Dizko said:
This is one of those topics that annoys the begeezes out of me.
There are two sides of the coin here, people need to think of Steam as a platform, not simply a digital distribution model, because that's what it is, a platform.
No one complains about the Xbox 360 being a closed platform, where Microsoft has absolute control. Should I be allowed to run software on my 360 to allow me to play PS3 games on it? Of course not, that's absurd. But we're quick to condemn anything that's even remotely similar on the PC. No one ever complains about Microsoft having a monopoly over Xbox 360 or Sony having one over Playstation.
Here is the simple reality of it. If you have problems with Steam, don't use it. But keep in mind that Steam is no different than any console, they're all tightly controlled closed platforms.
You sir hit the nail on the head. There is plenty there to consider Steam not just a service, but an actual platform. Not only is it a gaming system but also chat, messaging, forums, blogs, and even statistics analysis. If people decide to go after Steam with torches, they may as well go after LIVE(which includes Games for Windows LIVE) and PS Home as well.
Yes Valve freely provides Steamworks, but it doesn't restrict other services, so it is not a monopoly. Nor is Valve looking to have one. It really isn't their fault that the other digital distributors suck. D2D's choice to not carry MW2 is beyond insane, and frankly I am surprised they are still around. I would prefer to see other DD's come up and provide decent competition. But as long as those other DD services don't make any effort to get themselves known, as well as provide a solid interface, they aren't going anywhere. I only know of Direct2Drive because I used to go to Gamespy now and then, until Fargo left and the whole site went down the toilet. The others I only know of by word of mouth, and though that can be a useful recognition tool, it isn't going to get a service the traffic it needs to stay afloat.
If there is any business model that should be nervous about Steam, it is Gamestop and Best Buy. Odds are the only thing keeping Gamestop afloat is its used games market, and Best Buy...well that's a whole other barrel of fish.
On the critical side, this article feels more like an editorial and not so much a exposition. There really isn't anything substantial pointed out in the article backing up any claims of monopoly. Mere details used to try to justify thoughts of monopoly. I do agree that unless a service actually gets off its ass and provides a solid contender, agencies will start to smell a sense of trust going on with Steam. I hope that day never comes, because when people forget the facts and go into mob violence hoisting the torches and pitchforks, someone is going to get hurt. That's going to be the faithful users of Steam as well as many employees at Valve.
Valve didn't expect Steam to get as big as it is now, merely intending at first to use it to distribute its own games. Yet now it is a giant, and hardly anybody wants to make the effort to create a decent contender. They would rather complain of monopoly and try to tear the giant down. Make off with their own piece of the pie that they did no work on.
Also, I cannot allow arguments that suggest people don't have the internet, or can't afford the internet. If you can't afford internet, then you can't afford a gaming PC nor the games on it. We live in 2010, if you don't have the internet that's your problem and not the publisher's.
Unfortunately there are still cases where internet is not accessible in some locations, short of satellite service which I wouldn't recommend to anyone. But on the other side of the coin, dialup service has been tweaked to be almost as fast as low DSL, you still have to deal with hogging a line as well as getting hung up on. This is a bit of a separate issue, however.
Developers and publishers have the right to want to protect their investments and in this case it's the games the produce. They spend millions of dollars to produce these games and they should want to be able to make a return on that investment so that they can keep making games. I cannot understand why a product like Steam could be looked at so negatively. It has yet to do anything to truly wrong its customers. Where else can you get quality games on sale at ridiculously low prices? You can't, not even Impluse can match Steam's weekend sale prices.
Steam provides publishers with a acceptable method of DRM while also providing services akin to Xbox Live, so IMO it's a win/win.
And yet Ubisoft still enforces its own draconian DRM with copies of Assassin's Creed II and Silent Hunter 5 that are sold over Steam. Ask why and you will figure out another reason how retarded most DRM is. And another reason not to bother with Ubisoft.
It is true Ubisoft's online DRM "service" has a lot of symmetry with Steam's own DRM. But there are glaring differences. If you aren't playing multiplayer, you can play all the other Steam games while Steam is offline. Which means if your internet service goes down, and it will, you can still play all your games you have on Steam(unless they got caught mid-update or even mid-download. Oops.) You can not play either new Ubisoft game if your internet takes a day off.
You do still also have EA's use of SecuROM as well, but these days that merely limits the installs. And unless you have to reformat your hard drives often(and if you do you should just get a new hard drive or quit surfing the pron sites with malware), that shouldn't even become an issue.
