Why and how did Steam get so big?

Tagyhag

Member
They had a long term plan and stuck to their guns. Steam was absolute crap when it came out but instead of scrapping it all in the face of universal criticism they continued to build upon it and it became the service it is today.

The same scenario could have happened to Microsoft if they didn't back down (Or not considering it's Microsoft).
 

Geedorah

Member
Isn't their support notably bad?

Their support is absolutely horrendous. They treat the customer like thugs and take forever to respond to even the most time sensitive of concerns.

That said, I still have bought hundreds of games via Steam - and will continue to. Dem sales.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Steam is so big and yet all I want back is this.

zlBJq8V.png

It could very well happen now that Steam Community supports notifications for turn-based games.
 

Eusis

Member
They had a long term plan and stuck to their guns. Steam was absolute crap when it came out but instead of scrapping it all in the face of universal criticism they continued to build upon it and it became the service it is today.

The same scenario could have happened to Microsoft if they didn't back down (Or not considering it's Microsoft).
One of those key differences was ownership, and it may even have been the one thing Steam got right from the offset. You had old Half Life keys laying around, you activated them and got the whole package. For Microsoft you'd need to put it into GFWL yet you were still bound to the DVDs you got even for installation despite having to tie the key to an account, and it sounded like their method was very open to exploit anyway for activating games you never bought. Even EA got that one right.

So, yeah, I don't think Microsoft ever REALLY stood a chance, likely because they were actually big enough to really want to compromise with retailers more. Even EA seemed better situated there.
 
They started small but basically pioneered it. In 2010 is when it truly got big with a client overhaul and many features,sales and support added.
 
Steam Sales.

If you're offering the same game as the other guy but it's 60-75% cheaper, people are going to choose to buy from you.
 
Steam effectively pursued a slow, steady, growth-oriented strategy, creating their own customer base instead of following what the rest of the market was doing.

In 2005, updating games was a pain in the ass: you'd have to download (from slow, unreliable sites) patches and manually apply them yourself, carefully managing the order, often having to reinstall from scratch and start over, and watch carefully for when these patches were hitting. Steam fixed this for Valve's own games (after a long period of slow improvement), and then became the first service to fix this for other people's games.

In 2005, buying games was a pain in the ass too: most storefronts had time or quantity limits on downloads; many of them were difficult to buy from, or poorly organized, or had weird gaps in their library. Steam pursued a fairly extensive library early on, made purchasing trivially easy, and helped sell the idea of a permanent library of games that you could buy once, then install anywhere with one click.

In 2005, lots of games came with inconvenient, frustrating DRM that made life hard for the person who bought the game. You'd often have to deal with limited activations or random interactions with other parts of the system (like how SecuROM sometimes broke image-mounting software) Steam successfully identified the least-viable-impact point for DRM: Valve built out something that didn't hook into the OS, didn't affect anything else on your system, and was almost entirely seamless to the user.

In 2005, people were annoyed about digital download pricing; the idea of paying full price for an ephemeral download seemed horrible compared to owning a permanent copy of something. Steam took a two-pronged approach to that: it added value (first eternal downloads and install-anywhere; later stuff like achievements, trading cards, community features, etc.) to make a download purchase seem worthwhile, and it used an aggressive sales strategy to reduce the overall price impact of buying digital games (and to get people to spring for titles they might otherwise pass up, and to create a real long-tail of sales.)

Combine all that along with other trends (better OS support and falling prices making PC gaming more appealing in general; the HD systems making ports of AAA console games far more common; the re-emergence of PC indie gaming and the secondary support systems like bundles that followed) and Steam was just a natural system for PC gamers to congregate around.
 

HariKari

Member
Right place, right time, no one does it better. Steam was garbage the first few years, though. Basically lifted PC gaming out of the dark ages.
 

Sulik2

Member
Steam effectively pursued a slow, steady, growth-oriented strategy, creating their own customer base instead of following what the rest of the market was doing.

In 2005, updating games was a pain in the ass: you'd have to download (from slow, unreliable sites) patches and manually apply them yourself, carefully managing the order, often having to reinstall from scratch and start over, and watch carefully for when these patches were hitting. Steam fixed this for Valve's own games (after a long period of slow improvement), and then became the first service to fix this for other people's games.

In 2005, buying games was a pain in the ass too: most storefronts had time or quantity limits on downloads; many of them were difficult to buy from, or poorly organized, or had weird gaps in their library. Steam pursued a fairly extensive library early on, made purchasing trivially easy, and helped sell the idea of a permanent library of games that you could buy once, then install anywhere with one click.

In 2005, lots of games came with inconvenient, frustrating DRM that made life hard for the person who bought the game. You'd often have to deal with limited activations or random interactions with other parts of the system (like how SecuROM sometimes broke image-mounting software) Steam successfully identified the least-viable-impact point for DRM: Valve built out something that didn't hook into the OS, didn't affect anything else on your system, and was almost entirely seamless to the user.

In 2005, people were annoyed about digital download pricing; the idea of paying full price for an ephemeral download seemed horrible compared to owning a permanent copy of something. Steam took a two-pronged approach to that: it added value (first eternal downloads and install-anywhere; later stuff like achievements, trading cards, community features, etc.) to make a download purchase seem worthwhile, and it used an aggressive sales strategy to reduce the overall price impact of buying digital games (and to get people to spring for titles they might otherwise pass up, and to create a real long-tail of sales.)

Combine all that along with other trends (better OS support and falling prices making PC gaming more appealing in general; the HD systems making ports of AAA console games far more common; the re-emergence of PC indie gaming and the secondary support systems like bundles that followed) and Steam was just a natural system for PC gamers to congregate around.

Fantastic synopsis man.
 

Omega

Banned
Valve made a long term plan and stuck to it, I'm assuming. They're pretty smart.

this

unlike how Microsoft tried GFWL, saw that PC gamers weren't stupid enough to pay to play the games they already owned and abandoned ship quickly.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
In addition to Charlequin's summery, I think Steam's social layer going a long way towards mimicking Xbox Live has had something to do with it. Microsoft did key in on what the western game player wanted to have at their fingertips in terms of communications and organization. At this point, Steam has actually surpassed the model and gone beyond what Live itself offers. It seems the more Steam adds in this respect, the further it locks in a loyal userbase.

After all, we have Big Picture Mode and SteamOS itself as a testament to the notion that people would want Steam to be their primary PC experience and interface as far as gaming goes.
 

>:)

Member
They closed down WON and forced their whole giant multiplayer base over to Steam.

This. Was not all wine and roses when it happened too (QUITE the opposite), but thankfully they managed to work out the kinks into what it is today.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
i dont really get the whole PC games were hard to update issue. Even going back to 2001/2002 games were starting to come with launchers where you could auto-patch.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Can't believe how many people that didn't realize what a huge role CS/DOD/mods played in making Steam relevant. From 2004-2007ish that was it's primary function and hundreds of thousands of people used it every day.

i dont really get the whole PC games were hard to update issue. Even going back to 2001/2002 games were starting to come with launchers where you could auto-patch.


It wasn't that they were hard to update, it was just hard to get everyone on the same version (servers and users) in a timely fashion. So, when a new update rolled out, if you updated right away it could be days before your favorite server did as well.

God forbid an update was ever borked. Then the people who downloaded right away were fucked until Valve made a fix for it.
 
It was the first DD service that I was confident to throw money at due to all of those reasons above.

Never forget that the EA downloader made you pay extra to redownload their games. Shame on them.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
It wasn't that they were hard to update,
Thats what many people including charlequins post bring up. In the late-90s? Sure. But by 2005? Thats not how i remember things. The earliest game i remember with auto-patching was NWN. You click and it was done.

it was just hard to get everyone on the same version (servers and users) in a timely fashion. So, when a new update rolled out, if you updated right away it could be days before your favorite server did as well.

God forbid an update was ever borked. Then the people who downloaded right away were fucked until Valve made a fix for it.
Wouldnt this still be an issue today with games using private servers?
 
I don't want to say it was all because of Half Life 2 and the source engine, but honestly... I wouldn't be surprised if that was a huge part in it. Half Life 2 probably exposed a lot of people to steam; I'm pretty sure that's how I started using it. Then I saw how convenient it was to use, and then eventually the steam sales started, and the mods for Half Life 2 kept me using it frequently. I can't imagine I was the only one that got into steam this way.

From there it just snowballed for 7 years and now we've got the steam of today.
 

li bur

Member
Well it initially sucked but the idea was very forward in terms of digital distribution. The only way people bought in was that Half Life 2 was really good and required it. It started as a DRM layer but I think they took a look at how consoles were developing and took a lot of queues from Microsoft and XBL and incorporated them in such a way that it made Steam seem less like a DRM tool and more of a thing you wanted to run. Then they started the steep discounting and people bought a ton of games they were never going to play but happily paid for and devs liked this. And now we're where we are now.

Yeah its always fascinate me that steam can implement their very own DRM (although not draconian) and they didn't get shitted on the internet. I guess the other publisher see that phenomenon and grab Steam as their DRM provider and distributor. And more and more publisher is working with steam and thus steam library increase and became to go to place for PC Gaming digital distribution.
 
They have never tried to screw people over in order to make a buck. They genuinely seems to care unlike the EA's and Activisions of the world.
 
Many people have listed many correct reasons, like a long term strategy, sales, convenience, etc.
The root of it all, though? The fact that the people Valve has to please are their customers, not stockholders or a board of directors. No quarterly report to show, no pressure to double or triple revenue year over year (although they certainly have) and no demands to conform to other "successful" ideas or strategies.
In the end, it was Gabe's strategic vision and financial independence that made Valve the pioneering, trailblazing and revolutionary behemoth it is today.



Once Gabe retires, though.... the uncertainty begins.
 

sector4

Member
to keep it short and simple

Half life 2 was the trojan horse and through competitive pricing such as steam sales they built up loyalty

It took AWHILE tho for that too happen. I think alot of people forgot how much shit they got during the early days.
What I came into say, well put.
What made Steam so bad in its early years?
It was mandatory to have steam to install Half Life 2, a lot of people didn't like that and you needed to connect it to the internet to install it. That was kind of a big deal back in 2004.
 

Deacan

9/10 NeoGAFfers don't understand statistics. The other 3/10 don't care.
I do not miss the days of having to download patches, often from awful websites with download paywalls and huge queues.
 

10k

Banned
Steam effectively pursued a slow, steady, growth-oriented strategy, creating their own customer base instead of following what the rest of the market was doing.

In 2005, updating games was a pain in the ass: you'd have to download (from slow, unreliable sites) patches and manually apply them yourself, carefully managing the order, often having to reinstall from scratch and start over, and watch carefully for when these patches were hitting. Steam fixed this for Valve's own games (after a long period of slow improvement), and then became the first service to fix this for other people's games.

In 2005, buying games was a pain in the ass too: most storefronts had time or quantity limits on downloads; many of them were difficult to buy from, or poorly organized, or had weird gaps in their library. Steam pursued a fairly extensive library early on, made purchasing trivially easy, and helped sell the idea of a permanent library of games that you could buy once, then install anywhere with one click.

In 2005, lots of games came with inconvenient, frustrating DRM that made life hard for the person who bought the game. You'd often have to deal with limited activations or random interactions with other parts of the system (like how SecuROM sometimes broke image-mounting software) Steam successfully identified the least-viable-impact point for DRM: Valve built out something that didn't hook into the OS, didn't affect anything else on your system, and was almost entirely seamless to the user.

In 2005, people were annoyed about digital download pricing; the idea of paying full price for an ephemeral download seemed horrible compared to owning a permanent copy of something. Steam took a two-pronged approach to that: it added value (first eternal downloads and install-anywhere; later stuff like achievements, trading cards, community features, etc.) to make a download purchase seem worthwhile, and it used an aggressive sales strategy to reduce the overall price impact of buying digital games (and to get people to spring for titles they might otherwise pass up, and to create a real long-tail of sales.)

Combine all that along with other trends (better OS support and falling prices making PC gaming more appealing in general; the HD systems making ports of AAA console games far more common; the re-emergence of PC indie gaming and the secondary support systems like bundles that followed) and Steam was just a natural system for PC gamers to congregate around.
Should have been first post. Just edit the OP and put this in quotes and close the thread. Excellent post.
 

Forkball

Member
Orange Box was really what launched it into the savior of PC gaming. It came out in 2007, the same year Valve secured a lot of big named publishers to distribute titles on Steam. Hard to believe in 2007, Steam had about 150 game total. Most of us have that many games in our backlog.
 
They're also well-motivated and privately owned.

I do not miss the days of having to download patches, often from awful websites with download paywalls and huge queues.

Fileplanet.

Those iffy offshore places when that was down or not working.

All that needs to be said.
 

industrian

will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
No shareholders to appease, a fundamental understanding of the problems of the PC game market, and a lot of hard work, money & - most importantly - time. The fact it was built around heavy-hitters like Counter-Strike helped too.

I'm feeling insanely old now. I remember buying the Half-Life 2 Special Edition (the big metal tin) in December 2004 and signing up for Steam for the first time. Up until they released SiN Episodes 1 that Steam store was a ghost town. Then, little by little, it started opening up. It's amazing in retrospect seeing how gigantic Steam has got when you compare it to the absolute clusterfuck that it was at launch and the issues that bogged it down until a few years ago (and indeed, to this day.)
 

Osiris397

Banned
PC retail game sales always sucked so the thing was there hadn't been retailer that focussed solely on selling PC games online or digitally and I suspect Gabe Newell and company pretty much said "It can't be any worse than retail PC games, but going digital offers a level of convenience that may spark more gamers interests that all have PCs. Companies were already into selling digital copies of games, but no one really stepped up to include games outside of a first party game.
 
i dont really get the whole PC games were hard to update issue. Even going back to 2001/2002 games were starting to come with launchers where you could auto-patch.

Which just meant that you were dependent on what each individual game did. (And even some of the big ones didn't do a good job, like Blizzard's terrible BitTorrent implementation.) Steam helped make it more consistent across many games, even indie titles that couldn't easily implement their own updaters.

Can't believe how many people that didn't realize what a huge role CS/DOD/mods played in making Steam relevant. From 2004-2007ish that was it's primary function and hundreds of thousands of people used it every day.

Also a great point.
 

MEsoJD

Banned
They did den right by enhancing the gameplay experience. Not just that, but there's this sense of humanity/community on steam unlike a service like origin.
 
Top Bottom