Posted February 18, 2012
Guys, just let it go. If he think Steam is not DRM, so be it. Nothing will change his opinion.
Posted February 20, 2012
While I did read the initial post and a couple of the following pages, I didn't read this thread in its entirety, so apologies if the following point has already been made.
During a discussion about the upcoming DSA adventure game by Daedalic, one of the developers PR guys made a statement relevant to this discussion. Necessary background information, previous Daedalic titles weren't allowed to be sold on Steam, Valve denied those requests multiple times (despite all of them having been fairly successful retail releases, to my knowledge). The new game in question will have mandatory Steam DRM for all copies, on the other hand.
Steam as an advertising and sales platform has become too important to ignore for small studios. Other distribution channels don't have the reach, and they need every single bit of it. EA, Actiblizz and the likes can easily get by ignoring Steam, even if it means selling a few thousand copies less, peanuts for them. For small studios, those copies are a matter of life and death. They rely heavily on Steam. The opposite isn't the case however, so Valve dictates the terms of this agreement.
As Daedalic suggests, one of the key differences between past titles being shot down while this one gets accepted, is the all-embracing Steam DRM. It's do or die for a small studio, they're not in the position to reject those terms. Amazon and other channels won't mind whether they sell a game with Steam DRM or without, but Valve apparently will.
Coming back to the original post, those "indies" in question aren't completely independent, else Valve wouldn't have the leverage to bully them into agreements like the one described. It's very reminiscent of the traditional developer/publisher relationship, which is sad, because Steam was an opportunity to break up this severely lopsided relation. In addition to the explanations gathered by the OP, it may also be considered that small, "indie" developers don't have much of a choice here.
During a discussion about the upcoming DSA adventure game by Daedalic, one of the developers PR guys made a statement relevant to this discussion. Necessary background information, previous Daedalic titles weren't allowed to be sold on Steam, Valve denied those requests multiple times (despite all of them having been fairly successful retail releases, to my knowledge). The new game in question will have mandatory Steam DRM for all copies, on the other hand.
Steam as an advertising and sales platform has become too important to ignore for small studios. Other distribution channels don't have the reach, and they need every single bit of it. EA, Actiblizz and the likes can easily get by ignoring Steam, even if it means selling a few thousand copies less, peanuts for them. For small studios, those copies are a matter of life and death. They rely heavily on Steam. The opposite isn't the case however, so Valve dictates the terms of this agreement.
As Daedalic suggests, one of the key differences between past titles being shot down while this one gets accepted, is the all-embracing Steam DRM. It's do or die for a small studio, they're not in the position to reject those terms. Amazon and other channels won't mind whether they sell a game with Steam DRM or without, but Valve apparently will.
Coming back to the original post, those "indies" in question aren't completely independent, else Valve wouldn't have the leverage to bully them into agreements like the one described. It's very reminiscent of the traditional developer/publisher relationship, which is sad, because Steam was an opportunity to break up this severely lopsided relation. In addition to the explanations gathered by the OP, it may also be considered that small, "indie" developers don't have much of a choice here.
Posted February 20, 2012
Exclusive deals are a usual market practice. Wallmart does it all the time. But that can also backfire. Eg. Steam might lose to Amazon and GG even faster if they can't serve a certain crowd.
I don't really buy the story above. There are to many games that openly avoid the DRM mechanics of Steam (e.g. Super meat boy). And Valve statements and action made clear that they don't care about piracy, but they want to avoid reselling. And therefore it is enough for them to sell games on Steam, and for that you don't need the intrusive DRM but only to have the game on their account. I bet there is more to this story that they let through.
On the point of illegal monopolies. I know that Apple was backed into a corner legally for their DRM on iTunes (illegal market monopoly), they went DRM free to avoid that. In Europe there is a lot of discussion in the legal communtiy about the effect of DRM and market monopolies. Time is working against Steam in that regard, the only reason they haven't come under scrutiny yet is the fact that videogames are still rather obscure. That is also the reason Steam won't try any of this "blocking my games" shennanigans. If such a case would gain popularity, it would strongly against them.
I don't really buy the story above. There are to many games that openly avoid the DRM mechanics of Steam (e.g. Super meat boy). And Valve statements and action made clear that they don't care about piracy, but they want to avoid reselling. And therefore it is enough for them to sell games on Steam, and for that you don't need the intrusive DRM but only to have the game on their account. I bet there is more to this story that they let through.
On the point of illegal monopolies. I know that Apple was backed into a corner legally for their DRM on iTunes (illegal market monopoly), they went DRM free to avoid that. In Europe there is a lot of discussion in the legal communtiy about the effect of DRM and market monopolies. Time is working against Steam in that regard, the only reason they haven't come under scrutiny yet is the fact that videogames are still rather obscure. That is also the reason Steam won't try any of this "blocking my games" shennanigans. If such a case would gain popularity, it would strongly against them.
Posted February 20, 2012
Post edited February 20, 2012 by Leroux
Posted February 20, 2012
I don't really buy the story above. There are to many games that openly avoid the DRM mechanics of Steam (e.g. Super meat boy). And Valve statements and action made clear that they don't care about piracy, but they want to avoid reselling. And therefore it is enough for them to sell games on Steam, and for that you don't need the intrusive DRM but only to have the game on their account. I bet there is more to this story that they let through.
On the point of illegal monopolies. I know that Apple was backed into a corner legally for their DRM on iTunes (illegal market monopoly), they went DRM free to avoid that. In Europe there is a lot of discussion in the legal communtiy about the effect of DRM and market monopolies. Time is working against Steam in that regard, the only reason they haven't come under scrutiny yet is the fact that videogames are still rather obscure. That is also the reason Steam won't try any of this "blocking my games" shennanigans. If such a case would gain popularity, it would strongly against them.
In the case of Daedalic, their older adventure games would still be available without the client as retail products, while the upcoming one will necessarily expose its entire audience to Steam. It's comprehensible why Valve would prefer the latter.
On the notion of Super Meat Boy (PC), a hasty search showed that it has a retail release, one that apparently requires Steam. With no digital distribution outside of Steam (I believe it was part of a Humble Indie Bundle once?), it appears to be exclusively tied to this platform, DRM or not.
Lastly about Daedalic's credibility, they did make these statements in a discussion with disgruntled adventure fans, possibly to "smooth the waters" a bit. Still, why discount it completely without further thought, when it's one of the preciously few inside perspectives available, and one that provides a seldom considered aspect as well?
Posted February 20, 2012
And if you say there are "too many games that openly avoid the DRM mechanics of Steam", could you list a few more besides SMB, Dungeons of Dredmore and maybe the DOSBox games to prove that point? (I'm actual curious about it, is there a list somewhere that one could benefit from?)
Posted February 20, 2012
Apart from the links and quotes on the forum, let's take SPAZ as a new example. They are a "two people company", so not especially those kind of devs that have "legal big shots" protecting them.
Their game is being sold on several distribution channels and it doesn't even have Steamworks. It was featured prominently on Steams frontpage and during the Xmas achievements. Oh, and it's not even finished.
Becaus of this, and other examples (see above), I don't really buy into this "Steam is exploiting" trend. They are way to successfull to try that thing. They can just take 5% of every game they sell and still make millions. Most people in the business complaining about Steam are other big publishers like EA or "industry big shots" like gearbox.
I can understand that they might be getting to powerful, but so far this mostly had the effect of games getting cheaper. And they cannot "hold back" good games (see Minecraft). I guess they have some "Nintendo seal of quality" like approval process that might upset some devs, but considering the stuff being sold on Steam, they don't cut on the "creative corner" (e.g. Dinner Date, seriously, wtf).
Their game is being sold on several distribution channels and it doesn't even have Steamworks. It was featured prominently on Steams frontpage and during the Xmas achievements. Oh, and it's not even finished.
Becaus of this, and other examples (see above), I don't really buy into this "Steam is exploiting" trend. They are way to successfull to try that thing. They can just take 5% of every game they sell and still make millions. Most people in the business complaining about Steam are other big publishers like EA or "industry big shots" like gearbox.
I can understand that they might be getting to powerful, but so far this mostly had the effect of games getting cheaper. And they cannot "hold back" good games (see Minecraft). I guess they have some "Nintendo seal of quality" like approval process that might upset some devs, but considering the stuff being sold on Steam, they don't cut on the "creative corner" (e.g. Dinner Date, seriously, wtf).
Posted February 20, 2012
Posted February 20, 2012
[i]8. Do you require exclusivity for titles you sell on Steam?
We think you should get your game in front of as many people as you can, therefore we do not require exclusivity on titles.[/i]
Still, that doesn't settle it for me. It says it's not required. That doesn't mean that there still can't be incentives that a developer could accept or reject. If that's the case I can't blame developers for taking advantage of incentives. Just like I don't blame the good-natured, well-meaning farmers that took advantage of incentives from the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 in the U.S. that allowed some farmers to make a decent living, but then ultimately directly led to the Dust Bowl of the Dirty Thirties. Nor do I blame well-meaning farmers today putting irrigation pivots on traditionally undesirable crop land by clearing grasslands and pushing in timber that I have helped manage before because corn and soybean prices are so high in large part due to ethanol incentives. I just hope we don't have severe droughts that could dry out the Ogalala aquifer or else the Dirty Thirties isn't going to compare to what could happen.
Ah, I'm rambling. I just have this shit on my mind lately and it bothers me. Not really trying to derail the thread.
Posted February 20, 2012
Well, the steam API takes care of everything multiplayer, achievement and leaderboard related, so you don't need to worry about it yourself. And it does some other things as well, but I'm not really aware of it all. I haven't heard of any other incentives to be steam-exclusive.
Posted February 20, 2012
Well, the steam API takes care of everything multiplayer, achievement and leaderboard related, so you don't need to worry about it yourself. And it does some other things as well, but I'm not really aware of it all. I haven't heard of any other incentives to be steam-exclusive.
Of course in the end it's always more expensive to support several versions of your game. So aiming for Steam exclusivity first and then going DRM free might be a viable option.
Also the Steam API is not really couple to the DRM. You could benefit from one and leave the DRM out. But obviously publishers decide against it for all of the major titles.
And single player games are mostly unaffected by the STEAM API. Single player games have no real need for internet connection - you just play them on your computer. They will always be the least integrated games, the games that might use part of the Steam API but can always run standalone without any Steam if so wished and permitted by the publisher.
Hell, it would be like GOG,, even a tiny bit better, because you could connect optionally to Steam network, but they do not do it like this for AAA titles on Steam.
For example Civilization V is Steam only for PC and Mac and additionally DRM free for Mac with delayed update cycle and slightly crippled multiplayer mode. After all it's still not that much work. The integration hasn't come that far. This might change in the future. Steam could develop into a closed gaming plattform in the principally so free and open PC domain.
If publishers would ask to be listed on GOG additionally probably GOG wouldn't say no. But up to now there was only Witcher 2. Maybe this will change this year. But I wouldn't bet that GOG will offer the same games as Steam anytime soon.
Post edited February 20, 2012 by Trilarion
Posted February 20, 2012
Their game is being sold on several distribution channels and it doesn't even have Steamworks. It was featured prominently on Steams frontpage and during the Xmas achievements. Oh, and it's not even finished.
Becaus of this, and other examples (see above), I don't really buy into this "Steam is exploiting" trend. They are way to successfull to try that thing. They can just take 5% of every game they sell and still make millions. Most people in the business complaining about Steam are other big publishers like EA or "industry big shots" like gearbox.
I can understand that they might be getting to powerful, but so far this mostly had the effect of games getting cheaper. And they cannot "hold back" good games (see Minecraft). I guess they have some "Nintendo seal of quality" like approval process that might upset some devs, but considering the stuff being sold on Steam, they don't cut on the "creative corner" (e.g. Dinner Date, seriously, wtf).
My thanks to SirPrimalform as well, I relied on someone filling in the details a short search obviously left open.
With "exploiting", you just have to take this aspect to the extreme, don't you? They're a business, not samaritans, and acting this way is fair game. The hypothetical choice of accepting one of two low-profile games is trivial when one of those is guaranteed to promote your own platform with every copy ever sold. Call it "exploiting" if you will, but Valve wouldn't be in the current position had they neglected spreading their platform.
With access to Steam's userbase being potentially critical to the survival of small studios, and Valve being more favourably disposed towards titles that promote them in return, seeing those niche titles tied to Steam in some way or the other isn't too surprising, yet it seemed to be the reason prompting the initial posting of this thread.
Posted February 20, 2012
There is nothing in the SSA - which is what you agreed to when you bought the game - to ban the practice of archiving non-DRMed games from Steam and then using that game within the scope of your rights. While Valve may think they can and do regularly try, they are not permitted to arbitrarily make up rules as they go along.
Post edited February 20, 2012 by jamyskis