Steam: Whats the point of it?

sarumite

Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but what is the point of steam. Currently you can buy the boxed version of C&C: RA3 for 23e on play.com, yet its 50e on steam. If they can't beat on price, they dont provide hardcopies of the game....why bother?

Genghiz Cohen

Steam was originally a way for Valve to get it's updates out and ensure that everyone was playing on the most up to date version.

The prices are different probably because EA have to pay Valve to sell games through Steam.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

To rob you blind...

Fnz

To punish the lazy.

5uspect

Its also for enforcing DRM to prevent piracy particularity on Valve's own games.
It also manages multiplayer matches, updates etc.
Incidentally, I'd say the quality of Valve's games is what kept keep Steam going initially.
Steam is like any other shop, and you can get bargains if you keep an eye on it.

SeantheMan

Its not just a Store !

Yes, they are often dearer than most other game retailers.
But the fact that you can purchase a game...and then download it infinite number of times to infinite number of machines is excellent !
Gone is the need for CDs/DVDs

Also there is a huge back catalogue of games you can buy

Thats just the store part,

Then theres the STEAM community, Friends List and Groups, In game comms.
Its like xfire/msn/gamespy all in 1 lovely well presented easily managed form specifically for gaming.

I hated steam at the beginning, it was one of the most annoying programs along with ICQ and IRC that ive ever used.

Now it is the foundation of my gaming scene

AlmightyCushion

SeantheMan wrote: »

But the fact that you can purchase a game...and then download it infinite number of times to infinite number of machines is excellent !
Gone is the need for CDs/DVDs

An iso ripper and daemon tools would do the same thing really.

dreamers75

I hate it as it doesnt do whats it meant to, make games cheaper by reducing costs etc: That clearly doesnt work for Valves own games.


Its good for cheap ubisoft games, the complete Tom Clancy for 35 quid

Includes: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter® 2 , Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Desert Siege™, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Island Thunder™, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter®, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon®

Just waiting for the rainbow 6 one now.


Beyond good and evil for a fiver etc:

Burgo

I do find it annoy that you cant make full use of steam for a retail version of Cod4 for example,you can only add it as a "non steam game".

tman

Burgo wrote: »

I do find it annoy that you cant make full use of steam for a retail version of Cod4 for example,you can only add it as a "non steam game".

It makes sense to me really... Why would valve offer free bandwidth for updates etc for a game that hasn't even been bought from them?

I do find it quite shocking that they can justify charging as much as they do for new games, when you can often buy a boxed copy for less (this was even the case with L4D, so it isn't just EA games that this affects...)

SeantheMan

tman wrote: »

I do find it quite shocking that they can justify charging as much as they do for new games, when you can often buy a boxed copy for less (this was even the case with L4D, so it isn't just EA games that this affects...)

Although its terrible that they do it, its quite understandable for them to do it. Because theres a market there for it

Theres always lazy people willing to pay extra to save themselves having to go the shop and queue (a group unfortunately I'm a part of myself )

BuddhaJoe

SeantheMan wrote: »

Its not just a Store !

Yes, they are often dearer than most other game retailers.
But the fact that you can purchase a game...and then download it infinite number of times to infinite number of machines is excellent !
Gone is the need for CDs/DVDs

Also there is a huge back catalogue of games you can buy

Thats just the store part,

Then theres the STEAM community, Friends List and Groups, In game comms.
Its like xfire/msn/gamespy all in 1 lovely well presented easily managed form specifically for gaming.

I hated steam at the beginning, it was one of the most annoying programs along with ICQ and IRC that ive ever used.

Now it is the foundation of my gaming scene

+1. It may be more expensive but I'm more than willing to pay for the service and convenience you get with it.

Ri_Nollaig

I thought the orginial reason behind digitial distrubution for games was that they would be cheaper due to the lack of printing a disk, creating a box and "shelf presence". I dont think ive ever seen steam cheaper then other online shops and its normaly dearer then most bricks 'n' mortar ones too.
As a result I dont think ive ever bought a game from them, but on the plus side atleast you can buy games normally and install throught steam. This way you get the nice cheap price, plus the services it supplies like auto-updates and auto-cracked
Though I do imagine at some point they are going to release a steam-only big release, probably HL3 or something...

Ciaran500

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

I thought the orginial reason behind digitial distrubution for games was that they would be cheaper due to the lack of printing a disk, creating a box and "shelf presence".

And it is, no one ever said they would pass the savings on :pac:

astrofool

I think a lot of people over estimate the cost of the DVD + physical box + transport compared to the retail price.

Steam does have some decent offers, but will never always be cheapest, especially as stores will discount at their own accord, Steam will price based on what EA/other publisher tell them to price at, vs. demand for a product.

Some retail box games allow them to be activated on steam, which is great (UT3 got this recently). I was very annoyed when I found out that bioshock, C+C3, crysis, far cry 2 couldn't be activated on steam.

Cy_Revenant

tman wrote: »

I do find it quite shocking that they can justify charging as much as they do for new games, when you can often buy a boxed copy for less (this was even the case with L4D, so it isn't just EA games that this affects...)

It seems to me, that it is down to the changeover from everyone getting charged American prices to the creation of a Eurozone within the Steam store.

I would say that the high prices have resulted from Valve setting the prices at the level of whichever country tends to have the most expensive games. Thereby preventing said country getting ridiculous discounts, but jacking up the price for the rest of us.

thebman

I think prices increased because they thought they'd get away with it.

So only one way to teach them :P

I buy most of my games from Steam if I can because the service is worth it. Its like Xbox Live quality service without the fee. Can't argue.

Cuddlesworth

Have you tried examining Valves business model?

They sell a game on a once off price. That once off price includes the ability to re-download the game at any time to any machine for as long as their company stays. No game keys or a centrally managed game key database. Free updates and content for their online games. Cheap priced updates for their single player expansions. Automatic patching.

Can anybody point out another online service that does this? Without a subscription.

Does anybody have any idea of the costs involved in hosting those files and supplying the amount of bandwidth needed? Which is quite plentiful from what I have experienced.


Their is one big problem with Steam and Valve that I can see. Should things turn bad for them at any stage and their sales slump their company will run itself into the ground. As all their income is from sales solely and they would still have to supply the services which are costly.

Which means one thing. At some stage Steam will have to turn into a subscription service.

sink

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Which means one thing. At some stage Steam will have to turn into a subscription service.

I don't think so. Have you considered that steam can make a profit from selling third party products without having to rely upon in house developed software for revenue. The traditional distribution system has even higher fixed costs throughout than steam. Rent, electricity, heating and staff all have to be paid all the way through from manufacturing to distribution and retail regardless of sales performance. Which together I am certain cost more than maintaining Steam.

Also have you considered that publishers are required to provided after sales service for the games such as patches and updates and steam allows them to effectively outsource their distribution to a third party cutting their own costs. And the publishers have to pay a fixed rate to valve for this service.

Steam has become the iTunes of online software distribution. As the internets premier download service it is going to remain the dominant player in this growing market segment for the foreseeable future much like iTunes remains the dominant music download service. (The only danger is really from Microsoft if it ever decides to get it's act together) All the while the traditional distribution of PC-Games is in steady decline. Walk into any HMV/gamestop and you will only find a tiny PC-Games section in comparison to the consoles. This is not due to declining sales as PC-Games are actually growing year on year, but the majority of this new growth is being driven by online distribution.

I predict that the next generation of consoles will see a major shift to online distribution where you will buy and download full games online not just expansions/add-ons and arcade games.

5uspect

Also consider that Doug Lombardi from Valve has said that once you buy the "box" they don't want to charge for additional content. Hopefully Valve stick to this philisophy.

thebman

I imagine they aren't actually allowed turn it into a subscription service at this stage.

Firstly there is the outcry from the people using the service.

Secondly there is the fact that they will have charged for it twice since that was included in the cost of the game by their current business model.

Cuddlesworth

sink wrote: »

I don't think so. Have you considered that steam can make a profit from selling third party products without having to rely upon in house developed software for revenue. The traditional distribution system has even higher fixed costs throughout than steam. Rent, electricity, heating and staff all have to be paid all the way through from manufacturing to distribution and retail regardless of sales performance. Which together I am certain cost more than maintaining Steam.

Also have you considered that publishers are required to provided after sales service for the games such as patches and updates and steam allows them to effectively outsource their distribution to a third party cutting their own costs. And the publishers have to pay a fixed rate to valve for this service.

Steam has become the iTunes of online software distribution. As the internets premier download service it is going to remain the dominant player in this growing market segment for the foreseeable future much like iTunes remains the dominant music download service. (The only danger is really from Microsoft if it ever decides to get it's act together) All the while the traditional distribution of PC-Games is in steady decline. Walk into any HMV/gamestop and you will only find a tiny PC-Games section in comparison to the consoles. This is not due to declining sales as PC-Games are actually growing year on year, but the majority of this new growth is being driven by online distribution.

I predict that the next generation of consoles will see a major shift to online distribution where you will buy and download full games online not just expansions/add-ons and arcade games.

I doubt that company's pay much towards distribution of patches, it would make more sense for a set figure per download or registration on Steam going to Valve for a set amount of time ie; 1 year.

Not being privy to there accounts neither I or you can say for sure.

But the bulk of their cash is being funded directly by game sales. As sales increase, money is found for the maintenance and upgrading of their services. Which in turn will cost more money. Its a horrific circle for a business to be in, clearly relying on constant increasing sales for their business model. Most firms would shed costs, fire staff etc to meet demand. But Valve would still have to maintain to costs in order to provide the necessary quality of service. The Costs are a hard relatively unchangeable constant, their income isn't.

thebman

Not really the majority of people play new games most so as new games come out the user bases migrate to them and the old services use feck all bandwidth except for really popular online titles in which case it is viable to support them because the next iteration of the game is guaranteed to make a lot of sales. This means expanding infrastructure occurs a lot less than most people think.

If it doesn't make a lot of sales, in a lot of cases, the user base will fragment. Half on the new and half on the old and then people will get annoyed by the fragmentation of the community and find a new game which means more sales again for them and mostly the same number of people playing the games.

The games industry is inherently about new sales and will always have new sales as it is basically the same as the movie industry.

Very few people buy a game and play it forever, the whole concept is to get people hooked and they'll keep moving to newer titles to get the next best thing or because the same experience cannot offer what a new experience can offer.

I think its a pretty sound business model. Add the possibility of ad revenue in their forums/community and the ads on the update progress bar and you can keep the service running with little investment. You'd also be surprised how few people it takes to support this infrastructure.

Grim.

SeantheMan wrote: »

Although its terrible that they do it, its quite understandable for them to do it. Because theres a market there for it

Theres always lazy people willing to pay extra to save themselves having to go the shop and queue (a group unfortunately I'm a part of myself )

its not just that though the closest game/game stop is 25 or 30 miles away from me and as i cant dive its not worth the bus fairs etc when you can just buy from steam and be playing a couple of hours later sure play are cheap but **** me there slow sometimes

Sierra Oscar

The problem with third party games on Steam is the fact that many publishers do not distinguish between retail copies of their games and digital copies - and thus apply the same RRP price.

It is the publishers who set the prices on Steam, some set decent competitive prices and others just set what they recommend retailers set.

Blazer

Saying that I bought Crysis:Warhead for €24 on steam.
Local Gamestop? €44.99 lol..X-tra vision was €29.99.

Think it's the first time I've ever seen Steam cheaper than the shops..

CyberGhost

Steam is a great service, you can go anywhere, on any machine with just your username/password and your games are available to you, once you are finished, unless the computer has a keylogger, your games are pretty safe.

However, I don't need my games to be available to me anywhere I go, cause I rarely play games "outside" and it takes a lot of time to download a game, so I still very much prefer the hard copy... I just feel more secure with it, what if I don't have internet connection then what?

Also, while Valve games have great integration, auto-patching and in-game gizmos, other non-valve games don't have that, as far as I know you just download them and that's it, no auto patching, nothing.... If valve offered all the other games the same integration and updates it would be more worth it buying from them.

Overheal

Before the regional pricing came in about 3 months ago Steam was still quite awesome for Europeans but now youre all getting screwed, which does blow.

Before that (living in Clare, with fcukall internet) the idea that I had to connect to the internet to install a game was very untenable for a number of years. Living back on the East Coast thats not at all an issue, and typically its the Shelf Stores that will try to rob you blind - im lookin' at best buy. And Gamestop is so not a PC gaming chain.

Agent Smith

thebman wrote: »

I imagine they aren't actually allowed turn it into a subscription service at this stage.

Firstly there is the outcry from the people using the service.

Secondly there is the fact that they will have charged for it twice since that was included in the cost of the game by their current business model.

The day you have to Pay a subscription to steam, is the day they can shove it up their hole.


I bought the game, I dont want to someday just have to pay to play the damm thing! If i Wanted someting that would keep charging me to play it, I'd be a WOWhead by now

Davidius

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The problem with third party games on Steam is the fact that many publishers do not distinguish between retail copies of their games and digital copies - and thus apply the same RRP price.

It is the publishers who set the prices on Steam, some set decent competitive prices and others just set what they recommend retailers set.

As far as I've heard, Valve were the ones to suggest the $=€ conversion rate in the first place, essentially making Steam a rip-off.

And even so, Valve have full control over the pricing on their own software. It costs more to buy their software from them than it does to buy it in retail.

The only real problem I can see is that Valve were being lazy with exchange rates and decided that we'd all take it in the arse with Steam's prices.

thebman

Yeah they need to get their act together on pricing. Left 4 Dead was cheaper in Game in Liffey Vally at launch than on Steam. That just doesn't make any sense.