Valve is stupidly powerful and the only reason it's not a problem is because they're a benevolent dictator. This may not last. The new rules favour consumers, which is a good thing, but the moment...
Valve is stupidly powerful and the only reason it's not a problem is because they're a benevolent dictator.
This may not last.
The new rules favour consumers, which is a good thing, but the moment it doesn't there is no real alternative to Steam we can run to.
This is flat out dictating the rules of game development.
It's super likely that will happen. The moment Netflix started getting worse, likely not even their fault in that case, piracy started growing again. Hell, Gabe himself said the thing about piracy...
It's super likely that will happen. The moment Netflix started getting worse, likely not even their fault in that case, piracy started growing again.
Hell, Gabe himself said the thing about piracy being a service problem, not a cost problem.
I'm inclined to disagree, what Valve is stating here boils down to: The points they've outlined are not unreasonable whatsoever, they're setting basic quality of experience standards. This is not...
This is flat out dictating the rules of game development.
I'm inclined to disagree, what Valve is stating here boils down to:
If you are to publish a title on Steam with the promise of future season pass/DLC content, you must:
Define a reasonable expected release date
Deliver in a timely manner
Clearly outline the content so consumers can make an informed purchasing decision
The points they've outlined are not unreasonable whatsoever, they're setting basic quality of experience standards. This is not "dictating the rules of game development". There have been, and will continue to be issues of failure to deliver on promised content that consumers have paid for, and Valve is taking measures that establish consumer rights to refund if the bare minimum standards are not met.
It's all about the framing. To me it reads "you can only delay x or y amount of times or we will refund it". I think it's a good policy that's very favourable to the consumer and I like that they...
It's all about the framing. To me it reads "you can only delay x or y amount of times or we will refund it".
I think it's a good policy that's very favourable to the consumer and I like that they enforce accountability, but it's a fairly strict policy. Delays aren't always because they're scamming their playerbase.
Edit to add: in fact, I'd much rather have a dev delay their dlc or expansion if delay means it won't suck.
This does NOT apply to regular DLCs and expansions than one can buy piecemeal when they are released. The new rules only apply to pre-selling DLCs as a "season pass", which currently is writing a...
This does NOT apply to regular DLCs and expansions than one can buy piecemeal when they are released. The new rules only apply to pre-selling DLCs as a "season pass", which currently is writing a kickstarter-style blank check. I hate this practice and am happy that guardrails are put in place.
I agree that the policy is a net positive, I've said so a couple of times. I just do not think consumer protection should be enforced by a private company because they can pivot at any point in time.
I agree that the policy is a net positive, I've said so a couple of times. I just do not think consumer protection should be enforced by a private company because they can pivot at any point in time.
I have to disagree. This is like saying social media platforms shouldn’t enforce policy against hate speeches (not that they are doing a terribly good job at it anyway). With major game studios...
I have to disagree. This is like saying social media platforms shouldn’t enforce policy against hate speeches (not that they are doing a terribly good job at it anyway).
With major game studios buying their way into more profit and out of troubles, I’ll take anyone who’s willing to stand for consumers, even if we don’t know for how long.
Let me rephrase. I don't think Steam should create consumer protection policy. I'm happy they do, but I'd rather have consumer protection enshrined in law, not bound in the legal whims of a...
Let me rephrase. I don't think Steam should create consumer protection policy. I'm happy they do, but I'd rather have consumer protection enshrined in law, not bound in the legal whims of a company. In lieu of the law providing this framework I think it's a net-good what Valve is doing here though.
While I agree it is a pretty strict policy, I think this is a good thing. Developers tend to give dates that are the earliest they could get a project done rather than a reasonable amount of time....
While I agree it is a pretty strict policy, I think this is a good thing. Developers tend to give dates that are the earliest they could get a project done rather than a reasonable amount of time.
This would force devs to build buffer time into their announcements which I have wanted for ages.
If they say it'll take one year to release an expansion, and it takes 2 (this has happened with one of my favorite games right now) then I'm a bit annoyed. They should have planned better and given themselves room for problems and delays. That's part of good planning.
But if they say it'll take 2 years and it ends up coming out in 1 or 1.5 years, then everyone is happy. Or that time could be used for polishing.
We only ever hear about delays and never something coming out sooner than expected. Devs should be adding buffer time to their estimates because nothing ever goes perfect. And even at that, how about just not announcing something until you know you can release that at that time? Such as when the game or update or dlc is already finished and you're just polishing? That would be a much better world to be in than the delay hellscape that currently exists.
Better to have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised than to have high expectations and be disappointed.
It depends a whole lot on so many things. Sometimes your office is flooded and you are stalled out. Sometimes your country suddenly goes to war and game development is no longer your first...
The points they've outlined are not unreasonable whatsoever
It depends a whole lot on so many things. Sometimes your office is flooded and you are stalled out. Sometimes your country suddenly goes to war and game development is no longer your first priority. Sometimes your dev simply walks out and you need months to ramp up someone new. Sometimes "timely" changes if they don't like your game and you're dinged for a 1 month delay while GTA 6 can take its time.
Valve is anything but clear, from my experience as a consumer and dev.
Some could say they are only in that position because they're such a better platform for consumers. It's not a monopoly, there are other game distribution platforms that are out there, lord knows...
the only reason it's not a problem is because they're a benevolent dictator.
Some could say they are only in that position because they're such a better platform for consumers. It's not a monopoly, there are other game distribution platforms that are out there, lord knows I have the Epic games one, and the EA one, and the Ubisoft one, and the Microsoft one built in to the OS, and the smaller players like GOG. I forgot Anno 1800 existed for years because I owned it on the Ubisoft one, which I never open. My gaming desktop only ever has Steam open, its the one thing I see when I shake the mouse, and it's the only one of these stores that I have open on startup.
I have free games on Epic games, they're giving away games to entice you to use it, and you know what? I kind of forget I have those games on it because its kind of a pain in the ass and I never launch their launcher, I keep going back to Steam because it works well.
It has 90% market share. it's pretty much objectively a monopoly. Monopolies by themselves are not illegal though. Only if you use it to leverage and discourage competition. Which sadly is...
It's not a monopoly
It has 90% market share. it's pretty much objectively a monopoly.
Monopolies by themselves are not illegal though. Only if you use it to leverage and discourage competition. Which sadly is something that Valve is currently dilly-dallying about in court as we speak. That gold agreement update you got last month was a part of their dully-dallying
It may suck for engaged customers, but Valve does need to be taken down a notch. All those times asking why Epic didn't "pass the savings to the customer" are pretty much explained in that very court case talking about pricing parity. Their vague rulings put all kinds of bizarre bans on games, with publishers who may already have dozens of games on the platform (and not just adult games, games rated by the ESRB). This only seems to add to their leverage in now that any potential reason for delay may now cost you your game, no matter the circumstance (I guess Miyamoto is no longer cool to quote).
Laslty, I think it's a bit petty with others talking about PC as a "free, cusomizable platform" but resorting to piracy the moment their walled garden has a threat of going down. Seems like people do just want console gaming in the end.
I'm not sure these two sentences connect in a sensible way. One of the clear advantages of PC gaming for a consumer is that "resorting to" piracy is much easier (or, well, possible at all) there....
Laslty, I think it's a bit petty with others talking about PC as a "free, cusomizable platform" but resorting to piracy the moment their walled garden has a threat of going down. Seems like people do just want console gaming in the end.
I'm not sure these two sentences connect in a sensible way. One of the clear advantages of PC gaming for a consumer is that "resorting to" piracy is much easier (or, well, possible at all) there. Whether their piracy is good for the PC gaming industry is another question entirely, but it seems pretty internally consistent to advocate for the PC as a "free, customizable platform" and participate in piracy.
Ultimately, I'm all for Valve having competition. But that's tangential from whether I criticize or approve of any particular Valve policy.
If that's the case, I wish most other pc gamers were that honest about it. It's just tiring hearing so many say "pc gaming is bigger than ever" while threatening piracy the moment one single game...
m not sure these two sentences connect in a sensible way. One of the clear advantages of PC gaming for a consumer is that "resorting to" piracy is much easier
If that's the case, I wish most other pc gamers were that honest about it. It's just tiring hearing so many say "pc gaming is bigger than ever" while threatening piracy the moment one single game has Denuvo on it. Or that "PC has so many platforms" while again resorting to piracy the moment some specific game (maybe even some indie they never heard of) is not on their specific platform anymore.
The generally benevolent nature of Valve is likely due to the ownership structure. As far as I know Gabe has the largest chunk of ownership and the rest is owned by other employees. Private equity...
The generally benevolent nature of Valve is likely due to the ownership structure. As far as I know Gabe has the largest chunk of ownership and the rest is owned by other employees.
Private equity and venture capital tend to ruin companies.
I was going to say the good news is that we do have competitors, even if they suck; but it's going to be pretty much impossible to replace people's steam libraries after all these years of using...
I was going to say the good news is that we do have competitors, even if they suck; but it's going to be pretty much impossible to replace people's steam libraries after all these years of using them. I guess it's just a bitter pill to swallow if Valve somehow goes evil. Most of us might be better off cutting down on gaming anyway haha
It's pretty much why I try to use GOG firstl. My game plan for an evil GOG is to just take my ball and go home. Nothing is lost except a nifty launcher, but even that might be open source.
It's pretty much why I try to use GOG firstl. My game plan for an evil GOG is to just take my ball and go home. Nothing is lost except a nifty launcher, but even that might be open source.
Valve have unveiled a new policy about season passes on Steam, which aims to ensure that developers release all the individual DLC involved on time and share adequate details about each DLC pack in advance. It specifies that developers can delay release of a season pass DLC just once, and by no longer than three months. In the event that a developer postpones DLC release by longer than three months, Valve may take such corrective actions as removing the season pass from sale or refunding players.
Valve is stupidly powerful and the only reason it's not a problem is because they're a benevolent dictator.
This may not last.
The new rules favour consumers, which is a good thing, but the moment it doesn't there is no real alternative to Steam we can run to.
This is flat out dictating the rules of game development.
My game plan for an evil Valve is to simply return to game piracy. Steam largely pulled me out of it, Steam can just as easily drive me back to it.
It's super likely that will happen. The moment Netflix started getting worse, likely not even their fault in that case, piracy started growing again.
Hell, Gabe himself said the thing about piracy being a service problem, not a cost problem.
I'm inclined to disagree, what Valve is stating here boils down to:
The points they've outlined are not unreasonable whatsoever, they're setting basic quality of experience standards. This is not "dictating the rules of game development". There have been, and will continue to be issues of failure to deliver on promised content that consumers have paid for, and Valve is taking measures that establish consumer rights to refund if the bare minimum standards are not met.
It's all about the framing. To me it reads "you can only delay x or y amount of times or we will refund it".
I think it's a good policy that's very favourable to the consumer and I like that they enforce accountability, but it's a fairly strict policy. Delays aren't always because they're scamming their playerbase.
Edit to add: in fact, I'd much rather have a dev delay their dlc or expansion if delay means it won't suck.
This does NOT apply to regular DLCs and expansions than one can buy piecemeal when they are released. The new rules only apply to pre-selling DLCs as a "season pass", which currently is writing a kickstarter-style blank check. I hate this practice and am happy that guardrails are put in place.
I agree that the policy is a net positive, I've said so a couple of times. I just do not think consumer protection should be enforced by a private company because they can pivot at any point in time.
I have to disagree. This is like saying social media platforms shouldn’t enforce policy against hate speeches (not that they are doing a terribly good job at it anyway).
With major game studios buying their way into more profit and out of troubles, I’ll take anyone who’s willing to stand for consumers, even if we don’t know for how long.
Let me rephrase. I don't think Steam should create consumer protection policy. I'm happy they do, but I'd rather have consumer protection enshrined in law, not bound in the legal whims of a company. In lieu of the law providing this framework I think it's a net-good what Valve is doing here though.
While I agree it is a pretty strict policy, I think this is a good thing. Developers tend to give dates that are the earliest they could get a project done rather than a reasonable amount of time.
This would force devs to build buffer time into their announcements which I have wanted for ages.
If they say it'll take one year to release an expansion, and it takes 2 (this has happened with one of my favorite games right now) then I'm a bit annoyed. They should have planned better and given themselves room for problems and delays. That's part of good planning.
But if they say it'll take 2 years and it ends up coming out in 1 or 1.5 years, then everyone is happy. Or that time could be used for polishing.
We only ever hear about delays and never something coming out sooner than expected. Devs should be adding buffer time to their estimates because nothing ever goes perfect. And even at that, how about just not announcing something until you know you can release that at that time? Such as when the game or update or dlc is already finished and you're just polishing? That would be a much better world to be in than the delay hellscape that currently exists.
Better to have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised than to have high expectations and be disappointed.
It depends a whole lot on so many things. Sometimes your office is flooded and you are stalled out. Sometimes your country suddenly goes to war and game development is no longer your first priority. Sometimes your dev simply walks out and you need months to ramp up someone new. Sometimes "timely" changes if they don't like your game and you're dinged for a 1 month delay while GTA 6 can take its time.
Valve is anything but clear, from my experience as a consumer and dev.
Some could say they are only in that position because they're such a better platform for consumers. It's not a monopoly, there are other game distribution platforms that are out there, lord knows I have the Epic games one, and the EA one, and the Ubisoft one, and the Microsoft one built in to the OS, and the smaller players like GOG. I forgot Anno 1800 existed for years because I owned it on the Ubisoft one, which I never open. My gaming desktop only ever has Steam open, its the one thing I see when I shake the mouse, and it's the only one of these stores that I have open on startup.
I have free games on Epic games, they're giving away games to entice you to use it, and you know what? I kind of forget I have those games on it because its kind of a pain in the ass and I never launch their launcher, I keep going back to Steam because it works well.
It has 90% market share. it's pretty much objectively a monopoly.
Monopolies by themselves are not illegal though. Only if you use it to leverage and discourage competition. Which sadly is something that Valve is currently dilly-dallying about in court as we speak. That gold agreement update you got last month was a part of their dully-dallying
It may suck for engaged customers, but Valve does need to be taken down a notch. All those times asking why Epic didn't "pass the savings to the customer" are pretty much explained in that very court case talking about pricing parity. Their vague rulings put all kinds of bizarre bans on games, with publishers who may already have dozens of games on the platform (and not just adult games, games rated by the ESRB). This only seems to add to their leverage in now that any potential reason for delay may now cost you your game, no matter the circumstance (I guess Miyamoto is no longer cool to quote).
Laslty, I think it's a bit petty with others talking about PC as a "free, cusomizable platform" but resorting to piracy the moment their walled garden has a threat of going down. Seems like people do just want console gaming in the end.
I'm not sure these two sentences connect in a sensible way. One of the clear advantages of PC gaming for a consumer is that "resorting to" piracy is much easier (or, well, possible at all) there. Whether their piracy is good for the PC gaming industry is another question entirely, but it seems pretty internally consistent to advocate for the PC as a "free, customizable platform" and participate in piracy.
Ultimately, I'm all for Valve having competition. But that's tangential from whether I criticize or approve of any particular Valve policy.
If that's the case, I wish most other pc gamers were that honest about it. It's just tiring hearing so many say "pc gaming is bigger than ever" while threatening piracy the moment one single game has Denuvo on it. Or that "PC has so many platforms" while again resorting to piracy the moment some specific game (maybe even some indie they never heard of) is not on their specific platform anymore.
The generally benevolent nature of Valve is likely due to the ownership structure. As far as I know Gabe has the largest chunk of ownership and the rest is owned by other employees.
Private equity and venture capital tend to ruin companies.
I was going to say the good news is that we do have competitors, even if they suck; but it's going to be pretty much impossible to replace people's steam libraries after all these years of using them. I guess it's just a bitter pill to swallow if Valve somehow goes evil. Most of us might be better off cutting down on gaming anyway haha
It's pretty much why I try to use GOG firstl. My game plan for an evil GOG is to just take my ball and go home. Nothing is lost except a nifty launcher, but even that might be open source.
The important gist from the article: