116 replies to this topic

[Freyar]

Aidan Malchor, on 22 June 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Because Steam and other similiar services like their control over something a little bit to much. While I have had a couple decent dealings with their customer support more often then not they are clueless, and don't care if your money disappeared with no product to show for it.

Are you talking about Steam, or Origin here? I've not had any bad experiences with Steam's support. (Gotta be firm, but polite and fair.)

Quote

Origin is just as bad, when they screw up they usually don't care. The only time the problem was fixed was after a week of talking with different agents all doing the same thing every day. They gave me a oh so awesome $20 credit towards my next purchase...2 weeks later go to use that credit and oh look it's expired sorry bout that, thanks for calling.

Origin on the other hand, yeah.. their support is staffed by people that don't know what they're doing.

Quote

There are plenty of ways a game like MWO can get advertisement and exposure without lowering themselves to those type of services.

There seems to be this feeling that if there's a Steam build, then it'll be the only build. I don't see MWO having as much of an impact on advertising circles since it doesn't have a larger group behind it with multiple projects (unlike Wargaming). While you may have had a poor experiences (I know I have with Atari/Digital River, Origin/Digital River, and Gamefly), that doesn't really account for the majority. Even then, I'd rather see people who wouldn't have known about MWO be able to jump in and have fun through Steam, than to bar the chance of exposure just because a few people have had bad experiences. Nothing is 100% perfect, ever.

[IceSerpent]

Freyar, on 22 June 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Even then, I'd rather see people who wouldn't have known about MWO be able to jump in and have fun through Steam, than to bar the chance of exposure just because a few people have had bad experiences.

That's where you are wrong - with Steam in the picture it's never "jump in and have fun". It's more like "try to buy a game, cuss while wondering where your money disappeared, spend a few hours on the phone with their support, try to install the game, cuss while it keeps giving you weird errors, spend a few more hours on the phone with their support, try to play the game, cuss while Steam app does all sorts of unnatural things to your bandwidth, spend a few more hours on the phone...finally give up and play something else".

[Deathwalker]

I would prefer not to have load one game to load the one i wanna play. Steam has always been nusence at best and a full blown pain in the *** at worst. Although steam my get more people to play the game I don't really want the people (casual players whining about everything to the devs) the neuter the game jsut so they can win.

[Noth]

IceSerpent, on 22 June 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

That's where you are wrong - with Steam in the picture it's never "jump in and have fun". It's more like "try to buy a game, cuss while wondering where your money disappeared, spend a few hours on the phone with their support, try to install the game, cuss while it keeps giving you weird errors, spend a few more hours on the phone with their support, try to play the game, cuss while Steam app does all sorts of unnatural things to your bandwidth, spend a few more hours on the phone...finally give up and play something else".

Never had any of those problem. Don't know anyone that has those problems. See very few posts about issues with steam that is not an issue with the game itself.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Releasing on STEAM could be a great thing to bring in people. This could be a good thing and a bad thing though. Yes it will bring in a fairly large number of people. Of the new comers there will be a low percentage that will be "quality" players. I'm not saying that STEAM wouldn't bring in some valued players, but there's a reason when a game goes on STEAM the influx of people are called Steamies. Releasing too soon on STEAM could be a death sentence. If the game isn't at a well developed point the influx of people will drop and turn on the community. Lets be honest... People are *******... oh yeah, and screw Origin, EA, and the horse they rode in on.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing MWO on STEAM... But I'd prefer if they held off and let the community find its nitch before the Steamies arrive.

[Masterofm]

Freyar, on 22 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Steam could be a vital avenue for exposure to over five million potential players. ValvE may take a cut out of every currency purchase done from them, but so does UltimatePay and Paypal as it is.

O.K. I hope you are not comparing Valve to Paypal and other payment services. Where those services take a portion of a percent valve takes more like 15-25%. At the minimum. To lose 5 dollars out of every 20 to a service is painful and cuts down on the companies bottom line. To lose 40 cents out of every 20 dollars is to almost be expected. For a company that is selling a boxed game losing a larger portion of that money is fine and dandy. The work is already done and there is no need to continue to invest in the game. Boxed games you get from Best Buy or *shutter* Game Stop do the same thing really so it is beneficial to sell as many copies as they can of the game.

For a F2P game though when not even 5% of players are supporting the other 95% of people playing the game losing 1-2% off of that 5% and giving it to a service like Steam is frankly beyond unappealing for a developer. Especially if you have hopes of actually improving the game instead of making it a quick cash grab.

Freyar, on 22 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Steam has done nothing but have a positive impact for the likes of All Points Bulletin: Reloaded, and even introduced a payment processor I can trust. (Prior to Steam release, I had to buy my credit from those seedy advertising groups that offer "Free" credit in exchange for completing offers, then never actually paying up when you did.)

APB:R has it's own stand-alone client if you prefer not to use them. I use Steam a good portion of the time as-is, and having it tied to my SteamID would even be a better convenience as well.

APB:R was losing tons of players through all of the lies they were constantly spewing out. They launch saying punk buster is working, and how they have the hacking situation under control...... yeah.... bunch of grade A baloney. It's not shocking that they suddenly were using steam as a way to get more people to try the game out. The only reason they needed to do this is because the game sucked ***, had tons of memory leaks even after the change over and was suffering from a crap ton of bad word of mouth.

When APB:R has 2,000-5,000 player population and does nothing but **** all over their player base of course they go to Steam, because it's only uphill from that kind of terrible move. All of those perma bans and they realized that 50% of the hackers were using the cash shop so instead of banning them they give them a warning while others get a perma ban due to an error in the system? The whole history of that game was just one giant mistake, which is a real shame since it had so much potential.

[Noth]

Masterofm, on 22 June 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

For a F2P game though when not even 5% of players are supporting the other 95% of people playing the game losing 1-2% off of that 5% and giving it to a service like Steam is frankly beyond unappealing for a developer. Especially if you have hopes of actually improving the game instead of making it a quick cash grab.

Vindictus, CO, STO, LotRO, DC Universe and many more are all on STEAM. So I wouldn't say it's un appealing to a developer at all.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

FYI, Paypal sucks ballz as a processor. And yes, ValvE cuts into profits... but at the same time, it generates so much more by adding to the player base of people that would never have played the game without them. So you gotta ask yourself... is giving ValvE $5 out of every $20 worth it if you'd never see that $20 in the first place?

[Masterofm]

Steam is great in some ways. In other ways it's not. If you want to aim high you don't run to Steam first. Games like League of Legends didn't run to Steam because it didn't need to. It did well enough on it's own.

Aiming to be a mediocre game with wishy washy mechanics is a good way to find yourself on the list of Steams F2P MMO list. It helps out the company who made the game and gives it a fresh batch of blood. But if you are aiming to be great you don't need steam to pass on the word.

Steam is a great crutch, but it's still a crutch. Some games like MWO, Firefall, and Planetside 2 I would hope are great enough that it can stand on it's own 2 feet without the need of steam.

[Noth]

Masterofm, on 22 June 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Steam is great in some ways. In other ways it's not. If you want to aim high you don't run to Steam first. Games like League of Legends didn't run to Steam because it didn't need to. It did well enough on it's own.

Aiming to be a mediocre game with wishy washy mechanics is a good way to find yourself on the list of Steams F2P MMO list. It helps out the company who made the game and gives it a fresh batch of blood. But if you are aiming to be great you don't need steam to pass on the word.

Steam is a great crutch, but it's still a crutch. Some games like MWO, Firefall, and Planetside 2 I would hope are great enough that it can stand on it's own 2 feet without the need of steam.

League didn't need help because their game format has a huge fan base and the devs and people brought it were already famous in the genre. They also ran tournaments very early on and had a long and very open beta phase to hook people.

Hate to tell you but Battletech does not have the fan base that Mobas do let alone a moba that is casual friendly. They also aren't having a long and open beta phase to hook people.

It's not a matter of standing on there own two feet. It's a matter of ease of access and getting their name out there. Steam does both. If it was a matter of standing on their own, I'm pretty sure most of the games on steam (outside of indie and old games) could stand really well on their own.

Edited by Noth, 22 June 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Freyar]

IceSerpent, on 22 June 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

That's where you are wrong - with Steam in the picture it's never "jump in and have fun". It's more like "try to buy a game, cuss while wondering where your money disappeared, spend a few hours on the phone with their support, try to install the game, cuss while it keeps giving you weird errors, spend a few more hours on the phone with their support, try to play the game, cuss while Steam app does all sorts of unnatural things to your bandwidth, spend a few more hours on the phone...finally give up and play something else".

I have no idea what you're on about. One: Issues with games not starting typically lies with issues from the developer of said game. (IE: Eidos for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Volition for Saints Row The Third.) Second: ValvE/Steam does not have phone support anyway.

Sorry to say, I can't believe your account for your experience. You may have had problems with digital distribution, and you may have even have had troubles with Steam, but your response here tells me you aren't willing to discuss this in such a way that anyone can learn from.

Deathwalker, on 22 June 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

I would prefer not to have load one game to load the one i wanna play. Steam has always been nusence at best and a full blown pain in the *** at worst. Although steam my get more people to play the game I don't really want the people (casual players whining about everything to the devs) the neuter the game jsut so they can win.

Sorry to say, having a wider audience is an imperative to any Free-to-Play operation. I believe that the developers are strong enough to withstand a casual demand for things such as "make every mech blow up when destroyed". You're actively asking PGI to NOT get more players in the game which, as a fan and someone eagerly waiting for the 7th of August, is depressing. We should be doing whatever we can to get more people in, adjusted, and enjoying what PGI will have to offer.

Agent CraZy DiP, on 22 June 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Of the new comers there will be a low percentage that will be "quality" players. I'm not saying that STEAM wouldn't bring in some valued players, but there's a reason when a game goes on STEAM the influx of people are called Steamies. [...] I personally wouldn't mind seeing MWO on STEAM... But I'd prefer if they held off and let the community find its nitch before the Steamies arrive.

If the game is going to be on Steam, it'd be better to make sure that players from Steam aren't too "behind the curve". That's a common complaint with games that come in a significant amount of time after release.

Should we be willing to scrap the launch on the site just to avoid having "non-seasoned" players join in? Should we be willing to subject every player to a test, seeing if they'd play any previous BTech game? "Quality" in terms of skill is a very bad way to determine if a new market or userbase should be included.

Masterofm, on 22 June 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

O.K. I hope you are not comparing Valve to Paypal and other payment services. Where those services take a portion of a percent valve takes more like 15-25%. At the minimum.

We have NO idea how much Steam takes out of currency sales. Yes, 15%, 20%, 30% have been quoted before, but that's for sales of retail games. IE: Selling games in a traditional environment such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. We have no idea how much of a cut that Free-to-Play games end up seeing, but I'd be willing to bet that the cut is significantly less as there's more recurring revenue.

Quote

APB:R was [...]

I'm not going to argue quality of APB:R, namely because that's out of scope for this thread. Suffice to say other Free-to-Play games are doing just fine as well on Steam.

Noth, on 22 June 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Vindictus, CO, STO, LotRO, DC Universe and many more are all on STEAM. So I wouldn't say it's un appealing to a developer at all.

Masterofm, on 22 June 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Steam is great in some ways. In other ways it's not. If you want to aim high you don't run to Steam first. Games like League of Legends didn't run to Steam because it didn't need to. It did well enough on it's own.

That's because League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth already had a substantially strong fanbase from the original DotA pool. MWO does not have that luxury.

Quote

Steam is a great crutch, but it's still a crutch. Some games like MWO, Firefall, and Planetside 2 I would hope are great enough that it can stand on it's own 2 feet without the need of steam.

Considering SOE already has their titles on Steam, I'm betting Planetside 2 will be there too. I seriously don't understand this mentality of "If it's on Steam, it's ****" when such a thought is purely asinine. Quality is independent of the platform it's distributed on. Why shouldn't MWO be the first "great" game on there (if you assume all other Free-to-Play games on there are terrible,)


People are forgetting a number of important points.

• Just because it's on Steam, does not mean there wouldn't be a stand-alone client.
  
• New players mean more targets, and possibly more revenue for the game which in turn provides a higher possibility for more content faster.
  
• We do not know the cut Steam takes from Free-to-Play currency sales. (We have "rough guesses" as to how much for retail sales, but that doesn't apply here.)

[Deathwalker]

OK. i will agree it may be knee jerk to say all steam players are anoying tweens with daddy's credit card. The main reason for not having Steam has still not been addressed. IT SUCKS! Please spend a little of that money we just gave you for founders packs and throw some vid on saturday morning cartoons and cartoon network to generate some interest. hell spam youtube like everyone else does and get work out that way. the more you drop on advertising the more people (old and young) you get to come and play. SAying Steam will generate money may be true but I know ALOT of people that refuse to buy games that require steam bacuase they just don't want the overhead.

[Noth]

Deathwalker, on 23 June 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

OK. i will agree it may be knee jerk to say all steam players are anoying tweens with daddy's credit card. The main reason for not having Steam has still not been addressed. IT SUCKS! Please spend a little of that money we just gave you for founders packs and throw some vid on saturday morning cartoons and cartoon network to generate some interest. hell spam youtube like everyone else does and get work out that way. the more you drop on advertising the more people (old and young) you get to come and play. SAying Steam will generate money may be true but I know ALOT of people that refuse to buy games that require steam bacuase they just don't want the overhead.

What overhead? Steam is very non invasive and takes up barely any mememory even when not just sitting in you system tray. If you are running a system that gets effected by the small memory usage (seriously, some IM clients use more memory than steam), you need to upgrade. Every person I've met that hated steam, never really tried it. They tried it and they loved it.

[Freyar]

Deathwalker, on 23 June 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

OK. i will agree it may be knee jerk to say all steam players are anoying tweens with daddy's credit card. The main reason for not having Steam has still not been addressed. IT SUCKS! [...] SAying Steam will generate money may be true but I know ALOT of people that refuse to buy games that require steam bacuase they just don't want the overhead.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that just because it'd be available on Steam, doesn't mean there won't be a stand-alone client. It becomes more of a decision. You see MWO on Steam, find out it has two clients. Either I can play it on Steam and buy credit through that, or I can grab the stand-alone and avoid Steam all together.

I really don't understand where the "It SUCKS!!!" comment comes from, considering you fail to expand on it. Anyone having memory complaints about Steam is not the kind of person that MWO will work well for anyway. Steam, at this point in time, idle, is using 62.5MB of RAM. That's negligible.

[Captain Wolfsburg]

I don't think its necessary. MW:O has gotten plenty of visibility, including articles in more than one gaming magazine.

[Giverous]

no, no, no. Absolutely not. Stopped playing a few games because they're only available on steam. Terrible desktop software, resource hungry.

[Steel Talon]

Quote

Vindictus, CO, STO, LotRO, DC Universe and many more are all on STEAM. So I wouldn't say it's un appealing to a developer at all.

I play few of them, never needed steam for it tough

[Hayden]

I'm inclined to pull a "Nancy Regan" and just say no!

[XavierX]

Giverous, on 23 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

no, no, no. Absolutely not. Stopped playing a few games because they're only available on steam. Terrible desktop software, resource hungry.

It's not 2003 anymore. Origin uses roughly 2x what Steam does, with Chrome using many multiples of that. Claiming that it uses too much memory is simply not a valid claim anymore.

If there's a way for PGI to do it and not give up much of anything financially, they absolutely should do it. Steam has a massive install base and brings exposure to titles. You'd be stupid not to, given the chance.

[Lightdragon]

steam tends to like charging you cash for content that is normally free from developers so please do not feed the greedy corporation keep the money in devs pockets