Gaming retailers blackmailing Steam

BlitzKrieg

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Steam has the potential along without other online services to wipe out game retailing, not sure if you'd like to see that happen but keep buying online and that's where it's heading.

And Game Retail in its current structure is currently strangling the game industry (pc & console) to death with their awful practices that are designed around screwing the publishers and the consumers as much as they can with their 2nd hand trade in policies.


Getting screwed by a serivce that actually protects the games industry...I fully support that!

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Amazon...

Well yes there is online retailers however I'd wager a large proportion of people still buy and indeed prefer to buy their hardware from an actual brick and mortar store.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And Game Retail in its current structure is currently strangling the game industry (pc & console) to death with their awful practices that are designed around screwing the publishers and the consumers as much as they can with their 2nd hand trade in policies.


Getting screwed by a serivce that actually protects the games industry...I fully support that!

Well the stores wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a massive demand for it from consumers and that demand comes from those who prefer to save a couple of quid rather than supporting the industry which produces the content they enjoy. Therein lies the irony in all this, people are lambasting retailers for their stock/sales prices and inconveniencing developers/publishers yet when said publishers take the only action they can to fight back against retailers and their practices via Online Passes etc.. people complain about that too.

BlitzKrieg

gizmo wrote: »

Well the stores wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a massive demand for it from consumers and that demand comes from those who prefer to save a couple of quid rather than supporting the industry which produces the content they enjoy.

I'd admit I still havnt got my head around why its only with video games that this happens on such an imense scale? Its almost as if every other market had the common sense not to drown itself.

Therein lies the irony in all this, people are lambasting retailers for their stock/sales prices and inconveniencing developers/publishers yet when said publishers take the only action they can to fight back against retailers and their practices via Online Passes etc.. people complain about that too.

You wouldnt find me on that list. I actually thought the Mass Effect 2 cerberus network was a really good idea. And the battlefield veteren system allows me to swing around an e-penis that dates back to 1942...

Tar.Aldarion

gizmo wrote: »

Well yes there is online retailers however I'd wager a large proportion of people still buy and indeed prefer to buy their hardware from an actual brick and mortar store.

For how long will that last? especially as shops diminish, the price gap, and people become more net savvy.

gizmo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

For how long will that last? especially as shops diminish, the price gap, and people become more net savvy.

Who knows really, I just think it's something people forget to consider when discussing the future of specialist stores. I think it's even more of an issue on this side of the Atlantic since we have less general stores like Walmart, Best Buy etc... to choose from so the alternatives are more limited.

Doctor DooM

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to join us in the US Politics forum in fight in the corner of Keynesian Economics. Basically the notion that we should hire people to dig holes and another group of people to fill them, just so people are employed.

I have no motive to laugh at anyone who is struggling or poor but you're not going to get better by banking your future on a dying enterprise. I don't want you to drown but if you stay in that leaky boat, I'm going to marvel at how foolish you were. They need to innovate, and if they don't innovate, they need to do something else. And if they don't do that, then they deserve their lot.

Just remember: Nintendo started out making playing cards. They didn't roll over and cry when Pac Man came to town.

I think you're missing my point.

I don't think retailers don't "deserve" what is probably going to come to them.

I am merely saying it's naive to look at two huge corporations and pick a side based on which one you prefer, rather than look at the business of the thing, trying to understand it and what is happening, and also it's a serious thing which affects people's lives. I don't think retail should be protected, they should adapt or die, but it will be a bad thing for alot of people if they don't. I think these are important factors which fall by the way side when things like this are discussed. I also think demonising retail for trying to one up Steam et al isn't really looking at the issue realistically. They are companies, they will try to bury each other.

I'm not a massive fan of Keynesian economics, but it works in certain situations, for example if America had given the rebuilding work in Iraq (that which Iraq paid for) to locals instead of bringing in contractors it could have taken alot of angry young men off the streets and kept the economy moving.

BopNiblets

Absolam wrote: »

changed their name to GAME and bought themselves....

Whoa whoa whoa... you're blowing my mind here...:P

Overheal

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I am merely saying it's naive to look at two huge corporations and pick a side based on which one you prefer, rather than look at the business of the thing, trying to understand it and what is happening, and also it's a serious thing which affects people's lives.

I honestly don't believe that's what people are doing when they support the business model done up by the likes of Steam and Amazon. On the contrary the ones that keep shopping locally and state their reasons as being 'jobs' and whatnot, is not really looking at the business side of things. We all know how businesses are run and the people that run them but consumer also know they aren't going to be taken for a ride, there needs to be a value to it. I certainly don't buy Steam just because I'm concerned about unemployment in Seattle.

Ultimately the backside of the issue - the jobs issue - is irrelevant. We can sit here all day and understand the reasons why B&M shops are trying to protect their businesses but it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to you when you reach for your wallet: you're going to buy what makes sense, and where. The jobs are a total red herring.

Doctor DooM

Overheal wrote: »

I honestly don't believe that's what people are doing when they support the business model done up by the likes of Steam and Amazon. On the contrary the ones that keep shopping locally and state their reasons as being 'jobs' and whatnot, is not really looking at the business side of things. We all know how businesses are run and the people that run them but consumer also know they aren't going to be taken for a ride, there needs to be a value to it. I certainly don't buy Steam just because I'm concerned about unemployment in Seattle.

Ultimately the backside of the issue - the jobs issue - is irrelevant. We can sit here all day and understand the reasons why B&M shops are trying to protect their businesses but it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to you when you reach for your wallet: you're going to buy what makes sense, and where. The jobs are a total red herring.

I'm obviously not being clear enough...

Whenever a thread like this pops up, anywhere on boards, there's always a few people going BWA HA HA take that, b + m store I don't like! I'm not saying you shouldn't take the best deal available. I'm saying people should stop anthropomorphising b + m stores as some evil empire trying to destroy the saintly Steam of the lord our Valve (and once again, it's very mild in this particular thread).

My point about the jobs was simply that I hate this point of view, that's all.

Of course you will vote with your wallet, that's your right.

Monotype

I think asking steam to refrain from selling a product for a time period is quite ridiculous. If people want to throw their money at them and they enjoy the service then that's fine (and funds sales).

I do however have a major objection to steam gaining a monopoly from the point of view of many games requiring steam. I do not like steam being in charge of when and how I run software that I don't even purchase from them. The same goes for other digital distributors. Best not to force a steamworks but I would expect alternatives at least. I'm surprised the EU isn't onto this after lesser moanings about Microsoft with IE and windows.

Varik

Monotype wrote: »

I'm surprised the EU isn't onto this after lesser moanings about Microsoft with IE and windows.

You can have 99% market share, you just can't restrict people from making a choice ala MS when you do.

Steam have about 70% of all download game sales but there are alternatives and steam is not preventing alternative from being used by people.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

You can have 99% market share, you just can't restrict people from making a choice ala MS when you do.

A minor point but from the perspective of both the end user and rival retailers, what Valve is doing is quite similar to what Microsoft did with IE and WMP. They're bundling their software solution (Steamworks in this case) into games at retail meaning people will use it and therefore will be less likely to look to other services in the future. When you think about it like that, it's easy to see why some retailers are unhappy.

marco_polo

Monotype wrote: »

I think asking steam to refrain from selling a product for a time period is quite ridiculous. If people want to throw their money at them and they enjoy the service then that's fine (and funds sales).

I do however have a major objection to steam gaining a monopoly from the point of view of many games requiring steam. I do not like steam being in charge of when and how I run software that I don't even purchase from them. The same goes for other digital distributors. Best not to force a steamworks but I would expect alternatives at least. I'm surprised the EU isn't onto this after lesser moanings about Microsoft with IE and windows.

It is completly different though because nobody is being forced by valve to use steamworks, it is entirely the choice of the third party game publisher to avail of it features.

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

A minor point

(1) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States."

(2) Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Not minor at all, it up there with the big ones on abuse in the EU.

gizmo wrote: »

from the perspective of both the end user and rival retailers, what Valve is doing is quite similar to what Microsoft did with IE and WMP.

Not close.

gizmo wrote: »

They're bundling their software solution (Steamworks in this case) into games at retail meaning people will use it and therefore will be less likely to look to other services in the future. When you think about it like that, it's easy to see why some retailers are unhappy.

Sony are being anti-competitive by not releasing Uncharted on 360 and abusing their uncharted monopoly.

It doesn't work that way it has to be a single product/service that has direct alternatives, if you want to play MW3 you have to play MW3.

IE came with the OS and installed as default with an associated cost, windows being so dominate because it was popular allowed anti-competitive action in preventing people from not buying IE and making a choice.

Google chrome ask you what default search engine to use after installing, Windows offers some options for internet explorers.


If EA gives up on their services and Valve try to buy it then they may be prevented as this removes competition, but making deals for steamworks it not anti competitive as we've seen it so far.

Monotype

marco_polo wrote: »

It is completly different though because nobody is being forced by valve to use steamworks, it is entirely the choice of the third party game publisher to avail of it features.

I know, but that doesn't make me any less annoyed about it!
It's probably just to maximise revenue - cutting out re-sales the need to make their own DRM. I think it's very poor conduct.
Steam must either give a large cut or the developers/publishers are too mean to fund alternatives and just go with the biggest distributor.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

Not minor at all, it up there with the big ones on abuse in the EU.

I meant I was making a minor point in relation to your reply, as in, not making a big deal about it.

Varik wrote: »

Not close.

Sony are being anti-competitive by not releasing Uncharted on 360 and abusing their uncharted monopoly.

It doesn't work that way it has to be a single product/service that has direct alternatives, if you want to play MW3 you have to play MW3.

IE came with the OS and installed as default with an associated cost, windows being so dominate because it was popular allowed anti-competitive action in preventing people from not buying IE and making a choice.

Google chrome ask you what default search engine to use after installing, Windows offers some options for internet explorers.

If EA gives up on their services and Valve try to buy it then they may be prevented as this removes competition, but making deals for steamworks it not anti competitive as we've seen it so far.

I didn't say it was anti-competitive, I was just remarking that from the above view points it is similar to what MS did with IE and WMP. To clarify, I don't think what MS did with that software was anti-competitive.

With regards the IE issue, from my understanding MS weren't fined because IE's inclusion in the OS prohibited people from buying it and making a choice, they were fined because they bundled it full stop and it was argued that because it was there, people were less inclined to look to alternatives. There was also the fact that older versions of IE couldn't be uninstalled outright. These were the points I based my comparison on, of course it's different because Valve is a third party in this but the end result is similar for both users and the other retailers.

marco_polo

Monotype wrote: »

I know, but that doesn't make me any less annoyed about it!
It's probably just to maximise revenue - cutting out re-sales the need to make their own DRM. I think it's very poor conduct.
Steam must either give a large cut or the developers/publishers are too mean to fund alternatives and just go with the biggest distributor.

Publishers are not choosing steamworks because steam is the largest online distributor though, but because it offers the best game support infrastructure around. The success of steamworks is really no great secret, it is 100% free for developers to use and for that they get User authentication, anti cheat, server browsing, chat, matchmaking, steam cloud and a game that is nearly 100% guaranteed leak free pre launch .

When you consider the main alternatives are the likes of Gamespy or GFWL (who presumably charge developers a pretty penny for what are inferior and less complete solutions) or to rollout this infrastructure themselves (as so poorly done by Crysis 2 for example) it is not hard to see why they are doing so well. The kicker for valve is of course more Steam users, a percentage of which will likely at some point translate into future store sales.

Once the use of steamworks remains entirely independent of point of sale I don't really see a major problem. You are of course perfectly entitled to dislike the Steam model, but that is nowhere near the same thing as being anti competitive. I would love a upcoming version of Batman Arkum City without GFWL, but I don't feel the publisher is obliged to provide me with a choice of steamworks or gamespy compatible versions because I dislike GFWL.

gizmo

I wasn't really sure where to put this but there was one point I found quite relevant to this debate.

As part of a recent podcast with Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refene, the guys that made Super Meat Boy, they gave their opinions on a range of issues regarding development and sales on the various platforms. While none of the MS related information was particularly surprising they did say this...

No PC Gaming Without Steam

Refenes: I believe if there was no Steam, that PC gaming would be a little lacking right now.

McMillen: It'd be dead. It'd be dead for sure. When we did our retail release... retailers came back to us saying, "PC games aren't selling anymore, so we're not buying anymore." Retail-wise, PC gaming is just dead.

Steam just singlehandedly brought it back. It's funny too, because so many people complained about it when it first came out. But they totally knew what they were doing, and they did it so well. They're developers, and they're still so close to being developers, so they know how that **** works, and they're not afraid to take risks.

It's interesting to see the retailers actually say this, even if it is second hand information. It also explains why they're so protective of the bigger titles they do stock when it comes to digital distribution services being either integrated into the game or being advertised within the boxes (see: Deus Ex: HR in GameStop) and also why the likes of Gamestop are moving into DD themselves.