Notch speaks again about Minecraft not being on Steam


I don't think that Minecraft is at the stage where it is comparable to those examples though. Based on the sales milestone reports we have received from indie devs, and where those games sat on the Steam charts, I doubt anything on Steam sells nearly as many copies as Minecraft does now outside of the first couple weeks of release and isolated Daily/Weekend/Holiday sales (and even then very few games are seeing Minecraft numbers). Minecraft sells around 300k copies a month and has so for a long time (at least since the beta version went live).

I doubt the audience that refuses to buy Minecraft until it is on Steam is any bigger than the audience that refuses to buy a non-steam WoW or Diablo 3. Minecraft is already selling better than anything on Steam, so I doubt the expanded audience that Steam would bring is as big as some people here seem to think it is. The game has been available on PC for over 2 years. It has probably sold more copies on PC than Skyrim. This is not Recettear, or even Torchlight. I think that a Steam release now will mainly drive people away from purchasing the game from Notch's own site and towards purchasing the game on Steam instead out of convenience (losing Notch money in the process). Maybe if the game's sales slow down in a couple of years, it will make more sense.
 
With hats as currency.
Flashbacks of playing Poker Night at the Inventory going after the hats. D:

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.
Don't understand the logic with either of these points. Having a game be Steamworks doesn't stop the game from being sold on other stores, nor does it restrict pricing. I bought a lot of steamworks games on D2D that I wouldn't have if it weren't for steamworks. Adding a fee to an already free service is completely counter-productive and I don't understand why Valve would even think about such a proposition.
 
Minecraft is so big he could put it on Steam, Origin and everywhere else inbetween. Doing that wouldn't change the balance in power in the PC realm. All it would do is make him and them more money.
 
With hats as currency.

Instead of hotels and houses, you'd build sentries and dispensers.

Maps like Office and 2fort would be properties.

This actually sounds like a great idea.
 
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?

Additionally, Steamworks games don't even need to be tethered to Steam, a fact Bethesda inadvertently informed us of last year with Skyrim. (It goes without saying, though, that without Steam, Steamworks features are inert.)
 
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.
WTF!?! If people are buying his game at the current price, why should he drop it?
 
haha wait, Mojang has a monopoly for selling Minecraft on their website?

No seriously, do you know what "monopoly" actually means?
 
So, so wrong.

1. MS don't charge 40k a patch
2. Notch was able to convince MS to allow him to patch the game for free.
3. lol.
4. hahahaha

Also, 30% seems excessive for just putting a game on their service.

Speedymanic
Junior MS Freelance PR Member
(Today, 04:57 PM)

do it
 
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?

Should all gamers require Steam activation at one point, Valve could ask for whatever fee they want from publishers who then have little choice. That's an absolute extreme, and I don't think that will happen. But should a company have too much power, that's possible.


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.

Read above, nobody can guarantee that Steamworks will be free forever. Again, should gamers require Steamworks integration, Valve could become quite powerful.

And should it become expensive, how do you know those people will leave that platform? That does not work together with people saying "No Steam, no sale" as these guys apparently do not care all that much about pricing. Otherwise they'd buy games on Amazon.com when they are cheaper on there already.

I don't know the story about GFWL though, just have a few games for that and that DRM is a thousand times worse (but at least I'm not forced to use a client).
 
WTF!?! If people are buying his game at the current price, why should he drop it?

I said nothing about him dropping the price, I am talking about "anti competitive" behaviour which is what Notch was hinting at in regards to Steam. The fact you can only buy Minecraft from Mojangs website means there is no competition at all and keeps the price artificially high. Limiting the supply of the game to just one outlet is BAD for the consumer that is why Notch is bitching about steam and it's potential monopoly.

Yes I know it is his game and he can do whatever the hell he likes. My point is he should not be talking about concerns over Valve's Monopoly when he clearly practices monopolistic practices himself.
 
I don't think that Minecraft is at the stage where it is comparable to those examples though. Based on the sales milestone reports we have received from indie devs, and where those games sat on the Steam charts, I doubt anything on Steam sells nearly as many copies as Minecraft does now outside of the first couple weeks of release and isolated Daily/Weekend/Holiday sales (and even then very few games are seeing Minecraft numbers). Minecraft sells around 300k copies a month and has so for a long time (at least since the beta version went live).

I doubt the audience that refuses to buy Minecraft until it is on Steam is any bigger than the audience that refuses to buy a non-steam WoW or Diablo 3. Minecraft is already selling better than anything on Steam, so I doubt the expanded audience that Steam would bring is as big as some people here seem to think it is. The game has been available on PC for over 2 years. It has probably sold more copies on PC than Skyrim. This is not Recettear, or even Torchlight. I think that a Steam release now will mainly drive people away from purchasing the game from Notch's own site and towards purchasing the game on Steam instead out of convenience (losing Notch money in the process). Maybe if the game's sales slow down in a couple of years, it will make more sense.

You're talking past my point. I was rebutting the notion that games on Steam are hurt by sales (or rather, the alleged sale mentality), not arguing in favour of the stance that games should be on Steam because of the additional userbase it would bring.
 
Flashbacks of playing Poker Night at the Inventory going after the hats. D:

Don't understand the logic with either of these points. Having a game be Steamworks doesn't stop the game from being sold on other stores, nor does it restrict pricing. I bought a lot of steamworks games on D2D that I wouldn't have if it weren't for steamworks. Adding a fee to an already free service is completely counter-productive and I don't understand why Valve would even think about such a proposition.

Isn't Microsoft doing this on XBLA? Either launch on XBLA at the same time as PSN or there's no release at all. Again, when talking about a potential monopoly, we're assuming that most people require Steam integration and not just a few NeoGAF freaks. Either release on Steam or only on your small store with no publicity - what a great choice.

You also need to consider that even Valve wants to make money. Otherwise they wouldn't take 30% of store sales, but 0%.
 
Minecraft has more registered users than Steam (35 million vs. 30+ million). Notch could easily make his own distribution platform for indies.
 
Why not just sell it for $40 on steam? All the pros of steam, plus he'd make an even larger profit on it ($28).
 
haha wait, Mojang has a monopoly for selling Minecraft on their website?

No seriously, do you know what "monopoly" actually means?

They have a monopoly because they REFUSE to sell it anywhere else, not because they sell it on their website. Oh and I do know what a monopoly is. It's "The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Lets see where can you buy Minecraft ? Oh Mojangs website, where else can you buy Minecraft ? oh no where else. Hm sounds to me as if they have exclusive possession of a product.
 
Should all gamers require Steam activation at one point, Valve could ask for whatever fee they want from publishers who then have little choice. That's an absolute extreme, and I don't think that will happen. But should a company have too much power, that's possible.




Read above, nobody can guarantee that Steamworks will be free forever. Again, should gamers require Steamworks integration, Valve could become quite powerful.

And should it become expensive, how do you know those people will leave that platform? That does not work together with people saying "No Steam, no sale" as these guys apparently do not care all that much about pricing. Otherwise they'd buy games on Amazon.com when they are cheaper on there already.

I don't know the story about GFWL though, just have a few games for that and that DRM is a thousand times worse (but at least I'm not forced to use a client).

When Steamworks isn't free anymore, publishers just won't use it anymore. They'll build their own stores.

You're saying you believe Valve is willing to throw away their entire business plan that's working out very well for them for reasons that I'm not sure you fully thought out.

You're basically saying one day Gabe will wake up and say "muahahahaha today I will be evil!!" Because there's no other real reason they'd change. There's no additional money in charging fees for Steamworks, developers will just stop using it and make their own system...

Yes I do "The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Lets see where can you buy Minecraft ? Oh Mojangs website, where else can you buy Minecraft ? oh no where else. Hm sounds to me as if they have exclusive possession of a product.
What's the icing on the cake here, is you can even buy most of Valve's games from other stores and register them on Steam, while Minecract can only be purchased from Notch
 
Yes I do "The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Lets see where can you buy Minecraft ? Oh Mojangs website, where else can you buy Minecraft ? oh no where else. Hm sounds to me as if they have exclusive possession of a product.

XBLA
 
Should all gamers require Steam activation at one point, Valve could ask for whatever fee they want from publishers who then have little choice. That's an absolute extreme, and I don't think that will happen. But should a company have too much power, that's possible.

Are you saying that Steam can take all existing Steamworks games, and suddenly go "SURPRISE BITCHES" and demand a fee from everyone who's ever used it?

Because if that's your concern, and if for some reason Valve did suddenly decide to become shitbags, legally, that can't happen.

It's called Estoppel. Almost certainly Laches as well.


Read above, nobody can guarantee that Steamworks will be free forever. Again, should gamers require Steamworks integration, Valve could become quite powerful.

And should it become expensive, how do you know those people will leave that platform? That does not work together with people saying "No Steam, no sale" as these guys apparently do not care all that much about pricing. Otherwise they'd buy games on Amazon.com when they are cheaper on there already.

I don't know the story about GFWL though, just have a few games for that and that DRM is a thousand times worse (but at least I'm not forced to use a client).

If you're saying at some point in the future, future versions of steamworks and future games using them might require a fee;
so what?

The middleware Steamworks currently replaces require a fee.
Some publishers are already 'double dipping' by using Steamworks and additional middleware that provides the same functionality.
As long as Steamworks has tangible benefits to a consumer (it does) and customers prefer it (they do) it is beneficial for publishers to use it.

If Steamworks becomes distasteful to a consumer (as GFWL is) and they avoid products that use it, the market will see it used less often.

It really doesn't matter how many other titles use a middleware if something better comes along; when's the last time you used a Gamespy ID to play multiplayer? A metric fuckton of PC titles used Gamespy for their online prior to Steamworks.

EDIT:
To address your specific points about GFWL and amazon;
1) People like steamworks; this is why people ask for it, and are happy to pay a higher price for titles that use it.
Or indeed be extra happy when they can buy a title on amazon cheaper than on Steam, but then use that cdkey on steam and gain all of the benefits Steamworks provides.

2) GFWL when it launched required an XBL Gold subscription to play online.
You might not know this. Because it was dropped slightly slower than the sales of any games that used it plummeted. Because nobody is prepared to pay money for p2p gaming on PC.
 

I am referring to the PC version, I didn't think I would have to be that specific. The Mojang website is the ONLY place you can purchase the PC version of Minecraft. Now is anyone here seriously saying that isn't a tad bit "monopolistic" and "anti-competitive" ?
 
I am referring to the PC version, I didn't think I would have to be that specific. The Mojang website is the ONLY place you can purchase the PC version of Minecraft. Now is anyone here seriously saying that isn't a tad bit "monopolistic" and "anti-competitive" ?

Does this mean that any developer who sells their game only on their website is acting monopolisticly?

Ok. Let's go with that for a moment.

Why is that bad? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But why is it, according to you, bad?
 
Minecraft doesn't need steam, and steam doesn't need Minecraft. Who cares where it is sold, as long as you can buy it, if you want it, there is no problem. Then again I am one of those weird people who doesn't hate origin or any other service on pc for that matter.
 
Does this mean that any developer who sells their game only on their website is acting monopolisticly?

Ok. Let's go with that for a moment.

Why is that bad? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But why is it, according to you, bad?

It's bad for consumers because it keeps prices artificially high there is no price competition. I don't think it is any coincidence that Minecraft is one of the most expensive indie games you can buy and part of the reason why the price has remained that high is because Notch and Mojang refuse to sell their product anywhere else except via their website which I would say is pretty damn anti-competitive and monopolistic, but apparently that is OK.

Now honestly if that is how Notch wants to do it then fair enough, however he shouldn't be spouting BS about a steam monopoly when he is using monopolistic practices himself.
 
Minecraft has more registered users than Steam (35 million vs. 30+ million). Notch could easily make his own distribution platform for indies.
Steam is at over 40 million actually.


Isn't Microsoft doing this on XBLA? Either launch on XBLA at the same time as PSN or there's no release at all. Again, when talking about a potential monopoly, we're assuming that most people require Steam integration and not just a few NeoGAF freaks. Either release on Steam or only on your small store with no publicity - what a great choice.
I haven't heard any news on Steam restricting games from being released because they're being put on another service. IIRC Steamworks games aren't even required to be sold on Steam. They could use steamworks and sell it only on their website if they wanted to. Actually, I think Project Zomboid is doing something like this. It's not on Steam, it's purchased at their store and it uses Steamworks features. http://projectzomboid.com/blog/index.php/2011/08/just-to-clear-something-up-re-steam/

You also need to consider that even Valve wants to make money. Otherwise they wouldn't take 30% of store sales, but 0%.
Of course they do. They're hosting the game files online along with patching, and the Steamworks features and the several servers across the world that need maintained. The 30% the get is a much better deal than from other digital fronts.
 
It's bad for consumers because it keeps prices artificially high there is no price competition. I don't think it is any coincidence that Minecraft is one of the most expensive indie games you can buy and part of the reason why the price has remained that high is because Notch and Mojang refuse to sell their product anywhere else except via their website which I would say is pretty damn anti-competitive and monopolistic, but apparently that is OK.

Now honestly if that is how Notch wants to do it then fair enough, however he shouldn't be spouting BS about a steam monopoly when he is using monopolistic practices himself.

Minecraft isn't the only game exclusively available on a dev's website. Look at To the Moon, for instance. Unless I'm mistaken, you can only get it from Freebird's website.

Does this make Freebird anti-competitive?

I'll echo the sentiment, though, that saying Steam has a monopoly is kind of insane.
 
I am kinda shocked Valve has not offered a sweetheart deal with a super reduced cut on their end just to drive Steam user numbers up.
 
I am kinda shocked Valve has not offered a sweetheart deal with a super reduced cut on their end just to drive Steam user numbers up.

The one thing I admire the most about Valve is they are fair. They don't make exceptions when people like Notch and EA whine about money and let them do their own thing. Everyone follows the same rules (at least as far as I'm aware).
 
Does this make Freebird anti-competitive?

I'll echo the sentiment, though, that saying Steam has a monopoly is kind of insane.

Yes it does make them anti-competitive because they are restricting where the consumer can purchase their product. If you restrict and control where people can buy your product you are engaging in anti-competitive, monopolistic practices. It doesn't matter if you are Firebird, Microsoft, Mojang or Valve you are still engaging in these practices.

Now as I said I do not have a problem if Notch wants to restrict the sale of his game to his website only (it his game and his right). However I do have a problem when he starts talking BS about "potential steam monopoly" when he is doing exactly the same damn thing with his product.
 
I can understand Notch's position. He's probably the only developer who wouldn't really benefit from selling his game on Steam. His game, as is, is DRM-Free, and has a long tail. He is also rich enough to be able to fling money around like he was Tony Stark. Of all the developers, he's the one who could avoid Steam and still treat the gaming community and his customers with the respect they deserve from a developer.
 
It's bad for consumers because it keeps prices artificially high there is no price competition. I don't think it is any coincidence that Minecraft is one of the most expensive indie games you can buy and part of the reason why the price has remained that high is because Notch and Mojang refuse to sell their product anywhere else except via their website which I would say is pretty damn anti-competitive and monopolistic, but apparently that is OK.

Now honestly if that is how Notch wants to do it then fair enough, however he shouldn't be spouting BS about a steam monopoly when he is using monopolistic practices himself.

Steam can't force a game to go on sale, so even if Notch put it on steam, there is no reason to believe the price will come down.

Of course they have a monopoly on minecraft, they made it. It's their copyright. The reason why the price doesn't goes down is because they are successful. Why would they take a 30% cut, and more importantly why would he encourage consumers into a platform that only gives him 70% instead of going directly to him?
 
Steam is at over 40 million actually.

To clarify a little, the 40 million+ figure refers to active user accounts, with such accounts being defined as those that have been used within the last month.
 
To be honest (and with all due respect) I'm not sure you quite know what a monopoly is, at least that's my impression from the first part. I get what you're trying to say, but it's not a monopoly.

I know what a monopoly is and Mojang is operating one with regards to their product. They refuse to allow ANYONE else to sell their product. You can only purchase Minecraft from Mojang. Now are you telling me that isn't a monopolistic practice ? Refusing to supply your product to other retailers and forcing consumers to buy from Mojangs website and ONLY Mojangs website.
 
The one thing I admire the most about Valve is they are fair. They don't make exceptions when people like Notch and EA whine about money and let them do their own thing. Everyone follows the same rules (at least as far as I'm aware).

one game I know of with a slightly different arrangement is GMod. Valve takes 50% of those sales, not 30.

However it's totally understandable because of the type of "game" GMod is, and how much of Valve's ip it borrows.
 
That statement seems really disingenuous. If he were worried about the Steam monopoly, he'd offer his game on a competing platform to try to drive sales there. You can't break a monopoly by doing nothing.

Further, saying it's a monopoly is pig ignorant. That would imply that there's not healthy competition to keep them honest when in fact there are about a dozen services out there ready to eat Valve's lunch if they ever start fucking up.

This is solely motivated by money and he didn't want to say that so he added some monopoly horseshit because people who don't actually know about the PC DD market wil buy it because Steam seems so ubiquitous.


I know what a monopoly is and Mojang is operating one with regards to their product. They refuse to allow ANYONE else to sell their product. You can only purchase Minecraft from Mojang. Now are you telling me that isn't a monopolistic practice ? Refusing to supply your product to other retailers and forcing consumers to buy from Mojangs website and ONLY Mojangs website.

Absolutely true.

Minecraft has more registered users than Steam (35 million vs. 30+ million). Notch could easily make his own distribution platform for indies.

Good luck to him. People seem pretty happy under Valve's yoke but it never hurts to have some more competition in the marketplace.
 
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

"We find that we get several thousand percent increases in units and revenue on the days of the Steam sales, and unit sales are usually about double the normal for a few weeks after the sales are over," he says.

This year's Summer Sale (which ended July 22) was particularly noteworthy for Runic, as it helped Torchlight hit its second biggest day ever in terms of overall unit sales -- not bad for a game that came out in October 2009.

And Runic's case doesn't seem to be an anomaly; Supergiant Games' Amir Rao tells us that these Steam sales have proven more lucrative than his game's initial debut.

"A lot of times we judge the success of a game -- and predict its sales -- by looking at its launch day numbers. Steam sales have made that delightfully impossible. Our launch day [for Bastion], which we viewed as very strong, is only our fifth best day of sales ever on Steam due to the power of the promotions we've had the opportunity to participate in," Rao says.

According to indie developer and Super Meat Boy co-creator Edmund McMillen, these promotions can increase sales to an almost staggering extent. His 2D dungeon crawler The Binding of Isaac, for example, saw sales multiply by five when it was marked down by 50 percent, and once it hit the front page as a temporary "Flash Deal" (for 75 percent off), sales multiplied by sixty.

You must have read an entirely different article, because it seems to me that merely 100% revenue increase is a very pessimestic estimate.
 
I'll echo the sentiment, though, that saying Steam has a monopoly is kind of insane.

They may not have an actual monopoly, but I might consider them a mindshare monopoly based on how often you hear "no Steam no sale" from people around here.
 
Are people that dense that they are comparing steam to xbla? Its obvious why he decided to make a deal with Microsoft and that's because he can't exactly go ahead and mass produce a console. Whereas delivering the game to pc users is a relatively simple task to carry out without any help from third parties.
 
I know what a monopoly is and Mojang is operating one with regards to their product. They refuse to allow ANYONE else to sell their product. You can only purchase Minecraft from Mojang. Now are you telling me that isn't a monopolistic practice ? Refusing to supply your product to other retailers and forcing consumers to buy from Mojangs website and ONLY Mojangs website.

th_coke-sniff.gif


Please stop. Minecraft.net is not a digital distribution store dedicated to sell all sorts of games (1st and/or 3rd party), it does not compete with any DD store whatsoever, therefore you can't speak about minecraft.net threatening other DD stores with monopoly policies.
 
I know what a monopoly is and Mojang is operating one with regards to their product. They refuse to allow ANYONE else to sell their product. You can only purchase Minecraft from Mojang. Now are you telling me that isn't a monopolistic practice ? Refusing to supply your product to other retailers and forcing consumers to buy from Mojangs website and ONLY Mojangs website.

That's not what a Monopoly is.


At all.


It's impossible to operate a monopoly when only dealing with a single self-contained product with little to no overall market influence.
 
Steam has a dominant position but not a monopoly one obviously. The barrier to entry in the market is so low and I don't think they ever will.

It's bad for consumers because it keeps prices artificially high there is no price competition. I don't think it is any coincidence that Minecraft is one of the most expensive indie games you can buy and part of the reason why the price has remained that high is because Notch and Mojang refuse to sell their product anywhere else except via their website which I would say is pretty damn anti-competitive and monopolistic, but apparently that is OK.

This is complete nonsense. Minecraft's price competition is other games. The producer of a unique product (like a game... any game), has the right to set the price of their product. Setting the price of a product you create is not a monopoly, give me a break.

As for why Minecraft is expensive? The reason why Minecraft is expensive is because it is insanely popular and they sell tons of copies at that price.
 
Top Bottom