As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here, I figured I'd take the time to clarify my position since my intent has been construed out of context.
As a gamer, I *love* Valve's games. Hell, I've *made* some of Valve's games!
As a customer, I love Steam. I like owning a credential that I can use from any terminal and I like the software. There are other things I like, too.
As a businessman, I appreciate the access to Valve's customers that they are providing with Steam. I think there's value to that access. I'm really happy that the Brothers in Arms games are available on Steam and I think Steam customers are really going to dig Borderlands. I have been and hope to be a partner to Valve for many years.
From an industry perspective of digital distribution on the PC, I think Steam is doing it the best right now. They're in front and they're really getting value out of their leadership position with digital distribution on the PC.
From an industry perspective, I believe that Steam would be even better off if it were a separate company. Trust issues that result from conflict of interest could be mitigated if Steam were a separate company. Take that only as analysis. It doesn't matter how much I trust Valve or how trustworthy Valve actually is - it's just perception within segments of the publishing and development community that, I guess, no one is really talking about. I'm on record in this article saying how I personally trust Valve. I was attempting to comment on perception from some angles of the industry.
I also believe that gamers and customers and anyone making games using 3rd party digital distribution systems would be greatly benefited if Steam had some viable competitors. Competition generally drives higher quality products and services at lower prices. I can't see how anyone could argue against that point. If we love Steam, we should hope that as competition appears that it prompts the Steam folks to go faster and better towards improving the service and the pricing.
In spite of the implication made in the original source article, I do not want Microsoft to control digital distribution on PC, but believe they (and others) could enter the space if they wanted to and help the competitive landscape and even, perhaps, help to standardize the landscape a bit. I believe that because Valve is a game maker that generally "gets it" I think there's a lot of value to the position they have and I'm really excited about the risk they took and the foresight Valve showed in paving the way there.
These are not mutually exclusive feelings and they are all honest and forthright.
I really don't understand where you're coming from when you say there need to be other viable options of digital distribution services. There are. Most notably Direct2Drive. Now maybe D2D doesn't offer a "community" portion like Steam does, but who's stopping them? Honestly, the most viable option for them would be to buy out or cooperate with X-Fire and integrate its buddy messaging services with a D2D storefront and then add on some unique features.
I made my Steam account on Sept 12, 2003. I hated it in beta and I hated it then. But Valve made a huge amount of changes. Many of them coming from community suggestions. About a year after launch it took on a new face and _really_ caught on. So let's face it. Valve came up with something truly original and molded it into exactly what the consumer wanted. Anyone else is free to do the same. But the question remains, who has ever done better than Valve in Valve's field of operations? Good luck.
I don't know about you, but Steam is the only one I've ever actually used. I've heard of D2D, but probably won't ever use it. I haven't even heard of the others you have listed.
I don't think Impulse is the solution the source is looking for. Why? Impulse is also ran by a game company, Stardock. Not as big as valve... unless you are in their niche market, then they are huge.
D2D is very simple, you give them money, they give you a link to download the app, no download manager or anything to install except the game itself. I have only purchased one game through them btu they seem fine, if I want I can download the game again, plus the game I bought had 0 DRM on it.
GOG only sells old titles, so it's out for recent onces. Metaboli doesn't appear to actually sell games. So that leaves Direct2Drive, GamersGate, and Impulse.
If all you want to do is buy games, those three are sufficient. But in terms of the end-user experience, they don't hold a candle to Steam, which is what's holding them back from being viable competitors.
As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here,
That is where you are going wrong, we are in fact 90% self righteous troll, fortunately I'm part of the 10% that responds to logic and completely agree that it would be better for everybody involved if steam/valve split. If they do not they will have to take great care to not end up running afoul of anti-trust laws as they are a major part of several markets distribution,PC FPS (particularly at a pro level),engine licensor.
I'm not suggesting we force them to split up (well until they break the law anyway), Do you think it would hurt competition to have steam/valve untied? I don't know about stardock, but I definetly think if xbox360 was not tied to windows we would be in a better situation (the same for tying xbox live to the xbox and the software not allowing 3rd party wireless controllers via bluetooth, etc)
Now that isn't to say we should force a break up of MS, there are no grounds to attack the xbox division AFAIK. However
[citation needed] This isn't like os X and apple, where customers would be much better of if ox X were not tied to apple hw, however apple would probably die and os X wouldn't make the cash to keep going. Steam is making money, valve's games are making money, so why would spinning steam of into a seperate compnay hurt prices? administrative overhead? With the profits they're making a slight overhead is negligible. steam having to charge valve games? Steam already gets it's cut of game sales, if they split it
I don't see why companies like Microsoft and Ubisoft can publish games and also make them, but Valve can't? The medium might be slightly different, but it seems to me you're not applying your sentiments to enough companies.
I'd like to think I'm 80% the 10% and 20% the 90%. But that's just my self righteousness.
I agree.
They are essentially going to control the means to production. A game developer isn't going to be able to move a title UNLESS it goes thru Steam. Just like in days gone past, game retailers were the only place to get your fix. Now, however, thanks to one website, many reached, you only need one place to establish your dominance. Not a physical location in every town to duke it out with the competition.
I don't see the "trust" issue. And I don't see first person shooters as "competing" with each other. If it's a good game people will buy it regardless of whether they have bought another game in that genre. The only games that really "compete" are the ones that have failed to significantly innovate. And how is this conflict of interest crap different from EA owning one development studio but also publishing and distributing games from other studios?
I actually think there is a benefit for everyone in keeping
Attacking Steam won't earn you points here...or in the gamer community. Steam is fact now.
To introduce these "trust" and "anti-competitive" perceptions regarding Steam then provide not a SINGLE, SOLITARY fact to support such absurd claims makes you a piece of FUD. Talking in vague terms like "perceptions" and "angles of industry". You should be ashamed of yourself. Your initial article and this half-baked follow-up are nothing but a third-rate attempt at passing off FUD as fact. Slashdot i
I fail to see where Randy made any absurd claims in the interview, or in his follow-up. He was just stating his opinions on something he obviously cares about, and has a lot more insight into than most people. I for one appreciate him bringing the subject up, as it is something I have thought about a lot. I too love Steam, and I want to see it keep growing - but at the same time, I would hate to see it alone totally take over PC gaming, leaving one company in charge, like with the various console platforms.
He introduces bogus issues of "trust" and "conflict of interest" and you can't see the FUD, aka absurd claims? He can't cite ANY case where Steam and Valve have collaborated to screw a publisher. NOT ONE.
Then, while he's bemoaning the "lack of competition" in the industry, he notes that Microsoft has some digital distribution service. Which is it? Does Steam have competition or not?
(The answer is yes...but the competitors just can't measure up)
He's entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Spreading
Your misunderstanding the point here. People are not accusing steam of misproprietous software, rather they are making a similar sort of point, say, some australians make about the queen. Just because the current queen isn't a dictator in behavior, doesnt mean that theres not a risk that we have an absolute executive who COULD be a dictator if she wanted (well sort of , constitution and all that). And we don't know that King William, demented with rage at the early loss of his mother wont declare australia
Randy,
I can respect that you are coming from the perspective of a competitor, and commenting on how you would feel better about the distribution channel if it wasn't directly conjoined with one of your biggest competitors. I can really understand that concept.
As a customer, I hope Steam *never* separates from Valve. I trust them, as well as I can trust any corporation, as they have in the past demonstrated that they *really* want my cash, and are willing to prove it. They do it in a variety of ways,
I believe a lot of the innovation and features visible in Steam is driven by Valve's direct experience with creating and expanding their games. From the basic technology for easy updates of games, to easy modification distribution, to being able to easily store game configuration and items server side - these are all features that were important to Valve for their own games, and are now part of (or becoming part of) the vast number of tools available to 3rd parties releasing on Steam. Even things like th
You've made money off other people's work via the HL ports/expansion packs and the halo port amongst others. I have no problem with that and love Opposing force, blue shift and some of the BiA games.
So I do think it's a bit hypocritical. Sure Gearbox did dev work on thosse titles and deserve to get paid. Valve may not add input into the dev of the games on Steam but that network doesn't run itself for free so of course they should get some cash.
It just sounds like a case of sour grapes because you hav
Mater artium necessitas.
[Necessity is the mother of invention].
Comment from the source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Comment from the source (Score:4, Funny)
As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here
You lost me.
Re:Comment from the source (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Impulse is really good, too. I buy from Impulse, Steam, and GOG.
GOG is just a website - an impressive website. It has DRM free installers for all their games. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True, true.
But why not? Most publishers have released their own games. Perhaps only a few - unless you're Ubisoft or Microsoft - but they've still done it.
Why not Valve and Stardock, too?
Re: (Score:2)
D2D is very simple, you give them money, they give you a link to download the app, no download manager or anything to install except the game itself. I have only purchased one game through them btu they seem fine, if I want I can download the game again, plus the game I bought had 0 DRM on it.
Other games may have DRM and or other issues.
Re: (Score:2)
GOG only sells old titles, so it's out for recent onces. Metaboli doesn't appear to actually sell games. So that leaves Direct2Drive, GamersGate, and Impulse.
If all you want to do is buy games, those three are sufficient. But in terms of the end-user experience, they don't hold a candle to Steam, which is what's holding them back from being viable competitors.
Re:Comment from the source (Score:4, Insightful)
As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here,
That is where you are going wrong, we are in fact 90% self righteous troll, fortunately I'm part of the 10% that responds to logic and completely agree that it would be better for everybody involved if steam/valve split. If they do not they will have to take great care to not end up running afoul of anti-trust laws as they are a major part of several markets distribution,PC FPS (particularly at a pro level),engine licensor.
Re: (Score:2)
Would Stardock have to split too, then? What about Microsoft and their next XBox, or Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting we force them to split up (well until they break the law anyway), Do you think it would hurt competition to have steam/valve untied?
I don't know about stardock, but I definetly think if xbox360 was not tied to windows we would be in a better situation (the same for tying xbox live to the xbox and the software not allowing 3rd party wireless controllers via bluetooth, etc)
Now that isn't to say we should force a break up of MS, there are no grounds to attack the xbox division AFAIK. However
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it would hurt competition to have steam/valve untied?
No - but it would hurt prices.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] This isn't like os X and apple, where customers would be much better of if ox X were not tied to apple hw, however apple would probably die and os X wouldn't make the cash to keep going. Steam is making money, valve's games are making money, so why would spinning steam of into a seperate compnay hurt prices?
administrative overhead? With the profits they're making a slight overhead is negligible.
steam having to charge valve games? Steam already gets it's cut of game sales, if they split it
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is playing the role of publisher, correct?
I don't see why companies like Microsoft and Ubisoft can publish games and also make them, but Valve can't? The medium might be slightly different, but it seems to me you're not applying your sentiments to enough companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think I'm 80% the 10% and 20% the 90%. But that's just my self righteousness.
I agree.
They are essentially going to control the means to production. A game developer isn't going to be able to move a title UNLESS it goes thru Steam. Just like in days gone past, game retailers were the only place to get your fix. Now, however, thanks to one website, many reached, you only need one place to establish your dominance. Not a physical location in every town to duke it out with the competition.
Steam did
Re: (Score:2)
That Randy is such a rebel boat rocker.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see the "trust" issue. And I don't see first person shooters as "competing" with each other. If it's a good game people will buy it regardless of whether they have bought another game in that genre. The only games that really "compete" are the ones that have failed to significantly innovate. And how is this conflict of interest crap different from EA owning one development studio but also publishing and distributing games from other studios?
I actually think there is a benefit for everyone in keeping
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a crock.
Attacking Steam won't earn you points here...or in the gamer community. Steam is fact now.
To introduce these "trust" and "anti-competitive" perceptions regarding Steam then provide not a SINGLE, SOLITARY fact to support such absurd claims makes you a piece of FUD. Talking in vague terms like "perceptions" and "angles of industry". You should be ashamed of yourself. Your initial article and this half-baked follow-up are nothing but a third-rate attempt at passing off FUD as fact. Slashdot i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He introduces bogus issues of "trust" and "conflict of interest" and you can't see the FUD, aka absurd claims? He can't cite ANY case where Steam and Valve have collaborated to screw a publisher. NOT ONE.
Then, while he's bemoaning the "lack of competition" in the industry, he notes that Microsoft has some digital distribution service. Which is it? Does Steam have competition or not?
(The answer is yes...but the competitors just can't measure up)
He's entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Spreading
Re: (Score:2)
Your misunderstanding the point here. People are not accusing steam of misproprietous software, rather they are making a similar sort of point, say, some australians make about the queen. Just because the current queen isn't a dictator in behavior, doesnt mean that theres not a risk that we have an absolute executive who COULD be a dictator if she wanted (well sort of , constitution and all that). And we don't know that King William, demented with rage at the early loss of his mother wont declare australia
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can respect that you are coming from the perspective of a competitor, and commenting on how you would feel better about the distribution channel if it wasn't directly conjoined with one of your biggest competitors. I can really understand that concept.
As a customer, I hope Steam *never* separates from Valve. I trust them, as well as I can trust any corporation, as they have in the past demonstrated that they *really* want my cash, and are willing to prove it. They do it in a variety of ways,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So I do think it's a bit hypocritical. Sure Gearbox did dev work on thosse titles and deserve to get paid. Valve may not add input into the dev of the games on Steam but that network doesn't run itself for free so of course they should get some cash.
It just sounds like a case of sour grapes because you hav