Alright, this is seriously getting way out of hand. The guy never said Valve was the devil. He made a couple of fair points that are getting blown way out of proportion.
Its good that everyone is talking about this now, but this is just silly. Its an overreaction on par with network news. The gaming press should be ashamed. #valve
@magiczero: I couldn't agree more. The guy brings up a valid point, and has the balls to do it while his game is being released. Steam is big enough to the point where making it a separate entity makes sense. Keeping it attached to Valve restricts its growth as a standard in the industry. #valve
I think this is being more then a little rude to Pitchford. Last time I checked he wasn't saying anything out of line, or even close to attacking Steam or Valve. He was just stating a realistic concern.
I myself like Steam as it is, but that does not keep me from worrying about what it could turn into, or wonder how much better it could be if they actually had real competition.
Because at the end of the day Steam is really just a video game console that runs on the power of your PC. #valve
If you consider Steam to be a platform, like the 360 or PS3, then it makes quite a bit of sense for Valve to dictate the terms of the cuts. As others have said, Valve put in the funding and elbow grease to make Steam happen. They've made a sort of virtual console.
What I'm getting at is that there is no more of a conflict of interest with Valve and Steam than there is with Microsoft and the 360, or Sony and the PS3, or Nintendo and the Wii. Seems like a fairly analogous situation to me, so this isn't some kind of new phenomenon.
With that said, it should be common sense here that smaller developers aren't going to badmouth Valve or Steam in public. They don't have the clout or (ironically) independence to defend themselves if Valve decides to jack up the percentages on them. Gearbox has wide retail distribution, and while broaching this subject on Valve doesn't seem like the smartest business move it's something that Pitchford can get away with.
The telling thing here is that nobody has yet come forward to dish dirt under the condition of anonymity. If that happens Pitchford may have a legitimate point; otherwise he's just raising much ado about nothing. #valve
@Toasticus: Well the whole idea is that the PC is an open platform for gaming - likening it to "microsoft and the 360" etc is against what PC Gaming is about #valve
Smart insights, Toasticus, as always. I was thinking similar thoughts on the bus today.
I would also like to add that any distribution method a la Steam that DIDN'T have the incentive and backing that Valve has with "first-party games" would mostly likely not be nearly as robust as Steam is. #valve
Yeah, that's a very good point. It's kind of like game engine development -- if you make your own games as well then sure, there's a conflict of interest there. But at the same time, having to put a game all the way through to completion on your engine will do wonders for showing you the kinds of things that developers need when doing likewise. In a sense, being one of their own "customers" allows Valve to proactively improve the quality of Steam as a service rather than just listening to feedback from other people who put their games on Steam. #valve
@Toasticus: great explanation. i love steam.
the only thing i think they need to change is their european pricing. people have been saying it's more expensive than retail in europe. #valve
I like Pitchford, but his comment always struck me as odd. Valve is really a one of a kind company in how they handle themselves. Gabe will go to press conferences dressed like always, kind of like a slob, and not care. The games speak for him, he doesn't care what people think of his appearance. And when he jokes with the mod community and they start a fund to go to Australia for L4D, he says "Okay, I'm going to Australia then. See you in a week."
@nuttyjawa: Not at all, the two are still friends and the companies are still on friendly terms. All he did was bring up a concern, not badmouth the company =P #valve
Garry of Gmod put this up on his blog not long after; I am more than happy with the cut I get from Steam. Yeah of course more would be nice – but the cut isn’t anywhere near that low that it would turn me off selling through Steam. Maybe I’m a special case because GMod has sold so well – but I know that Introversion nearly went under until they got on Steam (Although flushing all the money out of the company at the end of the month is probably asking for trouble).
Should Steam be it’s own company? What difference does it make? It’d be the same Steam, run by the same people, probably from the same office. It would change nothing.
Should Steam get competition? Yeah sure competition is always good, but I can’t imagine anything will ever overtake Steam now. Steam is doing everything right, there’s no need for an alternative. Not to mention the amount of money we all have already invested in the games we own in Steam. Steam IS the PC gaming platform. As a consumer I don’t want to have different digital distribution software installed for every publisher.
So I guess Pitchford is the only guy with his feelings.
On a side note, the concept of pre-ordering for a digital download service just blows my mind. But I guess marketing is all about making something absolutely irrational sound like a logical thing to do. #valve
@RicoTheSaboteur: Digital pre-orders seem to be more about getting it cheaper than anything extra. On the publisher's side, it's a good way to market and build hype.
Physical pre-orders need some sort of incentive, since things don't sell out much anymore. #valve
@ryanmurakami: My understanding is that pre-ordering was first and foremost a mechanism that helped stores make orders as close to the demand as possible and therefor be more efficient. So it made sense to reward customers to encourage pre-orders. Obviously it evolved into a tool to compete with other retailers and, at publishing level, it also became a marketing tool to move more units.
With digital downloads having no physical objects to manage, no set quantities to order to a distributor, the original reason for pre-orders simply vanished. Only leaving a marketing ploy that makes little sense (but possibly big money).
That said, there might be advantages for a digital download outlet to have pre-orders. While they do not have game boxes to manage, they still have logistical issues such as bandwidth. Having people pre-download a game certainly reduces the data transfer peak on the day of release and the costs it may entail.
@RicoTheSaboteur:
1. Digital Pre-orders are usually cheaper, Steam tend to knock of 10% or so
2. Steam lets you pre-load the game, so 12midnight hits you can start playing your game
3.The pre-load also means Steam don't have several thousand folk trying to grab the game at midnight. #valve
pitchford's comments aren't that derogatory. it sounds more like he's voicing concerns over a distributor that does development, rather than "valve's a big bully." it's a valid concern to me. me thinks you'd hear the exact same level of concern from nike or reebok if jc penney or (shudder) wal-mart started making shoes of similar quality.
and context is everything, as even a supposedly positive comment from a steam supporter such as "...Valve offers the most developer-friendly terms for digital distribution in the industry." should be taken lightly. what are those terms, and how fair are they? just because you're better than the worst doesn't make you as fair as you should be.
pitchford's a bit nuts though if he thinks a wal-mart model would be good. uber-distributor = cut-throat pricing and predatory tactics to keep product with that distributor. #valve
Didn't Pitchford say that he likes Steam? But he's right also about the conflict of interest. It's not so difficult to get it, really.
Valve is running a "shop" but also making products for this "shop" and allowing other companies to sell their products in this "shop". What Pitchford said was, that there might be conflict of interest, because Valve as a private company would rather propagate their own product than someone else's if they had to choose. There. Yes Steam is great and yes Pitchford was right even if he likes Steam.
I don't think he's on "edge", he's just pointing out the obvious. Even if I like something I can't be blind to it's faults, that's all he said.
@Pepek: When you think about it though, most big shops these days sell their own products as well. A grocery store, for example, sells generic versions of pretty much every product in the store, at similar quality as the premium items. Additionally, department stores such as Macy's are known to create their own designer lines for everything from clothes to kitchenware, still you don't see Levi's bitching about conflict of interest do you? #valve
@ddhboy: Yup, that's right, they do. But that doesn't make his point any less valid.
The possibility for conflict of interest is there, that's all he said and that's a fact. Same goes for this Macy's or whoever else. #valve
I fucking love Steam. Honestly... it just feels right.
I've never been a PC gamer without Steam... (switched over to PC about a year and a half ago) and I can't really see myself being one without it.
The first time I downloaded the Original Half Life and WAS ABLE TO PLAY IT WHILE IT WAS DOWNLOADING... I was literally in shock. I'd never experienced such quality digital distribution coming from the console end of things.
I do hope PC developers will get a grip on themselves and realize that nobody ever liked GFWL... and that still nobody likes GFWL. #valve
@ReconToaster misses garnett : (: Steam sort of is like console in it's own right: it makes things easy to buy, it downloads games for you, installs them for you, sometimes even configures and saves settings for you. So it's just a click and you're there, much like you would do on console. Plus in-game messaging and stuff.
The only real gripe I have with it is start-up times: starting the thing up for me takes 20 secs, and starting up a game takes two to ten. Annoying. #valve
@ReconToaster misses garnett : (: Yeah, it's one thing to complain about Steam, and maybe some complaints aren't completely unfounded... but you have to admit it is THE BEST service out there. It literally kicks the crap out of Games for Windows and Direct 2 Drive. #valve
@Austin Kruckmeyer: Digital distribution should be cheaper than retail from the start as Polite Society pointed out. Then simply steam is very new, if they were charging normal prices they wouldn't expand so much and it's more likely they'd increase the prices later down the line once the audience takes steam as second nature. That's if they do though as having such good sales means they may be able to keep the prices low and stay as the top dog. In the end the higher there prices go the more people will shop around as Steam is pretty cool but no one wants to pay extra or the same price just for a few extra online features. #valve
@xxXX_Insanities_Birth_XXxx: Don't forget that the retail market has done a lot to ensure that these digital distributors can't go a lot cheaper. Like "You sell on them for that little and we won't carry your product, so kiss your normal distribution methods goodbye." #valve
@Evdor: Never noticed that as I don't bother with digital distribution myself really. That sucks though but Valve must be really smart I guess. Covering there backs by selling them at normal price and then what they want to sell them at with all the sales. #valve
Um... from what I understood from reading Randy Pitchford's interview, he wasn't so much speaking about actual exploitation or currently ongoing conflict of interest as much as he was talking about the possibility of such considering Valve's position as a developer themselves; and he wasn't speaking of personal opinion but rather businessmen weariness...
Why do people keep shining such a negative light on his comments?
Maybe there's some part of the interview I skipped? :/ #valve
@MtlAngelus: "But, I'm just saying, Steam isn't the answer. Steam helps us as customers, but it's also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that's not totally fair." #valve
@Bokusatsu_Tenshi: It's always fun taking things out of context. Reading the whole interview tho, that didn't strike me as his main point or nothing more than an example with poorly chosen wording. #valve
He's an outspoken guy, not a big surprise. But also, I have to admit: I LOVE Steam, and I still see why someone might think it's got "Bad idea" written all over it.
We all love it now, but let's say, hypothetically that Valve is bought out--maybe Gabe retires, or maybe something happens and he's gone. Who's to say it will STAY great? It could be, theoretically, leveraged into something very evil very fast.
...The thing Pitchford fails to understand is it would promptly fail, and be a non-issue. Steam isn't popular because Steam is popular, Steam is popular because it's conveinent, well-valued, a decent platform and offers FAIR DEALS TO THE 'competition.' Fail to do that, and people won't sell on Steam, people won't buy on Steam, it will go away.
We're not talking about issues with people who control say, hardware, or Software, which can cause all KINDS of conflict *coughcoughMICROSOFTcoughcough*. Steam's just a selling-arm of a gaming company. They don't wield that much more clout than other companies, and they can only 'screw' with other companies in so much as its profitable. Valve may resonate with us PC gamers, but it's not such a powerhouse that Steam can survive on Valve alone--at least not at the level it is now.
In short, yeah, I see his point, but he's still full of it. #valve
@Evdor: Then Valve sells to Microsoft and becomes Steam Live, but because it's so convenient and something people are used to they'll keep using it and Microsoft just found a way to make PC players pay for online. #valve
@Evdor: Some of us remember back when MicroSoft was the little guy who conveniently bundled things together to provide a home software development platform, and then went batshit crazy for almost a decade. The irony in your comparison shows that you don't really see his point from a historic perspective at all. #valve
@Evdor: This actually reminds me of Google. A lot of people complain that they collect too much information from their customers and could, one day, use it against them. But as soon as someone found out that Google exploits their knowledge, everyone would move away from them.
This is one of the good sides of capitalism.
OT: I like Steam very much, but I can also understand the conflict of interest. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Valve to seperate the Steam publishing service into a new company? #valve
@spannu: Care to elaborate? Because the point I'm making is Steam isn't a god-damn software platform that they DEVELOP the games on, nor is it the actual system used in playing the games. It's a glorified program that works like Amazon.com. How is that, in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, similar to Microsoft? #valve
@umfk: I didn't want to repeat myself, so thanks for posting that analogy. It's almost as if people are refusing to accept that people have made stupid decisions before (Bell Systems, Microsoft, Intel, etc.) or that they could make them again. #valve
@spannu: That analogy is flawed, and I disagree with you immensely. It assumes that if it became a substandard product, people would buy anyway. But it probably woudln't: There ARE alternatives, or they would appear. If anything, it screams, to me, that you don't really understand the PC community: Few--if ANY PC gamers are married to Steam, and the moment it stops being what it is, I'll bet they'd more likely drop it than stick with it, were companies to shy away from it (or Microsoft started trying to pump money out of it).
For evidence of this, I point to the absoulte FAIL that was Games for Windows Live.
I could create hypothetical scenarios that are divorced from reality until I'm blue in the face, but trying to argue that Steam could gain so many games that it becomes sentient and because people think it's conveinent they continue to feed it anyway until it finally just plugs us into neural links and plunges is into the Matrix--that doesn't mean my fear is in fact, completely fucking unfounded.
But I think... the problem is more about advertisement. Valve could basically ignore the competition and put their games exclusively on the front page.
If this happened, it wouldn't inconvenience players to the point of avoiding use of the service. It might stop developers from using the service... but if the players are still there, why should they?
I think they'd probably be more likely to just advertise elsewhere... and if Valve were to change their policiy on pricing, and start meddling with other developers' game prices, the developers would just sell their shit elsewhere, and gamers would "add them" to their steam game list.
I really don't see how this could be so detrimental. Either way, Valve makes a good deal of money from the sales of OTHER developers' games... and they can't expect to pump out enough first party games to account for that revenue.
Their business model requires games sales from other developers. #valve
Pitchford was trying to say that monarchies in general are bad. Even if Steam is the best right now, and Valve are nice guys, there's no guidelines or rules that say they have to be friendly forever. #valve
He's got a point. Imagine if Steam were owned by Activision.
He's just saying that we should be a little uncomfortable allowing a maker of games to also CONTROLl the primary MARKET of games as well. He' looking down the road, people, and I think we'd do best to take notice.
@nomadder: He does have a point. The difference is that Valve and Gabe Newell have earned a large measure of trust with their actions, whereas other companies have not so much.
I'm gonna read the article when i get back but I also dislike Steam (Though i have bought a fair few games off of it), it seems to run slowly upon loading games and such, charges some ridiculous prices for certain games (COD4 im looking at you) and as my friend pointed wasn't digital distribution supposed to make price points cheaper?
However for a platform which has established the Friend List/active join/Dashboard sort of thing and has been around for 6 years I was expecting to have evolved into a much smoother and faster system, yet bewielderingly it still seems fairly clunky.
I don't mean to sound like a troll but i guess its how im gonna sound.
@Megamoppy: Recently-released games at full price may not be cheaper on Steam, but you have to realize that games go on sale very often and the discounts are nothing to frown at. You don't find those deals anywhere in brick-and-mortar.
Of course, you kind of have to wait for your game of choice to go on sale on Steam. To be honest I only tend to buy games on impulse through digital distribution. I see a game I've been eye-ing for a while go for $10 or $5 and I jump on the deal. I don't think it would be convenient for me at all to sit around waiting for this ONE game to go on sale on Steam, because frankly I'd probably be waiting a long time.
I think Steam is a good service with a LOT of features, but like you said it's really slow when loading games for some odd reason. I use it and I'm happy with the service, but I don't use it exclusively. I probably wouldn't be nearly as happy if I did all my gaming exclusively through Steam.
10/20/09
Its good that everyone is talking about this now, but this is just silly. Its an overreaction on par with network news. The gaming press should be ashamed. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
I myself like Steam as it is, but that does not keep me from worrying about what it could turn into, or wonder how much better it could be if they actually had real competition.
Because at the end of the day Steam is really just a video game console that runs on the power of your PC. #valve
10/20/09
What I'm getting at is that there is no more of a conflict of interest with Valve and Steam than there is with Microsoft and the 360, or Sony and the PS3, or Nintendo and the Wii. Seems like a fairly analogous situation to me, so this isn't some kind of new phenomenon.
With that said, it should be common sense here that smaller developers aren't going to badmouth Valve or Steam in public. They don't have the clout or (ironically) independence to defend themselves if Valve decides to jack up the percentages on them. Gearbox has wide retail distribution, and while broaching this subject on Valve doesn't seem like the smartest business move it's something that Pitchford can get away with.
The telling thing here is that nobody has yet come forward to dish dirt under the condition of anonymity. If that happens Pitchford may have a legitimate point; otherwise he's just raising much ado about nothing. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
#valve
10/20/09
Smart insights, Toasticus, as always. I was thinking similar thoughts on the bus today.
I would also like to add that any distribution method a la Steam that DIDN'T have the incentive and backing that Valve has with "first-party games" would mostly likely not be nearly as robust as Steam is. #valve
10/20/09
Yeah, that's a very good point. It's kind of like game engine development -- if you make your own games as well then sure, there's a conflict of interest there. But at the same time, having to put a game all the way through to completion on your engine will do wonders for showing you the kinds of things that developers need when doing likewise. In a sense, being one of their own "customers" allows Valve to proactively improve the quality of Steam as a service rather than just listening to feedback from other people who put their games on Steam. #valve
10/20/09
the only thing i think they need to change is their european pricing. people have been saying it's more expensive than retail in europe. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
I like Pitchford, but his comment always struck me as odd. Valve is really a one of a kind company in how they handle themselves. Gabe will go to press conferences dressed like always, kind of like a slob, and not care. The games speak for him, he doesn't care what people think of his appearance. And when he jokes with the mod community and they start a fund to go to Australia for L4D, he says "Okay, I'm going to Australia then. See you in a week."
No other company would do that right now. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
I am more than happy with the cut I get from Steam. Yeah of course more would be nice – but the cut isn’t anywhere near that low that it would turn me off selling through Steam. Maybe I’m a special case because GMod has sold so well – but I know that Introversion nearly went under until they got on Steam (Although flushing all the money out of the company at the end of the month is probably asking for trouble).
Should Steam be it’s own company? What difference does it make? It’d be the same Steam, run by the same people, probably from the same office. It would change nothing.
Should Steam get competition? Yeah sure competition is always good, but I can’t imagine anything will ever overtake Steam now. Steam is doing everything right, there’s no need for an alternative. Not to mention the amount of money we all have already invested in the games we own in Steam. Steam IS the PC gaming platform. As a consumer I don’t want to have different digital distribution software installed for every publisher.
So I guess Pitchford is the only guy with his feelings.
[www.garry.tv] #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
Physical pre-orders need some sort of incentive, since things don't sell out much anymore. #valve
10/20/09
With digital downloads having no physical objects to manage, no set quantities to order to a distributor, the original reason for pre-orders simply vanished. Only leaving a marketing ploy that makes little sense (but possibly big money).
That said, there might be advantages for a digital download outlet to have pre-orders. While they do not have game boxes to manage, they still have logistical issues such as bandwidth. Having people pre-download a game certainly reduces the data transfer peak on the day of release and the costs it may entail.
10/20/09
1. Digital Pre-orders are usually cheaper, Steam tend to knock of 10% or so
2. Steam lets you pre-load the game, so 12midnight hits you can start playing your game
3.The pre-load also means Steam don't have several thousand folk trying to grab the game at midnight. #valve
10/20/09
and context is everything, as even a supposedly positive comment from a steam supporter such as "...Valve offers the most developer-friendly terms for digital distribution in the industry." should be taken lightly. what are those terms, and how fair are they? just because you're better than the worst doesn't make you as fair as you should be.
pitchford's a bit nuts though if he thinks a wal-mart model would be good. uber-distributor = cut-throat pricing and predatory tactics to keep product with that distributor. #valve
10/20/09
Valve is running a "shop" but also making products for this "shop" and allowing other companies to sell their products in this "shop". What Pitchford said was, that there might be conflict of interest, because Valve as a private company would rather propagate their own product than someone else's if they had to choose. There. Yes Steam is great and yes Pitchford was right even if he likes Steam.
I don't think he's on "edge", he's just pointing out the obvious. Even if I like something I can't be blind to it's faults, that's all he said.
10/20/09
10/20/09
The possibility for conflict of interest is there, that's all he said and that's a fact. Same goes for this Macy's or whoever else. #valve
10/20/09
I've never been a PC gamer without Steam... (switched over to PC about a year and a half ago) and I can't really see myself being one without it.
The first time I downloaded the Original Half Life and WAS ABLE TO PLAY IT WHILE IT WAS DOWNLOADING... I was literally in shock. I'd never experienced such quality digital distribution coming from the console end of things.
I do hope PC developers will get a grip on themselves and realize that nobody ever liked GFWL... and that still nobody likes GFWL. #valve
10/20/09
The only real gripe I have with it is start-up times: starting the thing up for me takes 20 secs, and starting up a game takes two to ten. Annoying. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
I wonder where retail fits in the equation. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
Why do people keep shining such a negative light on his comments?
Maybe there's some part of the interview I skipped? :/ #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
Because I can download the game as many times as a I want. Every day if I like.
How many times can you download what you buy of itunes?
Yeah, I thought so. #valve
10/20/09
We all love it now, but let's say, hypothetically that Valve is bought out--maybe Gabe retires, or maybe something happens and he's gone. Who's to say it will STAY great? It could be, theoretically, leveraged into something very evil very fast.
...The thing Pitchford fails to understand is it would promptly fail, and be a non-issue. Steam isn't popular because Steam is popular, Steam is popular because it's conveinent, well-valued, a decent platform and offers FAIR DEALS TO THE 'competition.' Fail to do that, and people won't sell on Steam, people won't buy on Steam, it will go away.
We're not talking about issues with people who control say, hardware, or Software, which can cause all KINDS of conflict *coughcoughMICROSOFTcoughcough*. Steam's just a selling-arm of a gaming company. They don't wield that much more clout than other companies, and they can only 'screw' with other companies in so much as its profitable. Valve may resonate with us PC gamers, but it's not such a powerhouse that Steam can survive on Valve alone--at least not at the level it is now.
In short, yeah, I see his point, but he's still full of it. #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
This is one of the good sides of capitalism.
OT: I like Steam very much, but I can also understand the conflict of interest. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Valve to seperate the Steam publishing service into a new company? #valve
10/20/09
10/20/09
10/20/09
For evidence of this, I point to the absoulte FAIL that was Games for Windows Live.
I could create hypothetical scenarios that are divorced from reality until I'm blue in the face, but trying to argue that Steam could gain so many games that it becomes sentient and because people think it's conveinent they continue to feed it anyway until it finally just plugs us into neural links and plunges is into the Matrix--that doesn't mean my fear is in fact, completely fucking unfounded.
10/20/09
@Evdor: #valve
10/20/09
Whatever. #valve
10/20/09
No, you're right.
But I think... the problem is more about advertisement. Valve could basically ignore the competition and put their games exclusively on the front page.
If this happened, it wouldn't inconvenience players to the point of avoiding use of the service. It might stop developers from using the service... but if the players are still there, why should they?
I think they'd probably be more likely to just advertise elsewhere... and if Valve were to change their policiy on pricing, and start meddling with other developers' game prices, the developers would just sell their shit elsewhere, and gamers would "add them" to their steam game list.
I really don't see how this could be so detrimental. Either way, Valve makes a good deal of money from the sales of OTHER developers' games... and they can't expect to pump out enough first party games to account for that revenue.
Their business model requires games sales from other developers. #valve
10/20/09
10/08/09
He's just saying that we should be a little uncomfortable allowing a maker of games to also CONTROLl the primary MARKET of games as well. He' looking down the road, people, and I think we'd do best to take notice.
10/08/09
10/08/09
However for a platform which has established the Friend List/active join/Dashboard sort of thing and has been around for 6 years I was expecting to have evolved into a much smoother and faster system, yet bewielderingly it still seems fairly clunky.
I don't mean to sound like a troll but i guess its how im gonna sound.
10/08/09
Of course, you kind of have to wait for your game of choice to go on sale on Steam. To be honest I only tend to buy games on impulse through digital distribution. I see a game I've been eye-ing for a while go for $10 or $5 and I jump on the deal. I don't think it would be convenient for me at all to sit around waiting for this ONE game to go on sale on Steam, because frankly I'd probably be waiting a long time.
I think Steam is a good service with a LOT of features, but like you said it's really slow when loading games for some odd reason. I use it and I'm happy with the service, but I don't use it exclusively. I probably wouldn't be nearly as happy if I did all my gaming exclusively through Steam.