Pitchford:


Recommended Posts

???

That's exactly my point! If Valve hadn't of approached Garry with a deal that gives him a 50% cut of sales with a free engine license, Garry would of had nothing. How is Valve taking advantage, especially considering Garry's actual input is minimal at best? (He essentially slapped in a Lua interpreter and a few models/maps)

Freebie engine, use of resources (Models) that he hasn't made/paid for a 50% cut? Yeah, I'll say it again; GMod is a very poor example.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of GMod and what it can do with Lua, (wiremod for example) and I've played it since the v3 days, but my point remains: The whole GMod 10 thing was a great success for Garry, and a big plus to Valve for bringing something to retail that wouldn't exist without their care for the modding/(indie?) community.

He doesn't distribute any of the models with Garrys Mod and you already need to have Half Life 2 to buy it. It is just a mod based on what you already have installed but they gave him an opportunity to make money on it. Now if you look at other HL2 mods that don't have engine access like Dystopia etc they could sell that without a source engine license. It wasn't necessary but Valve gave him a strange deal perhaps he didn't negotiate it well enough but that would just be them taking advantage of a small developer.

Valve for Devs is sometimes good and sometimes bad and sometimes both. Garry is happy with the money and success he has got out of the game it has opened his mod up to many more people. But the money behind the deal is very much in Valves court. They had all the tools they could have made the game themselves but they didn't and it was his idea. In my opinion it should have been 50/50 until the Engine License was paid off and then changed to a 70 / 30 deal with Garry receiving the majority after all he is the one continuing to update the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words for other PC developers: Too bad.

Valve took a big risk with Steam, dealt with the initial backlash, and now has a huge competitive advantage that they have used to place themself into a very nice situation. I didn't see too many developers complaining about Steam when Microsoft was trying to roll out Games for Windows Live.

If developers really don't like, go and develop a better system for your games. One that gives me sales every week on games that I actually would buy (not crappy DLC packs like XBox Live), allows me to register a CD key once and forget about it, talk to my friends across games, and allows me to install games completely to my hard drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe people are arguing about this over one deal? You need more then one set of numbers before determining that its a bad deal for small dev's.

And I cannot believe some of you are saying that steam is monopolistic. Thats like saying Apples store is a monopoly. Just because something is successful doesn't make it a monopoly.

That 50%/50% deal is because he got the Source engine for free (as mentioned), if you're not writing a Source game (say, it's your own engine) the margins are much better.

I don't see how it's hurting small dev's, it's helping them (13 million+ possible members being shown a notification when the game's released and having it listed in the store)

I love your avatar! Specifically the Colin Mochrie one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words for other PC developers: Too bad.

Valve took a big risk with Steam, dealt with the initial backlash, and now has a huge competitive advantage that they have used to place themself into a very nice situation. I didn't see too many developers complaining about Steam when Microsoft was trying to roll out Games for Windows Live.

If developers really don't like, go and develop a better system for your games. One that gives me sales every week on games that I actually would buy (not crappy DLC packs like XBox Live), allows me to register a CD key once and forget about it, talk to my friends across games, and allows me to install games completely to my hard drive.

I agree for the most part. I mean, they created it, took the risks, and even rode out through the harsh times in the earlier development. Hell, anyone who's been around a little while surely knows just how awful Steam used to be... They've done their job since then though. If they hold the competing edge, well... they deserve it. No one else was willing to do anything similar, other than Stardock as of recently, and we all know what garbage that was and still is, in my opinion.

If you feel working a deal with Steam is bad as a developer, then don't sign on.

As for the users out there, I'm sure many of you including myself have certainly found and bought games that were either on sale or simply on display on Steam. Games you may have not even bothered to look into had you not used the platform. That alone should be a good reason for smaller developers. Not to mention those Steam deals certainly help fight piracy, given that people have the opportunity to buy the game at decent prices and quite easily. The download speeds are also pretty decent, at least here in the US. I never get anything below my speed cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The download speeds are also pretty decent, at least here in the US. I never get anything below my speed cap.

Unless something major happens, for instance the Left 4 Dead DLC. I recall almost all content servers buckling under load. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valve invested time and money into building their Steam platform, so now they get to reap the rewards. That's generally how it works. Looking at the other side, if Valve is unfair to developers then they will go elsewhere, so Valve already has incentive to be fair -- no splitting of companies required. :)

I suppose this guy thinks XBL and PSN are unfair too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not silly. He straight-up said that Steam is a money grab and that Valve is not to be trusted. That sure sounds like he doesn't want people using Steam to purchase his game or any other game and since Steam is my platform of choice for PC games and since I was planning on playing Borderlands on the PC I'm left with no other choice than to not purchase it.

I'm not going to waste my money on packaging and distribution and I'm not going to pay the 360 console tax so what's left? Direct2Drive? That's not even an option when compared to the service which Steam offers.

No, he most certainly did not. He said that he trusts Valve, but he's heard that others do not. That's not saying anything even remotely like what you're claiming he said. As for the money grab -- well, is he wrong? Valve has to make so much money off Steam it's crazy. How's it wrong to say it's a money grab if it is? All he's saying is that independent developers need someone to represent their best interests.

And you're not left with no other choice than to not purchase it. You're being beyond ridiculous here. Why are you not purchasing it through Steam? He never said don't purchase it through Steam. He said that Steam causes some problems. If you're being hypothetical (which I assume you are), fine. But if you're being serious: Just purchase the damn game if you want to play it. You're really trying to stick it to the man who's sticking it to the man? That just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.