Slashdot Mirror
Steam Updates On Hardware Changes, Debugging Innovations
Thanks to Planet Half-Life for reprinting a note from Gabe Newell discussing the latest changes and survey results regarding Valve's Steam 'content delivery system'. He compares the recently mentioned hardware survey to an earlier one, mentioning: "There's lots of interesting info, for example Windows 98/Windows ME users going from 62.8% down to 8.25%." Newell also discusses the code debugging innovations that Steam is now providing: "We've been able to increase the level and speed of our Steam upgrades by direct reporting of client bugs back through Steam. If a Steam client reports a problem, we can replicate it on our machines and jump directly to the line of code in our debugger", before ending by revealing that the much-delayed Counter-Strike: Condition Zero is now available for pre-order via Steam.
has any game offered via pre-order ever delivered on time?
I think it's kind of silly to compare the results from these surveys. One was taken via Steam, which is basically only going to be used by people on broadband and hardcore players; and the other was taken via the web which obviously includes a lot more people and a different kind of player in general. Comparing the results doesn't tell you anything.
One has to wonder why Valve seems to be spending so much time on Steam
One word: MONEY.
They get control of the distribution channel and get themselves a bigger cut. The more copies of the game they can sell via direct download (as opposed to in stores), the more cash they get. Typical costs are something like:
CD & box = $5
Advertising costs = $5
Retailer = $15 (shelf space == very expensive)
Publisher = $10
Developer = $15
Total price = $50
By selling directly they can eliminate both the publisher - and the retailer costs. Except that now they can change the price to $40 a downloadable copy. They not only sell the game for less - but they also make double the money on that copy:
Bandwidth for distribution = $5 (say, 4 GB transfers over the course of the game's life if it's installed three or four times when the customer upgrades machines)
Advertising costs = $5
Retailer = $0 (no shelves)
Publisher = $0
Developer = $30
Total price = $40
That doesnt make sense.
You cite Lack Of Free Time as a reason for stopping to play (which I understand perfectly) , but then you say you'd rather manually find, download, and install game patches, rather then let Steam do it all for you overnight or something.
I have no sig yet I must scream.
Blame Blizzard.
Whether you like their games or not, Blizzard struck gold with Battle.net. Easy one-click access to online gaming; built-in with the game, automagic patching when you log on. No messing with server lists, etc. Chat rooms. Battle.net is a PR dream and really helped propel Blizzard to the forefront of online gaming.
The easier you make it for people to play your products, the more product you are going to sell. In Valve's case, one can easily envision a whole number of retail mods being released. Since multiplayer is the rage, money is to be made in the online arena. Given that from the total HL population, a minority of them actually played online (no idea how small, but it's certainly much less than the millions that were sold), any opportunity to get a fraction of them online and potentially buying your online mods is money.
In the case of HL, I'm somewhat relieved that they're going the online autopatching method. There were a ridiculous amount of patches released for HL and if you didn't keep up with them you could easily get lost in what you needed (they released full standalone retail-to-current patches somewhat infrequently and lots of incremental patches inbetween). So an easy "click to update" system (or better yet, leave it running and have it updated and ready whenever you want to play) is a nice convenience.
granted, it sucked mighty hardcore when it was first released and it'll absolutely suck for a couple weeks after HL2 is released, but overall, I'm not too worried about it.