Support NeoGAF

[Card Boy]

i'm not sure whats happened lately but it seems like some people are finally realizing what Steam and its platform within a platform actually means for PC gaming. ive been ridiculed quite a bit for my beliefs so its nice to see well-respected and more eloquent people espouse similar ideas.

I'm a tiny bit guilty of buying all my games on Steam, but only buy at 75% off or nothing. But i don't flat out refuse to not get a game because its not on Steam and make excuses like "But Steam deletes my shortcuts!". It's really idiotic some people flat out ignoring GW2, Minecraft and PoE just because it's not on Steam.

One of these days Valve will become corrupt like EA, mark my works. The early signs are already there. It may not be within 5 years but one of these days Valve will stop giving a shit because they will have no reason to. This is the problem with a client based system, they have you by the balls for life.

 

[Wiktor]

One of these days Valve will become corrupt like EA, mark my works. The early signs are already there. It may not be within 5 years but one of these days Valve will stop giving a shit because they will have no reason to. This is the problem with a client based system, they have you by the balls for life.

THat's not always bad though. 5 years ago? Sure, but not today when a lot of signs points to Microsoft attempting to turn Windows into closed system where their marketplace is the only store in town. People having their balls nicely in Valve's grasp is the best chance of avoiding that, as people will stick with older open versions of OS if the new ones make them loose thousands dollars they've spend at Steam

 

[water_wendi]

THat's not always bad though. 5 years ago? Sure, but not today when a lot of signs points to Microsoft attempting to turn Windows into closed system where their marketplace is the only store in town. People having their balls nicely in Valve's grasp is the best chance of avoiding that, as people will stick with older open versions of OS if the new ones make them loose thousands dollars they've spend at Steam

This doesnt make much sense to me. If Windows 8 is horrible it will suffer the same fate as Vista. You dont need Steam holding your gaming library for that.

 

[Wiktor]

This doesnt make much sense to me. If Windows 8 is horrible it will suffer the same fate as Vista. You dont need Steam holding your gaming library for that.

You mean the Vista that sold 400 mln units? :]
And W8 isn't horrible. It's going to be great OS, and W9 will be even better. Casual users don't care if the system is closed as long as it works great.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

i'm not sure whats happened lately but it seems like some people are finally realizing what Steam and its platform within a platform actually means for PC gaming. ive been ridiculed quite a bit for my beliefs so its nice to see well-respected and more eloquent people espouse similar ideas.

It's because you have some pretty.... out there.... beliefs.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Just an observation by reading several pages of this thread, but it is rather interesting that some people attach the term "greed" to Notch as if trying to make him appear like the "bad guy" in this whole matter, hmmm.....

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Just an observation by reading several pages of this thread, but it is rather interesting that some people attach the term "greed" to Notch as if trying to make him appear like the "bad guy" in this whole matter, hmmm.....

Greed is thrown around a lot here. Same as "sell out".

 

[water_wendi]

You mean the Vista that sold 400 mln units? :]
And W8 isn't horrible. It's going to be great OS, and W9 will be even better. Casual users don't care if the system is closed as long as it works great.

im talking more about gamers adoption. Maybe my recollection is off but Vista was pushed as a gaming platform and Microsoft failed to live up to that (for several reasons). i was selling computers at the time and most gamers held off upgrading to Vista regardless of DX10 support. If Windows 8 is not the preferred OS for gaming, gamers will skip it.

 

[Wiktor]

If Windows 8 is not the preferred OS for gaming, gamers will skip it.

Skip to what? Windows 7 camed out and people jumped on it. What if W9 is closed? And W10 and 11 is closed to? You think most gamers wouldn't upgrade? Of course they would. THe thing that could stop them is if they would loose their gaming libraries because of that.

 

[EGM1966]

Given Minecraft has sold perfectly fine on PC without Steam or any other storefront I get this. I mean, I never thought for a moment it would appear anywhere else. The game is available on PC already why make it available via another less profitable source?

What I want to know is why it's only on XBLA and not PSN too though. That's the one I'm curious about. From my perspective if he wants widest access to his game and a level playing field then it should be on PSN too - he might see himself avoiding a monopoly on PC but he's merrily helping with console exclusives at the same time which seems at odds with his other positioning.

 

[bede-x]

Nothing has sold 10 million copies on Steam. There is a chance that Half-life 2 broke 5M on Steam, and I don't know how well the digital version of Counter-Strike has sold. The retail version was huge, but it was in decline before Steam really exploded in popularity. Team Fortress 2 is probably over 5M downloads by now, but it wasn't before going F2P.

Skyrim is by far the best selling third party game of all time on Steam (maybe the best selling game period after Half-life 2), but I sort of doubt it got anywhere close 5M copies on Steam alone. Maybe the PC version is around that number. Who knows. Bethesda rarely releases their sales beyond launch window. We know that Skyrim shipped 10M copies in its first month, and that the console versions were around 5M sold in the US alone by the end of December.

Minecraft has likely outsold every game on Steam. I think massive sales on Steam means 1-2M copies, with very few indie titles ever reaching that level. Lots of Steam success stories in the 500k+ range though.

Your numbers are where I thought they would be, so it makes perfect sense for Notch not to be on Steam until sales slow down and he's ready to sell it much cheaper. On Steam there really is no precedent for a game selling at Minecrafts prices and selling those numbers.

I find it interesting that even with the many sales no game breaks into the high millions of sales on the service.

Comments like these make me wonder if I've had a superhuman memory my entire life and nobody told me. You seriously can't remember which games you own?

That can actually get pretty hard when you start owning lots of games, especially with those titles that just go into storage(closet, garage, harddrive or somewhere else). If he has a large collection, I understand where he's coming from.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Skip to what? Windows 7 camed out and people jumped on it. What if W9 is closed? And W10 and 11 is closed to? You think most gamers wouldn't upgrade? Of course they would. THe thing that could stop them is if they would loose their gaming libraries because of that.

They jumped on W7 because it was superior to Vista.

If they don't jump on W8 for perceived problems, why would they go to 9 & 10 if they still exhibit those problems.

There's a reason why microsoft has been forced to support XP through to next year.

 

[Visualante2]

Had I not bought Minecraft in alpha, at the heavy discount I wouldn't be comfortable buying Minecraft. Expensive game now, for what you get and considering how little it has changed since multiplayer was added.

Curious why he cites 30% when technically he is still an independent. Should really qualify for the indie fee rate imo. At what point do you become a major publisher? Notch is doing little different to what Jon Blow does by publishing another game.

Lot of people calling him out on the Microsoft deal. Unless you know the specifics of that contract (no doubt under NDA) you can hush up. For all we know Microsoft paid Mojang a fee to make it exclusive to 360, with Mojang keeping 90% of the revenue. It's like a supermarket buying up land their competitors (Sony, Nintendo, Apple) might want to develop on.

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.

Talk about devaluation. That sleazy advert devalues the indie bundle.

 

[Wiktor]

If they don't jump on W8 for perceived problems, why would they go to 9 & 10 if they still exhibit those problems.

Because you can't survive decades on unsupported OS. People might skip one OS, but not three or four. Especially once games would stop getting released for it.
The only thing that would be able to change Microsoft's mind about closing up the OS is huge backslash and without gamers loosing their games it just won't happen.

 

[dk_]

Now that Minecraft is on Xbox Live all his arguments are sort of dumb.

 

[ZenaxPure]

Just an observation by reading several pages of this thread, but it is rather interesting that some people attach the term "greed" to Notch as if trying to make him appear like the "bad guy" in this whole matter, hmmm.....

It is greed though, right? I mean the definition of greed basically is wanting "more", which is one of Notch's big points (not taking a cut from Steam). That said, I don't think it's being used as a negative term here (or it shouldn't be). Notch is making a smart business decision for his company, it just also happens to be one that lines his bank account with more cash, but, there isn't anything wrong with that. Any normal person would do the same thing in his shoes.

 

[water_wendi]

Because you can't survive decades on unsupported OS. People might skip one OS, but not three or four. Especially once games would stop getting released for it.

Well its never happened so we'll cross that bridge if we ever get there. The main thing is, regardless of what ambitions Microsoft has, its the developers and their customers that ultimately run the show. If gamers wont switch to Windows 8 through Windows 27, developers will focus on making things Windows 7 compatible first if thats where the customers are.

edit: i really wouldnt classify Notchs "greed" in even the same realm as Valves. The entire thing of Steam is basically building a monopoly off of other peoples work. If you didnt already know would you be surprised at all to learn that Valve is headed by a former Microsoft guy?

 

[Lancehead]

One of these days Valve will become corrupt like EA, mark my works. The early signs are already there. It may not be within 5 years but one of these days Valve will stop giving a shit because they will have no reason to. This is the problem with a client based system, they have you by the balls for life.

Valve have (and will have) plenty of reasons to care about Steam. The primary being, as Valve have stated numerous times, they want to use Steam to help both the developers and consumers to create value with products. But I'm guessing that won't be counted among "reasons to give a shit" because it sounds all well and noble, and despite the fact that Steam has demonstrated fulfilling that purpose to a large extent. If Valve have said the only reason they care about Steam is to make money, then I'm pretty sure it'd be counted as a "reason to give a shit".

The effects of "platform within a platform" on PC gaming is a valid argument that can be made without resorting to contrived scenarios such as Valve going corrupt.

 

[Walshicus]

There's a reason why microsoft has been forced to support XP through to next year.

Isn't that just how long they support all their OS'? Nobody forced them to support that far out.

 

[bede-x]

edit: i really wouldnt classify Notchs "greed" in even the same realm as Valves. The entire thing of Steam is basically building a monopoly off of other peoples work. If you didnt already know would you be surprised at all to learn that Valve is headed by a former Microsoft guy?

Oh, come on. They're running a digital shop, just like many others, only more successful than most. Where someone used to work is as irrational an argument as can be found.

And Steam is no where near a monopoly.

 

[Game Guru]

Because you can't survive decades on unsupported OS. People might skip one OS, but not three or four. Especially once games would stop getting released for it.
The only thing that would be able to change Microsoft's mind about closing up the OS is huge backslash and without gamers loosing their games it just won't happen.

You ignore the possibly that after multiple iterations of PC gamers not putting up with a closed off system and unable to just stick with Windows 7, they will move to Mac and Linux where they can play a subset of the games they bought on, say, Steam. After all, why do you think Gabe Newell is porting Steam to Linux? You think if most gamers were so unaccepting of the closing off of Windows and decided to say "Screw it" and moved to Linux, the games would not then follow, even ports of games that had previously been Windows only?

Windows is successful as a gaming platform because it is where all the PC games have gone for the past 17 years. You take that backcatalog away by closing the system off, and Windows will lose that advantage and end up no better than a Linux machine for gaming.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

And Steam is no where near a monopoly.

It's not one, yet, no, and it's not a traditional monopoly. It's more of a mental monopoly at this stage.

Just look at some of the posts in this very thread.

 

[water_wendi]

Oh, come on. They're running a digital shop, just like many others, only more successful than most. Where someone used to work is as irrational an argument as can be found.

And Steam is no where near a monopoly.

Almost all of Valves tactics with Steam scream monopolistic. From how Steam was birthed to the free games to Steamworks. Many of these are straight from the old Microsoft playbook. i find many of these things highly questionable.

 

[elektrixx]

I'd be more encouraged to play Minecraft if saw it update when I started Steam.

 

[JaseC]

Almost all of Valves tactics with Steam scream monopolistic. From [why] Steam was birthed

To patch Valve games?

to the free games

Most of which are available elsewhere and don't require Steam (assuming by "free" you mean "free2play")?

to Steamworks [games].

That, yes, require Steam, but are free to be sold elsewhere?

The notion that Steam is, or is becoming, a monopoly is rendered untrue by virtue of the PC being an open platform. Even today, at a point where such fear mongering is becoming more common, there are more PC games that don't require Steam than otherwise.

 

[Lancehead]

Almost all of Valves tactics with Steam scream monopolistic. From how Steam was birthed to the free games to Steamworks. Many of these are straight from the old Microsoft playbook. i find many of these things highly questionable.

How is Steamworks a monopolistic tactic?

 

[Javaman]

I think even with them taking 30% off the top it would still be worth it for him to try and get it on there. Due to the fact that quite a few people that already own the game will double dip just to have it on Steam and those are sales they would have never been able to get just having it on their website.

Also he wouldn't have to worry about bandwidth costs. Friend's list integration would be a huge boon to mp.

 

[water_wendi]

To patch Valve games?

A Trojan horse in one of the most anticipated PC releases.

Most of which are available elsewhere and don't require Steam (assuming by "free" you mean "free2play")?

The casinos do similar things. Get people in with free buffets. They might not drop any money in the slot machines but its a numbers game. If you believe that getting F2P games on Steam or releasing TF2 for free was a thank you to the world, i would think that you are too trusting.

That, yes, require Steam, but are free to be sold elsewhere?

Provide free DRM to developers. Get new marketing audience regardless of where they bought the game. It expands Steams influence to its competitors. It would be no different than buying a title from Best Buy and having to log on to Gamestop to load up the game.

The notion that Steam is, or is becoming, a monopoly is rendered untrue by virtue of the PC being an open platform. Even today, at a point where such fear mongering is becoming more common, there are more PC games that don't require Steam than otherwise.

And this is rendered untrue because Steam is its own platform.

 

[JaseC]

A Trojan horse in one of the most anticipated PC releases.

Steam existed well before 2004.

The casinos do similar things. Get people in with free buffets. They might not drop any money in the slot machines but its a numbers game. If you believe that getting F2P games on Steam or releasing TF2 for free was a thank you to the world, i would think that you are too trusting.

Again, most F2P games that are available on Steam both neither require it nor are exclusive to it.

Provide free DRM to developers. Get new marketing audience regardless of where they bought the game. It expands Steams influence to its competitors. It would be no different than buying a title from Best Buy and having to log on to Gamestop to load up the game.

Yes, but it's not a "monopolistic practice" because there are alternatives.

And this is rendered untrue because Steam is its own platform.

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[water_wendi]

Steam existed well before 2004.

You can try to deny that Half-Life 2 was instrumental to Steams success but im not buying it.

Again, most F2P games that are available on both neither require it nor are exclusive to it.

Yet there are a decent number of people that refuse to play even free games unless they are on Steam.

Yes, but it's not a "monopolistic practice" because there are alternatives.

i feel Valve exerting influence in such a way is monopolistic. The fact that Valve has not only attempted such a thing but has undoubtedly succeeded should set off alarm bells.

This doesn't even make sense.

You mention that the PC is an open platform. The problem comes that Steam is a platform on a platform and that platform is not open. Ten years from now when you are using Windows 9 you will need Steam to play your games. It matters not what OS you are running.. you will always need Steam to play the games you bought there. Always.

 

[Wiktor]

Yet there are a decent number of people that refuse to play even free games unless they are on Steam.

They are in minority of Steam users though and Steam users themselves are in minority of all pcgamers.

League of Legends alone propably has as many users as whole Steam.

 

[foogles]

I generally agree with Notch.

Whenever I bring up this topic around gamer-type people and put this opinion out, I always get the same kind of thing from them: "How can you love PC gaming so much yet be so negative about Steam?" I'm not negative. Of course I respect Valve's commitment to PC gaming, and sloughing it out through years of negative comments about Steam and such. But to *want* Valve to have a monopoly over how the next generation of PC games are sold (as in, all-digital) is not really a wonderful idea, because who knows what will happen to Valve in two or five years' time? What if Gabe decides he's done and sells his company to Microsoft? EA? ATVI?

Sure, you have to remember a login to another digital distribution service. Same goes with nearly every website you log into, along with a million other places - what's one or two more? I'm not suggesting that every publisher should be making their own download system, and it does seem like that's starting to happen (EA, Square Enix, and Ubisoft all have their own services now), but friendly competition in business is good in nearly every situation, and I don't see how this is an exception. Unless, you know, you find it difficult remembering another login and password.

And no, not every developer can just "put their games on Steam". Valve has rules, stipulations, and they can reject a game for any reason. Sure, they've announced efforts to change that for indie developers, but with enough major publishers putting up competing services, it's become clear that a good chunk of companies would rather lose some sales from not being on Steam over dealing with Valve. If it was just one company, I'd say it might be a fluke or just some company foolishly thinking they can easily roll their own, but it's not just one.

 

[JaseC]

You can try to deny that Half-Life 2 was instrumental to Steams success but im not buying it.

Stop moving the goalposts. You asserted that Half-Life 2 is the reason Steam was brought into existence, but that's not true.

Yet there are a decent number of people that refuse to play even free games unless they are on Steam.

And? That doesn't change the fact these games do not require Steam and are available outside of it.

i feel Valve exerting influence in such a way is monopolistic. The fact that Valve has not only attempted such a thing but has undoubtedly succeeded should set off alarm bells.

Okay.

You mention that the PC is an open platform. The problem comes that Steam is a platform on a platform and that platform is not open. Ten years from now when you are using Windows 9 you will need Steam to play your games. It matters not what OS you are running.. you will always need Steam to play the games you bought there. Always.

We seem to be talking past each other here. You're considering Steam as a platform within itself, but my point is that Steam is not the only avenue for PC gaming.

 

[Drkirby]

If anything, you are not arguing that vavle is monopolistic, but predatory. Which is usually a flimsy argument. They are a company that is trying to get as much of the market to use their service, in order to try and push their agenda on gaming consumers and producers.

What are you actually arguing for wendi, that you want us to boycott Valve for providing too good of a service compared to other companies? While Valve is trying to push an agenda, I support what they are trying to accomplish.

 

[water_wendi]

Stop moving the goalposts. You asserted that Half-Life 2 is the reason Steam was brought into existence, but that's not true.

First off, i now see why we are just talking at each other on this point. You changed my quote to say "why" instead of "how."

The how. i have a problem with how Steam was essentially put out there. It was a Trojan horse.

The why. Steam was launched to become a digital storefront. Is there really a debate on this point?

 

[Wiktor]

Well its never happened so we'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.

Sorry, but that's a terrible strategy. By then it might be already too late to avoid huge damage. What we need is non-metro gaming (browser, F2P, Steam etc) to continue growing, while W8 marketplace staying a small niche. This way Microsoft will never attempt to close the system down.

 

[water_wendi]

What are you actually arguing for wendi, that you want us to boycott Valve for providing too good of a service compared to other companies? While Valve is trying to push an agenda, I support what they are trying to accomplish.

So what would you do if, for example, Steam stops providing "too good of a service?" As a consumer, what are your options?

 

[JaseC]

First off, i now see why we are just talking at each other on this point. You changed my quote to say "why" instead of "how."

The how. i have a problem with how Steam was essentially put out there. It was a Trojan horse.

Because "birthed" means "to come into existence". "From how Steam was birthed" would refer to the catalyst for its development, but the answer to that is the same -- a digital delivery service to support Valve's mulitplayer titles (namely Counter-Strike).

The why. Steam was launched to become a digital storefront. Is there really a debate on this point?

No, it wasn't. Half-Life 2 was the first game to be available for purchase on Steam and that was over a year after it launched.

 

[water_wendi]

No, it wasn't. Half-Life 2 was the first game to be available for purchase on Steam and that was over a year after it launched.

im not talking about the when but the why. i dont believe for a second that Steam was retrofitted years after its initial conception to become a storefront at the last minute.

edit: This is from the Steam unveil at GDC 2002

http://www.gamespot.com/news/gdc-2002-valve-unveils-steam-2857298

Valve, the developer best known for creating Half-Life and Counter-Strike, unveiled Steam, its broadband software delivery technology, at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) today in San Jose, California. According to the developer, the new technology will let consumers purchase and start applications faster than if they install them from a CD. The technology will also let users access their applications from their PC by logging into their Steam accounts. In addition to streamlining the installation process, Steam will eliminate the hassle of dealing with downloadable patches and updates. Another advantage of the new distribution technology is that it eliminates the overhead costs of traditional physical distribution.

Steam technology can be implemented in any software application. The technology gives developers an integrated package of direct content publishing, flexible billing, ensured version control, antipiracy, and other features.

This shows from the start the endgame for Steam was not Valves own games but other developers games.

 

[Gustav]

So, basically MS paid them for the Xbox version and Valve won't?

 

[Bomber Bob]

Monopoly? You can sell your game on Steam + on other stores + retail + your website.

How is that a monopolistic?

Oh and by the way they don't force you to implement steamworks so...

 

[Lancehead]

So what would you do if, for example, Steam stops providing "too good of a service?" As a consumer, what are your options?

Go to other services? The big issue would be what becomes of my Steam library.

 

[derExperte]

Windows is successful as a gaming platform because it is where all the PC games have gone for the past 17 years. You take that backcatalog away by closing the system off, and Windows will lose that advantage and end up no better than a Linux machine for gaming.

And this is why it won't happen. Losing compatibility to decades of PC games for what? What would MS gain?

 

[JaseC]

im not talking about the when but the why. i dont believe for a second that Steam was retrofitted years after its initial conception to become a storefront at the last minute.

edit: This is from the Steam unveil at GDC 2002

http://www.gamespot.com/news/gdc-2002-valve-unveils-steam-2857298

I'm not denying that Steam becoming a storefront was a logical evolutionary step. You said it was birthed as a trojan horse in Half-Life 2, but I was simply pointing out that it began life as a way to streamline and unify the patching process for Valve's games, that's all.

 

[Drkirby]

So what would you do if, for example, Steam stops providing "too good of a service?" As a consumer, what are your options?

Buy games from other storefronts, or pirate them if I feel truly cheated.

The only aspect of PC gaming today that can't be had for free illegally is services. I am pretty sure I can get every damn game I own on steam for free from a torrent site. I though wouldn't have free autopatching, the ability to easily delete and reinstall games, I wouldn't have the matchmaking components of most multiplayer games. Right now, the money I pay on games on steam is worth it for the services they provide.

Could they go "Mwhahahaha, we have the entire market, now turn off all the sales and start removing all the features from our client." Sure. But do you know what? There is actually no known instances of predatory pricing actually happening


What are you expecting Valve to do that has you so worried?

 

[marcurius]

Good for him, must be awesome to be at the point where you can have complete control of your product and still be extremely successful.

Another advantage of the new distribution technology is that it eliminates the overhead costs of traditional physical distribution.

Funny quote considering Steam prices are damn near always more expensive than retail, in my experience.

 

[Pureauthor]

So what would you do if, for example, Steam stops providing "too good of a service?" As a consumer, what are your options?

To... stop buying and/or playing games on Steam. Obviously.

 

[water_wendi]

I'm not denying that Steam becoming a storefront was a logical evolutionary step.

Logical evolutionary step? Thats from the unveiling in 2002. Could Steam have originated as a patch delivery system? Yes. Was that its internal vision before its first unveiling to the world? No.

 

[twobear]

A bit big headed of him to think that putting Minecraft on Steam will somehow cause the collapse of PC gaming civilisation tbh.

 

[JaseC]

Logical evolutionary step? Thats from the unveiling.

Yes, but Steam, when it launched, did not have a store. It was simply a content delivery service for Valve games people tied to their accounts using CD keys.

Could Steam have originated as a patch delivery system? Yes. Was that its internal vision before its first unveiling to the world? No.

Again, I'm not denying that.