Steam gets almost all the PC games sales now..How do you feel about this ??

[Jono8]

Why does everyone hark on about bits in the Steam terms about how they could cancel your subscription with no re-course e.t.c. e.t.c.

Why worry about that? They are not seriously going to do that, because that would be a retarded business move.

 

[Antar Bolaeisk]

Steady now, let's not give them any idea shall we?

They're already making plenty of money, there's no need to start donating more.

Isn't that what the Steam sales are for anyway

 

[Rexton]

Steam deserve it.

They have stuck with PC gaming no matter what for years and offered a great service during the process. Other people could have done it years ago but they didn't bother. It's only up until recently with Steam's success as an example that other people like EA have jumped onto the bandwagon trying to make money from the PC community that Steam put in the effort to help grow.

If there is anyone I want my money to go to it is them.

 

[Jono8]

It doesn't really matter who is 'taking the cut'. The fact remains that Digital Distribution is often significantly more expensive than buying a retail boxed copy. Surely you can see this is bonkers? If there is profit in OcUK selling Borderlands 2 for £23.98, which there obviously is, then where is the extra £7 going for the digital copy, given its obvious that making the digital copy available should cost significantly less than shipping out physical stock?

Sadly it wont change because everyone blindly pays huge money for digital distribution. I don't, I buy the cheaper physical copies wherever possible but the sheer number of people who just click 'BUY' and whack it on the credit card with everything else mean that this sort of practice will continue.

Years and years ago it was billed as the main benefit of digital distribution. Download it direct to your PC! No box. No production facilities. No worldwide shipping. No staff behind the counter of thousands of shops. It'll obviously be cheaper. Yea, sure.

Digital Distribution is for the industry, not for you. It's there to allow the industry to increase profit through monopoly power and to control what happens to the products you buy after you've bought it. Including the ability to deny you access to your entire game collection - products you've purchased - for lots of reasons they devise themselves and they enforce themselves.

Convenience is the hook that gets the customer in. This is business when consumer protection laws dont get in the way.

That isnt strictly true in all cases though. It is only Steam's new game prices and somewhere like Game's download service that is stupidly price.

Most of the games i have bought recently have been digital simply because you can get just the key for the game the cheapest (on GMG,Gamersgate e.t.c.).

 

[Werewolf]

Retail stores should have stepped up their marketing strategy, it's their own fault for not moving with the times.

This I think.

I remember when going into Electronics Boutique/Game they would have a reasonable selection of PC games.
Then over time they slimmed it down until there wasn't much point going in to look at them, especially given the pricing.

I can understand why PC game retail would have been a pain for large chain stores, but basically it reached the point where there was virtually no retail presence for boxed games, so no real chance for impulse buying, everything had to be mail order, and if you're buying mail order anyway Steam offered instant impulse buys.

 

[Newbie007]

Why does everyone hark on about bits in the Steam terms about how they could cancel your subscription with no re-course e.t.c. e.t.c.

Why worry about that? They are not seriously going to do that, because that would be a retarded business move.

MMO's also have this in their EULA's, I expect Origin, XBox Live, PSN do to.

Personally I think Steam is great and whilst I don't buy new releases direct (I love a physical copy for any release day purchases) I use their sales, it's convienence essentially. I have had a steam account for 8 odd years but only emraced it in the past 18 months .

 

[Setroc]

But steam doesn't get all of the sales. Over the winter sale, just about every recently released game that I had my eye on was cheaper in competitor's sales than Steam's cheapest offering over winter. This included chivalry, dishonored, XCOM, Dark Souls, LEGO LOTR, Scribblenauts unlimited, FTL & Hotline Miami, ie. almost every major release in the last quarter of the year. Out of all I looked at, there was only one that steam was cheapest for, and that was natural selection 2.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That isnt strictly true in all cases though. It is only Steam's new game prices

These are the only prices I care about. If a game is good, I will buy it when it comes out. If it is not good, then I won't. I don't really care what it costs 2-3 years later.

Why does everyone hark on about bits in the Steam terms about how they could cancel your subscription with no re-course e.t.c. e.t.c.

Why worry about that? They are not seriously going to do that, because that would be a retarded business move.

Seriously? Why worry about sinking hundreds perhaps thousands of pounds into a collection of games that in theory could be taken from you at any moment with only 'because that wouldbe a retarded business move' as a failsafe? There are plenty of stories about people having Steam access revoked. Most of them do something stupid or break the T&C's - but frankly having every game you 'own' taken from you for 'violating' a private companies terms and conditions is very, very wrong.

Plus no company is too big to fail. It only takes a dodgy aquisition of a competitor or a boneheaded commercial decision to tip a company into the red. Then where are your games?

 

[Jono8]

These are the only prices I care about. If a game is good, I will buy it when it comes out. If it is not good, then I won't. I don't really care what it costs 2-3 years later.

Since when does it take 2- 3 years for a game to drop to peanuts prices? It is normally like 2-3 months for most games. I would think most pc gamers have such a back catalogue from Steam sales that they really don't need to have everything on the day of release

Besides, i don't see why you seem to be using Steam's new/recent game prices to base your opinion on digital distribution being more expensive? There are many other retailers that sell digital downloads at more competitive prices/cheaper than boxed copies. Take this for example:

http://www.simplygames.com/info/19827/DmC-Devil-May-Cry-CD-KEY-Download-PC

I think you will struggle to find a boxed copy cheaper at the mo.

I would go as far as to say that most games i buy now are digital downloads, simply because they are now cheaper and more convenient than boxed copies, with a few exceptions.

Another example is Hitman Absolution. I (mistakenly i might add because i hated it ) pre-ordered the game from GMG for about £18 which was cheaper than any boxed copy. I got the steam key,pre-loaded it, and was able to play it within a few minutes of it's release.

Seriously? Why worry about sinking hundreds perhaps thousands of pounds into a collection of games that in theory could be taken from you at any moment with only 'because that wouldbe a retarded business move' as a failsafe? There are plenty of stories about people having Steam access revoked. Most of them do something stupid or break the T&C's - but frankly having every game you 'own' taken from you for 'violating' a private companies terms and conditions is very, very wrong.

Plus no company is too big to fail. It only takes a dodgy aquisition of a competitor or a boneheaded commercial decision to tip a company into the red. Then where are your games?

So do you worry about this then? What do you think they should have as their terms and conditions instead? There has to be something in their terms like that otherwise they couldnt ever ban someones account for wrong doing.

 

[Jarrastafari]

Steam gets almost all of the PC games sales?

Paying full price is no longer acceptable?

We're entitled to bigger budget titles with lower costs to the consumer?

This doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of websites offer downloadable games, where are your figures on steams market share? Here's an article I pulled quickly from google (2011) which estimates otherwise

If you can afford the release price and your happy with the service then steam is a great delivery system. I'd rather the extra money went to the developers so we can get greater profits and higher budget titles in the future. You can get deals on games which activate on steam or you can wait for a sale. Since when did paying entry fee become so unfair and disgusting?

I'm studying to become a games designer, I don't see why you'd want to be so stingy when it comes to video-game pricing. Calculate a games perceived value (cost/hours) before you buy it; tell me most well produced games don't provide massive value to the customers who buy and enjoy them.

We need the industry to be affluent so we can get new hardware, software and talent to create these digital worlds. If you don't want to pay full price then wait for the sale. Easy.

 

[MURDEROUS G]

no company is too big to fail. It only takes a dodgy aquisition of a competitor or a boneheaded commercial decision to tip a company into the red. Then where are your games?

Valve is estimated to have made $1bn in revenues in 2010, and Steam has grown at a year-on-year rate of around 200-300% since then. Think about the kind of revenue figures they must be looking at now, and bear in mind this is a business with comparatively minimal operating overheads. A couple of dodgy acquisitions is not going to tip Valve "into the red", as it has been for a long time now one of the most profitable tech companies on the planet. They would have to start literally burning billions of dollars to get anywhere close to insolvency.

These are the only prices I care about. If a game is good, I will buy it when it comes out. If it is not good, then I won't. I don't really care what it costs 2-3 years later.

In that case, Steam won't be for you, but you need to appreciate that you do not speak for everybody. The vast majority of gamers do not have a binary purchasing approach of "day one or never", and so Steam's pricing strategies are more appealing than those of the traditional retail model.

 

[Tummy]

While I agree that games are often too expensive, when you break down your cost per hour it really isn't that expensive and if anything is pretty amazing value.

Football Manager 2012. 1270 hours played and I paid £30 for it, digital download or not.

Same applies to something like the Sims 3, countless hours spent on the game and paid similar, even with the expansion packs. World of Warcraft even with the monthly sub, FIFA is similar.

I don't like forking out £40-50 for a game, but if I put hours in to it the game often feels like good value. It also really makes me appriciate cheaper games that I put hours in to.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So do you worry about this then? What do you think they should have as their terms and conditions instead? There has to be something in their terms like that otherwise they couldnt ever ban someones account for wrong doing.

I am fundamentally against the concept of a private organisation having the power to confiscate items you've bought because you have been deemed to have done something they don't like or don't think is right. I can imagine there are numerous reasons why they might want to 'ban' your account but none of these reasons should result in the loss of products you've paid for. If somebody has done something criminal, use the legal system. Publishers are not a law enforcement agency.

Even simple billing issues seem to be fair game..

 

[[TW]Fox]

Valve is estimated to have made $1bn in revenues in 2010, and Steam has grown at a year-on-year rate of around 200-300% since then. Think about the kind of revenue figures they must be looking at now, and bear in mind this is a business with comparatively minimal operating overheads. A couple of dodgy acquisitions is not going to tip Valve "into the red", as it has been for a long time now one of the most profitable tech companies on the planet. They would have to start literally burning billions of dollars to get anywhere close to insolvency.

In 1998, Enron were were one of the worlds largest companies. They had revenues 100 times greater than those you claim for Valve. $100b per year.

3 years later, it was gone.

NOBODY is too big or immune from failure. The difference being when your car manufacturer goes bust it's a damn nuisance but you don't lose your car. When DFI when bust your motherboard didnt stop working. When your digital distribution platform company goes bust, what happens?

 

[MURDEROUS G]

In 1998, Enron were were one of the worlds largest companies. They had revenues 100 times greater than those you claim for Valve. $100b per year.

3 years later, it was gone.

This is a specious analogy. The figures you quote were fabricated, a result of massive and deliberate accounting fraud perpetrated by a company that was run by white-collar criminals and which routinely engaged in extremely high-risk business practices into the bargain. There are no comparisons to be drawn here.

Valve are a privately held company, by all accounts in an extremely secure economic position, with low operating costs relative to turnover and a track record of financial pragmatism. I understand that you are trying to make the point that there is no such thing as a 100% cast-iron guarantee of a company's long-term stability, but realistically Valve are about as safe a bet as it gets.

 

[Outline]

Now, I've pointed out before that I'm not some crazy fanboy Steam/Valve devotee...

But, is it odd that, even if we are paying the odd £5 extra for a new title, compared to a boxed copy... I'm actually happy with that? I feel ripped off by a lot of products and services in the world, but Steam is never one of them.


Not to mention the fantastic games I pick up for literally next to nothing during the large sales.

 

[Macro]

Steam deserve it.

They have stuck with PC gaming no matter what for years and offered a great service during the process.

To be fair I don't see this as some kind of magnanimous act by Valve deserving of gratitude and loyalty. They have a PC gaming distribution service because they don't really have an alternative and it makes them money. Not some kind of loyalty to PC gamers. They didn't "stay loyal" to PC gaming, they just couldn't do steam for xbox and PS3...

That Valve are moving their focus away from PC Gaming to their own console highlights for me they'll go where they think the money is, which, as a business solely concerned with making it's shareholders money is what they are supposed to do.

It's an Ok service today with seems reasonably expensive for new releases, particularly if you take into account you lose the resale value of the game as well. Add on the restrictions about having to be online and that they can close your account at any time locking you out of every game you've bought and I just get uncomfortable with them ending up a monopoly.

If the other methods of PC gaming distribution end up out of business what happens one day if Valve decide to drop PC gaming, or went bust because the gamble on the console went horribly wrong? Does access to all your games go with them?

Steam sales are ok, although Steam are smart, how many people have spent 10s or hundreds of pounds on a bazillion games in the sale they'll never play

Steams Ok, I just don't think they are the saviour worthy of blind loyalty some think they may be. They're there to make as much money as possible. That's it.

 

[Macro]

Valve is estimated to have made $1bn in revenues in 2010, and Steam has grown at a year-on-year rate of around 200-300% since then.

Revenue isn't the same as profit.. /obvious statement

 

[harshuk]

I am a big fan of steam and think that it has become better over the years. I like the way all my games are effectively in a cloud so I can access them as I wish.

Ubisofts uplay and EA Games Origin annoys me as with the introduction of these are splitting my games across now three programmes. If I had it my way steam would have every game!

 

[Antar Bolaeisk]

Steams Ok, I just don't think they are the saviour worthy of blind loyalty some think they may be. They're there to make as much money as possible. That's it.

Of course they are, just like every other company in the world that wants to stay in business. Valve go about it in a nice way however as opposed to say EA or Activision.