The Valve and Steam Platform Discussion Thread

[tuluse]

Better than "It's okay to suck, here let me help you and have some of my money as well"

What if the money accomplishes not sucking?

 

[pippin]

Having a refund system on Steam will never be effective or profitable, mostly because of the bundle market. What's even worse is that a large number of negative reviews come from people who apparently won't even bother to do a quick google search for patches or drivers, and, in the end, nobody is forcing you to buy shovelware and/or broken games.

 

[buzz]

EA

they're doing the same thing.


The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.
2. Make "tiers" or categories of early access.
- Beta EA for games that are more or less feature complete and the only work remained is testing the game on more systems, ironing out the bugs, balance issues etc.
- WiP/Prototype EA for games that are a long way from having all the features implemented. Games in this section need to be given more attention, forcing devs to make a window of the features they plan on implementing, estimated time and money etc.
3. Maybe change the name of the whole thing. "Early Access" sounds like it's a useful feature for the customers instead of the devs, getting into the game earlier than everyone else."getting the scoop" when what you really get is a scoop of shit.

It will still keep sucking in many ways, but it would at least make it look more like the necessary evil it is rather than savior of gaming.

 

[tuluse]

The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.

It's not like they're tricking people. If people want to pay more for the buggy, messy, incomplete version, why do you want to stop them? Does it affect you in any way?

2. Make "tiers" or categories of early access.
- Beta EA for games that are more or less feature complete and the only work remained is testing the game on more systems, ironing out the bugs, balance issues etc.
- WiP/Prototype EA for games that are a long way from having all the features implemented. Games in this section need to be given more attention, forcing devs to make a window of the features they plan on implementing, estimated time and money etc

This is being done sort of. Just naturally. The dev is supposed to explain the state the game is in and the consumer decides if he wants to experience it and what it's worth to him.

 

[Dr Tomo]

I am skeptical on Gog Galaxy more then Steam being competent. Just like the failure of Steam Machines why would most people switch to purchase games from Gog only other then to spite Steam? I dislike Steam a lot, but realistically they are the only player in town that actually has a lot of infrastructure for the players and developers and unless the Poles are going to dump serious money they won't be competition. If anything it might be another Origin in my opinion, but I will patiently wait and see.

It has been said that GoG Galaxy will be entirely optional, and even then, will be used mostly for multiplayer games. My guess is that if GoG doesn't get some sort of highly competitive arcade/fps game it won't do anything even against Origin. I don't think they want to compete against Origin or Steam with Galaxy, though. So far, that Witcher Adventure Game is the only title supported by Galaxy, and iirc, it's still on beta.

Well then in that case I will only use them to pick up old titles and they can just get by like all the other dd's. As for multi-player, that is quite laughable since as of right now Origin would offer more then Galaxy and I would be very skeptical to see a studio port a multiplayer game onto Galaxy instead of just leaving it on Steam with the services that Valve already provides. Honestly it seems like Cd Projeckt has no vision for their dd and just trying to copy the easier things Valve has already implemented like branching out of just games which is a fail.

I am skeptical on Gog Galaxy more then Steam being competent. Just like the failure of Steam Machines why would most people switch to purchase games from Gog only other then to spite Steam? I dislike Steam a lot, but realistically they are the only player in town that actually has a lot of infrastructure for the players and developers and unless the Poles are going to dump serious money they won't be competition. If anything it might be another Origin in my opinion, but I will patiently wait and see.

It has been said that GoG Galaxy will be entirely optional, and even then, will be used mostly for multiplayer games. My guess is that if GoG doesn't get some sort of highly competitive arcade/fps game it won't do anything even against Origin. I don't think they want to compete against Origin or Steam with Galaxy, though. So far, that Witcher Adventure Game is the only title supported by Galaxy, and iirc, it's still on beta.

Which makes me think if Riot Games (League of Legends) wanted to get into the distribution business, they would have a pretty damn good shot if they forced all their players to install the platform.

Fake edit: Wtf I just looked on wikipedia and Riot games have 1000 employees in 9 different countries. To support 1 game.

Yes they have a real good shot, but that all depends on three things 1. How much resources they are going to devote to the project? 2. Who is going to head the project and not pull a EA? 3. How much are you going to cough up to woo the big publishers and not indie trash?

EA already failed two and three by having a moron run Origin who had no vision and three by only putting their turd titles exclusively on Origin. Hell Trion can be another version of Steam with their Glyph, but it all comes down to a major investment up front in resources with dividends not being payed until a year or 2 (possibly sooner if you play your cards right) after the investment and the Games industry has always been about easy quick money.

 

[Telengard]

The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.

It's not like they're tricking people. If people want to pay more for the buggy, messy, incomplete version, why do you want to stop them? Does it affect you in any way?

It does. It means the beta-testing process will be done by fanboys, those with more money than sense, utter morons, and drunkards (ever bought anything you don't really want while you were drunk?). All of whom will then inject their infantile, spoiled, illiterate, and wasted ideas into the game through the beta process, thus making the game worse than it was before. (Not that regular beta testing is much better, but at least it supplied jobs.)

 

[Infinitron]

The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.

It's not like they're tricking people. If people want to pay more for the buggy, messy, incomplete version, why do you want to stop them? Does it affect you in any way?

It does. It means the beta-testing process will be done by fanboys, those with more money than sense, utter morons, and drunkards (ever bought anything you don't really want while you were drunk?). All of whom will then inject their infantile, spoiled, illiterate, and wasted ideas into the game through the beta process, thus making the game worse than it was before. (Not that regular beta testing is much better, but at least it supplied jobs.)

Paging Vault Dweller

 

[buzz]

The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.

It's not like they're tricking people. If people want to pay more for the buggy, messy, incomplete version, why do you want to stop them? Does it affect you in any way?

It does. It means the beta-testing process will be done by fanboys, those with more money than sense, utter morons, and drunkards (ever bought anything you don't really want while you were drunk?). All of whom will then inject their infantile, spoiled, illiterate, and wasted ideas into the game through the beta process, thus making the game worse than it was before. (Not that regular beta testing is much better, but at least it supplied jobs.)

Not to mention all the gullible people who are not aware that it will be cheaper at launch.

If someone wants to give the devs extra money ... shit, paypal them some. Or gift the game to some random nobody. But an exorbitant price on your shitty beta and you'll bet your ass people like me won't get on your early access train.

 

[Infinitron]

P.S. Are you guys aware that Early Access only costs more when it's a Kickstarter that had a beta tier?

No, really. In other cases it's always equal or less.

 

[buzz]

Equal it's still bad, though not as worse.

One thing I respect about Notch (despite the fact that I hate his fucking face and him abandoning Minecraft like a little bitch) is that I spent only 5 bucks on the game, during the time it was a little project in alpha state. Then as he progressed with the game, he raised the price until it was 20 at launch. That's the way it needs to be done, if at all.

We're not charities here, people forget Steam is still a marketplace. I don't think there are many industries where the consumers are the equivalent of battered wives, like it's currently happening with PC gaming. If your product is an inferior version, it should by all means be cheaper.

 

[tuluse]

Equal it's still bad, though not as worse.

One thing I respect about Notch (despite the fact that I hate his fucking face and him abandoning Minecraft like a little bitch) is that I spent only 5 bucks on the game, during the time it was a little project in alpha state. Then as he progressed with the game, he raised the price until it was 20 at launch. That's the way it needs to be done, if at all.

We're not charities here, people forget Steam is still a marketplace. I don't think there are many industries where the consumers are the equivalent of battered wives, like it's currently happening with PC gaming. If your product is an inferior version, it should by all means be cheaper.

Here's the thing though. Early access isn't a "worse" version. When the game is complete, you get the complete game same as every one else. So in the end, it's the same version.

Anyways, check out music and see how much "rare early recordings" sell for.

 

[buzz]

Here's the thing though. Early access isn't a "worse" version. When the game is complete, you get the complete game same as every one else. So in the end, it's the same version.

Except the second point of EA is buying the game and helping them with bugtesting and suggestions. It's a typical example of "can't have your cake and eat it too"

This has become a common trend with Steam. They don't have to hassle themselves with looking out for games and approving them, just let the "fans" do it for free!
No point of quality assurance over the products they're selling. The games may be buggy or downright unplayable, but it's not Valve's job to remove that shit from inventory. Just plaster some user reviews down below and call it a day!

Anyways, check out music and see how much "rare early recordings" sell for.

That's different, early recordings are a collectors item.

 

[tuluse]

Except the second point of EA is buying the game and helping them with bugtesting and suggestions. It's a typical example of "can't have your cake and eat it too"

Something you don't have to do. You're upset because of how other people spend their free time.

That's different, early recordings are a collectors item.

People the widespread release versions too.

 

[buzz]

I'm not upset because I'm pointing out awful customer service. People are free to give money to snake oil salesmen, churches, EA games, nigerian princes and so on. It's still bullshit that people will point out.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The idea of Early Access is not bad in itself, it's just the current form it has sucks really bad. Here's a few things that would fix it a bit:
1. Early Access needs to be cheaper than the full game on release. Making the buggy, messy and incomplete version more expensive is just scum behavior.

It's not like they're tricking people. If people want to pay more for the buggy, messy, incomplete version, why do you want to stop them? Does it affect you in any way?

It does. It means the beta-testing process will be done by fanboys, those with more money than sense, utter morons, and drunkards (ever bought anything you don't really want while you were drunk?). All of whom will then inject their infantile, spoiled, illiterate, and wasted ideas into the game through the beta process, thus making the game worse than it was before. (Not that regular beta testing is much better, but at least it supplied jobs.)

Paging Vault Dweller

I agree that charging more for early access is a dickery. It should be cheaper than the full game and go up gradually. Valve strongly advised me of that so you can say that they did their part. I explained that we took about a thousand pre-orders at $25 and don't want to piss these people off, even if it's going to cost us some sales (which it did) and Valve agreed.

I disagree that everyone who pays a higher price is a fanboy though. Some people have money to spend and they don't mind spending more on their hobby. I spent over $1,000 backing several KS, including WL2 and PoE, and I'm hardly a fanboy of these games.

Feedback? That's a mixed bag and it depends on the developer. You're going to get some retarded suggestions, usually in the form of demands, and some really great suggestions. Criticism (constructive or otherwise) doesn't offend me and we know what kind of game we want to make, so we dismiss what doesn't fit the core design (which I explained on Steam many, many times) and pay attention to suggestions that do.

Overall, I have nothing but good things to say about Valve. Having the backstage pass helped me understand why they are number one and miles ahead of their competition. I'd say that they are very liberal folks who don't place any restrictions on the developer but let the gamers make their own judgement. If someone wants to pay $90-100 for an early access game without a demo, it's their business. Once paid, they shouldn't complain that the game failed to meet their imaginary standards.

 

[buzz]

I'm okay with AoD doing it because it's a decade-old passion project made by people with peanuts in terms of income. No kickstarter, the majority of the game already done and so on.


But with something like DayZ for example, that's bull. Bohemia Interactive is an established company, they don't work in a basement eating from the trash. Wasteland 2 had millions of money out of kickstarter, that's another one.

 

[Dr Tomo]

I agree that calling someone a fanboy because they dropped dough on KS is ridiculous. I too dropped some cash on KS only because I really A) would like to play the game B) disappointed that there isn't many games similar to this and unless I am going into development myself this is the only way I can make a change. But Valve does suck and you can't be upset with them over their laziness when comes to curate their products because all their minor competitors are to cheap to invest in the infrastructure that Valve already set up.

Also out of curiosity as I am new and getting a feel around here, Vault Dweller what is your title that you developed?

 

[Telengard]

P.S. Are you guys aware that Early Access only costs more when it's a Kickstarter that had a beta tier?

No, really. In other cases it's always equal or less.

Actually, it's only starting, but there have been inklings of it happening with non Kickstarters. While Planetary Annihilation did have a Kickstarter, it's also doing a retail Early Access which costs more than the online version. Plus, H1Z1 costs money for Early Access, but is F2P. 'Tis the way of the future. If people are willing to spend more money on it, they'll charge for it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also out of curiosity as I am new and getting a feel around here, Vault Dweller what is your title that you developed?

http://www.irontowerstudio.com

 

[buzz]

see, that's what I'm talking about. Some random hipster faggot from Early Access would probably link you directly to his game on Steam and even ask you directly for cash. VD linked his website, so Dr Tomo can have an actual idea of what's going on.

That's how you indie dev. Sadly, that's not how you get the big bux.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It does. It means the beta-testing process will be done by fanboys, those with more money than sense, utter morons, and drunkards (ever bought anything you don't really want while you were drunk?). All of whom will then inject their infantile, spoiled, illiterate, and wasted ideas into the game through the beta process, thus making the game worse than it was before. (Not that regular beta testing is much better, but at least it supplied jobs.)

Well, the idea of early access is that you like the game so much that you're willing to pay for a shitty incomplete version just to support further development, so you're behaving in a fanboyish manner even if you buy it at a reduced price. And it's not like the feedback from people who jumped in because it was cheap is necessarily going to be much better anyway (I've seen plenty of "LOL its shit. no wonder its $5" posts on the steam forums)

 

[Telengard]

The question on the table from tuluse wasn't whether EA was good/bad for business, nor if it raises needed funds, nor if it makes for better/worse feedback. The question was: If you don't buy EA, then does it have any effect on you?

And it does, of course it does. Any system - whatever system - is put in place to evaluate and feedback the product will effect me, the end user. The type of audience in one's feeback pool will influence the emphasis of the feedback results. For instance, if your feedback pool has only graphics whores, then graphics are going to be a high priority, and that is what a lot of the feedback is likely to then be about.

If the price for entry is higher than retail, that will influence who buys in, which will shape the pool of people offering feedback, which will in turn shape the game - to one degree or another (but hopefully the dev has a vision that they will hold to). If the charge for EA is instead less than retail, that will change the feedback pool, which will result in a different emphasis in the feedback results, which will tend to influence the game in a different way. And if testing is instead done by bums pulled of the street and paid a pittance wage, that will form a much different audience pool, which will affect the game in a different direction.

But no matter what method is chosen, it effects me - the end user who plays the result.

 

[Metro]

Also out of curiosity as I am new and getting a feel around here, Vault Dweller what is your title that you developed?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/230070/

Fixed!

 

[Dr Tomo]

Also out of curiosity as I am new and getting a feel around here, Vault Dweller what is your title that you developed?

http://www.irontowerstudio.com

Interesting, saw it on Steam and was interested until I saw the EA label and then exited out of Steam. If the game leaves EA in the future send me a message, I will give it a try just read the reviews and if it is good I will buy a half dozen copies (on a sale ofc).

The question on the table from tuluse wasn't whether EA was good/bad for business, nor if it raises needed funds, nor if it makes for better/worse feedback. The question was: If you don't buy EA, then does it have any effect on you?

And it does, of course it does. Any system - whatever system - is put in place to evaluate and feedback the product will effect me, the end user. The type of audience in one's feeback pool will influence the emphasis of the feedback results. For instance, if your feedback pool has only graphics whores, then graphics are going to be a high priority, and that is what a lot of the feedback is likely to then be about.

If the price for entry is higher than retail, that will influence who buys in, which will shape the pool of people offering feedback, which will in turn shape the game - to one degree or another (but hopefully the dev has a vision that they will hold to). If the charge for EA is instead less than retail, that will change the feedback pool, which will result in a different emphasis in the feedback results, which will tend to influence the game in a different way. And if testing is instead done by bums pulled of the street and paid a pittance wage, that will form a much different audience pool, which will affect the game in a different direction.

But no matter what method is chosen, it effects me - the end user who plays the result.

I am curious to know what information is available regarding the type of quality feedback a studio receives based on the price, is there any articles on gamasutra or etc? I was always under the impression that you will always get feedback but the quality will vary until you start doing discounts.

 

[Konjad]

The question on the table from tuluse wasn't whether EA was good/bad for business, nor if it raises needed funds, nor if it makes for better/worse feedback. The question was: If you don't buy EA, then does it have any effect on you?

And it does, of course it does. Any system - whatever system - is put in place to evaluate and feedback the product will effect me, the end user. The type of audience in one's feeback pool will influence the emphasis of the feedback results. For instance, if your feedback pool has only graphics whores, then graphics are going to be a high priority, and that is what a lot of the feedback is likely to then be about.

If the price for entry is higher than retail, that will influence who buys in, which will shape the pool of people offering feedback, which will in turn shape the game - to one degree or another (but hopefully the dev has a vision that they will hold to). If the charge for EA is instead less than retail, that will change the feedback pool, which will result in a different emphasis in the feedback results, which will tend to influence the game in a different way. And if testing is instead done by bums pulled of the street and paid a pittance wage, that will form a much different audience pool, which will affect the game in a different direction.

But no matter what method is chosen, it effects me - the end user who plays the result.

You make it sound as if E-A (Stop using EA abbreviation, damn it, it's confusing) makes developers change good plans into shit ones due to retardo feedback and in conequence develop a disappointing game. Give us an example of such developer and a game.

The truth is (it's gonna hurt, sorry) such developers would make diarrhea anyway.

Many of the E-A titles are just made for money-grab. Early alphas with great plans but no content so far. Towns for example. Morons bought the game, although it screamed "SCAM!!!" from 10 miles away (at least 10 codexers bought it). Would it be developed a good game if not E-A? No. It would not be developed at all or abandoned on the way. Did anyone lose anything with it being on E-A? No, nobody stole money from you either.

Good developers, on the other hand, take the community's opinions and listen to them while having their goal set. They use the money either to support development or just get rich quicker, but still do what they want to do - make a game. I very much doubt that Kerbal Space Program would be made without E-A as it is today in alpha 0.24, because their original goal was a game on a much smaller scope, it would be much simplier game with - possibly - less content than the current alpha. Moreover, they listen to what community has to say and even pay some modders for their work (to be included in the official version of the game).

In short, E-A does a lot of good and the only people who lose at it are morons buying alphas with no content made by developers who never made a game before. They would spend this money on something just as pointless anyway, so even there there's no harm done.