Slashdot Mirror
Is Valve's Steam Anti-Competitive?
Absolut187 writes "Gearbox Software CEO Randy Pitchford says Steam's domination of digital distribution is 'dangerous,' and exploits small developers. 'Steam helps us as customers, but it's also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that's not totally fair. ... Valve is taking a larger share than it should for the service it's providing. ... There's so much conflict of interest there that it's horrid.' Pitchford's comments came as part of an interview with Maximum PC, and he thinks Valve should spin off Steam to its own company. Is he right? Is there a better answer?"
Update: 10/10 at 02:00 GMT by SS: Randy has clarified his remarks in a comment here at Slashdot. He makes it clear that he likes Steam a lot, and for several reasons, but thinks stronger competition would benefit the industry as a whole.
Steam gives you an easy way to reach customers, and takes a cut of the profit in return. You think they're taking too much, don't put your game on Steam. Where's the problem here?
Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that's not totally fair
So start a competitor with policies you consider to be fair.
And stop whining, btw.
A company creates a digital content distribution service that is (almost) single handedly keeping pc gaming alive and we speculate how unfair it is. To great things go great rewards...losing sight of that simple principle shows just how into twilight we have gone.
How on earth is a voluntary service exploitative?
In the same way I guess that a story exploits people who voluntarily buy from them.
Is there something I'm missing here?
valve made a problem that takes all the crap of needing to keep disc's around that can get scratched. plus they made a system of drm that works and don't treat everyone like pirates. Also don't crash machines and cause more headaches for the legit customer then the pirates.
Has Valve somehow managed to erect barriers to entry into the market, or in any way block competitors from starting a competing service? Is there in fact anything unethical or unfair going on?
Valve pioneered this area. Now they are reaping the rewards. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to start up their own, competing service.
But hey, he's entitled to complain about it if it makes him feel better. That's less work that trying to compete with Valve.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I completely disagree. The prices are often cheaper - new releases often have specials (10-20% off), and they have specials all the time - specials I wouldn't normally see since I don't go to a gamestop/best buy every week. Add to that the ability to preinstall games and be available from any computer (you log into), I think it's brilliant.
He might have a point if Valve really had a monopoly. If they because the only way to do digital distribution, ok maybe a problem. However, that's not the case. My personal favourite for digital games is Stardock's Impulse (impulsedriven.com). Same idea basic as Steam. What I like about it is it is better on DRM. They don't apply their own DRM to all games, so some have none at all. Others use Impulse GOO, which is kinda like Steamworks but you don't have to be logged in or run the client, others use 3rd party DRM like on Steam.
Yet another option is Direct2Drive. I'm not such a fan of this one, but it works. I've bought a couple of titles from it.
So if a publisher/developer doesn't like Steam, well then don't use them, use one of the others. Nobody is making you use Steam. Or, for that matter, you could always use Steam but offer a better deal to the others if you like them better. Have your game for $50 on Steam and $40 on Impulse. That way you still get sales from Steam, but you can point customers to the platform you like better.
The other funny thing about the whining is that though the digital distributors take a cut, it is way less than retail. Retail is about a 50% markup. So if you buy a game at Target for $50 the publisher sees $25. Digital distributors don't take nearly that large a cut (it is more like 20%).
As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here,
That is where you are going wrong, we are in fact 90% self righteous troll, fortunately I'm part of the 10% that responds to logic and completely agree that it would be better for everybody involved if steam/valve split. If they do not they will have to take great care to not end up running afoul of anti-trust laws as they are a major part of several markets distribution,PC FPS (particularly at a pro level),engine licensor.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I'm sure nobody has ever released a buggy game on Steam, right? Or in retail for that matter?
What a silly argument.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Well, for customers of Steam (read : anyone who might has a game he wants to market) it might be. But for customers of those customers (read : those who buy those games) its far from that.
I recently bought a copy of Fear 2. Alas, when I tried to install it I got a "Fear.dll missing" error-message, maybe because my game-machine is simple not connected to the 'Net ?
And pardon me, but there is, for me, absolutily no way I'm going to put money down for a DVD contaning some software I can't even use, everytime I want to install it (and maybe even more often ?), without contacting some far-away server from whom I can beg to please give me the content I allready payed for. Especially not when I'm known to enjoy games of yester-decade as much (or maybe even more) as the current games -- It would (most likely) be impossible for me to re-install games of a few years old onto my machine (and not because of hardware incompatibilities). Either the game will not be supported by Steam anymore (licence-to-play expired ?), I would have to prove I'm the first buyer probably by sending the origional bill to them, or even Steam has ceased to exist, leaving me with a "bought" game that has become worthless without me even knowing when it happens/has happened (throw a standard dice, divide by 2 or even 3 and add 2 to 3 years. That is, if you're lucky, as it could happen next week).
Oh yeah, I recently (last week) bought Fear I (the origional, first version) too (I allready played part of it on a friends computer). Too bad that it suddenly cried that there "is an update available", a message which won't go away (pops up every time I want to continue playing).
The funny thing is that an update will invalidate any saved-games you allready have. To add to this monkey business the site where the update should be gotten from is non-existant anymore. If this company can't even support its own product a few years (or, in my case, a week after I bought it (from a store) ) I allready have bad feelings about an external party like Steam ....
Randy,
I can respect that you are coming from the perspective of a competitor, and commenting on how you would feel better about the distribution channel if it wasn't directly conjoined with one of your biggest competitors. I can really understand that concept.
As a customer, I hope Steam *never* separates from Valve. I trust them, as well as I can trust any corporation, as they have in the past demonstrated that they *really* want my cash, and are willing to prove it. They do it in a variety of ways, creating top notch games, having an easy method for purchase, letting me give away copies of games I already own if I get a second copy in a new bundle, allow me to re-download games regardless of me losing a disk, keep their DRM pretty much out of my way, and often have 50% off sales.
The only reason I know what Borderlands is, is because of the Steam advertisements. I work for a company who goes into retailers and services xBox displays, and evangelizes new releases. Last month it was all ODST, this month Modern Warfare 2 bundle. I haven't heard anything about Borderlands. I'm not suggesting that your game is too small to care about, I am suggesting that one of these channels is giving you more help than the other. That would be the one you think takes too much of a share.
Could there be more Steam like services? Sure there could be. I don't personally want another one. I don't need one. Not until someone shows me how that would benefit me. Stardock is ok, I have a handfull of their games. I prefer the Steam system, I actually like the unified friends lists. I'll buy more games from Stardock, but I'm in no rush to a 3rd, 4th or 5th service.
If you are worried that Steam doesn't earn it's share, then don't use it. If Steam sales are not good enough kick them to the curb. You won't get my dollars, but I'm only a single customer. If you are serious enough who knows, maybe Steam will change their policy towards developers. Those Steam folks seem to really like making money, and they tend to be pretty good at doing things customer would like, I suspect they would do their best even if the customer was another business and not an end user. As many people have said Gearbox can start their own. I thought Valve was weird when they launched Steam. They proved the value of their service to me. Can you do better?
One last note. I really would suggest you do not claim Steam is a "money grab" when you are essentially complaining that you should be making more money from me the customer. Your service is definitely not as valuable to me, at this point. I don't think I have played any of your previous games, but perhaps I am wrong. To say they are "exploiting" is really disingenuous.
I fail to see where Randy made any absurd claims in the interview, or in his follow-up. He was just stating his opinions on something he obviously cares about, and has a lot more insight into than most people. I for one appreciate him bringing the subject up, as it is something I have thought about a lot. I too love Steam, and I want to see it keep growing - but at the same time, I would hate to see it alone totally take over PC gaming, leaving one company in charge, like with the various console platforms. I like what I have seen and heard from the people running Impulse, and I hope they can gain some ground, but they too are run by a company that also develops their own games. In closing, I already have your game pre-ordered on Steam.
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
First, saying that steam is a money grab is as asinine as saying that physical media publishing is a money grab. Of course it is. It no more exploits small developers than 2K Games, Ubisoft, EA, or any other software publisher does. Which is to say, yes they all do. Attacking Valve specifically because Gabe and Doug had the foresight and vision to get a foothold in the digital distribution market before it became popular is just plain whiny. Valve's domination over the digital distribution realm is not due to anti-competitive behavior. It's due to a superior service which adapted to the market long before traditional publishers' white haired executives realized they were losing sales to steam. By then, the best option was to publish under steam. Does steam take a larger share than they should? Probably not, given the service they provide. Using physical media presented problems for consumers. Publishers, already wary of online piracy saw digital distribution as counter-intuitive. Valve presented steam as both an answer to piracy and a solution to issues with physical media. But for Valve it was much more than that. By publishing their own games, they effectively avoided issues with traditional publishers. Consumers wanted to get their games online. Traditional publishers wouldn't provide them. Blaming Valve for steam's popularity is both a compliment and ludicrous. The consumers wanted the service.
Second, there is plenty of competition out there for digital distribution. None of it provides quite the same value as steam. Traditional publishers tried their own flavor of digital distribution. Some were very difficult to use and offered only one download of the game. None offered the community features that steam did at the time. Steam continues to improve the service at no additional cost to either consumers or developers. Only Stardock is coming close to Valve. Stardock was offering community services long before their Impulse DD store launched. Other DD game stores are web-based and don't even come close to the services and value that steam provides. So forgive me if I don't share your disdain for steam.
I thought the idea was stupid when I first heard about steam in 2002. I didn't see the potential.
That being said, the only dangerous part is the faith we place in the service after investing thousands of dollars on games on steam. If steam shuts down or becomes defunct, our games go poof. Granted, we have the option to backup our games, though they only work if connecting to the steam service. So the dangerous part is also the most valuable part.
They're using their grammar skills there.