deanb Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Probably been a long time coming. I just feel stuff doesn't always fit in other threads so more sense to have their own. http://www.develop-online.net/news/38853/Newell-Consoles-must-cease-isolating-developers So as part of his Apple musings Gabe also had a bit of a jab at the closed nature of consoles and how it keeps out the developers from interacting with the customers. It's not exactly a theme new to him, he has gained a habit recently of making a few jabs in the Xboxs' direction specifically over XBL. So yeah, thread to discuss Valve n what they/Gabe says/does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Well, I think what Valve have done which is really huge is that they've made purchasing and installing and updating videogames beyond simple. They've sort of managed to bring the console experience to PC. That being said, there's arguments on both sides of the coin for closed/open systems. It's the age old Mac vs. IBM PC argument. It's being held right now on Android vs. iPhone, PS3 vs. Xbox and so on. There are advantages to closed and to open and I've had to accept that some people prefer one while some people prefer the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 You mean consoles have brought the Steam experience over? (Especially when you take into account they've now started on cloud saves too) (Oh and especially when you realise Steam is quite a bit older than the current consoles) When it comes to closed and open I'd say it's definitely hurting to be closed on consoles. You, as the consumer, are basically trapped by whatever Sony or MS come up with. You want to play MP on 360? You have to pay MS. You want to get a game digitally then you have to pay the absurd prices they charge, with no competition or alternative in sight. The big 3 are going to have to re-jigger and become a bit more open as 8th n 9th gen come and digital becomes more prevalent. Sony is experimenting a bit, with Steam and Dust 514 on the console(and they've had net yarozee and Linux for the past few gens too), but MS is getting tighter n tighter it seems. I know in general the "open vs closed" thing tends to come down to usability, but I just think that's mainly anecdotal and nothing specifically attributed to being either open or closed. E.g on OSX and Windows, the day to day tasks are much of a muchness, they act about the same to the common user. But when it comes to the nitty gritty Windows is much more open whereas on OSX you're being handed safety scissors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Oh I agree, A lot of the everyday uses are the same but there are some people who freak out if anything goes wrong ever and they're willing to pay more to make sure they never have to learn what a jumper is. I've given up long ago trying to convince these people of the advantages of an open platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I enjoy Valve's games, very much so. To put it bluntly, my opinion of Valve is that they're slightly arrogant. Not inherently mind you, but due to how (to my knowledge) they've rarely seen failure, they can state their opinion as if it were indeed a truthful statement. I think back to when someone at Valve confidently stated that advertising agencies had become moot, yet one simply has to look at the advertising campaign for Sony thanks to Deutsch LA . However, no one is better suited to advertise Valve's games than Valve themselves. Portal 2 isn't like any other video game on the market. If you go to Wieden+Kennedy who handles anything EA Sports related, the concept of robots and portal guns is going to be misunderstood. Goodby, Silverstein & Partners handled Nintendo's Wii Fit ads as well as a few others like Wario Land: Shake It, but again, you're not dealing with a typical video game when you confront Portal 2. To end my nerd rant quick, Valve nailed it with their ad, but other video game companies will still need advertising agencies simply for the fact that, unlike Valve games, they can not sell themselves. Anyway, as far as Valve and consoles goes... Valve/Gabe tend to bring great points to platform concerns, but I don't consider them experts for the industry. After all, with all the excuses given for the PS3's "impossible" developing process, Portal 2 appeared and became the best package of Portal 2. I don't say best version because the PC version has great capabilities, but then again, you got a copy of that version if you went PS3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Perhaps they only worked on Portal 2 on the PS3 grudgingly. Also, Gabe may be the top man at Valve but he is not Valve as a whole. That's always one thing that people don't differentiate when quoting these sorts of people. They have their personal opinions (which of course can change what the company does) and they have their business decisions (which can be different than what their personal opinions would lead them to do.) Edited October 13, 2011 by Faiblesse Des Sens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Perhaps they only worked on Portal 2 on the PS3 grudgingly. Also, Gabe may be the top man at Valve but he is not Valve as a whole. That's always one thing that people don't differentiate when quoting these sorts of people. They have their personal opinions (which of course can change what the company does) and they have their business decisions (which can be different than what their personal opinions would lead them to do.) Well yeah, I get Gabe =/= Valve, but he's essentially Valve's figurehead so that's why there's always going to be the transference of "What Gabe says, Valve says." The PS3 remarks are essentially Gabe's remarks, but as far as the statements about advertising agencies, those were business decisions given how Valve is going to remain in-house for their advertising. To be honest, that is the best decision, but what bugged me was how there was this tangent explaining rather than how agencies weren't for Valve, that agencies themselves were obsolete. Then you get the fanboys joining in and mimicking the remark with no prior knowledge other than "Valve no like!" So yeah, Valve is great and I appreciate what they do, but I see this "If it doesn't work for Valve, it just doesn't work period" come into play every so often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 How is Steam not a closed platform? Just look at the difference of opinion between Valve and EA. EA want to deal direct with their customers, Valve won't allow it. Gabe's comments are a huge great steaming pile of hypocritical BS. "Platform holders are severing direct lines between developers and customers for their own benefit, Valve president Gabe Newell has said." http://www.develop-online.net/news/38534/EA-Relationship-with-Valve-not-beyond-repair "A dispute between EA and Valve began earlier in the year when EA attempted to directly sell add-ons to its games sold through Steam. Due to those actions interpreted as a violation of Steam’s terms and conditions, Valve removed the offending games from its Steam Store." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDex Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 How is Steam not a closed platform? Just look at the difference of opinion between Valve and EA. EA want to deal direct with their customers, Valve won't allow it. Gabe's comments are a huge great steaming pile of hypocritical BS. "Platform holders are severing direct lines between developers and customers for their own benefit, Valve president Gabe Newell has said." http://www.develop-o...t-beyond-repair "A dispute between EA and Valve began earlier in the year when EA attempted to directly sell add-ons to its games sold through Steam. Due to those actions interpreted as a violation of Steam’s terms and conditions, Valve removed the offending games from its Steam Store." I think the key difference is that Steam is a closed system on an open platform. They're not the only choice that a PC gamer has. As to the whole Steam/EA thing, I don't think they have a problem with EA dealing directly with their customers. The problem is that Valve don't want to/can't make an exception to their rules for EA and Valve want DLC available through their service if the game it's for is on their service. I think that's as reasonable as EA wanting their own service. If Valve did make an exception for EA then they'd have to make an exception for everyone else or suffer a hit as far as publisher/developer relations go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I don't agree with that position at all. Gabe is arguing that it is wrong to sever the connection between developers and customers. Whether it is the "closed system" or the "closed platform" that does this is moot. I could buy another console or move to PC, as has been noted by many others, people are tied to Steam by the fact that they have the majority of their games purchased through it, or their friends list is tied up to Steam, that's the same reason I am tied to my PS3, I can jump to Xbox or PC in a heartbeat, but it means leaving behind my games, friends and trophies. Besides which, http://store.steampowered.com/about/ says: "Steam, The Ultimate Online Game Platform" I don't see how Gabe can lament the closedness of other platforms while cutting developers off from their customers on his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I haven't really seen any developers hate on Steam, with the exception of Gearbox. The dispute between EA and Valve is that of a platform holder and a publisher and EA seemed to want to go around Steam and just sell DLC directly to the customer rather than give Valve a share of the profits. That's what it at least looks like from my point of view, and considering various bull I've seen EA pull with their DLC schemes, I'm more inclined to believe it's them wanting to save money than make a better experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I enjoy Valve's games, very much so. To put it bluntly, my opinion of Valve is that they're slightly arrogant. Not inherently mind you, but due to how (to my knowledge) they've rarely seen failure, they can state their opinion as if it were indeed a truthful statement. I think back to when someone at Valve confidently stated that advertising agencies had become moot, yet one simply has to look at the advertising campaign for Sony thanks to Deutsch LA . However, no one is better suited to advertise Valve's games than Valve themselves. Portal 2 isn't like any other video game on the market. If you go to Wieden+Kennedy who handles anything EA Sports related, the concept of robots and portal guns is going to be misunderstood. Goodby, Silverstein & Partners handled Nintendo's Wii Fit ads as well as a few others like Wario Land: Shake It, but again, you're not dealing with a typical video game when you confront Portal 2. To end my nerd rant quick, Valve nailed it with their ad, but other video game companies will still need advertising agencies simply for the fact that, unlike Valve games, they can not sell themselves. Anyway, as far as Valve and consoles goes... Valve/Gabe tend to bring great points to platform concerns, but I don't consider them experts for the industry. After all, with all the excuses given for the PS3's "impossible" developing process, Portal 2 appeared and became the best package of Portal 2. I don't say best version because the PC version has great capabilities, but then again, you got a copy of that version if you went PS3. They said that ad companies are not needed for them. Which they weren't really. They have the Source video maker (or whatever the tool is) so they've being able to make all their own adverts and use their network to distribute many of them too. Also able to leverage many of the games they have on Steam in a major viral marketing scheme for both Portal 2 and the games that got involved. No other ad agency could really offer them that. They're a "platform" compared to stuff like PS3 which is a "product", so they get various advantages with that. It's pretty much free to grab Steam and therefore be advertised to through it. Whereas you can't jsut run the "Michael" thing on PS3 to advertise the PS3. I'd say that his statements regarding the PS3 being a pain to develop for are probably still relevant, though Naughty Dog have done a fair amount with adding to the SDK through Uncharted n Uncharted 2 with the..."Edge Libraries" (Not sure on the name). So it's probably gotten a bit easier. I'd say their main push to give PS3 a shot was how open PSN and Sony are compared to Microsoft with XBL. Which even Thursday has given examples of publishers as large as EA having trouble getting MS to have a shot at new things. Valve wanted Steamworks on a console. Sony opened the door for them. How is Steam not a closed platform? Just look at the difference of opinion between Valve and EA. EA want to deal direct with their customers, Valve won't allow it. Gabe's comments are a huge great steaming pile of hypocritical BS. "Platform holders are severing direct lines between developers and customers for their own benefit, Valve president Gabe Newell has said." http://www.develop-o...t-beyond-repair "A dispute between EA and Valve began earlier in the year when EA attempted to directly sell add-ons to its games sold through Steam. Due to those actions interpreted as a violation of Steam’s terms and conditions, Valve removed the offending games from its Steam Store." Yeah what MasterDex said is pretty much on the nail with how the whole open n closed stuff compares. Gabe is saying about being open to having other services running on a console. EAs dispute is because EA considers "selling DLC" to be "customer relations" which maybe you want to mentally step out the office a bit on that one cos that's pretty lame line of thinking for EA to have. However if you want customer info then I hear Valve are pretty good with that; given publishers info on who, when, where, what they did minutes before buying your game, who recommended, etc etc. Their sales data I hear is second to none. And EA calling out Valve is a bit like the kettle calling the microwave black since ....EA has Origin and....Origin only sells EA games. And not even all the EA games. And it's closed off from even EA games, none of them can tie in to the Origin API like what Valve has with letting other 3rd party developers use the Steamworks API. And the points about games and friends tied to steam...Origin is any better how? If I buy a game on Origin am I able to associate it with my Steam account in the same way I associated my Dragon Age game that I bought on Steam with my Origin account or are my games locked to Origin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 So you're telling me that Valve, the platform owner, does not want to get in between EA and their customers, for their own benefit? That for a game already purchased through Steam: EA --> Valve --> Consumer is more beneficial to the consumer than EA --> Consumer and does not benefit Valve? Don't get me wrong, I like Valve, they make great games and I've nothing against Steam but make no mistake, Steam is a closed platform. I'm not saying that Origin is not a closed platform. Nor am I saying that Valve don't have every right to make Steam a closed platform, but it is closed. Just like iTunes, PSN and XBL and all the other walled gardens out there. There's been lots of talk that the next, next Xbox / PS will be a software download. We're seeing the starts of that with PS Certified devices. That won't make PSN an open platform all of a sudden just because it can run on any hardware. It's closed because Sony will put themselves between the publisher and consumer. For a truly open platform you need to look to pure distribution. Somewhere that will host the game, take the money, download the software and then jog on. I believe D2D operate in this way. So does the Android Market, once I've downloaded the software developers are free to set up a direct line of communication with me, to serve me content anyway they wish to, some choose to do in-app billing through the Android Marketplace, others like Amazon, prefer to take me direct to their store. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I can say that I agree with Valve on why they removed the EA games from their store. It would be like if you worked at an electronics store and whenever someone bought an xbox you tried to sell them a game yourself and undercut the store you worked for. If Valve are aiding you by distributing your games though an agreement and then you attempt to cut them out of further sales you're just using them to get your foot in the door. I know it's not a perfect analogy but either sell all your content through that door or none but don't use it as a gateway to direct people away from steam. It is funny all this talk of open and closed platforms. It seems that everyone is pushing all of your content to rentals now and not acutal ownership anymore. Apple has tried to go so far as to say that the EULA applies to the software on your iPhone so that you can't use the device itself in any way they don't authorize. As old systems die companies don't let you use your old content on new platforms so they attempt to make you repurchase games over and over. It's a really negative trend for consumers. I don't consider any platform actually open unless you're free to use the content or devices you purchased however you see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) I can say that I agree with Valve on why they removed the EA games from their store. It would be like if you worked at an electronics store and whenever someone bought an xbox you tried to sell them a game yourself and undercut the store you worked for. If Valve are aiding you by distributing your games though an agreement and then you attempt to cut them out of further sales you're just using them to get your foot in the door. I know it's not a perfect analogy but either sell all your content through that door or none but don't use it as a gateway to direct people away from steam. Physical retailers do not do this. If I buy CoD from Game I am not then forced to buy my dlc through Game. If I buy my console from Game, I'm not locked to buying my PS3 games from them. I make my purchase, then I leave Game behind. Gabe seems to me to be saying the platform holders should do the same, that the middle man should be there to sell the consumer the big ticket item and then leave the consumer to the developer. All I'm saying is that Valve don't do this themselves, so they should not be so quick to criticise others. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it. Valve the Platform owner seem to want to cut the direct line between consumers and developers and place themselves in the middle. Valve the developer want the likes of Sony and MS to cut themselves out of the middle and allow Valve a direct line to their consumers. Edited October 13, 2011 by Thursday Next 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Yeah, there's no perfect analogy but at the same time you can for sure say that retailers aren't happy about the way that things have changed from walkmen to iPods because they used to be able to sell you cassettes and CDs and now they only have accessories and I suppose iTunes cards. I think that's actually why you've seen most electronics stores dying out because WalMart and other stores sell these items only to get you to purchase other things but electronics themselves are becoming less and less profitable for retailers. I get what you're saying about Valve being hypocritical. I can agree to some extent. I just think that it would have been better to say that we should be making things more open. Nothing is really all that open right now though. Everything is getting more and more closed. Edit: Just found this for you TN Gabe Newell's Hypocrisy Edited October 13, 2011 by Yantelope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Windows is pretty open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 It's getting less so with Windows 8 I think. Maybe I'm wrong. MS as a whole has gotten very closed. WP7 is closed, Xbox is closed and I'd be shocked if they don't start closing windows off more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 So you're telling me that Valve, the platform owner, does not want to get in between EA and their customers, for their own benefit? That for a game already purchased through Steam: EA --> Valve --> Consumer is more beneficial to the consumer than EA --> Consumer and does not benefit Valve? Don't get me wrong, I like Valve, they make great games and I've nothing against Steam but make no mistake, Steam is a closed platform. I'm not saying that Origin is not a closed platform. Nor am I saying that Valve don't have every right to make Steam a closed platform, but it is closed. Just like iTunes, PSN and XBL and all the other walled gardens out there. There's been lots of talk that the next, next Xbox / PS will be a software download. We're seeing the starts of that with PS Certified devices. That won't make PSN an open platform all of a sudden just because it can run on any hardware. It's closed because Sony will put themselves between the publisher and consumer. For a truly open platform you need to look to pure distribution. Somewhere that will host the game, take the money, download the software and then jog on. I believe D2D operate in this way. So does the Android Market, once I've downloaded the software developers are free to set up a direct line of communication with me, to serve me content anyway they wish to, some choose to do in-app billing through the Android Marketplace, others like Amazon, prefer to take me direct to their store. But you're taking it as a customer buying DLC being beneficial to the customer. That's beneficial to EA, more so if EA don't have to pay a cut to Valve. EA are free to put a little news feed in their game. Mass Effect does this. BF1943 did a ticker too. Told us of beneficial things like BFBC2 coming out and then abandoned it. That's what I assume to be what EA thinks is "beneficial to the customer". Whereas the Valve specturm, we're what 4 years into the release of TF2, the game's still going strong (not shut the servers down yet) and still get's content. So yeah I'm not really a fan of EA's "of benefit to the customer" line of thinking. As for closedness of Steam: http://steampowered.com/steamworks/ http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey and the last two are what they just give joe bloggs public. Talking of smartphones, EA seems to be doing quite well from dealing with iOS despite the major restrictions on there and the massive profit cuts Apple take. And talking of in-app billing :http://store.steampo...%20Multiplayer/ Also what's wrong with forums? http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/ EA can chat right there with their customers. If they wanted to they can also use Steams handy pop up system to tell current customers that there is now DLC out for the EA game they own. They can also use the Steam forums too to also have a bit of back n forth with customers too. As an example (since I was there not so long ago) http://forums.steamp...d.php?t=2093122 the Rock of Ages developers have been posting a fair bit on the Steam forums. That's hardly wanting to cut developers out of the equation. D2D don't offer this to developers. Actually while on the topic: What term was it on Steam that effected only EA games at around the same time as EA was relaunching EADM as Origin? I can understand why BF3 wouldn't be coming to Steam cos it doesn't even work on Origin so no doubt it'd never work well on Steam. But many of the games pulled were already working fine n dandy on Steam. Then one day they just weren't dandy enough. Cos to be totally and brutally honest: It looks like EA engineered something and their complaints of not being able to deal with the customer are totally and utterly unfounded. @Yante: Windows 8 will let you code Apps with nothing but Javascript n HTML instead of Microsofts .NET like OSes of yore. That opens it up to all kinds of developers. And you can still install whatever the hell you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 @Yante: Windows 8 will let you code Apps with nothing but Javascript n HTML instead of Microsofts .NET like OSes of yore. That opens it up to all kinds of developers. And you can still install whatever the hell you want. Aren't they doing their own metro app store thingy for it though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 You can still install them how you want. Even without the App store up yet you can still install Metro Apps. (btw this is maybe stuff for the Windows 8 thread) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Back on topic! I found this to be interesting. http://www.destructoid.com/how-i-learned-to-stop-pining-for-half-life-episode-three-211344.phtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ok... First off. EA have not pulled any content. Valve pulled the content because after the change to Valve's terms. Valve decided it didn't like EA directing customers away from Steam to buy DLC. This has been stated publicly, Valve are far from altruistic in this. BFBC2 and Burnout Paradise served a lot of content to consumers at no extra charge and for a considerable time after the games release. EA are not the all about squeezing you for horse armour. Gabe's quote said that severing the link to between developer and consumer only benefited the middle man, the one who controls the closed platform. In the change from EA --> Consumer to EA --> Valve --> Consumer who benefited? Not the consumer, cos they either could no longer buy the EA product on Steam, or saw no change at all, not EA either, only Valve benefits from this. I'm sure EA is no more happy dancing to Apple's tune than they are Sony, Microsoft or Valve's. However, EA are not the ones bleating about the tyranny of closed systems. Valve is. If closed systems like Steam are so grand, why is Gabe so bummed about everyone else's? Could it be because he does not like playing by Microsoft's rules? I'm stunned that you can't see the hypocrisy in moaning about closed systems when operating one yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I would like to know why Dragon Age is still on Steam when it has its own DLC store in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocSeuss Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Actually while on the topic: What term was it on Steam that effected only EA games at around the same time as EA was relaunching EADM as Origin? I can understand why BF3 wouldn't be coming to Steam cos it doesn't even work on Origin so no doubt it'd never work well on Steam. But many of the games pulled were already working fine n dandy on Steam. Then one day they just weren't dandy enough. Cos to be totally and brutally honest: It looks like EA engineered something and their complaints of not being able to deal with the customer are totally and utterly unfounded. Oh come on. You know this isn't true. To be brutally honest: EA had a way of releasing DLC: they did it through Bioware's store (as with most of people's recent complaints about EA, it began with Bioware). You'd go there, buy the DLC, and get it in-game. They really made this a thing with DAO, and both ME2 and DA2 utilized this new scheme of things. Valve suddenly decided they didn't want to play ball (around the time F2P games came out; iirc, it was literally the day after), so they released a new TOS which basically said "EA can't do this anymore." EA was a bit upset with that, but then Valve started removing all games with DLC released post-TOS (DA2, Crysis 2, etc), so EA went public. EA isn't the bad guys here. They didn't engineer anything. They continued business as usual. I would like to know why Dragon Age is still on Steam when it has its own DLC store in the game. It seems to be any games with DLC content released after June 14th or 15th, 2011. Edited October 13, 2011 by DocSeuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.