Steam discussion

[Tonci87 163]

I know the last time I looked at the petition they had started on Steam against the idea, it had under 100,000 signature's of 75,000,000 Steam users. (75-80 million). The majority would be if around 40 million objected !

A simple vote would have been better, pop-up in front of all players before going into a game (just the once) 'Yes' or 'No' to paid player made content. More democratic I would have said.

You really think steam has THAT many users? Take away all the spam accounts, all the inactive accounts, all the people who don´t give a damn, all the pople who simply can´t be bothered to sign a petition because those things usually don´t do anything.

If even people who are close to the industry, or even work in the industry are against such a move then you can be damn sure that the majority of players is too.

[chrisb 196]

You really think steam has THAT many users? Take away all the spam accounts, all the inactive accounts, all the people who don´t give a damn, all the pople who simply can´t be bothered to sign a petition because those things usually don´t do anything.

If even people who are close to the industry, or even work in the industry are against such a move then you can be damn sure that the majority of players is too.

But that's only your view. I'm just looking at figures. :rolleyes:

[ProfTournesol 956]

But Steam is everything but a democracy. The petition gathered enough consumers to be taken into account, as every commercial company would have done.

[chrisb 196]

But Steam is everything but a democracy. The petition gathered enough consumers to be taken into account, as every commercial company would have done.

Yes, we all know what Steam is like. But had they done it in a better way i.e. a vote, then we might have a more precise result. As it is, there is nothing but a panic result.

Now that is o.k. however its not about Steam, its the game developers and the players that make content. Steam is a platform, nothing more. If they had a vote and that vote was against (the majority, but the real majority), then fine. Had it gone 'for', they could have let devs decide and given players that would like to be paid, don't forget the other options were there anyway, then those players could maybe have had a chance at turning a love of something, into something more.

Mob rule, that's all that was, nothing to do with players in general.

BI here show an interest (I think anyway), certainly other games I play the devs have shown an interest in the idea of player made content being introduced, in a paid for format. The possibility is there, just getting over the haters and mob rule

mentality.

[Tonci87 163]

Yes, we all know what Steam is like. But had they done it in a better way i.e. a vote, then we might have a more precise result. As it is, there is nothing but a panic result.

Now that is o.k. however its not about Steam, its the game developers and the players that make content. Steam is a platform, nothing more. If they had a vote and that vote was against (the majority, but the real majority), then fine. Had it gone 'for', they could have let devs decide and given players that would like to be paid, don't forget the other options were there anyway, then those players could maybe have had a chance at turning a love of something, into something more.

Mob rule, that's all that was, nothing to do with players in general.

BI here show an interest (I think anyway), certainly other games I play the devs have shown an interest in the idea of player made content being introduced, in a paid for format. The possibility is there, just getting over the haters and mob rule

mentality.

Yeah, devs/publishers showing interest because they want to make money, nothing surprising there. I say again, if even people from within the industry condemn this practice then there is something seriously wrong with it, it´s that simple.

[chrisb 196]

Yeah, devs/publishers showing interest because they want to make money, nothing surprising there. I say again, if even people from within the industry condemn this practice then there is something seriously wrong with it, it´s that simple.

Do you make money, or do you live off donations... Its the same thing, we all need and want to make money. Where are you living in some utopia where everything is free.

Of course the developers want a slice, its their game, but if they are in favour of it, who are you to say no!

You do understand that money is in gaming everywhere and it is still possibly the largest industry, entertainment wise, out there. This will not make any difference if the other options are left open (donations etc). Its the minority that for some reason are so against someone making a little or a lot from something they enjoy doing.

It stinks of the envy and greed of others that don't want to spend, greed of keeping hold of their money and envy because they can't do it themselves, or those that can want to stop others doing it for their own reasons!

Works both ways 'greed' remember.

The 'I want it for free' mentality, just doesn't register with me. I have enjoyed making money and spending. I don't refuse anyone the opportunity to earn doing something they like doing, if its something people are willing to pay for.

O.k. you will say, well donate to them, I do. But they can't make a life commitment around the hope of donations. Stability in life helps people stay happy, knowing you have an income helps you & me.

People will pop up and say, they should get a job in the industry, well yes, by making paid for content, they will be in the industry, helping make content better, in many cases.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It's possibly less about the number of signatures on a petition and more about a lack of people actually subscribing to it. Lack of any participation is probably a more important indicator that something is unpopular, than vocal opposition.

As Valve said, their "main goals were to allow mod makers the opportunity to work on their mods full time if they wanted to, and to encourage developers to provide better support to their mod communities". I knew for a start that community participation in this wasn't going to be such that any but a very tiny few mod makers could make a full-time living from it like Valve wanted, and pointed out that the $100 threshold was a barrier to many participants even receiving any money at all.

If the majority of people you're supposed to be helping to make money are not receiving it and getting that motivation to keep them participating, then the economy of the workshop system wont work at all in the long term. It's a flawed system and I believe that's why they've canned it.

[Tonci87 163]

Do you make money, or do you live off donations... Its the same thing, we all need and want to make money. Where are you living in some utopia where everything is free.

Of course the developers want a slice, its their game, but if they are in favour of it, who are you to say no!

You do understand that money is in gaming everywhere and it is still possibly the largest industry, entertainment wise, out there. This will not make any difference if the other options are left open (donations etc). Its the minority that for some reason are so against someone making a little or a lot from something they enjoy doing.

It stinks of the envy and greed of others that don't want to spend, greed of keeping hold of their money and envy because they can't do it themselves, or those that can want to stop others doing it for their own reasons!

Works both ways 'greed' remember.

The 'I want it for free' mentality, just doesn't register with me. I have enjoyed making money and spending. I don't refuse anyone the opportunity to earn doing something they like doing, if its something people are willing to pay for.

O.k. you will say, well donate to them, I do. But they can't make a life commitment around the hope of donations. Stability in life helps people stay happy, knowing you have an income helps you & me.

People will pop up and say, they should get a job in the industry, well yes, by making paid for content, they will be in the industry, helping make content better, in many cases.

Dude, just in case you didn´t get it. Many people from within the industry, together with numerous games journalists thought that this is a bad idea. Valve and Zenimax/Bethesda are the only companies who were openly in favour of it. That is how silly the idea/implementation was.

The only reason Steam did this is because they saw a way to make quick money, not for the modders! And the only Reason Steam has now rejected the idea is that they saw a significant drop in sales and a significant increase in negative feedback. They lost a huge ammount of money on this mess and I hope it teaches them a lesson.

[chrisb 196]

Dude, just in case you didn´t get it. Many people from within the industry, together with numerous games journalists thought that this is a bad idea. Valve and Zenimax/Bethesda are the only companies who were openly in favour of it. That is how silly the idea/implementation was.

The only reason Steam did this is because they saw a way to make quick money, not for the modders! And the only Reason Steam has now rejected the idea is that they saw a significant drop in sales and a significant increase in negative feedback. They lost a huge ammount of money on this mess and I hope it teaches them a lesson.

Yep, and there is still people within the industry and players outside of it that do want it. It will come, simply a matter of time and them implementing it better. Probably with individual games, possibly away from Steam.

[Tonci87 163]

Yep, and there is still people within the industry and players outside of it that do want it. It will come, simply a matter of time and them implementing it better. Probably with individual games, possibly away from Steam.

Maybe, I still think Donations are a better way, especially if Steam was to implement them. With Donations you don´t have to deal with all that legal bullshit, small mod makers can make money just as well as big ones, and you don´t fracture communities.

[.kju 3240]

Valve with go for it again in the (near) future with Zenimax/Bethesda or another company/game (and possibly more).

They will just take some to time to refine the system to make more sense, present it in a better way and communicate with community beforehand.

Maybe they will also go for a donation option, but certainly not just donations.

In any case people need to look more into how it worked out for their games (Dota2, CS:GO, TF2) and what approach they took.

It will certainly remain always just a some people per game to be able to make living from it - however potentially considerable more than people imagine right now for decent popular games.

[chrisb 196]

@Fennek put this in the other thread in General Discussion, but it warrants being here too.

Its long, but the whole thing is well worth listening too.

[Tonci87 163]

Good interview with the main conclusion that Valve/Steam is stupid. I agree. But seriously, that interview is a bit biased..... TB who always has been very close to the industry, a modauthor who planned to sell his mod, and the owner of Nexus who struck a really good deal with Steam (wich is now obsolete). In my opinion they should have had a few more guys in there, some neutral game journalists for example.

[x3kj 1247]

The interview was about what modders actually think about this. And as a modder i have not a single thing what they said that i disagree with.

In my opinion they should have had a few more guys in there, some neutral game journalists for example.

Neutral game journalists? What neutral game journalist? TB is pretty much what i would consider a neutral game journalist, because he is not dependant on any industry money. And modding is hardly an industry, is it?

[Tonci87 163]

The interview was about what modders actually think about this. And as a modder i have not a single thing what they said that i disagree with.

Neutral game journalists? What neutral game journalist? TB is pretty much what i would consider a neutral game journalist, because he is not dependant on any industry money. And modding is hardly an industry, is it?

No but he is dependant on industry goodwill and in the past has shown a tendency to side with the industry when it is about business decisions. When it´s about such topics you have to take his opinion with a pinch of salt, as much as I like his game reviews.

[x3kj 1247]

i cant remember any discussion/issue where i had the feeling that he "sides with the 'industry' for good will". More like discussing sensible and trying to understand both sides of the coin instead of jumping on the internet/consumer hate-bandwagon. Name me a journalist who is not "dependant on industry good will" by your definition?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Fennek

[Tonci87 163]

As always, Super Bunnyhop is spot on

[kualus 1]

Valve's John Vert on camera giving free Steam subscription to Debian devs for working on SteamOS:

He also states that SteamOS isn't for the desktop, won't integrate easy dual boot, and won't be intended for users to install themselves.

His statement that SteamOS isn’t for the desktop etc starts at 07:17. During that he states “People do do it, but mainly just to prove that it can be doneâ€. The free subscription to all Steam games is at 23:50. It’s so massive it’s downright obscene. It’s so massive it would be a bribe if it wasn’t after the devs had done the work.

It really forces you to wonder: if Valve is willing to go this far to incentivize development of one of their products, how far have they gone in the past? Is Steam's rise to dominance the result of Valve bribing devs into publishing on Steam with free Steam subscriptions?

[Tonci87 163]

Wait, free Steam subscription means what exactly?

He also states that SteamOS isn't for the desktop, won't integrate easy dual boot, and won't be intended for users to install themselves.

That´s a shame, was hoping for smth. different

[kualus 1]

John Vert spells it out at 23:50 as "Debian Developers get a free subscription for all Valve games on Steam". So I got it wrong, and it refers to Valve's own games, not the entire Steam library. It's still quite an incentive.

[Tonci87 163]

John Vert spells it out at 23:50 as "Debian Developers get a free subscription for all Valve games on Steam". So I got it wrong, and it refers to Valve's own games, not the entire Steam library. It's still quite an incentive.

A Subsciption to all games on Steam, that would be something.... Does anybody have that, except for Valve CEOs?

[chortles 263]

That´s a shame, was hoping for smth. different

Not sure why, nothing about the initial announcements suggested otherwise, especially if the initial plan was to push SteamOS with OEM SteamBoxes.

[Tonci87 163]

I hoped it would be compatible with Desktop PCs while offering a dual boot option. Would have been handy for gaming PCs. Maybe that is something they will look at in the future.

[chortles 263]

I hoped it would be compatible with Desktop PCs while offering a dual boot option. Would have been handy for gaming PCs. Maybe that is something they will look at in the future.

Any such "compatibility with desktop PCs while offering a dual boot option" seemed to be described as a bonus thing for tinkerers but not something actually aspired to or designed for -- "if it works that's neat, we just weren't aiming for that to begin with" -- again, not surprising considering the original design vision being centered on 'official' (OEM) SteamBoxes, and that the speaker immediately deemed dual booting to be effectively redundant for someone who had Windows and the Steam client... though that argument might well be applicable to any Linux distro with a 'native' Steam client such as Ubuntu.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

A Subsciption to all games on Steam, that would be something.... Does anybody have that, except for Valve CEOs?

Yes, at least one lucky guy who won a Steam giveaway.