Let's bitch about STEAM! - The Thread!

[Metro]

 

[Crispy]

 

[Metro]

 

[Konjad]

Is he still a virgin if he fucked this thread?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

If they're a monopoly then why do they sell games at huge discounts?

To make people buy a game they wouldn't otherwise consider. Basic marketing strategy that every seller engages into, doesn't have much to do with their size.

That said it's not a monopoly, it's just the most popular service because it's the most convenient and easy-to-use (which is what people mainly look for in a service - same with Google, Windows, etc).

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

If they're a monopoly then why do they sell games at huge discounts?

To make people buy a game they wouldn't otherwise consider. Basic marketing strategy that every seller engages into, doesn't have much to do with their size.

That said it's not a monopoly, it's just the most popular service because it's the most convenient and easy-to-use (which is what people mainly look for in a service - same with Google, Windows, etc).

Although Google was only recently cleared in its antitrust investigation and Microsoft was actually prosecuted (Fun Fact: At the time Apple was going down the toilet. Its only around today b/c Microsoft gave it a pretty serious investment during this process, almost certainly to ensure there was at least one other OS out there to defend against these claims).

The important question is whether a company is using its market power anti-competitively. Predatory pricing is one of the textbook forms of anti-competitive behavior. That being said, there's not much evidence that this is the case with Steam.

 

[Metro]

Exactly. Especially when most other DD sites consistently beat Steam on pricing these days.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Yeah, if Steam fails, you can be it will take PC gaming with it. Most people will grab a "backup copy" on PB, and they can easily fuck things up in court, since they already paid for the goddam game. Then again, if Steam reaches the poiint of crashing, there probably won't much of a pc market anymore...

Yep. It's TOO BIG TO FAIL.

You might as well warn people about the stocks they're invested in on Wall Street. Yes, the stock market could crash some day. Apparently, that knowledge is not enough to halt the global economy.

The Titanic sunk pretty well, but the boating industry and cruise lines continued functioning just fine. Albeit with some reservations and more safety precautions. In Steam's case, it's more of the 'all your eggs in one basket' idea. At least where the last three or four years are concerned.

Like I mentioned in another thread:
While GamersGate sell many DRM free games, some are needlessly tied to Steam. I checked out Thief 2, and for some reason this 10 year old game has to be activated on Steam. Why can't GamersGate sell it DRM free when GOG can? And why do they lead their customers to Steam this way? If you have to sign up to Steam to activate/play a game, you may as well buy the game at Steam!
I just don't understand this. How can it possibly be in GG's interest to tie their games to Steam, when they don't have to? I would think Steam is their main competitor.

Ultimately they have to agree with what the publisher wants. If the publisher says "this game has Steam, use it" then either they agree or don't sell the game at all.

Publishers see Steam less as a store and more as DRM that users actually accept. For them it's basically perfect, because it lets them think they're fighting piracy while users see it as a value-added feature.

I would agree, but the number of Steam cracks out there, and the lists of third-party DRM still active on Steam bought games, gives me the impression that some buyers see it more as DRM than a service. If, however, Valve was making it a point to ensure their DRM was the only one allowed with games attached to, or bought with, their service, that would be different.

Legally speaking it isn't a monopoly. Not even that close to it, either. As for the other discussion it's been done half a dozen times or more on the Codex and there's no need to debate it further because Johnny Registered Last Month makes a new thread about it. Use the search feature. Hell I'm pretty sure there was a similar thread not more than two weeks ago.

I tried that before I posted this. And found nothing. So, here we are. Otherwise, if you noticed the title of the thread, it was "Is Steam approaching monopoly status" versus questioning if it already is one. It's not yet, even considering things like Barriers to Entry, but that's the key here. Not yet. It could be at some point, if the last few years of triple-A PC releases are any hint.

If they're a monopoly then why do they sell games at huge discounts?

To make people buy a game they wouldn't otherwise consider. Basic marketing strategy that every seller engages into, doesn't have much to do with their size.

That said it's not a monopoly, it's just the most popular service because it's the most convenient and easy-to-use (which is what people mainly look for in a service - same with Google, Windows, etc).

Although Google was only recently cleared in its antitrust investigation and Microsoft was actually prosecuted (Fun Fact: At the time Apple was going down the toilet. Its only around today b/c Microsoft gave it a pretty serious investment during this process, almost certainly to ensure there was at least one other OS out there to defend against these claims).

The important question is whether a company is using its market power anti-competitively. Predatory pricing is one of the textbook forms of anti-competitive behavior. That being said, there's not much evidence that this is the case with Steam.

True, but pricing isn't the only way to notice that. There's also the psychological route. Take for example the DD sites that sell Steam keys versus their own versions of a game. Aside from GOG.com, I've seen most major ones do this, sometimes without warning buyers of the practice. (Amazon) When anyone brings that up, the resulting statements usually boil down to, "Then, why bother using those sites?"

That is an anti-competitive mindset, even if the publishers usually make the choice about which sites they offer the games to. It brings about the idea that even if you like one service, like GamersGate, the fact that they're selling keys made for another service could urge users to drop the extra step. I.E., buying from those third-party sites, even if they really like them. And the Steam sales only compound this, I think. They're an easy draw to make you spend more money, and yet some publishers like Activision and THQ, when they were around, were still reporting losses despite that. That's probably the economy speaking on more than two fronts, since budgets are ballooning in the triple-A sector.

Granted, these sites could make it a point to not sell Steam keys, or demand Steam-free versions from publishers to remain competitive among people who don't like Steam, but chances are they're getting some part of the sales made this way. And from what I've heard, Steam has a lot of metrics systems to track how users play their games, along with what price points make the most sales. Could be the main reason why publishers are so vehement about making us use it.

But, on a side-point, when it comes to removing the middle-man, like retail stores, from the equation of game sales by going digital, I have to wonder if those DD sites are turning into the new middle-men of gaming. Just like Gamestop and everyone else who sells physical games, they're likely getting a cut from digital sales made for Steam. Otherwise, why bother selling them in the first place?

 

[RK47]

As long it's cheap to us consumers, I don't really care.
Also: Steam's proven itself to be reliable and somehow merged the gamer community that I could discuss, buy, gift, and play games together without jumping off from its UI.
That's value added right there.

 

[Metro]

I tried that before I posted this. And found nothing. So, here we are. Otherwise, if you noticed the title of the thread, it was "Is Steam approaching monopoly status" versus questioning if it already is one. It's not yet, even considering things like Barriers to Entry, but that's the key here. Not yet. It could be at some point, if the last few years of triple-A PC releases are any hint.

Didn't try hard enough as there are no shortage of 'Steam is evil/will take over all of PC gaming' threads. And as I elaborated: it isn't even close. And it will never reach that point. Not unless major publishers like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision/Blizzard go bankrupt within the next decade or so. Moreover, that's only considering the AAA market. The vast majority (probably 90% or higher) of indie games today offer DRM free versions.

That is an anti-competitive mindset, even if the publishers usually make the choice about which sites they offer the games to. It brings about the idea that even if you like one service, like GamersGate, the fact that they're selling keys made for another service could urge users to drop the extra step. I.E., buying from those third-party sites, even if they really like them. And the Steam sales only compound this, I think. They're an easy draw to make you spend more money, and yet some publishers like Activision and THQ, when they were around, were still reporting losses despite that. That's probably the economy speaking on more than two fronts, since budgets are ballooning in the triple-A sector.

Except GamersGate really isn't a service inasmuch as Steam or Origin or Battlenet. The Steam sales don't compound the issue, either since, as I previously mentioned, most other DD sites have routinely beaten Steam (even selling Steam keys) the past year or so: Green Man Gaming, Gamer's Gate, Amazon, Gamestop, Gamefly, etc.

 

[Konjad]

I would agree, but the number of Steam cracks out there, and the lists of third-party DRM still active on Steam bought games, gives me the impression that some buyers see it more as DRM than a service. If, however, Valve was making it a point to ensure their DRM was the only one allowed with games attached to, or bought with, their service, that would be different.

Of all the games I bought on Steam since I use it only 1 used additional DRM (GFWL, ffs) and about 1/3 (maybe even close to half) of them is DRM free (I can just copy their folders, uninstall steam and enjoy them forever and ever even if i will decide to never install steam again).

I never check beforehand the DRM included (or not) and still ended up like that. What gives? Am I buying the wrong games?

 

[tuluse]

I would agree, but the number of Steam cracks out there, and the lists of third-party DRM still active on Steam bought games, gives me the impression that some buyers see it more as DRM than a service. If, however, Valve was making it a point to ensure their DRM was the only one allowed with games attached to, or bought with, their service, that would be different.

Of all the games I bought on Steam since I use it only 1 used additional DRM (GFWL, ffs) and about 1/3 (maybe even close to half) of them is DRM free (I can just copy their folders, uninstall steam and enjoy them forever and ever even if i will decide to never install steam again).

I never check beforehand the DRM included (or not) and still ended up like that. What gives? Am I buying the wrong games?

Anno 2070 has tages with a maximum total number of installs. Batman Arkham Asylum has a maximum number of installs. Chronicles of Riddick has extra drm.

 

[Destroid]

I think people want steam keys for their games.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Didn't try hard enough as there are no shortage of 'Steam is evil/will take over all of PC gaming' threads.

Those sound like they're meant to grab attention instead of raise a question.

And as I elaborated: it isn't even close. And it will never reach that point. Not unless major publishers like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision/Blizzard go bankrupt within the next decade or so. Moreover, that's only considering the AAA market. The vast majority (probably 90% or higher) of indie games today offer DRM free versions.

You actually did not elaborate on that, in any of your six posts on this thread so far. But I digress.

Sans those listed services mostly dealing in their own games, that still leaves the point that buying from other services, or boxed retail, is likely to get you a key for Steam registration, rather than a DRM-free option of install and play. Also, once GOG.com, Kickstarter, and indies are factored in, which market segment is the largest right now in terms of yearly product production quantity? The triple-A industry. And which segment of the market is using Steam the most?

That's why, in relation to the triple-A industry at least, I believe Steam is approaching monopoly status in relation to distribution of games. Until I see an option on all retail disks to install without it, I'll stand by my argument.

That is an anti-competitive mindset, even if the publishers usually make the choice about which sites they offer the games to. It brings about the idea that even if you like one service, like GamersGate, the fact that they're selling keys made for another service could urge users to drop the extra step. I.E., buying from those third-party sites, even if they really like them. And the Steam sales only compound this, I think. They're an easy draw to make you spend more money, and yet some publishers like Activision and THQ, when they were around, were still reporting losses despite that. That's probably the economy speaking on more than two fronts, since budgets are ballooning in the triple-A sector.

Except GamersGate really isn't a service inasmuch as Steam or Origin or Battlenet. The Steam sales don't compound the issue, either since, as I previously mentioned, most other DD sites have routinely beaten Steam (even selling Steam keys) the past year or so: Green Man Gaming, Gamer's Gate, Amazon, Gamestop, Gamefly, etc.

I've seen no evidence of that in terms of numbers. If nothing else, when Steam sales pop up, I have noticed those sites do not drop the prices of their keys to compensate. Say, GamersGate with Crusader Kings Complete. They were selling it at 5.00 in their store around Christmas, while Steam sold it for 2.50. Since GamersGate is Paradox's service, it was Steam-free there, but the price difference would drive most, outside of Paradox's loyal base, towards Steam instead.

I would agree, but the number of Steam cracks out there, and the lists of third-party DRM still active on Steam bought games, gives me the impression that some buyers see it more as DRM than a service. If, however, Valve was making it a point to ensure their DRM was the only one allowed with games attached to, or bought with, their service, that would be different.

Of all the games I bought on Steam since I use it only 1 used additional DRM (GFWL, ffs) and about 1/3 (maybe even close to half) of them is DRM free (I can just copy their folders, uninstall steam and enjoy them forever and ever even if i will decide to never install steam again).

I never check beforehand the DRM included (or not) and still ended up like that. What gives? Am I buying the wrong games?

I recall Disciples 3 and Postal 3, two games I really wanted, had StarForce DRM. Same with the Game of Thrones RPG. The first two Borderlands DLC packs had SecuROM in them.

And Dark Souls, Fable 3, and Section 8 had GFWL requirements. And no, I'm not kidding on Dark Souls. I recall the petition, but it's on the Steam page as a secondary login requirement.

 

[Metro]

You actually did not elaborate on that, in any of your six posts on this thread so far.

You can't read very well because I said it wasn't even close in my second post in the thread: "Legally speaking it isn't a monopoly. Not even that close to it, either."

[Sans those listed services mostly dealing in their own games, that still leaves the point that buying from other services, or boxed retail, is likely to get you a key for Steam registration, rather than a DRM-free option of install and play. Also, once GOG.com, Kickstarter, and indies are factored in, which market segment is the largest right now in terms of yearly product production quantity? The triple-A industry. And which segment of the market is using Steam the most?

Likely? So, you're saying a majority of AAA games today require Steam? That's simply not true.

Until I see an option on all retail disks to install without it, I'll stand by my argument.

Retail is dying in general. Blame the internet.

I've seen no evidence of that in terms of numbers. If nothing else, when Steam sales pop up, I have noticed those sites do not drop the prices of their keys to compensate. Say, GamersGate with Crusader Kings Complete. They were selling it at 5.00 in their store around Christmas, while Steam sold it for 2.50. Since GamersGate is Paradox's service, it was Steam-free there, but the price difference would drive most, outside of Paradox's loyal base, towards Steam instead.

You've seen no evidence because you haven't been looking hard enough. Most posters here know -- and saw with their own eyes -- how Steam got routinely beat on prices during the last major sale. Alternatively you can go to Cheap Ass Gamer forums and search posts around that time period. If anyone follows DD pricing, it's them. So, again, that's something else that simply isn't true.

Your flawed assumptions aside, the funniest part out of all of this is that apparently it was something Notch wrote that inspired you to ponder this issue. A guy who made tens of millions of dollars off of a beta he never bothered to finish. He didn't put his game on Steam because he didn't need the publicity. Period. Any other reason he might have given is utter bullshit.

 

[AgentBJ09]

You can't read very well because I said it wasn't even close in my second post in the thread: "Legally speaking it isn't a monopoly. Not even that close to it, either."

If that's elaboration, your definition needs a facelift. That word means to present a detailed theory, or add more to what has been said.

Likely? So, you're saying a majority of AAA games today require Steam? That's simply not true.

Released today, actually. As in, they have launched within the last two years, and are not re-releases like Titan Quest and such. Pointed out with, "...buying from other services, or boxed retail, is likely to get you a key for Steam registration, rather than a DRM-free option of install and play."

Like Crusader Kings 2. The retail box requires Steam, but the download from Paradox doesn't. Look at it from that perspective instead.

Retail is dying in general. Blame the internet.

I blame the economy first, then the internet. Games are luxury items, after all.

You've seen no evidence because you haven't been looking hard enough. Most posters here know -- and saw with their own eyes -- how Steam got routinely beat on prices during the last major sale. Alternatively you can go to Cheap Ass Gamer forums and search posts around that time period. If anyone follows DD pricing, it's them. So, again, that's something else that simply isn't true.

Your flawed assumptions aside, the funniest part out of all of this is that apparently it was something Notch wrote that inspired you to ponder this issue. A guy who made tens of millions of dollars off of a beta he never bothered to finish. He didn't put his game on Steam because he didn't need the publicity. Period. Any other reason he might have given is utter bullshit.

That's debatable, but remember, prices and money were not what I was asking about here. It's through what services do newly sold games need to work/get fixes. I.E., the distribution of them. And Steam keys are just that.

You can buy from another service, but in the end, you still need to use one centralized piece of software to run them, patch them, and get DLC for them. With exceptions like Paradox and Origin.

And for those who don't like the service? They're told too bad. That they've got no, or little, choice. If Steam really was just a service, I.E. something you can chose to use because you want to use it, users wouldn't have that kind of mindset about it. Or be acting that way about it.

 

[Destroid]

Legally speaking, the definition (and enforcement) varies by what country you are in.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Legally speaking, the definition (and enforcement) varies by what country you are in.

That's true. Still, I have to give credit to Germany for taking action with the Steam EULA fiasco last year. - http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/...tial-european-lawsuit-over-change-in-end-user - Those resale/lawsuit clauses, and folks being locked out of their accounts for refusing the EULA update, really worried me when I first read the news about it.

 

[Mother Russia]

No shit Steam is a monopoly.

But that's because competitors are stupid and shit. No one foresaw how big this could become.

Thing is though, there are still powerful companies out there that could easily outdo Steam. It would result in multiple such platforms, thus lower profits for all. Which is probably why no one else has done it yet. Smaller outfits and individuals would love to do it OTOH ofcourse, because even smaller profits would be big for them, but they probably do not have the startup capital.

GoG ofcourse is not a real competitor, as they only have older games. Though they do have current indies, but only a few indies, not all and sundry like Steam.

I am surprised Steam doesn't yet demand Steam only contracts from Indies: Grimrock for instance, is available from Steam AND GoG.

 

[AgentBJ09]

No shit Steam is a monopoly.

But that's because competitors are stupid and shit. No one foresaw how big this could become.

Thing is though, there are still powerful companies out there that could easily outdo Steam. It would result in multiple such platforms, thus lower profits for all. Which is probably why no one else has done it yet. Smaller outfits and individuals would love to do it OTOH ofcourse, because even smaller profits would be big for them, but they probably do not have the startup capital.

GoG ofcourse is not a real competitor, as they only have older games. Though they do have current indies, but only a few indies, not all and sundry like Steam.

I am surprised Steam doesn't yet demand Steam only contracts from Indies: Grimrock for instance, is available from Steam AND GoG.

That's because Grimrock released on GOG first, and doesn't use the Steamworks DRM. That's the crucial thing. If they had used that DRM service, the game would require Steam no matter what. Even if you bought it from another store like GOG or Paradox, or from another region. Which I was thinking of doing with King Arthur II. No luck though; the EU versions, sans the digital ones, use Steamworks as well. That's how Hotline Miami made it onto GOG as well. They didn't use that DRM system.

As Valve put it: "A game including STEAMworks features means you MUST use STEAM in order to play the game. Some developers don't want to force their customers and they prefer to develop different versions of the game. So in these cases, ONLY the version bought on STEAM have STEAMworks features." Straight from the horse's mouth.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1712878 - (Seeing every iD game on those lists was a crushing blow to me.)

If you look though the lists on that thread, take note of how many more games per year are requiring that service versus ones that don't, and then factor in how many big named/triple-A games require it. There was a lull in 2011 because of all the re-releases from years past, but in 2010, it was pretty much an across-the-board sweep.

That worries me, because once something does become a monopoly, it has no reason to get better. And if all of your games are tied to the service, that makes it worse because you have money tied up in the service. So, at its most base, you can't leave this service without sacrificing all the money you poured into it.

 

[tuluse]

Bethesda uses steamworks for their games since New Vegas, and they bought iD. That's why.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Bethesda uses steamworks for their games since New Vegas, and they bought iD. That's why.

I remember the Quake-Con announcement. I was fuming when they said that.

 

[octavius]

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1712878 - (Seeing every iD game on those lists was a crushing blow to me.)

You can still buy the ID games directly from the ID Store.
Quake is 20$, while on Steam it only costs 5-6$. But I assume the ID Store versions are DRM free. Anyone know for sure?
Also, interesting that it's only the oldest games they have for sale. No Quake 2, for example.

 

[AgentBJ09]

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1712878 - (Seeing every iD game on those lists was a crushing blow to me.)

You can still buy the ID games directly from the ID Store.
Quake is 20$, while on Steam it only costs 5-6$. But I assume the ID Store versions are DRM free. Anyone know for sure?
Also, interesting that it's only the oldest games they have for sale. No Quake 2, for example.

I don't know. I've never bought titles from the iD store; I already own the listed ones.

 

[Angelo85]

Like other bros said ITT already, this has been discussed at length several times in the past already and nothing really new has surfaced in the meantime.

Though I will leave you with two figures pulled from Wikipedia:

In early 2011, Forbes reported that Steam sales constituted 50-70% of the $4 billion market for downloaded PC games and that Steam offered game producers gross margins of 70% of purchase price, compared with 30% at retail.[117]
In November 2011, it was revealed by the developer of The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings that Steam was responsible for 200,000 of the 250,000 (80%) total online sales of the game.[121]

If GabeN says jump, the next words out of a Developers and/or Publishers mouth better be "how high" or they will miss out on much potential income.

 

[sea]

That worries me, because once something does become a monopoly, it has no reason to get better. And if all of your games are tied to the service, that makes it worse because you have money tied up in the service. So, at its most base, you can't leave this service without sacrificing all the money you poured into it.

Let's think of the features and improvements Valve has brought to Steam over the last couple years:

- Overhauled community features and game hubs
- New community guides which allow players to upload walkthroughs and users to access them with 1-2 clicks in game
- Mod support and distribution for titles (this is huge)
- A voting system that allows users to decide what games get on Steam (for better or worse)
- An entirely new front-end for playing with a gamepad/on a TV
- A new hardware unit that will function as a living room gaming PC

And you are telling me that Valve have no desire to improve the service?

 

[octavius]

Like other bros said ITT already, this has been discussed at length several times in the past already and nothing really new has surfaced in the meantime.

Though I will leave you with two figures pulled from Wikipedia:

In early 2011, Forbes reported that Steam sales constituted 50-70% of the $4 billion market for downloaded PC games and that Steam offered game producers gross margins of 70% of purchase price, compared with 30% at retail.[117]
In November 2011, it was revealed by the developer of The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings that Steam was responsible for 200,000 of the 250,000 (80%) total online sales of the game.[121]

Witcher 2 only sold 250,000 copies? That's less than an indie game like Legend of Grimrock which is said to have sold 600,000.