Yes EA refused to change their current business model to adhere to Steam's new DLC policy. So Valve pulled the offending games. Also how is EA cheating Valve out of the cut when EA was selling THEIR content directly to the customer it was being sent to them from THEIR servers not Valves. As I said, it was greed on both sides, but everyone on the Valve fan boy wagon doesnt understand that their precious company isn't out for money as well. In short EA wasn't cheating anyone out of anything they just refused to change their system and lose more money.BartyMae said:
Notch in No Hurry to Bring Minecraft to Steam
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Cool. Valve doesn't need to advertise this, really. Notch is raking it in and everyone knows about it, sticking it on valve is arbitary, Technic has their free launcher for installing oodles of mods in packs. Love Notch, Love Steam. They are two things that can remain seperate and i will remain happy anyway.
I would not say it's *exactly* cheating...but it seems...like something not good. I mean, Steam was selling their base games through its service...EA selling stuff that adds directly on top of it seems wrong to me. Not exactly cheating, but wrong. But opinions are a dime a dozen, so I guess it doesn't matter. Either way, both companies got their way - EA got to sell their DLC straight by virtue of not putting games that have it on Steam's service...also convenient for them, since it added a few exclusives - for a while - to their own service, Origin...and Steam enforced their policy.robert01 said:
I don't know if it's by choice, but he's correct - a few games - not all that many, I don't think - are free of Steam's DRM. If you launch some games straight through the .exe, instead of say, launching it via Steam, it will not use Steam, (hours won't be counted, you won't be reported as playing it, doesn't require verification, etc). Fable: the Lost Chapters, for example, is one - only one I can think of at the moment, as it's the only one I've recently played and noticed it happening. I know there are at least a few more, as I've noticed it for others, but I can't remember what titles specifically by virtue of having 159 games on Steam.Zachary Amaranth said:
I admit, it doesn't seem likely, but Valve has claimed multiple times that they'd do it in the case they'd ever be shut down...enough for me to wonder.Crono1973 said:
I don't like that Notch's reasoning is pretty much that more people should self publish. His is a massively niche game so it doesn't really have any competition. Other indie games probably never would have gotten past the popularity of a small forum if not for steam.
While I do agree that steam turning into a monopoly isn't a good thing (monopolies never are a good thing), for me it seems notch just don't want to receive slightly less money per sale due to steam taking a cut, seeing how his major complaints were fixed and he's still "hesitant"
I'm not sure if I should be amused or disappointed with how angry this seems to be making some people. Yes this is mostly a likely because Notch doesn't feel like giving Steam a thirty percent cut if he doesn't need to, and I ask: so what? what is the problem? who loses out? its not "greedy" unless "greedy" suddenly means "makes sound business decisions", which makes me assume that the rage over this comes from Valve fanboys enraged at what they see as a slight against their beloved object of worship.
People are free to dislike steam for whatever reason they see fit. However, one thing I can't stand is this logical fallacy that steam is a or becoming a monopoly. For giggles I pulled the definition of monopolyAgente L said:
1. "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
In order for steam to be a monopoly it has to have EXCLUSIVE control of games. Meaning that no one else can have those games except for steam. Well we have GoG, amazon, origin, impluse, and even retail that are in direct competition with steam.
A correct example of a monopoly would be EA's madden franchise. Having purchased the rights to teams, players, and NFL for games, no one could make a football game without getting sued to hell.
At one time there was competition before EA monopolized the NFL franchise and it was 2K5(last game of the series). EA actually dropped its price of madden that year from 50 to 30 bucks to compete, but after they bought the exclusive rights to the NFL, they stopped 2K from releasing another football game and the very next madden game was priced at 50 bucks. THAT is an example of a monopoly.
Steam is a great service and popular because of how good it is, but it has competition and is arguably the most competitive even after they are on top.
So please next think at least know the definition of something before you go mindlessly throwing around "buzz" words. Thanks
Minecraft doesn't need Steam because it's managed to maintain it's own momentum and giving up profits to Valve when they do just as well by themselves wouldn't make sense.
For other indie developers it's a very different story though, Steam is an axcellent platform for them to release their games on because it means they can remain in complete control of their IP and they get a much better cut of the profits than they would if they signed up with a publisher.
For other indie developers it's a very different story though, Steam is an axcellent platform for them to release their games on because it means they can remain in complete control of their IP and they get a much better cut of the profits than they would if they signed up with a publisher.
Given how fond they are of reiterating their promise to do it, I wouldn't be surprised if their contracts with third-party publishers explicitly state that Valve reserves the right to this particular course of action. It would certainly explain why so many publishers still use third-party DRM on Steam.Crono1973 said:
Ah, even though I prefer my games to be on Steam for convenience, it's not anything to whine about. Although I do feel the same way towards the irony of them using XBLA and then complaining about "restrictions" being caused by one of the most indie-friendly clients out there.
Why would I buy to have minecraft on steam if I can just have the drm free copy? A partnership when Notch is already fine self-distributing just seems counter-productive.
If ever there was a game that didn't need Steam, it's Minecraft. Mojang already has the money and infrastructure to do everything Steam offers, and if you desperately need Minecraft in your Steam library you can just add it.
That said, implying that Steam could ever become the sole digital distributor on the PC is just ridiculous. The internet is as open as it gets, and bandwidth is only getting cheaper.Companies wanting their own distribution will ALWAYS have that option. If Valve was buying up ISPs and throttling connections to competing services, THAT would be monopolistic. If they start being dicks, developers will just go somewhere else. He who has the developers gets the customers.
Steam is great for small startups who want relatively cheap exposure to a huge community or large publishers who want an easy way to distribute and update their games. It isn't great for already-established major PC players like Notch and Blizzard who's games are naturally packaged with similar features. Duh.
That said, implying that Steam could ever become the sole digital distributor on the PC is just ridiculous. The internet is as open as it gets, and bandwidth is only getting cheaper.Companies wanting their own distribution will ALWAYS have that option. If Valve was buying up ISPs and throttling connections to competing services, THAT would be monopolistic. If they start being dicks, developers will just go somewhere else. He who has the developers gets the customers.
Steam is great for small startups who want relatively cheap exposure to a huge community or large publishers who want an easy way to distribute and update their games. It isn't great for already-established major PC players like Notch and Blizzard who's games are naturally packaged with similar features. Duh.
Well, I'll say this much. The biggest reason why I don't play or own Minecraft is because it isn't on Steam. Because of the way I handle my games, I forget about the ones that are non-steam, so they never get played. Minecraft would fall in to the same problem if I bought it without Steam.
Now, there are other issues I have with the game (like how I enjoy Terraria better), but I'd be certain to own MC at some point if I could add it to my permanent Steam Library.
All that said, I'm not encouraging Notch to bring the game to Steam. He doesn't need to.
Now, there are other issues I have with the game (like how I enjoy Terraria better), but I'd be certain to own MC at some point if I could add it to my permanent Steam Library.
All that said, I'm not encouraging Notch to bring the game to Steam. He doesn't need to.
Anyone complaining about XBL seriously doesn't understand economics...or reading comprehension.
Why would he go to Steam, a PC publisher, when his own PC self-publishing works better for him? He won't get many additional sales on Steam that wouldn't have been gotten through self-publishing.
On Xbox, though, there are no self-publishing options, so he went with the best possible deal. He has an entirely new audience of Xbox gamers that would be otherwise unobtainable.
Regarding restrictions, there is no need for his PC release to have restrictions forced through Steam. There is a need for the 360 version, but that's acceptable because it's a different audience entirely.
Why would he go to Steam, a PC publisher, when his own PC self-publishing works better for him? He won't get many additional sales on Steam that wouldn't have been gotten through self-publishing.
On Xbox, though, there are no self-publishing options, so he went with the best possible deal. He has an entirely new audience of Xbox gamers that would be otherwise unobtainable.
Regarding restrictions, there is no need for his PC release to have restrictions forced through Steam. There is a need for the 360 version, but that's acceptable because it's a different audience entirely.
I'm fine with Minecraft not being on Steam, Notch may be a lazy and greedy bastard but so is Gabe.
Your such a funny fanboy. This will never happen. They are not legally able to do this and do you think that they are going to bother with the time and resources to patch Steam if they are going out of business, of course they wont there is no benefit in doing so. If Value did say that, they are lying to you.Vigormortis said:
WELL...technically, if you already bought a copy of it off of the XBLA, you could just say...get another version, I mean, you already got one legitimately, what's the harm in say, paying your local pirates a visit?WanderingFool said:
Ah, so you've read the contract that developers sign, then. What else didn't it say in there? I've always suspected that there is some kind of Satanic ritual involved in signing up for Steam. Could you confirm/deny this for me?Darknacht said:
Well this is simple for me. No MC on steam= no purchase. Having to worry about mutiple sites for different games is to much of an annoyance to pay for.