Steam Now Offers Non-Gaming Software

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Working at Valve is being in New York, there is nothing you can't do
Except "legally" buy crack and kill hookers.

But fear not! That new legislation is all but assured to go through. ;)
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Already installed Game Maker 9 and while the previous versions looked like shit this one look actually kind of neat, it even has some tutorials in it since most of what can be found online are also shit.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
No, no, I want less Steam-DRM, not more. I guess as long as the software is still available elsewhere there's no reason to worry, but I doubt it'll stay that way. That's how they started out with gaming after all and now a bunch of games are only released on Steam or require a Steam account even if bought as a physical copy.
 

SpAc3man

New member
Jul 26, 2009
1,197
0
0
Andrewtheeviscerator said:
Dota 2 isn't developed by Valve its published, all Valve did was buy out the guy who made the original Dota.
Actually Valve did develop Dota 2, they hired IceFrog as the lead designer. IceFrog is also not the guy who made the original DotA. That was Eul. IceFrog is just the one who took over from Steve Freak and now has been working on DotA: Allstars the longest.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Andrewtheeviscerator said:
CS:GO was just a HD upgrade so I would hardly call that a new game,
Sure, it's not like it plays differently than CS and CS:S or anything. Or that it has multiple new weapons, levels and game modes. Nah, perish the thought.

and Dota 2 isn't developed by Valve its published, all Valve did was buy out the guy who made the original Dota.
No, it is developed by Valve. Unless you think one guy ported the game to the Source engine, created all of the art assets, designed and play tested the game alone, etc. I'm not sure you could sound like you knew less about what you're talking about if you tried.

So here's some facts, and I'll even ignore expansion packs from other companies for this one: Valve has been making at least one game a year since 2004. You could argue that L4D is a bit iffy since it was being made by another company originally who they then bought and then split off again after it was released, but even ignoring that, the years where they released multiple games kind of balances that out.

Valve do make games. They make them all the damn time. Just because you either don't like what was released or aren't aware of the amount of stuff they make in house won't change that. But talking out your ass about it certainly does seem to demonstrate that regardless of the reason, you don't know what you're talking about.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
They want $20 for 3DMark now then... hah, it's not like there are a billion free contenders for that.

OT: Well it was bound to happen sooner or later, and while it is good for raising awareness you get the worst possible deal with all these products.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Evil Smurf said:
I trust Valve not to fuck me over. They had not failed me yet, why would they now?
I trusted EA no to fuck me over back in the day. They still haven't screwed me personally but I've heard loads of stories from everybody else(plus the usual stories of incompetent marketing).

Point is Valve is a company just like EA, Activision or Ubisoft.
 

vun

Burrowed Lurker
Apr 10, 2008
302
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Andrewtheeviscerator said:
CS:GO was just a HD upgrade so I would hardly call that a new game,
Sure, it's not like it plays differently than CS and CS:S or anything. Or that it has multiple new weapons, levels and game modes. Nah, perish the thought.
It has 3 and a half new weapons and 2 new grenades, one of the weapons is actually useful and the grenades are also quite neat.
Other than that it has a bunch of reskins. Reskins worse than those Source fans made 5 years ago.
And yes
It has a few new levels and game modes, I won't go into them because I suppose modes like arms race is fun for those coming from CoD or gungame/deathmatch servers so I feel they do have their place. They just recently added a new map for de_ I think it was, until then all the de_ and cs_ maps were old ones. But the problem I have with GO is that most of this new stuff doesn't really add all that much new for those who like the more serious and semi-competitive aspect of the game.

I still think it was worth the money and they do quite a few good things, like more money per kill with SMGs, less money per kill with AWP and possibly a few other things I've missed.

All in all though; I still think it has it's place and is well worth the 10?.


Also, someone seemed to mention GO when talking about Valve games; for those who don't know yet, they just published it, the development was done by Hidden Path.


As for the new software; I don't mind, but what they had when I checked yesterday wasn't really impressive considering about a third of their offering was 20? e-peen measurement devices.
Not sure if I'll use the software part all that much, but I don't really mind.
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
I have to say, GM isn't completely pointless once you plug in a good third party graphics engine DLL. Ogre (the Torchlight engine) has been adapted to work with it, and the results [http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=desertflames.png&res=landing] can be pretty neat.

That said, overall Unity seems a much better choice for Steam integration. I hope they consider adding it to their toybox soon.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Anyone else noticed gamemaker has achievements?

That's... really something. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but it's something. (I wonder if we could improve workplace productivity by adding achievements to MS Office?)
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
Vigormortis said:
While they may not be strong arming the dev/publishers, they are indirectly strong arming the consumers. When the Steamworks DRM goes into a game, that is free to the devs/publishers, the consumer has no option but to use it. As far as I am concerned that is fairly anti-competitive because if a game has it you have to use it. For example, as far as I know their is no version of Skyrim without it, as such get it in retail, you have to use steam, no ifs ands or buts. How can that not be seen as anti competitive for the consumers?
Easy. It's not "anti-competitive" because it doesn't bar the developer from releasing the game on other platforms or other services. The Steam version of Skyrim having Steamworks integration doesn't negate the possibility of the game making it's way to, say, the XBox, Playstation, or even the MAC. And, as you can plainly see, it is already present on those platforms. Well, two of them anyway.

The example you're trying to use is more akin to, and I HATE to use yet another car analogy but, Fords use of the Sync system.

As a potential car buyer, I may be interested in having a vehicle with the Sync hands-free system. Much like someone may be interested in getting Skyrim on PC.

However, I will quickly discover that I can only get Sync if I purchase a car made by Ford. This is because Microsoft programmed Sync for Ford cars only.

This is not the same with Skyrim. Bethesda made the game independent of Valve's involvement. It was only during the design process that they decided to have the PC release be Steam exclusive. It was not made specifically for Steam, they simply saw a feature-rich environment within that platform that worked well for what they wanted to do. Besides, the PC build was designed along side the console builds.

Regardless, neither case is an example of anti-competition. As defined, anti-competitive means: "tending to reduce or discourage competition". Offering a service a competitor does not offer is NOT "discouraging competition". It is, in fact, the very definition of pure competition. It means one is attempting to offer something the competitor does not.

In this sense, Bethesda looked at it's options and decided it wanted to use the Steam platform as it's primary distributor for it's PC build of the game. That did not, again, mean they still couldn't release the game on other platforms. See my first paragraph.

This is also not a case of "strong-arming the consumers". Would you accuse Epic Games of strong-arming players, seeing as it's made Gears of War effectively exclusive to the Xbox360? Most would not. But, what Epic did with the Gears of War series IS strong-arming. If you want to play the game at all, you HAVE to get it on the Xbox360.

If you don't want to play the Steamworks version of Skyrim, you can still play it elsewhere.

So, once again, for the last time, Steamworks (and indeed Steam as a whole) is not anti-competitive. The real problem is most of Steams competitors are...well...not competitive. They want Steams success without going through the trouble of making a service that caters to gamers and developers.
 

BoredAussieGamer

New member
Aug 7, 2011
289
0
0
MrFalconfly said:
Evil Smurf said:
I trust Valve not to fuck me over. They had not failed me yet, why would they now?
I trusted EA no to fuck me over back in the day. They still haven't screwed me personally but I've heard loads of stories from everybody else(plus the usual stories of incompetent marketing).

Point is Valve is a company just like EA, Activision or Ubisoft.
Except they're publicly owned (except for Activision and Valve) and have to answer to shareholders. Activisions CEO has never played a game in his life and treats Activision as if it were a car making company.

I trust Valve (for now atleast), and what they're doing (treating their customers right) seems to be working quite well for them, so I doubt they'll throw their main strategy away any time soon.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
Vigormortis said:
While they may not be strong arming the dev/publishers, they are indirectly strong arming the consumers. When the Steamworks DRM goes into a game, that is free to the devs/publishers, the consumer has no option but to use it. As far as I am concerned that is fairly anti-competitive because if a game has it you have to use it. For example, as far as I know their is no version of Skyrim without it, as such get it in retail, you have to use steam, no ifs ands or buts. How can that not be seen as anti competitive for the consumers?
That was Bethesda's choice. Valve had little to do with it. It's kind of hard to strongarm anything when you're not moving your arms, you know?