Steam Should Be a Seperate Company?

simoniker writes "As part of a larger in-depth interview over at Gamasutra, 3D Realms' Scott Miller has called for Valve's Steam digital distribution service to spin off as a separate company, suggesting: 'I would rather there emerge a leader in the market that isn't associated with a game company.' He further adds: 'I'm not a big fan of using Steam, because I'm not a fan of a strong competitor of ours having access to our download stats and revenue totals. I'd rather keep that private. Not only that, but we're lining their pockets as well.'"

Comments

Steam should be a seperate country

[Timesprout]

Then they can declare war on Vapour.

It could be better..

[technos]

Think about it.. As the gentleman said, the reason they don't use Steam is that it is run by a competitor. Lots of other companies probably feel the same way.

By spinning Steam, Valve opens up the revenue stream that is their competition. The new company can be a lot more profitable that way. If more companies jump on Steam, it could easily go from 'a leader in digital distribution' in marketing literature to 'Hunh? You don't have Steam? Noob, what the hell is wrong with you?' to the public.

Re:It could be better..

[Pharmboy]

I don't think you get it. If they sold or spun off Steam, they wouldn't get preferential treatment because they no longer would own it. Steam/Valve is already going the extra mile to attract new biz, as it seems they are more interested in becoming a gaming platform that just selling their own games. (PopCap games for instance)

Second, yes they would pay the same costs as others to be on Steam, which is still much less than printing up boxes and disks. It allows them to create lower volume games, and take more risks. Your first and second reasons also contridict each other.

Your third point contradicts your first point and misses the point. If they spun off Steam, then Valve itself could focus on nothing but the games, would be 1/3rd the size, and would still be profitable. Of course you are cutting the profits in half, you are dividing the company in half. But the end result could be more profit for Steam because it would no longer be limited to just Valve games.

The main point you are missing is that Steam would become the defacto standard for distribution, something they would have earned. (hell, I would buy stock if they went public) Most of the games I have purchased over the last two years have been on Steam because I like the platform, the ease of install and maintenance, the PRICE, and their version of "DRM" is not draconian. Yes, you can pirate it, but not multiplayer, and I have no issue with them making money. Making money means more good games and Steam makes it easier (and cheaper) to do so.

I can play on multiple computers, just not at the same time (similar to a "book license".) I no longer have to go to GamePlanet to get updates (holy shit, I always hated that). Cheating is minimized, I can play demos, download trailers, etc. all from a single interface. The only ads are for other Steam products, which I am actually interested in.

Steam works because it isn't a monthly fee and you get a lot for your money. It isn't perfect, but it is reasonable, works 99% of the time, is easy to use and has good games. Now, if they fuck it up and start making the rules hard to get along with, or their service gets bad or the games suck, then someone else will come up with something different. Until then, I am pretty happy as a customer and don't mind the small compromises.

Nice idea, but it will not work.

[Thansal]

The reason why Steam is popular is because it is tied in with a few KEY products (CS, and to a lesser extent HL2) that get people to regularly use the service, and be comfterable with it.

There ARE other companies out there that will sell you digital copies of games (Direct2Drive from IGN, Gamestop sells them, XBoxLive Arcade, and gametap is sorta in there). However they don't have a service that gives you a plat form for a way of accessign your content, a chat interface, and a server browser exept for XBLA (well, I dono, does gametap?).

I don't expect to see that many A Line games showing up as first runs on Steam because it is feedign the "competitor", however we are seeing alot of "indy" games like Darwinia showing up on Steam at (or shortly after) launch.

Re:Then he should fund a startup

[Nos.]

While that's true, he does make a valid point. If Steam doesn't separate from Valve, they may not see as many publishing opportunities. If users like the distribution method (and I think most do ... I certainly do), then there is a need for it. As he said, other startups are working on similar products, Steam could become the loser in all of this, if an independent, but similar product is available from a third party, instead of a competitor.

Pre-emptive Strike Time

[PingSpike]

Duke Nukem Forever must actually be getting close to release for real this time. He's already starting making excuses for its impending failure!

Re:Steam should be..

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

1. Less sluggish

Agreed to a point, but how much bandwidth can they really dedicate to each new release.

2. Not spam you with adverts for games

You can turn this off in options.

3. Consume less disk space

STEAM itself isn't that big, the games are.

4. Allow you to trade games / sell your account

Why? Most games have a license that precludes this, STEAM just has an enforcement mechanism built in.

5. not be a prequisite to playing a game

Kind of the whole point of STEAM.

6. not hog memory

Come on now, how much memory does STEAM really eat?

7. be less ugly -eg blend in to native widgets

Agreed.

8. be ported to *nix

Why? Porting is expensive, requires support and *nix doesn't have the marketshare to make it worth while. I'd love some Half Life2 under OS X, but I understand why they don't bother.

9. not use internet explorer

Who cares?

10. not download so much shit

Doesn't download anything you don't request.

Have you actually used STEAM or are you just repeating stuff you have read elsewhere?