorant foreigners.

    • Whitechip says:

      Do people not understand that DA:O is an old game and DA2 and Crysis 2 are new, so if Valve just changed their ToS then it would apply to the new games and not the old.

    • Delusibeta says:

      The fact that Nadeo has also chimed in with pretty much exactly this reason as to why there’s little chance of TrackMania 2 reaching Steam suggests to me that the rumours are accurate.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      There’s probably legal reasons, liability etc…

  2. Zarx says:

    Wait Notch plans on selling capes and/or maps as premium items for Minecraft???

    • Mewist2 says:

      Yeah, but alpha buyers get it for free!
      Yay alpha :D.

    • dadioflex says:

      I’ve had my money’s worth a dozen times over from Minecraft but the more I hear about Mojang’s ongoing business plans, with subscriptions and premium items, the less I like it. I hope he doesn’t take a successful product and nickel and dime it to death.

    • Zarx says:

      you mean we Alpha and Omegas get it all for free while other peasants would have to pay? That sounds acceptable, it’s not like I would have purchased an additional cape anyway.

    • Jumwa says:


      The more I hear from Notch the more I dislike the fellow and where he’s going with things. His manipulating gamers to win public opinion over the dispute with Bethesda he admittedly caused and obsession with over-monetization of new products is a big turn off.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      Actually I felt the deal with Bethesda was one of the most unprofessional things I’ve ever seen from a developer.

      I also don’t like how he changed the licensing, meaning if I’m playing and my six year old wants to play on the kids machine, I now get booted. Not touched the game since that happened.

      Terraria is a better game anyway. (And yes, I know they’re “different” but they’re similar enough for an “either/or” comparison IMO)

      It’s funny seeing the tide ever so slowly turning against Notch. It’s a shame he and Mojang are the poster children for indie game development. I can think of far better ambassadors. (Arcen Games for example.)

  3. Anthile says:

    In other words, Mojang think they can make more money on their own. Okay.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Pretty much. And Notch is deciding this based on things EA said, not Valve themselves.

    • IDtenT says:

      Nonsense. Not once in that post did he reference EA. You’re putting things in his mouth he never said.

  4. Gnoupi says:

    They have the luxury of being choosy with digital distribution, seeing the amount of money they earned with their own distribution.

    They already have the exposure they need and more, and their current formula (self-updating program + license) worked good so far, so no reason for them to add any restriction to that model.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Yes, this is absolutely correct!

    • Gnoupi says:

      And that’s mostly the theme of the blog post.
      The title of the RPS article is a bit “too much”, in my opinion.

      Notch spends most of the post saying that Steam and Valve are great, but that it’s not the right model for them (and they don’t really starve for Steam’s attention anyway).

      But I guess this title allows people to launch themselves into some “See, I told you, Valve is baaaaaad!!!!!” without further reading.


    • Jimmy says:

      Exactly, their own service, fed by S3, is perfectly fine. It’s kind of obvious, really.
      This sort of thing can be a bit like Wired, where every second and third piece is about Apple…

      Steam is great. But they don’t need the exposure. PC gaming can survive without everything being on Steam.

  5. Dirtyboy says:

    I think the main issue is all the changes that Notch makes to MC would be much slower getting to players, as developers have to submit patches to Steam for approval before deploying. Also, Steam does take around 30% cut of sales.

    • Thomas says:

      As far as i know there’s no actual “approval” going on, the issue is that when you update the binary of the game they have to repack their Steam protection around it, however there does exists games (Notably MMO’s) that don’t have to do that, which means even such a restriction could probably be discussed.

  6. BurningPet says:

    All of the above plus – hey, whats a better marketing statement than saying you wont be in steam by choice?

  7. Thants says:

    We (probably?) wouldn’t be able to, say, sell capes or have a map market place on minecraft.net that works with steam customers in a way that keeps Valve happy.

    Good! Anything that discourages games from bugging me to but extra crap after I’ve already bought them is a good thing. I get enough of that in real life.

  8. omgitsgene says:

    What I don’t understand is why they can bring Oblivion and Skyrim to Steam, but Minecraft is somehow different. Can anyone explain to me the fundamental difference between the Scrolls games and Minecraft in that respect?

    • Shivoa says:

      I get the feeling the problem is the store. There will be a potential limit to sold UGC (or classic dev content) because everything that Mojang want to sell on their website store as DLC, to avoid violating the Steam ToS, will also have to be packaged up into a Steam deployable DLC and added to the MC Steam page.

      If Notch has plans for a varied UGC marketplace and lots of small dev offerings then it may not be desirable to tie it down to duplicating onto the Steam ecosystem and so the terms that EA dislike as they want a monopoly in DLC sales for their titles are seen by Notch as limiting the options for implementing a MC store that he wants to build. Depending what the MC store turns out to be and if that promise to create something that could not be done with the current Steam ecosystem, that could be cool.

      I still enjoy Steam as my metaGame/MMO/platform of choice (although 360 Live does have a lot of friends always available to play online games with and my Steam friend list hasn’t quite reached the same saturation point with real-world gaming friends who play online) so it’s a shame MC isn’t planning on expanding there and duplicating achievements / cloud save system or the other things I enjoy about Steam but Notch seems genuine so I’m now more interested to see what crazy ideas he wants to bring to a store system.

    • Bilbo says:


    • Zarx says:

      “Can anyone explain to me the fundamental difference between the Scrolls games and Minecraft in that respect?”

      I see what you did there…

  9. TsunamiWombat says:

    Steam takes a cut of sales, and a cut of microtransaction exchanges (this is how they support f2p games). Mojang and EA both do not wish to cut Valve in on that phat micro lewt, + it does slow down patch submission slightly. The trade off in theory is of course, market saturation, but Minecraft is already excessivly successful without any distribution platform whatsoever. EA is gambling that Battlefield 3 will be successful nomatter what and simultaniously launch Origin for them so they can compete with Steam.

    • dadioflex says:

      Okay, Steam is IBM and digital distribution is the 80s PC market. Discuss.

    • IDtenT says:

      Time for Microsoft to cut in and launch a free to host distribution service integrated into every windows, with income generated through globalization(/being on every PC)? Or, time for google to host a free version where adverts generate income?

    • Gnoupi says:

      @dadioflex: Would be a good debate if most of the commenters were actually born then.

  10. PoulWrist says:

    Since we all decided that EA was lying, Notch must be lying too.

    • Thomas says:

      He isn’t lying, he is just putting up his opinion that i believe to be somewhat misguided by the recent Valve vs. EA stuff.

      He has some concerns about Steam, which he is talking to Valve about, and i’m quite sure that based on his post, that his concerns are non-existant.

      To be honest i think his biggest concern should be transferring those 3 million copies, i know Steam does it for free if you incorporate Steamworks, they also, a long long long time ago suggested they would do it for free even without Steamworks, but that was back when Steam was a lot smaller than it is today, so that may obviously have changed since then.

    • ahac says:

      He isn’t lying and EA wasn’t lying. I’ve always thought that EA has a better argument in the Valve vs. EA stuff but no one wanted to believe that, because EA are supposed to be the bad guys.

    • Thomas says:

      EA were the only one with an argument, so you’re definitely right in that respect, however i consider Valve’s respect of EA, who, despite EA’s attempt to turn this into a pissing match, still had the respect and grace to not get into that.

      There were actual factual inaccuracies in their statements, so at best they EA were using spin, at worst they are flat out lying.

      I’m going to use my eyes, look at the situation with Steam as it is currently and draw my conclusions from that, and the conclusion is that EA is full of shit, and while still not confirmed in anyway, DLC exclusivity does indeed seem to be the issue, which makes them even more full of shit, atleast Valve is only trying to make money off the sales they actually get for EA, the retailers have no issue reselling their games for absolutely no profit to them.

    • Archonsod says:

      When Steam picked up the F2P games they’ll have changed the ToS so they can actually make some money from them via reselling from the in game marketplace or the like. They’re either deliberately taking a hardline approach or someone simply didn’t think it through and made it a blanket change, hence it now affects pretty much any game with an in-game store.

      Can’t really blame Steam for wanting to get a cut in the lucrative micro-transaction market. Can’t really blame publishers for complaining about them muscling in on their revenue stream.

    • shoptroll says:

      The problem with EA’s statements is that a lot of it was clouded up in spin and PR speak. Not to mention the fact that EA is actively working on starting a pissing match with every company in the industry at this rate.

      Sometimes it’s not the message, but the packaging that’s the problem.

    • Baines says:

      Yes, EA’s comments are going to be PR driven. But EA actually said something.

      Valve remained silent throughout, and that was PR driven as well. While some call it “taking the high ground”, the silence in the wake of EA’s version of the story is most likely more a case that Valve felt presenting their own side would do more damage than remaining silent. Odds are, EA’s version of the story was fundamentally true, and possibly true in most if not all respects. Valve’s attempt to defend itself or set the record straight would probably have had them saying things that they’d rather not draw public attention towards.

      On the other hand, it could just be that Valve realized their fanbase would turn on EA for them.

    • Thomas says:

      I personally don’t think Valve would’ve lost much (if any) credibility if they had simply stated EA wanted to monopolize on their game microtransactions content by excluding other Digital Distributers from trying to sell said content.

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      Well, if this isn’t oversimplifying the situation for the sake of bitching, I don’t know what is.

      EA made it very clear they had an agenda to push, trying to throw Steam under the bus for the sole reason of justifying several of their games disappearing and BF3’s no-show.

      Notch made it very clear he has no ax to grind whatsoever, praising the service several times. He’s a one-man show who doesn’t need Steam at all to be successful, and he’s making this decision based on what he observed. His usage of the word “probably” means he never even considered it all that much.

      You would only have an argument (and you really don’t, honestly), if Notch and EA had both had the same reasons for their statement. Or even if they had made the same statement at all. I know you’re trying to paint the EA issue with a bunch of sheeple jumping on bandwagons, but there’s a pretty good reason for the skepticism. Oversimplifying Notch’s statement to further your own agenda doesn’t make for a very convincing argument whatsoever.

  11. CaspianRoach says:

    Microtransactions in my Minecraft? No thank you.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I think Notch is/ Mojang are very micro-transaction focused – look at scrolls, it’s virtually guarenteed to be a micro-transaction sink

  12. mindlessrant says:

    Wait wait wait! So hes saying he cant bring Minecraft to Steam because he wants to do micro-transactions? And Steam doesnt allow that? Or is he saying he wants to support more modding, and Steam doesnt allow that? In both cases, that makes absolute no sense. Valve does exactly that with their own games. Could he be possibly more cryptic? What am I missing.

    • ankh says:

      He probably makes more money selling Minecraft himself (without the 30% or whatever steam cut)

    • qrter says:

      My guess would be that sales through minecraft.net perhaps are slowing down, which would be the perfect time to start selling your goods through other channels. Sure, they’ll take a cut, but there’s also a huge pool of users, some of whom may not have bought the game yet.

      It’s probably also a simple case of Notch liking Steam, as he says in his blog, and wanting his game to be a part of it.

    • Archonsod says:

      “Valve does exactly that with their own games. Could he be possibly more cryptic? What am I missing.”

      Valve are unlikely to complain about Valve taking a cut in every transaction for the game.

    • mindlessrant says:

      Archonsod: Please dont put my post out of context. Thanks.

  13. Khemm says:

    Good. Finally all those people claiming Valve can do no wrong, that Steam isn’t slowly trying to turn the PC into a closed platform where Valve have total control, that EA is evil have lost an argument.
    It’s business, people. Valve aren’t the angels you make them out to be.

    • RF says:

      Except it’s fairly obvious Notch is just speculating as to whether or not they could pull this stuff off on Steam. Stop trying to bash Valve when you have no idea what you’re talking about.


    • Khemm says:

      Except he knows what is better for him and what Valve’s policy is.
      kthxbye, Valve aplogist

    • MadTinkerer says:

      Dude, read Notch’s whole post: “So there’s no big argument, we just don’t want to limit what we can do with Minecraft. Also, Steam is awesome. Much more awesome than certain other digital distribution platforms that we would NOT want to release Minecraft on.”

      In other words, Valve is still awesome, EA is still evil*, and you just lost your argument.

      *Though I maintain it’s still less evil than the late 90s early 2000s era. And Ubisoft and Activision are both currently even worse.

    • mindlessrant says:

      There are people living in little holes, scanning the internet in their secret lairs, looking for even the smallest of opportunities to throw dirt at Valve, because Valve stole their bike at some point. Khemm is one of those people.

    • Khemm says:

      HOW DID YOU KNOW?! My cover… it’s ruined! RUINED!
      Well, not really – but I suggest you stop trusting Valve blindly. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Valve tend to abuse their power now, who says they won’t become the next Activision tomorrow? You never know that.

    • briktal says:

      He didn’t say Valve is awesome, EA is evil. He just said that Steam is”the best digital distribution platform I’ve ever seen” but he thinks the terms would limit his ability to do the things he wants to do with Minecraft.

    • Dominic White says:

      Far as I can see, Notch is on more-than-friendly terms with Valve. He praises Steam, generally seems to get along well with people at Valve, and they’ve cross-promoted each other a fair amount. He just wants to remain completely independent, without even a digital distributor to worry about. And that’s fine.

      More power to the guy. Just so long as Minecraft doesn’t require launching through some elaborate portal site in the near future, then nobody loses here.

  14. BurningPet says:

    Isnt LoL on steam? i think they do just fine with their microtransactions on steam.

    • mindlessrant says:

      Nah LoL isnt, but there are plenty of other games that support micro-transactions on the Steam platform.

    • Thomas says:

      League of Legends used to be on Steam but was removed again, and as far as i recall, long before any of their F2P titles were added.

    • shoptroll says:

      LoL and Battleforge were both removed when they went F2P. This was before Valve started supporting F2P games on their service.

      To be honest, I’m really surprised LoL wasn’t in the launch group. There is a bit of a dearth of MOBA/ARTS games on the service right now.

    • Eclipse says:

      “To be honest, I’m really surprised LoL wasn’t in the launch group”

      I’m not, since Valve is going to launch DOTA 2 as f2p, helping LoL would be so stupid from them

    • shoptroll says:

      They haven’t announced a monetization plan for Dota 2 yet, so while I agree with the likelihood of F2P, it’s still too early to call it yet. DotA was effectively a $30 game since you had to buy Warcraft III to get access. So they can probably go for a traditional monetization model and people would probably buy it anyways.

      But that’s beside the point. Left 4 Dead’s presence does not, nor did not, bar the presence of Killing Floor or either CoD game with zombie mode from the service.

  15. Zogtee says:

    I don’t see why Steam taking a cut off sales is bad or unfair, when the seller gets to take advantage of the biggest digital distribution service available.

    • Archonsod says:

      Taking a cut in the initial sale isn’t the issue, it’s demanding a cut in any further sales derived from that. Essentially Valve are saying you can’t have an in-game market or the like unless you cut them in to it, which is somewhat absurd.

      It would be like your local brick & mortar games store insisting they were entitled to a cut from any DLC or expansions just because you bought the original game from them, no matter where or how you got the DLC/Expansions.

    • ahac says:

      If they want to sell their game and DLC on Steam they would need to:
      1) run 2 separate systems for purchasing and downloading DLC, patching the game, etc…: one for Steam and another for everything else. You’d be locked into your version: if you buy it on Steam you need to buy all the expansions/DLC from Steam, if you buy the box you can’t buy DLC on Steam,..
      2) go full Steam, use Steamworks for every copy of the game, Valve runs everything and gets their cut from every sale (which isn’t bad but they’d lose control over how they offer patches and DLC).

    • Archonsod says:

      I think the problem for Notch is more the limitations it imposes. You couldn’t for example have a market for player-created content (like in say Second Life) under Steam’s ToS.

    • Malk_Content says:

      3) To be on steam and have an in game store valve asks that you also make said products available on Steam. That is all they require. You can do some jiggery pokery with a game bought of Steam and DLC bought of different disrbutors. Been doing with Civ V myself and it is what the “activate product on steam” button is for.

    • Thomas says:

      Silly reply button malfunctioning:

      Taking a cut in the initial sale isn’t the issue, it’s demanding a cut in any further sales derived from that. Essentially Valve are saying you can’t have an in-game market or the like unless you cut them in to it, which is somewhat absurd.

      It would be like your local brick & mortar games store insisting they were entitled to a cut from any DLC or expansions just because you bought the original game from them, no matter where or how you got the DLC/Expansions.

      What makes you think that? The only thing reasonably speculative is simply that Steam wants a cut of the DLC sold through their service, with the content network they made available.

      Some actually sells retail DLC, so to make an appropiate analogy, it’s like if stores sold your DLC and they earned money on the copy they sold, you know just like they do games, and everything else they sell?

    • Archonsod says:

      “What makes you think that?”

      It’s only the games which sell DLC exclusively through an in-game store (DA 2 for example) which are pulled, while those which allow DLC to be sold elsewhere (Fable III for example) now offer their DLC via Steam.

      The problem isn’t Valve taking a cut in what gets sold via Steam, it’s them demanding content be available via Steam in the first place.

    • Thomas says:

      But that’s still only a cut of the sales they generate, they don’t get a cut of the sales EA generate through their own stores.

      I think it’s fair that Valve is allowed part in the promotional value for both the game and the DLC, and as a consumer i also think it’s fair that i can choose the provider that i want for my DLC whether it be simply a serial code for another service, or it be their service serving the content.

      And lastly i do not want up having 10 different microtransactions accounts with an amount of money on each of them that i can’t use because their single sum adds up to nothing i want, and now with the new trading system i would like to be able to trade content for games and from games.

  16. apa says:

    I hope Steam will never be required for Minecraft. I don’t want to start that bloatware just to run a Java program… It’s ok for L4D friendlist.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      Java is bloatware. Minecraft is the only reason I allow it on my PC.

      The sooner BBC iPlayer does away with Adobe dependencies the better as well.

    • Bilbo says:

      Jon, that’s like saying idTech 4 is bloatware

  17. The Sombrero Kid says:

    I think he’s exaggerating tbh because he, rightly, doesn’t want to give them 25% of his revenue when he doesn’t need the visibility steam brings.

    • Thomas says:

      Well then he can always give customers more value in his own store, than on Steam’s Store :)

    • Advanced Assault Hippo says:

      Yeah, this seems a no-brainer to me. Why give away all that profit (and freedom to do what he wants) when his own service is working perfectly as it is?

  18. IDtenT says:

    Reply Fail.

  19. YeOldeSnake says:

    And next day Minecraft appears on Origin.
    See what i did there?

  20. Ravenholme says:

    Actually, I’m not sure that’s entirely true – Because most of the MMOs on steam have some form of ingame store in them where you trade real monies for items/e-monies to buy items, yet Steam very obviously doesn’t get a cut of those. So, I’m not sure that an in-game item store would invalidate the steam TOS in some way.

    • Megadyptes says:

      ” yet Steam very obviously doesn’t get a cut of those.”
      How is it obvious? Do you think that Valve just host all these gigabytes and throws out all this bandwidth for people to download the f2p games for nothing? Unlikely. The f2p games obviously cut a deal with Valve for the promotion. On the first page of comments a few people commented that they get a cut of the proceeds as well.

    • Ravenholme says:

      Think about what you’re saying and realise how patently ridiculous it is.

      Things like EVE have in-game stores, yet they are hosted completely off-site in things not even affiliated with Steam. Notch’s plans sound exactly the same model, except not used to buy subscriptions.

      The only cut Notch would lose is the 30% he’d lose on the client. I’m not saying he should switch to steam, I’m just pointing out that his opinion is somewhat misinformed. He himself mentions that he’s not entirely sure and there are still talks to hold. Note his use of “maybe”. That’s because he’s not actually certain/hasn’t asked.

      I’m pointing out that there is evidence to suggest that he is wrong there.

  21. R10T says:

    I think Steam should be on Minecraft.net .

  22. shoptroll says:

    Weren’t they teasing a cash shop for Minecraft as an April Fool’s day joke one year?

    Anyways, this doesn’t really change my opinion of the situation drastically. It’s Valve’s playground therefore it’s their rules. If that means some companies don’t want to play in it, then that’s their prerogative. If Valve is inflexible in this part of their TOS, then Gabe is absolutely correct: it’s Valve’s responsibility to convince developers and publishers that Steam provides a valuable service to their business which is why they should use it.

    I am sympathetic to EA in the sense that (apparently) the rules changed suddenly on them. However, it took EA about 2-3 months of PR speak and fearmongering to make the point Notch just did in a single blog post. Even then, I think there was still a good amount of reading between the lines to figure out what EA was trying to say.

    If EA was significantly more upfront as to the actual cause of the removal of Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2, then there would’ve been a lot less confusion on the matter, and probably a lot less fanboyism, angry internet men, and rage.

    So massive respect for Notch in cutting through the bullshit here.

    I hope that Valve will try and resolve any Steam ToS issues they’re having with Mojang, EA, and others. A divided industry is a weak industry after all.

    EDIT: I’d love to know which digital distribution he would NOT want to release on.

    • diamondmx says:

      I suspect it’s Origin. He states it in a way to imply that the most obvious answer is right.

  23. markcocjin says:

    Stop blaming Valve for Notch’s reluctance to join Steam.

    He built a community from his website.

    To be able to use Steam, he would have to find a solution in which his existing customers do not get separate treatment from Steam customers.

    Minecraft has grown too big to change. And Notch too rich to need Steam.

    If Notch ever needed the Steam money he’d be getting, he would have made a way to conform to Steam terms of service. It’s as simple as that. Valve will want to make some accommodations for Notch but seriously, that’s not the distributor’s job.

    Notch doesn’t want to say that it’s too much work to make it happen. The guy is no longer hungry. Leave him and his customers alone. Alternatively, leave the Steam customers alone as well. Both are happy where they are.

  24. Tei says:

    No one sould know my real name and have my credit card details. Is expensive to have your real name and credit card details everywhere. Anyone that would want to have that data, must be really safe and have a very good reason. Notch servers are anything but safe.

    • Archonsod says:

      “No one sould know my real name and have my credit card details.”

      Well, I assume your bank and/or credit card company might have something to say about that Mr M. Mouse :P

  25. Thomas says:

    edit: silly reply button.

  26. 1R0N_W00K13 says:

    Surely the console port that’s coming will have pretty much exactly the same restrictions, but this time imposed by Microsoft and/or Sony?

    • Bilbo says:

      Difference being Microsoft are probably giving him a fat amount of money to develop it, because Minecraft will sell consoles and/or stop people needing to turn off their xbox and turn on a PC to play Minecraft. The best Valve would get out of Minecraft on Steam is maybe a few more people using Steam, but that’s not really the same thing.

  27. Megadyptes says:

    I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Notch wants to be fully independent and have 100% control over his products. Going with Steam will lower that somewhat, Notch is happy to stay off Steam. And it’s not like he really needs the exposure that Steam provides, this is Minecraft, the internet sensation that has sold over three million copies whilst remaining completely independent. The guy’s doing amazingly fine by himself.

  28. Urthman says:

    I’m really struggling to think of any reason Notch would want to have Minecraft on Steam. What’s in it for him? He’s already got insane levels of free advertising and hype all over the internet.

    Does anyone think there are a bunch of Steam users who’ve never heard of Minecraft?

  29. agentgray says:

    That statement he makes about splitting the community is kind of loaded because the same thing is going to happen on the xbox 360 and may already be happening on portable devices.

    I can understand that two separate communities on the same platform could be confusing.

    I will still buy it everywhere anyway.

    Must have all the things.

  30. egg says:

    Ok, guys. Just imagine: Minecraft-like hats in Team Fortress 2.

    Oh god, it’s so beautfiul.

  31. ResonanceCascade says:

    So we’ve learned that Steam isn’t for everyone. Not a big deal, Minecraft’s setup works just fine.

    And for fuck’s sake! EA isn’t evil, Steam isn’t evil, and Notch isn’t evil. RPS commenters are generally the best around, but some of you guys need to get a little perspective before you blab, please.

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      Exactly my thoughts. Why is it that when an article like this pops up there’s legions of people publicly updating their personal tallies of “Steam vs Origin vs Whichever 3rd Party We’re Talking About Today”? OMG NOTCH SAYS STEAM IS RESTRICTIVE. HAHAHA STEAM IS SHIT. NOTCH 1, VALVE 0.

      Some poeple are taking this whole digital store thing way too seriously. They’re seeing a “war” where there is none.

  32. Robin_G says:

    In general, I never felt like Minecraft needed to be on steam. I guess it never felt like a “game” in the classical sense, to me. However, call me entitled, but if micro-transactions wont happen if its on Steam, then I would actually prefer it to be on Steam. I miss buying a game and getting everything included in the sticker price.

  33. mindlessrant says:

    -Reply fail-

  34. heartlessgamer says:

    Then don’t participate in the micro transactions, but don’t complain when the game isn’t funded enough by current income to support future development. Games are quickly becoming business services and businesses need constant income to operate.

  35. MythArcana says:

    The one thing Notch did right with Minecraft (before falling into an XBAWKS induced coma) was to exclude his game from v@|V3’s Sesame Street Service. Plus, he would have only made about $30 million instead of the $90 million he has today. Good move. Now go back to playing Gods of War 2…

    • lowprices says:

      You do know you’re allowed to write Valve right? No-one will stop you.

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      Uh, you know, people intentionally insert symbols that actually have MEANING, not random shit. Micro$oft and $ony implies they’re braindead corporations focused entirely on profit regardless of product quality.

      I don’t know what the fuck v@|V3 is supposed to mean, and I doubt you do either.

    • MD says:

      v at pipe V3
      VAT = value added tax

      Steam is effectively a ‘VAT pipe’ sucking money from gamers’ bank accounts as a ‘tax’ on the ‘value’ they ‘add’ to the games we purchase; obviously, the term ‘value added’ is used here as an ironic reference to Steam DRM.

      V3, as we all know, is the International Telecommunications Union callsign prefix for Belize. The national animal of Belize is the Baird’s Tapir, aka ‘mountain cow’ — evidently a mean-spirited reference to Gabe Newell.