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

[Crowbar]

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

And that could be purely a Publisher choice and have nothing to do with Steam at all. Not every Publisher actually wants to deal with multiple different platforms and agreements and may also not agree with the terms of some of them i.e. GOG. Publishers have the majority share of control and power, these are the ones that enforce DRM, which distribution channels are used and how they will be used. More than one development studio has complained about this sort of thing and that has little to do with Steam at all.

 

You're drawing a causal conclusion without enough evidence to do so, games not being listed elsewhere doesn't actually prove what you are saying.

 

I've never complained about EGS ever. Orgin sure but those complaints have been limited to security breaches (my account included), zero customer support re: my account, and no development of it at all to make it better. EA gets by with it because of how big of a publisher they are, EA and Origin is a self feeding loop that can exist on their own irrespective of how good or bad the service they offer. If you want to play EA published games that are only on Origin then you only have two choices, put up or don't buy/don't use. There's more than one game series that EA has the rights to that I used to play but I no longer play any of the new ones.

 

EGS could be just as bad as Origin, I have no idea and I do not care. Anything only on EGS I haven't played, I didn't choose not to use EGS because I hate what they are doing I just don't want to bother with another service and until I have a reason to care about what they have that won't change. It's up to EGS to entice me to use their service and exclusives won't do that. 

If steam were truly the savior of PC gaming as is implied by many here then valve would flat out turn down the deal unless the title was available on multiple platforms but they don't because it's money in their pocket and that's ALL they have proven to care about over the years. A pretty massive contradiction when they are the ones whining and making public statements about epic doing it. Regardless, even in your example, the publisher is choosing to only make the game available behind a DRM client. Whether or not that's steam or one of the other few doesn't change my point.

 

If you choose not to use another platform I could really case less. It's your prerogative if you choose to allow a business to penetrate you from behind repeatedly and pay them to do so.

 

[Crowbar]

22 hours ago, TechyBen said:

You have a browser? You have cookies? You have a login? "Trash software". All software is subjective as to how good it is. LOTS of games are on multiple platforms. I don't see Steam insisting on *exclusivity*. As said, I have *multiple* games I can/do/have got on single DRM free download and quasi DRM free Steam codes too.

I could install steam, install it in a VM, uninstall it. Yeah, it's more work. But it's nothing problematic.

What do you not understand about a website login not installing crapware on my machine?

 

22 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I hate GOG. Why use it? Why should I have to login to GOG, and give them money, when I can go directly to the Game Devs?

 

GOG is killing the industry!!!

 

No one has made an excuse for Valve. You can download a copy of every DRM free Steam game if you wish. Steam however, will not provide that for you. You can instead go to GOG, direct download, and others (I have multiple games that are available on Steam, that I instead went to the devlopers *directly* to purchase, and downloaded *directly* without Steam).

 

But if you wish to blame Steam, for linking their online chat, servers, ranking, teams, multiplayer, uploads of screenshots, forums, etc which *require logins* with the optional DRM... then by all means, miss the points by an astronomical unit or two. 

 

My horse is much higher than yours, so careful what you do. 

You can’t do any of these things without first installing crapware on your machine, so it's a completely irrelevant point. I've already addressed that none of that extra shit means anything to me.

 

21 hours ago, leadeater said:

Don't forget Steam Workshop and Mod support, it's not like the older/manual way is hard but what Steam offers in this way is so much easier and handles updates to those mods automatically, it's damn great.

 Who cares?

 

You can download superior mods that you actually have control over yourself on placed like ModDB...

 

19 hours ago, Jito463 said:

And the fact that your rebuttal boils down to this, means you either haven't understood what I've been posting all along, or you're being intentionally disingenuous about it.  Either way, I still see no reason to continue.  And on that note, I'll completely bow out.

Just like last time you claimed the same thing, right?  

Edited September 13, 2019 by LogicalDrm
Merged, use Multiquote-button next time

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, Crowbar said:

What do you not understand about a website login not installing crapware on my machine?

 

And, you don't have to install Steam. I gave an example of 3 games that I did not for. I have even more from Humble bundle where Steam was optional.

Where is this lie that we have to install Steam? To use Steam, I have to install Steam. But to play Steam games? I can list a ton that I can boot right now without Steam ever touching a computer.

 

Quote

You can’t do any of these things without first installing crapware on your machine, so it's a completely irrelevant point. I've already addressed that none of that extra shit means anything to me.

 

 Who cares?

 

You can download superior mods that you actually have control over yourself on placed like ModDB...

 

Just like last time you claimed the same thing, right?  

Yes I can. I can put a ton of games on my computer without Steam. I'm planning on keeping this PC going past Win 7 disconnection. Those games needing online DRM (multiplayer etc) will migrate. Those without, will run on this offline. Steam is not stopping that.

 

Quote

If steam were truly the savior of PC gaming as is implied by many here then valve would flat out turn down the deal unless the title was available on multiple platforms but they don't because it's money in their pocket and that's ALL they have proven to care about over the years.

What deal? Valve has released some games only through Steam. Their own games only cover this. THAT you can have for free as a "win", but Valve =/= Steam. So you'd have to argue about Valves business practice on releasing on PC, and find a way to insist *their* games are not DRM including (HL/CS/TF2/Portal/the mobas etc).

 

Are there Steam "exclusives"? Why should Steam have a contract that says "you must release everywhere", when they have no saying on what other things devlopers do. Weird...

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

What deal? Valve has released some games only through Steam. Their own games only cover this. THAT you can have for free as a "win", but Valve =/= Steam. So you'd have to argue about Valves business practice on releasing on PC, and find a way to insist *their* games are not DRM including (HL/CS/TF2/Portal/the mobas etc).

 

Are there Steam "exclusives"? Why should Steam have a contract that says "you must release everywhere", when they have no saying on what other things devlopers do. Weird...

That particular argument is not even necessary to respond to, there is no contract, condition, requirement, deal or anything that forces any game dev to only use steam.  Nada, zip, nil, zilch, zero.   If a game is on steam only then that is because the game dev wants it that way of their own volition.  It doesn't even matter if the game is owned by valve without ties to steam,  they still have the option to release elsewhere should they want to.    Claiming otherwise is simply clutching at made up straws.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Are there Steam "exclusives"? Why should Steam have a contract that says "you must release everywhere", when they have no saying on what other things devlopers do. Weird...

Not sure about you but last time I went to McDonalds they didn't require me to purchase a meal from KFC also. Like @mr moose said, that was such a confusing thing to say so I'm not even sure there is a way to respond to it. Steam isn't a non profit organization or a charity, what obligation do they have to require publishers or developers to release games on platforms they have no control over. How would you even enforce such a contract condition.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not sure about you but last time I went to McDonalds they didn't require me to purchase a meal from KFC also.

Thank goodness for that, where I live there are three in a row and i don't think my waste line can handle a reddy roll, colonels original burger and a quarter pounder meal in one sitting.   It's hard enough keeping the middle age spread at bay with healthy food.

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

That particular argument is not even necessary to respond to, there is no contract, condition, requirement, deal or anything that forces any game dev to only use steam.  Nada, zip, nil, zilch, zero.   If a game is on steam only then that is because the game dev wants it that way of their own volition.  It doesn't even matter if the game is owned by valve without ties to steam,  they still have the option to release elsewhere should they want to.    Claiming otherwise is simply clutching at made up straws.

Steam even allows you to sell keys on your own page and let buyers activate it on Steam. Meaning, you still have to sell it on Steam itself, but if you can sell it better on your own webpage, you can actually have a higher income from the game as Valve doesn't take any cut from that. At least from what I understand their policy.

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

That particular argument is not even necessary to respond to, there is no contract, condition, requirement, deal or anything that forces any game dev to only use steam.  Nada, zip, nil, zilch, zero.   If a game is on steam only then that is because the game dev wants it that way of their own volition.  It doesn't even matter if the game is owned by valve without ties to steam,  they still have the option to release elsewhere should they want to.    Claiming otherwise is simply clutching at made up straws.

IIRC there was a couple of games that did do an exclusivity deal when Steam launched... but I am unable to find them at this time Perhaps it was only the HL mods.

 

PS, that does not stop Steam/Valve from being greedy. But even a greedy person can make a sound structure or bridge. Might I worry walking over it if they are so greedy they skimp on materials? Yep. So we could say the quality of Steam is less... but factually, they have a bridge or two.

[Mihle]

12 hours ago, Crowbar said:

If steam were truly the savior of PC gaming as is implied by many here then valve would flat out turn down the deal unless the title was available on multiple platforms but they don't because it's money in their pocket and that's ALL they have proven to care about over the years. A pretty massive contradiction when they are the ones whining and making public statements about epic doing it. Regardless, even in your example, the publisher is choosing to only make the game available behind a DRM client. Whether or not that's steam or one of the other few doesn't change my point.

 

If you choose not to use another platform I could really case less. It's your prerogative if you choose to allow a business to penetrate you from behind repeatedly and pay them to do so.

 

Steam was definitely the least bad option developers was willing to do. If steam wasn't made, you would have seen much more games with DRM that actually caused problems for people.

[pas008]

i'm here with l4d2 and couple other games on

 

ORIGIN lol

 

valve and steam are assholes huh

[Delicieuxz]

17 hours ago, pas008 said:

i'm here with l4d2 and couple other games on

 

ORIGIN lol

 

valve and steam are assholes huh

This discussion and the contention is over poaching and exclusivizing 3rd-party titles.

 

Left 4 Dead is a Valve 1st-party title, and pretty much all platform developers keep their 1st-party titles exclusive to their own platforms - GoG being an exception (but they did try it, and fail at it), and Microsoft also being an exception since their recent pledge to release future PC games on multiple platforms.

[pas008]

12 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

This discussion and the contention is over poaching and exclusivizing 3rd-party titles.

 

Left 4 Dead is a Valve 1st-party title, and pretty much all platform developers keep their 1st-party titles exclusive to their own platforms - GoG being an exception (but they did try it, and fail at it), and Microsoft also being an exception since their recent pledge to release future PC games on multiple platforms.

Um hmm

 

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Valve-Games-Available-Origin-EA-Tries-Play-Nice-34798.html

[Unixsystem]

On 9/13/2019 at 12:15 AM, Crowbar said:

If steam were truly the savior of PC gaming as is implied by many here then valve would flat out turn down the deal unless the title was available on multiple platforms but they don't because it's money in their pocket and that's ALL they have proven to care about over the years.

I agree. Frankly it's offensive that when I want a game on Steam, they require that I actually pay the money to Valve to complete the purchase. If they were really good guys, then they would mandate that I make a purchase on Origin or Uplay and then Valve should independently grant me access to the game through Steam. That would be the real altruistic path for this gigantic corporation to take. 

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

I agree. Frankly it's offensive that when I want a game on Steam, they require that I actually pay the money to Valve to complete the purchase. If they were really good guys, then they would mandate that I make a purchase on Origin or Uplay and then Valve should independently grant me access to the game through Steam. That would be the real altruistic path for this gigantic corporation to take. 

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

[Unixsystem]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

Not good enough, they need to make it so that they only provide games via external keys. If they make any revenue whatsoever, then that guarantees that they are only in it for the money and are literally worse than Hitler. 

[Sauron]

On 9/13/2019 at 11:56 AM, mr moose said:

If a game is on steam only then that is because the game dev wants it that way of their own volition.

As it is on the EGS. Epic just offers them money if they decide to be an EGS exclusive, nowhere are they "forcing" anyone to do anything. Game devs take the deal because they want to. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with DRM as a whole because preventing devs from taking that deal would mean taking away their control on distribution.

 

Which is a position I would agree with, by the way.

19 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Not good enough, they need to make it so that they only provide games via external keys. If they make any revenue whatsoever, then that guarantees that they are only in it for the money and are literally worse than Hitler. 

Except that no matter who sells that key, you still have to go through Steam to play the game because it's inseparably baked into the code (unless of course you crack the game, which is illegal in many countries). Imagine buying something on amazon, but instead of getting the item you get a coupon for walmart - and that being the only way you can buy that item because the manufacturer didn't feel like allowing amazon to sell it.

 

This wouldn't fly in any other market. Regardless, what you fail to see is that for what the EGS is doing to be disallowed you'd also have to disallow what Steam does. There is no other way to tackle this than to force developers to allow any marketplace to carry their product on the same terms as all the others if they so desire. Which inevitably means getting rid of DRM.

[pas008]

49 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Not good enough, they need to make it so that they only provide games via external keys. If they make any revenue whatsoever, then that guarantees that they are only in it for the money and are literally worse than Hitler. 

Lol a business giving free and other options outside their store but her you want more lol

Holy shit 

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As it is on the EGS. Epic just offers them money if they decide to be an EGS exclusive, nowhere are they "forcing" anyone to do anything. Game devs take the deal because they want to. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with DRM as a whole because preventing devs from taking that deal would mean taking away their control on distribution.

 

The argument I was rebutting was that Steam are forcing exclusive content on their store.  They are not and that is outside of paid exclusives which doesn't even need to be considered to know that the claim was wrong.

 

13 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol a business giving free and other options outside their store but her you want more lol

Holy shit 

Waffles13 was being sarcastic.    He was illustrating the stupidity of expecting a business to promote people use their services whilst others make the money.

[Unixsystem]

25 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol a business giving free and other options outside their store but her you want more lol

Holy shit 

Please, for the love of god, tell me that you didnt miss this implied /s. I called them literally Hitler and everything. 

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Except that no matter who sells that key, you still have to go through Steam to play the game because it's inseparably baked into the code (unless of course you crack the game, which is illegal in many countries). Imagine buying something on amazon, but instead of getting the item you get a coupon for walmart - and that being the only way you can buy that item because the manufacturer didn't feel like allowing amazon to sell it.

 

This wouldn't fly in any other market. Regardless, what you fail to see is that for what the EGS is doing to be disallowed you'd also have to disallow what Steam does. There is no other way to tackle this than to force developers to allow any marketplace to carry their product on the same terms as all the others if they so desire. Which inevitably means getting rid of DRM.

This is a part of a much larger argument about digital distribution, and it's a conversation that absolutely is going to need to be had at some point.

 

However, in the shorter term, we have Steam and EGS being judged on an even playing field over what is currently accepted in terms of distribution platforms. Steam's entire approach for years now has been to be as hands off and free market as possible. In many ways that has been an issue; the platform is cluttered, many ancillary features in Steam are half baked, and you run into situations like the recent security scares where Valve had to essentially be bullied into getting off their ass and fixing it. Make no mistake, I'm not a Valve fan boy and at best I consider Steam the lesser of all available evils. 

 

However, on the purely economic/policy side, it means that devs have the maximum level of freedom in terms of what they do with their game. There's no additional terms, no one off contracts, no time limited BS, just "do you want to sell your game here y/n?" 

 

While I certainly see your point about DRM and agree that it's a pointless practice that only harms consumers (although honestly, Steam DRM is so laughably crackable that it's hard for me to get too incensed about it specifically), I can't ever advocate for forcing a business to offer products on services where they don't specifically choose to, and likewise I don't think services should be obligated to carry products that they don't want to offer. It's a violation of free commerce and association. 

 

Spoiler

And because I know someone will notice the parallel, I don't think the same argument always applies in freedom of speech/social media cases, but that's a bag of worms to open in other threads. 

 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

I can't ever advocate for forcing a business to offer products on services where they don't specifically choose to, and likewise I don't think services should be obligated to carry products that they don't want to offer. It's a violation of free commerce and association.

Not really, there are plenty of situations where it's not only fair but necessary to intervene over that. This is a big part of what antitrust laws are supposed to protect us against. To make an extreme example, imagine there is only one company selling water and that company only wants to deal with a single distributor - those two companies have a monopoly and can set whatever price they want. Similarly, since every game is unique you could say the publisher and the exclusive distributor have a monopoly over distribution of that product. That's not acceptable.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Please, for the love of god, tell me that you didnt miss this implied /s. I called them literally Hitler and everything. 

My bad i can't tell sarcasm in text and didn't read all comments