Data concerning sales of video games is more or less public knowledge because of NPD and alike. Whereas in almost every other business sales figures are confidential. Digital distribution enables publishers to keep that knowledge to themselves and there is nothing wrong or strange about that.
Steam Boss Blasts Idea of Digital Sales Charts
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Hmm... I should have been more clear. I guess I'm confused as to how more accurate sales market would make MORE of a "me too" market, since it already seems to be one.millertime059 said:
That said, I agree with your points, but still think Steam is being ironic/slightly moronic about the whole thing
You know that minecraft was made almost entirely by 3 guys in their spare time right? True independent development does not take a business plan. Also, you can't sell investors on your project with data from its release BEFORE you have made it, unless it is a copy of someone else's game in which case you are stagnating the medium.LordSphinx said:
The way it tends to go for devs is you just show how your sales are profitable for your last project (which was kinda small and WAS self funded because you enjoyed doing it) so the investors have reason to believe you can keep doing that. IF you are lucky you hit upon a great game and run with it.
Well they could... Err that.. Ummm... Ok yeah you got me there. More formulaic does seem to be rather impossible. Especially with the latest ME 3 news. Moar awesome shootery combat YEAH! *shakes fist*drakythe said:
Because the big picture is deceptive.Logan Westbrook said:
The information Steam provides to their publishers is valuable BECAUSE it is not public. Of course valve knows it but Activision doesn't know how well THQ is doing or WHERE it is doing well.
Why do the public need to know about sales?
Why?
What is relevant is player popularity game by game (as provided publicly) but I think that people are far too obsessive over game sales. Of course we should be mindful of the economics but really does it matter how many copies of Black Ops were sold? The only sale that really matters is to yourself.
To sum up the main points so far:
Those opposing Valve: "If they released sales charts, then developers would be able to do much better in the Steam market and there would be tons of new upstarts/competition"
Those supporting Valve: "Yeah, but then everyone would be copying the most successful ideas and everything would stagnate like what is happening in the console market"
Well, you're both right. Releasing the sales charts is better for the industry from a profit standpoint, but holding them back is better for the industry from an artistic standpoint. We need to choose whether we want a bigger and more powerful but more boring game industry, or a smaller, hungrier, more creative game industry. Valve have obviously chosen the latter.
EDIT: By the way, Steam doesn't hold all the cards. They tell you how well YOUR games are doing. There seem to be some people here that think that Steam devs are running completely blind when that's not the case.
Those opposing Valve: "If they released sales charts, then developers would be able to do much better in the Steam market and there would be tons of new upstarts/competition"
Those supporting Valve: "Yeah, but then everyone would be copying the most successful ideas and everything would stagnate like what is happening in the console market"
Well, you're both right. Releasing the sales charts is better for the industry from a profit standpoint, but holding them back is better for the industry from an artistic standpoint. We need to choose whether we want a bigger and more powerful but more boring game industry, or a smaller, hungrier, more creative game industry. Valve have obviously chosen the latter.
EDIT: By the way, Steam doesn't hold all the cards. They tell you how well YOUR games are doing. There seem to be some people here that think that Steam devs are running completely blind when that's not the case.
I know all too well that Minecraft was actually made by one guy who hired others after its success was already secured. But I'm the CEO of an independent game studio of 5 developers, and I can guarantee you that a business plan is absolutely required for anyone serious.Nick Holmgren said:
Minecraft is a really nice success story, but it is first and foremost an incredibly lucky strike, a one-in-a-million. And this comes from a guy who spent a lot of hours in Minecraft building a whole village with his girlfriend. Truth is, you can't base your company on luck alone, this would be irresponsible (if you have a team behind you). Your comment on what "True" independent development should be is very naive. Any game fits into a genre, if only in the "experimental gameplay" genre. Having a realist idea of how much your game will sell is necessary if you want to know if you're just wasting the time of your team or if you're doing all you can to give yourself a chance. See it this way: you can go in a forest and follow the trails, or get outside of said trails to find your own way. But if you have people behind you, at least bring a map.
As for the comment "your project was self funded because you enjoyed doing it", that's somewhat insulting in my opinion. Indie devs aren't just having a blast, they are working hard, and making loads of sacrifices. True enough, some have more privileged situations than others. I've quit my job in a leadership position at Activision and invested 15000 hard earned dollars in starting my own business. Do you seriously think I'm doing this just for fun? I have a plan, a strong intent to make something successful and meaningful. Besides, I'm far from being the guy who made the most sacrifices to get into the game. But no matter what, no one would blindly sacrifice this much "just for the love of indie development". Unless they are one their own or incredibly egocentric.
You don't even know the half of it. For a few seconds after reading Bobzer's comment I started to evaporate like Marty McFly in Back to the Future.Kyogissun said:
Only now after much contemplation do I realize that I can be both a PC and console gamer without imploding into the multiverse. WHEW!
But I am still given pause. Should I hate myself? After all, if it weren't for me buying a 360, my pc games wouldn't be dumbed down so much.
But on the other hand, if I wasn't so elitist about my pc games, I might be able to enjoy my 360 without having to be forced to hear myself yelling at me.
God, I wish I would just shut the hell up already!
I would have an opinion....but i not quite sure what hes talking about. The inevitible inaccuracies in extrapolation information for large reams of data? That the sales of the entire industry dont mean what you think they mean (they probably dont)
As someone mentioned, nielson data is also inaccurate, so is that what hes talking about? I think so...
As someone mentioned, nielson data is also inaccurate, so is that what hes talking about? I think so...
I get broad EA and Activision numbers mailed to my house on a quarterly basis. It's not that hard to get a hold of, provided you're willing to make a one time payment for it. No, I don't check my stock regularly though.
I agree, console crowd elitist were trying to play up that the PC was dying but there were a few people here and there amongst the PC community whining about how they thought the PC crowd was dying.Bobzer77 said:
Honestly, I can't forsee PC crowds ever dying. PC's aren't an investment quite like a console is. After all, PC'S CAN DO MORE THAN JUST FUCKING GAMING.
This is what a LOT of idiots tend to forget when it comes to this whole non-existant debate.
Nothing is stopping publishers and developers from making their data from Steam available to public - if mostdoes it, we wont need data from Valve.
I would like to see data directly from Valve, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon (unless someone hack their server
).
I would like to see data directly from Valve, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon (unless someone hack their server
).