Where have you been hiding this game?

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Velihopea

The argument was dying down in number of words written, quite linearly, but then you failed me Kayoz by going on blah'ing on for a great length.

Sales is a factor of profits so your playfull "<>" games are again misunderstanding from your part. Nitpickers are interested on correct use of terms. In that u always exel and are a master of this forum.

Now to the one point I have failed in this argument and intent to succeed by next line:
See you in next "steam" thread Kayoz!

Aah, criticism from someone who:
1. lies (ref: foul language)
2. makes up statements, which he presents as fact (ref: failure to cite a single source)
3. admittedly bases his statements on nothing more than speculation (ref: 50%)
4. cannot understand the basic terminology of the discussion (ref: sales v profit)
5. cannot keep straight, what his assertions are (what exactly were you contesting with my "benefit to Matrix" statement? Why not just rummage about your rectum some more?)
6. Tries to twist/re-word/lie about the meaning and/or substance of previous statement - in glaring contradiction to the digital record. (ref: distributor v vendor)

I think the value of debating with you is quite clear; as are the reasons for my reduced word count. It's like trying to debate with a 3-year old that has the attention span of a goldfish and the IQ to match. Granted, there's some amusement value in your pathetic attempts to cover up your preposterous statements - but it's clear that you have little else to offer in the debate/discussion arena.

That's it from me. I can learn nothing from you other than the declining quality of care in "special education" schools.

[Velihopea]

Pipewrench:

I do share some of your concerns about monopolies and steam.

I own about half of my games on Steam and the other on GG, GoG, Gamestop and GMG. Reasons:

1) I follow the sales
2) Not putting the eggs in one basket
3) Principle: To fight monopoly of one distributor and support the poor swedish fellows through GG

But we are only talking about games in here: On total the amount invested is not really very high: more so given that the old games lose their value quickly.

Also I see real disruptions as unlikely and there are enough large companies ready to step in if Valve does something really stupid.

[Shark7]

Pipewrench, I do have to wonder if folks who are deactivated without refund for refusing the draconian ToS do have a legal recourse? The problem isn't that you can't sue them, the problem is that your average Joe Gamer can't afford the legal fees. By disallowing class action lawsuits, they have basically made themselves immune from any legal actions.

That could actually be something to seek an injunction against.

[Darkspire]

Im going to get a bigger bucket of popcorn

Darkspire

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Darkspire


Im going to get a bigger bucket of popcorn

Darkspire

Bring some for me while your at it please...

Oh! And some Romulan Ale...you know where to look. [;)]

[Erik Rutins]

Please keep it civil. Name-calling and insults are against the forum rules and will result in action.

Regards,

- Erik

[Pipewrench]

Shark7

the problem is that your average Joe Gamer can't afford the legal fees. By disallowing class action lawsuits, they have basically made themselves immune from any legal actions.

Bingo! By people not standing up for the rights to own the data they forfeit consumer protection. The implications as we move more and more to cloud computing are staggering.

For example: If I did not agree with what Eric just said above would I say something knowing that he at any time could revoke all my privileges to my games?

Velihopea

"Also I see real disruptions as unlikely and there are enough large companies ready to step in if Valve does something really stupid. "

That is the same argument people used with bank machine fee's. Competition does not work in a plutocracy where there is a limited number of suppliers for the same product. It is all about maximizing profit and all suppliers will fall in line with the next jump up to increase profits. Why? because they belong to the same club. Only when you have many sources of competition is there a threat that the consumer could take his or her business elsewhere. The more sources, the more you lose the ability to dictate price. That is why I support the small developer.

btw fun talking to you so don't take anything personally.

[Velihopea]

Bingo! By people not standing up for the rights to own the data they forfeit consumer protection. The implications as we move more and more to cloud computing are staggering.

As I said the money invested is not enough to warrant the effort of digging up all the relevant information (I really should read all the distributors user-term agreements etc) and then act on it ... Just a simple cost benefit analysis. On a larger scale than personal cost-benefit, you are absolutely right.

Only when you have many sources of competition is there a threat that the consumer could take his or her business elsewhere. The more sources, the more you lose the ability to dictate price. That is why I support the small developer.

Thats one of the reasons I support GG, GoG etc smaller distributors, but I'm not boycotting Steam either unless they really step on my foot. Again, if I gain personal benefit by getting a game on steam very cheaply, I use it. So I'm not punishing them beforehand, but afterwards, if necessary. No real business want's to lose their future customers (en masse) anyways.

And I see that competition in the business is on the rise, not the other way around. Which is good.

btw fun talking to you so don't take anything personally.

None taken

But as for DW:
I hope that Codeforce doesn't take any idealistic view conserning Steam, and I think they don't.

[Pipewrench]

There, now we are stocked up[:)]

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

There, now we are stocked up[:)]

Enjoy your popcorn. Velihopea has provided less substance than the contents of your box; and there is no sign of that changing.

[slovenian89]

I'm confused about your argument on sales vs profit.

Say I've published a game and sell it on my site and GamersGate, like DW. The game sells 10,000 copies. Now, I go and make that game available on Steam and my sale of units goes up by 50% (another 5,000 copies). Even if Steam takes 30% of those sales, it is no additional cost to me, as my game was already developed and published before putting it on Steam. I have sold an additional 5,000 copies that I wouldn't have before, how does that decrease my profits? My profit margin would increase by a significant amount...

The only additional cost of being on Steam would be if you want to develop a Steamworks version of the game, which is not required to distribute on Steam...

[WoodMan]

Argh.

This always happens when someone brings up Steam. [:@]

We need a proper moderator who can push all Steam discussion over to the general boards, like what eventually happened to the last Steam thread.

[Darkspire]

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

Argh.

This always happens when someone brings up Steam. [:@]

We need a proper moderator who can push all Steam discussion over to the general boards, like what eventually happened to the last Steam thread.

Thats no fun, ive got a shed full of popcorn here and the topic does make a change from the usual posts [:D]

Its not just Steam, its the DRM issue that piques my interest and others views on it, having lost 29.99 on Mass Effect due to the DRM (no mention on the box of limited installs etc, built once and installed a new OS twice and gave up with the battle to try to get it re-activated, as I did not un-install the game had no idea it was there till I could not install it)
So yes, find this thread interesting, if it was tucked away somewhere on the 'general boards' I would never have seen it as I would never go there, have no interest in other Matrix games.

Darkspire

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: slovenian89

I'm confused about your argument on sales vs profit.

Say I've published a game and sell it on my site and GamersGate, like DW. The game sells 10,000 copies. Now, I go and make that game available on Steam and my sale of units goes up by 50% (another 5,000 copies). Even if Steam takes 30% of those sales, it is no additional cost to me, as my game was already developed and published before putting it on Steam. I have sold an additional 5,000 copies that I wouldn't have before, how does that decrease my profits? My profit margin would increase by a significant amount...

You're making an enormous assumption that Steam -only- takes a percentage of sales. Take a look at an average cell phone contract...

1. set monthly minimum fee
2. fee per minute used
3. increased fees for international calls
4. fee for bandwidth (data)
5. additional fees unpredicted call time and data usage

So lets translate that into a fictional Steam contract, which may very well entail...

1. base monthly fee for Steam services
2. cost per transaction (if there's a refund, this fee still applies)
3. additional fee for processing refunds/dispute resolution
4. currency conversion charges for all sales outside your own country
5. bandwidth usage fee (any post-sale updates cost Matrix, not Steam)
6. software testing fee (initial release and per update, to make sure it all works with Steam)
7. no liability for anything on Steam's part (particularly regional sales taxes - see Germany)
8. finally, a percentage (before all of the above) of each sale

So given the fictional example I provided, it may very well turn out that given sales predictions from Matrix, the profit to them (from Steam) might actually be less than the sales lost from their own matrixgames.com site... oh hold on, they might not be allowed to continue their own sales, as Steam might very well demand exclusive license.

But it's all speculation - since we can't see the contract. In fact, Steam is quite aggressive in keeping it's contracts with devs and distributors secret.

What we can see is Erik - arguably a competent professional - who did not sign a contract, despite the constant calls to do so from pundits like Velihopea, who haven't ever read a contract and certainly have no idea what's in Steam's contract.

I think it's quite safe to say that the lack of signing is a very good clue that the proposed straight percentage split of sales is not the case.

If you're still convinced that V has a strong case, and that increased sales is always a boon to the company, take a look the NVidia and Microsoft deal, where they were selling chips for the XBox at a LOSS. Increased sales in their case, despite what Velihopea claims, did not translate into increased profits. But he's an accounting student who's already studied business and economics - so he certainly knows what he's talking about, and I (nor NVidia's accountants) don't.

ORIGINAL: slovenian89
The only additional cost of being on Steam would be if you want to develop a Steamworks version of the game, which is not required to distribute on Steam...

What makes you think that integration of the Steam DRM api is the only cost? If you know anything about American health insurance, you might as well assume that your monthly insurance bill is your ONLY medical insurance cost. Is the ticket price on your car the ONLY cost of using it till you buy another? Stop and think. Where did you get the impression that the Steam api integration is the only cost here?

Here's a little analogy -
We're out for a night on the town. We come across a lady of negotiable affections. She looks hot. She looks like she can boink all night long and still be crying for more. She has customers lining up, and has several former "compensated dates" bragging about how amazing their experience was.

Now, I go to negotiate with her - and after several minutes of haggling, walk away.

I don't tell you why I walked away. Maybe it was the sight of an Adam's apple, which I saw and you didn't. Or perhaps it was the needle-tracks on her arms, which I saw and you didn't. Or maybe it was the BSDM dungeon she brought her clients into, with the array of strap-on devices on the wall, which I saw and you didn't. Or maybe it was the spreading warts I saw peeking from under her miniskirt, which I saw and you didn't.

You didn't see the Steam contract. Erik did. He walked away. He saw something that he can't or won't talk about, that made it unappealing.

Oh, Steam can't be all that bad. Look at all the happy customers it sells to and all the devs/distributors who cry its benefits. Surely Steam wouldn't mistreat the people it does business with? Right? Ask NeoGAF about how he was treated. Ask ask the devs ... oh hold on, you can't ask any of the people on their other end of the supply chain, as they're all contractually gagged. They can't talk about how much they're actually making (no, I mean their profit, not their sales figures) - as Steam's lawyers are hovering nearby; armed with heavy briefcases.

In the end, believe what you want. If you're STILL convinced that Erik is walking away from the deal of the century, then by all means continue to believe so and criticize him. It's a (relatively) free discussion forum.

*edits*
- so many spelling mistakes

[bryanhbell]

Kayoz, at the risk of incurring further insults, I'd like to ask about a few points you made.

Steam is quite aggressive in keeping it's contracts with devs and distributors secret.

I was unaware of this. Contracts between parties are frequently confidential, but what leads you to believe that Steam is particularly aggressive in this matter? Can you provide a source for this info?

You didn't see the Steam contract. Erik did. He walked away.

I haven't been able to find any evidence that Erik, or anyone else at Matrix, has reviewed any contracts with Steam. From some other comments I've seen from Matrix in this forum, I was under the impression that Matrix has yet to even speak to Steam about selling games, let alone get to the contract phase. Can you provide some support for your claim that Erik reviewed a contract with Steam and then turned them down?

Finally, one clarification:

they might not be allowed to continue their own sales, as Steam might very well demand exclusive license

It turns out this bit of speculation is untrue. Most, if not all, of the games offered on Steam are not exclusive. Games available on Steam are also available from many other distributors as well as from the publishers or developers themselves. For just one example, the indie game FTL: Faster Than Light, is available on Steam, GOG, and the developer's own web site. There are many cases in which games are less expensive and DRM-free when purchased directly from the developer or publisher.

EDIT: I found an FAQ on Valve's "Business Solutions" web site that addresses some of your speculations about what Steam might charge a developer/publisher. From this document, it appears some of your points of speculation may be correct and some incorrect. Others aren't addressed in the document. Some relevant quotes from the page:

...
5. Do the steam royalties apply before or after VAT/country specific taxes?
Taxes are removed before calculating royalties.
...
7. What other fees come out of my revenue share?
There are some specific adjustments made depending on such things as fraud and returns and these are outlined more fully in our distribution agreement that we will send to you if your game is going on Steam. We do not make deductions for marketing or bandwidth.

8. Do you require exclusivity for titles you sell on Steam?
We think you should get your game in front of as many people as you can, therefore we do not require exclusivity on titles.
...

From this I gather that your point 3 might be correct and your points 5, 8, and the one about exclusivity may be incorrect. The other points aren't addressed.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
Kayoz, at the risk of incurring further insults, I'd like to ask about a few points you made.

Steam is quite aggressive in keeping it's contracts with devs and distributors secret.

I was unaware of this. Contracts between parties are frequently confidential, but what leads you to believe that Steam is particularly aggressive in this matter? Can you provide a source for this info?

I am not required to provide anything. The burden of proof is on you and V, who are arguing for Steam distribution. Your claim, your burden of proof.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
I haven't been able to find any evidence that Erik, or anyone else at Matrix, has reviewed any contracts with Steam.

I've already discussed this. The forum has a search function. Use it.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
It turns out this bit of speculation is untrue. <snip>

Read the post again, and stop fabricating statements. Your comments are as reliable as V's profanity accusation.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
EDIT: I found an FAQ on Valve's "Business Solutions" web site that addresses some of your speculations about what Steam might charge a developer/publisher. From this document, it appears some of your points of speculation may be correct and some incorrect. Others aren't addressed in the document. Some relevant quotes from the page:

Show me a contract, then we can discuss it. A FAQ is hardly a binding contract.
But hold on, let's read into this a bit...

5. Do the steam royalties apply before or after VAT/country specific taxes?
Taxes are removed before calculating royalties.

Interesting how there's no mention here of who's liable if they mess up.

7. What other fees come out of my revenue share?
There are some specific adjustments made depending on such things as fraud and returns and these are outlined more fully in our distribution agreement that we will send to you if your game is going on Steam. We do not make deductions for marketing or bandwidth.

The answer here is "yes". There are fees - it's not a straight percentage split, as you and V keep insisting. How much and what? Steam only says "yes" here. Details are locked behind NDAs.

8. Do you require exclusivity for titles you sell on Steam?
We think you should get your game in front of as many people as you can, therefore we do not require exclusivity on titles.

Aah, well look at Minecraft, where they specifically declined to sell on Steam due to the limits on how they communicate with their players and what they can do with the game. Freedom? Seems Notch didn't think it was so great.

You might note that "exclusive" can mean a lot of things. Does it mean Matrix would be able to sell DW through their own site, or that they would be allowed to link to their Steam page. Based on Notch's statement, I suspect it's far closer to the latter than the former.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
From this I gather that your point 3 might be correct and your points 5, 8, and the one about exclusivity may be incorrect. The other points aren't addressed.

I suggest you go up again and read the line immediately preceding the list. Here's a clue for you to start with. Get your dictionary handy and look up the word "fictional".

It's all speculation, and that's just a couple of guesses from me. Before you criticize me, perhaps you'd like to vet V's "50%" claim - which he presented as FACT and not speculation. I've been more than clear in my use of fiction, educated guesses and interpretation. You and V, on the other hand, have disingenuously presented your claims as fact, when they're not.

Why is it that you're all of a sudden insisting I provide sources, when you quite specifically stated, "we're expected to back up any statements we make with ironclad arguments supported by studies and statistics". That's an interesting about-face you've made.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell

I haven't been able to find any evidence that Erik, or anyone else at Matrix, has reviewed any contracts with Steam. From some other comments I've seen from Matrix in this forum, I was under the impression that Matrix has yet to even speak to Steam about selling games, let alone get to the contract phase. Can you provide some support for your claim that Erik reviewed a contract with Steam and then turned them down?

*sigh* I hate having to hand-hold people thorough the basics of reading through a post -

Read Erik's post in this thread:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
... While some of our games are aimed at a more mainstream audience, many are not and the pricing philosophies that work for mass market titles would simply put our developers out of business. The prices you see on Steam are set the same way as ours, to maximize profit and ensure that the business and our developers can continue to make these kinds of game. It would make us all very happy indeed if we could charge you $5 per game instead of $30-40, but that comes down to the reality of the economics, not to personal choice.

I draw your attention to the "simply put our developers out of business" - which seems to be a pretty clear indication that he's already looked at Steam distribution and decided against it. Why make this statement if he's never negotiated with Steam?

Second, his statement "reality of the economics, not to personal choice" - which I interpret as he's already done a business analysis and determined that it's not profitable, irrespective of any personal views of Steam's DRM policies. Again, why the statement if he hadn't already negotiated with Steam?

Now, you're free to interpret Erik's posts any way you want. He hasn't outright stated he's negotiated with Steam - but there's a lot of clues right there.

[bryanhbell]

Well, Kayoz, it's too bad that you expect others to back up their assertions with sources but refuse to do so yourself. It leads me to suspect that you're perhaps unable to back up some of your key claims and that they are thus false.

Also, it's a shame to see that you insist on continuing to fling insults in your responses. I think you sometimes make some good points, but the ad hominem attacks undermine the credibility of these arguments a bit, or at least make this forum a less pleasant place to visit.

I can see no further utility in discussing this topic with you. I probably should have heeded my own advice to Velihopea earlier and just left it alone. I will be sure to do so now.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell

Well, Kayoz, it's too bad that you expect others to back up their assertions with sources but refuse to do so yourself. It leads me to suspect that you're perhaps unable to back up some of your key claims and that they are thus false.

That's precious, coming from someone who specifically stated that he wouldn't - nor did he feel any need to - cite his sources. I asked for sources quite early in this thread and you refused. Isn't it convenient that you're demanding of me what you specifically refused to do?

Simply put - your claim, your burden of proof. I don't have to prove you're wrong. You have to prove that you're right. I cannot, nor will I bother trying, to provide negative proof. If you don't understand why, I really can't help you.

ORIGINAL: bryanhbell
Also, it's a shame to see that you insist on continuing to fling insults in your responses.

I have asked V to provide a quote of the alleged personal insults - which he specifically refused to do so. I find it oddly amusing that you have likewise failed to supply any quotes that you are distressed by.

I repeat myself - as I stated to V: If I've made a personal insult that you feel particularly disturbed by, please quote it and we can address it.

[Cauldyth]

I'd been avoiding reading this thread for quite some time, because I was pretty sure I knew what was going on inside it, who was involved, and the tone of it. Good to see I wasn't wrong! [:D]