Randy Pitchford (Gearbox) says: I don't trust Valve!

Well, most of us have our little gripes with Steam... But now Gearbox' (Opposing Force) Randy Pitchford first said out loud how "the industry" thinks about Steam. And it's not pretty.

It's actually crushingly negative.

MPC: The download services, like Steam, are helping make it easier to buy games though, right?

RP: I’ll tell you what. Steam helps. As a guy in this industry though, I don’t trust Valve.

MPC: Because they’re competitors?

RP: Right.

MPC: You guys have worked with them a lot!

RP: I know. And I, personally, trust Valve. But I’m just saying, honestly, I think a lot of the industry doesn’t.

MPC: So you think Valve should spin off Steam?

RP: They should! It would be much better if Steam was its own business. There’s so much conflict of interest there that it’s horrid. It’s actually really, really dangerous for the rest of the industry to allow Valve to win.

I love Valve games, and I do business with the company. But, I’m just saying, Steam isn’t the answer. Steam helps us as customers, but it’s also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that’s not totally fair. Valve is taking a larger share than it should for the service its providing. It’s exploiting a lot of small guys. For us big guys, we’re going to sell the units and it will be fine.

Wow.

Link: http://www.halflife2.net/2009/10/07/gearboxs-randy-pitchford-on-valve-and-steam/

Stop your bitching already. Sheesh.. wanker.

Heh, interesting.. very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth to what Randy is saying honestly, doesn't sound too far-fetched not that Valve is bad.

"Muhnay" said:
Stop your bitching already. Sheesh.. wanker.

Are you saying that to reaper or Randy in the interview?

---

Aaron's Stuff

Pick one.. =)

Not really.. it was to Randy. I see his side of things, but I would rather see him address the problem with action, than sitting in an interview boohooing.

I do think Mr.Pitchford has a point. My concern is less with how Valve currently does business though (from my experience of Valve's dealings, Valve does business very well and very nicely indeed with other devs!) and more with the situation going forward, however.

You see it really can't be denied that there is a conflict of interest here. Valve makes games, yet they also run the premier games distribution channel for the PC on the internet. The very simple point that they can give themselves preferential treatment over your own games is bound to be a worry for developers. The "steam news" popups are evidence of this; how often do you see 3rd party info on here as opposed to Valve stuff? Granted, there are popups for new games on the service, but these are old-school ads; drab and boring. Not the same sort of advertising Valve gives themselves, with screenshots and press releases for their upcoming games, and interesting community news that relates to their titles. They DO extend this to other games at times, but not as frequently as their own. Does it annoy me personally? No, I still intrinsically link Steam to Valve. Does it annoy some big publishers whose games get massive exposure on shop shelves and yet relatively little exposure on steam? Probably.

There's then the point that by selling your games on the service you are funding one of your competitors. That's not a pleasant thing to have happen. Seeing a chunk of your revenue getting eaten up by retail chains is bad enough, but seeing it line the pockets of a company you are actively competing against? Again, I think Pitchford has a point when he says a lot of games companies probably don't much enjoy that fact.

Its hard to blame valve for this conflict. I don't think they ever anticipated steam would become as large as it has. I also think that as large companies go, Valve seem particularly amicable and trustworthy. But the conflict exists, and going forward, with steam going from strength to strength, that no doubt worries some people.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Then someone should step up to the plate and take a swing at offering something along the same lines as Steam. Instead of crying and moaning about it.. do something about it.

Well there are a few already, and they are growing in popularity and in quality such that they now offer a genuine alternative to Steam. Impulse (also run by a games company, Stardock) and Direct2Drive (run by IGN) are two of the larger ones, but there's a bunch of others too.

Of course it's also worth mentioning in this thread that really Valve are now in the same position as Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo; distribution controllers that gain money from other people's games but also make games themselves. Steam has almost become a platform in its own right; a new kind of console in a sense. Does that really mean they are a threat? Does it just mean they are destined to grow in stature and importance to the point they genuinely DO join the ranks of Nintendo and co? Do those companies really threaten the chances of the smaller developers Pitchford is talking about, and are the conflicts of interest present there - MS, Sony, and Nintendo all produce their own 1st party games as well as acting as digital distribution gatekeepers - any different to the one Pitchford is talking about?

Anyway, it's an interesting topic, not one I really know how I feel about just yet which makes it all the more interesting to discuss

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

I happen to like INSTANT ACTION GAMING Myself. Ok maybe not exactly the same thing.

http://www.instantaction.com/

ReNo said:
Well there are a few already, and they are growing in popularity and in quality such that they now offer a genuine alternative to Steam. Impulse (also run by a games company, Stardock) and Direct2Drive (run by IGN) are two of the larger ones, but there's a bunch of others too.

The biggest problem, IMO, is the way games are artificially "locked" into one distribution platform. I have no experience with it, but I hugely doubt that you could play a D2D purchased game in Steam or vice-versa.

It's the same as Apple's iTunes policy that locks music on a specific iPod and you can't even (legally) play it on a Sony player, for example. Which is ridiculous. Imagine a Sony CD that doesn't play on a Samsung CD player.

While for different consoles (360, PS3, Wii) the different hardware and controls are a convincing argument for games on different platforms being sold separately, it's different to say that, if I buy a game on Steam, I have to log on to Steam and use their system for every install. And if I switched to D2D (if, god forbid, they ever offered a better service), Valve would hold my entire Steam catalog "hostage". I can't play a game I purchased on Steam on the same PC while only running D2D. I'm forced to use Steam forever or buy the entire game a second time on D2D, just to get out of a licensing issue. It's a death trap for competition.

What would probably be most fair is a Steam purchase offering me the game "as-is" with all services (download, updates, achievements, etc...) being either provided by the game itself or a separate purchase. Buy the game for $45 plus $5 for Steam services. If I want to switch to D2D, $5 for D2D services. The $45 game I already own...

No, I haven't fully thought this through.

ReNo said:
Of course it's also worth mentioning in this thread that really Valve are now in the same position as Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo; distribution controllers that gain money from other people's games but also make games themselves. Steam has almost become a platform in its own right; a new kind of console in a sense.

Good point. The most realistic alternative at this point would be Microsoft taking over the "PC platform". Not only as an OS provider but a leading games distributor. A successful GFWL, if you will. I hugely prefer Valve's Steam over that scenario.

I have never bought a game on STEAM, never will.. I am a guy who is still old school.. I have to have the game in a CD/DVD and have the box.

reaper47 said:
Well, most of us have our little gripes with Steam... But now Gearbox' (Opposing Force) Randy Pitchford first said out loud how "the industry" thinks about Steam. And it's not pretty.

Yay, i made first post <3

Muhnay said:
I have never bought a game on STEAM, never will.. I am a guy who is still old school.. I have to have the game in a CD/DVD and have the box.

Well, think of that: Soon you might not even have that choice anymore. Retail is what VHS cassettes were for DVDs...

Yeah, we really have already reached that stage IMO. While obviously still all the big releases make it to retail shelves, there's a wealth of smaller games that only come out via digital distribution. If, for example, you are into playing on the 360/PS3, then if you ignore what's available via XBLA or PSN (and for the most part exclusively through those download channels) you're missing out on some of the best games on each console. PC is the same; there's a good number of games that just aren't big enough for mainstream shops but are great games and find a good following through download markets.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

If we take a step back from everything, it's a little funny how developers are angry/distressed about Valve running Steam, after all Valve did create Steam and nobody is forced to use it so Valve should be able to run it how they wish, that said I do understand the other side of the fence, it seems when a product/service has a certain market dominance/reach/success it needs to be regulated or something.

It's like when someone starts from nothing and works really hard and becomes a millionaire and then is shunned for having so much money and success, good house/car etc by certain people "ahh he's a rich spoilt guy, he dosen't deserve the money, he's life is easy...".

---

Aaron's Stuff

reaper47 said:
MPC: Because they’re competitors?

RP: Right.

This is retarded. There's no direct competition, if you make a good game people will buy it regardless of the company that developed it. Games aren't interchangable identical commodities where people can blindly choose one from the pile and get the same level of utility.

Do musicians fret that their rock album is competing against the last 60 years of rock music? Do authors worry about their book facing a market 'saturated' by centuries of similar products? Quality, critical reception, and a market segment looking for what you're selling are far more important.

Of course, since Gearbox hasn't made shit worth playing since OpFor maybe they should be worried.

I see were they are coming from but, as long as Valve/Steam stays a privately held company i dont see it being to much of a problem. If they were to become publicly held they might me more prone to abusing their position to please their investors.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

aaron_da_killa said:
If we take a step back from everything, it's a little funny how developers are angry/distressed about Valve running Steam, after all Valve did create Steam and nobody is forced to use it so Valve should be able to run it how they wish, that said I do understand the other side of the fence, it seems when a product/service has a certain market dominance/reach/success it needs to be regulated or something.

It's like when someone starts from nothing and works really hard and becomes a millionaire and then is shunned for having so much money and success, good house/car etc by certain people "ahh he's a rich spoilt guy, he dosen't deserve the money, he's life is easy...".

Absolutely, I agree with you 110%! This is what happens, if smaller guys work their guts off for something, and they start to become a threat in the market, the big guys try everything to push them down... Too bad Valve is already much too big to be shut down by the 'big' ones. Besides, there are way too many people loyal to Valve since their humble beginnings. I for one am very happy that Valve has come up with ways to increase revenue, and seeing as they make the best games IMO, the more income they earn, the more motivation, happiness and creativity they'll have to continue to create the top-rated games they always do. It was a very intelligent thing they did to create Steam, and since they were within the first ones to create/get noticed for it, they are now one of the major companies of the type, much like Microsoft is in their domain.

My fear is what will happen in 10, 15 years. What if the "good" guys at Valve vanish, selling the company to some faceless megacorp (EA). Monopolies just aren't good for competition.

I just hesitate praising Valve unconditionally just because they make great games. Steam always went a few steps too far in locking in your games. I have seen this from the consumer's point of view, but now I can see how it can be bad for developers as well.

Digital distribution will grow and ultimately replace retail almost completely. Steam is much bigger than the happy Valve games catalog. It's a big responsibility not to abuse the market power and drown other developers'/publishers' work. Valve is a fairly civilized company at the moment and very supportive of creative and commercial drive in the industry as a whole... but, yea, what about 10 years from now?

As was stated nobody is forcing these game devs to distribute thru Steam it's their choice. Also going thru a company like Valve/Steam gives them a higher profile for them and their game and possibly sells more copies.
There are plenty of electronic media disributors to go thru but my guess is they're all taking about the same amount of the pie or these devs would go elsewhere.
I think Valve treats these other Devs very fairly and honestly, besides selling other ppl's games helps bring gamers in to buy their own products as well.

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.