How can Pitchford claim this is a money grab? Steam works to provide an easy distribution portal for all kinds studios. Be it a small or large production studio, they can all use steam as means to distribute their product. Forget the Valve runs the operation. They offer the service, if companies don't want to use it, so be it. But this is one slick operation they are using and it cannot be argued that this is a far better means of distribution than Windows Live. I have used both and Steam performs better while offer more incentives the Live has shown thus far.

Pitchford is just talking about the basics, without competition from pc platforms as good as Steam, prices aren't really that competitive. It is far better than GFWL, but it does lack a good competitor.

Wow, never thought I would need to usurp a D-toid article, but here goes... you guys totally missed, the boat, the point, and his subsequent follow up on slashdot, which sorta cleared up any and all confusion. It's a good thing someone around here does your job for you.

"As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here, I figured I'd take the time to clarify my position since my intent has been construed out of context. As a gamer, I *love* Valve's games. Hell, I've *made* some of Valve's games! As a customer, I love Steam. I like owning a credential that I can use from any terminal and I like the software. There are other things I like, too. As a businessman, I appreciate the access to Valve's customers that they are providing with Steam. I think there's value to that access. I'm really happy that the Brothers in Arms games are available on Steam and I think Steam customers are really going to dig Borderlands. I have been and hope to be a partner to Valve for many years. From an industry perspective of digital distribution on the PC, I think Steam is doing it the best right now. They're in front and they're really getting value out of their leadership position with digital distribution on the PC. From an industry perspective, I believe that Steam would be even better off if it were a separate company. Trust issues that result from conflict of interest could be mitigated if Steam were a separate company. Take that only as analysis. It doesn't matter how much I trust Valve or how trustworthy Valve actually is - it's just perception within segments of the publishing and development community that, I guess, no one is really talking about. I'm on record in this article saying how I personally trust Valve. I was attempting to comment on perception from some angles of the industry. I also believe that gamers and customers and anyone making games using 3rd party digital distribution systems would be greatly benefited if Steam had some viable competitors. Competition generally drives higher quality products and services at lower prices. I can't see how anyone could argue against that point. If we love Steam, we should hope that as competition appears that it prompts the Steam folks to go faster and better towards improving the service and the pricing. In spite of the implication made in the original source article, I do not want Microsoft to control digital distribution on PC, but believe they (and others) could enter the space if they wanted to and help the competitive landscape and even, perhaps, help to standardize the landscape a bit. I believe that because Valve is a game maker that generally "gets it" I think there's a lot of value to the position they have and I'm really excited about the risk they took and the foresight Valve showed in paving the way there. These are not mutually exclusive feelings and they are all honest and forthright." - Randy

Ok, I think is fair to say Valve got it right with Steam since they are a ton of games there.

@Electrium

If the issue isn't worthy of discussion to you, why are you commenting?

I dont see the big numbers!

@ BattyAdroit

"That is how the fanboy mentality works. It's exactly the same way Conservatives love America, or a three year old loves his mother."

Goddamn, you're a smart motherfucker.

I can see Randy's point, Valve can have all their own little niches in Steam to suit themselves. The L4D Stats website is a good example. HOWEVER, I'm sure that indie devs are getting treated totally fairly. Steam is an amazing platform, and I think Randy needs to stop trying to fix something thats not broken.

The point is simply that there's a conflict of interest in a content company also controlling the means of distribution. If Steam were to become completely dominant, then Valve (the game company) would be able to screw over its competitors. It's a general anti-monopoly perspective: it's bad for a company with a monopoly in one field (particularly one given to natural monopolies, like digital retail) to be able to use that to give itself unfair advantages in another.

hilarious effort by Steam defense commando John Gibson.

So John Gibson has a great deal, and a non-disclosure agreement.

So he makes the error of logic of transference. "All small developers must have great deals with Steam."

And of course offers no evidence other than magical clairvoyance.

Funny thing, non-disclosure agreements also protect employers from being sued when they want to pay women 70 cents on the dollar to a man on average.

But it's ok - because John Gibson is here to let you know that all women are paid the same as men for the same work - he knows this because of his magical boot licking abilities.

And because he hopes his audience is too 'dull' to notice he is speaking about something he can not possibly have any knowledge of, because Steam makes developers sign non-disclosure agreements.