There is no denying that Steam has an iron grip on the PC digital distribution market with an estimated 70% share. Valve's platform has been an immense success, but some have expressed concern over a game developer owning something like Steam. This argument does not compute with Valve.
"In terms of whether we get too big or maybe our content shouldn't be on the platform, it's just doesn't make much sense. Because the content helps the platform grow," argues Jason Holtman. "There's nothing better in the world for anyone making an Xbox 360 game than the fact that Halo exists. It's awesome, there's nobody saying 'boy I wish Bungie hadn't made Halo' because it sold an awful lot of Xboxes that you can sell your games on.
"Having the content and the distribution that go hand-in-hand make it a stronger platform, make it a platform to reach more consumers with your own game. If you look at any given time on our top-sellers and our marketing, it's clear that [Valve games] are not the only push out there ... We have a force of openness on the PC that's always pushing on us. If we started doing things that were bad decisions for customers or developers, they can just move and go somewhere else."
I don't really get the problem with Valve running Steam. In fact, I'd rather Valve run the platform than some shady publisher like Microsoft (Games for Windows lol) or Activision. If anything, more developers should take charge of publishing. I have a feeling we'd have a much better industry if out-of-touch executives weren't the ones calling the shots.
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
33 comments | showing # 1 to 33
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
3:20 PM on 11.30.2009
| 
He is right about the PC as an open platform keeping them in check. It is almost impossible to have a monopoly in PC actually, since anyone can make a competing site and offer features or freedom beyond Steam to win customers. On the 360 or PS3 everything goes through Microsoft or Sony, there is no alternative, and we have seen that they rule their platforms with an iron fist. On PC this is not possible, Valve can never control the platform even if Steam gets 100% market share, there can always be an alternative at any moment, keeping them competitive.
Personally, I don't think its bad that Valve runs Steam and has content available on Steam as well. In general, I don't think its good for one entity to control 70% of a market, for anything.
Actually, I think other than their various sales, you can probably find most titles cheaper than the Steam versions if you're willing to shop around. The digital distribution market is starting to flourish.
However, as someone who isn't willing to do the legwork himself and loves having all his games in one place, I love Steam.
Steam should really just be a storefront, anyway, not a platform.
killing floor vs l4d. was there a problem?
why i like the fact that it is Valve running steam, and not someone else is that they know how to know their customers. everytime they try something old or new... no, everytime they do something on steam or in the game they develop - they always check the reactions. everything they do is like an experiment that improves the product or service. and they never stop this experimentation. it may sound big brother a bit, but that is the reason they usually do the best for their customers - they always know what they want
Like how Valve screwed over Killing Floor? Borderlands? MW2? Oh wait.
There are other issues with antitrust and that is preventing others from entering the market, which they are effectively doing by packaging Steam on PC games, this is the Mozilla v MS argument, kinda of. By Steam being packaged into games, people arent given the opportunity to see what competitors exist, etc.
We also do not know what happens in the backrooms with Steam/Valve to know that competition isnt being stifled, or innovation isn't being held back. There could be other stores attempting to get packaged on discs and being denied because Steam is so large and developers/publishers are not reliant on them. There are many factors that people need to consider, things that may not being their face, but in the long run effect their price point, and the market itself.
it seams like people are trying to say that steam should be the one stepping down, so others can compete.
which is fucking ridiculous, i mean just think about it...
Normally I would say its easy for some other company to create their own competing digital distribution service, but once Valve has a near monopoly of the market share, they can start calling the shots.
Lets say I want to start my own service, called "LittleGuy". PublisherX decides they want to distribute their games with LittleGuy and Steam. Steam, not liking the competition created by LittleGuy tells PublisherX "If you put your game on LittleGuy, we won't carry it on Steam". PublisherX, not wanting to lose all those potential sales, goes Steam only for distribution forcing LittleGuy out of the market.
Let's put the Assassin's Creed 2 review behind us, Jim, and make babies. Laws of nature be damned.
Valve is a privately owned company, they can't get "bought out."
I think Gabe has a fantastic thing going. The fact that Valve has a purse big enough to finance everything (development, publishing, marketing) says a lot about the company. They didn't get that way for no reason.
As long as they continue to behave somewhat like Google ("Do no evil.") then I can support them in good conscience. And as for Steam as a platform, I greatly relish the fact. Not only can I buy games and play them as fast as I can download them (which is often faster than actually going to a brick and mortar), they offer great discounts as well. Plus the actual features of Steam are absolutely amazing. They are very user tailored, and I love it.
They don't treat you like you're a prisoner with your balls in a vice, you're treated like an esteemed guest at their estate. Want to communicate with friends? They have an instant messenger service for that. Want to play games with your friends? You can use the IM service to know when your friends are online, contact them, or one better, directly join their game through an IM invite.
Valve could do fuck all if they really wanted to, but the fact is, they're driving innovation and delivering it to the customer. Their goal, as I see it, is to make the customer happy and the profits will come in naturally. Usually it feels the other way around when it comes to anything service related nowadays.
I mean "Bought out" in the sense that the owner of the company is approached with a truckload of money and decides to sell his company. Much like how Bioware went from privately owned to EA owned.
While I do like Steam, they're not perfect. Sometimes I try to use my games in offline mode (Internet goes out or something) and it doesn't let me, but it's generally not a big deal. I've got lots of friends that I keep in touch with via Steam. And I absolutely trust a developer run platform over a publisher run platform. The guys who play the games should be the ones who are most involved in deciding how a gaming platform is implemented, updated and maintained.
This is absolutely true. My main point was really that Valve's apparent surprise that people may have a concern seems silly. While them having a natural monopoly may not be wrong, having seen how Microsoft has abused their monopoly with more than just Mozilla is enough to justify concern at the least. Maybe I didn't convey that very well.
I actually kind of like Steam, better than any of Valve's games that's for sure, but Jim you're missing the point. The alternative to Valve owning and operating Steam isn't Microsoft or Activision or EA running a similar service, it's Steamworks Inc (or whatever they'd call it) owning and operating Steam independently of any content producers.
Whatever your current opinions of Valve and Steam are you should want them to be separate entities. If they're going to control 70%+ of the market they need to as free of conflicting interests in that market as possible.
But they do force you to buy the PS3 if, say, ACII were console exclusive. Same deal.
Are you serious? Steam started out as a platform to help Valve's player base stay connected to each other and the servers for Valve/Source games. If you don't want to deal with the Stem platform, then buy an actual copy of the game or buy it from another digital download merchant and stop your unnecessary whining. If Steam were to become just a storefront, we would have to deal with other platforms that get the job done half-assed such as gamespy.com and Games For Windows. Your argument is stupid, and the analogy you used with Assassins Creed 2 on PS3 and being forced to sign up for XBL makes not one bit of sense and it isn't even close to relating to how Steam works.
Never is there any alternatives given to you from within the iTunes store (you can buy from Amazon, but not from within iTunes.)
In a similar situation, Valve has bundled Steam with their games (as well as some 3rd party software, such as MW2.) Though not exactly the same, you can see how there can be some parallels drawn between the 2 storefronts.
Going by Wikipedia (granted, not the be all, end all to research), iTunes has a 70% market share on all digital music (Jan 2009.) Same as Valve's 70% digital gaming. Do we hear all the complaining about how Apple is "creating an evil monopoly with digital music, ooOOOOOHH!!!!")? Not that I've heard.
The differences of course, is that the music sold by Apple isn't created by Apple, whereas there are games sold by Valve through Steam. But iTunes is mainly a push for people to buy iPods, and vice-versa (iPods to push iTunes, and therefore iTunes music store.)
But in both cases, products you purchase from both companies, come bundled with software that A) managaes the product and B) provides a storefront for more product.
The bottom line for both situations is: there are always alternatives, some better than others (to me, Steam is better than the rest, and Amazon is better than iTunes.)
You don't want to buy music from iTunes for your iPod? Fine, then don't, there's always Amazon.
You don't want to use Steam for your games? Fine, then don't, there's always Direct2Drive, or Impulse, or a disc from the store.
whats that got to do with Valve? and Steam?..lols unless thats Gabe Newell after a shower then fair enough
Games for Windows is actually a good thing. It's a little quality label by MS that studios can put on their games if they adhere to certain standards which are as follows:
Has an "Easy Install" function
Works with Vista/7 game explorer. (Wish steam would do that. Why can't it also put a link to the game in there and not only on my desktop?)
Works on Vista 64bit.
Game supports both 4:3 and 16:9 screen resolutions
Supports Vista's parental controls
Supports the Xbox360 Controller
The last one is also the best. As a long time PC gamer I know how annoying it was, that there never was a standardized controller. It was always a gamble if your controller would work with the game or not. And if it didn't you were pretty much fucked.
So in conclusion: Put all the hate you want on Games for Windows Live but stop mixing it up with the totally unrelated Games for Windows Label already.