Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Delicieuxz

Steam distribution policy prohibits Epic Games / Tim Sweeney from exclusivizing any Steam-marketed games

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

Oh look, another "steam are the good guys" post. Color me shocked.

 

Either way, valve have proven may times over that the bottom line is what they care about. User experience be damned since they hold a monopoly.

 

I also never said this was a EULA. I said these vague, dubious terms are comparible to one and therefore their interal legal team knows it's a waste of assets to go after anyone regarding it.

How was that a Steam is good post? But neither am I shocked you haven't read the agreement because it's certainly not vague nor dubious. It's on the first page, at least a fair bit of it if you wish to read it.

 

Going straight it litigation if you don't need to is not only a waste of money and resources it negatively impacts your customers, the companies using Steam for distribution, which is not a smart thing to do. There's an easy way to push people over to a different platform, unnecessary lawsuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will buy off EGS when they will support linux.


into trains? here's the model railroad thread!

The way to get the specs for my PC. go to the store. Buy some potatos. boil them and mash the. and stuff that in a focus g with a ssd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

How was that a Steam is good post? But neither am I shocked you haven't read the agreement because it's certainly not vague nor dubious. It's on the first page, at least a fair bit of it if you wish to read it.

 

Going straight it litigation if you don't need to is not only a waste of money and resources it negatively impacts your customers, the companies using Steam for distribution, which is not a smart thing to do. There's an easy way to push people over to a different platform, unnecessary lawsuits.

Assuming steam are doing this because "it's the right thing" is exactly that. Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives. Please, explain to me how that doesn't "negatively impact your customers"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

Oh look, another "steam are the good guys" post. Color me shocked.

You seem have a very serious aversion to anyone making positive remarks about Valve.  Why is that?  One can be critical of Valve and also point out where they are (or at least may be) doing things right.  It's not an either/or proposition.

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

Either way, valve have proven may times over that the bottom line is what they care about.

Of course they care about the bottom line, they're a business.

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

User experience be ****** since they hold a monopoly.

I can't say that Valve has the best track record of customer support, but they're not a monopoly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly#

Quote
  1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
  2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
  3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
  4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
  5. a company or group that has such control.
  6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

I ask you, which of those definitions apply?

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

I also never said this was a EULA. I said these vague, dubious terms are comparible (sic) to one and therefore their interal (sic) legal team knows it's a waste of assets to go after anyone regarding it.

Or perhaps they're biding their time, while they determine if it's cost effective to proceed forward.  At this point, the only one I could see them really having a proper case against would be Deep Silver and Metro: Exodus, given that they had already been taking pre-orders for the game on Steam.

40 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives.

 That's on the developers/publishers, not Valve.  Valve has never mandated use of the Steam DRM.  In fact, there are numerous games on Steam that do not require the Steam client to play, only to download.  Divinity: Original Sin (both I and II) for one prominent example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client

As Jito463 said its not mandatory to use the DRM part. Plus its still better than having several dozen launcher installed all the time with their own credentials and DRM schemes(which could possibly conflict with each other)...... And we definitely dont need a bottom grade barely functioning one that has serious security issues because it was bodged together in a very hasty manner.

Edited by jagdtigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You seem have a very serious aversion to anyone making positive remarks about Valve.  Why is that?  One can be critical of Valve and also point out where they are (or at least may be) doing things right.  It's not an either/or proposition.

Mine wasn't even positive, explaining why a company might be doing something doesn't need over analyzing tbh. I mean I know the original question wasn't seriously being asked and any answer not in line with the established point of view of the post dismissed but darn it I'll try anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

My meaning of that is that a game which isn't listed on Steam isn't a Steam game. 

right, and if a game isn't on steam, then its not being taken off of steam, and thus has literally nothing to do with steam.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

What this does for Steam users is protected them from being unfairly impacted by the practices of a competing service or neglect from a Publisher.

right...

 

7 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Epic can do whatever they want, that doesn't mean devs break their contract with steam by doing so...

right..

All you guys acting like you are contradicting what I said, but didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, poochyena said:

All you guys acting like you are contradicting what I said, but didn't.

Well I wasn't, just agreeing with what you said and referencing your post due to the counter replies it got. Basically I'd rather not quote said other persons inviting them to yell at me also, I'm assuming they'll see my post anyway and leave it to them to reply or not. A reply quoting you doesn't have to mean a counter argument is being put forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

You seem have a very serious aversion to anyone making positive remarks about Valve.  Why is that?  One can be critical of Valve and also point out where they are (or at least may be) doing things right.  It's not an either/or proposition.

Of course they care about the bottom line, they're a business.

I can't say that Valve has the best track record of customer support, but they're not a monopoly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly#

I ask you, which of those definitions apply?

Or perhaps they're biding their time, while they determine if it's cost effective to proceed forward.  At this point, the only one I could see them really having a proper case against would be Deep Silver and Metro: Exodus, given that they had already been taking pre-orders for the game on Steam.

 That's on the developers/publishers, not Valve.  Valve has never mandated use of the Steam DRM.  In fact, there are numerous games on Steam that do not require the Steam client to play, only to download.  Divinity: Original Sin (both I and II) for one prominent example.

Because steam is a cancer on the gaming industry and I'm tired of seeing fan boys trip over themselves to praise valve on every occasion possible while sticking their head in the sand regarding everything they do that's terrible.

 

Problem is they ONLY care about the bottom line and customer be damned if you refuse to participate in valves bullshit and terrible service.

 

They are 100% a monopoly. What percentage of the PC gaming market do they hold? Far more then every single other client combined. From your list all but #2 apply.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm not buying the excuses and not sure what part of having to install a DRM client you don't understand is DRM regardless if it's part of a particular game or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The clause does more than prevent "unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates", as it also requires that games have their initial release-date on Steam be no later than what it is on other platforms, such as EGS.

Which makes me wonder about console ports. Do they just apply to Steam later? There's no real particular note saying anything about console releases, just "other platforms" which consoles definitely are.

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 I think you might be reading way too far into this and creating scenarios that don't exist to justify your claims.    For one thing no one has said anything about stealing money from valve and there is no reason to believe valve would sue for such a thing.   If a developer was to sign a contract with valve then remove their fame from steam and move to an exclusive with epic then it is possible valve could seek reimbursement for hosting their game whist in development and providing all that listing on steam does.  But that has nothing to do with theft.

But then what's the issue with leaving the Steam platform to go to Epic if they aren't costing Steam money? If they won't enforce it, and I still don't know how they would other than suing, what's the point of putting it there?

 

6 hours ago, TidalZelda said:

uumm what. steam is NOT deciding it was distribution rights because of their Software Distribution Agreement that you as a publisher have to agree to first. if steam was then how can Deep Silver even possibly pull metro exodus from steam, if as you said, steam "decided" it has distribution rights?
 

Soo Steam doesn't advertise, except when it advertises, but if it does, its fine because there's "no damages to steam". right. sure.
What about Metro Exodus, you know, that game that was advertised by Steam and its publisher Deep Silver, that was pulled at the last second, and that has only 200k purchases on steam?

Because that happened before they put this clause in... or did you miss the part where this is a new addition?

And according to you, Deep Silver paid for that advertisement on Steam before pulling out, so there's no reimbursement needed. Steam got it's money. It still sold the pre-orders it had in place. Steam got that money and they own absofuckinglutely zero right or claim to any sales from the Epic store, unless they claim they have the Distribution rights over an IP they don't own because they were paid to advertise.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Probably because it's much nicer PSA to smaller dev studios that may not actually be fully aware of the terms for the Steam platform, 'FYI what's been going on isn't actually ok'. Looks a lot better than immediately squashing the unaware.

But that would only prevent them going after indie devs. Even from a monetary standpoint, if they did go after the indie devs it would cost more money than it's worth so it's not financially reasonable. Going after a larger AAA publisher should theoretically be worth going after, but I still doubt Steam would have a good chance in court, since no way in hell is Epic or the publisher going to pay Steam for sales that didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

I can't say that Valve has the best track record of customer support, but they're not a monopoly.

Not since EGS has come into the picture. 😁 Valve has been exceedingly non-productive with Steam until EGS came along and made a ruckus.

Until recently when EA, Ubi, Bethesda, etc. split off and made their own launchers Steam was pretty well a monopoly, and remains the only place to buy the vast majority of games. They practically have a monopoly and for the past decade they've done nothing but sit on their laurels. They're making a new library interface that's taken them 3 years and it's basic as hell.

I can't confirm, and I don't remember in which video I heard this, but someone said that they took a tour of Valve and the division that works on Steam is "open" and people can come and go as they please, and at that moment in time there was only 5 people actually working on Steam.

 

I mean, really think about it, I've never seen Steam be this active in anything, not even the new VR killer game or whatever they're supposed to be making. Epic coming in and fucking shit shit up is actually a good thing. It forces Valve to take note and get off their ass and start actually making a competing platform that doesn't crash and burn at every turn. Hopefully in the end they'll both be better off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

But then what's the issue with leaving the Steam platform to go to Epic if they aren't costing Steam money? If they won't enforce it, and I still don't know how they would other than suing, what's the point of putting it there?

they take up storage and performance on steams servers. I don't know how significantly but they do and then they aren't even making any moneys off of it.


into trains? here's the model railroad thread!

The way to get the specs for my PC. go to the store. Buy some potatos. boil them and mash the. and stuff that in a focus g with a ssd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

But then what's the issue with leaving the Steam platform to go to Epic if they aren't costing Steam money? If they won't enforce it, and I still don't know how they would other than suing, what's the point of putting it there?

Why should Steam/Valve be allowing a publisher to use a Steam page as advertising space even though the publisher took the epic money exclusivity deal? And as mentioned it isn't free if it costs Steam in storage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
58 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Which makes me wonder about console ports. Do they just apply to Steam later? There's no real particular note saying anything about console releases, just "other platforms" which consoles definitely are.

The clause's wording doesn't actually use the word "platform", but refers to the commercial release of an application. I don't know if the word "application" is used to refer to console games, but I think the intention is that it refers only to PC game stores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Because that happened before they put this clause in... or did you miss the part where this is a new addition?

And according to you, Deep Silver paid for that advertisement on Steam before pulling out, so there's no reimbursement needed. Steam got it's money. It still sold the pre-orders it had in place. Steam got that money and they own absofuckinglutely zero right or claim to any sales from the Epic store, unless they claim they have the Distribution rights over an IP they don't own because they were paid to advertise.

Read again. The clause has been in the Distribution Agreement at least from the 2017, that is far before "things come when they come, if they come" storefront was even brainfarted at Epic (and that's one brainfart... *kröhm*...brainstorming session I would love to see, like who the hell is so dumb that thinks implementing direct bank transfer as a payment method in the year 2019 before implementing a shoppingcart was a great idea? Leave alone supporting every single payment method they seem to find from useless cashcrab cards (pre-paid credit cards that have horrendous costs) to almost "send the money in a letter" and pushing those costs to the buyer on top of the game prices? Or that piece of work marketing guy who thought out that it would be the best if the publishers/developers can single-handedly moderate the reviews and even offer direct royalties to content creators who market the game? Oh and all of this is still in the roadmap months away because they need to try to rush to get every exclusive they can and do a lot useless rewriting of the code because someone in that brainfarting session thought that it's far more important to have rushed out piece of shit out in the public rather than take sometime and make it good the first time [and clearly these are not questions about not having the money to develop]).

 

From the games Metro is probably in the grey area, they did have public Steam page but they did deliver the pre-orders on Steam. From my memory Ooblets is the one that is clearly in breaking the contract because they have, still, public Steam page (which today says "available TBA") and they have had the full "go to the Steam page and wishlist the game for us to get more visibility" campaign going in socmed, so for almost a year Ooblets used Steam as marketing platform and then went Epic. Problem is going against Ooblets might stir up one hell of a diarrhea storm just because they are that small developer and extremely cute in that (IIRC even Jim Sterling got some community backlash from making a video about Ooblets going Epic and usually Sterling gets backlash only from the developers in question, sometimes even in forms of sues).

 

And what comes to your yesterdays Costco - Coca-cola thing. Completely different thing. For Coca-cola to up the prices they must have been either near or at the end of the current contract and negotiating for the continuation which means that when they didn't get into agreement -> no contract -> Coke is out. If there would have been breach of contract (either coke suddenly without notice rising the prices or Costco changing to Pepsi or whatever) there would have been courtcases and sues all over the place and someone paying the other party a lot of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

competition is good for the consumer. I am currently using EGS mostly as a means to encourage competition. I am still watching steam sales and activating humble bundles but for anything on EGS if the same price I will buy it there. Ideally i would love a world where we might have some reason to choose one store for a title over the other like... rather than valve takign 30% off the top they say "ok you make your $42 you woudl make from selling a 59.95 game and instead sell ti for $50 on our platform" then EGS says " sell it for $49 on out platform and you get $45 of that etc. will studios are making more $ and consumers are paying less $ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, will4623 said:

they take up storage and performance on steams servers. I don't know how significantly but they do and then they aren't even making any money off of it.

That's super minor. That's like exceptionally negligible, especially since they aren't hosting the game since it's pre-release, and even if it was it would be under 100gb. Considering you can have that kind of data on your own website for like $200 a year, Steam could just drop in a $50 deal breaker fee and still make a fortune.

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Why should Steam/Valve be allowing a publisher to use a Steam page as advertising space even though the publisher took the epic money exclusivity deal? And as mentioned it isn't free if it costs Steam in storage.

As far as I've seen when they get exclusivity for Epic they pull from Steam pretty shortly thereafter, so that doesn't really stand up. Since everyone like to talk about Metro, Deep Silver made a late deal with Epic and then pulled off Steam shortly after while still honoring the pre-orders that were already made.

And I still don't see it as advertising space if Deep Silver is paying Valve to advertise Steam. Well, not on Valve's dime anyways.

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

The clause's wording doesn't actually use the word "platform", but refers to the commercial release of an application. I don't know if the word "application" is used to refer to console games, but I think the intention is that it refers only to PC game stores.

Probably, but it is a bit ambiguous.

 

36 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Read again. The clause has been in the Distribution Agreement at least from the 2017, that is far before "things come when they come, if they come" storefront was even brainfarted at Epic

Okay, fair enough. Not going to touch your bile after that.

37 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

From the games Metro is probably in the grey area, they did have public Steam page but they did deliver the pre-orders on Steam. From my memory Ooblets is the one that is clearly in breaking the contract because they have, still, public Steam page (which today says "available TBA") and they have had the full "go to the Steam page and wishlist the game for us to get more visibility" campaign going in socmed, so for almost a year Ooblets used Steam as marketing platform and then went Epic. Problem is going against Ooblets might stir up one hell of a diarrhea storm just because they are that small developer and extremely cute in that (IIRC even Jim Sterling got some community backlash from making a video about Ooblets going Epic and usually Sterling gets backlash only from the developers in question, sometimes even in forms of sues).

Okay, another fair point. But, to counter the Epic thing isn't exclusive forever, only for a year, so after that it should come to Steam.

And this again just... how is Steam going to enforce it? It's not worth the money nor the public backlash going against indie devs, and they can't sue for damages over something they don't own. If they went after advertising some sort of pricing would have to exist, but Valve has no pricing, and it's offered free of charge to publish your game on Steam, so I think they'd have a hard time winning that too.

Even if they did win a case about damages, how do they figure how many sales exactly they lost, since there's no way to determine what sales would've been made through Steam or Epic otherwise? Are they just going to claim rights to half the royalties?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Assuming steam are doing this because "it's the right thing" is exactly that. Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives. Please, explain to me how that doesn't "negatively impact your customers"?

You don't have to use DRM to distribute on Steam. I have games that I can copy the folders across, and run without Steam. They use it only as a download client (and sometimes workshop integration). If it has changed, I will admit so. But where does Steam require DRM?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, G00fySmiley said:

competition is good for the consumer. I am currently using EGS mostly as a means to encourage competition. I am still watching steam sales and activating humble bundles but for anything on EGS if the same price I will buy it there. Ideally i would love a world where we might have some reason to choose one store for a title over the other like... rather than valve takign 30% off the top they say "ok you make your $42 you woudl make from selling a 59.95 game and instead sell ti for $50 on our platform" then EGS says " sell it for $49 on out platform and you get $45 of that etc. will studios are making more $ and consumers are paying less $ 

Never going to happen. Metro: Exodus has been the only one with lower price in EGS and that was only in US. If the industry was to lower the prices they would have done so years ago when digital distribution started, but still it's the same 60€$£ in brick and mortals and in every digital storefront even if the digital storefront would be owned by the publisher (Origin, Uplay and Battle.net) and so platform cut would be 0%. More or less there has been rumors and tries to rise the price to 70€$£ in everywhere.

 

9 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Okay, another fair point. But, to counter the Epic thing isn't exclusive forever, only for a year, so after that it should come to Steam.

And this again just... how is Steam going to enforce it? It's not worth the money nor the public backlash going against indie devs, and they can't sue for damages over something they don't own. If they went after advertising some sort of pricing would have to exist, but Valve has no pricing, and it's offered free of charge to publish your game on Steam, so I think they'd have a hard time winning that too.

Even if they did win a case about damages, how do they figure how many sales exactly they lost, since there's no way to determine what sales would've been made through Steam or Epic otherwise? Are they just going to claim rights to half the royalties?

They don't need to sue for damages, only breach of contract is enough (which can include compensation for damages but usually just fine-like payment). I can't whether or not there is stated punishments for contract breaches in the Valve Distribution Agreement, but I could guess there is (because they are kind of standard thing to have in these kind of contracts) and those can be huge sums of money in usual B2B-contracts (which these are, you are publishing a game, not buying socks from walmart) and even multiple times higher than any kind of damage that could have been caused, but they are usually just worst case fines and usually they are negotiated case by case. Just like something like NDAs, you breaching your NDA and leaking out some gameplay footage from some game you are testing probably just gives more visibility to the developer, but you breached your NDA and that means there are fines to be paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

As far as I've seen when they get exclusivity for Epic they pull from Steam pretty shortly thereafter, so that doesn't really stand up. Since everyone like to talk about Metro, Deep Silver made a late deal with Epic and then pulled off Steam shortly after while still honoring the pre-orders that were already made.

And I still don't see it as advertising space if Deep Silver is paying Valve to advertise Steam. Well, not on Valve's dime anyways.

I wasn't specifically referring to Metro, but it was still a sh*t deal for Deep Silver to pull off of steam late, probably because of the exclusivity money from Epic.

The policy is that a store page can't be put up unless the publisher plans to release the game within 30days if the game is already released somewhere else, and the publisher has to release the game at the same time on every store.

IMO it seems dishonest to advertize a game if you can't actually buy it from that store, imagine a store having Pepsi ads but they can't sell you Pepsi because the store has an agreement to only sell Coke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

They practically have a monopoly

The key word there being "practically", as in almost but not quite.  While I might accept this statement as true, I don't agree with a blanket statement that Valve is a monopoly.

3 hours ago, Crowbar said:

They are 100% a monopoly. What percentage of the PC gaming market do they hold? Far more then every single other client combined. From your list all but #2 apply.

100%?  I don't think you understand what that means.  That means totally and completely.  Last I checked, there were many other outlets to buy digitally from, not the least of which is GoG.  Point 1 says control over price fixing, but I've seen no evidence of that.  In fact, there are a number of storefronts you can buy from which are far cheaper than direct on Steam.  Point 3 mentions exclusive control.  The only company seeking exclusive control is Epic.  Point 4 is about the object of that control, which doesn't apply to Valve.  Point 5 requires that you establish they actually have a "100% monopoly".  Point 6 is obviously off the table, as I've already proven there are many other sellers besides Valve, even if a game chooses to publish only on Steam.

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Not since EGS has come into the picture. 😁 Valve has been exceedingly non-productive with Steam until EGS came along and made a ruckus.

I don't disagree that EGS has forced Valve to begin focusing on updates to the Steam client.  I'm not oblivious to the positives that have come of it, I just don't see it overall as a positive thing.  Exclusivity of any kind is bad for us.  The key difference with Valve versus Epic, is that Valve doesn't try to force any developer or publisher into exclusivity with them.  If it happens, that's by their choice, not because Valve pressured or bribed them into it.

3 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Because steam is a cancer on the gaming industry and I'm tired of seeing fan boys trip over themselves to praise valve on every occasion possible while sticking their head in the sand regarding everything they do that's terrible.

Fanboys of any platform or product is a bad thing, but so, too, is ignoring positive aspects just so you can criticize the negatives.  Even I acknowledged that there were positives to the Epic Store fight with Valve, I just disagree that on the whole it's a positive for us as customers.

 

When Steam first rolled out, there were very few digital distribution options available.  Direct2Drive and one other (whose name I can't recall offhand) were pretty much the only competition, and D2D was horrible.  Steam became as massive as it did because it was the best choice available, not because of exclusivity crap like Epic is pulling.  I'm not pretending that Valve is perfect or hiding my head in the sand over their shortcomings, but I am saying that they're not as awful as you make them out to be.  Ignoring why they became so big is to ignore the reason behind a large part of your complaints about them.

3 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm not buying the excuses and not sure what part of having to install a DRM client you don't understand is DRM regardless if it's part of a particular game or not.

I was correcting inaccuracies, not making excuses.  As for DRM, I suppose that depends on how you define it.  By your definition, you could say that GoG Galaxy is DRM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

But then what's the issue with leaving the Steam platform to go to Epic if they aren't costing Steam money? If they won't enforce it, and I still don't know how they would other than suing, what's the point of putting it there?

 

The issue is they provided resources to develop and advertise the game on the condition the game would be sold on their platform.   It does actually cost steam money to host game development pages, provide a way for customers to receive product updates and subscribe.     There is no such thing as a free service, all hard drive space costs money, all bandwidth costs money, building up a community of game consumers costs money.  And that is before you get into other services like pre-orders and service support.   Nothing is free.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Assuming steam are doing this because "it's the right thing" is exactly that. Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives. Please, explain to me how that doesn't "negatively impact your customers"?

You're assuming the opposite.  DRM is DRM and nearly every online game store has it in their product somewhere along the line, trying use it as the single reason Steam are (insert pet peeve here) is disingenuous.

 

Steam have their issues sure, but to pretend they are worse than others simply because they want to protect their resources from being abused is absurd given it is: 1. in direct retaliation to EGS using their wealth to promote what is clearly and significantly a more anti consumer practice.  and 2. does not prevent release on other platforms.

 

It is a win win for everyone except EGS who might have a harder time poaching goodwill clients from valve.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You're assuming the opposite.  DRM is DRM and nearly every online game store has it in their product somewhere along the line, trying use it as the single reason Steam are (insert pet peeve here) is disingenuous.

 

Steam have their issues sure, but to pretend they are worse than others simply because they want to protect their resources from being abused is absurd given it is: 1. in direct retaliation to EGS using their wealth to promote what is clearly and significantly a more anti consumer practice.  and 2. does not prevent release on other platforms.

 

It is a win win for everyone except EGS who might have a harder time poaching goodwill clients from valve.

Even I acknowledge Steam as being the best option, of an admittedly shitty situation.

 

There are always alternatives, but in my experience you occasionally get a bug and there's really no choice but to abandon the game or futz with software you know nothing about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

IMO it seems dishonest to advertize a game if you can't actually buy it from that store, imagine a store having Pepsi ads but they can't sell you Pepsi because the store has an agreement to only sell Coke.

No, it would be more like Pepsi pulled out before you got there and they haven't changed the signs yet.

And again, in the case of Metro, pre-orders were fulfilled, and everything else loses exclusivity after a year. The Master Chief collection has been up for a few monthsand they haven't released anything yet, despite the game and updates being available elsewhere.

 

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I don't disagree that EGS has forced Valve to begin focusing on updates to the Steam client.  I'm not oblivious to the positives that have come of it, I just don't see it overall as a positive thing.  Exclusivity of any kind is bad for us.

Eh, I still argue that getting pissy about having to buy your game from one store or another to be dumb, especially in the digital realm. "Oh no, I have to go to Sweetwater instead of Amazon to buy music equipment!"

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I was correcting inaccuracies, not making excuses.  As for DRM, I suppose that depends on how you define it.  By your definition, you could say that GoG Galaxy is DRM.

I don't think I've had anything not at least Steam-DRM. Can you boot it without it opening Steam or requiring some form of internet check? GOG Galaxy is 100% optional for their entire library. I've never used it.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is they provided resources to develop and advertise the game on the condition the game would be sold on their platform.   It does actually cost steam money to host game development pages, provide a way for customers to receive product updates and subscribe.     There is no such thing as a free service, all hard drive space costs money, all bandwidth costs money, building up a community of game consumers costs money.  And that is before you get into other services like pre-orders and service support.   Nothing is free.

Again, they could have a deal-breaker fee of $50 and still make a fortune. The only real advertisements I've seen on Steam are big summer sales, or blockbusters which I assume the publisher pays for. At this point the argument is just going in circles without any new commentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Buy VPN

×