RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!, just a dumping ground

[entrerix]

yeah thats not actually sufficient to avoid a lawsuit, its designed to scare people into not filing one

[Thorton_AP]

It's actually different from the Starforce example: as terrible as Starforce is, at least DRM has a sensible reason to be there in the first place, even if it screws up what it's meant to do. Steam has no sensible reason to be mandatory for anything.

 

Steamworks is the DRM.

 

 

2) Therefore, it's exactly like exclusivity deals on an Xbox or Playstation, except it's not a hardware / development constraint that contributes to the reasoning, it's exclusively a decision made to increase Steam's market share and improve its market dominance.

 

If this is where you're going, then it probably wouldn't be much of a stretch to twist anything into an anti-monopoly arrangement. Exclusivity arrangements exist for games a lot. There's also licensing issue (you're not getting a D&D computer game unless Hasbro is involved, for example.

 

 

I think at best, you'll get a split like GamersGate did. GamersGate split off (voluntarily I believe) from Paradox Interactive. Though obviously the concern that devs using Steam will result in funding Valve games doesn't seem to be a very legitimate one, given they keep doing it.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[213374U]

Let's not kid ourselves, Microsoft's bundling of IE is only an issue because of their market dominance.

Perhaps, but that's a moot point -- it makes no sense to enact anti-trust measures against somebody that isn't in a postion to establish a monopoly. MS was in a dominant market position... much like Valve is now.

 

 

Steamworks is an opt-in process that game developers appear to like. Maybe the other DD platforms should make their DD platforms more appealing to game developers so that they will use it?

Or maybe it's appealing to them because it already has a larger market share than any other DD platform? Any reasons you present why devs might like it better are just speculation, unless you can show they really offer better deals to developers.

 

It's cool how you cherry-picked the part of my post that was convenient for you to make your point, disregarded the part where I said that there are no alternatives to Steam for some games, and then went on to admit that Steam is not only DRM but essentially opt-in -- as in non-essential for the actual functioning of the game or the protection of IP rights. So the justification for it's exclusivity and mandatory use is...?

Edited July 23, 2010 by 213374U

[Thorton_AP]

MS was in a dominant market position... much like Valve is now.

 

I just saw an article yesterday (it was linked and I don't remember what it was called) indicating that digital distribution accounts for 42% of PC game sales. The top 5 were Steam, Direct2Drive, Blizzard, <something else I can't remember... it wasn't Impulse which surprised me>, and Battle.net

 

Yes, Blizzard.com and Battle.net were separate entities.

 

What constitutes a dominant market position?

 

 

 

Or maybe it's appealing to them because it already has a larger market share than any other DD platform? Any reasons you present why devs might like it better are just speculation, unless you can show they really offer better deals to developers.

 

As clearly evidenced by Steam's current library of games, a game does NOT need Steamworks in order to be on Steam. Developers opt in to use Steamworks for SOME reason. If they want to be on Steam but not use Steamworks, this option is available to game developers.

 

Admittedly I don't know what direct benefits there are to using Steamworks, but I'm going to go out on a limb that there is at least SOME value for game developers using Steamworks.

 

 

To reiterate: You do not need to use Steamworks to use Steam.

 

It's cool how you cherry-picked the part of my post that was convenient for you to make your point, disregarded the part where I said that there are no alternatives to Steam for some games, and then went on to admit that Steam is not only DRM but essentially opt-in -- as in non-essential for the actual functioning of the game or the protection of IP rights.

 

Yes, there are no alternatives to Steam for some games. There are no alternatives to Good Old Games either for some games, near as I can tell. Scrounging up rare copies on ebay that often don't even exist is not a viable alternative IMO either.

 

 

So the justification for it's exclusivity and mandatory use is...?

 

Ask the developers that decide to use Steamworks instead of just using Steam as a DD method. There the ones deciding that they want more than just Steam as a distribution service.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Purkake]

It would be awesome if Steam had an optional ~$60 a month subscription thing that allowed you to play any game on Steam.

[213374U]

What constitutes a dominant market position?

Oh please. We are specifically discussing digital distribution, not the gaming market in general. And I think that handling 70% of the deals in any market or venue does, in fact, constitute a dominant market position.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=26158

 

 

As clearly evidenced by Steam's current library of games, a game does NOT need Steamworks in order to be on Steam. Developers opt in to use Steamworks for SOME reason. If they want to be on Steam but not use Steamworks, this option is available to game developers.

 

Admittedly I don't know what direct benefits there are to using Steamworks, but I'm going to go out on a limb that there is at least SOME value for game developers using Steamworks.

 

[...]

 

Ask the developers that decide to use Steamworks instead of just using Steam as a DD method. There the ones deciding that they want more than just Steam as a distribution service.

Oh, but I don't need to ask them, it's plain for anyone to see. Steamworks is, after all, free (doesn't this sound familiar? At all?). And then there's also the other chief advantage: infringing on consumer rights, as Steam prevents second-hand sales. You can also use Steamworks but not Steam itself... only nobody seems to do this. I wonder why?

 

What are we discussing, again? The effectiveness of Valve's business tactics, or their legitimacy?

 

 

Yes, there are no alternatives to Steam for some games. There are no alternatives to Good Old Games either for some games, near as I can tell. Scrounging up rare copies on ebay that often don't even exist is not a viable alternative IMO either.

True. But GOG specializes in games that are no longer available through normal means, as you admit yourself. It's a special case, and for the games in GOG's catalog the "exclusivity" arises from the fact that they are rescuing games that the original publishers are no longer interested in keeping available. And there's also the fact that the way they provide the service is 100% less obtrusive.

[Thorton_AP]

Oh please. We are specifically discussing digital distribution, not the gaming market in general. And I think that handling 70% of the deals in any market or venue does, in fact, constitute a dominant market position.

 

Irrelevant. Opportunities to acquires the software in other ways still exist. This sounds like Mom and Pop small time retailer crying because they don't have the economies of scale to compete with Walmart. What I have to say: Muffin.

 

 

Oh, but I don't need to ask them, it's plain for anyone to see. Steamworks is, after all, free (doesn't this sound familiar? At all?). And then there's also the other chief advantage: infringing on consumer rights, as Steam prevents second-hand sales. You can also use Steamworks but not Steam itself... only nobody seems to do this. I wonder why? rolleyes.gif

 

Since you state that you can use Steamworks but not Steam itself (I am unaware of this), are you saying that game developers continue to voluntarily use both Steam and Steamworks? Does this mean that mandatory Steam usage is actually a decision the developer is making? (and before you bemoan me for sidestepping and cherry picking points, as well as making assumptions... but I guess you probably only did it because I did first right After all, you don't need to ask the devs why they use Steamworks: You've already drawn your own conclusions. I'm reminded of Something Awful right now...)

 

 

What are we discussing, again? The effectiveness of Valve's business tactics, or their legitimacy?

 

We were discussing your incorrect assumption that devs needs to use Steamworks to use Steam as a distribution service.

 

 

True. But GOG specializes in games that are no longer available through normal means, as you admit yourself. It's a special case, and for the games in GOG's catalog the "exclusivity" arises from the fact that they are rescuing games that the original publishers are no longer interested in keeping available. And there's also the fact that the way they provide the service is 100% less obtrusive.

 

So it's a special case because you like it? You stated "there are no alternatives to Steam." I point out a similar example, and you basically go "but, but, but." There are plenty of games that I can only get from a single source (Matrix Games, for example), and there are plenty of games that force me to use DRMs that aren't required for selling a game (oh, we made an excuse for that one too now didn't we... I think that was Tigranes). I go to smaller retail stores and frequently find that games I want to buy aren't in stock, so I have to go to a big chain. Especially if the game is not a particularly big release.

 

I tend to be fairly right-wing and don't believe that the government needs to start stepping in here because they'll just **** things up more. Since developers seem to feel there is an advantage to using Steamworks (instead of just utilizing Steam as a distribution service which is an alternative), you seem to be advocating that the option and benefits that developers get with Steamworks should be denied to the developers? It's hard to make sense here since you're apparently willing to make concessions for other similar business models if you like the service they provide.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Oner]

Oh please. We are specifically discussing digital distribution, not the gaming market in general. And I think that handling 70% of the deals in any market or venue does, in fact, constitute a dominant market position.

 

Irrelevant.

****, when did Vol infect you with his disease?

[Thorton_AP]

Oh please. We are specifically discussing digital distribution, not the gaming market in general. And I think that handling 70% of the deals in any market or venue does, in fact, constitute a dominant market position.

 

Irrelevant.

****, when did Vol infect you with his disease?

 

 

It's irrelevant to look at ONLY the digital distribution schemes if it only looks at a smaller subset of the total sales. According to Joystiq, digital distribution accounted for 36 percent of sales. This means Steam accounts for about 25% of all PC game sales.

 

Furthermore, looking back, we clearly aren't specifically talking discussing digital distribution since he already mentioned his grievance about RETAIL games with Steamworks requiring Steam to be installed.

 

Since this all started from a hope from MW that the EU would intervene, I'm sure numbers man was a big supporter of the Eurocommies intervening on Microsoft's Internet Explorer distribution as well (I was not). If the EU does intervene and gets the same results, what it will likely mean is that Steamworks will no longer be allowed to exist in its current form. I believe that there's a greater chance of this ****ing over developers that obviously see some value in using Steamworks, since they are choosing to use Steamworks for the games.

 

Developers do NOT use Steamworks so that they can use Steam, as Numbers man suggested with this post (emphasis mine):

Or maybe it's appealing to them because it already has a larger market share than any other DD platform? Any reasons you present why devs might like it better are just speculation, unless you can show they really offer better deals to developers.

You can clearly use Steam without using Steamworks, since many games do.

[Thorton_AP]

According to Wikipedia, it seems numbers man is correct that you don't need to use Steam with Steamworks (NBA 2K9 did just this).

 

The best I can conclude is that the only thing that requires Steamworks is using the Steamworks DRM (which near as I can tell, is pretty much just Steam). Though I imagine use of some of the other features (achievement tracking, Steam Cloud) and so forth probably also need Steam access in some way. I'd need NBA 2K9 to verify though :\

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Some examples of the uncompromising principles of competitor DD services can be found here and here and her. (pretty much all reporting the same story)

 

Shack news nicely points out for us that these competitors are upset because of MW2's inclusion of Steam, stating that as the reason why they won't use it. Shack News also nicely points out that D2D and GamersGate do, in fact, sell games that require Steam (actually, it looks like Direct2Drive actually sells Modern Warfare 2).

Edited July 23, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Morgoth]

What's the point buying a Steamworks game from D2D or Gamersgate? Buy directly from Steam.

[WorstUsernameEver]

What's the point buying a Steamworks game from D2D or Gamersgate? Buy directly from Steam.

 

Maybe it costs less? Steam ain't cheap, ya know.

[Morgoth]

Retail is almost always cheaper than any digital outlet.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Retail is almost always cheaper than any digital outlet.

 

Won't argue that, but who knows, maybe there's a nerd with a broken leg that wants to get a game cheaper?

[Wombat]

BTW, has anyone here tried cloud gaming such as Gaikai or Onlive? Judging from youtube videos, they seem to work O.K even though there seem to be inevitable lags. Their advantage is that the players don't need to invest on their hardware.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Wombat

[Morgoth]

I rather invest into hardware than playing with lag. PC hardware isn't really that expensive these days, and no, you don't need to upgrade every single year to run games properly.

[Wombat]

I rather invest into hardware than playing with lag. PC hardware isn't really that expensive these days, and no, you don't need to upgrade every single year to run games properly.

Guess they are for mobile users, then. I was simply wondering...

[Thorton_AP]

Depending on the cost of the service, something like OnLive is interesting.

 

I don't suspect it's something that I would bother using and there's going to undoubtedly be huge growing pains in the short term, but if it can get more people playing games that otherwise wouldn't, I see that as a good thing.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I like Onlive because I have a mac and, even with steam, the game selection blows.

[Thorton_AP]

Hopefully stuff like Steam can help improve that.

 

I switched from a Mac user growing up due to the poorer selection of games myself.

[Purkake]

BTW, has anyone here tried cloud gaming such as Gaikai or Onlive? Judging from youtube videos, they seem to work O.K even though there seem to be inevitable lags. Their advantage is that the players don't need to invest on their hardware.

We had a discussion about OnLive a month ago or so.

 

See this thread.

 

And Morgoth, I think most people know that already, being PC gamers and all...

Edited July 23, 2010 by Purkake

[Wombat]

See this thread.

 

And Morgoth, I think most people know that already, being PC gamers and all...

Thanx for the link but the conclusion seems to be more or less similar. Basically, the cloud gaming services are targeted for wider range of people but I should have expected the answer here. Considering the frequency at which I play games, I guess I'm probably little more than a PC user than a full-fledged PC gamer.

[Purkake]

Just take into account that a lot of the people here are conservative old grognards.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Just take into account that a lot of the people here are conservative old grognards.

I like to think we're more polite than others like say, the codex.

[Wombat]

Just take into account that a lot of the people here are conservative old grognards.

I like to think we're more polite than others like say, the codex.

Rather, for games which are supported by people at Codex, the small amount of time lag shouldn't be a problem. Also, IIRC, they were not happy with Diablo and its clones...