So You Want to Compete with Steam (2018)(fortressofdoors.com)
fortressofdoors.com
So You Want to Compete with Steam (2018)
https://www.fortressofdoors.com/so-you-want-to-compete-with-steam/
291 comments
The thing with Steam is - at no point in history it felt like the company is just milking its users. Something that otherwise never happens nowadays. Every single bigger company is just trying to maximize the profit by being borderline abusive, but not Valve, despite their vast dominance. For this very reason they have my loyalty and no exclusives, promotions, pricing plans etc. are going to make me switch.
Not to mention that as Linux user, they might be the single biggest force that made it so that I have more games on Linux than I have time to actually play.
Not to mention that as Linux user, they might be the single biggest force that made it so that I have more games on Linux than I have time to actually play.
You mean the company that pioneered:
Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
doesn't milk it's users?
Dota used to have $35 "arcanas", a high quality skin for a single hero which were released intermittently - but that wasn't enough money, they're now placed $200+ deep in the yearly battlepass. If you played any of their games, you'd realise they're one of greediest in the business.
Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
doesn't milk it's users?
Dota used to have $35 "arcanas", a high quality skin for a single hero which were released intermittently - but that wasn't enough money, they're now placed $200+ deep in the yearly battlepass. If you played any of their games, you'd realise they're one of greediest in the business.
They also pioneered 2 hour no question return policy, Linux support and a store that was mostly global in a world where everyone else treated us non-americans like crap.
When Nintendo sold me a game thats unplayably busted on the Switch they just shrugged and told me to suck it up. Steam didn't.
They also pioneered a store that plays less of a moral police than any others.
(Despite all that, I usually prefer GoG these days because I despise DRM and Steams login limit.)
When Nintendo sold me a game thats unplayably busted on the Switch they just shrugged and told me to suck it up. Steam didn't.
They also pioneered a store that plays less of a moral police than any others.
(Despite all that, I usually prefer GoG these days because I despise DRM and Steams login limit.)
The regional pricing cannot be overstated - when I lived in a country with a PPP ratio of 0.5 (vs US), Steam always felt to have realistic local prices while other stores were 2x or more expensive. It really drove the normalization of non-piracy in various countries IMHO.
Most of the people in this thread won’t understand the pain of having to buy something denominated in dollars, especially as a kid with no money. That’s probably why I’ll be loyal to Steam forever.
Most people on this site don't know and don't care externalized cost of dollar denominated currency and reserve currency status so long as their goods and vacations come cheap.
Yeah that's why all the Hongkong key shops exist because Valve is so fucking generous with its prices
[deleted]
To be fair, Valve were sued into enacting their return policy by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), and no longer offer flash sales because of it.
Linux support is nice though.
Linux support is nice though.
That doesn't change the fact that noone else really offers this. I accidentally bought a wrong copy of a game on PS5 and they just told me to go away because I "already downloaded it". The download started automatically. I didn't even boot up the PS5 from the time I did the purchase and the time I contacted support (which also gave me a runaround of "oh, you're on UK store not EU store, go away and wait for another 45 minutes).
Seems like Australia should sue other stores as well.
Seems like Australia should sue other stores as well.
That's just not true, GoG offer a 30 day refund even if you played the game with no maximum time, Xbox say you get a refund if you haven't "accumulated a significant amount of play time", Epic offer a under 2 hour refund and Origin seem to have a similar stance.
Looks to me like 2 hours play time is a industry standard and Steam aren't doing anything special.
These windows appeared after Steam pioneered them and most of them require contacting support which can literally take hours if you're not from US (if you can even get it).
Haven't tried with GoG though, never needed it there.
Haven't tried with GoG though, never needed it there.
Origin was doing 2 hour refunds around 2 years before Steam
The oldest articles I can find:
Origin [2013]: https://www.pcgamer.com/ea-origin-refunds/
Steam [2015]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/06/02/valve...
And as another person (and if my own memory serves) mentioned, Steam's move was nearly entirely driven by pending lawsuits.
Don't get me wrong, I primarily use Steam and support them because they're the only company really caring about Linux, but I don't think they can be given the credit for pioneering the current refund landscape.
The oldest articles I can find:
Origin [2013]: https://www.pcgamer.com/ea-origin-refunds/
Steam [2015]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/06/02/valve...
And as another person (and if my own memory serves) mentioned, Steam's move was nearly entirely driven by pending lawsuits.
Don't get me wrong, I primarily use Steam and support them because they're the only company really caring about Linux, but I don't think they can be given the credit for pioneering the current refund landscape.
EA with Origin was doing refunds years before Steam was, so could you clarify how Steam "pioneered" them? Check your facts.
The one time I requested an Xbox One game refund (downloaded, unplayed) it was a brief form to fill out online - quick and easy.
Steam was the first store implementing the 2 hour limit.
And for GOG not to have a limit on playtime makes sense, since (unless you use Galaxy), they have no way of knowing how much you've played a game.
And for GOG not to have a limit on playtime makes sense, since (unless you use Galaxy), they have no way of knowing how much you've played a game.
When SimCity was an unplayable mess that basically couldn't deliver on most of the features for weeks after launch, I emailed EA, said it didn't match the quality or features they advertised. Within 2-3 days I had a refund.
This was years before Valve would issue refunds even for other similarly broken titles.
I requested refunds from them before they got sued by the ACCC, got told to take it up with the game developer. Contact the game developer who told me to take it up with Valve.
Afterwards they just tell me I played too many hours (ironically because I was trying to repro the issue on a few maps to demonstrate it wasn't me/my computer/etc that was shit)
This was years before Valve would issue refunds even for other similarly broken titles.
I requested refunds from them before they got sued by the ACCC, got told to take it up with the game developer. Contact the game developer who told me to take it up with Valve.
Afterwards they just tell me I played too many hours (ironically because I was trying to repro the issue on a few maps to demonstrate it wasn't me/my computer/etc that was shit)
Fwiw Meta offers this on the quest store. But that might just be that it's a new space. And my personal experience is this policy made me buy more stuff. Every game has basically a 2hour demo for 14 days
I don't care if they offer or not, if a company refuses me a refund as per consumer law in Germany, I will file a complaint against them on the Consumer Protection Agency and let their legal team handle it.
Guess what, I usually get my refunds back from companies that tell me to f** off.
Guess what, I usually get my refunds back from companies that tell me to f** off.
I purchased movies to watch with my kids on Google Play after which I found out they did not come with Dutch subtitles, which was unexpected for me. Asked for a refund and received it immediately, unexpectedly!!
>"oh, you're on UK store not EU store, go away and wait for another 45 minutes"
Is anything stopping the UK from keeping the same consumer protection laws inherited from the EU?
Is anything stopping the UK from keeping the same consumer protection laws inherited from the EU?
The whole point of Brexit was to boldly charge ahead into a bright future, unburdened by EU's anti-innovation laws (some of which are known as "consumer protection laws").
/s
/s
I don't know - the issue wasn't the laws in my case. It was that I opened my local PSN page, clicked "get support" and it somehow connected me with UK support chat. Which then, after 45 minutes of waiting, just told me that I need to try again on my local support page with no helpful link. Back in line for me it was. I never noticed at which point exactly did the PSN page redirect me to UK page...
so far we have kept those same laws, so no, in principle nothing is stopping the UK from keeping them :)
Apple App Store does no questions asked returns, devs complain. When it's Steam, devs praise.
But yes, to your point, Sony doing it on Cyberpunk was extraordinary.
But yes, to your point, Sony doing it on Cyberpunk was extraordinary.
EGS offers the same return window.
Sure, they did that because they got forced to by a specific regulatory body, but most companies when something like that happens enable it only the regions they're legally required to do so. Valve appear to have just implemented it, then turned on worldwide because it seems like a good idea.
Australia only requires returns for defective products. Valve used to be in violation but now they are well beyond the legal requirements in allowing change of mind refunds as well.
And to give credit where credit is due, EA Origin was earlier to the punch at refunding digital sales. In fact that was one of it's selling points when it initially started.
I see flash sales often, what is your definition of a flash sale?
They only added the refund policy because they were breaking consumer rights in some counties and they even got fined by Australia for it. It's funny that people think they did it out of care for the customer.
In Australia, Nintendo are required to refund in this scenario too (and would).
These are consumer law issues that should extend beyond games.
These are consumer law issues that should extend beyond games.
> When Nintendo sold me a game thats unplayably busted on the Switch they just shrugged and told me to suck it up. Steam didn't.
Star Wars Republic Commando, by chance?
Star Wars Republic Commando, by chance?
It was actually Sexy Brutale which consistently runs with less than 15fps, looks blurry to the point where it's hard to see things and occasionally crashes. It's really not playable.
I've tried a refund when the studio publicly stated they have no intention of patching the game after launch.
I've tried a refund when the studio publicly stated they have no intention of patching the game after launch.
Oh, that really sucks, Sexy Brutale is actually a great game on other platforms. Pity the port was so botched.
> They also pioneered a store that plays less of a moral police than any others.
They banned loli.
https://kotaku.com/steam-is-banning-sex-games-with-young-loo...
They banned loli.
https://kotaku.com/steam-is-banning-sex-games-with-young-loo...
And a whole host of other games: Hatred, Active Shooter, Rape Day, Super Seducer 3. In many cases, Valve retroactively edited its content policies to justify banning such games.
Like that's better than the 14 day no questions asked return policy the EU already had. The one they smeared to buy a new law allowing such malpractice?
>They also pioneered 2 hour no question return policy,
I don't consider that a positive. Big Box stores usually have 15 days for returns.
I don't consider that a positive. Big Box stores usually have 15 days for returns.
to be clear that is 2 hours of playtime, not realtime. You can refund something you bought months ago but never played.
A lot of big box stores don't want to do 1:1 refunds if the seal has been broken.
A lot of big box stores don't want to do 1:1 refunds if the seal has been broken.
having a 15 day return period for games that can be beaten five times in that period doesn't make sense
[deleted]
Long time steam user and have never felt compelled to buy any of that. I get an absolutely massive amount of value out of Steam and I'm yet to see another store that even runs on Linux, let alone actually boosting the whole ecosystem with Proton and other efforts.
I bought a new racing wheel a while ago and it wasn't quite working on linux, after doing some searching I found that a Valve employee was working on a patch to the kernel to fix this racing wheel just to make gaming on linux better.
I bought a new racing wheel a while ago and it wasn't quite working on linux, after doing some searching I found that a Valve employee was working on a patch to the kernel to fix this racing wheel just to make gaming on linux better.
FWIW itch.io also runs on Linux and have developed their own 'Proton-alike' which automatically sets up Wine prefixes for Windows games.
They're standing on the shoulders of Giants, but I also don't see (m)any of the other stores doing likewise.
They're standing on the shoulders of Giants, but I also don't see (m)any of the other stores doing likewise.
itch.io may be great and all but its missing good commercial titles. It feels like any kind of subpar game ends up there.
It's an indie store, the natural successor to the flash game websites of yore. Getting games from there sight unseen is like picking up some games from the bargain bin - a lot of rubbish but the occasional gem.
It doesn't need 'good commercial titles', it needs to be seen as the preferred option for supporting Indies over steam (i.e. if you are presented with the choice, go for itch. If you're already on steam then steam has earned its money).
It doesn't need 'good commercial titles', it needs to be seen as the preferred option for supporting Indies over steam (i.e. if you are presented with the choice, go for itch. If you're already on steam then steam has earned its money).
Do you think there's room in peoples' lives for Steam _and_ itch.io or do they overlap too much?
Most of the high end of itch is on steam, so you could life a happy and fulfilled life without hearing about itch at all.
On the other hand, if you're someone who is frustrated with the commercial nature of current stores and are pining for the simpler times - itch is very much going to scratch that... Itch.
I personally end up mostly on Steam, but on the occasion that I've really wanted to support a developer (usually puzzle games like Patrick's Parabox) I'll go to itch. The bundle for Ukraine recently also had some excellent finds in there.
tl; dr - if you are an indie connoisseur then yes, if you just want to game then probably not.
On the other hand, if you're someone who is frustrated with the commercial nature of current stores and are pining for the simpler times - itch is very much going to scratch that... Itch.
I personally end up mostly on Steam, but on the occasion that I've really wanted to support a developer (usually puzzle games like Patrick's Parabox) I'll go to itch. The bundle for Ukraine recently also had some excellent finds in there.
tl; dr - if you are an indie connoisseur then yes, if you just want to game then probably not.
This Linux thing can't be over-stated. I'm a dad with 2 teenage daughters and yet aside from school devices and their phones they never touch anything but Linux. Steam is a huge reason why that's possible.
> Long time steam user and have never felt compelled to buy any of that.
That's really the trick. Valve is targeting "whales" in the same way that mobile games are. Just not as blatently.
CS:GO and the attached gambling economy regularly goes on to destroy wallets of parents and others at risk of gambling behavior.
That's really the trick. Valve is targeting "whales" in the same way that mobile games are. Just not as blatently.
CS:GO and the attached gambling economy regularly goes on to destroy wallets of parents and others at risk of gambling behavior.
Ok, but that's specific to CSGO, not steam in general. No game I own seems to have gambling or micro transactions, or they're just not blatantly trying to shove it into my face so that I didn't even notice. Compare this to any mobile game or pay2win games that aren't even really playable without constantly pouring in money.
Valve certainly isn't a saint, but when it comes to steam, it's a decent platform that gets the job done and doesn't get in your way, no dark patterns there.
Valve certainly isn't a saint, but when it comes to steam, it's a decent platform that gets the job done and doesn't get in your way, no dark patterns there.
I played Dota for years without ever feeling the need to spend on cosmetics. Valve prides themselves on a free-to-play, pay-to-look-fancy-in-game model. I didn’t care about the looks, so I played the game for free.
Other games have a free-to-play but pay-to-win model. League of Legends requires you to pay if you want to play with the newer, more powerful characters. Hearthstone is free to play but adds newer, more powerful cards every season. Building a competitive deck of cards could cost $150-200 per season.
That’s not to say I like this lootbox bullshit. It preys on people who have a weakness for gambling. If I were wired differently I could have spent thousands on them. I think they should be regulated out of existence.
Other games have a free-to-play but pay-to-win model. League of Legends requires you to pay if you want to play with the newer, more powerful characters. Hearthstone is free to play but adds newer, more powerful cards every season. Building a competitive deck of cards could cost $150-200 per season.
That’s not to say I like this lootbox bullshit. It preys on people who have a weakness for gambling. If I were wired differently I could have spent thousands on them. I think they should be regulated out of existence.
You can, over time, unlock the new characters in League of Legends without having to pay real money though, right?
It’s true, but new characters are very “expensive”, even in the free currency. I have an embarrassing number of hours in league (4 digits) and do not have all the characters unlocked. Compare to Dota where I had every character unlocked at hour zero.
> Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
I feel like I'm out of the loop here. Didn't those come more from mobile gaming and Asian free to play MMOs or Battle Royales? Didn't Valve make the "traditional" buy-once games like Half-Life, Portal, HL-derivatives like Team Fortress/CS?
As for milking its users, Steam (the platform) is an incredible value (for purchases, refunds, reseller ecosystem, etc.) and an awesome utility (community mods, auto updates, reviews, cloud sync, streaming, Proton, multiplayer APIs, etc.). I think the one fair gripe about them is that they take a pretty large cut from developers and force them to use the Steam payment processing, which takes another big cut. But for end users (players) it's a wonderful platform, especially compared to its peers like GOG Galaxy, the EA/Ubi/Microsoft clients, the Epic Game Stores... none of those come close in usability.
Individual titles within the platform might choose to use lootboxes and other crappy monetization schemes, but that's on them, not Steam. There are thousands of games that have better monetization models, and Steam helped revive the dormant indie PC gaming industry and then blew it up a thousandfold... almost none of those games have predatory pricing models.
As for cosmetic skins, what's wrong with that? Who cares how much they charge for those if it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage of any sort, just blinky particles? Compared to any ACTUAL predatory P2W game, I'd so much rather support games that only sell cosmetics.
It seems so unfair to reduce all that Valve has done for the PC gaming to "lootboxes and high priced skins". Without Steam PC gaming would probably have died by now, and with it the most amazing renaissance in indie titles since the shareware days.
I feel like I'm out of the loop here. Didn't those come more from mobile gaming and Asian free to play MMOs or Battle Royales? Didn't Valve make the "traditional" buy-once games like Half-Life, Portal, HL-derivatives like Team Fortress/CS?
As for milking its users, Steam (the platform) is an incredible value (for purchases, refunds, reseller ecosystem, etc.) and an awesome utility (community mods, auto updates, reviews, cloud sync, streaming, Proton, multiplayer APIs, etc.). I think the one fair gripe about them is that they take a pretty large cut from developers and force them to use the Steam payment processing, which takes another big cut. But for end users (players) it's a wonderful platform, especially compared to its peers like GOG Galaxy, the EA/Ubi/Microsoft clients, the Epic Game Stores... none of those come close in usability.
Individual titles within the platform might choose to use lootboxes and other crappy monetization schemes, but that's on them, not Steam. There are thousands of games that have better monetization models, and Steam helped revive the dormant indie PC gaming industry and then blew it up a thousandfold... almost none of those games have predatory pricing models.
As for cosmetic skins, what's wrong with that? Who cares how much they charge for those if it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage of any sort, just blinky particles? Compared to any ACTUAL predatory P2W game, I'd so much rather support games that only sell cosmetics.
It seems so unfair to reduce all that Valve has done for the PC gaming to "lootboxes and high priced skins". Without Steam PC gaming would probably have died by now, and with it the most amazing renaissance in indie titles since the shareware days.
> Didn't Valve make the "traditional" buy-once games like Half-Life, Portal, HL-derivatives like Team Fortress/CS?
There's a reason that the slogan "we used to make games, now we make money" has been half-jokingly attributed to Valve. For years, their biggest revenue producers have been their free-to-play games with cosmetic microtransactions such as CS:GO, DOTA2, and TF2. As far as I know, their last "traditional" game was Portal 2 in 2011. Half-Life: Alyx could be argued to have similar production value, but was released as more of an erstwhile "pack-in title" for the Valve Index headset.
There's a reason that the slogan "we used to make games, now we make money" has been half-jokingly attributed to Valve. For years, their biggest revenue producers have been their free-to-play games with cosmetic microtransactions such as CS:GO, DOTA2, and TF2. As far as I know, their last "traditional" game was Portal 2 in 2011. Half-Life: Alyx could be argued to have similar production value, but was released as more of an erstwhile "pack-in title" for the Valve Index headset.
Oh wow, I didn't realize those games evolved into cosmetic marketplaces. (I bought TF2 and CS:GO when they were still one-time purchases).
But they're purely cosmetic? That sounds like a wonderful business model for all involved, especially vs the predatory P2W crap that's really infesting the market (especially in mobiles and MMOs). I'd probably also rather than a F2P cosmetics-only game over a buy-once game... if only because that usually implies there will be a proper server farm hosting the games, lessening cheaters or peer to peer hosts with terrible connections.
But they're purely cosmetic? That sounds like a wonderful business model for all involved, especially vs the predatory P2W crap that's really infesting the market (especially in mobiles and MMOs). I'd probably also rather than a F2P cosmetics-only game over a buy-once game... if only because that usually implies there will be a proper server farm hosting the games, lessening cheaters or peer to peer hosts with terrible connections.
TF2 has functional items, but you can generally receive them from playing or buying them for a fixed price, around $1 each. Realistically for $30 you won't lack items.
The cosmetics will cost you, though.
The cosmetics will cost you, though.
I hear they also balance TF2 quite well such that the functional items don't really give an advantage, just a different play style
Valve pioneered most of that stuff, just that they sorta let go of the accelerator at some point and let other companies who were initially following their lead surpass them in exploitativeness so theyre not too associated with it nowadays.
Although I suppose its dubious whether real world money gambling (valve) is more or less exploitative than the gambling directly implemented into game design that the rest of the industry took up.
Although I suppose its dubious whether real world money gambling (valve) is more or less exploitative than the gambling directly implemented into game design that the rest of the industry took up.
I have a hard time accepting TF2 hats were exploitative. The cosmetic items have no impact on gameplay, and I played the game while completely ignoring trading items. It never felt like gambling, unlike in EA games.
Isn't there a pretty big difference between gambling for cosmetics and gambling for gameplay advantage? The former is like buying clothes... sure, you can spend as much money as you want on them, but it doesn't really affect anyone else. Whereas P2W gambling totally screws up game balance for all the other players because it monetizes the power curve.
Correct.
They certainly offer a lot of ways to send them money, but it doesn't feel like they're pushing particularly hard. All that Dota stuff is cosmetics, is it not? No gameplay boosts?
Plus, they were talking about Steam the platform, not individual games Valve has developed.
They certainly offer a lot of ways to send them money, but it doesn't feel like they're pushing particularly hard. All that Dota stuff is cosmetics, is it not? No gameplay boosts?
Plus, they were talking about Steam the platform, not individual games Valve has developed.
No, dota has a paid subscription ($5 p/m) which gates gameplay features, many of which would be really useful for newer players - ingame coaching, item suggestions, hero pick suggestions, death summary, live gameplay tips, avoid player list, ranked mmr double downs that can be used after drafting phase, exclusive modes, and live spectating (free users have to use discord streaming or spectate with 2 minutes delay).
You're talking about features that were all developed extra (aka they weren't gated), all of them using some kind of AI.
And none of which are even close to necessary.
The problem with selling convenience in F2P games is that the developers themselves created the issue they are selling the solution to. For example, having little inventory space. This isn't something that requires development resources to fix, so it's very clearly just there as a problem you can pay to solve. None of this applies to Dotas stuff.
And none of which are even close to necessary.
The problem with selling convenience in F2P games is that the developers themselves created the issue they are selling the solution to. For example, having little inventory space. This isn't something that requires development resources to fix, so it's very clearly just there as a problem you can pay to solve. None of this applies to Dotas stuff.
> many of which would be really useful for newer players
Some of it is outright bad if you blindly rely on it because it goes by global statistics. How was that old story about the air force trying to create a perfect seat for the "average" pilot again? They measured everyone and averaged the results and then they couldn't find a single pilot that fit. The static list of suggested items is interesting, but the "dynamic" suggestions for the next item to build are something I mostly ignore.
Some of it is outright bad if you blindly rely on it because it goes by global statistics. How was that old story about the air force trying to create a perfect seat for the "average" pilot again? They measured everyone and averaged the results and then they couldn't find a single pilot that fit. The static list of suggested items is interesting, but the "dynamic" suggestions for the next item to build are something I mostly ignore.
I meant more like gameplay power boosts, but that's fair, those things are sorta gameplay.
But in any case, while you could argue that that's kinda pushy, that's Valve the game dev, not Valve the platform owner. I don't play Dota so that stuff doesn't affect me at all.
But in any case, while you could argue that that's kinda pushy, that's Valve the game dev, not Valve the platform owner. I don't play Dota so that stuff doesn't affect me at all.
As a dota player who played dota 1 and dota 2, i dont have to spend a single penny to enjoy dota 2. And i get to play it for free on linux. Good lord, im grateful for that.
Dota plus item and skill suggestions are way worse than the build guides. The only worthwhile feature is the avoid list
Stop using the bad game of dota as an argument. It doesn't say a whole lot about how valve uses steam.
I have hundreds of hours in most games they developed, and i never ever felt like purchasing any of the microtransactions, or that their gameplay was optimized in a way that you would be compelled to spend money.
There is a huge difference between cosmetics only and gameplay affecting microtransactions.
With current prices they are not micro anymore anyway.
There is a huge difference between cosmetics only and gameplay affecting microtransactions.
With current prices they are not micro anymore anyway.
You mean the company that pioneered the single most fair microtransactions in existence? I've played many F2P games, and not a single one has ever been as fair as Dota 2. Short of giving away everything for free, there is no way they could've monetized more fairly.
Also the fact that it is one of the few where you can sell your lootbox results... Albeit for store credit with 15% tax. But still, that alone puts it beyond others.
"Milking" doesn't simply mean charging for services, it means collecting money in unfair or abusive way.
I'm not sure that Steam pioneered them but microtransactions are great, they enabled high quality games be free or at least cheap to access for casual players and the few who really dive deep into the content pay accordingly.
Loot boxes and other stuff are things that people want and enjoy. Can be unhealthy for some people but let's not pretend that there are large number of people living on the streets because Steam milked them away like an illegal casino.
Their ways are not designed to make you sell your car to buy a skin.
I'm not sure that Steam pioneered them but microtransactions are great, they enabled high quality games be free or at least cheap to access for casual players and the few who really dive deep into the content pay accordingly.
Loot boxes and other stuff are things that people want and enjoy. Can be unhealthy for some people but let's not pretend that there are large number of people living on the streets because Steam milked them away like an illegal casino.
Their ways are not designed to make you sell your car to buy a skin.
You're talking about Valve, while OP is talking about Steam.
As someone who only uses Steam (and used to play TF2 before all the hat things, but not DotA), I still see Steam in a good way. And I actually discovered that Valve indeed created all the things you mentioned (except NFT markeplace, which I believe is an exaggeration).
I believe that it's good that EGS is trying to compete with Steam, but on the other hand, I'm scared that EGS's tactics will force Steam to use the same tactics and make it less user-friendly.
As someone who only uses Steam (and used to play TF2 before all the hat things, but not DotA), I still see Steam in a good way. And I actually discovered that Valve indeed created all the things you mentioned (except NFT markeplace, which I believe is an exaggeration).
I believe that it's good that EGS is trying to compete with Steam, but on the other hand, I'm scared that EGS's tactics will force Steam to use the same tactics and make it less user-friendly.
Fair comment, but steam is, or at least used to be, worse in this regard than valve. They gamified sales. Flash sales, loot boxes for buying stuff, trading said loot on steam marketplace, etc.
I e, they pushed gambling and gacha stuff to children. I've always felt they had come up with a perverse incentive s structure with these sales.
I e, they pushed gambling and gacha stuff to children. I've always felt they had come up with a perverse incentive s structure with these sales.
It is 2022, we have the internet and long histories of everything everyone has said and done. A 5 point list of things you don't like isn't really an argument in the modern era. You really should put the effort in to link that into an actual complaint. Anyone or any company that has done anything of note has got a few points about them that aren't pure and perfect.
Valve pioneered a lot of those things before anyone even realised that they were profitable. The way they stumbled into the gambling market looked, from where I sat, like an accidental evolution of a company that was experimental and evidence based. Particularly on DOTA - unless something really changed since the last time I looked you can play the whole game for free and the winner is determined purely by skill. Valve is being entirely reasonable in how they make money - giving people who are huge fans of the game a way to spend money on it.
Valve pioneered a lot of those things before anyone even realised that they were profitable. The way they stumbled into the gambling market looked, from where I sat, like an accidental evolution of a company that was experimental and evidence based. Particularly on DOTA - unless something really changed since the last time I looked you can play the whole game for free and the winner is determined purely by skill. Valve is being entirely reasonable in how they make money - giving people who are huge fans of the game a way to spend money on it.
Real money in exchange for non-cosmetic items (weapons, characters, skills, more attempts per day on boss X or dungeon Y) is awful and must die, I do not condone it. It should be outright outlawed.
Real money in exchange for convenience (storage space in PoE) or purely cosmetic items (non-combat pets, hats, angel wings, whatever) ? Fine.
Real money in exchange for convenience (storage space in PoE) or purely cosmetic items (non-combat pets, hats, angel wings, whatever) ? Fine.
> you'd realise they're one of greediest in the business.
it's not greedy if the users are buying it willingly. The game is not pay to win - you can skip all of it, and just enjoy the game on its own.
Not many free to play games can be said to have this.
it's not greedy if the users are buying it willingly. The game is not pay to win - you can skip all of it, and just enjoy the game on its own.
Not many free to play games can be said to have this.
Agreed, as long as the items are only cosmetic, I don't care how much they cost. They're entirely optional, unlike the "optional" pay-to-win items that cost you thousands of hours of grinding if you don't pay.
Nothing you list is mandatory, you're free to ignore it. I didn't even know about them. So no, I don't consider that "milking".
Steam did not pioneer these things. They were a thing in MMO's since around 2000, then rose to ridiculous properties in the early 2010's with Facebook (farmville) and mobile (clash of clans) games. The current spat, I believe, started in 2016 with Overwatch, quickly followed by the series of "live service" games like Fortnite.
It's literally a free game, with no strings attached. The only downside is the game gets heavier on resources with these items when you play with players with these items.
Valve is certainly doing(has done) better than the market ethically, you need to look into their competition to see the state.
Valve is certainly doing(has done) better than the market ethically, you need to look into their competition to see the state.
Can't agree more on the DOTA2 part. Valve doesn't invest much on the community, tournaments and even the game itself. Now the game is already dead in NA, CN coming next. Let alone the derivatives, like Artifact and AutoChess (DOTA Underloads)
Yeah, Steam is not looking out for users. It locks everything behind DRM too.
The "good for users" alternative to Steam is GOG, but it's basically an also-ran in the market.
I have a love/hate relationship with Steam. I love that it "just works" on Linux, but I hate the DRM and lock-in. When I mostly used a PC I'd always favor GOG or some other distribution method, although I did have lots of Steam games as well. Now that I own a Steam Deck - and playing non-steam games is a bit of a pain in the rear (but at least possible) - I find myself buying into the platform even more (which, no doubt, was the entire purpose of the Steam Deck).
The "good for users" alternative to Steam is GOG, but it's basically an also-ran in the market.
I have a love/hate relationship with Steam. I love that it "just works" on Linux, but I hate the DRM and lock-in. When I mostly used a PC I'd always favor GOG or some other distribution method, although I did have lots of Steam games as well. Now that I own a Steam Deck - and playing non-steam games is a bit of a pain in the rear (but at least possible) - I find myself buying into the platform even more (which, no doubt, was the entire purpose of the Steam Deck).
I agree with what you're saying but just to note, the DRM is optional although most devs take them up on it. Kerbal Space Program is one example of a game where iirc you can just copy the folder out and run it on any machine.
Good point. It facilitates DRM, but it doesn't mandate it.
I feel like this exemplifies Steam. It's not unambiguously anti-consumer, and it does provide some real value, so many of us are willing to accept the tradeoffs involved.
I feel like this exemplifies Steam. It's not unambiguously anti-consumer, and it does provide some real value, so many of us are willing to accept the tradeoffs involved.
Even with DRM, historical context is important. Steams DRM usually had better terms (family sharing etc) than the competition and it was also more lightweight. It was DRM which really did not get in most gamers way compared to say the abominations that Ubisoft shipped. They're not GoG but they're far from the worst and I always felt like Valve cared a lot more about these sort of things then they had to given their market dominance.
Battlepasses where a cut is added to the price pools of events. I agree they are pioneers. Why is everyone else just pocketing their battlepass earnings still 5 years later and offering tiny price pools?
Blizzard once crowdfunded a prize pool and ran away with the money.
If valve is milking users, then everyone else is butchering them.
Blizzard once crowdfunded a prize pool and ran away with the money.
If valve is milking users, then everyone else is butchering them.
I think the key is that it feels like Steam-the-marketplace is merely making such tools available to individual developers/publishers of specific games.
Then if a game is an exploitative grindfest, blame falls on the dev/publisher for choosing to implement whatever-it-is.
Then if a game is an exploitative grindfest, blame falls on the dev/publisher for choosing to implement whatever-it-is.
But all this stuff is strictly optional - the skins do not affect your win-rate.
(There were some edge cases e.g. CSGO agents but they are working to bring it down to a tiny difference)
(There were some edge cases e.g. CSGO agents but they are working to bring it down to a tiny difference)
Are you speaking about the game which costed (at least) tens of millions to develop and everyone can play it for free, with no in-play disadvantage?
the difference is that is not the steam market place, all of that helps people complete with there games, but not steam as a market place.
Valve we're just so far ahead of the META that by the time people realised what was happening they were already hooked.
TBF I have been playing to Dota for seven years, and I've never spent 1 cent for it.
Their tournament organizing is piss poor for how much the battlepasses bring in
I never once felt I had to use any of those though...
Oh, hi Tim Sweeney.
The answer is simple, the company is not public it's private. it doesn't seek infinite growth which is impossible thing to to.
Didn't it kinda reach the ceiling already when it comes to PC game market share? Hard to grow above that
Meh, I don't know. The whole reason Steam even exist is because Valve decided to lock CS 1.6 and later HL2 behind it. It's a long time ago now, but the way I remember things people hated Steam for years before the general perception started to change 15 or so years ago.
Edit: I'm also pretty sure they patched in-game ads into CS 1.6 at some point, but can't remember for sure. Anyone else recall that?
Edit: I'm also pretty sure they patched in-game ads into CS 1.6 at some point, but can't remember for sure. Anyone else recall that?
I remember that. While it might not have been clear at the time, Valve definitely made Steam a value add. Friends lists, cloud saves, etc.
I think we can get a clearer picture if we compare it to Epics launch: No cloud saves at all, shoddy service all around. The only thing they had going for them was buying up exclusives (many of which had already been promised as Steam releases). Steam/Valve is really a saint in comparison, even back then.
I think we can get a clearer picture if we compare it to Epics launch: No cloud saves at all, shoddy service all around. The only thing they had going for them was buying up exclusives (many of which had already been promised as Steam releases). Steam/Valve is really a saint in comparison, even back then.
>Valve definitely made Steam a value add. Friends lists, cloud saves, etc.
I mean, at launch these features definitely did not exist (cloud saves) or were buggy (friends lists). Holding Half Life 2 hostage behind steam was definitely controversial at the time, and Steam was kind of... not great for quite a while. Valve were in it for the long haul though and it really is a great ecosystem now, there are still some gripes to be had but like you say, compared to every other store on PC there really is no competition.
A fun article from the time it was released: https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/32981
I mean, at launch these features definitely did not exist (cloud saves) or were buggy (friends lists). Holding Half Life 2 hostage behind steam was definitely controversial at the time, and Steam was kind of... not great for quite a while. Valve were in it for the long haul though and it really is a great ecosystem now, there are still some gripes to be had but like you say, compared to every other store on PC there really is no competition.
A fun article from the time it was released: https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/32981
Ah yes I remember steam being called a "steaming pile of shit" and an animated gif of the steam logo using used to drive a piston into a man's rear end being passed around. I recall the friends service was constantly broken. I had a copy of CS 1.5 on USB for local LAN usage.
At release internet speeds were honestly too slow and the software was filled with bugs.
At release internet speeds were honestly too slow and the software was filled with bugs.
The reason people hated Steam at the time of CS 1.6 is because those people who owned CS on WON would need to repurchase CS on Steam. Since all new players were on Steam it meant that the existing playerbase were excluded (there was no WON/Steam cross-play).
Not really.
The reason Steam exists and is as strong as it is, is because every other game developer abandoned PC gaming and went to the consoles, for an entire decade.
Including Microsoft.
People not only hated Steam, they hated PC gaming.
The reason Steam exists and is as strong as it is, is because every other game developer abandoned PC gaming and went to the consoles, for an entire decade.
Including Microsoft.
People not only hated Steam, they hated PC gaming.
> because every other game developer abandoned PC gaming and went to the consoles, for an entire decade [...] People not only hated Steam, they hated PC gaming
There couldn't be anything more false. Game developers flocked to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 because Microsoft and Sony entered a bidding war and flooded them with money upfront to build exclusives for their platforms, while in the PC gaming space there was no such "free" money to be had upfront, as game studios had to fund development themselves or raise money from publishers and hope the end product would be a success to get their money back and make a profit on top to stay afloat.
And people didn't hate PC gaming, they hated the poor quality XB360/PS3 ports that were being pushed on the PC platform.
There couldn't be anything more false. Game developers flocked to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 because Microsoft and Sony entered a bidding war and flooded them with money upfront to build exclusives for their platforms, while in the PC gaming space there was no such "free" money to be had upfront, as game studios had to fund development themselves or raise money from publishers and hope the end product would be a success to get their money back and make a profit on top to stay afloat.
And people didn't hate PC gaming, they hated the poor quality XB360/PS3 ports that were being pushed on the PC platform.
No, the other poster is right.
You had to use Steam to get HL2. This got them on enough PCs that they could build the dominance they have today.
There are obviously other reasons for their success, but the other poster is spot on both about what they did, and how many people felt about it at the time.
You had to use Steam to get HL2. This got them on enough PCs that they could build the dominance they have today.
There are obviously other reasons for their success, but the other poster is spot on both about what they did, and how many people felt about it at the time.
Steam milks developers instead of users, so that does indeed tend to generate value for the customer. The situation isn't ideal, but Valve is certainly the least bad option for computer games. Alternative platforms were mostly implemented by larger studios. The incentive was probably to cut out the middle man of course. Ironic if you look at the state of the IT industry.
Also, Steam has a long term strategy in the interest of customers and I believe gaming in general. Supporting other platforms as Windows for example. They are smart enough to look beyond the horizon and can make predictions for possible developments in the market. I highly appreciate that as a customer.
Also, Steam has a long term strategy in the interest of customers and I believe gaming in general. Supporting other platforms as Windows for example. They are smart enough to look beyond the horizon and can make predictions for possible developments in the market. I highly appreciate that as a customer.
Does it really "milk" developers though... The "customers" of Steam are the developers not the people buying games. They make money not by selling games (well okay, Valve does sell first party games via Steam too) but by selling the ability to sell games to developers.
App stores like Steam, for all their problems, provide real tangible value to developers. It simplifies distribution of files and updates (no need to set up your own CDN/P2P network and write server/client code to handle game updates), provides integration of payment (no need to negotiate your own deals with payment processors), and in Steam's case also provides extra gaming specific value-adds like cloud saves and DRM that would also be costly to build/integrate in-house. If you think about all this, the cut they take could be justified for the right customer.
The difference between Steam and something like the Apple App Store is that Steam does not have have monopoly power over PC game/software distribution. As a developer you get to decide whether Steam's cut justifies their value to you individually. If you don't like Steam or it doesn't make sense for you, you don't need to use it. And many indie developers do exactly this -- they sell at conventions, release physical media, offer direct downloads/sales from their own site, use competing platforms like itch.io, Patreon, Dlsite etc.
Steam is good because the platform they are on is competitive and thus to succeed you have to justify your value.
App stores like Steam, for all their problems, provide real tangible value to developers. It simplifies distribution of files and updates (no need to set up your own CDN/P2P network and write server/client code to handle game updates), provides integration of payment (no need to negotiate your own deals with payment processors), and in Steam's case also provides extra gaming specific value-adds like cloud saves and DRM that would also be costly to build/integrate in-house. If you think about all this, the cut they take could be justified for the right customer.
The difference between Steam and something like the Apple App Store is that Steam does not have have monopoly power over PC game/software distribution. As a developer you get to decide whether Steam's cut justifies their value to you individually. If you don't like Steam or it doesn't make sense for you, you don't need to use it. And many indie developers do exactly this -- they sell at conventions, release physical media, offer direct downloads/sales from their own site, use competing platforms like itch.io, Patreon, Dlsite etc.
Steam is good because the platform they are on is competitive and thus to succeed you have to justify your value.
It's privately owned. The requirement for infinite growth so investors can get rich off other people's work is what kills everything publicly traded. It's what is killing Netflix and what will kill Game Pass.
I love Steam and I hope it's never bought out.
As much as I wish Valve made more games, I'd prefer this to them being publicly traded.
I love Steam and I hope it's never bought out.
As much as I wish Valve made more games, I'd prefer this to them being publicly traded.
If they got bought out I’d worry for the future of my game library.
I agree, I've been a happy customer of theirs for ~20 years and always felt like I was getting a good deal, and many of the annoyances of the platform seem mostly imposed by publishers (origin/uplay logins, online/drm requirements etc.)
Plus often the strategies competitors cook up actively put me off, I don't want the additional overhead of managing more accounts/payment options/social platforms I already have more then I want. And making me jump through those hoops to play an exclusive game will more often then not mean I just don't play the game
Plus often the strategies competitors cook up actively put me off, I don't want the additional overhead of managing more accounts/payment options/social platforms I already have more then I want. And making me jump through those hoops to play an exclusive game will more often then not mean I just don't play the game
Valve is a private corporation that is run to make profits for its owners. It is not run to jack up its stock price so it behaves differently from other corporations it runs more like a family run business not a corporation.
By being a walled garden monopoly, you're inherently milking the users.
It's not, though.
I mean, I don't remember the last time something came exclusively through Steam by exclusivity agreements. That cannot be said for Epic Games though.
Sure Epic had to come up with ways to increase their competitive advantage while having an inferior product with smaller catalog and worse ux, all problems inherent to a newer product trying to penetrate a consolidated market.
Steam felt like it was just there, adding features and improvements in a slow but steady pace and really offering value to both players, by introducing sales and democratizing access to games (sure in the EU and US it might seem less important, but coming from Brazil I can't begin to tell how much of an impact digital outlets had to providing access to quality games on emergent markets), and to developers by single handely making piracy somewhat obsolete.
Sure it had problems like high fees for small devs, a case can be said that this monopoly over time started hurting the small dev, or the massive flow of low quality games, but to call it a walled garden is a far cry from reality. We gamers got it good and we sometimes don't appreciate it. Just look at the state of streaming services to see what could have been.
I mean, I don't remember the last time something came exclusively through Steam by exclusivity agreements. That cannot be said for Epic Games though.
Sure Epic had to come up with ways to increase their competitive advantage while having an inferior product with smaller catalog and worse ux, all problems inherent to a newer product trying to penetrate a consolidated market.
Steam felt like it was just there, adding features and improvements in a slow but steady pace and really offering value to both players, by introducing sales and democratizing access to games (sure in the EU and US it might seem less important, but coming from Brazil I can't begin to tell how much of an impact digital outlets had to providing access to quality games on emergent markets), and to developers by single handely making piracy somewhat obsolete.
Sure it had problems like high fees for small devs, a case can be said that this monopoly over time started hurting the small dev, or the massive flow of low quality games, but to call it a walled garden is a far cry from reality. We gamers got it good and we sometimes don't appreciate it. Just look at the state of streaming services to see what could have been.
It's not a monopoly, you're right. I misspoke.
It's a walled garden, because you can't use their various services on their own or with third-party services. The games themselves are just rented to you, you can't run them without your Steam account.
It's a walled garden, because you can't use their various services on their own or with third-party services. The games themselves are just rented to you, you can't run them without your Steam account.
You absolutely can, the DRM part of Steam is optional choice by the developer. It can just be a Game Downloader.
You can even sell codes in your own store, WITHOUT STEAM GETTING MONEY. That's incredibly generous.
I don't understand why you would expect them to give away their features for free. That's like expecting a a restaurant letting you use their cutlery and tables with your own food.
Finally, you have never and will never truly own a game. No, not even when they came as CDs. It was always just a limited license.
You can even sell codes in your own store, WITHOUT STEAM GETTING MONEY. That's incredibly generous.
I don't understand why you would expect them to give away their features for free. That's like expecting a a restaurant letting you use their cutlery and tables with your own food.
Finally, you have never and will never truly own a game. No, not even when they came as CDs. It was always just a limited license.
> Finally, you have never and will never truly own a game. No, not even when they came as CDs. It was always just a limited license.
This is a common red herring - nobody means owning the actual IP for a game when they mention owning physical games. They mean having control over when, where and how a game is played.
Physical games give more control to the user, assuming DRM allowed that.
(and the real issue is having DRM or not, not being physical vs digital - for example my physical DVD copy of Bioshock has some stupid DRM limitation whereas my GOG copy is fully DRM-free, giving me more control than the physical one)
This is a common red herring - nobody means owning the actual IP for a game when they mention owning physical games. They mean having control over when, where and how a game is played.
Physical games give more control to the user, assuming DRM allowed that.
(and the real issue is having DRM or not, not being physical vs digital - for example my physical DVD copy of Bioshock has some stupid DRM limitation whereas my GOG copy is fully DRM-free, giving me more control than the physical one)
Didn't know that about the DRM part of Steam being optional.
> I don't understand why you would expect them to give away their features for free.
Incentives? Won't comment to that. But, what I expect is that my services and tools don't constrain their interoperability. Open protocols are nothing new. Neither are closed platforms.
> I don't understand why you would expect them to give away their features for free.
Incentives? Won't comment to that. But, what I expect is that my services and tools don't constrain their interoperability. Open protocols are nothing new. Neither are closed platforms.
> It's a walled garden, because you can't use their various services on their own or with third-party services. The games themselves are just rented to you, you can't run them without your Steam account.
If this really were an issue, GOG would be a lot more popular. Most people just don't care. It's actually really nice having Steam just auto-manage my entire library across all my devices, seamlessly, with all the mods and updates and files and such all taken care of. And being able to seamlessly stream to the TV/phone/Steam Deck is great, along with Big Picture mode.
I have several DRM-free titles on GOG that I never end up using -- only bought them there because they were slightly cheaper -- but now I wish bought them on Steam instead, because it's so much easier to actually PLAY the game that way.
Sometimes walled gardens are nice if the alternative is the untamed wilds...
As for "renting" games, well, not so long ago they were $50 a pop and if you broke the CD, too bad. Now those same games are routinely discounted by 75%+, and my library has increased in size a hundred times because of it. If it takes a rental model to get us there, that seems like a great tradeoff, honestly... like movies, most games don't really have infinite longevity anyway. If I can play it for a few years and then it eventually disappears for whatever reason (which almost never happens, btw), usually they will re-release an updated version later on with improved graphics and such anyway. It's not like digital games are a collector's item. In fact the subscription services (Xbox Game Pass, etc.) take that one step further I wish more games did that. The idea of "owning" a copy of software is dubious to begin with... one way or another you're paying for the development, whether it's a buy-once model + expansion packs, buy-once + DLC, subscription, lootboxes... every game does it differently these days, but overall players have a lot more games at a lot more price points.
If this really were an issue, GOG would be a lot more popular. Most people just don't care. It's actually really nice having Steam just auto-manage my entire library across all my devices, seamlessly, with all the mods and updates and files and such all taken care of. And being able to seamlessly stream to the TV/phone/Steam Deck is great, along with Big Picture mode.
I have several DRM-free titles on GOG that I never end up using -- only bought them there because they were slightly cheaper -- but now I wish bought them on Steam instead, because it's so much easier to actually PLAY the game that way.
Sometimes walled gardens are nice if the alternative is the untamed wilds...
As for "renting" games, well, not so long ago they were $50 a pop and if you broke the CD, too bad. Now those same games are routinely discounted by 75%+, and my library has increased in size a hundred times because of it. If it takes a rental model to get us there, that seems like a great tradeoff, honestly... like movies, most games don't really have infinite longevity anyway. If I can play it for a few years and then it eventually disappears for whatever reason (which almost never happens, btw), usually they will re-release an updated version later on with improved graphics and such anyway. It's not like digital games are a collector's item. In fact the subscription services (Xbox Game Pass, etc.) take that one step further I wish more games did that. The idea of "owning" a copy of software is dubious to begin with... one way or another you're paying for the development, whether it's a buy-once model + expansion packs, buy-once + DLC, subscription, lootboxes... every game does it differently these days, but overall players have a lot more games at a lot more price points.
GOG is the go-to example for why this isn't a walled garden. It is an extremely difficult market to penetrate, but right now there is a niche for every need out there.
Steam is definitely a walled garden, it's just not the ONLY garden. Epic has a fenced one with mediocre gardeners, the publishers have their own planter boxes, there's the untamed wilds of the pirate scene, etc.
It's (thankfully) not like the Apple/Google Play duopoly. You can still by and large sell PC games however you want, but a lot of devs/publishers choose Steam both because of its marketshare and because of its useful features.
It's (thankfully) not like the Apple/Google Play duopoly. You can still by and large sell PC games however you want, but a lot of devs/publishers choose Steam both because of its marketshare and because of its useful features.
That is true for all consolidated markets. Everyone could in theory create a service to compete with Amazon. There is really nothing preventing people from doing that apart from the fact that it is extremely difficult to penetrate that market.
In this sense those are walled gardens, but because of the nature of those markets. E-commerce, telecommunications, datacenter, banking to some degree are all examples of hard to penetrate markets.
The original article goes on to explain that going head to head against solutions that are consolidated in these market are a waste of time and money. Better to find and exploit a niche that is still untouched.
In this sense those are walled gardens, but because of the nature of those markets. E-commerce, telecommunications, datacenter, banking to some degree are all examples of hard to penetrate markets.
The original article goes on to explain that going head to head against solutions that are consolidated in these market are a waste of time and money. Better to find and exploit a niche that is still untouched.
I'm not sure that's a completely fair characterisation, they definitely have an overwhelming market share but competitors such as GOG, Epic, Uplay, Origin do exist and often interoperate with Steam. And while publishers/developers will go to Steam because that's where most customers are I'm not aware of any Steam store policy/rule that says games can't be simultaneously sold through other marketplaces
Steam is not monopoly because you can buy the games everywhere else and run them.
I totally use gog and other stores.
I totally use gog and other stores.
> The thing with Steam is - at no point in history it felt like the company is just milking its users.
As someone who purchased Half-Life in a physical box in a retail store before Steam so much as existed and was happy downloading update patches and using a server browser until Steam forced me to create a Steam account and become a Steam user to continue playing Half-Life online, this is true. I feel more exploited than milked.
As someone who purchased Half-Life in a physical box in a retail store before Steam so much as existed and was happy downloading update patches and using a server browser until Steam forced me to create a Steam account and become a Steam user to continue playing Half-Life online, this is true. I feel more exploited than milked.
The question ultimately is: how do you create an ecosystem which fairly compensates and doesn't brutally overwork game staff? Relying purely on game sales is difficult. Games are expensive to produce and gamers, sans whales, are generally quite price sensitive. Gamers are also a famously tough crowd to please. Indie game economics work by saving costs on production, either by keeping art simple so many fewer artists are required or otherwise constraining the game space. Even then, the majority of indie games flop. I don't have an answer, but everywhere I've looked in the games industry, margins are razor thin.
> The question ultimately is: how do you create an ecosystem which fairly compensates and doesn't brutally overwork game staff?
This is a problem that has to be solved by those actually able to do something, and that is the regulatory agencies for the US and EU, not multinational corporations or placing the responsibility on individual consumers. The multinational corporations have no interest in kneecapping their "competitive advantages", and consumers don't care or don't even know just how fucked up the entire entertainment industry is ("crunch time" isn't just an issue in games, but also in movies!).
That's stuff like actually enforcing labor regulations (e.g. the Directive 93/104/EC that prescribes a maximum week work time of 48h)... and that linked together with stuff like passing "supply chain laws" (that hold corporations liable for labor rights violations by their suppliers) should put a stop on these practices.
Unfortunately, labor regulations enforcement is pretty scarce in the EU as it is, and the US are pretty much a regulatory wild west, at least when seen from an European perspective.
This is a problem that has to be solved by those actually able to do something, and that is the regulatory agencies for the US and EU, not multinational corporations or placing the responsibility on individual consumers. The multinational corporations have no interest in kneecapping their "competitive advantages", and consumers don't care or don't even know just how fucked up the entire entertainment industry is ("crunch time" isn't just an issue in games, but also in movies!).
That's stuff like actually enforcing labor regulations (e.g. the Directive 93/104/EC that prescribes a maximum week work time of 48h)... and that linked together with stuff like passing "supply chain laws" (that hold corporations liable for labor rights violations by their suppliers) should put a stop on these practices.
Unfortunately, labor regulations enforcement is pretty scarce in the EU as it is, and the US are pretty much a regulatory wild west, at least when seen from an European perspective.
The main issue as I see it in the game dev space (can't speak to other parts of the gaming industry) is that faaaar too many people naively go into it because they like playing video games, got into programming because they were on the computer anyway, and then hop into the industry bright-eyed and bushy tailed. That's just a recipe for mistreatment. Whereas in web-dev, for example, no one is excited at the prospect of developing a new CRUD app for some megacorp, so we get paid handsomely for our skills.
Unions may be controversial in the broader software development sphere, but they're obviously desperately needed in game dev.
(P.S. Re: "margins are razor thin": A lot of this comes down to the gaming industry's version of Hollywood accounting. The big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, etc. are making a killing off of their mistreatment of their studios' staff)
Unions may be controversial in the broader software development sphere, but they're obviously desperately needed in game dev.
(P.S. Re: "margins are razor thin": A lot of this comes down to the gaming industry's version of Hollywood accounting. The big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, etc. are making a killing off of their mistreatment of their studios' staff)
> (P.S. Re: "margins are razor thin": A lot of this comes down to the gaming industry's version of Hollywood accounting. The big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, etc. are making a killing off of their mistreatment of their studios' staff)
Sorry, I meant "everywhere I look outside of the big publishers" instead of "everywhere I look." Of course, the big publishers make crazy money by milking old franchises and through large economies of scale. If that's the kind of games industry we want, then it looks like the working model is oligopoly.
Sorry, I meant "everywhere I look outside of the big publishers" instead of "everywhere I look." Of course, the big publishers make crazy money by milking old franchises and through large economies of scale. If that's the kind of games industry we want, then it looks like the working model is oligopoly.
Being privately owned has its advantages
They don't have to milk the user when they do that to themselves. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem there are many PC-exclusive publishers around anymore for several decades now.
Of course they do - loot boxes in tf2 and other games enable underage gambling. I can't think of a worse way to monetize your users.
Unlike Magic the Gathering in the 80s and 90s.
MtG is actually much worse because the lootboxes contain items that give you advantage in the game. AFAIK all Valve games only have cosmetic items.
I just want to be able to play N++ without having to launch two apps to do so.
> at no point in history it felt like the company is just milking its users.
Still, the EULA states that steam is a subscription, for currently 0 (USD|EUR) per month. So at any time they might increase that fee.
Still, the EULA states that steam is a subscription, for currently 0 (USD|EUR) per month. So at any time they might increase that fee.
Thanks for the downvotes. Read the EULA. Then think about the rule of the messenger vs. the content of the message.
> The thing with Steam is - at no point in history it felt like the company is just milking its users.
You mean like to "solve the cheaters problem" they made so that free users in tf2 can no longer use the chat, while it's still full of cheaters?
You mean like to "solve the cheaters problem" they made so that free users in tf2 can no longer use the chat, while it's still full of cheaters?
"Felt" is really the right word for this, because almost every bad practice in the industry was pioneered by Valve, particularly in TF2. They're just really good at inducing reciprocity.
Large scale Microtransactions (TF2).
Cosmetic Microtransactions in a Single Player / Coop game (Portal 2).
Loot Boxes (TF2, though they really got bad with CS:GO).
And worst of all, a planned economy that collects "sales tax" and enables children to gamble. Not even "simulated" gambling where all you get is a cosmetic locked to your account. Just straight up gambling. With cashing out if you happen to be lucky and know when to stop.
Oh, and don't forget paid mods - a concept that has similarities to previous Steam Workshop games, but blew up right in their face when it involved a third party that people usually just joke about having their players fix all bugs for them after ship.
Large scale Microtransactions (TF2).
Cosmetic Microtransactions in a Single Player / Coop game (Portal 2).
Loot Boxes (TF2, though they really got bad with CS:GO).
And worst of all, a planned economy that collects "sales tax" and enables children to gamble. Not even "simulated" gambling where all you get is a cosmetic locked to your account. Just straight up gambling. With cashing out if you happen to be lucky and know when to stop.
Oh, and don't forget paid mods - a concept that has similarities to previous Steam Workshop games, but blew up right in their face when it involved a third party that people usually just joke about having their players fix all bugs for them after ship.
Your timeline could use some work. Oblivion's 'horse armor' DLC was in 2006, and the first DLC came about a decade prior. The earliest I could find was the "Cuss Pack" for Redneck Rampage from 1997. Also, you cannot withdraw money from your Steam account.
Very nit-picky. I didn't say DLC itself was bad, but the scale at which TF2 and Portal 2 had these elements was rather unprecedented (having bundles going into the hundreds of dollars).
Also, sure, you can't withdraw from a Steam account. But that doesn't mean it's not monetary value. It's easy enough to find someone who wants a game and you buy them a gift and they give you the money instead. And paying for CSGO items outside the ecosystem is tolerated enough that people still do it.
Also, sure, you can't withdraw from a Steam account. But that doesn't mean it's not monetary value. It's easy enough to find someone who wants a game and you buy them a gift and they give you the money instead. And paying for CSGO items outside the ecosystem is tolerated enough that people still do it.
Yeah, I even think the mass harvesting of data(steam hardware survey, usage stats) is fun and interesting.
I think the article summarizes things up pretty well.
Steam is popular because it won a brutal evolutionary battle in the realm of PC distribution. PC games have never had any barriers to distribution, and old distribution methods (physical media, direct downloads etc.) still work just as well today as they did decades ago.
Developers use Steam not because they are forced or bribed to do so, they use it because it is better -- it's just easier to make money by distributing via Steam (it could be any combination of things like the wider audience reach, easy DRM integration, built-in CDN and auto-update, built-in cloud saves, etc. etc.). In a sense, Steam's victory is like that of Wikipedia, GMail, or Youtube etc. It provided something that was for a long time magnitudes better than the competition.
Looking at it this way, I think the article does miss one final way one might "beat" Steam -- a fundamental paradigm shift in how someone consumes games as entertainment. Steam's success depends on the idea that people want to do "PC gaming". That the idea of collecting, downloading, installing, and running games that they choose themselves on general purpose machines they own themselves is attractive to enough people.
I personally believe and hope this idea will stay with us, but I am also from an older era of tech. What beats Steam will not be a better Steam. It will be something else, something that maybe seems obvious in hindsight but impossible to imagine today. Just as a fish does not question the water it lives in, and we the atmosphere we breathe, to truly compete with Steam, one must be something so obvious that consumers would wonder why anyone would ever choose anything else.
Steam is popular because it won a brutal evolutionary battle in the realm of PC distribution. PC games have never had any barriers to distribution, and old distribution methods (physical media, direct downloads etc.) still work just as well today as they did decades ago.
Developers use Steam not because they are forced or bribed to do so, they use it because it is better -- it's just easier to make money by distributing via Steam (it could be any combination of things like the wider audience reach, easy DRM integration, built-in CDN and auto-update, built-in cloud saves, etc. etc.). In a sense, Steam's victory is like that of Wikipedia, GMail, or Youtube etc. It provided something that was for a long time magnitudes better than the competition.
Looking at it this way, I think the article does miss one final way one might "beat" Steam -- a fundamental paradigm shift in how someone consumes games as entertainment. Steam's success depends on the idea that people want to do "PC gaming". That the idea of collecting, downloading, installing, and running games that they choose themselves on general purpose machines they own themselves is attractive to enough people.
I personally believe and hope this idea will stay with us, but I am also from an older era of tech. What beats Steam will not be a better Steam. It will be something else, something that maybe seems obvious in hindsight but impossible to imagine today. Just as a fish does not question the water it lives in, and we the atmosphere we breathe, to truly compete with Steam, one must be something so obvious that consumers would wonder why anyone would ever choose anything else.
> What beats Steam will not be a better Steam. It will be something else...
Right. It will probably still have to be better than Steam though.
Like a game streaming service in which all the games are available to play. Pay $20 per month, play any game whenever you want. The economics might even work out. They could pay each publisher $x for each hour that each person plays their game. More money for small studios since more people will be trying their game for a few hours, still lots of money for the big guys.
From the players perspective it would be like buying a AAA game every 3 months. Expensive, but you get all the other games too and you don't need an expensive gaming rig.
Or another idea - no monthly subscription fee, but you pay $X/hr for each game. Big games cost $0.10 per hour, free-to-play costs $0.005 per hour. Make the numbers work out so that publishers get the same overall revenue, but players like the flexibility. You could even limit your monthly spend. Cloud pricing for games?
Right. It will probably still have to be better than Steam though.
Like a game streaming service in which all the games are available to play. Pay $20 per month, play any game whenever you want. The economics might even work out. They could pay each publisher $x for each hour that each person plays their game. More money for small studios since more people will be trying their game for a few hours, still lots of money for the big guys.
From the players perspective it would be like buying a AAA game every 3 months. Expensive, but you get all the other games too and you don't need an expensive gaming rig.
Or another idea - no monthly subscription fee, but you pay $X/hr for each game. Big games cost $0.10 per hour, free-to-play costs $0.005 per hour. Make the numbers work out so that publishers get the same overall revenue, but players like the flexibility. You could even limit your monthly spend. Cloud pricing for games?
Those cloud subscriptions are pretty common now, in case you weren't aware... not ALL games though, but decently big libraries. EA, Ubi, Microsoft all have their own subscriptions, and most of their titles can be streamed or downloaded (on GeForce Now, Stadia, Luna, xCloud or whatever it's called now).
Sadly, like the fragmented streaming video ecosystem, every publisher wants their cut and there's probably not a future where they're all integrated under one roof. Sad, really, because that would be so much easier for players.
Sadly, like the fragmented streaming video ecosystem, every publisher wants their cut and there's probably not a future where they're all integrated under one roof. Sad, really, because that would be so much easier for players.
Right! That's the problem with streaming services today: it's not a better experience for many people/use cases when it comes to consuming games. It only really works for someone who (1) plays mostly popular AAA titles as soon as they come out, (2) who plays _a lot_ of games relatively regularly, and (3) is OK with losing access to older games eventually. Clearly these people exist but I don't think there are that many of them...
I'm a very casual consumer of games (I play a mix of big popular titles as well as small niche indie titles) and Steam is an amazing experience for me compared to all the alternatives. I can get games during discount events and play them when I have time, knowing that the games in my library will be there available for me to download even years into the future on whatever PC device I happen to have then should I want to re-experience them. Having a monthly streaming service makes no sense to this kind of use case where (1) games are diverse (2) usage is bursty not regular (3) on-demand access to old titles is desired.
I think one way to get more people onto streaming, is to, like mentioned above, (1) make available a new pay-per-use $/hr model as an alternative to subscription, (2) keep the roster constant, do not cycle games out every month, cycle them out every decade if you have to, and (3) use actual compute pricing for the actual type of compute used: games that need a high-performance GPU? charge cloud GPU prices, indie titles that can run on a potato? aim for just CPU instance prices.
Of course this is never going to happen. The industry is hungry for that sweet, sweet, MRR. Nobody* is selling perpetual licenses anymore. It's all about showing that you have perpetual faucets of revenue these days.
I'm a very casual consumer of games (I play a mix of big popular titles as well as small niche indie titles) and Steam is an amazing experience for me compared to all the alternatives. I can get games during discount events and play them when I have time, knowing that the games in my library will be there available for me to download even years into the future on whatever PC device I happen to have then should I want to re-experience them. Having a monthly streaming service makes no sense to this kind of use case where (1) games are diverse (2) usage is bursty not regular (3) on-demand access to old titles is desired.
I think one way to get more people onto streaming, is to, like mentioned above, (1) make available a new pay-per-use $/hr model as an alternative to subscription, (2) keep the roster constant, do not cycle games out every month, cycle them out every decade if you have to, and (3) use actual compute pricing for the actual type of compute used: games that need a high-performance GPU? charge cloud GPU prices, indie titles that can run on a potato? aim for just CPU instance prices.
Of course this is never going to happen. The industry is hungry for that sweet, sweet, MRR. Nobody* is selling perpetual licenses anymore. It's all about showing that you have perpetual faucets of revenue these days.
Hopefully that'll be cloud gaming, I'd love to be able to play, say, Cyberpunk on my phone in bed.
That is already possible with Stadia (and possibly other game streaming services).
Yes it is, but it's not there yet (see my reply to the sibling comment).
If you don't mind the "cloud" being your LAN, and you already own Cyberpunk just download the Steam Link app.
I do use Steam Link, and it's great, but it'll be even more amazing when I neither need to own the games nor the computer. I want to be able to rent a computer in the cloud (like Nvidia Geforce Now) and rent the games as well, on a subscription basis (like Xbox Live/Xbox Cloud Gaming).
[deleted]
I was wondering when it would get to Epic, but the article being from 2018 explains it.
But didn’t epic kinda subvert this?
Epic spent ludicrous amounts (I assume) of money on exclusivity deals and giving players freebies. But their store itself sucks. Maybe the dev tools are low friction, the store was far worse than Steam for a long time, and still is.
I just started the client: 30 seconds of loading (okay, that was a lot longer than usual… did new free games arrive?)
Click library: "We know we are slow, so look at this skeleton loader". It’s my fucking library? How can this take seconds to load?
Click a game to find out more: It launches the game. Why do you have a launch button below the game if everything is a launch button? (replace launch with install for uninstalled games) Information is "right click" -> "go to store page". Wow.
Back/forward: It’s a fucking Electron app, you get back/forward for free. No, wait, if you use some dumb JS Framework you don’t, and they don’t. Half the time, back/forward on the mouse does not work properly because they didn’t manually implement the hooks for whatever framework they are using.
Okay, rant over. Anyway, this clearly shows that you can have a high-friction crap-client and still get people by just throwing enough money at devs and players for long enough.
But didn’t epic kinda subvert this?
Epic spent ludicrous amounts (I assume) of money on exclusivity deals and giving players freebies. But their store itself sucks. Maybe the dev tools are low friction, the store was far worse than Steam for a long time, and still is.
I just started the client: 30 seconds of loading (okay, that was a lot longer than usual… did new free games arrive?)
Click library: "We know we are slow, so look at this skeleton loader". It’s my fucking library? How can this take seconds to load?
Click a game to find out more: It launches the game. Why do you have a launch button below the game if everything is a launch button? (replace launch with install for uninstalled games) Information is "right click" -> "go to store page". Wow.
Back/forward: It’s a fucking Electron app, you get back/forward for free. No, wait, if you use some dumb JS Framework you don’t, and they don’t. Half the time, back/forward on the mouse does not work properly because they didn’t manually implement the hooks for whatever framework they are using.
Okay, rant over. Anyway, this clearly shows that you can have a high-friction crap-client and still get people by just throwing enough money at devs and players for long enough.
Well Epic does have the "super powers" mentioned towards the end of the article. They have Unreal Engine and Fortnite. The former brings developers, the latter brings players.
They also have unlimited money to bribe developers and players, with paid exclusivity and frequent giveaways.
So maybe they didn't score 100 on the test, but they definitely got a passing grade at least.
They also have unlimited money to bribe developers and players, with paid exclusivity and frequent giveaways.
So maybe they didn't score 100 on the test, but they definitely got a passing grade at least.
Epic is also just cheaper than steam for developers. Yes, they pay for exclusivity deals, but the developers don't mind much because they're getting an extra 10% of revenue. They'd prefer users migrate to the epic store. I wouldn't say that having a better revenue share is "bribing", but maybe their plan was to go up to the 30% rate once they became popular.
>Epic spent ludicrous amounts (I assume) of money on exclusivity deals and giving players freebies. But their store itself sucks.
It's baffling to me that they took this angle. Hardware exclusivity I think in general is regarded as a negative (aside from weird tribalism/fanboyism among the more hardcore crowd) - but seeing that and thinking you can do the same thing with a software platform is just ludicrous.
Yes, you can buy exclusivity deals and force users onto your platform - but only for those games. It's trivial for players to bounce back and forth between different platforms when it's just software - you can't trap them just because they had to use it for one game they wanted. I'd be more forgiving if they were using exclusivity as a marketing tool alongside an actual attempt at a competitive platform - but as you've outlined and from what I've seen for myself, the experience is hot garbage.
I'm guessing for most users, the Epic store is just a glorified launcher for a bunch of games they got for free, and one or two exclusive games they couldn't get elsewhere.
It's baffling to me that they took this angle. Hardware exclusivity I think in general is regarded as a negative (aside from weird tribalism/fanboyism among the more hardcore crowd) - but seeing that and thinking you can do the same thing with a software platform is just ludicrous.
Yes, you can buy exclusivity deals and force users onto your platform - but only for those games. It's trivial for players to bounce back and forth between different platforms when it's just software - you can't trap them just because they had to use it for one game they wanted. I'd be more forgiving if they were using exclusivity as a marketing tool alongside an actual attempt at a competitive platform - but as you've outlined and from what I've seen for myself, the experience is hot garbage.
I'm guessing for most users, the Epic store is just a glorified launcher for a bunch of games they got for free, and one or two exclusive games they couldn't get elsewhere.
I have purchased games on Epic. Reasons:
1. Steam won't live forever (or I may get banned) and I'd like some games there just in case.
2. Some games aren't available on Steam, e.g. Sifu.
3. Better handling of multiple devices. I can play a game on my MacBook while my daughter plays another game on the home computer on her account. One of the things I don't like about Steam is that one account can lock another out, even when it's different games being played on different computers.
1. Steam won't live forever (or I may get banned) and I'd like some games there just in case.
2. Some games aren't available on Steam, e.g. Sifu.
3. Better handling of multiple devices. I can play a game on my MacBook while my daughter plays another game on the home computer on her account. One of the things I don't like about Steam is that one account can lock another out, even when it's different games being played on different computers.
My "Steam won't live forever" solution is simple: i only buy games on Steam if they are not available in DRM-free stores (GOG, Zoom Platform, etc) after some time (a year or two - as a bonus they tend to be released both at a reduced price and with many bugs fixed). I always download the installers and keep my own offline copies.
Even then, i try to use Goldberg's Steam Emulator (really a drop-in replacement for Steam's DLL) and Steamless (a tool that removes Steam's DRM, though in more recent games this is rarely needed and indie games pretty much never seem to use it) to make a "Steam independent" version. Both are open source (kinda, Steamless is not strictly FLOSS but the code is there) and available on GitHub.
This doesn't always work though and Steam provides no indication if a game has DRM or not (the Augmented Steam extension does tell if there is Denuvo but that's about it and i don't think it is 100% accurate), which is why i tend to buy games at dirt-cheap prices on Steam so that if i end up with a copy i can't separate from Steam i'd only have spent very little money for it (and i am able to play the game in the short term anyway).
Even then, i try to use Goldberg's Steam Emulator (really a drop-in replacement for Steam's DLL) and Steamless (a tool that removes Steam's DRM, though in more recent games this is rarely needed and indie games pretty much never seem to use it) to make a "Steam independent" version. Both are open source (kinda, Steamless is not strictly FLOSS but the code is there) and available on GitHub.
This doesn't always work though and Steam provides no indication if a game has DRM or not (the Augmented Steam extension does tell if there is Denuvo but that's about it and i don't think it is 100% accurate), which is why i tend to buy games at dirt-cheap prices on Steam so that if i end up with a copy i can't separate from Steam i'd only have spent very little money for it (and i am able to play the game in the short term anyway).
[deleted]
To solve your problem with Epic games, all you need to do is to find the installation directory of the said game, create a shortcut for it, and voila! A DRM free game!
Remember, do not use Epic's own game shortcuts that the client created for you, since the shortcut path has the Epic client's COM object bound to it.
As a note, this also works for games that's installed from GoG galaxy that requires the client to be up before the game runs.
Remember, do not use Epic's own game shortcuts that the client created for you, since the shortcut path has the Epic client's COM object bound to it.
As a note, this also works for games that's installed from GoG galaxy that requires the client to be up before the game runs.
Huh? That solves exactly none of the issues I have (which are all client UI/UX things).
It's worth remembering that Google tried this with Stadia, with levels of investment unimaginable for a regular startup and a product that was superior in many ways (instant games! no hardware requirements!), and still failed.
Of course you can Monday morning quarterback this and point out Stadia's limitations (weak games library, hurr durr Google Reader, etc), but still, the cards were stacked in their favor and they still couldn't pull it off.
Of course you can Monday morning quarterback this and point out Stadia's limitations (weak games library, hurr durr Google Reader, etc), but still, the cards were stacked in their favor and they still couldn't pull it off.
I work at Google and I was immediately skeptical of Stadia (I don't work on that product, obviously). Partly from being a gamer myself, thinking about latency, but also because:
* Google has a reputation for abandoning services, and games bought on Stadia would be locked there. What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone."
* It's hard to get momentum when you're targeting hardcore gamers, who mostly already have consoles/PC's, thus removing one of your biggest advantages.
* Google has a reputation for abandoning services, and games bought on Stadia would be locked there. What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone."
* It's hard to get momentum when you're targeting hardcore gamers, who mostly already have consoles/PC's, thus removing one of your biggest advantages.
The whole setup just hardly makes any sense. They are targeting people who have super fast and reliable internet, are hardcore gamers, and don't have a gaming pc. I just can't imagine who this target market is. Fast hardware is usually much more accessible than fast internet.
The idea might have worked if the subscription included access to games. Since at least then you aren't buying in to the platform with lock in.
The idea might have worked if the subscription included access to games. Since at least then you aren't buying in to the platform with lock in.
I think you are wrong on the hardcore gamer part. There are something between casual and hardcore gamers (but that market might not be big enough).
I used to be a hardcore gamer but being in my forties with kids and job I dont have the time to game as much as I used to. The whole just stream the game, no fiddling with installs and patches were very tempting to me. Given that I dont game as much it would be nice not paying for a beefy gaming PC. I already have great internet, I need it for work.
I also have two preteens that are starting to game, its cheaper to get multiple stadia subscrptions that they can then play where they want, on my macbook, the TV or a cheap chromebook.
I think google's biggest mistake was requiring you to buy the controller up front. If they had let people sign up with just their existing PC it would have been much easier to get people onboard.
I used to be a hardcore gamer but being in my forties with kids and job I dont have the time to game as much as I used to. The whole just stream the game, no fiddling with installs and patches were very tempting to me. Given that I dont game as much it would be nice not paying for a beefy gaming PC. I already have great internet, I need it for work.
I also have two preteens that are starting to game, its cheaper to get multiple stadia subscrptions that they can then play where they want, on my macbook, the TV or a cheap chromebook.
I think google's biggest mistake was requiring you to buy the controller up front. If they had let people sign up with just their existing PC it would have been much easier to get people onboard.
i have a similar situation, used to game a lot of friends, lots of us have kids now, would like to game 3-4 times a year. Dont want to bother getting a full on game setup, and I have a macbook for daily use, so not very gaming friendly. Decent streaming setup would be perfect.
This could be a lot of people with a business or Apple laptop living far from home - business trips, expats, migrants. I had to migrate recently and currently have only a work laptop with me, so I have tried Stadia and it was rather good for some games. Best example - ESO, which for 10$ pulled all my progress and DLCs from the cloud. But yes, with the Google "reputation" and the requirement to re-buy all games the second time Stadia is dead in the water, I won't invest there anything above a few dollars.
Have you ever tried GeForce Now? Similar or better performance than Stadia, but it just uses your existing Steam library.
It's a separate subscription (free to $20/mo) for the streaming service, but you can play many of your current titles without re-buying them (not all, due to publisher withdrawals).
To play ALL your games, Shadow.tech will stream a full GPU-enabled desktop that you can run anything you want in.
It's a separate subscription (free to $20/mo) for the streaming service, but you can play many of your current titles without re-buying them (not all, due to publisher withdrawals).
To play ALL your games, Shadow.tech will stream a full GPU-enabled desktop that you can run anything you want in.
Not yet, but I plan to try, thanks for the suggestion. It is definitely a better idea, a pity that some publishers withdrawed from that service.
There are many of us who grew up in the 90s and 2000s and used to have gaming PCs (because that's all there were those days). Nowadays we have jobs and much less time or space or money to keep up with that all the time any more, but being able to drop in for a couple of hours of cloud gaming here and there is awesome.
I was able to loan friends my GeForce Now account so we could play something together (they didn't have a gaming PC). And streaming doesn't imply lock-in; GeForce Now just uses your Steam library, Shadow just streams you a virtual Windows desktop (with whatever software you want to install on it, you essentially have root).
If you live in a city, fast (enough) internet is like $50/mo and you need it for your work/TikTok anyway. A good gaming PC is like $1500-$2000+ and is noisy and hot and Windows is a pain to keep updated, etc.
I'm not saying game streaming is the future or that it will replace traditional PCs, but it's definitely a useful service!
I was able to loan friends my GeForce Now account so we could play something together (they didn't have a gaming PC). And streaming doesn't imply lock-in; GeForce Now just uses your Steam library, Shadow just streams you a virtual Windows desktop (with whatever software you want to install on it, you essentially have root).
If you live in a city, fast (enough) internet is like $50/mo and you need it for your work/TikTok anyway. A good gaming PC is like $1500-$2000+ and is noisy and hot and Windows is a pain to keep updated, etc.
I'm not saying game streaming is the future or that it will replace traditional PCs, but it's definitely a useful service!
If latency wasn't an issue, I could see it as a luxury/convenience thing. Pay for the top tier experience, don't have to manage your own hardware, including the weirdness and annoyances you get into sometimes with PC gaming.
But latency is an issue, so the experience will always be inferior in terms of responsiveness. Which, to a lot of gamers, means it would have to be a budget option, not a luxury one.
But latency is an issue, so the experience will always be inferior in terms of responsiveness. Which, to a lot of gamers, means it would have to be a budget option, not a luxury one.
I think the latency part depends a lot on the games. I have used stadia and geforce now and for single player games I cant feel any latency difference.
I have tried playing multiplayer games like CS:GO on geforce now, and that gave me latency issues and was not a great experience.
I have tried playing multiplayer games like CS:GO on geforce now, and that gave me latency issues and was not a great experience.
My experience on Stadia was that when playing controller the latency is barely noticeable, but keyboard and mouse was really uncomfortable to me.
There are plenty of people whose only computer is a non-gaming laptop. Or even an iPad.
Hell, I'm a developer in my 40s, and I only got a decent-ish gaming PC at the start of the pandemic.
Stadia could be amazing if Google had any interest in it. Even OnLive of 10 years ago was amazing. LiquidSky knocked everyone out of the park, but had licensing issues unfortunately (play unmodified Steam games in the cloud what?!).
There are plenty of people who don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in consoles and gaming PCs but who still play plenty of games. Apple understands that with their Apple Arcade, but Apple doesn't understand gaming. Google doesn't understand gaming either.
Hell, I'm a developer in my 40s, and I only got a decent-ish gaming PC at the start of the pandemic.
Stadia could be amazing if Google had any interest in it. Even OnLive of 10 years ago was amazing. LiquidSky knocked everyone out of the park, but had licensing issues unfortunately (play unmodified Steam games in the cloud what?!).
There are plenty of people who don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in consoles and gaming PCs but who still play plenty of games. Apple understands that with their Apple Arcade, but Apple doesn't understand gaming. Google doesn't understand gaming either.
Oh TIL that Stadia didn't work as a game pass, makes it sound even worse!
Stadia had (has?) free games each month that remain on your account as long as you're subscribed. So in that way, it is. It just doesn't provide the huge library that XBGP does.
The monthly fee was for 4k and other features that weren't necessary. You could stream anything you bought on Stadia for free at 1080p, no subscription.
It was like buying a game and getting a console for free, but with an optional upcharge for an even better console.
The marketing for all this was horrible. People still don't understand what Stadia was and wasn't. And the launch was limited to people willing to spend $130 for the custom hardware.
That hardware wasn't necessary. They just decided to do that at launch as a way to milk some gamers of their money in return for early access.
But again, the marketing was horrible. And the free access came many months later. For a system that it's best feature was the free streaming access, they completely destroyed it at launch.
And of course, as everyone pointed out back then, Google doesn't support the things they create unless they're related to advertising somehow. And they've already shut down all the studios they created to make games for Stadia.
And the big "wow" feature that they kept advertising, "negative latency", never got released. Many thought it was already in it, so the latency that Stadia has was very disappointing compared to the hype that Google gave it.
It's just a disaster from start to finish, marketing-wise.
The monthly fee was for 4k and other features that weren't necessary. You could stream anything you bought on Stadia for free at 1080p, no subscription.
It was like buying a game and getting a console for free, but with an optional upcharge for an even better console.
The marketing for all this was horrible. People still don't understand what Stadia was and wasn't. And the launch was limited to people willing to spend $130 for the custom hardware.
That hardware wasn't necessary. They just decided to do that at launch as a way to milk some gamers of their money in return for early access.
But again, the marketing was horrible. And the free access came many months later. For a system that it's best feature was the free streaming access, they completely destroyed it at launch.
And of course, as everyone pointed out back then, Google doesn't support the things they create unless they're related to advertising somehow. And they've already shut down all the studios they created to make games for Stadia.
And the big "wow" feature that they kept advertising, "negative latency", never got released. Many thought it was already in it, so the latency that Stadia has was very disappointing compared to the hype that Google gave it.
It's just a disaster from start to finish, marketing-wise.
Exactly. I wonder if Stadia had a single gamer on their team. How did they botch it so badly?
Maybe with the sky high 4090 pricing it would make more sense for gamers to go to the cloud. But then they'd be expecting 4k high resolution streams on 4090s which might mean high COGS anyway.
You can already get RTX 3080 @ 4k 120fps on GeForce Now for $20/mo. The 40xxs probably aren't too far behind, once they start mass production.
> What happens if/when Stadia goes under? Who knows, but there's a decent chance of, "tough shit, all your games are gone."
This had now been answered [1]:
> We will be refunding all Stadia hardware purchases made through the Google Store, and all game and add-on content purchases made through the Stadia Store.
1. https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-...
This had now been answered [1]:
> We will be refunding all Stadia hardware purchases made through the Google Store, and all game and add-on content purchases made through the Stadia Store.
1. https://www.ign.com/articles/google-is-shutting-down-stadia-...
IMHO, as a gamer too, Stadia sucks not because it's streaming (the other streaming services are great for when I'm not on my desktop) but because Google totally botched its execution. Terrible pricing compared to Steam and other resellers, no crossplay, no mods, tiny library. And I think their architecture required specific ports from developers, vs GeForce Now's one-checkbox integration.
Game streaming isn't for everyone, but there IS a market for it. In that market, though, Stadia is by far the worst offering. They should've had gamers lead its design and development, but they run it like it's some sort of business cloud offering... just totally missed the culture.
Game streaming isn't for everyone, but there IS a market for it. In that market, though, Stadia is by far the worst offering. They should've had gamers lead its design and development, but they run it like it's some sort of business cloud offering... just totally missed the culture.
I work in the games industry, and honestly I don't know anyone who was optimistic about Stadia. Some people thought no chance, others thought that Google would care enough to keep pushing it for many years and keep spending unlimited money to maybe find success, and I didn't hear from anyone who thought better than that.
Of course I'm not claiming to speak for everyone in the industry, just for people in my network who I either discussed it with or whose opinions I saw online. But it very much isn't the case that everyone predicted success until "Monday morning quarterback"ing.
Of course I'm not claiming to speak for everyone in the industry, just for people in my network who I either discussed it with or whose opinions I saw online. But it very much isn't the case that everyone predicted success until "Monday morning quarterback"ing.
They didn't really try that hard.
I play lots of games, have over 1000 of them on steam, and jet somehow stadia only had 5 that i was interested and already had on steam.
But hey, lets try anyway, so I try to subscribe and: its not available here.
Almost no promotion, most of my friends(some of whom live in USA where I presume stadia does work) who also game didn't even know about stadia.
And then when they didn't6 just autowin all the customers, they kind of just let it go.
I play lots of games, have over 1000 of them on steam, and jet somehow stadia only had 5 that i was interested and already had on steam.
But hey, lets try anyway, so I try to subscribe and: its not available here.
Almost no promotion, most of my friends(some of whom live in USA where I presume stadia does work) who also game didn't even know about stadia.
And then when they didn't6 just autowin all the customers, they kind of just let it go.
I wanted to try Stadia. My Google account hails from 2004, when GMail first came out. I am in good standing, and consume a lot of Google services, many of which I pay for.
Stadia would just not accept any credit card I threw at them, including a virtual card I created specifically for this service after the other ones failed. It also even refused those which Google happily uses to charge me for my GWS and YouTube Premium.
It was not a geolocation thing - Stadia happily serviced a neighbour.
Under these circumstances, I gave up. If you make it hard for me to give you money, I simply won't.
Stadia would just not accept any credit card I threw at them, including a virtual card I created specifically for this service after the other ones failed. It also even refused those which Google happily uses to charge me for my GWS and YouTube Premium.
It was not a geolocation thing - Stadia happily serviced a neighbour.
Under these circumstances, I gave up. If you make it hard for me to give you money, I simply won't.
You are greatly dismissing the limitations. The technical challenge the met was the bare minimum to start building any kind of credibility to attract consumer, they knew it, and they did it. But still it was the bare minimum.
Once you have the platform, the bare minimum, you can start trying to get customer. You do that by playing on price, quality (within your platform parameters), catalog and since it's subscription base, long term commitment. Basically, either it was a hit, or they had to accept bleeding a lot of money to finalize their market entry.
They didn't push much and price and catalog, and they didn't commit either, as everyone expected.
They pull off a tech demo, they were never serious on the gaming market, and it showed.
Once you have the platform, the bare minimum, you can start trying to get customer. You do that by playing on price, quality (within your platform parameters), catalog and since it's subscription base, long term commitment. Basically, either it was a hit, or they had to accept bleeding a lot of money to finalize their market entry.
They didn't push much and price and catalog, and they didn't commit either, as everyone expected.
They pull off a tech demo, they were never serious on the gaming market, and it showed.
The business model was stupid. You paid a subscription for the benefit of being able to buy games on the platform, with you couldn’t access without the subscription. And all of this only works with amazing internet and for games where latency isn’t an issue.
>You paid a subscription for the benefit of being able to buy games on the platform, with you couldn’t access without the subscription.
This was only true during the first five months of release, when you had to buy the Founder's Edition, which came with hardware to access the service. All purchased games can be accessed without the subscription via Stadia Base, and they planned it this way from the start[1]. Stadia Pro primarily provides the perk of running games on better cloud hardware, providing a 4K HDR surround sound stream instead of the baseline 1080p stereo stream.
1: https://blog.google/products/stadia/summer-announcement/
This was only true during the first five months of release, when you had to buy the Founder's Edition, which came with hardware to access the service. All purchased games can be accessed without the subscription via Stadia Base, and they planned it this way from the start[1]. Stadia Pro primarily provides the perk of running games on better cloud hardware, providing a 4K HDR surround sound stream instead of the baseline 1080p stereo stream.
1: https://blog.google/products/stadia/summer-announcement/
Google never cared about Stadia or marketed it much.
GeForce Now, Luna, PSNow, XCloud, etc. are doing much better. Stadia is just the neglected stepchild of game streaming, not representative of the overall health of the technology.
I should note that Google by no means invented game streaming. OnLive did it ten years ago, and today there are still other small providers like Shadow.tech, Parsec, Paperspace...
I think Nvidia has the real advantage here though, being the only ones who can produce those gfx cards at datacenter scale. Unless one of the other providers want to develop their own chips, they're always at the mercy of Nvidia. Even during the COVID GPU shortage, Nvidia was able to keep GeForce Now sustained with enough hardware while the other providers struggled... Shadow had a waitlist of several months, for example.
GeForce Now, Luna, PSNow, XCloud, etc. are doing much better. Stadia is just the neglected stepchild of game streaming, not representative of the overall health of the technology.
I should note that Google by no means invented game streaming. OnLive did it ten years ago, and today there are still other small providers like Shadow.tech, Parsec, Paperspace...
I think Nvidia has the real advantage here though, being the only ones who can produce those gfx cards at datacenter scale. Unless one of the other providers want to develop their own chips, they're always at the mercy of Nvidia. Even during the COVID GPU shortage, Nvidia was able to keep GeForce Now sustained with enough hardware while the other providers struggled... Shadow had a waitlist of several months, for example.
It's interesting how the sentiment towards Steam changed since it's inception. I remember back when we had to use WON to play counter strike, then it got shut down and we had to move to Steam. But steam forced you to upgrade to CS 1.6, we liked 1.5 so we "boycotted" it and played on dodgy private servers and eventually WON2 (I think that's what it was called).
I remember not playing Half Life 2 for a while because it required Steam and I refused to install it. I eventually gave up and joined (17 years ago according to my account) and over those 17 it's one of those services that just got better and better.
Linux gaming is now in the "it just works" territory. They fixed controller support (no more using dodgy drivers to make your PS3 controller behave like an xbox 360 one). They added support for online in local only co-op games (one person streams the game to the other, the other person sends controller input).
There are so many cool tech features built into steam that I really can't imagine using anything else at this point.
I remember not playing Half Life 2 for a while because it required Steam and I refused to install it. I eventually gave up and joined (17 years ago according to my account) and over those 17 it's one of those services that just got better and better.
Linux gaming is now in the "it just works" territory. They fixed controller support (no more using dodgy drivers to make your PS3 controller behave like an xbox 360 one). They added support for online in local only co-op games (one person streams the game to the other, the other person sends controller input).
There are so many cool tech features built into steam that I really can't imagine using anything else at this point.
Half Life 2 for me too. Being in Eastern Europe, that also marked the moment I sort of stopped pirating games.
I think you're mixing up a few things about the 'sentiment' here because of the timelines. If Wikipedia is correct enough Steam launched in autumn 2003 and as you say, for CS.
All of us who didn't play CS did not care at all about Steam. Then late in 2004 HL2 came, that was a bigger draw but still, for many of us who didn't buy it.. don't care.
My Steam account is from 2009, but I distinctly remember that I tried to sign up some years before for no good reason (maybe to grab a name) and couldn't get past the unreadable Captcha and because I STILL had no pressing reason (around 2006?) I let it go.
I'm not saying I'm a hardcore Steam user, maybe more like a casual user who buys some games from time to time and I didn't feel a pressing need to sign up for the first ~6 years of service and at some point they had enough benefits that people signed up and bought games.
TLDR: Steam was a niche product for many years so the current discourse about "the default game purchasing platform" is completely different than "publisher-owned distribution platform for 3 games"
All of us who didn't play CS did not care at all about Steam. Then late in 2004 HL2 came, that was a bigger draw but still, for many of us who didn't buy it.. don't care.
My Steam account is from 2009, but I distinctly remember that I tried to sign up some years before for no good reason (maybe to grab a name) and couldn't get past the unreadable Captcha and because I STILL had no pressing reason (around 2006?) I let it go.
I'm not saying I'm a hardcore Steam user, maybe more like a casual user who buys some games from time to time and I didn't feel a pressing need to sign up for the first ~6 years of service and at some point they had enough benefits that people signed up and bought games.
TLDR: Steam was a niche product for many years so the current discourse about "the default game purchasing platform" is completely different than "publisher-owned distribution platform for 3 games"
I guess my point that it started out as a "publisher-owned distribution platform for 3 games" that many CS gamers at the time hated. Obviously I can't speak for the entire gaming community, but I remember sitting in some fairly large IRC channels with everyone bitching about it. They really managed to turn that around.
And then after becoming "the default game purchasing platform" they continue to improve the experience and invest in cool technological advances. The post says:
> Unfortunately, you can't just build a better mousetrap,
But no one has come even close to building a better mousetrap, the alternatives suck. Valve didn't just become the biggest and sit around stagnating and buying out the competition. They continue to innovate, at least in my humble opinion.
And then after becoming "the default game purchasing platform" they continue to improve the experience and invest in cool technological advances. The post says:
> Unfortunately, you can't just build a better mousetrap,
But no one has come even close to building a better mousetrap, the alternatives suck. Valve didn't just become the biggest and sit around stagnating and buying out the competition. They continue to innovate, at least in my humble opinion.
One annoying as hell thing on Steam is that you purchase the game and still have to create account on
Rockstar/xbox/epic/blizzard site in order to play it, wtf.
I would pay 1$ if steam created those accounts on some their random ass emails and just let us play
Rockstar/xbox/epic/blizzard site in order to play it, wtf.
I would pay 1$ if steam created those accounts on some their random ass emails and just let us play
This is the result of those other entities trying to start their own version of Steam. Ubisoft has given up at this point I think (don't quote me on that), but nearly every other AAA publisher is slowly trying to build their own storefront and seeding their userbase with their most loyal fans.
Epic has arguably been the most successful, but the article is clear about that. They have millions (billions?) of dollars to burn to break into the market by giving away free games and paying for exclusivity deals.
Microsoft is an interesting case because they also have Xbox which leads to a bleedover into PC game sales with the same users.
Now here's an idea I've been toying with. Steam has made all the information available for other companies to create handhelds that run SteamOS. I wonder if other AAA publishers, hell, even Epic Games, will use that IP to create their own consoles that are linked to their platforms? It's worked for MS with the Xbox, and the Steamdeck is selling like crazy.
It seems that hardware is the key that unlocks consistent growth for gaming platforms, and even now, Steam basically "owns" the PC hardware market.
Regardless, it's gonna be a great decade for gamers I think because competition has never been higher!
Epic has arguably been the most successful, but the article is clear about that. They have millions (billions?) of dollars to burn to break into the market by giving away free games and paying for exclusivity deals.
Microsoft is an interesting case because they also have Xbox which leads to a bleedover into PC game sales with the same users.
Now here's an idea I've been toying with. Steam has made all the information available for other companies to create handhelds that run SteamOS. I wonder if other AAA publishers, hell, even Epic Games, will use that IP to create their own consoles that are linked to their platforms? It's worked for MS with the Xbox, and the Steamdeck is selling like crazy.
It seems that hardware is the key that unlocks consistent growth for gaming platforms, and even now, Steam basically "owns" the PC hardware market.
Regardless, it's gonna be a great decade for gamers I think because competition has never been higher!
> It seems that hardware is the key that unlocks consistent growth
Steam or Epic never needed that. What both of them had was immensely successful games but each utilized their own advantages. Steam used its Counterstrike network effects to grow their platform, CS was also their guinea pig to test their Steam idea in the first place. Epic on the other hand has a Fortnite windfall and it is spending its way to relevancy.
Steam or Epic never needed that. What both of them had was immensely successful games but each utilized their own advantages. Steam used its Counterstrike network effects to grow their platform, CS was also their guinea pig to test their Steam idea in the first place. Epic on the other hand has a Fortnite windfall and it is spending its way to relevancy.
It was half life 2 on steam that created steam.
No it wasn't. HL2 was the first game released on Steam but it was used before that for CS updates and asset downloads. Both during the beta and after that.
For plenty of them, the new issue is crossplay because Steamwork hasn't been staying competitive and doesn't support it as a feature. So you need another networking solution to support crossplay. If I'm releasing a game on PS5, Steam does not offer an API to access friends, send invites, etc. Now you need an account system to support a crossplatform friends list. Steam does have these API privately, as seen with their Playstation 3 Portal 2 release. But that was more than 10 years ago, and probably not even updated as the recent Nintendo Switch release of Portal 2 cannot do crossplay.
"Crossplatform" even applies to other games on PC, because you cannot use Steamworks on games sold outside of Steam. So unless you are releasing Steam only, it is not a good idea to rely on Steamworks for networking.
Off the top of my head, Deep Rock Galactic is one such game. It was on Steam for about 2 years before being put on the Windows Microsoft Store as part of Xbox Game Pass PC which cannot play with Steam versions of the game.
"Crossplatform" even applies to other games on PC, because you cannot use Steamworks on games sold outside of Steam. So unless you are releasing Steam only, it is not a good idea to rely on Steamworks for networking.
Off the top of my head, Deep Rock Galactic is one such game. It was on Steam for about 2 years before being put on the Windows Microsoft Store as part of Xbox Game Pass PC which cannot play with Steam versions of the game.
Counter example: Sea of Thieves. Xbox / Windows native game, built around Xbox Live only.
As a Linux user, at least the last time I tried to play that game, it could not integrate at all with audio input devices, and trying to get accounts to link up with friends via the Microsoft website was either impossible or really clunky. IIRC I had to have someone with the Windows Xbox app invite me to the crew.
They don't even try to do 'cross play' outside of the Xbox / Windows PC ecosystem, and at least my perception based on experience was that other ecosystem isn't baked into the game but as an implicit external dependency (friends list, audio input).
As a Linux user, at least the last time I tried to play that game, it could not integrate at all with audio input devices, and trying to get accounts to link up with friends via the Microsoft website was either impossible or really clunky. IIRC I had to have someone with the Windows Xbox app invite me to the crew.
They don't even try to do 'cross play' outside of the Xbox / Windows PC ecosystem, and at least my perception based on experience was that other ecosystem isn't baked into the game but as an implicit external dependency (friends list, audio input).
I'm not sure what point you're disagreeing with me on? With that counter example?
My point is that Steamworks doesn't support being one of those external dependency on games not released on Steam. Xbox does, as seen with Sea of Thieves being released on Steam.
Plenty do bake it into the game, because that Xbox login will not work otherwise on Playstation or Switch. Or even Android or iOS. See Minecraft. But I can't bake Steamworks into games not on Steam, PC or otherwise.
Not like Valve is the only one with this issue though. It also applies to GoG's Steamworks competitor as far as I know.
My point is that Steamworks doesn't support being one of those external dependency on games not released on Steam. Xbox does, as seen with Sea of Thieves being released on Steam.
Plenty do bake it into the game, because that Xbox login will not work otherwise on Playstation or Switch. Or even Android or iOS. See Minecraft. But I can't bake Steamworks into games not on Steam, PC or otherwise.
Not like Valve is the only one with this issue though. It also applies to GoG's Steamworks competitor as far as I know.
At least you were able to get into a crew. I recently tried to play Golf with Friends only to find that those of us using the gamepass version couldn't play with those of us using the Steam version.
I solve that issue with zero guilt piracy. I bought the game - it's single player (or only single player interests me) I can play it however I want not however the seller wants.
This is because someone out there has a metric of "how many users registered" and they believe it is the most important thing.
I don't mind custom launchers that much (although there are a few because how bad they are) because sometimes they have uses or at least just another click but once it requires an account, my blood boils a bit as well
I don't mind custom launchers that much (although there are a few because how bad they are) because sometimes they have uses or at least just another click but once it requires an account, my blood boils a bit as well
That's only because Rockstar/xbox/epic ask for that.
Blizzard games are not sold in Steam.
Not the fault of Steam at all.
Blizzard games are not sold in Steam.
Not the fault of Steam at all.
Just refund them
That should be illegal IMO. You are forced to subscribe after you paid.
Steam is surprisingly good at offering refunds. So if you find a subscription wall you don't agree to after you bought a game, Steam will almost certainly refund your money.
If you have under 2 hours gameplay and its under 2 weeks since you bought it, they will refund for literally any reason. And they explicitly list that refunding because you didn't find it fun or because it went on sale and you want to rebuy is acceptable use. After that period I have had one request accepted and one denied so it depends on the situation.
Yes but it puts the burden on you to fix a problem that is caused by the editors.
> Steam is surprisingly good at offering refunds.
Had the opposite experience after a game stopped working 3 days after purchase due to its update (forced, if memory serves). Valve refused the refund because I played the game for more than 2 hours before it stopped working. Haven't purchased anything from Valve since.
Had the opposite experience after a game stopped working 3 days after purchase due to its update (forced, if memory serves). Valve refused the refund because I played the game for more than 2 hours before it stopped working. Haven't purchased anything from Valve since.
Nobody compares to steam in terms of refund policy. As long as you keep within their boundaries, you will get the refund 100%. Its must have when buying from a digital only marketplace.
I’ve even made it a personal policy to only buy digital only games through steam.
I’ve even made it a personal policy to only buy digital only games through steam.
I wonder if Steam's good refund policy comes as a result of being sued by the Australian consumer regulator back in 2014. They probably figured that if they _had_ to offer refunds in one country, they might as well build goodwill by offering refunds everywhere. (Of course this is the least charitable explanation, maybe they just had a change of heart)
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/australia-fines-valve-over-...
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/australia-fines-valve-over-...
Steam shows on the store page if you have to create an external account or accept an external EULA.
No, you're not. You're forced to create another account, but that account is free.
True, but your personal information and consent to use it has value.
That said, the Steam store page does tell you in advance this will be necessary if you know where to look. I don't buy those games, if I want them I'll eventually grab console versions used.
That said, the Steam store page does tell you in advance this will be necessary if you know where to look. I don't buy those games, if I want them I'll eventually grab console versions used.
He wrote a follow-up a year later.
https://www.fortressofdoors.com/so-you-want-to-compete-with-...
https://www.fortressofdoors.com/so-you-want-to-compete-with-...
I generally won't use any game store that doesn't have text reviews, they're so so much more useful than just numerical scores/star ratings.
I especially like being able to read negative reviews on games that look appealing to me to identify whether the primary complaints about them are actually things I'm likely to care about.
Idea for a competitor: let users post video reviews!
I especially like being able to read negative reviews on games that look appealing to me to identify whether the primary complaints about them are actually things I'm likely to care about.
Idea for a competitor: let users post video reviews!
User-posted video reviews sounds kinda useless to me, just because it'd be hard to skim, but they'd also be low quality enough on average to where you wouldn't want to sit through a bunch.
But then how do you know which of the 20 minute review videos to watch?
Let users post reviews of the video reviews? ;)
I kid -- but a simple thumbs up/down metric could help separate signal from noise (as is done with current text reviews on Steam).
I kid -- but a simple thumbs up/down metric could help separate signal from noise (as is done with current text reviews on Steam).
For me the main thing lacking in all popular Steam "competitors" (looking mostly at the epic games launcher right now) is lack of reviews.
A store without reviews is mostly useless for exploration, while the Steam review system is excellent. I very often wait for a game to come out on Steam just because I want to see the reviews before buying.
A store without reviews is mostly useless for exploration, while the Steam review system is excellent. I very often wait for a game to come out on Steam just because I want to see the reviews before buying.
You read game reviews for that ? I just YouTube gameplay videos or intro or whatever. I'll watch a narrated review, but just reading about the game is kind of irrelevant for me. Maybe in the old days of game magazines, but these days - videos do a way better job of telling me what I'm in for.
Problem with videos is I have no idea how long someone has been playing the game. With Steam I can see the user has put in 400 hours or something so I can be fairly certain they have experience most of what the game has to offer.
Also for older games, sometimes you get people playing for 1000+ hours who says that the game turned to shit 3 months ago and you'd never get that just watching a gameplay video that came out a few months after the game was released.
Steam reviews also track over time, again, videos don't. I watch videos for new games and use them with Steam reviews to see if I'd like a game or not, but for old games the reviews are much easier to get a clear picture of what the game is like the day I'm planning on buying it.
Also for older games, sometimes you get people playing for 1000+ hours who says that the game turned to shit 3 months ago and you'd never get that just watching a gameplay video that came out a few months after the game was released.
Steam reviews also track over time, again, videos don't. I watch videos for new games and use them with Steam reviews to see if I'd like a game or not, but for old games the reviews are much easier to get a clear picture of what the game is like the day I'm planning on buying it.
I don't know. Steam reviewers seem to sometimes have a deeper view of the game, and describe the long term difficulty/power/interest curve etc. They can have many hours in and are not compelled to push the review out early. And you can roughly look at the number of datapoints reporting any given experience. Maybe depends on the game, but often looking at the graphics won't give you much information.
I also look at Steam user reviews because people tend to share what they like or hate in relatively short form.
I've been gaming for more than 3 decades. Know very well what I like and what I don't. Sure, gameplay videos are great but as an old FPS guy, looking for gameplay recorded by someone who knows what they are doing takes more time. It really does. That's why I look fir videos after taking the time to read what people think.
That said, I've stayed away from professional reviews for more than 2 decades.
I've been gaming for more than 3 decades. Know very well what I like and what I don't. Sure, gameplay videos are great but as an old FPS guy, looking for gameplay recorded by someone who knows what they are doing takes more time. It really does. That's why I look fir videos after taking the time to read what people think.
That said, I've stayed away from professional reviews for more than 2 decades.
What? People other then low attention span children watch video reviews rather then read normal text articles?
News to me.
News to me.
I read the negative comments mostly, to see if game has some glaring issues.
Steam generally does a good job of bringing relevant issues to the top, like latest patch breaking something, less than stellar netcode on fighting games, etc.
Steam generally does a good job of bringing relevant issues to the top, like latest patch breaking something, less than stellar netcode on fighting games, etc.
Honestly how steam balances historical reviews versus recent ones is what helps the most to see a trajectory of where a game has come from and where it is now. See No Man’s Sky (from launch to now)
I think it also started reminding people to change their reviews (or maybe it was just to remind them to review?) if they still play a "negative" after a while which helped I think.
And also forum (GOG has one too at least). Sometimes games require more info than is present in the reviews. For example Detroit PC port was atrocious for a significant minority of users. It was a minority enough to have a positive reviews, but significant to have hundreds of people with very different hardware to be affected.
Also forum plus release notes (available on Steam, but not sure about competitors) provide a great picture if game is really supported or not. Same example Detroit PC port - zero patches over a year, almost no "green" replies on the forum from dev team, zero acknowledgment of critical blocking issues. In the same year Horizon PC port was also released with some bugs. It had two dozens game patches and fixes over a year, and devs immediately acknowledged existing bugs, like in a one week time frame.
You can probably guess that in future I will avoid products from Quantic like wildfire and all such info can be found on Steam, for any corporation. So mister Tim, you can keep your stance against customers, and I will keep buying games on Steam and GOG.
Also forum plus release notes (available on Steam, but not sure about competitors) provide a great picture if game is really supported or not. Same example Detroit PC port - zero patches over a year, almost no "green" replies on the forum from dev team, zero acknowledgment of critical blocking issues. In the same year Horizon PC port was also released with some bugs. It had two dozens game patches and fixes over a year, and devs immediately acknowledged existing bugs, like in a one week time frame.
You can probably guess that in future I will avoid products from Quantic like wildfire and all such info can be found on Steam, for any corporation. So mister Tim, you can keep your stance against customers, and I will keep buying games on Steam and GOG.
For me the problem is the multiple applications. I HATE having to install yet another store app.
I really like GOG lets me download games direct from their web page.
I really like GOG lets me download games direct from their web page.
Are Steam reviews any different than Amazon or Airbnb reviews? I never trust reviews on the same platform that has an incentive to sell me something.
I don't know about that. I don't buy games on other platforms because steam is how I search for games.
GOG has it.
Even if you were to do all these things (including have superpowers), you still wouldn't be able to compete with Steam. They have built up too much consumer trust over the years, to the point that people automatically view competitors with suspicion. For competitors to succeed, Steam will have to start being aggressively anti-consumer.
The competitors also have built up so much bad will that "not steam" as a category is met with distrust and rage.
you are sounding like that is a bad thing.
>They have built up too much consumer trust over the years, to the point that people automatically view competitors with suspicion. For competitors to succeed, Steam will have to start being aggressively anti-consumer.
this is often said about "sin goods", you know... like alcohol or drugs or guns..... people need cigarettes so why not ours.".....
we don't have good things on the internet these days. Good things are often taken over, sunset and killed off like geocities of the past. Steam is one-off nice and that is a good thing overall
>They have built up too much consumer trust over the years, to the point that people automatically view competitors with suspicion. For competitors to succeed, Steam will have to start being aggressively anti-consumer.
this is often said about "sin goods", you know... like alcohol or drugs or guns..... people need cigarettes so why not ours.".....
we don't have good things on the internet these days. Good things are often taken over, sunset and killed off like geocities of the past. Steam is one-off nice and that is a good thing overall
I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily. I do think anyone who thinks they can take on Steam at this juncture is fooling themselves, though. Epic did everything the article suggested and it's still not close to the point where a significant fraction of the gaming audience would consciously choose an Epic release over a Steam one.
It is a kind of a bad thing from the perspective of monopolistic practices. As a game developer I'm hoping for a better deal than a 30% cut, but then I see the other stores and there's not much viable choices. Also if steam decides to cut out my genre like it does through algorithms changes, etc, I'm hosed.
Such is the price of a winner take all industry. My hopium is that it changes in the future so that the customers win, and the small guys win before the big platform does.
Such is the price of a winner take all industry. My hopium is that it changes in the future so that the customers win, and the small guys win before the big platform does.
i get it. 30% is not good, that is daylight robbery and i am against that in principle but they aren't like the rest. apple/google all do the same and they are nowhere customer focussed as steam. steam is the ultimate monopolistic goodguy and unless they do something stupidly bad, they are there.
Sure, if apple/google switch to 5%, steam will have to follow suit but for now, with steam deck for example, they are actually using those profits to help the dev community reach more customers.
Its not the best position but its way better than what apple/google does imo
Sure, if apple/google switch to 5%, steam will have to follow suit but for now, with steam deck for example, they are actually using those profits to help the dev community reach more customers.
Its not the best position but its way better than what apple/google does imo
For me the killing feature of Steam is its longevity. I still have in my library the games that I bought in 2008. It means that I can reasonably expect my library to work for the rest of my life. I can't say the same of any other store, much less some newfangled startup.
The only conditions under which I can imagine switching to another store is if publishers would suddenly stop releasing their games on Steam en masse. And I mean en masse, not just one or two popular publishers.
The only conditions under which I can imagine switching to another store is if publishers would suddenly stop releasing their games on Steam en masse. And I mean en masse, not just one or two popular publishers.
Sure that's nice, but plenty of games on Steam require third-party logins and Internet connected DRMs, even for single player games. The day the publisher decides to retire the infrastructure for the game is the day the game becomes unplayable, even if still technically available to download on Steam.
That seems clearly out of control for Steam, would be the same if you bought that game anywhere else.
Not really, Steam is big enough that they could nudge the industry in the right direction.
For example, GOG does not sell any game with DRM or Internet connected crap, even if it requires making tough decisions like removing the Hitman reboot from its store.
For example, GOG does not sell any game with DRM or Internet connected crap, even if it requires making tough decisions like removing the Hitman reboot from its store.
> For me the killing feature of Steam is its longevity. I still have in my library the games that I bought in 2008. It means that I can reasonably expect my library to work for the rest of my life. I can't say the same of any other store, much less some newfangled startup.
You can say the same of GOG. Right now I am playing more GOG games than Steam games, even though my steam library is much larger.
You can say the same of GOG. Right now I am playing more GOG games than Steam games, even though my steam library is much larger.
I want to like GoG, and do buy games there, but the client sucks. It's hard to navigate and for some reason insists on showing me 500+ Steam games rather than my smaller GoG library.
Also, none of my friends use it, so if I buy a game on GoG, I'll eventually end up buying it on Steam too.
The big case for GoG is buying older games as in general they're much easier to get working on a modern PC than buying on Steam (no idea if that's true, but it feels easier to me).
Also, none of my friends use it, so if I buy a game on GoG, I'll eventually end up buying it on Steam too.
The big case for GoG is buying older games as in general they're much easier to get working on a modern PC than buying on Steam (no idea if that's true, but it feels easier to me).
> I want to like GoG, and do buy games there, but the client sucks. It's hard to navigate and for some reason insists on showing me 500+ Steam games rather than my smaller GoG library.
> Also, none of my friends use it, so if I buy a game on GoG, I'll eventually end up buying it on Steam too.
I was only addressing the longetivity requirement, not the UI or the network effects requirements.
> Also, none of my friends use it, so if I buy a game on GoG, I'll eventually end up buying it on Steam too.
I was only addressing the longetivity requirement, not the UI or the network effects requirements.
Fair enough, it that case I agree completely :) Knowing my games are completely under my control is the greatest reason to use GoG.
Before I learned about GOG I bought all my games from steam.
Nowadays I only buy from steam if:
1) it's not on GOG, AND 2) it's a game I desperately want to play
I don't think condition #2 will ever be met, because no matter how hard I try to get addicted to video games I just get bored and do something else.
I buy from GOG because I like the idea that I actually own (not licensed, like steam) and can play the games I purchased even after game stores all shutdown.
Nowadays I only buy from steam if:
1) it's not on GOG, AND 2) it's a game I desperately want to play
I don't think condition #2 will ever be met, because no matter how hard I try to get addicted to video games I just get bored and do something else.
I buy from GOG because I like the idea that I actually own (not licensed, like steam) and can play the games I purchased even after game stores all shutdown.
And on top of that GOG is the home of CD Projekt Red, and we are able to buy their (awesome!) AAA games with the same freedom. I stopped blindly buying from Steam the day I realized what would happen to my games collection if they decide to cancel my account for whatever reason against their TOS. Not that I have anything against them by now, but if I buy, I own. Otherwise I rent.
I like the idea of GoG, but the inconsistent ongoing developer support has stopped me from buying any more games on GoG.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_treat_gog_custo...
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_treat_gog_custo...
I am amazed that Epic is not mentioned even once. Epic does all that: bribes developers, bribes players by giving away games for free each Thursday, even AAA's now and then. The Super Power that Epic has is their Unreal Engine Ecosystem. And all the money. And that is it!
The article predates the Epic Games Store; the followup https://www.fortressofdoors.com/so-you-want-to-compete-with-... discusses it.
The article was from Jan 2018, from a quick google it seems like the Epic Games store was released in Dec 2018. You're absolutely right though, Epic did all of these things and more and is still a distant second.
[deleted]
I tried to compete with steam. It definitely doesn't work.
Thing is, people are happy with steam. Nobody cares for something else. Doesn't matter if your platform is better. Steam hasn't changed really at all over the years and... to be honest, it works for them.
Thing is, people are happy with steam. Nobody cares for something else. Doesn't matter if your platform is better. Steam hasn't changed really at all over the years and... to be honest, it works for them.
It’s interesting that since this was written the epic game store was started and I think it’s quite successful. Although, just like the article predicted, epic did it with lots and lots of money.
Got my deck on Monday. Valve just made me an Arch Linux user / console gamer with a handheld that can play my PC games. Oh, and my friends list, game library, and save files transfer over too. Steam wins and I'm a happier gamer for it.
I had my issues with Steam, but lately a new one come up, I have an old laptop with Steam and Half Life installed on it, so when we had do go on vacation my son wanted to take the old laptop to play some Half Life if bored, but Steam decided to upgrade and fuck itself, then I discovered that Steam Client uses Chrome and the client is no longer compatible with the OS on the old laptop.
I did not had the tiem to screw around with cracks or some way to find an old client, fuck Valve, if your new client is not compatible with the OS then fucking stop update it, or make it possible for someone to continue playing the game, maybe a super simple Launcher that does not need Chrome.
I did not had the tiem to screw around with cracks or some way to find an old client, fuck Valve, if your new client is not compatible with the OS then fucking stop update it, or make it possible for someone to continue playing the game, maybe a super simple Launcher that does not need Chrome.
These launchers are the worst. I have five or six of them installed on my machine that are required to play the games I bought. Sometimes a launcher launches a launcher. Often both require an update.
Whenever I boot Windows to play games, I have to be ready for multiple GB of updates to download, on a metered LTE connection, just to be able to open the launchers.
I am not even sure what they do, when I buy a game the only thing I want is a URL to download it and a way to be notified of optional updates. Email or RSS feeds would to that just fine.
Why do we accept so much useless bullshit?
Whenever I boot Windows to play games, I have to be ready for multiple GB of updates to download, on a metered LTE connection, just to be able to open the launchers.
I am not even sure what they do, when I buy a game the only thing I want is a URL to download it and a way to be notified of optional updates. Email or RSS feeds would to that just fine.
Why do we accept so much useless bullshit?
Agree, also forced game updates, you have 30 minutes to play a game but there was an update and the "Play" button is replaced with a "Update" button , it might work if you go in Offline mode this days, I am not 100% sure.
DRM-ing the game should be possible without forcing a launcher, but probably that would be bad for business.
DRM-ing the game should be possible without forcing a launcher, but probably that would be bad for business.
In cases such as this, which there are a lot, I guess finding a niche if possible would be a good approach. Cater to people who get lost in the big ocean that is steam searching for the one small pond that is you. Whatever that may be.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Frankly, it would be better to just spend the money on building political support for a monopoly case against Steam. Even though, technically, Steam is probably not in a monopoly position (afaik that would require for them to be able to raise prices high enough to get "supernormal returns", whatever that means).
Steam is an essential part of breaking a Microsoft monopoly for PC games far more than it is one itself.
Perhaps it is too large, but its interest are for the benefit of the consumer for once. This is a unique feature, it does not exist in any case that could constitute a monopoly elsewhere. Any political support against Steam would be full of special interests of large gaming companies that want to offer a worse service.
And aside from GOG they all do offer a significantly worse service by any merits the customer could value.
Perhaps it is too large, but its interest are for the benefit of the consumer for once. This is a unique feature, it does not exist in any case that could constitute a monopoly elsewhere. Any political support against Steam would be full of special interests of large gaming companies that want to offer a worse service.
And aside from GOG they all do offer a significantly worse service by any merits the customer could value.
Most companies who want to compete Steam want to replace it and become the new Steam, so any regulations against Steam would also be regulations against their imaginary future selves :-P.
Monopoly case against Steam would be interesting. Essentially boiling to, them being monopoly because customers want to use them. Not because they do anything to prevent other platforms from operating and existing. Or even pay anyone for exclusivity...
What a load if bullcrap.
Those kinds of posts are just giving me a reason to do it, out of spite.
Those kinds of posts are just giving me a reason to do it, out of spite.
I love that by reading this article, I've been introduced to itch.io.
If your goal is to publish a high quality independent game, Steam is not relevant. If you have something truly original and worth sharing, the audience is more than desperate to find you and they will regardless of your marketing strategy, or lack of one.
The tail does not wag the dog. I cannot remember the last time the layperson consumed most of what they do from genuine interest. Astroturf still sells, but for how long?
The tail does not wag the dog. I cannot remember the last time the layperson consumed most of what they do from genuine interest. Astroturf still sells, but for how long?
> If you have something truly original and worth sharing, the audience is more than desperate to find you and they will regardless of your marketing strategy, or lack of one.
I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive.
Yes, some gamers are like that, sure, but most aren't constantly scouring the internet for any hint of the games they like, even if they're into indies.
I'm way more knowledgeable about video games than almost any of my gamer friends, and I still don't know that much, there's just so many games out there these days.
I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive.
Yes, some gamers are like that, sure, but most aren't constantly scouring the internet for any hint of the games they like, even if they're into indies.
I'm way more knowledgeable about video games than almost any of my gamer friends, and I still don't know that much, there's just so many games out there these days.
Steam has tens of thousands of games. Dozens if not hundreds of those are excellent. And at times very affordable. Average gamer really have no reason to hunt good games outside Steam.
And then when you get outside you have platforms like Itchio.io. With even more stuff and lot of it free..
For money you really need to be on Steam. Or be very prominent on level of Minecraft.
And then when you get outside you have platforms like Itchio.io. With even more stuff and lot of it free..
For money you really need to be on Steam. Or be very prominent on level of Minecraft.
The majority of users find and buy games through the steam UI. If you aren't on that store, you are losing sales. You might still find sales externally but you are not going to sell nearly as much.
The loss in sales will easily hurt more than any cut Valve takes.
The loss in sales will easily hurt more than any cut Valve takes.
As a lone gamedev with a game fresh out on Steam.... I hope that is the case XD
Not so sure tho...
Luck has a bigger part in any Human endeavor than what any of us says :p
Not so sure tho...
Luck has a bigger part in any Human endeavor than what any of us says :p
I'll bite... what's it called?
Thanks, nice work! Added to wishlist - don't love the graphical style but the mechanics look very fun, and I do wish there were more local co-op games like this.
Ahh, the ol' "if you build it, they will come" strategy.
Pretty much considered a fallacy at this point. https://samuelmullen.com/articles/startup-fallacies-if-you-b...
Pretty much considered a fallacy at this point. https://samuelmullen.com/articles/startup-fallacies-if-you-b...
Previous discussion (215 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16173199