WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Oh, but they made money from releasing their game on Steam. Invalid!
Notch speaks again about Minecraft not being on Steam
- Thread starter Omikaru
- Start date
Oh, but they made money from releasing their game on Steam. Invalid!
MightyHedgehog
Member
He's already on PC. He cannot avoid MS and Apple on their proprietary stores since those platforms are locked.
How exactly should he sell his game on either of those platforms without giving the companies that control those platforms their cut? Steam is not in the same position whatsoever.
Except that there is no option on the 360 or iPhone for him to put his game on there otherwise. On PC he can, simple as that.
Everyone forgot about Origin.
That shows pretty well how much power Valve already has, doesn't it? Call me pessimistic, but I have huge doubts that Valve will always pay the bandwith costs for games for which they didn't receive money, especially not with big publishers like SquareEnix.
(I'd also be happier with Steam if they finally provided a working offline mode/ some why to avoid that nasty client)
Subliminal
Member
I think Notch is completely justified. He's also completely right about Steam starting to develop a monopoly. I'm not really a massive steam fan, Here's why:
1. Games can't be transferred out of the system, Once you own a game on steam you're locked in.
2. Prices are, outside of sales, actually pretty high. More often than not you can get a game for cheaper from a retail store. Steam can do this because alot of people treat it as the De facto online store.
3. I think the 'wait for the sales' idea does really hurt games, Especially when a large amount of your sales are coming in the space of a week or so at 50%+ off. It does cheapen games.
4. The steam app is consistently shit, There are other stores that are much more functional.
1. Games can't be transferred out of the system, Once you own a game on steam you're locked in.
2. Prices are, outside of sales, actually pretty high. More often than not you can get a game for cheaper from a retail store. Steam can do this because alot of people treat it as the De facto online store.
3. I think the 'wait for the sales' idea does really hurt games, Especially when a large amount of your sales are coming in the space of a week or so at 50%+ off. It does cheapen games.
4. The steam app is consistently shit, There are other stores that are much more functional.
CharmingCharlie
Member
He is worried about Steam having a "monopoly" when he does monopolistic practices with his own products and you don't see a problem or any hypocrisy in that ?
If you had read my post you would have seen why I want it on steam, it has NOTHING to do with "convenience of having all my games in one place" I already own minecraft. However there are certain aspects of minecraft that would be improved for the end user if minecraft was on steam such as a proper updating system instead of the retarded nonsense we have now and hell maybe even some decent security and proper authorisation servers as opposed to the shit we have now.
Quicksilver4648
Member
Minecraft doesn't have any DRM (outside of verifying the user's account), is sold exclusively from their store, and Mojang is 100% independent. I see no reason why they would even want to put their game(s) on Steam. It makes zero business sense. Is there some group of people that wont buy Minecraft until it is available on Steam or something?
blitzcloud
Banned
steam is what one would call DRM done right.
Incentives
Incentives
and incentives.
Incentives
Incentives
and incentives.
Bandwidth is only getting cheaper, and with Valve allowing third-party content servers (for instance, some ISPs here in Australia have at least one), the weight isn't entirely on its shoulders, anyway.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Well, sure, that is a pretty copout reason, and the only possible reason if you choose to ignore all the other reasons.
Fuck retailers adding additional customer value that nobody else is providing, and doing it for free.
Fuck them. They're not supposed to do that.
Communists.
EDIT:
This is some special kind of lateral thinking here;
"Steams too expensive because they're greedy, except when they're too cheap and it devalues everything"
Does Origin take 30% of income as well?
I'd assume so, and he's just lumping it in under "Steam" since Steam is the more established name.
Jasper Avenue
Member
If it's not on Steam, it doesn't exist.
You don't know this and no one does since data isn't being disclosed. The only indication we have is the top sellers list which is frequently covered with full priced games.
Right now there's ARMA 2, dark souls, endless space, prototype 2, civ 5 gods and kings and torchlight 2 in the top 10. All at normal price.
Come back when you can sell and distribute your own Xbox 360 and iOS games without going through the stores/certification for those devices.
PC = open platform
Xbox 360 = closed platform
iOS = closed platform
I don't think I prefer Steam over Origin because "lol EA", but maybe it's because I don't trust EA, and for legitimate reasons too. That said, Valve doesn't have a monopoly on trust; I'd happily go elsewhere. Just not EA right now.
QFT
balladofwindfishes
Member
Just getting people on Steam nets Valve indirect profit. People then buy the DLC for games on Steam, participate in the community and maybe buy more games directly from Steam.
There's not a chance they end this system, not unless they want to destroy their own company and the good will they've built with customers and publishers
We know it's not true. I pointed out as much on the previous page.
Edit: The Gamasutra article Delusibeta has linked to below offers more -- and very recent -- insight into the matter.
Delusibeta
Banned
Ravensmash
Member
I love Steam as a service, but I do agree somewhat.
you see it in some posts here (or other forums) where people are put off buying a potentially fun game because it's not got a steam key, or people shun new releases to wait for a steam sale .
It's great for them and many consumers like me, but I'm not sure if it's so great for every developer out there.
Canis lupus
Member
Whats the possibility that Minecraft will be in the next Humble bundle?
We could further discuss this, but you surely recognise that there's the risk of a monopoly if everyone was to buy only games that can be activated via Steam, even if measures would become necessary that you see as destorying the goodwill they've built with publishers. Should the power of Valve increase, publishers cannot really decide anymore whether they want to go use Steamworks or whether they don't.
Concerning the Steam community, how do you mean that it's indirect profit for Valve? Isn't it already rather a hardcore house for those who already know what games to buy? I'm not using it because I try to avoid the Steam client as much as possible, that's why I'm asking.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I don't know of any developers selling stuff on Steam who have problems with Steam.
Conversely, I know lots of developers and publishers who either weren't selling stuff on Steam, or were in direct competition with Steam who were highly critical.
theytookourjobz
Junior Member
I don't see it as the same at all. Steam is monopolizing because they aim to be the go to storefront for ALL games. If Notch wants to sell Minecraft out of the trunk of his car, more power to him. It's HIS game.
This Steam Monopoly is a weak excuse. Outside of a few insufferable fanboys with the, "No Steam, No Buy" chant and normally whining from competing services/rejected titles. I don't see how you can say Steam is a monopoly.
For starters, I purchased Deus Ex Human Revolution at GMG. The DRM used was Steam, but they saw zero cash for that purchase. Any place can sell the game. This is not iOS or XBLA, where the only way to sell games on that system. Is through the 1st party.
Which largely comes to the other part, the DRM side. Where many developers choose to use that over competing DRM methods. Like Origin or GFWL or SecuROM or TAGES or Uplay. Shit that still plagues many Steam titles. And yes, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit. Question then, why aren't people bitching at Sony for their "monopoly" on DRM tools being licensed?
For starters, I purchased Deus Ex Human Revolution at GMG. The DRM used was Steam, but they saw zero cash for that purchase. Any place can sell the game. This is not iOS or XBLA, where the only way to sell games on that system. Is through the 1st party.
Which largely comes to the other part, the DRM side. Where many developers choose to use that over competing DRM methods. Like Origin or GFWL or SecuROM or TAGES or Uplay. Shit that still plagues many Steam titles. And yes, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit. Question then, why aren't people bitching at Sony for their "monopoly" on DRM tools being licensed?
Very, very little chance. It's still being sold for around $25 and that would completely devalue the game unless the bundle was priced extraordinarily high. One of the Indie Bundles did come with a Minecraft trial, though.
CharmingCharlie
Member
It is the exact same thing, he has ensured that you can only buy Minecraft from Mojang that right there is a monopolistic anti competitive tactic and keeps the price of minecraft artificially high.
Now as I said it is his game and it is up to him where he sells his game. However he shouldn't be spouting BS about Steam becoming a monopoly when he seems to be very willing to embrace monopolistic practices for his own products.
"Holy shit!" at GMod being at 1.4m+. Newman must be rolling in cash.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
In the scenario that Steam becomes an abusive monopoly (because a benign monopoly literally hurts nobody; most high profile charities are effectively monopolies for the specific scope that their charity covers but you never hear people complaining about that);
1) Steam is terrible for everyone, and it affects everything you already own.
Solution: There are already cracks for the steam platform as a whole; just download it from steam and use a crack. The risk to that is you can't use 'legit' steam anymore, but in this hypothetical scenario you wouldn't want to
2) Steam is terrible for future purposes, but is great for everything you already have
Solution: buy games from anyone else. There is almost zero barriers to entry to setting up a webpage that sells games outside of your hosting costs, which presumably 30% of all of your sales will cover.
3) Steamworks is used by all publishers as a de facto standard
Solution: this isn't even a problem; you get all the benefits of the steamworks API, and you also get price competition from every retailer on the planet that sells games.
CosmicQueso
Member
Greed has nothing to do with it.
His product, his choice. You go make a game and then you can decide to put it on Steam or not.
Greed. What a fucking joke.
His product, his choice. You go make a game and then you can decide to put it on Steam or not.
Greed. What a fucking joke.
least 100% is hyperbole.
Article it self stated that sales increases 20 to 30 % and max 70/80%
But the interesting thing is the comments were made by indie game developers in genreal.
I guess steam sales helpful for indie game developers more it seems
balladofwindfishes
Member
you can't build a monopoly if you allow other store fronts to sell products at competitive prices.
It's indirect profit because while Valve makes no money on the sale of the game, they get a person using Steam, participating in the community, buying DLC, or buying future games. Getting people on Steam is the #1 priority, not making profits from actual games sold, which is why they'll never abandon CD keys being able to be registered on Steam.
What you're suggesting is one day Gabe is going to wake up with a curly mustache, snicker to himself he wants to destroy his company, and then go on a rampage changing the entire business direction Valve has used for the better part of a decade. It makes no sense, your scenario requires Valve to have an entirely different view on selling games, and requires them to make a huge, hard shift in business direction.
Canis lupus
Member
I figured it could be included, since Notch always pledges huge amount of money, I would pay 30 to 40 bucks for such a bundle.
All digital stores are around that and Steam offers more in service.30% That seems awfully high? Do they need 30% of the revenue? I mean they make a shit ton off the item store..at least from me in dota 2
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
30% That seems awfully high? Do they need 30% of the revenue? I mean they make a shit ton off the item store..at least from me in dota 2
Traditional retail has the publisher receive less than 50% of the sale.
Just putting a game on a console has you paying 20% licencing fees to Sony / Microsoft / Nintendo.
So;
console game from a shop = publisher takes 30%
PC game through steam = publisher takes 70%
EDIT:
He does that because he is an indie and has been for a long time, has done very well out of it, and wants to pay some of that back.
Fair play to him.
HoodWinked
Member
valve the new EA
Its one of my fav mods but tbh 1.4 m isnt really surprising considering its cheap and has been their for 5 years.
Well i am not against steam though but genreally for games which are on steam less 10$ and 5$ , in 5/6 years such numbers should be a norm at such a price
its 10% license fee
Nobody's saying that Steam is a monopoly.
2) It's just bad when nobody wants to buy from your store because you do not provide Steam integration.
3) With a Steamworks monopoly, we cannot be sure about price competition. Actually, they could desire abhorrent fees for it should this state come at one point.
I think the 'wait for sales' mindset is only among people that have massive Steam libraries, which probably make up a very small percentage of the overall userbase. If someone is casually browsing the store and wants a game, they're not going to wait 8 weeks or whatever for the next major sale.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Pretty much.
I guess he just had a taste of that with minecraft XBLA and he didn't like it haha.
balladofwindfishes
Member
But... they would never do this because it's counter productive to their business model and a huge shift in direction. And just not something Gabe would ever risk destroying Valve's image over.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Fair enough; the ballpark figures still work out at DD with a 30% cut being better for everyone involved (and terrible news for bricks and mortar, but that's an entirely seperate issue).
I'm not sure you understand the difference between Steamworks (the API) and Steam (the storefront).
Using Steamworks doesn't even mean you need to sell your game on Steam; think of it as a middleware that provides DRM, CD Key and authentication, and some other stuff (matchmaking, achievements, cloud storage, integrated DLC solution, etc).
You can sell that CD Key to anyone you want.
You can sell it on your own webpage.
Shit, you can even give them out to people on a videogame forum if you feel like it.
How does that in any way prevent price competition?
EDIT:
The fact that Steamworks is both free (to developers) and a better solution for consumers than most of the alternatives (rootkits, gamespy, GFWL) is why people want it.
If it becomes terrible / expensive / a burden to consumers, the self same people who are clamouring for Steamworks will instead go "Steamworks? no sale" and people will stop using it.
Like has pretty much happened with GFWL, other than the few diehards who fucking love their achievement scores.
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
It's a board game, right?
Are people suggesting Valve will release a board game? Because that would be awesome!
Imagine Half-Life Monopoly. You could move around little crowbar and headcrab pieces.
Good, the game is ulta boring. Never understood the appeal of it. Terraria on the other hand has good gameplay and it's fun to play. Starbound the spiritual successor is looking great as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ktlAGvjUjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ktlAGvjUjY