Tripwire Co-Founder Responds to Gearbox CEO's Steam Criticisms

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Tripwire Co-Founder Responds to Gearbox CEO's Steam Criticisms



A member of the game development community with first-hand experience dealing with Steam and Valve has responded to Randy Pitchford's recent criticisms of both.

Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford recently laid out [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95309-Gearbox-Boss-Says-Its-Dangerous-to-Let-Valve-Win] a few problems he has with Valve and its digital distribution service Steam. John Gibson, president and co-founder of Tripwire Interactive and developer of two successful games released on Steam — Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 and Killing Floor — has responded to Pitchford's comments, and is having having none of them.

Gibson from the get-go asserts that Valve is not exploiting independent developers. In his opinion "if it weren't for Steam, there would be no Tripwire Interactive right now." This could be the case of one developer giving thanks to the distributor that made its success possible, but Gibson reveals many compelling reasons why he feels Pitchford is off base.

To start, the contract Valve gave Tripwire to release Ostfront was head and shoulders above anything Gibson was able to find anywhere else, and didn't even have any fine print "land mines" hidden within. Even though Gibson views Tripwire's Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 and Killing Floor as direct competitors to some of Valve's own offerings (Day of Defeat: Source and Left 4 Dead), he points out their success on Steam and never feels that Valve has "downplayed [Tripwire's] competing titles," and is actually satisfied with Valve's efforts in promoting his games.

Conflict of interest is nothing that Gibson feels is new within the videogame industry, as he points out that "Microsoft and Sony have a complete monopoly on their platforms, and both companies make first party games," while "at least Valve has competition on the PC." To Gibson, it's not about conflict of interest, because this cannot necessarily be avoided. Instead, it's about how Valve has handled this conflict of interest, which in Gibson's experience was "very well," whereas with other companies he hasn't seen the same thing.

Not only that, but Gibson also sees Valve as the kick-starters of an "indie revolution." He asks: "When since the 1980s could one person write a game, release it, and make a pile of money," as developers of games like Audiosurf and Garry's Mod have, while development studios like Tripwire, ACE Team, and Media Molecule got their start selling games on Steam and were able to expand because of it.

Gibson makes a compelling case for just why Randy Pitchford is wrong, not that Gibson's view is necessarily the only one that should be considered. Pitchford's comments could mostly be viewed as a worst-case scenario prediction, but he also flat out proclaims that Steam is exploiting smaller developers. Perhaps this is true in some cases, but the fact remains that Steam is an avenue for many independent developers to flourish as well, as Gibson has proven.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25595]

Permalink
 

Zac_Dai

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,092
0
0
I feel like playing some Red Orchestra now...

But yeah the guy makes a good point but Tripwire have been looked after well by Valve.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
I'm glad they had this debate, and I honestly thank Pitchford for bringing this debate to light. Even more, I thank Gibson for presenting a counter-argument that dismantles Pitchfords complaints utterly. Thinking about it, you could not get a better argument concerning conflicts of interest: Red Orchestra and Killing Floor are about as competitive with Day of Defeat and L4D as it gets, and they seem to be very well promoted on Steam. I know ive read how the developer Tale of Tales have gotten a huge boost of popularity thanks to Steam. I try to not be a fanboy, but its really hard to not be a fanboy of Steam. And I think it's wonderful that the community has this debates, and as such has real control over the market. Good job everyone.
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
actually he's got it all wrong

here's a clarification comment by Randy himself
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=29700607&sid=1399359&tid=64

he was actually talking about competition to Steam and he's right about it being best for everyone. as for what John is saying about Sony and m$ is wrong, if there was only say Nintendo, there would be NO incentive for them to evolve beyond the original NES. the fact that there is competition to build big and better game systems in order for developers to make bigger and better games to play on those new systems.

really he's got no idea what he's talking about and Randy really nailed it on the head. more competitors is a good thing for the consumer, i mean look at what a monopolistic control of the desktop os lead us to? we got windows vista, which actually ran slower on a better machine than a 6 year old os did on an older and slower system
 

Turtleboy1017

Likes Turtles
Nov 16, 2008
865
0
0
Completely true about Valves distrubing policies.

They have never once downplayed the advertisements of another game that would be released on Steam, and I respect them for that. The fact that they would release direct competition to their own games, yet still market and promote them just as much shows me that they view Steam as a completely separate division of their company.

DD costs money, and them taking a share of whatever they sell is not a bad thing. Many games I wish were on Steam are not, and that alone proves that they are not a monopoly, as it is hardly required to have your game on steam if you want to sell it. Steam just makes it that much easier.
 

Bretty

New member
Jul 15, 2008
864
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
actually he's got it all wrong

here's a clarification comment by Randy himself
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=29700607&sid=1399359&tid=64

he was actually talking about competition to Steam and he's right about it being best for everyone. as for what John is saying about Sony and m$ is wrong, if there was only say Nintendo, there would be NO incentive for them to evolve beyond the original NES. the fact that there is competition to build big and better game systems in order for developers to make bigger and better games to play on those new systems.

really he's got no idea what he's talking about and Randy really nailed it on the head. more competitors is a good thing for the consumer, i mean look at what a monopolistic control of the desktop os lead us to? we got windows vista, which actually ran slower on a better machine than a 6 year old os did on an older and slower system
But there is lots of compitition out there eg Stardock. It just so happens Steam is the biggest. And because of this they are targeted with this attitude? Very wierd if you ask me. Not just is Steam the biggest but they seem to be offering Indie developers a HUGE leg up.

Yeah I see alot wrong here...