LoftyTheMetroid
Member
Edit - Wow, the whole video is actually a large rant and general fear-mongering against Steam and Valve.
Wow, you're right. Honestly, the rest of the video is more damning than anything in that clip segment.
"If I'm honest I view Dota 2, once again, as a loss leader for Valve... It's the same for TF2. Why do you think they constantly updated the game? It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts... Maybe their stuff is anti-competitive. They offer this stuff for free because no one else can compete with it. They know there is no way there is going to be a free game with the quality of Dota 2. Nobody can afford to do that. Valve doesn't have to worry about keeping the lights on in the office."
Sorry for the choice quoting, but I really don't think Totalbiscuit knows what he's talking about. He's outright saying that Valve's practices are anti-competitive and implies this is heavily against consumer interest.
What he doesn't realize, or refuses to acknowledge, is that Valve has been very upfront about the amount of money that TF2 was bringing in the entire process. TF2 was never a loss leader. Sure, it brought many people onto Steam but the game continued to generate revenue from their free updates well before they even made the jump to free-to-play.
To be fair, I read the TF2 quotes ("It's the same for TF2. Why do you think they constantly updated the game? It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts...") as being an aside, referring to TF2 before the Mann Store, like Medic/Pyro/Heavy Updates. As you said, Valve made a lot of money from those "free" updates due to publicity and sales, so it wasn't solely out of the "goodness of their hearts". The rest of the video demonstrates he has other irrational views of TF2 and Steam, though.
TB suggests that Valve is cornering the market because they can throw their teams behind these grand projects that would never turn a profit to justify their development even though these projects - by Valve's own admission - turn a large, continuous profit by following this model. Sure, Valve could run them as a loss leader but they aren't.
While I wouldn't call it "anti-competitive" by any means, and I think TB is exaggerating in that regard, I would say Dota 2 is going to pretty much lock down the market, with LoL have its own sub-section.
And I think what TB is saying is that it's irrelevant if Valve is or isn't loss leading with Dota 2, but that, should a miracle product magically manifest itself matching Dota 2 feature-for-feature and Valve couldn't make the same margins in order to compete, Valve would still come out ahead.
Which might be true, but even in that situation I think Valve could maintain its model and come out waaaaay ahead, just because they're Valve and have such a solid fanbase.
Other companies aren't following these methods because they're aren't feasible. They aren't following because they want to make more money.
And this isn't even touching the large studios who make more bank than Valve like Blizzard/Activision who could easily follow the same model but choose not to.
I don't understand. Are you saying that Valve's model is not optimal? Or that Valve chose a model that would make them less money for the sake of the community?
I think this is pretty much the most optimal route to take in this market, and that's because it's such a special market with specific needs.
His ultimate statement: "Dota 2 has the fairest pay model in the business but if anyone else were to do it, would it be a success? I've got to say, I'm not thinking it would be. And I've seen no evidence up to this point for a game to be successful, unless you're Valve, based purely on cosmetic micro-transactions."
Fixed for accuracy.
Well, first HoN and LoL both reported profits going to micro-transactions (so maybe he worded that last statement poorly) but if his assertion is that no one other than Valve can turn a profit using a fair model then how can he say it's unlikely when no one but Valve has attempted it? From the data we have available, the only example of a fair model has been grossly successful.
The full quote addresses the first half of your quote (neither was funded on pure cosmetics). For the second half, as he said, unless you're Valve. So, his statement is accurate for the most part.
It's up to one's opinion how you think this model can be applied mass market, but I personally don't think it will work except under certain conditions and is not something that can be utilized in a widespread manner.
Edit - One final thing. TB's argument is further problematic because success in the video game market isn't solely tied to production values. DayZ and Minecraft both show that you can have enormous success without having huge design teams behind them. The barrier of entry into the market is so low that Steam and Valve do not and can not feasibly ever monopolize it.
I think that's accurate in general, but not for Dota-esque games. Again, I don't see any new games breaking Dota 2's hold on the market once Valve gets the steam engine going.
That would explain it.
EDIT: Nevermind, rereading it, you were probably just commenting on his popularity.