PDA

View Full Version : Digital Distributers Refuse to Sell Modern Warfare 2


DoctorFinger
11-06-2009, 09:06 AM
In what has to be considered the opening salvo of an all out digital distribution war, Direct2Drive has announced that it will not sell the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/tags.php?tag=modern+warfare+2) because of the game's integration with rival Valve's Steamworks system.

The IGN-owned digital retailer is protesting the title's use of the Steamworks - a suite of tools which handle updates, patches and authentication of the game. To use a Steamworks-integrated game, the user has to install Steam, regardless of which digital storefront it was purchased from. This of course does not sit well with Steam competitors, who feel they're being forced to support a rival in these sales, with Direct2Drive going so far as to call Steamworks a "Trojan Horse."

Gamers Gate and Impulse are also similarly refusing to sell Steamworks-integrated titles. Modern Warfare 2 is the most high profile game to date which uses Steamworks, and it's expected to do record breaking sales numbers upon it's release next week. Of course this comes on the heels of numerous controversies surrounding the game, in particular the PC release. Either way, this is likely only the first volley in what will likely be an extensive war between the industry leading Steam and the rest of the digital game storefronts over Steamworks integration.

Source - Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25944).

muddi900
11-06-2009, 09:09 AM
I don't know about other DD sites, but Direct2Drive have no issue with Dawn Of War 2, why do they have a problem MW2.

Adam Blue
11-06-2009, 09:11 AM
D2D has a point. And with some titles, Steam requires you to buy a game and DLC separately, whereas D2D will have it bundled and cheaper. As it works, Steam makes more money by having its own DLC distribution.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 09:13 AM
I don't know about other DD sites, but Direct2Drive have no issue with Dawn Of War 2, why do they have a problem MW2.

Actually, they did have a problem with it. If you read the response Kotaku got back from them on this, they admitted that they had been evaluating the issue since DoW2 and Empire: Total War. Conclusion? They don't like it.

muddi900
11-06-2009, 09:17 AM
Well its kinda a raw deal. Even if they do buy the game from you, they'll have the other guy's store right in their customer's face, come DLC time.

But how about GFW live, the reason they give should also exclude all titles that require Games for windows.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 09:21 AM
But how about GFW live, the reason they give should also exclude all titles that require Games for windows.

I think the big difference is that GFWL doesn't offer full games for sale through their service. Obviously, the "Trojan Horse" comment is just hyperbole to gamers, but to any competing DD service, Steam integration is exactly that.

roboninja
11-06-2009, 09:24 AM
This one is a little more understandable. However, why does the game itself even handle this? I would think it would be up to the digital distributor to handle all updates to the game. Of course, then they hold a greater responsibility to the customer if something does not work right. Might be a case of "careful what you wish for".

EDIT: Do retail copies of the game require the user to install Steam as well? I can see that being a real pisser, too. Imagine a consumer that hates Steam, maybe even DD in general. He buys his retail game, then finds out he has to install Steam just to patch his game.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 09:32 AM
EDIT: Do retail copies of the game require the user to install Steam as well? I can see that being a real pisser, too. Imagine a consumer that hates Steam, maybe even DD in general. He buys his retail game, then finds out he has to install Steam just to patch his game.

Yes. Retail copies will also include Steam just like DoW2 and E:TW.

Dukefrukem
11-06-2009, 09:35 AM
I've never purchased anything of D2D. Is it worth it? Does it update games like steam does automatically?

total
11-06-2009, 09:36 AM
EDIT: Do retail copies of the game require the user to install Steam as well? I can see that being a real pisser, too. Imagine a consumer that hates Steam, maybe even DD in general. He buys his retail game, then finds out he has to install Steam just to patch his game.

Umm this has been happening since Half Life 2. No not just with steam games.

menage
11-06-2009, 09:45 AM
Half Life 2 is a Valve game, so that's understandable.

CappinCanuck
11-06-2009, 09:49 AM
I've never purchased anything of D2D. Is it worth it? Does it update games like steam does automatically?

No, but on par it's cheaper. Also, yes, it is downloaded but it's still often a stand alone. So, D2D isn't a client like Impulse and Steam, it's just a download source. So for people wanting to get Dig. Distrib. and not necessarily a client with DRM, then D2D is a good choice.

Oh, and I wish GoGamer had gotten into the boycott as well.

Wilkz07
11-06-2009, 09:56 AM
so steam is going to make a lot more money? who the fuck cares, or did i miss the point of the article. still i stand by my comment. good for steam to make more money.

Cit Phil Cit
11-06-2009, 09:56 AM
There is a reason why I have a over a hundred games on Steam. Compared to the other DD sites or services, Steam in my opinion offers the best value.

Valve is a successful developer and a publisher, and it is privately owned: there is no board of directors or stockholders that can force the company to be sold to another company for the pure motivation of profit. Granted, it could be sold at some future point, but, the company itself is well-funded and has managed itself for years. It is a solid foundation.

And I like Steam, that helps. The other DD sites certainly have a right to complain if they see the largest of their kind getting special treatment, but, it's business.

Cyndair
11-06-2009, 10:18 AM
I love Steam but I can see D2D's argument here. Still.... they stand to lose a lot of money that they would earn on the sales of MW2 if they boycott it. Customers aren't going to not buy the game just because they can't get it on D2D. They'll go elsewhere.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 10:30 AM
Steam should stop selling games that use Gamespy. Fairs fair. The overall trojan issue isn't a bad thing for consumers so much as it is for D2D. Fuck 'em.

Spectre-7
11-06-2009, 10:50 AM
Umm this has been happening since Half Life 2. No not just with steam games.

so steam is going to make a lot more money? who the fuck cares, or did i miss the point of the article. still i stand by my comment. good for steam to make more money.

Well, seems my sentiments have mostly been covered already.

It feels like gaming sites are trying to make a big deal out of it, but it's a perfectly rational decision for the digital distributors to make, and my first reaction last night was a big, "So what?"

Esquilax1138
11-06-2009, 10:52 AM
D2D = QQ
Steam = Pew Pew

Welcome to Capitalism, go cry some more!

CappinCanuck
11-06-2009, 10:56 AM
There is a reason why I have a over a hundred games on Steam. Compared to the other DD sites or services, Steam in my opinion offers the best value.

Valve is a successful developer and a publisher, and it is privately owned: there is no board of directors or stockholders that can force the company to be sold to another company for the pure motivation of profit. Granted, it could be sold at some future point, but, the company itself is well-funded and has managed itself for years. It is a solid foundation.

And I like Steam, that helps. The other DD sites certainly have a right to complain if they see the largest of their kind getting special treatment, but, it's business.

None of those things mean that Steam has to be built into the game though. I'd like to keep the choice as I can with most games. I think that's more the issue. Nobody is arguing that Steam is a bad service or that they wouldn't prefer to buy it on Steam if they had the choice.

I'm more worried about the consumer side of it. If publishers start building in some clients over others, they could effectively carve out the market for certain games and we wouldn't have the competition therein.

D2D = QQ
Steam = Pew Pew

Welcome to Capitalism, go cry some more!
True, to a degree. It's getting closer and closer to anti-competitive behaviour though. I always worry when companies use their market share to get ahead instead of actually doing good business and offering good service.

rein
11-06-2009, 11:00 AM
Steam is fine and all but it's going to suck if other digital content distributors get squeezed out. Competition in a market place, digital or not, is a good thing.

ElektroDragon
11-06-2009, 11:02 AM
These foolish companies should be making all their games Games for Windows - Live compatible, not Steamworks compatible. Then we would not only have automatic patching and authentication, but Achievements as well, and no Digital Download company would bat an eye. And they could still be available via Steam.

Oh yeah, and its FREE now for anyone to make a gamertag, play online, and earn achievements on the PC. If you're a 360 gamer, even better! Same gamertag, same score being updated. The only people who don't like this are the anti-Microsoft loons.

I commend the few comanies that have adopted GFW - Live, with recent notable releases like Red Faction, Resident Evil 5, Fuel, Fallout 3, etc. Still, too few companies are using GFW- Live, even when they release their game on 360 simultaneously. Does not compute! If more companies did, I would start playing PC games again.

Let's take a prime example. Mass Effect. Why is this not a GFW - Live title?? Does not make any sense. All they've done is cost themselves sales, so now it gets to sell for $9 on Steam just to move copies. And Dragon Age? Why is this not a GFW - Live title? Don't tell me it's because it lacks MP, because so does Fallout 3, and that was GFW - Live. Bioware and EA need to wake up. So does Infinity Ward, it seems. This developer would be almost an unknown if it weren't for their success on 360. Yet they adopt Steamworks over GFW - Live?!

Goronmon
11-06-2009, 11:07 AM
Steam is fine and all but it's going to suck if other digital content distributors get squeezed out. Competition in a market place, digital or not, is a good thing.This.

People are apparently giving Valve a pass on this because it's Valve, but I'm not sure I like the whole idea.

Dukefrukem
11-06-2009, 11:08 AM
i used GFW for the first time on Tuesday while playing Fallout 3. Not too shabby.

Hotcod
11-06-2009, 11:08 AM
Meh it's fair enough, steamworks was and is a master-stroke by valve and other DD companies simply have 3 options they either to step up and compete, don't sell steamworks games, or accept it and move on. D2D and impulse are making there choices and as a result what was a very hyped game is now steam exclusive in DD and steam will get users from retail too. Ignoring the fact the mw2 has had a PR nightmare and isn't selling nearly as well on steam as every one thought it would because of that of course.

Simple fact is that it puts steam in a power place, other DD not taking the game is unlikely to have a big impact on the choice to use steamworks or not because for game makers it's good, worthwhile DRM that has a positive relationship with gamers at the moment.

All of which is to say D2D has made the right choice for them but it won't hurt steam in the lest. If i was D2D i wouldn't want to be pointing people towards steam... since at the moment it's clearly the vastly better DD platform.

If this is a good thing for us as consumers I don't know yet... I think so long as other DD services set up and find a way to compete with steamworks it will be better for every one but if they don't it could leave valve with almost a monopoly on DD sales and that's not a place we want to be even if valve is pretty much pure awesome.

ElektroDragon
11-06-2009, 11:19 AM
i used GFW for the first time on Tuesday while playing Fallout 3. Not too shabby.

Yes, but please differentiate between GFW and GFW Live. GFW is just a title and set of testing assurances. Basically MS WHQL for games. But GFW Live is the actual service. It was a mistake to make the two programs so close together in name, as it creates consumer confusion, which means the companies can exploit consumer ignorance to save cash on integration. Darn, I wish they'd hire me to lead GFW Live... I'd be their best evangelist ever, walking around with a huge plastic club, bopping devs on the head, and shouting "Wake up!".

Kojak
11-06-2009, 11:38 AM
Its getting a bit crazy how much news on Modern Warfare 2 is popping up around the place and how many big news announcements and none of them to do with the actual game its self. If all these crazy controversies don't stop soon the situation surrounding the game is going overshadow the damned game its self.

CappinCanuck
11-06-2009, 11:41 AM
This.

People are apparently giving Valve a pass on this because it's Valve, but I'm not sure I like the whole idea.

That's exactly what I was trying to explain before. Nobody's complaints have anything to do with the quality of Valve and Steam, but just the fact that it's steam only (even if I were to buy it from Impulse).

crazyD
11-06-2009, 11:54 AM
Yes, but please differentiate between GFW and GFW Live. GFW is just a title and set of testing assurances. Basically MS WHQL for games. But GFW Live is the actual service. It was a mistake to make the two programs so close together in name, as it creates consumer confusion, which means the companies can exploit consumer ignorance to save cash on integration. Darn, I wish they'd hire me to lead GFW Live... I'd be their best evangelist ever, walking around with a huge plastic club, bopping devs on the head, and shouting "Wake up!".

And I'd be following you around with a second plastic club, bopping you on the head, and shouting, "Gamers don't want to run an unnecessary and bloated background app while playing that is less convenient than Steam!"

You seem to be all about the achievements, which Steam offers as well.

Libuke
11-06-2009, 11:59 AM
These foolish companies should be making all their games Games for Windows - Live compatible, not Steamworks compatible. Then we would not only have automatic patching and authentication, but Achievements as well, and no Digital Download company would bat an eye. And they could still be available via Steam.

Oh yeah, and its FREE now for anyone to make a gamertag, play online, and earn achievements on the PC. If you're a 360 gamer, even better! Same gamertag, same score being updated. The only people who don't like this are the anti-Microsoft loons.

I commend the few comanies that have adopted GFW - Live, with recent notable releases like Red Faction, Resident Evil 5, Fuel, Fallout 3, etc. Still, too few companies are using GFW- Live, even when they release their game on 360 simultaneously. Does not compute! If more companies did, I would start playing PC games again.

Let's take a prime example. Mass Effect. Why is this not a GFW - Live title?? Does not make any sense. All they've done is cost themselves sales, so now it gets to sell for $9 on Steam just to move copies. And Dragon Age? Why is this not a GFW - Live title? Don't tell me it's because it lacks MP, because so does Fallout 3, and that was GFW - Live. Bioware and EA need to wake up. So does Infinity Ward, it seems. This developer would be almost an unknown if it weren't for their success on 360. Yet they adopt Steamworks over GFW - Live?!

I am not sure how being a non-GFW - Live is stopping people from buying a title, in fact after the GFW - Live crap I had to put up with to play Dawn of War II I have no desire to play any game that uses GFW - Live.

Steam also does everything GFW - Live does, Friends list, achievements, play online (I am not sure how GFW - Live enables this but you use it in your list of good things).

True I cannot integrate it with my 360 (if I had one) account and I do not get points for my achievements but I am not sure many people truly care about the points compared to the actual achievement. I am pretty confident if you asked any of the TF2 regulars they could care less for imaginary points.

A game with steamworks also lets you join your friends online game through the friend list by clicking join game. The same thing GFW - Live does. However steam does this with a much better interface and so to me and many other Steam is better the GFW - Live as it does everything it does but better.

More on topic, I definitely understand other DD outlets not wanting to sell stuff with steamworks as it gives Steam more face time and people might think why bother from (e.g impulse) when I have steam right here and have to use it for games anyways.

As a developer though steamworks looks good. It is free, intgrates your game with steam allowing a built in infrastructure for updating the game and also includes a server browser, achievements and I would not be surprised if it allows the tracking of data the valve likes to do for its games. (Going back to my point above) Much of this is stuff other services like GFW - Live do not offer.

Hawkzombie
11-06-2009, 12:04 PM
This.

People are apparently giving Valve a pass on this because it's Valve, but I'm not sure I like the whole idea.

When the alternative is GAMESPY, I'm gonna go with Steam. If Borderlands had forced it, I might've been able to play MP without jumping through fucking hoops to do so.

Narradisall
11-06-2009, 12:14 PM
I wonder if the roles were reversed if people would be so gentle.

I like Steam but I can see the issue here. It's hardly competative to advertise and promote your competition in your sales.

Capitalism it may be, but there are still rules which skirt a fine line between competition and anti-competative behaviour.

Narradisall
11-06-2009, 12:17 PM
When the alternative is GAMESPY, I'm gonna go with Steam. If Borderlands had forced it, I might've been able to play MP without jumping through fucking hoops to do so.

Hawk, what does the quality of the service provider have to do with it?

Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to be offered with the options and make a choice. If one digital distributor provides a better online service then they should go with them, rather than all the other distributors being forced to them regardless.

DoctorFinger
11-06-2009, 12:26 PM
This is also why so far relatively few developers have opted to go the full Steamworks route.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 12:41 PM
I wonder if the roles were reversed if people would be so gentle.

I like Steam but I can see the issue here. It's hardly competative to advertise and promote your competition in your sales.

Capitalism it may be, but there are still rules which skirt a fine line between competition and anti-competative behaviour.

Then they should offer a competing product like Steamworks. Capitalism, bitch.

CappinCanuck
11-06-2009, 12:41 PM
When the alternative is GAMESPY, I'm gonna go with Steam. If Borderlands had forced it, I might've been able to play MP without jumping through fucking hoops to do so.

The alternative isn't Gamespy. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Maybe I'm confused? Because people keep bringing up Gamespy and GFWL. I know D2D is Gamespy/Fileplanet etc, but they don't use Gamespy as a traditional client like Steam/Impulse.

You're a gamer, and you're on here, so you know what the difference is between the client and the online provider. Steam/Impulse/D2D are clients (D2D in a way), and Gamespy/GFWL are the online service providers/gateways. Each online provider is not exclusive to any client... they're kind of unrelated and dependent on what devs/publishers choose to use. We're talking about distribution clients.

Or am I not seeing something other people are?

roboninja
11-06-2009, 12:43 PM
Well, from the answers to my queries here, it is now obvious that I have not bought a PC game at retail in quite some time :)

I do see the issue here. Steamworks keeping a title I bought on Steam patched and ready is a godsend. However, requiring it to patch your copy of a game sold via other means strikes me as ridiculous. This is coming from someone that loves Steam.

tacitus
11-06-2009, 12:44 PM
I am sort of pissed by WM2 generally and I have chosen not to buy it.

But the thing that pisses me off most about digital distribution is buying shit on steam and then having to use another service for DLC - I'm looking at you Dragon Age/Bioware/EA. And another example is to buying stuff on impulse and having to buy DLC off of steam.

One of my complaints about steam is their store - tends not to mention if you need to plug into someone else's servers when you buy things or just to be activated

I personally avoid GFWL because of bad support (I had trouble with street fighter iv and got really bad advice from microsoft's site) and clunkiness. GFWL is why I bought the FO3 GOTW edition instead of buying the DLC through GFWL. Now its possible its improved - but when I have GFWL problem and end up on the xbox-live site something is seriously wrong. I have avoided DoW because of GFWL.

Narradisall
11-06-2009, 12:45 PM
Then they should offer a competing product like Steamworks. Capitalism, bitch.

This made me lol, but yea, I can see your point.

Still I do think the logic behind it is odd, instead of selling units and losing DLC sales to the competitor (plus directing people who live under a cave that Steam exists), they decide not to sell the game at all and lose all the sales.

I'm sure there is a brilliant capitalistic plan in their somewhere.

Hawkzombie
11-06-2009, 12:46 PM
Hawk, what does the quality of the service provider have to do with it?

Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to be offered with the options and make a choice. If one digital distributor provides a better online service then they should go with them, rather than all the other distributors being forced to them regardless.

Thing is, we're usually never given a choice. It's always LAN or their form of MP, be it Steam, Gamespy, Dedicated servers, etc. I could care less the delivery method. If it's cheaper on D2D I buy there. If it's on Steam for the same price or cheaper, I buy there. Forcing someone to use Steam for the MP aspects isn't forcing them to buy with Steam. I think that's where people are getting hung up.

It's like saying adding MP through Gamespy exclusively is trying to force me to buy their premium service simply because I just installed it on my computer. Or even IMPLYING I'll buy it because it's there. For Borderlands, there is NO choice either. I HAVE to use Gamespy. Had I known that, I would not have bought it on the PC.

It's merely a single method of giving ONE aspect of gameplay. And hey, it's the digital distributors decision not to sell the game. I doubt Activision even cares, or Steam who's holding the only digital copy it seems. They'll both be laughing to the bank. Instead of trying to broker a deal with Activision, they're pulling the 'Well, I'm just not gonna sell it! Ha!' which seems to be even MORE anti-competitive than simply including Steam. I had steam on my system for about a year before I even began to look at what I could buy from them.

It's a shitty game IMO anyway, so I'm not gonna buy it either way :p...I just think people are being stupid about it.

EDIT: Seems I may be mistaken for how far reaching Steam is for matchmaking and MP :p....Ive been blinded by my utter hatred of Gamespy and the total shit Borderlands for the PC has been.

I still think people are blowing it out of proportion lol

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 01:07 PM
This made me lol, but yea, I can see your point.

Still I do think the logic behind it is odd, instead of selling units and losing DLC sales to the competitor (plus directing people who live under a cave that Steam exists), they decide not to sell the game at all and lose all the sales.

I'm sure there is a brilliant capitalistic plan in their somewhere.

I believe the unified front is to show Activision that their choice of Steamworks going forward won't be tolerated. They want to put pressure on Activision and get them to use a more open solution for MP/DRM/whatever rather than automatically directing all PC fans to Valve's store.

Keep in mind that although most of us love Steam, D2D or Gamersgate is the preferred DD store in other territories because of the regional pricing.

CappinCanuck
11-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Keep in mind that although most of us love Steam, D2D or Gamersgate is the preferred DD store in other territories because of the regional pricing.

Good point. I didn't think of that.

ElektroDragon
11-06-2009, 02:01 PM
And I'd be following you around with a second plastic club, bopping you on the head, and shouting, "Gamers don't want to run an unnecessary and bloated background app while playing that is less convenient than Steam!"

You seem to be all about the achievements, which Steam offers as well.

Please, is this 1995? We don't need to worry about bloated background apps messing up our games anymore. And need I remind you that Steam is also a background app?

Right now I have both Steam and GFW Live running. Task Manager is reporting GFWL using 65MB and Steam using 46MB. GFWL is using 1% of one CPU core, Steam is using 0%. Yeah, bloatware.... right. They're basically the same thing.

As for achievements, the Steam ones don't pad my universal gamerscore. GFWL ones do. :D

ElektroDragon
11-06-2009, 02:10 PM
As a developer though steamworks looks good. It is free, intgrates your game with steam allowing a built in infrastructure for updating the game and also includes a server browser, achievements and I would not be surprised if it allows the tracking of data the valve likes to do for its games. (Going back to my point above) Much of this is stuff other services like GFW - Live do not offer.

Baloney, GFW - Live offers all of the above. Games can be written to allow you to select a server or game session to join, it's not just matchmaking.

You really should try GFW - Live again, it's been improved quite a bit in the past year. In my ideal world, ALL PC games would be GFW - Live, and delivered via either retail store or Steam. There's no reason at all that GFW Live and Steam can't coexist. In fact they already do for the GFW Live titles on Steam, like Fallout 3, Red Faction, etc. If nothing else, you should be supporting it because it gets former PC to 360 converts like myself to GET BACK TO PC GAMING once in a while (which I think was Microsoft's original intent, to get people back to PC gaming as well and spur Windows sales). That helps the PC game industry. Or do you LIKE how the PC game space is now dominated by MMOs and casual games, and gets less and less store shelf space every year?

crazyD
11-06-2009, 02:10 PM
Steam is the superior product. They have an integrated store front with excellent matchmaking and friend support. I really don't see how Valve is in the wrong with any of this. This isn't a matter of Valve being anti-competitive, it is Valve having a better product, and everyone else failing to compete. I don't see how any consumer would be on the sides of the other distributers. If they want to create competition to Steamworks and include it in their system, better luck to them. Taking themselves out of the competition doesn't mean that Valve is anti-competition.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 02:12 PM
Baloney, GFW - Live offers all of the above. Games can be written to allow you to select a server or game session to join, it's not just matchmaking.

You really should try GFW - Live again, it's been improved quite a bit in the past year. In my ideal world, ALL PC games would be GFW - Live, and delivered via either retail store or Steam. There's no reason at all that GFW Live and Steam can't coexist. In fact they already do for the GFW Live titles on Steam, like Fallout 3, Red Faction, etc. If nothing else, you should be supporting it because it gets former PC to 360 converts like myself to GET BACK TO PC GAMING once in a while (which I think was Microsoft's original intent, to get people back to PC gaming as well and spur Windows sales). That helps the PC game industry. Or do you LIKE how the PC game space is now dominated by MMOs and casual games, and gets less and less store shelf space every year?

What does GFWL offer that Steam does not? Integrated gamerscore with the 360 is just about it, and I don't see that converting a ton of people. Steam does a lot more than GFWL, so why is it so superior?

Sl1pstream
11-06-2009, 02:14 PM
so steam is going to make a lot more money? who the fuck cares, or did i miss the point of the article. still i stand by my comment. good for steam to make more money.

What the fuck?

It's about D2D, who are competing with Steam, a service that's forced onto your computer when you buy the game. Every time you open up Steam, the storefront comes up. Not only have you missed the point of the article, it doesn't even look like you actually read the article.

I mean, I like Steam, but I also like a little competition.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 02:33 PM
Steam is the superior product. They have an integrated store front with excellent matchmaking and friend support. I really don't see how Valve is in the wrong with any of this. This isn't a matter of Valve being anti-competitive, it is Valve having a better product, and everyone else failing to compete. I don't see how any consumer would be on the sides of the other distributers. If they want to create competition to Steamworks and include it in their system, better luck to them. Taking themselves out of the competition doesn't mean that Valve is anti-competition.

:confused:

Having a "better product" is a non-issue here. The issue is that when you buy a game that uses Steamworks you are also installing Valve's storefront. That's what the other services are complaining about. People who buy from DD services have already demonstrated that they are comfortable shopping online and dealing with whatever DRM comes with the software. If they get Steam installed with MW2, then the likelihood of them using that storefront goes up quite a bit if it always pops up when they start that game. The more games they buy through Steam, the more likely they are to continue using it for future purchases.

Contrast that with D2D, Gamersgate, or Impulse's GOO which does not install a digital storefront. (Full Impulse does come with Stardock's own games, but they aren't sold through the other partners anyway.) They happily compete and cooperate because none of them are snatching future sales away by installing an exclusive storefront.

H.Bogard
11-06-2009, 02:37 PM
GFWL integration is major suckage. There's no fucking chat option! Lekon and I were emailing back and forth during DoWII games a long time back, I remember.

Steam has the basic needs nailed down, more so than anyone.

Sl1pstream
11-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Also, every time I see someone use the word "fanboy" in some future thread, I'm going to link to this one.

Libuke
11-06-2009, 02:56 PM
Baloney, GFW - Live offers all of the above. Games can be written to allow you to select a server or game session to join, it's not just matchmaking.

You really should try GFW - Live again, it's been improved quite a bit in the past year. In my ideal world, ALL PC games would be GFW - Live, and delivered via either retail store or Steam. There's no reason at all that GFW Live and Steam can't coexist. In fact they already do for the GFW Live titles on Steam, like Fallout 3, Red Faction, etc. If nothing else, you should be supporting it because it gets former PC to 360 converts like myself to GET BACK TO PC GAMING once in a while (which I think was Microsoft's original intent, to get people back to PC gaming as well and spur Windows sales). That helps the PC game industry. Or do you LIKE how the PC game space is now dominated by MMOs and casual games, and gets less and less store shelf space every year?

I am sorry but I cannot see anything the GFWL does that steam doesn't already do bit better and before GFWL was produced.

Also how does it convert people from console gaming. Why would a game with it make you more willing to buy it over another game? I bought Dragon Age but it has neither steam works or live (but I can still use just about every steam feature well playing it) but you would not buy it because it does not have GFWL? I realize you probably have a 360 and/or PS3 but I do not. Or as you brought up why does Mass Effect without GFWL de-value it?


Related to your earlier post:

As for Mass Effect being on sale, it seems everyone wants their games being a weekend deal on steam, from reports it sounds like the profits made from most weekend deals is ridiculously high so why not put Mass Effect one on sale just when they are announcing Mass Effect 2 stuff and everyone is talking about the series. They are probably going to make a lot of sales and money on this weekend. In fact several people in the Steam weekend deal thread said they are buying it again after already owning it when it original came out for the 360. I bet they will not miss the lack of GFWL one bit.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 03:21 PM
:confused:

Having a "better product" is a non-issue here. The issue is that when you buy a game that uses Steamworks you are also installing Valve's storefront. That's what the other services are complaining about. People who buy from DD services have already demonstrated that they are comfortable shopping online and dealing with whatever DRM comes with the software. If they get Steam installed with MW2, then the likelihood of them using that storefront goes up quite a bit if it always pops up when they start that game. The more games they buy through Steam, the more likely they are to continue using it for future purchases.

Contrast that with D2D, Gamersgate, or Impulse's GOO which does not install a digital storefront. (Full Impulse does come with Stardock's own games, but they aren't sold through the other partners anyway.) They happily compete and cooperate because none of them are snatching future sales away by installing an exclusive storefront.

If they want to compete, they can add their own Steamworks-esque functionality. As such, they are choosing not to, and I don't see how that is Valve's fault.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 03:31 PM
If they want to compete, they can add their own Steamworks-esque functionality. As such, they are choosing not to, and I don't see how that is Valve's fault.

They don't care about Steamworks matchmaking, DRM, chat, friends, or any of the other admittedly great stuff that it comes with. They care about the store being tied into it. They care that their competition is being bundled with the software.

Let's try this example. Do you think people would cry fair or foul if every copy of Windows 7 came with an integrated software store? Think hard about this. Europe has already partially answered this for you.

Deimos
11-06-2009, 04:03 PM
This thread is ridiculous. The issue is simple. It isn't about Steam's feature-set. It sure as hell isn't about GFWL vs Steam. It is the simple fact that D2D and probably most other digital distributors don't want to advertise for a rival company. Does Target want to sell a product that directs customer's towards Walmart? Hell no! It's that simple. If Steam separated it's services from it's storefront there wouldn't be anything to discuss here.

Out of all games this affects, it's probably best for D2D to take a stand on this game since I think most PC users don't want to pick up this game anymore anyways.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 04:30 PM
They don't care about Steamworks matchmaking, DRM, chat, friends, or any of the other admittedly great stuff that it comes with. They care about the store being tied into it. They care that their competition is being bundled with the software.

Let's try this example. Do you think people would cry fair or foul if every copy of Windows 7 came with an integrated software store? Think hard about this. Europe has already partially answered this for you.

They aren't competing on equal ground, oh well. Valve is doing nothing to prevent them from going down this road if they want to. Instead, they are making an anti consumer decision to not sell the game. I can see their perspective on this, I just don't see why consumers who could be potentially hurt by their decision are talking in their favor.

H.Bogard
11-06-2009, 04:39 PM
This thread is ridiculous. The issue is simple. It isn't about Steam's feature-set. It sure as hell isn't about GFWL vs Steam. It is the simple fact that D2D and probably most other digital distributors don't want to advertise for a rival company. Does Target want to sell a product that directs customer's towards Walmart? Hell no! It's that simple. If Steam separated it's services from it's storefront there wouldn't be anything to discuss here.

Out of all games this affects, it's probably best for D2D to take a stand on this game since I think most PC users don't want to pick up this game anymore anyways.

I guess Target should put out roadblocks if the one they're in front of leads to a Walmart somewhere.

Telefrog
11-06-2009, 05:07 PM
They aren't competing on equal ground, oh well. Valve is doing nothing to prevent them from going down this road if they want to. Instead, they are making an anti consumer decision to not sell the game. I can see their perspective on this, I just don't see why consumers who could be potentially hurt by their decision are talking in their favor.

Awesome. I take it by your lack of response that you would be okay with Microsoft bundling a software store on the desktop of their OS.

Your idea of what hurts a consumer is incredibly short-sighted. You fail to see the big picture here. The fact that these DD services are refusing to carry MW2 is a tiny offense to the consumer compared to letting Steam outright become the monopoly service and store for PC games. I like competition. I like the savings it brings.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 05:10 PM
This thread is ridiculous. The issue is simple. It isn't about Steam's feature-set. It sure as hell isn't about GFWL vs Steam. It is the simple fact that D2D and probably most other digital distributors don't want to advertise for a rival company. Does Target want to sell a product that directs customer's towards Walmart? Hell no! It's that simple. If Steam separated it's services from it's storefront there wouldn't be anything to discuss here.

Out of all games this affects, it's probably best for D2D to take a stand on this game since I think most PC users don't want to pick up this game anymore anyways.

Why would Steam want to do this? Now they get all the DD sales, and I'm sure a big part of the reason that Steamworks is free is because they get to display their market. Instead of saying Valve should neuter their services, I say the competitors should beef up theirs.

Sl1pstream
11-06-2009, 05:13 PM
I guess Target should put out roadblocks if the one they're in front of leads to a Walmart somewhere.

No, but computer store A wouldn't use computer store B's website as the homepage on their laptop display models either.

Widgetcraft
11-06-2009, 05:45 PM
I don't know if they've cleaned up their act, but last I checked, D2D was a terrible service. If they worked harder on putting together a proper service, maybe the shoe would be on the other foot?

Sl1pstream
11-06-2009, 05:53 PM
I've used them for Champions Online without any problems.

Serapth
11-06-2009, 06:21 PM
Why would Steam want to do this? Now they get all the DD sales, and I'm sure a big part of the reason that Steamworks is free is because they get to display their market. Instead of saying Valve should neuter their services, I say the competitors should beef up theirs.

I think you are missing the point of the boycott. They arent targeting consumers, as many people said, more people will just buy it on Steam. No, they are targeting developers/2nd tier publishers, saying "You integrate Steam, you can kiss publishing on our servers goodbye".


Frankly I don't blame them. As an analogy, if a game came with a 10$ target giftcard, if I was Walmart I would tell the publisher to shove it up their ass.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 06:31 PM
I think you are missing the point of the boycott. They arent targeting consumers, as many people said, more people will just buy it on Steam. No, they are targeting developers/2nd tier publishers, saying "You integrate Steam, you can kiss publishing on our servers goodbye".


Frankly I don't blame them. As an analogy, if a game came with a 10$ target giftcard, if I was Walmart I would tell the publisher to shove it up their ass.

But this doesn't really compare with Target / Walmart. This is just a matter of technology that the competitors don't have. They can cry and bitch and boycott, but what they should be doing is getting their shit in gear and setting up an alternative.

Serapth
11-06-2009, 06:39 PM
But this doesn't really compare with Target / Walmart. This is just a matter of technology that the competitors don't have. They can cry and bitch and boycott, but what they should be doing is getting their shit in gear and setting up an alternative.

If Steams online store wasn't integrated in the software, I would agree with you.

But it is and I don't.

crazyD
11-06-2009, 06:41 PM
If Steams online store wasn't integrated in the software, I would agree with you.

But it is and I don't.

Again though, that's Steam's business strategy. If D2D wants to compete, better luck to them. There is nothing stopping them from integrating more functions. They are choosing to boycott instead of innovate, so fuck them.

Hotcod
11-06-2009, 07:34 PM
Let's try this example. Do you think people would cry fair or foul if every copy of Windows 7 came with an integrated software store? Think hard about this. Europe has already partially answered this for you.

I'm afraid that is not the same thing at all, the reason microsoft got bitch slapped over here is because windows is a ubiquitous OS on the PC and it's not fair for Microsoft to leverage that for creating market share for it's other products like IE. Which is why they'd get bitchslapped for putting a store front in it.... They would not, how ever, get kicked for turning the GFWL in a full on DD service, unless they made GFWL be pre-installed on window 7.

If Steams online store wasn't integrated in the software, I would agree with you.

But it is and I don't.

What the hell difference does that make? You are still using a steam client which is used to download steam games, having the store front on a web page instead of in a tab there does nothing to lessen the negative impact on D2D... So long as steamworks is in anyway tied to the steam DD platform then D2D won't sell games using it, store front or not.

Given that it's steamworks interaction with the other aspects of steams DD platform that makes it work then separating them is not going to work. And the other DD companies are free to do exactly the same thing if they wanted to... they've just made a choice not to.

So they are trying to make publishers think twice about using steamworks as a popular DRM system... which is a fair enough tactic on there part.

Crowe
11-06-2009, 08:35 PM
If these companies don't want to be squeezed out then they need to get creative, just like any other fucking business out there. D2D and Impulse are still selling products, if they don't want to left in the dust by their competitor then they need to do something about it.

Valve put in the hard work and it's paying off, they created an excellent server, nothing more awesome than logging into steam and doing everything I need too right from their browser, including browsing what they have for sale. Boycotting and crying makes you feel better sure, but it probably won't do any good.

Chimpbot
11-06-2009, 09:41 PM
What the hell difference does that make? You are still using a steam client which is used to download steam games, having the store front on a web page instead of in a tab there does nothing to lessen the negative impact on D2D... So long as steamworks is in anyway tied to the steam DD platform then D2D won't sell games using it, store front or not.

D2D sells Dawn of War 2, F.E.A.R. 2, Empire Total War, Zeno Clash and a handful of other games that come bundled with Steam. They're just making a stand now...for some reason.

Cit Phil Cit
11-06-2009, 10:16 PM
D2D sells Dawn of War 2, F.E.A.R. 2, Empire Total War, Zeno Clash and a handful of other games that come bundled with Steam. They're just making a stand now...for some reason.

They are making a stand because they have nothing to lose. Anyone who was interested in MW2 and pre-ordered on a DD site have most likely canceled.

I'm sure the three dozen people who had their pre-orders still are very upset: assuming they aren't dead or forget they did it. Very upset, almost, except for getting their money back.

Hotcod
11-06-2009, 11:26 PM
D2D sells Dawn of War 2, F.E.A.R. 2, Empire Total War, Zeno Clash and a handful of other games that come bundled with Steam. They're just making a stand now...for some reason.

because before MW2 commented suicide in the PC market place it was going to be huge. If activishion see's that steamworks worked well for such a huge title then we'd likely start seeing a hell of a lot more of it in there games.

If a MAJOR publishers gets on side with steamworks then D2D and the like have a very hard choice to make that is pretty much lose lose lose... don't sell the game, lose sales... do sell the game, point users to steam... develop something to compete with steam works, requires massive investment and may fail...

No matter what they do it will hurt them but that's just how business works... if all this is good or bad for us as a consumer, well, we'll have to wait and see

muddi900
11-07-2009, 05:05 AM
This thread is ridiculous. The issue is simple. It isn't about Steam's feature-set. It sure as hell isn't about GFWL vs Steam. It is the simple fact that D2D and probably most other digital distributors don't want to advertise for a rival company. Does Target want to sell a product that directs customer's towards Walmart? Hell no! It's that simple. If Steam separated it's services from it's storefront there wouldn't be anything to discuss here.

Out of all games this affects, it's probably best for D2D to take a stand on this game since I think most PC users don't want to pick up this game anymore anyways.

Oh I know that's clearly the reason. But it isn't the reason stated.

Again though, that's Steam's business strategy. If D2D wants to compete, better luck to them. There is nothing stopping them from integrating more functions. They are choosing to boycott instead of innovate, so fuck them.

Its not an innovation. Its sleazy and monopolistic. Apple did the same thing with their itunes DRM and tying it to ipod. Yes, we all love how Steam works at our end, but the reason other companies aren't "innovating" because they have no problems with their competitions. They want competition, so the industry could grow. A monopoly is never good for the consumer in the long run.

crazyD
11-07-2009, 11:18 AM
Yes, we all love how Steam works at our end, but the reason other companies aren't "innovating" because they have no problems with their competitions. They want competition, so the industry could grow. A monopoly is never good for the consumer in the long run.

The other companies are choosing not to compete. They could try to compete with Steamworks, they are not. This isn't a matter of Steam being anti-competitive, it is a matter of the competitors falling behind and being left in the dust.

muddi900
11-07-2009, 11:27 AM
The other companies are choosing not to compete. They could try to compete with Steamworks, they are not. This isn't a matter of Steam being anti-competitive, it is a matter of the competitors falling behind and being left in the dust.

They are not, they provide the same services on the consumer level as Steam. Some of them have a better DRM system than Steam. None of them require to install any additional software. There is nothing "innovative" about steamworks, its just a DRM scheme. It does not give me, as a consumer, anything other than the privilege of running steam while I play my game. Since, IW is running their own matchmaking service, I doubt it'll be compatible with Steam friend list.

How do other companies lag behind? Are you saying they should be more monopolistic in their practices?

Arphahat
11-07-2009, 12:39 PM
They are not, they provide the same services on the consumer level as Steam. Some of them have a better DRM system than Steam. None of them require to install any additional software. There is nothing "innovative" about steamworks, its just a DRM scheme. It does not give me, as a consumer, anything other than the privilege of running steam while I play my game. Since, IW is running their own matchmaking service, I doubt it'll be compatible with Steam friend list.

How do other companies lag behind? Are you saying they should be more monopolistic in their practices?

Achievements. People friggin' love achievements. Steam has 'em and the others don't.

Also, Steam's matchmaking and friends list makes starting games and finding matches with friends trivial. I think you are really overlooking the pure awesome that is Steam.

MagGnome
11-07-2009, 07:37 PM
I love both Steam and Impulse, and I'm glad that such competition exists in the PC gaming space. I think it's a little silly to treat D2D as some sort of under dog when they are owned by Newscorp, one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

That said, I think having to install any third party software to run a game is obnoxious and unnecessary. Running GFWL to play any game should not be required, and I've avoided buying some games because of it. I also don't think that I should have to run Steam to play a game I bought on Impulse, or vice versa. Each service can handle patching just fine. The same goes with having to buy DLC on GFWL. All of these things should be optional, so that I can chose which programs that I want to run. One of the benefits of PC gaming is that it generally offers more choices and freedom to the gamer. Requiring me to run something like GFWL to play a game takes away that choice.

I have chosen to buy several games over Steam because I like what the service offers. I made that choice, but again if it were foisted upon me I would take issue with that.

muddi900
11-08-2009, 02:40 AM
Achievements. People friggin' love achievements. Steam has 'em and the others don't.

Also, Steam's matchmaking and friends list makes starting games and finding matches with friends trivial. I think you are really overlooking the pure awesome that is Steam.

Again, MW2 is using IWnet, their own service for matchmaking, not Steam's.

crazyD
11-08-2009, 04:04 AM
I love both Steam and Impulse, and I'm glad that such competition exists in the PC gaming space. I think it's a little silly to treat D2D as some sort of under dog when they are owned by Newscorp, one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

That said, I think having to install any third party software to run a game is obnoxious and unnecessary. Running GFWL to play any game should not be required, and I've avoided buying some games because of it. I also don't think that I should have to run Steam to play a game I bought on Impulse, or vice versa. Each service can handle patching just fine. The same goes with having to buy DLC on GFWL. All of these things should be optional, so that I can chose which programs that I want to run. One of the benefits of PC gaming is that it generally offers more choices and freedom to the gamer. Requiring me to run something like GFWL to play a game takes away that choice.

I have chosen to buy several games over Steam because I like what the service offers. I made that choice, but again if it were foisted upon me I would take issue with that.

Then make your decision, and don't buy games that use Steamworks. I think it is an awesome suite that enhances my game play, and will continue to support it until something better comes along.

MagGnome
11-08-2009, 10:03 AM
Then make your decision, and don't buy games that use Steamworks. I think it is an awesome suite that enhances my game play, and will continue to support it until something better comes along.

I like it too. In my post I said that I buy games on Steam because I like the service it provides. :p

muddi900
11-08-2009, 11:39 AM
I like it too. In my post I said that I buy games on Steam because I like the service it provides. :p

Here too. But this issue has nothing to do with consumers. No company ever likes to advertise for their competition, so this move really makes sense, but some people have problem seeing without their fanboy goggles.

MagGnome
11-08-2009, 01:53 PM
Here too. But this issue has nothing to do with consumers. No company ever likes to advertise for their competition, so this move really makes sense, but some people have problem seeing without their fanboy goggles.

Exactly. I completely understand where the other DD companies are coming from, as it really isn't fair for either them or consumers to be forced into a particular DD outlet if they don't want to be. Hence my dislike for GFWL - if it was optional then I wouldn't mind it so much, but I hate having to install it just to play certain games when I don't see the point of having it on my computer whatsoever.

crazyD
11-09-2009, 11:00 AM
Here too. But this issue has nothing to do with consumers. No company ever likes to advertise for their competition, so this move really makes sense, but some people have problem seeing without their fanboy goggles.

Bullshit. It's not a fanboy issue at all. D2D is bitching because they do not have a competitive feature. If they wanted, they could create something like steamworks, and get their own storefront included. Or they could innovate and make something better. Or they could boycott and bitch. They chose the latter, so fuck them. Bottom line is, Steam has functions their systems don't, and they would rather cry about it than catch up.

tacitus
11-09-2009, 11:18 AM
Interesting article on gamasutra: ESD Publishers Boycott Valve’s Steam Service. Seriously?
(http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DerekSmart/20091108/3503/ESD_Publishers_Boycott_Valves_Steam_Service_Seriou sly.php)
Read the whole thing - lots of steam and other DD details I did not realize.

Sl1pstream
11-09-2009, 12:07 PM
Bullshit. It's not a fanboy issue at all. D2D is bitching because they do not have a competitive feature. If they wanted, they could create something like steamworks, and get their own storefront included. Or they could innovate and make something better. Or they could boycott and bitch. They chose the latter, so fuck them. Bottom line is, Steam has functions their systems don't, and they would rather cry about it than catch up.

It is a fanboy issue. The reason they're refusing to sell a game with Steam integration isn't because of the friendslist or the integrated voice chat. If they wanted to offer that to their customers, they would've done that a long time ago. They're a download service, not a social networking tool. When those same customers download a game with Steam integration the first thing they see is the Steam storefront, followed by their updates, which also include links to games they sell.

I like D2D because they don't require me to install extra crap. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one.

Goronmon
11-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Bullshit. It's not a fanboy issue at all.It kind of is though. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't like this if you had to download, say, an EA storefront or a Best Buy storefront because of a DRM system that one of the companies developed.

I like Valve, I like their games and I like Steam. I just don't want it to be the only choice for digital distribution of games.

crazyD
11-09-2009, 12:40 PM
It kind of is though. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't like this if you had to download, say, an EA storefront or a Best Buy storefront because of a DRM system that one of the companies developed.

I like Valve, I like their games and I like Steam. I just don't want it to be the only choice for digital distribution of games.

If EA or Best Buy had as good an integration as Steam, I wouldn't mind. In any case, it's not a matter of what I prefer. Valve offers what others don't, and Valve shouldn't have to stop because others can't keep up. If the D2D wants to give sales to Valve, so be it, but that is all they are doing.

CappinCanuck
11-09-2009, 04:10 PM
If EA or Best Buy had as good an integration as Steam, I wouldn't mind. In any case, it's not a matter of what I prefer. Valve offers what others don't, and Valve shouldn't have to stop because others can't keep up. If the D2D wants to give sales to Valve, so be it, but that is all they are doing.

All my steam games, integrated or not-integrated, have the same features. I don't care about the corporations, Valve, Stardock, any others, or their motivations. My primary concern here is focused on consumers and myself. I sure as hell don't think that their motives are consumer-based, they're concerned for themselves. I'm concerned about myself and in that regard, being tied down to one service with no additional benefits is not a positive.

Then make your decision, and don't buy games that use Steamworks. I think it is an awesome suite that enhances my game play, and will continue to support it until something better comes along.

Ok, maybe I'm wrong. What does a Steam integrated game do that a game you make a choice to buy on Steam doesn't? There's a definite possibility that I'm just misinformed. I haven't seen any difference, so having multiple stores to buy from, and a choice, is good in my books because it drives down prices. As far as my concern goes, having it only on Steam ensures that they can keep their prices high for the original product and future content, and I don't like that one bit.

Ondo
11-09-2009, 04:11 PM
Interesting article on gamasutra: ESD Publishers Boycott Valve’s Steam Service. Seriously?
(http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DerekSmart/20091108/3503/ESD_Publishers_Boycott_Valves_Steam_Service_Seriou sly.php)
Read the whole thing - lots of steam and other DD details I did not realize.
It is interesting, but it's a post on Derek Smart's blog on Gamasutra - that's not what I think of when I hear "article on Gamasutra".

crazyD
11-09-2009, 04:51 PM
All my steam games, integrated or not-integrated, have the same features. I don't care about the corporations, Valve, Stardock, any others, or their motivations. My primary concern here is focused on consumers and myself. I sure as hell don't think that their motives are consumer-based, they're concerned for themselves. I'm concerned about myself and in that regard, being tied down to one service with no additional benefits is not a positive.

No one's concerns are consumer based, especially the companies boycotting.

Ok, maybe I'm wrong. What does a Steam integrated game do that a game you make a choice to buy on Steam doesn't? There's a definite possibility that I'm just misinformed. I haven't seen any difference, so having multiple stores to buy from, and a choice, is good in my books because it drives down prices. As far as my concern goes, having it only on Steam ensures that they can keep their prices high for the original product and future content, and I don't like that one bit.

Exactly why this boycott is anti-consumer, and why I'm surprised people in here are speaking up for it.

Serapth
11-09-2009, 05:36 PM
If EA or Best Buy had as good an integration as Steam, I wouldn't mind.

If this was EA people would be screaming from the rooftops. That Valve has fostered such geek cred that their DRM system has fanboys speaks loudly towards Valves success.

crazyD
11-09-2009, 06:12 PM
If this was EA people would be screaming from the rooftops. That Valve has fostered such geek cred that their DRM system has fanboys speaks loudly towards Valves success.

Because their DRM is wrapped in a tool that makes gamers have a better experience. If EA had a service that was better, I personally wouldn't mind.

MagGnome
11-09-2009, 07:18 PM
If this was EA people would be screaming from the rooftops. That Valve has fostered such geek cred that their DRM system has fanboys speaks loudly towards Valves success.

EA is also a very large, powerful publisher and developer, whereas Valve is still a very small company. Are they bigger than they were 10 years ago? Of course they are, but they are nowhere near as big as EA and they certainly have pulled the kind of shenanigans that EA has in the past.

Karmakin
11-09-2009, 07:22 PM
It's also a trust thing. People at this point more or less trust Valve, where they wouldn't trust EA or Best Buy or whatever.

CappinCanuck
11-09-2009, 08:44 PM
No one's concerns are consumer based, especially the companies boycotting.



Exactly why this boycott is anti-consumer, and why I'm surprised people in here are speaking up for it.

No, they aren't concerned about it, but we should be. That's why I am in favour of the boycott. That was my point.

I see what you're getting at now though. The boycott isn't anti-consumer though. Yes, it is limiting the choice of DD to Steam for this game. But they're doing in hopes that it won't happen again. Regardless of their intentions, more money for them I'm sure, if we're interested in consumer choice, this will be a good thing. Tying steam into games is BAD. Steam is good, but making games that only worth with Steam is bad. That's what the boycott is trying to stop, that's why the boycott is a good thing and worth supporting.

You can judge Stardock and D2D and whoever else however you want. Nobody here is saying they're altruistic. We know they're after money, but they want the same result that a pro-consumer position wants. I support the boycott so I don't get more DoW2s or MW2s that can only be used through Steam. I bought DoW2 through Steam, I would have bought MW2 through Steam most likely. Or maybe not, it would have depended on price.

I'm not getting my COD:MW2 at 20% less, like I would have, because Stardock decided not to sell it; I'm not getting it because IW, or Acti, decided that even if I bought it on Impulse, I would have to use Steam. Because, even if they did sell it, this would just mean that next time the same thing would happen, and again, and again. I'm glad they're taking a stand, to protect their profits, so I can choose next time to protect my income from monopolistic greed. Hopefully... this assumes the boycott works so they stop the practice.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 11:33 AM
No, they aren't concerned about it, but we should be. That's why I am in favour of the boycott. That was my point.

I see what you're getting at now though. The boycott isn't anti-consumer though. Yes, it is limiting the choice of DD to Steam for this game. But they're doing in hopes that it won't happen again. Regardless of their intentions, more money for them I'm sure, if we're interested in consumer choice, this will be a good thing. Tying steam into games is BAD. Steam is good, but making games that only worth with Steam is bad. That's what the boycott is trying to stop, that's why the boycott is a good thing and worth supporting.

You can judge Stardock and D2D and whoever else however you want. Nobody here is saying they're altruistic. We know they're after money, but they want the same result that a pro-consumer position wants. I support the boycott so I don't get more DoW2s or MW2s that can only be used through Steam. I bought DoW2 through Steam, I would have bought MW2 through Steam most likely. Or maybe not, it would have depended on price.

I'm not getting my COD:MW2 at 20% less, like I would have, because Stardock decided not to sell it; I'm not getting it because IW, or Acti, decided that even if I bought it on Impulse, I would have to use Steam. Because, even if they did sell it, this would just mean that next time the same thing would happen, and again, and again. I'm glad they're taking a stand, to protect their profits, so I can choose next time to protect my income from monopolistic greed. Hopefully... this assumes the boycott works so they stop the practice.

It's not like they can't sell the game with Steamworks included. I guess we are just looking at this in different ways. Valve gives Steamworks away for free because it directs people to their store. I don't see this as anti-competitive in any way, as anyone else could do the same if they chose to. I see the boycott as anti-innovation, and, by forcing everyone to buy through Steam, anti-consumer.

CappinCanuck
11-10-2009, 12:40 PM
It's not like they can't sell the game with Steamworks included. I guess we are just looking at this in different ways. Valve gives Steamworks away for free because it directs people to their store. I don't see this as anti-competitive in any way, as anyone else could do the same if they chose to. I see the boycott as anti-innovation, and, by forcing everyone to buy through Steam, anti-consumer.

It's not anti-innovation though, it's anti-consumer, because of the inclusion of Steamworks into the game. If everyone did this "innovation," it would mean that each game would have a particular client it ran on rather than giving you the choice. Certain games would only run on Steam and certain ones on Impulse, or whatever. That's bad for us, the consumers. Don't hard code the client choice into the game, we're golden. Plus this move isn't in the least innovative. It doesn't actually change anything, it's simply a business move to grab the monies. It doesn't actually change anything with Steam or how we use Steam, that's why I pointed out that all my Steam games vs Steamworks games do nothing different from eachother. There is no innovation in it.

The boycott is not anti-consumer because of the following. It is not simply boycotting all steamworks games forever, forcing us to buy from only one retailer. It is trying to stop developers from producing steam-integrated games in the future. If the boycott works, it will make it so that no other titles will need to be boycotted and therefore it really doesn't limit our choice. However, it does for MW2. But if you are concerned for consumers, and yourself, beyond this single title, it would be beneficial to support the boycott.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 01:01 PM
It's not anti-innovation though, it's anti-consumer, because of the inclusion of Steamworks into the game. If everyone did this "innovation," it would mean that each game would have a particular client it ran on rather than giving you the choice. Certain games would only run on Steam and certain ones on Impulse, or whatever. That's bad for us, the consumers. Don't hard code the client choice into the game, we're golden. Plus this move isn't in the least innovative. It doesn't actually change anything, it's simply a business move to grab the monies. It doesn't actually change anything with Steam or how we use Steam, that's why I pointed out that all my Steam games vs Steamworks games do nothing different from eachother. There is no innovation in it.

The boycott is not anti-consumer because of the following. It is not simply boycotting all steamworks games forever, forcing us to buy from only one retailer. It is trying to stop developers from producing steam-integrated games in the future. If the boycott works, it will make it so that no other titles will need to be boycotted and therefore it really doesn't limit our choice. However, it does for MW2. But if you are concerned for consumers, and yourself, beyond this single title, it would be beneficial to support the boycott.

If you check out the article tacitus posted (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DerekSmart/20091108/3503/ESD_Publishers_Boycott_Valves_Steam_Service_Seriou sly.php), you will see that Steamworks is pretty innovative, and good for developers, which is good for gamers. In any case, of course this boycott isn't going to work. Modern Warfare will still sell a fuck ton, publishers will learn that the other services are hard to work with, Steam will make a lot more money, and everyone loses except Steam and Acti. Due to the boycott, not due to Valve having a legitimate and solid business strategy.

Arphahat
11-10-2009, 04:45 PM
I don't have much opinion about whether it is anti-consumer or anti-innovation or anti-whatever. What I will say is that it is a dumb, dumb, dumb move on the part of the other distributors. I'm not sure what they are hoping to accomplish here. If a game is not available via one means, how many people are just going to shrug and give up, especially if it is one that they really want? All this does is put even more money into Steam's pockets.

As it is, I don't see how some of these other companies stay in business. The Impulse deals emails that I subscribe to are laughable when compared to the prices you can get stuff for on Steam.

muddi900
11-10-2009, 04:57 PM
Valve gives Steamworks away for free because it directs people to their store. I don't see this as anti-competitive in any way,

Because you have your fanboy goggles on!

It is exactly the type of monopolistic crap that got Microsoft in hot water. If steamworks is really that innovative, so useful for developers, then it shouldn't be an advertisement for Valve's retail service.

Regardless, this discussion has gone circular. You don't see it the way that every other DD retailer does, and some of us do, so we agree to disagree.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 05:16 PM
Because you have your fanboy goggles on!

It is exactly the type of monopolistic crap that got Microsoft in hot water. If steamworks is really that innovative, so useful for developers, then it shouldn't be an advertisement for Valve's retail service.

Regardless, this discussion has gone circular. You don't see it the way that every other DD retailer does, and some of us do, so we agree to disagree.

Bullshit. They are able to give it away for free BECAUSE it is an advertisement for their services. They are not forcing other DD services to not compete, they are not requiring the exclusive use of their services on their platform, they are even allowing the competitors to sell the game! There has nothing to do with me being a fanboy, it has to do with me being a capitalist. They have a better business plan than their competitors, and the competitors are choosing to not compete. This is not Valve being bad, this is the competitors falling behind and trying to make their failures into a moral issue. We should not be requesting Valve gimp their services to allow others to compete. Fuck them.

I can see where the other DD retailers are coming from, up until the point where they just give up and hand off more sales to Steam. It's just that my solution isn't to throw my hands up in the air and give up, it is to make a better product that publishers would want to use.

Telefrog
11-10-2009, 05:35 PM
I can see where the other DD retailers are coming from, up until the point where they just give up and hand off more sales to Steam. It's just that my solution isn't to throw my hands up in the air and give up, it is to make a better product that publishers would want to use.

How are they giving up? As far as I can see, these other services have taken the fight to the next level. If anything, they're being more open about the competition between themselves and Steam.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 05:40 PM
How are they giving up? As far as I can see, these other services have taken the fight to the next level. If anything, they're being more open about the competition between themselves and Steam.

By not publishing the game? Failing to compete and pushing more people to Steam? How is this taking the fight to the next level? Competing would be working on something that competes with Steam, not failing to publish games that use it.

Telefrog
11-10-2009, 05:56 PM
By not publishing the game? Failing to compete and pushing more people to Steam? How is this taking the fight to the next level? Competing would be working on something that competes with Steam, not failing to publish games that use it.

You're assuming that they want to have a product that competes with Steam's features. D2D and Gamersgate most definitely do not want to be in the business of providing the same feature set. Impulse kind of competes with matchmaking, and the plan for integrated chat, but Brad has clearly outlined his strategy for Impulse and it's not to go down the all-encompassing gaming platform road that Steam is shaping up to be. (He wants to offer similar features for his own games, not others.) These three services want to be digital storefronts nothing more.

In that respect, they are successes. D2D, Impulse, and Gamersgate offer something that Steam does not. You can buy a game from them and once you athenticate the registration through their protection, you never have to fire up their software again. That may not be worth much to you, but for some of us that's a huge plus.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 06:17 PM
If they don't want to compete with Steam, then they shouldn't bitch when Steam passes them.

Superman's Dead
11-10-2009, 06:32 PM
If they don't want to compete with Steam, then they shouldn't bitch when Steam passes them.

You don't see their move as an active stance? Maybe Steam does just have a better business plan. If it isn't one that these companies agree with, it's totally up to them if they want to take their ball and go home. We haven't seen enough of DD to determine what's "right". If there's a market backlash against it, maybe they'll come out on top.

I'm super capitalist myself, but it's hard for me not to agree that when you do a job you want people to come back to you and not your competition.

How else do you think they could fight this? I'm not being a douche, I'm actually asking. I can't think of anything, and you seem to have thought this through further than me.

Telefrog
11-10-2009, 06:32 PM
If they don't want to compete with Steam, then they shouldn't bitch when Steam passes them.

:confused:

I just outlined why they aren't trying to directly compete with Steam. They're "bitching" for the same reason that everyone bitched about Microsoft's practices in the early browser wars. Bundling the storefront and making it a mandatory part of the software's other features is the sticking point.

If you can't see the basic anti-competitive nature of that, then there's really not much more to debate.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 06:43 PM
You don't see their move as an active stance? Maybe Steam does just have a better business plan. If it isn't one that these companies agree with, it's totally up to them if they want to take their ball and go home. We haven't seen enough of DD to determine what's "right". If there's a market backlash against it, maybe they'll come out on top.

I'm super capitalist myself, but it's hard for me not to agree that when you do a job you want people to come back to you and not your competition.

How else do you think they could fight this? I'm not being a douche, I'm actually asking. I can't think of anything, and you seem to have thought this through further than me.

Match Steamworks functionality. If they don't want to link to their own storefront, they can figure out some other way to fund it. I can agree that they wouldn't want people to go back to Steam, and that is why they should be matching Steam, or innovating.

:confused:

I just outlined why they aren't trying to directly compete with Steam. They're "bitching" for the same reason that everyone bitched about Microsoft's practices in the early browser wars. Bundling the storefront and making it a mandatory part of the software's other features is the sticking point.

If you can't see the basic anti-competitive nature of that, then there's really not much more to debate.

I really don't see it as being anti-competitive. If they required all games on Steam to use the Steamworks functionality, I could maybe see that, but they can still compete if they wanted to.

Telefrog
11-10-2009, 06:50 PM
I really don't see it as being anti-competitive. If they required all games on Steam to use the Steamworks functionality, I could maybe see that, but they can still compete if they wanted to.

:confused: Really? :confused:

All games using the Steamworks functionality require Steam. It's optional to use on Defense Grid and UT3, but once you tie it to Steam, it's a done deal.

crazyD
11-10-2009, 06:55 PM
:confused: Really? :confused:

All games using the Steamworks functionality require Steam. It's optional to use on Defense Grid and UT3, but once you tie it to Steam, it's a done deal.

Yes, but not all games on Steam require the use of Steamworks. That's up to the publisher. I could see it as kind of anti-competitive if Steam was like, "If you want access to all of our massive customer base, you must use Steamworks." They aren't. Even so, Steamworks just means it's easier on the other DD retailers. They just have to give a key, and Steam handles the rest. They don't even have to pay for bandwidth for the downloads!

Telefrog
11-10-2009, 07:06 PM
Yes, but not all games on Steam require the use of Steamworks. That's up to the publisher. I could see it as kind of anti-competitive if Steam was like, "If you want access to all of our massive customer base, you must use Steamworks." They aren't. Even so, Steamworks just means it's easier on the other DD retailers. They just have to give a key, and Steam handles the rest. They don't even have to pay for bandwidth for the downloads!

It's only easier in the short term. If a customer buys a Steam game over another DD service, it's true that they could just open Steam and register it to get the game off Valve's servers. However, this assumes that the buyer knows this. I'd wager that just like Saints Row 2, most buyers had no idea Steam was required, so they downloaded it off the initial site anyway.

Long term, it's a net loss for these businesses. Customers that buy a Steam mandatory game off their site will likely use Steam to buy future purchases from then on. (They've already demonstrated having a comfort level with digital shopping and DRM.) Every time somone fires up MW2, they're going to see the Steam storefront pop up regardless of where they bought it.

Do you honestly think most potential customers will open a separate browser to buy a game from D2D, when Steam is right there? (Keep in mind that this is the very reason that Microsoft came under fire in the past. Browser "customers" do not typically look for another browser when they have one right there as the default.) Steam's storefront integration is the very definition of an anticompetitive practice.

Valve gets a lot of leeway among gamers for being cool and awesome, but we tend to forget that it's a business first and foremost.

CappinCanuck
11-10-2009, 09:54 PM
Snip.

Hehe, wasting your breathe man. CrazyD is on some sort of super logic pill nobody else can get.

H.Bogard
11-10-2009, 09:56 PM
Breathe is a verb.

CappinCanuck
11-10-2009, 10:03 PM
Breathe is a verb.

Yeah... I was talking in like... slang, or something. Save your breathe, whereby breathe means massive barrage of logic. :o

crazyD
11-11-2009, 10:46 AM
Well, I disagree with just about everyone here, and thought I was explaining myself pretty well, but if I'm just going to run around in circles until I become a joke, I'll let it drop.

H.Bogard
11-11-2009, 11:25 AM
Well, I disagree with just about everyone here

It really is a verb, goddammit!

Arphahat
11-11-2009, 08:31 PM
Well, I disagree with just about everyone here, and thought I was explaining myself pretty well, but if I'm just going to run around in circles until I become a joke, I'll let it drop.

I'll chime in that it doesn't really seem that anti-competitive to me.

The one element I am not sure of that would determine whether it is truly anti-competitive is who is mandating the exclusivity of Steam? Is Steam demanding it, or is it a choice on the part of the developers?

If Steam demands it, yes it is anti-competitive. If the developers chose Steam as their method of DRM and as an easy way to distribute updates, it is clearly not anti-competitive.

Skimming the arguments made above, it seems that there are different assumptions being made about why Steam is being included. Does anyone know the details about this?