Notch speaks again about Minecraft not being on Steam

While we're at it there's needs to be a fucking Steam Light for people like me

Just give me two tabs, my game list, and the store (although without all the bullshit incorporated. Simple lists with one place for deal pics will do)

To me, as it is now it's a serious mess that takes up unnecessary resources. For shame, really, they could change the small mode a bit and it'll do fine, but they probably won't ever change the store as it is now
 
Steam's logo is a hard, geometric, colourless symbol of power and metallic strength. The abundance of relatively meaningless stat information and graphs is typically a very masculine thing. The colours and shapes in the interface are also fairly masculine. The spacing and layout information is very dense, with dramatic black shadowy visuals for every area.

Amazon, Spotify, GOG, Apple, Google and even Play.com have design that doesn't look like the male equivalent of pink with flowered unicorns.

Like, I'm open to the idea that steam's interface may be overly masculine. But why are information dense layouts, (meaningless) graphs and stats something only for men? Because I really don't follow. Your assertions might even be pretty insulting to women who do find those things interesting.
 
30% seems excessive for just putting a game on their service.
For a small developer like me, 30% sounds great to have my game available to millions without spending a dime on advertising. I understand what Notch is saying but his sentiments aren't synonymous with indie developers.

Some indie devs see Steam as a badge. It means something to be accepted by Valve for some and with Greenlight hitting soon - it will mean more to become accepted by the gaming community first.

I don't agree with his "monopoly" statement as Valve is not trying to force other products out of market (patent litigation, mobile OS, current events) - Valve instead creates a service many like to use and miles ahead of competitors. If Steam does become a monopoly it will only be because so many people choose that system over other systems currently in market, not by force.

I do say he can do whatever he wants with his games and sell them as he pleases. But I do believe there are diehards that would only buy through Steam. Technically, those are lost sales. He has the potential to make more money by selling through Steam, yet he is actively deciding against it.

To me, I'd rather sell my game for 10 bucks and return with 7 of them back to my company than not sell that game and return with 0. Those that will buy direct, will. Those that will wait for Steam will wait or not purchase direct.
 
I've voiced my concerns about the integration of community and distribution platforms in general, and about the dominant position of Steam in particular, before here on GAF. I'm happy to see that at least some people in the industry agree.
Steam only maintains that position because people choose to use it. They aren't forcing anyone. I'm not trying to stick up for Steam but there are alternatives that people can and do use.

I don't subscribe to a single-service theory where everything will be sunshine and roses, I use multiple. Steam is what everyone made it: huge. Its due to where the general gaming public places trust with their dollar.

Just like brain-dead reality TV shows. They wouldn't be sucking the life out of people if they didn't want that life sucked out to begin with. Probably a bad analogy but I'm tired.
 
Steam only maintains that position because people choose to use it. They aren't forcing anyone. I'm not trying to stick up for Steam but there are alternatives that people can and do use.

I don't subscribe to a single-service theory where everything will be sunshine and roses, I use multiple. Steam is what everyone made it: huge. Its due to where the general gaming public places trust with their dollar.

Just like brain-dead reality TV shows. They wouldn't be sucking the life out of people if they didn't want that life sucked out to begin with. Probably a bad analogy but I'm tired.

I would agree with this, and personally I use a few different places to get games and to go through community features. The reason I keep coming back to steam is because it is easy and has all the features of the other services I use in one place. There are still a few things it lacks, like video capture(or at least none that I've found on it) and the ability to create a VPN to play LAN games with friends. For that I use Hamachi and Evolve, depending on which group of friends I play with. But I also buy games from other storefronts, and a steam key is just a nice bonus because of the features that it provides.

I honestly think that the steam diehards are probably a vocal minority in the total gaming community. It just seems that they are associated too easily with steam, when steam should be praised for its good features and critiqued for its bad, it seems that a lot of people think about in terms of the diehard fans.
 
Steam 'fandom' is pretty gross at times, and certainly the 'identity' of the store with its dudebro grey application skin can be offputting to some potential customers. However perhaps that really is the face of PC games.

Girls don't like grey application skins?
Last I heard, girls liked grey so much they were buying a book all about 50 different shades of it.

Edit: ohhhh, necrobump, sorry y'all. Got linked here from the other thread and didn't see how old it was :(
 
I knew this thread would be bumped the moment I read JaseC's post about that dudebro comment. Holy shit!
 
I do remember thinking when we went from green steam to black steam that the new interface oozed a bit more of 15 year old boy CS clan homepage but in a good looking kind of way. The old one felt more like neutral PC software.

This reminds me of how much i miss the old UI
The military camouflage colour choice was terrible. There's your male dominance.


Current steam with Pixelvision looks very slick, Big Picture Mode as well.
 
I'm sure there are plenty of developers who actually appreciate the Steamworks services because they can add a lot of things to their games that would expensive and probably not as good if they tried to develop them internally. I also think the 30% cut isn't that bad when you consider what a traditional publisher usually takes as a cut in a brick and mortar scenario, or distribution costs, etc.

As competition increases I'm sure Steam will change their business model some, but you have to realize that 30% isn't just a tax, they're actually getting their game listed on the #1 most visited DD gaming site on the internet.
 
I know plenty of people who won't buy a game if it's not on Steam or has a Steamkey at least. On the other hand, if it weren't for Steam, they wouldn't consider buying the game in the first place.

Not saying it's like this for everyone, but just putting things in perspective. Steam hasn't built their dominance only on the backs of other services, they've cultivated a base on their own, parts of which simply would not exist without Steam.
 
The other way of looking at this is that if it went up on Steam, I'd probably double dip & I'm sure there are plenty of others who would too.
 
Top Bottom