Notch on Steam "I worry about the PC as a gaming platform becoming owned by a single entity that tak
303 replies, posted
[QUOTE=taipan;36943816]Wow 30%? For a game they didnt even develop.[/QUOTE]
30% for hosting, distributing and supporting that game forever. Doesn't sound all that bad if you ask me.
Then there's Steam Cloud, the new Workshop, etc. I'm pretty sure they offer some form of market analysis too.
That, and there's no given time with less than 2 million people online.
The point is: Mojang is famous enough not to need a sales platform like Steam, so they can basically be the direct seller as well and take the 30% that the end seller would usually get. Note that 30% is sort of the standard rate end (re)sellers keep of the original price, in most industries.
Selling Minecraft on Steam at this point would be stupid. There really isn't any reason to do it unless if this was back in the day when minecraft was less popular (it would have to be more finished than the first time it sold, though).
You do have a point. Everyone that wants minecraft pretty much allready allready have it.
It allready has an autoupdating system.
The only positive I see is the workshop.
Mods would be about a thousand times more accessible if Notch incorporated the workshop to automatically download and update mods.
Guys, 30% is NOT a ripoff.
But I know I wouldnt pay 30 dollars again to have it on steam.
And knowing notch he wouldnt make a system where we could redeem our minecraft on steam because why let us redeem it on steam if we can buy it again for 30 dollars for steam support?
[QUOTE=Murkrow;36944711]The point is: Mojang is famous enough not to need a sales platform like Steam, so they can basically be the direct seller as well and take the 30% that the end seller would usually get. Note that 30% is sort of the standard rate end (re)sellers keep of the original price, in most industries.[/QUOTE]
To rephrase your point.
Notch says that Steam sucks because he basically got a free ride from his retarded community. Everyone else wouldn't agree with his uninformed opinion.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36943976]I didn't say they had a monopoly right now, but it's pretty close. Of online distribution systems, I'd say they're almost as big as Windows in marketshare.[/QUOTE]
Its not a monopoly. If there is a choice and a majority of consumers make the same choice (IE to use Steam) you don't have a monopoly, you have a very popular product.
[QUOTE=nVidia;36944756]Guys, 30% is NOT a ripoff.[/QUOTE]
I beleive that is what we have been saying.
30% for what you get with steam anyway.
But he was happy to release it on Xbox where Microsoft are very stingy and take money from you just to publish updates sometimes.
[QUOTE=PX1K;36944783]But he was happy to release it on Xbox where Microsoft are very stingy and take money from you just to publish updates sometimes.[/QUOTE]
Not for notch, notch is speciul and doesn't have to pay anything.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36944340]Valve takes more than average from GMod sales and you've never seen Garry say anything bad about Valve (with exception of slow patch roll-outs which they have fixed already).[/QUOTE]
I think its more to sort out the licence for the engine, its not just the "selling on steam" fee.
[QUOTE=PX1K;36944783]But he was happy to release it on Xbox where Microsoft are very stingy and take money from you just to publish updates sometimes.[/QUOTE]
That's entirely on a contract basis. Just because one developer (if it's actually true) has stingy terms on updates, that doesn't mean some other game has them as well. Minecraft is a massive moneymaker and Microsoft was willing to give in to Mojang's update related demands. If you want something you have to give something. One developer wants their game on Xbox Live, in another case Microsoft wants your game on Xbox Live. The one who wants has to adapt.
[QUOTE=Jsm;36944776]Its not a monopoly. If there is a choice and a majority of consumers make the same choice (IE to use Steam) you don't have a monopoly, you have a very popular product.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't you call Windows a monopoly as well? And while this point is not a complaint (as a person already using Steam I find this to be a feature for me), if you buy a PC game in a shop, a lot of the time you'll have to register it on steam. I don't know about you, but when you can't really buy a game without using said service, it's startign to look less like a choice.
[QUOTE=Murkrow;36944815]That's entirely on a contract basis. Just because one developer (if it's actually true) has stingy terms on updates, that doesn't mean some other game has them as well. Minecraft is a massive moneymaker and Microsoft was willing to give in to Mojang's update related demands. If you want something you have to give something. One developer wants their game on Xbox Live, in another case Microsoft wants your game on Xbox Live. The one who wants has to adapt.[/QUOTE]
To be fair I have heard about it mentioned with multiple developers. I seem to recall Valve saying it was the reason that the Xbox does not get many updates for TF2.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;36944822]Wouldn't you call Windows a monopoly as well? And while this point is not a complaint (as a person already using Steam I find this to be a feature for me), if you buy a PC game in a shop, a lot of the time you'll have to register it on steam. I don't know about you, but when you can't really buy a game without using said service, it's startign to look less like a choice.[/QUOTE]
I think Windows is classed as a monopoly because of its bundling with computers, forcing it upon people without any choice. I can see why this could be considered the same for steam and retail releases but I personally see it as no different to having to activate or register a game with its developer before it can be used.
[QUOTE=HighOnSinz;36943813]Unless I am mistaken the statement of 30% just follows speculation by others. The actual amount probably varies and is unknown due to NDA's. However regardless it is still a fair amount when you look at the same cuts out of physical sales ect. Either way I for one welcome our continuing valve overlords.[/QUOTE]
Devs actually give up around 10-12%, I got a cousin whos at college becoming a game dev and they had some people from Valve visit and thats what they told them.
[QUOTE=Gumi;36943848]That depends on what game you're talking about[/QUOTE]
Even if the game used a lobby system, it would still be the dev hosting servers; VALVe would just be hosting Steamworks information (like Steam ID, items/microtransactions if they exist)
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;36944245]That'd work out well!
-cough-Origin-cough-[/QUOTE]
He said one that can compete with it, not something that was clearly half-assed
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=LightOfDarkness;36944924]Even if the game used a lobby system, it would still be the dev hosting servers; VALVe would just be hosting Steamworks information (like Steam ID, items/microtransactions if they exist)[/QUOTE]
Valve has nothing to do with the hosting of games like GTAIV
Steam is great for the majority of companies. 30% taken from your sales is nothing when without steam you'd probably not get any sales in the first place. I can understand EA not wanting to use it, or other big game companies - but for low to mid range companies it's a godsend.
[QUOTE=taipan;36943816]Wow 30%? For a game they didnt even develop.[/QUOTE]
You realize that Steam is no different that a brick and mortar store right? Steam, just like any store, needs to earn something from sales so that they can keep the store/business running.
[QUOTE=chipset;36943987]I think what he means (and what I've read in other articles) is that the fear is of steam BECOMING a monopoly, that some time in the future when valve has well and truly curb stomped any and all competition they start taking some greedy and restrictive liberties with their place in the top. Now I'm not saying this will be, I don't even think it likely as long as the internet is a free and open thing so that people can always self-publish like notch did.[/QUOTE]
But the problem with that thinking, in my opinion, is that Steam grew(and is keeping 1st place) because it treats the customers right and Valve knows that, if they start treating the customers like shit they will start falling in popularity and other digital shops will take it's place.
You'll probably earn more when you have your game on steam with the 30% cut anyway, so why cry about it.
There hasn't been a developer with a game on Steam that has bitched about how much Steam takes, Notch isn't exactly qualified to talk about it either since he doesn't have a game on Steam so he has no idea how it affect developers.
[QUOTE=Jsm;36944834]To be fair I have heard about it mentioned with multiple developers. I seem to recall Valve saying it was the reason that the Xbox does not get many updates for TF2.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
I think Windows is classed as a monopoly because of its bundling with computers, forcing it upon people without any choice. I can see why this could be considered the same for steam and retail releases but I personally see it as no different to having to activate or register a game with its developer before it can be used.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's come to a point where developers really is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Steam. Either they can release it through some other medium and lose out on the customers that really want Steam, or they can go along with it and give some of its profits to Valve.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;36944363]While I do understand your concern, Valve have proven several times that unlike other big publishers, they don't do dumb shit just because they can get away with it.[/QUOTE]
Not right now, but they might in the future.
[QUOTE=_Chewgum;36945074]You'll probably earn more when you have your game on steam with the 30% cut anyway, so why cry about it.[/QUOTE]
Well lots of people are crying about taxes in the US but lands in Europe have proven that you generally get better service with higher taxes, compared to buying health insurance and so on privately. Doesn't stop them.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;36943791]Do you expect the bandwidth and space on servers is free?[/QUOTE]
And yet people hate the fact that you need to pay for XBL.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;36945102]There hasn't been a developer with a game on Steam that has bitched about how much Steam takes, Notch isn't exactly qualified to talk about it either since he doesn't have a game on Steam so he has no idea how it affect developers.[/QUOTE]
Do we know whether Notch has spoken with Valve about it? If you're considering putting your game on steam, such details can mean a lot when taking such a decision. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but the opposite could be equally true.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36945199]And yet people hate the fact that you need to pay for XBL.[/QUOTE]
But the consumers technically aren't the ones paying for the steam service.
Steam doesn't even just take 30% either flat out. I know a few indie-devs with games on steam and due to NDA they couldn't tell me exact figures but it's a pretty fair price based on a lot of factors.
Notch is entitled to make whatever decisions he wants with his games, even if they're made for silly reasons. His decision isn't entirely without precedent; if I had a product so many thousands of people wanted, I'd be very careful dolling out significant chunks of my profit.
[QUOTE=Gumi;36945240]But the consumers technically aren't the ones paying for the steam service.[/QUOTE]
So it only becomes a problem when we have to pay for it, that's sound reasoning.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.