-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Valvenizing the Industry.
- Thread starter Afro Thunder
- Start date
Shin Johnpv
Member
I'm all for developer/publisher relations changing if it means increased profit for developers, just as long as they dont all makes install shitty software *cough steam cough* not ALL of us want
give your consumers a choice don't force shit upon them
give your consumers a choice don't force shit upon them
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Razoric said:i dont see the problem with Steam. I think its good to have a central hub you must log into thus if you are caught cheating you are banned from the whole service.
That is the only good thing I see from it.
The Faceless Master
Member
that sounds familiar...Razoric said:i dont see the problem with Steam. I think its good to have a central hub you must log into thus if you are caught cheating you are banned from the whole service.
Sea-Dragon
Member
After paying $58 to play Half Life 2, and having to spend over 7 hours on my dial-up connection to unlock the single player experience I thought was already in the box, I can say Steam is great for all of the "rich whiteys" out there with unlimited high-speed broadband connections. For the rest of us in rural areas who foolishly believe that a single player, not-online experience should be playable without going online, we thought it sucked.
Property of Jumpship
Banned
I'm wondering why with no boxes, print manuals, and other "material" costs we still pay $58 for Half-Life 2.
I must be one of the few people who's had nothing but a good experience with Steam. No technical issues, no delays, downloaded HL2 just fine and it unlocked when it was supposed to.
So, if more devs want to go the Valve path and free themselves of publisher control (which only company's like Valve could do because of the money that they make) then I'm all for it.
So, if more devs want to go the Valve path and free themselves of publisher control (which only company's like Valve could do because of the money that they make) then I'm all for it.
Open Source
Banned
It only works for developers that are already sitting on a huge pile of cash, which is basically Valve and no one else.
Everyone else still has to go to publishers for initial funding, at least until venture capitalists grow some balls.
Everyone else still has to go to publishers for initial funding, at least until venture capitalists grow some balls.
hehe, you said what I wanted to say but couldn't find the right way to say it
I'm really hoping that venture capitalists will also start giving a closer eye on funding developers.
"Valve and no one else"
The only other company that probably could do it is Blizzard. I wouldn't be suprised if they were looking at something like Steam so they too won't have to go through Vivendi anymore (not many devs like Vivendi from what I hear).
I'm really hoping that venture capitalists will also start giving a closer eye on funding developers.
"Valve and no one else"
The only other company that probably could do it is Blizzard. I wouldn't be suprised if they were looking at something like Steam so they too won't have to go through Vivendi anymore (not many devs like Vivendi from what I hear).
'Valvenizing the industry'? Fuck that.
I want my software on media, in a box, with a manual. No downloading necessary, no online authentication required to play an offline game, no shitty clients in the background taking up memory and CPU cycles on my machine. I want to be able to lend it to a friend when I'm done with it, and trade it in for credit or sell it on eBay if I decide I don't want it anymore.
I really wanted to play HL2, but when I discovered that Steam is required, even when you buy the game at a brick-and-mortar, I decided against buying it. I intend to pick up the Xbox version when it's released and play that instead. Sure, I may be missing out on a great PC experience, but I'm not going to spend money to help support a trend I hate.
I want my software on media, in a box, with a manual. No downloading necessary, no online authentication required to play an offline game, no shitty clients in the background taking up memory and CPU cycles on my machine. I want to be able to lend it to a friend when I'm done with it, and trade it in for credit or sell it on eBay if I decide I don't want it anymore.
I really wanted to play HL2, but when I discovered that Steam is required, even when you buy the game at a brick-and-mortar, I decided against buying it. I intend to pick up the Xbox version when it's released and play that instead. Sure, I may be missing out on a great PC experience, but I'm not going to spend money to help support a trend I hate.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Tellaerin said:
damn straight
steam should be a fucking option not forced upon people who don't want it
I don't need a program to control my updates or my buddy lists, or anything else for that matter I can handle it myself for those who want it fine let it be there but for those of us who DON'T then make it a fucking option
A lot of people had problems with steam, I didn't have any whatsoever besides the slow network on launch day of HL2. It makes it amazingly easy for me to get updates etc. I know a lot of people had problems with cd keys and whatnot, but that's to be expected. It was a new service, so hence new problems. Although, I know I would also be upset if something like that happened. But it seems this is the way the industry is going to go, downloadable games, microtransactions, buying chapters. But if they can pull it off right, that would be super convenient... NO MORE "SOLD OUT!" I hate that shit, thank god for preordering.
Asskicker064
Member
Sea-Dragon said:
What are you talking about, "rich whiteys"? Are you saying that only white people can afford broadband? I don't think Wellington or Tre would agree with you there.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Asskicker064 said:
or me.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
quadriplegicjon said:
Add me to that list. And to tell you the truth, my experience has been that the "mom and pop" stores are run by assholes who would screw you anyways (in NYC anyhow)
Dude, your real problem is that you live in a rural area where the telco's want to rape you for getting what the "poor negroes" get for dirt cheap in the city.
edit:
asskicker said:
I know it was well intentioned, but one person doesn't speak for the entire "non whitey" community
Rhindle said:
It is about Steam, because Steam (and the whole download distribution model) is supposedly what's making it's possible for them to 'develop their own properties'. It's a consumer-unfriendly 'solution' to the problem of developers being beholden to major publishers, for the simple reason that downloads are not an acceptable substitute for games distributed on conventional media.
I think media creators in virtually all fields deserve a bigger piece of the pie, and that the developer/publisher balance is unfairly skewed towards publishers when it comes to software in general. I just don't think that trying to shift distribution to a format that's inferior from a consumer perspective (requires the purchaser to install bloated proprietary distribution software, requires online authentication to play offline, comes with no hardcopy manual even when purchased at a brick-and-mortar, yet offers no significant savings over conventional store-bought games) is the right answer.
I was very skeptical of Steam at first, and I'm still a little skeptical of how the major publishers will apply this service with regaurds to issues like network scalability and online ad-serving (imagine a proprietary EA system that worked along the lines of Steam, littered with pop-ups and banner ads :lol ) But, I must say, I've grown to like Steam, and I'm hopefull for the buisness model, specifically because I live in the stix. It was great being able to gradually download HL2 content weeks prior to release, and then the minute the game was released do a quick verification and be on my way. My Steam account has weathered 2 hard-drive failures (on my PC and Laptop) with no lost purchases (wich are presumably stored server-side) or any super annoying bugs (the launcher failed to load a few times, but I re-installed and was back up running.) So far, I'm not really sold on having to contact the server everytime I want to play any of the games I bought though, and while this seems to be the only intrusive feature of Steam that kinda bothers me, I can easily see other companies taking the same type of verification concept to extremes. I really like not having to drive all the way into town to my local EB or Gamestop though, it was so nice just to be able to skip the launch rush, and not worry about pre-order quantities or anything, and just download the game, but at the same time, I hope more companies keep the system voluntary, I don't like the idea that the only way you can play HL2 is through Steam, it's great for eliminating cheaters online, but it takes a modicum of control out of the hands of the consumer.
Teknopathetic
Member
Steam sucks, and the price for Half-life, given that there isn't even a real publisher to rack up the price, is fucking stupid. Valve's taking their customers for all they have.
Just because Valve chose to implement "bloated proprietary" software does not mean that other developers who self-distribute need to do the same. Steam is a result of Valve paranoia about piracy in general, not a result of their decision to do electronic distribution. They required Steam registration to play retail copies of the game as well, after all.Tellaerin said:
Other developers or small publishers could (and do) use far less intrusive anti-piracy measures for downloaded games. People in this thread are translating their distaste for Steam into a condemnation of self-publishing in general, which is wrong.
As far as the pricing that Valve used, my GUESS is that they had no choice. Their contract with Vivendi almost certainly included a clause prohibiting them from undercutting the retail pricing for the game. For games that are distributed purely online, that should not be an issue, and the saved costs should (at least partially) be passed on to gamers.
I think more independent developers, if anything, will cause less innovation in the industry. Right now, some publishers can fund risky projects due to the big fat derivative cash cows they have every year. When a developer places the entire success of their company on the sole title they're currently working on, it's less likely they'd be willing to deviate far from their successes, since they'd then be dealing with an unknown quantity.
Wow, this is relevent becuase I just finished Half life 2. Great gameplay, pathetic non ending, seriously people bitch about halo 2 and don't mention this ? It's hardly game destroying though, I just ignored the story most of the time anyway.
Steam hasn't caused me any issues but then again, I have a gig of ram right now so unless I was playing a non steam game I probally wouldnt' notice.
I just checked the task bar steam uses 15 megs roughly , the same as an Internet explorer window or MSN. Actually firefox uses 25 megs and msn uses 20 so there you go , steam running in the background uses less resources then even instant messaging.
Steam hasn't caused me any issues but then again, I have a gig of ram right now so unless I was playing a non steam game I probally wouldnt' notice.
I just checked the task bar steam uses 15 megs roughly , the same as an Internet explorer window or MSN. Actually firefox uses 25 megs and msn uses 20 so there you go , steam running in the background uses less resources then even instant messaging.