Gearbox Boss Says It's "Dangerous" to Let Valve Win

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

CanadianWolverine:
"Gearbox Boss" comes across like he talking straight from the sphincter.

I have both Steam and Impulse installed. I regularly browse the interwebs for deals from places like Direct 2 Drive and Good Old Games. I love me some Indy games and game mods too and follow their development on a constant basis.

http://store.steampowered.com/search/?genre=Indie

I see 239 listings. You know how many Indy games I used to see on the shelves of retail? Ya, I thought so.

As far as the percentage Steam is taking goes, here is something interesting for ya - Compare the various prices of Mount and Blade:

Taleworlds Entertainment Website: $33.60 CAD https://store3.esellerate.net/store/checkout/CustomLayout.aspx?s=STR6104314888&pc=&page=OnePageCatalog.htm
Steam: $29.99 USD http://store.steampowered.com/app/22100/
Impulse: $32.60 CAD? http://www.impulsedriven.com/mountblade
Direct 2 Drive: $5.00 USD? http://www.direct2drive.com/6680/product/Buy-Mount-and-Blade-Download

And for those who want their disc in hand:
Amazon: $11.17 USD?
27 new from $8.13 1 used from $10.99 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001DF1AM8/ref=asc_df_B001DF1AM8930897?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B001DF1AM8&tag=cnet-1744-20

So, now the real question is, when it comes to a online service for buying your game, who sets the price: Publisher or Developer? When the price on Steam/Impulse is consistent with the Developer's download price, what do you take from that? And how do you factor in the $5 price from D2D?

Honestly, how is this situation not shit tons better than what both the developers and customers are getting from retail? I say good on developer/publishers like Valve and Stardock and if others don't like them, do what they did, start a viable service like Steam and Impulse and release kick ass games with patch, content, and mod support.

So in conclusion to my rambling (for now): Screw you "Gearbox Boss", I have now just put your businesses games, http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/games/ , on the list of those I raise an eyebrow at before I even consider purchasing your products along with such luminaries like EA and Microsoft. Huh, they've made some alright above average, mostly average, and a few stinker games in the past, http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=relevance&termtype=all&ts=gearbox&ty=3&button=search , I wonder if that has anything to do with this...

You can't really bring up one game from D2D anniversary sale as an argument. Even if you do, Steam's holiday sales in the past trump D2Drive's massively. As far as Amazon is concerned, I believe they dwarf even Valve in terms of capital size, so they can afford it.

However, I'm also curious as to what cut Valve is getting from other developers in Steam sales. I once wanted yo buy Mass Effect from Steam, to find that it was no less than twenty euros more expensive than in the US. They said it was because EA puts an extra fine on games sold in Europe. You have to consider that the other developers have the upper hand when it comes to selling games on Steam. Even though they have to pay Valve for selling their game online, it's their decision to offer them in the first place. Companies like Ubisoft and EA are successful enough to make a good profit (if not a massive one) from their games without Steam. I expect they would take their indirect financing of Valve into careful consideration when offering to sell their games by Steam, because in the end, they have to profit from it.

Steam is where it is because it delivers what people want. It's easy to use, keeps games up to date, and has a lot of other nice features that make it attractive. If anyone can deliver something of similar quality, then people will use that as their purchasing platform.

The_Oracle:
Yeah, it's totally dangerous for a company that's known for its high-quality products (most of the time), attention to detail, and fanservice to actually get ahead in the industry. And Steam is exploiting people how exactly? Mind elaborating, Mr. Pitchford?

i think hes saying they take an unfair amount from game makers for distributing it on steam, but ive seen games become big cause of steam...

also i dont no why he wants MS, they take advantage of the game makers too, probably even worse than valve

LTK_70:

You can't really bring up one game from D2D anniversary sale as an argument. Even if you do, Steam's holiday sales in the past trump D2Drive's massively. As far as Amazon is concerned, I believe they dwarf even Valve in terms of capital size, so they can afford it.

However, I'm also curious as to what cut Valve is getting from other developers in Steam sales. I once wanted yo buy Mass Effect from Steam, to find that it was no less than twenty euros more expensive than in the US. They said it was because EA puts an extra fine on games sold in Europe. You have to consider that the other developers have the upper hand when it comes to selling games on Steam. Even though they have to pay Valve for selling their game online, it's their decision to offer them in the first place. Companies like Ubisoft and EA are successful enough to make a good profit (if not a massive one) from their games without Steam. I expect they would take their indirect financing of Valve into careful consideration when offering to sell their games by Steam, because in the end, they have to profit from it.

Yeah, sorry about not having the special holiday discount price numbers from Steam and Impulse too, I was just going with what is on their sites currently. Though, it seems that you are suggesting that D2D is taking a hit with its $5 price.

Unless you are talking market share instead of price point, which I would probably have to just say Steam earned its market share. We didn't always applaud Steam (some still don't) as one other poster mentioned. That market share comes from a combination of a long term record of good customer service, free content/patches, and being willing to be one of the first services to get DRM more or less correct in implementation.

And it is good you bring up the points on international sales. That whole thing is a can of ugly, nasty worms for the whole games industry. I feel bad for my fellow gamers around the world, Euros and Aussies get ganked and it sucks. I hope I am not out of line on blaming lawyers in some form or another for that SNAFU situation - you would think when it comes to digital content, the internet could get price points a little more in line with each other but when your country decides that X game distributor owes them some tax or tariff of some kind, not really sure what can be done there that wouldn't be seen as a company giving local govs the finger if they didn't stick that on your purchase. And how do they collect the reciepts on digital downloads anyways so the bookkeepers/accountants can decide who owes what? Ugh, and so of course, in the end its us the consumer that actually foots the bill.

Anyways, just came across this from an Indy developer interview, Unknown Worlds - Charlie "Flayra" Cleveland, on their upcoming release Natural Selection 2. It seems to run counter to the crap "Gearbox Boss" was spouting about small developers:

http://shfts.com/?p=1287

What part did the availability of digital distribution platforms like Steam play into Natural Selection 2 being made?

It made NS2 feasible. Without a big digital distribution platform like Steam, we wouldn't be able to justify putting all the time, effort and money into a proper sequel deserving of the original. We will be releasing through our site and other portals as well, but we're sure Steam will be the most popular by far.

CanadianWolverine:
Yeah, sorry about not having the special holiday discount price numbers from Steam and Impulse too, I was just going with what is on their sites currently. Though, it seems that you are suggesting that D2D is taking a hit with its $5 price.

Unless you are talking market share instead of price point, which I would probably have to just say Steam earned its market share. We didn't always applaud Steam (some still don't) as one other poster mentioned. That market share comes from a combination of a long term record of good customer service, free content/patches, and being willing to be one of the first services to get DRM more or less correct in implementation.

And it is good you bring up the points on international sales. That whole thing is a can of ugly, nasty worms for the whole games industry. I feel bad for my fellow gamers around the world, Euros and Aussies get ganked and it sucks. I hope I am not out of line on blaming lawyers in some form or another for that SNAFU situation - you would think when it comes to digital content, the internet could get price points a little more in line with each other but when your country decides that X game distributor owes them some tax or tariff of some kind, not really sure what can be done there that wouldn't be seen as a company giving local govs the finger if they didn't stick that on your purchase. And how do they collect the reciepts on digital downloads anyways so the bookkeepers/accountants can decide who owes what? Ugh, and so of course, in the end its us the consumer that actually foots the bill.

Anyways, just came across this from an Indy developer interview, Unknown Worlds - Charlie "Flayra" Cleveland, on their upcoming release Natural Selection 2. It seems to run counter to the crap "Gearbox Boss" was spouting about small developers:

http://shfts.com/?p=1287

What part did the availability of digital distribution platforms like Steam play into Natural Selection 2 being made?

It made NS2 feasible. Without a big digital distribution platform like Steam, we wouldn't be able to justify putting all the time, effort and money into a proper sequel deserving of the original. We will be releasing through our site and other portals as well, but we're sure Steam will be the most popular by far.

There's always the issue of infinite supply versus finite demand. If D2D lowers the price of some games to $5 (or 5 pounds in case of the UK site - which is a lot more than $5) they will make less profit per sold game, but they will also attract more customers who would not usually buy it, quite like I did. But that's beside the point.

Yeah, it sucks to be an Aussie, but there's one way out for Europeans which is changing currencies, like I mentioned elsewhere a couple of times. Buying from Steam these days is a lot more expensive than buying from D2D UK, because Steam charges in euros. $50 dollar games often get priced at €45, while they're unquestionably worth less in euros. I don't quite understand what you mean by the receipts, though. I would expect digital data is easier to manage than data on retail copies.

You are absolutely right on the indie game scene on Steam. Another example is the game Zeno Clash made by ACE Team, an independent developer team that had been making mods and conversions for a while, but Steam and the Source engine that they built the game on finally enabled them to finalise their project and sell the game online, something they would never have been able to achieve without Steam. Digital distribution is the holy grail of indie game developers everywhere.

Left4Meds:

Malygris:

He said he'd like to see Steam spun off from Valve as an independent entity, adding that it would be "much better if Steam was its own business."

What good would it do? It would still sell PC games to everyone, its only the companies who don't want Valve to showcase their games to thousands of users who think of actually buying the game rather then have it sit on a shelf because they didn't want to give Steam money for showcasing.

Malygris:
Pitchford admitted that Steam helps sell games but said he thinks the service creates an unavoidable conflict of interest for Valve and that the studio is using it to take unfair advantage of other developers, particular the smaller players.

Taking advantage sounds like Valve making 9$ while the developers of the game make 1$.

Anyone else thinking they're making Valve sound like some sort of power crazed Nazi?

It seems a lot of people are trying to do something like that, and make the games the Nazi underlings who kill babies.

Eh... I wouldn't say Valve is winning, yeah Steam is nice, and they make good games(reviewers' opinions, not mine) but there are bigger developers out there. Oh, and Microsoft running Steam would be a pretty bad idea.

oranger:
hell, the whole thing stinks. anybody remember a certain "episodic" game, sold in 10 dollar chunks? what would have happened if that strategy had worked? how many "chapters" would there have been before we got the whole game? 10? 11? what I'm getting at is this: steam is evil,
because if the people running it had their way, we would all be paying sooo much money for our games...hmm, I seem to recall some dude saying we gamers are getting too much game for our money, it was an article here somewhere

Yes but eadch of those chapters was about 5 hours of gameplay... so 10 chapters would be around hmmm 50 hours of gameplay, which is a lot for an fps, so you'd be paying $100 but getting like 4 times as more than other games.

Slycne:
A lot of you are not actually reading the complaints he is leveling, he isn't addressing Valve as a game developer but as the single owner of the Steam service. Valve's game quality has little to no bearing in this discussion. Take a minute, read what he has to say san the rose tinted glasses and then comment.

That said, I really enjoy Steam. I think it rides the fence well between giving me value in return for giving up some software rights. However I can see how the conflict of interest is actually holding the service back. Game developers want to put their games on Steam because it's popular, but this means that they are directly financing their competition. This would be akin to say, Wall-mart selling TVs at Best Buy. Sure they are still making money, but they are also having to pay are share of that off to someone who also sells TVs.

I'd be interested in finding how how much of a cut that Steam takes, Apple for instance takes 30% on iTunes app sales.

The only problem with that posistion? None of these people 'compete' with Valve. You don't 'compete' with Valve. Thats like trying to 'Compete' with Michael Jordan or the Harlem Globetrotters on the court. Valve has a huge saturation for it's admittedly -VERY FEW- products which almost always set the BAR for the competitors to play catchup on. And yes, I am saying Valve's games are so good no other group should -attempt- to compete with them and accept their secondary posistion. Vavle has simply become an immovable fixture in the industry, and if their "cheating" of the "little guy" that they give millions of dollars worth of exposure to is the price to be paid for them to keep making games in their low quantity high quality fashion? Then screw the little guy.

Mylon:
Steam is where it is because it delivers what people want. It's easy to use, keeps games up to date, and has a lot of other nice features that make it attractive. If anyone can deliver something of similar quality, then people will use that as their purchasing platform.

Also, this. Welcome to the free market, quit bitching and get a tampon.

I don't know about this. Valve really seems like one of the only video game companies out there really thinking about the costumers. This is getting rediculous, they are the most attacked company and yet make the most changes just for the clients.

I like how Steam operates, at least towards its customers, but I could see a lot of corrupt internal politics and behind-the-scenes deals going on. What I find odd about this, however, is that Gearbox developed both Half-Life expansions, so its weird seeing them risking ostracizing themselves from Valve like this.

The_Oracle:
Yeah, it's totally dangerous for a company that's known for its high-quality products (most of the time), attention to detail, and fanservice to actually get ahead in the industry. And Steam is exploiting people how exactly? Mind elaborating, Mr. Pitchford?

Obviously, he's being coy about his criticisms, but I'm pretty sure that he's implying that Valve is charging people too much to sell their games on Steam, specifically indie companies.

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?
Sure, Steam may lean in fvor of Valve, but it is thier service, a comprehensive and well exicuted service. I would like to point out, since I've seen it denied, XLBA does have free updates and holiday specials, just not a many as Steam.

Pendragon9:
Well, I don't trust Valve or Microsoft. They're arrogant beyond my tastes.

Yeah, Valve's so arrogant they actually invite people who oppose their practices to see what they're up to, rather than just completely blow them off. Plus, I think your comment is hilariously ironic at best, but that isn't the point here so I'll stop and let you shoot yourself in the foot again later.

Moving on, the only possible logic I see in Pitchford's claim is that Valve might be charging indie devs too much for hosting, but that doesn't make sense. If it made any sense there wouldn't be a massive amount of indie games being hosted on Steam. However since Pitchford offers no figures, we cannot be sure of that.

And yet, if this is true, it is the only place Microsoft has a leg up distribution-wise. After all it allows indie devs to retain 75% of the profits of games sold via the XBLA or XBLA-Indie system, as well as offering a lot of free promotion. I wonder if we could get in touch with Jonathan Blow (creator of Braid) and find out how much it cost him to host on Steam and what the profit margin was as opposed to XBLA?

As for a conflict of interest, I don't see it at all. Steam frequently has sales and promotional offers for non-Valve titles, at the same frequency for those of Valve-developed titles, and thus I think it's disingenuous of Pitchford to presume otherwise.

Ph0t0n1c Ph34r:
I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

Rusty Bucket:

Ph0t0n1c Ph34r:
I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

The only problem is that it's the only thing that makes sense. Google in charge of Youtube, for example, seemed like a great idea, until everyone saw them just cave to any bit of legal pressure from moronic corporations that don't understand fair use laws. Putting a game developer in charge of digital distribution works because they understand what's needed. And again, so far, I haven't seen Valve playing too much in the way of favorites, and neither has most of the industry judging by how many games are hosted there.

Plus nobody's offering much in the way of competition, other than D2D and GoG but GoG has a different business model.

Again I think Pitchard needs to provide some solid figures to back up his claims. I'm not saying he's lying or that he's wrong, just that there isn't much for us to believe from him being vague about it.

Rusty Bucket:

Ph0t0n1c Ph34r:
I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

From a logical perspective I agree, but no ones gotten off their ass to compete.

AceDiamond:

Rusty Bucket:

Ph0t0n1c Ph34r:
I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

The only problem is that it's the only thing that makes sense. Google in charge of Youtube, for example, seemed like a great idea, until everyone saw them just cave to any bit of legal pressure from moronic corporations that don't understand fair use laws. Putting a game developer in charge of digital distribution works because they understand what's needed. And again, so far, I haven't seen Valve playing too much in the way of favorites, and neither has most of the industry judging by how many games are hosted there.

Plus nobody's offering much in the way of competition, other than D2D and GoG but GoG has a different business model.

Again I think Pitchard needs to provide some solid figures to back up his claims. I'm not saying he's lying or that he's wrong, just that there isn't much for us to believe from him being vague about it.

I suppose some figures would have been helpful here. I can see how a developer having control could be good, and i do trust Valve (to a certain extent), but once i start to think about it more i get a little worried. I'm not saying Valve are evil, or that they're going to steal everyone's money, it just concerns me a bit for one company to have such a huge share in both distribution and development.

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

Oddly enough, he seems to think Microsoft might be a pretty good choice, if they could just get their stuff together.

Ahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahahah. No.

Rusty Bucket:

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

Actually that is a pretty good comparison so I'll give you that, but I highly doubt Valve is ever going to expand to hardware development.

Microsoft would never EVER offer discounts like Steam does.

We still live in a free-market economy, as far as i am aware, so they can do what they please.

AceDiamond:

Rusty Bucket:

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

Actually that is a pretty good comparison so I'll give you that, but I highly doubt Valve is ever going to expand to hardware development.

Oh no, course not, but i hope it at least helps to validate some of my (and Mr. Pitchford's) concerns about the subject. I agree with the guy to an extent, but i do think he should have phrased the whole thing better.

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Edit: Also, one thing that irritates me about all the people bitching about how Valve is screwing the little guy, is that even if they take 20% ($2 on a $10 game) of the price, the developer probably will sell more copies on steam than they would if they just offered it on their own site (since damn near all of the games are advertised in one form or another on Steam) and they don't have to worry about hosting the game, worrying/paying for the extra bandwidth, dealing with paypal, or trying to find the money to get it put on a disk and shipped to stores.

Seriously people, think for a minute. If Valve was screwing over the developers, do you really think they would CHOSE to sell their games on Steam? No! They would make their own platform, or go to one of the OTHER DD PLATFORMS.

if microsoft got its shit together, there could be some great cross platform PC vs Xbawks multiplayer... thatd be sweet

Why the fuck are all the idiots on here spouting shit like, "Its either Steam or those stupid fucks called Microsoft."

Ever heard of Stardock dumbasses?

Yes, thank you Stardock for providing an alternate to those corporate pricks at Valve.

7ru7h:

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Dark Templar:

7ru7h:

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

AceDiamond:

Dark Templar:

7ru7h:

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

Only if you are pretending that anything else comes close.

Yeah I totally agree Microsoft needs a BIGGER monopoly. Why shouldn't Valve do it? I guarantee you won't find a better canidate.

Dark Templar:

AceDiamond:

Dark Templar:

7ru7h:

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

Only if you are pretending that anything else comes close.

Because Steam is the SUPERIOR product. Thats how capitalism -WORKS-.

I really don't get his way of thinking. Microsoft is as much a game developer as Valve is, so why would it be better for them to control Steam or a similar platform?

While I disagree that Microsoft would do a better job (I want what he's smoking if he thinks that) I agree that Valve owning Steam is a bad idea. From what I know the problem at the moment is if Valve goes under (it may happen) Steam will go bye bye along with everything you've downloaded. Instead, Steam should be made a seperate business entity from Valve, with Valve being a major share holder.

Skizle:

Therumancer:

disc in hand is how it should be.

very well said. i cant stand steam. to me its a worthless program that keeps slowing my computer down. also whats with the deal about having cd-keys locked to your account with no way of getting them off? i let my friend barrow my DoW2 to only find out he cant play it because its linked to my steam account and now needs my informaton. if they REALLY cared about their customer base they would do this.

Disk in hand...Your earth is still flat? I have a disk, a hard disk and I need no other medium lying around and a noisy dvd-drive. And I can download and play my games wherever I am, even if I just can lend someones PC.

The part which the industry loves Steam for is because you can not lend or second hand sell the game. It is far better than EA's you can only install the game 3 times, what's up with that...

Xanadu84:
I wouldn't be that hard on Gearbox. Sounds to me like they are more concerned with a possible monopoly, and that lack of competition will decrease overall quality. Sound like he likes Steam, he just wishes there were other options. I'm not going to fault him for being concerned by one company dominating the market. That's something to be concerned over. He just hasn't thought his fears all the way through. Game developers have there own capacity to advertise, promote, etc, and have there own capability to bring people to Steam to buy the game. Steams only concern is content delivery. Its like how, say, Mad and Cracked magazine might be competing, but the postal service doesn't really enter into the equation. And in addition to things like D2D, Steam naturally has to compete with physical copies, and the developers themselves selling there game digitally all on there own. Those options won't go away, and are enough to keep Steam honest. Yes, I am bit of a Steam fanatic, but that is because it does the content delivery thing better then anyone else in the market. I'm willing to seem like a fanatic for things which are better.

I think what it boils down to is that this guy Hasn't thought it through, and yet he felt himself in the right to just speak out, with most of what he said having no basis and making many wrong assumptions. If people did that everyday, there would be bad yet wrong publicity for many things, and many good companies would suffer for it. Is that the kind of reporting and assessment you want to see for games companies? I love Steam myself, even with its faults (Free UT3 Weekend anyone? That might not have been Valve's idea to begin with anyway), but I would like to see more services like this pop up on the webs. There is absolutely nothing stopping Gearbox, EA, Activision, or even somebody that's not a publisher from putting together a service much like this. Valve isn't hogging the property, they are just setting the bar. Time for someone to get their hands out of their pockets and work to go over that bar.

TsunamiWombat:

Dark Templar:

AceDiamond:

Dark Templar:

7ru7h:

Dark Templar:

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

Only if you are pretending that anything else comes close.

Because Steam is the SUPERIOR product. Thats how capitalism -WORKS-.

I understand thats how capitalism works. Capitalism allows for monopolies to exist.

Steam is way to big to consider anything else lose competition.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here