The Valve and Steam Platform Discussion Thread

[Konjad]

Jagged Alliance Flashback -66% off. Any of you played it? The price is tempting, as the people and developers say it has a lot to do with and is based on JA2, but the developers also said they will not make any sale until the game is finished, and now there's this sudden sale. Is the game good in its current state? Anyone knows why the game went on a huge sale? Are the devs saying "fuck this shit" or are they in need of money to continue development of the game?

 

[Roguey]

I haven't updated Steam in a while and now I see that they changed "do not automatically update this game" to "only update this game when I launch it"

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck idiot proofing that forces patches on me whenever i leave offline mode that I won't necessarily want that may fuck up my games since devs aren't infallible, fuck you valve fuck you to death

 

[Coyote]

That's nothing new, actually. Disabling automatic updates meant just that - that Steam wouldn't update a game automatically. It would still check for updates whenever you went into online mode and require you to install them before you could launch a game from the client again, even if you went back into offline mode in the meantime. So the option was only useful if you had a download limit and actively detrimental otherwise, since it just meant that you were more likely to get stuck waiting for an update when you were ready to play your game.

I'm not a fan of it either, and I would greatly prefer an option that lets you manually install updates on your own terms, but all they've done here is change the text to more accurately reflect how it has always worked.

 

[sbb]

The UI update is sort of cool looking. If only they didn't make the text so damn small

Is it that small for everyone else? I feel like it's been getting smaller everyday.

 

[Roguey]

That's nothing new, actually. Disabling automatic updates meant just that - that Steam wouldn't update a game automatically. It would still check for updates whenever you went into online mode and require you to install them before you could launch a game from the client again, even if you went back into offline mode in the meantime. So the option was only useful if you had a download limit and actively detrimental otherwise, since it just meant that you were more likely to get stuck waiting for an update when you were ready to play your game.

I'm not a fan of it either, and I would greatly prefer an option that lets you manually install updates on your own terms, but all they've done here is change the text to more accurately reflect how it has always worked.

Huh, I've never encountered this problem before, not even with newer games. What a mess.

 

[buzz]

That's nothing new, actually. Disabling automatic updates meant just that - that Steam wouldn't update a game automatically. It would still check for updates whenever you went into online mode and require you to install them before you could launch a game from the client again, even if you went back into offline mode in the meantime. So the option was only useful if you had a download limit and actively detrimental otherwise, since it just meant that you were more likely to get stuck waiting for an update when you were ready to play your game.

I'm not a fan of it either, and I would greatly prefer an option that lets you manually install updates on your own terms, but all they've done here is change the text to more accurately reflect how it has always worked.

that's so random and weird. Why would they push that?
I mean, isn't it better for them if people don't want their games updated? Less wasted bandwidth and all that?

What you describe sounds as DRMish as it can be. Can't play the game unless you "update" it.

 

[Roguey]

Some Steam games can thankfully be played without launching Steam.

 

[Baron Dupek]

New UI work way faster on my crappy notebook. Hiding games is neat despite the fact I already have separated groups for them - Indie trash and Junkyard.
Jumping through pages and navigating through gaming library is better (hide all/reveal all etc.).

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Well, one metagaming pleasure I'm getting from the Steam Trading Cards thing is seeing how stupid and impatient people can really get.

Currently I have two foil cards for little-known games. One's valued at $2, the other at $4. These things sell slowly, with only 1 sale for each card in the last week, and the supply is low. I know that this will take a while, so I just wait and keep tabs on the prices. I've played EVE Online, I know the score.

Yet I keep seeing people lowering their sale prices by LARGE AMOUNTS in the vain hope that someone will finally buy their cards. If EVE Online taught me anything, it's to maximize your profit margin and undercut your opponents by lowering your prices by the least amount possible... namely, by one cent. Valve's "tax" screws this up somewhat, but when people are undercutting by a whole dollar, you know you're dealing with someone who failed basic economics.

 

[Coyote]

that's so random and weird. Why would they push that?
I mean, isn't it better for them if people don't want their games updated? Less wasted bandwidth and all that?

What you describe sounds as DRMish as it can be. Can't play the game unless you "update" it.

I suspect it's a combination of

1) That thing people were talking about recently in the Consolesdämmerung thread about being able to plug and play without any additional hassle. Consoles have traditionally been perceived as superior to PCs in this regard, and part of why Valve has become such a powerhouse is that it made ease of use one of Steam's pillars with a largely standardized one-step installation process and automatic patching.

2) A bit of that same paternalistic attitude that leads Bioware to make statements like this:

Attaching things to toggles is great, but if someone flips [friendly fire] on and doesn't know that it will suddenly make their "Easy" game not quite so Easy anymore... well, that wouldn't be good.

Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result. So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves.

It’s not about hand-holding or forcing the player to experience the game only a certain way, but about avoiding the player getting a radically different experience of which they may not be aware and for which we would be responsible anyhow, since we provided the option. You click that option in the settings, thinking it will do one thing, but end up getting something different. We have to consider that, and consider how well it meshes up with the experience we are otherwise crafting, and which we intend to support.

Essentially, the idea is that sometimes you shouldn't give your customers an option because they might end up dissatisfied with their choice and blame you for their dissatisfaction. Which has an element of truth to it, in that people both tend to be poor predictors of what will make them happy and practice a great deal of self-deception to protect their egos. But it's still a shitty and condescending reason not to make an option available because (a) it assumes that you know better than your customers what they want/need, (b) it forces everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator regardless of their own ability or preferences, and (c) the ability to choose has its own intrinsic value independent of the happiness or lack thereof that results from it.

3) Publishers and developers probably like it the way it is because they don't have to deal with people complaining about issues that were already fixed or reviewing an unpatched version of a game.

There's also the cost of implementation, but that's such a minor consideration in this case - where the program is already capable of all the necessary functions but simply combines some of them needlessly - that I can't imagine that it's a factor in their decision-making process.

 

[Destroid]

They could hide the options in a special menu or even make you edit text files to prevent casuals from using them.

 

[Dr Tomo]

that's so random and weird. Why would they push that?
I mean, isn't it better for them if people don't want their games updated? Less wasted bandwidth and all that?

What you describe sounds as DRMish as it can be. Can't play the game unless you "update" it.

I suspect it's a combination of

1) That thing people were talking about recently in the Consolesdämmerung thread about being able to plug and play without any additional hassle. Consoles have traditionally been perceived as superior to PCs in this regard, and part of why Valve has become such a powerhouse is that it made ease of use one of Steam's pillars with a largely standardized one-step installation process and automatic patching.

2) A bit of that same paternalistic attitude that leads Bioware to make statements like this:

Attaching things to toggles is great, but if someone flips [friendly fire] on and doesn't know that it will suddenly make their "Easy" game not quite so Easy anymore... well, that wouldn't be good.

Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result. So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves.

It’s not about hand-holding or forcing the player to experience the game only a certain way, but about avoiding the player getting a radically different experience of which they may not be aware and for which we would be responsible anyhow, since we provided the option. You click that option in the settings, thinking it will do one thing, but end up getting something different. We have to consider that, and consider how well it meshes up with the experience we are otherwise crafting, and which we intend to support.

Essentially, the idea is that sometimes you shouldn't give your customers an option because they might end up dissatisfied with their choice and blame you for their dissatisfaction. Which has an element of truth to it, in that people both tend to be poor predictors of what will make them happy and practice a great deal of self-deception to protect their egos. But it's still a shitty and condescending reason not to make an option available because (a) it assumes that you know better than your customers what they want/need, (b) it forces everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator regardless of their own ability or preferences, and (c) the ability to choose has its own intrinsic value independent of the happiness or lack thereof that results from it.

3) Publishers and developers probably like it the way it is because they don't have to deal with people complaining about issues that were already fixed or reviewing an unpatched version of a game.

There's also the cost of implementation, but that's such a minor consideration in this case - where the program is already capable of all the necessary functions but simply combines some of them needlessly - that I can't imagine that it's a factor in their decision-making process.

It really comes down to Steam is a drm like uplay, but actually functional and not a pain in the ass which is why they force patches on you. Next it is easier to just force the patches through then give people options of which patches to choose it makes Valve's job easier and the developers. Triple A studios not giving options to customers aren't really surprising as they have always been trying to target the lowest common denominator, console players are generally retarded as hell by nature.

 

[AW8]

The UI update is sort of cool looking. If only they didn't make the text so damn small

Is it that small for everyone else? I feel like it's been getting smaller everyday.

Yes, the text is a little smaller.

Don't really like the blue tint but whatever, the re-design is barely noticable. So why did they even bother? "Let's re-design the client by changing all green and grey to blue, as well as adding a blue tint here and there just because."

Also, the Steam icon in the system tray no longer have a different icon when you're downloading a game. We have failed!

 

[sbb]

I think Steam does well with a splash of color from the play button.

 

[LESS T_T]

Devs want to work for Valve more than themselves - Survey

IGDA poll finds Steam firm tops list of desirable places to work, beating out "my own company"

Game developers want to work for Valve more than any other outfit, including their own, according to the International Game Developers Association's annual Developer Satisfaction Survey.

The group today released results from a poll of more than 2,200 developers earlier this year that asked for their most desired publisher or developer to work for. The full list follows below:

1. Valve
2. My own company
3. Activision Blizzard
4. BioWare
5. Ubisoft
6. Current employer
7. Nintendo
8. Naughty Dog
9. Double Fine
10. Bethesda Game Studios

I'm a bit suprised that Double Fine is 9th.

 

[buzz]

Well, they have the whole "indie" vibe going for them. With the Amnesia fornite where you can propose some hipster outrageous game idea and with all the mucking around the offices, having "fun" while doing your job and developing shitty games out of the fanbase's pockets.

I'd take a job there in an instant.

 

[tuluse]

Double fine seems like a sweet place to work. Every one is friendly, you have dedicated fans, you can pitch ideas and have them listened to. San Fran is a cool town.

Why wouldn't you want to work there?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Probably because working in computer gaming business is horrible and the people you deem friendly based on media information are mostly obnoxious manchildren.

 

[tuluse]

Probably because working in computer gaming business is horrible and the people you deem friendly based on media information are mostly obnoxious manchildren.

Assuming you were already in game dev and wanted to stay in that field.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Double fine seems like a sweet place to work. Every one is friendly, you have dedicated fans, you can pitch ideas and have them listened to. San Fran is a cool town.

Why wouldn't you want to work there?

Because when that chick explained the real truth about working at Valve people learned you can make real bank there as Valve gives the dev's a good cut of how the project's profits or something. Also the developers there make really good money which from what I heard is actually competitive to what Silicon valley pays out.

 

[Metro]

Double Fine = 20 hour 'work' weeks and massively inflated salaries with little output expected. I'm surprised it's not #1.

 

[tuluse]

Double fine seems like a sweet place to work. Every one is friendly, you have dedicated fans, you can pitch ideas and have them listened to. San Fran is a cool town.

Why wouldn't you want to work there?

Because when that chick explained the real truth about working at Valve people learned you can make real bank there as Valve gives the dev's a good cut of how the project's profits or something. Also the developers there make really good money which from what I heard is actually competitive to what Silicon valley pays out.

That's a reason why you would rather work at Valve, sure. However, if you had to list say your top X destinations and X > 1, might DF not make the list?

It seems like a pretty awesome place to work from what I've seen.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Double Fine = 20 hour 'work' weeks and massively inflated salaries with little output expected. I'm surprised it's not #1.

Tuluse, Metro pretty much summed up Valve in a nut shell. If you ever look up or find that interview of that chick who left Valve on that AR project you will see why people prefer working there and why I believe Valve will face trouble in the future if they continue in that direction. The question that you should be asking is, why or how the fuck is Bioware/Ubisoft beats Double Fine? That is something I am really curious about as we know how those studios operate thanks to the looking glass site or whatever that site is that gives reviews of employers.

 

[Metro]

Valve will never face that trouble unless someone challenges Steam... and they won't. We've already seen EA fail at it.

 

[Ninjerk]

Double Fine = 20 hour 'work' weeks and massively inflated salaries with little output expected. I'm surprised it's not #1.

Tuluse, Metro pretty much summed up Valve in a nut shell. If you ever look up or find that interview of that chick who left Valve on that AR project you will see why people prefer working there and why I believe Valve will face trouble in the future if they continue in that direction. The question that you should be asking is, why or how the fuck is Bioware/Ubisoft beats Double Fine? That is something I am really curious about as we know how those studios operate thanks to the looking glass site or whatever that site is that gives reviews of employers.

I'm assuming it's Glassdoor.