Gearbox Boss Says It's "Dangerous" to Let Valve Win

[Ph0t0n1c Ph34r]

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?
Sure, Steam may lean in fvor of Valve, but it is thier service, a comprehensive and well exicuted service. I would like to point out, since I've seen it denied, XLBA does have free updates and holiday specials, just not a many as Steam.

 

[AceDiamond]

Well, I don't trust Valve or Microsoft. They're arrogant beyond my tastes.

Yeah, Valve's so arrogant they actually invite people who oppose their practices to see what they're up to, rather than just completely blow them off. Plus, I think your comment is hilariously ironic at best, but that isn't the point here so I'll stop and let you shoot yourself in the foot again later.

Moving on, the only possible logic I see in Pitchford's claim is that Valve might be charging indie devs too much for hosting, but that doesn't make sense. If it made any sense there wouldn't be a massive amount of indie games being hosted on Steam. However since Pitchford offers no figures, we cannot be sure of that.

And yet, if this is true, it is the only place Microsoft has a leg up distribution-wise. After all it allows indie devs to retain 75% of the profits of games sold via the XBLA or XBLA-Indie system, as well as offering a lot of free promotion. I wonder if we could get in touch with Jonathan Blow (creator of Braid) and find out how much it cost him to host on Steam and what the profit margin was as opposed to XBLA?

As for a conflict of interest, I don't see it at all. Steam frequently has sales and promotional offers for non-Valve titles, at the same frequency for those of Valve-developed titles, and thus I think it's disingenuous of Pitchford to presume otherwise.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

 

[AceDiamond]

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

The only problem is that it's the only thing that makes sense. Google in charge of Youtube, for example, seemed like a great idea, until everyone saw them just cave to any bit of legal pressure from moronic corporations that don't understand fair use laws. Putting a game developer in charge of digital distribution works because they understand what's needed. And again, so far, I haven't seen Valve playing too much in the way of favorites, and neither has most of the industry judging by how many games are hosted there.

Plus nobody's offering much in the way of competition, other than D2D and GoG but GoG has a different business model.

Again I think Pitchard needs to provide some solid figures to back up his claims. I'm not saying he's lying or that he's wrong, just that there isn't much for us to believe from him being vague about it.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

From a logical perspective I agree, but no ones gotten off their ass to compete.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I don't see Amy problem with steam, but what is with all the hate for Microsoft and Valve fanboyism? Is it really so much to ask to have a reasonable an intelligent discussion without all the flaming?

Of course it is. Microsoft is satan, while Valve are apparently the equivalent of the second coming of christ. I read through this article today and i remember thinking 'i hope this doesn't get posted in The news room, it can't end well'.

All he's really saying is that it probably isn't a great idea to have a game developer also have the majority of the control of the digital distribution service, and i entirely agree with him.

The only problem is that it's the only thing that makes sense. Google in charge of Youtube, for example, seemed like a great idea, until everyone saw them just cave to any bit of legal pressure from moronic corporations that don't understand fair use laws. Putting a game developer in charge of digital distribution works because they understand what's needed. And again, so far, I haven't seen Valve playing too much in the way of favorites, and neither has most of the industry judging by how many games are hosted there.

Plus nobody's offering much in the way of competition, other than D2D and GoG but GoG has a different business model.

Again I think Pitchard needs to provide some solid figures to back up his claims. I'm not saying he's lying or that he's wrong, just that there isn't much for us to believe from him being vague about it.

I suppose some figures would have been helpful here. I can see how a developer having control could be good, and i do trust Valve (to a certain extent), but once i start to think about it more i get a little worried. I'm not saying Valve are evil, or that they're going to steal everyone's money, it just concerns me a bit for one company to have such a huge share in both distribution and development.

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Oddly enough, he seems to think Microsoft might be a pretty good choice, if they could just get their stuff together.

Ahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahahah. No.

 

[AceDiamond]

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

Actually that is a pretty good comparison so I'll give you that, but I highly doubt Valve is ever going to expand to hardware development.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Microsoft would never EVER offer discounts like Steam does.

 

[AkJay]

We still live in a free-market economy, as far as i am aware, so they can do what they please.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

Actually, i can draw some parallels to the film industry here. The big American studios own the production, distribution and exhibition companies needed to market a film, so it's incredibly easy for them to keep growing. If you look at the English film industry, the companies only handle production, simply because they're too small to control all three. Thanks to America's monopoly over the industry, it is literally impossible for the British side of the idustry to financially flourish.

This obviously isn't exactly the same, but it does help to outline my fears about this. If Valve ever make PC hardware or consoles things are going to go seriously tits up.

Actually that is a pretty good comparison so I'll give you that, but I highly doubt Valve is ever going to expand to hardware development.

Oh no, course not, but i hope it at least helps to validate some of my (and Mr. Pitchford's) concerns about the subject. I agree with the guy to an extent, but i do think he should have phrased the whole thing better.

 

[7ru7h]

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Edit: Also, one thing that irritates me about all the people bitching about how Valve is screwing the little guy, is that even if they take 20% ($2 on a $10 game) of the price, the developer probably will sell more copies on steam than they would if they just offered it on their own site (since damn near all of the games are advertised in one form or another on Steam) and they don't have to worry about hosting the game, worrying/paying for the extra bandwidth, dealing with paypal, or trying to find the money to get it put on a disk and shipped to stores.

Seriously people, think for a minute. If Valve was screwing over the developers, do you really think they would CHOSE to sell their games on Steam? No! They would make their own platform, or go to one of the OTHER DD PLATFORMS.

 

[4fromK]

if microsoft got its shit together, there could be some great cross platform PC vs Xbawks multiplayer... thatd be sweet

 

[matrix3509]

Why the fuck are all the idiots on here spouting shit like, "Its either Steam or those stupid fucks called Microsoft."

Ever heard of Stardock dumbasses?

Yes, thank you Stardock for providing an alternate to those corporate pricks at Valve.

 

[Eldarion]

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

 

[AceDiamond]

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

 

[Eldarion]

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

Only if you are pretending that anything else comes close.

 

[MR.Spartacus]

Yeah I totally agree Microsoft needs a BIGGER monopoly. Why shouldn't Valve do it? I guarantee you won't find a better canidate.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

This

The man is criticizing valves DD monopoly, not Valve as a game developer. If Valve is the single owner of the most successful DD service it monopolizes on aspect of the game industry, gets a profit off of everyone and makes it harder for small game developers to get started.

Valve fanboys need to pull their heads out of their asses and actually read the article.

Seriously dude, if anyone needs to pull their head out of their asses and read something, it would be you and a dictionary.

Here, let me help you with that: "Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" Now, by that definition, Steam doesn't have a monopoly, since there are other people in the DD market, such as GoG or D2D (Edit: and Impulse). Just because they have a bigger slice, doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Saying Steam has a monopoly on DD is like saying M$ has a monopoly on OSs: it makes you sound like an idiot with no grasp of the English language.

Incredibly minor competition doesn't count. Those you listed don't make much of a dent in steam.

Also, I know what a monopoly is, some people don't take everything super literally.

Steam is a close to a monopoly as you can get right now. Try thinking a little outside of your incredibly narrow dictionary next time next time. A couple of small technicalities don't change the fact.

Steam doesn't have "exclusive" control of the means of producing or selling games. It's not a monopoly no matter how literal or not you interpret the word.

Only if you are pretending that anything else comes close.

Because Steam is the SUPERIOR product. Thats how capitalism -WORKS-.

 

[Woem]

I really don't get his way of thinking. Microsoft is as much a game developer as Valve is, so why would it be better for them to control Steam or a similar platform?