238 replies to this topic

[Tyra]

If a game like Lotro ends up on Steam, I suspect that MWO will one day be available. I doubt Steam would be REQUIRED.

But extra revenue and more people exposed to it is great. I see a lot of friends try a game they wouldn't otherwise because it arrived on steam and was F2P, and they had no idea it existed until then.

[AgentHarbinger]

EGH, on 06 July 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

steam... if it can bring more players to the game i would be happy if it was on.

Can't say i'm the biggest steam fan BUT if it can add large numbers to the player base how can the community say no?

]-[arby

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

We can say no because we would like Piranha to get 100% of their own revenue, which is money that could go into designing new content. Steam would eat a nice big fat chunk and slow the game's progression down just so players can get their precious friend's list system they don't need. As I said before, games go on Steam when the money they would get from the extra advertisement is "more" than the cost. In MWO I seriously doubt this would be the case. People will already be lining up at the door to get on this game, and every game website in the world will be shouting it out in reviews, videos, and blogs. Blisteredthumbs for example has a Legendary Founder Editor that I know is just waiting to review the game. It'll also be the 1 MechWarrior game in the world with 0 competition. If you're a MW pilot fan, you're going to play MWO. There's nothing else except a mod from Crysis. They won''t need to hack revenue for Steam. If I am wrong in all this and Steam would be a profit for them and maybe they will use it. I just hope they do what is best for the game. I would like the fancy Friend's list too but not at the price of the game being hurt as a result.

[Tavarish]

Teirdome, on 07 July 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

Steam's NDA is so stinking tight around their sales division that no official numbers have ever been released. However, you can compare it to other marketplaces to come up with a good estimate. Apple takes a flat 30% from their store (well known). Microsoft takes 30% from XBLIG (James Silva's quote on Gamasutra). We can keep going down the list of distributors and their rates are about the same.

When 30% is a well established rate among digital distribution channels, why would Valve change it? Because they're nice? Throwing EA games off of their platform because they dared to sell directly to their customers (the exact thing Valve does with games that require Steam) shows that they aren't so kind.

The next question is why would they charge the same amount for F2P titles. I believe they would. What they're doing with normal titles is taking a percentage of the revenue stream. Why would they change it?

In summary, these are figures based upon well established norms in the gaming industry extrapolated to a very tight-lipped service. I believe the burden on proof is on you as to why it would be different.

Burden of proof is always on person that claims that what he says is definite fact. All that you have stated about cut Steam is taking, you claim 30%, and back it up with what other services are doing. It's not proof that Steam takes 30% or more or less. It's just wild speculation and burden of proof still stays on you.

That said we also can face the fact that Steam has tight NDA's about business they are running. All numbers that are speculated and calculated on must be taken from similar services and after than wild assuming and guessing must be done. For this reason it's safe to say that no one of us knows real numbers and if know is still bound by NDA.

Valve threw EA, selected games to be exact, because EA violated ToS (Terms of Service) that it had signed with Valve. Do you except to i.e. hold a job if you come to work at 10am and leave 3pm every single day while contract you signed says 8am to 4pm? Kinda cute how Valve and Steam get a lot crap for kicking selected EA games from theirs service while it was EA that was breaking signed contract. Don't even go argument about prices of games in Steam because those prices are set by said publishers of games, not by Steam.

Lastly it's just naive thinking if you would think that Steam doesn't take some kind compensation for providing theirs service to F2P game. After all Steam has to pay for used bandwidth and space needed for storage and deliver said game and its updates. Does Steam take same or different cut from Indie / F2P developer than from major publishers? That is up to pure speculation because we can't know numbers. In my opinion(!) Steam / Valve takes smaller cut from Indie and F2P developers in order to support them more and to courage theirs development.

Edited by Tavarish, 07 July 2012 - 06:58 AM.

[Valorcalls]

Some people missed the other question I added. I also asked if they think that after the release of the clans if they should add it to the steam (seeing as the game will have been around for over a year) not as a requirement, but as what STO did, making it grow dramatically, and to address whomever it was who bitched about the afkers, its simple. Do what blizzard did. Add a "Vote Player AFK" button. And then receive a new player.

Also, I understand its been addressed. I just want to hear from PLAYERS on their opinions about it. Not the devs. If the devs see fit to recomment about it, so be it. but i am not here searching for an updated dev comment.

Third point. Can anyone give a link to a reliable site to the costs Steam forces for using its services? Or are they all just the 97% made up statistics people use for a baseline?

[Kristarian]

I hate "steam"ing pile of ......anyway if there is a game that comes out and it requires steam to play, the first thing I do is bypass the code to make the game log into it. If I wanted someone watching every move I make while I play I'd have my kids sit around the computer. As far as bringing more players to the game, I think word of mouth will be enough if the game is good it shouldn't need steam.

[Teirdome]

Tavarish, on 07 July 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Burden of proof is always on person that claims that what he says is definite fact. All that you have stated about cut Steam is taking, you claim 30%, and back it up with what other services are doing. It's not proof that Steam takes 30% or more or less. It's just wild speculation and burden of proof still stays on you.

That said we also can face the fact that Steam has tight NDA's about business they are running. All numbers that are speculated and calculated on must be taken from similar services and after than wild assuming and guessing must be done. For this reason it's safe to say that no one of us knows real numbers and if know is still bound by NDA.

I'm not certain it was ever stated as anything more than a well-formed assumption. If you have any reason to think Valve would buck the 30% trend, then please form an argument about why.

I also don't see how you can perceive the 30% as a wild assumption. A wild assumption would be 50% or 10% when the rest of the industry does 30%. 30% is very logical.

Please, if you wish to provide your own speculative cut be my guest.

Tavarish, on 07 July 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Valve threw EA, selected games to be exact, because EA violated ToS (Terms of Service) that it had signed with Valve. Do you except to i.e. hold a job if you come to work at 10am and leave 3pm every single day while contract you signed says 8am to 4pm? Kinda cute how Valve and Steam get a lot crap for kicking selected EA games from theirs service while it was EA that was breaking signed contract.

Valve got a ton of crap because it finally exposed some parts of the contracts that publishers/developers have to follow when putting a game out on Steam to the larger audience. By having their ToS structured that way, they have said that it is not okay for other companies to sell directly to customers from games purchased on Steam. Meanwhile every game that is steamworks enabled allows Valve to sell directly to customers. This hypocracy was why everybody was upset.

Was EA wrong to violate the ToS? Yes.

Did this incident expose Valve as merely a company out for profit with some shady practices instead of the flawless savior of the PC? Yes.

[Feindfeuer]

I don't realy want MW:O to be on steam, as i've experienced from some other F2P titles an increase in prices if you use the native steam client. Probably cause steam takes a chunk of the earnings, as nothing is free.
I still like steam for its friend/community features in the ingame-overlay... but i can use that without having to have the game available on Steam, For example i run WoT through steam, enjoying the ingame overlay combined with uninflated (though not realy cheap) prices. As you can add pretty much any game to your steam library without the need of it beeing a native steam title, i don't see a need to get MW:O on steam. I'll still use it in combination with steam, for the already mentioned reasons.

[Saevus]

Thorn Hallis, on 06 July 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

'Mechs are powered by fusion reactors, so steam is out of the picture.

Damn it......beat me to it. By like 9 pages.

Edited by Saevus, 07 July 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[DeathAxle]

Given that in the UK a new game if bougth via steam will be £10 more exepensive with digital distribution than if bought through Amazon or a game outlet with a physical box and an unlock code for steam.

So the 30% figure seems good given that price differential.

[Adrian Carino]

I don't think Steam is necessary for MWO. Just treat it like any normal MMO and keep Steam the heck out of it. I firmly believe that Steam ruined my gaming experience for Dawn of War 2 and I would really be unhappy if Steam was to do this to MWO. Piranha games doesn't need steam.

Edited by Adrian Carino, 07 July 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Dustein]

I also use Stream, but primarily as an IM program.
I will be adding MWO under non-steam game, just so I can easily chat with friends and tell them to join me in MWO!

[Serious Table]

I've got my fingers crossed that it does end up on Steam much like other Free-to-play games have. Not as a requirement, but much like how LotRO or Star Trek Online, even Global Agenda turned out: an alternative means of downloading and running the application.

[Traygor Icarion]

Bluten, on 06 July 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Steam would eat a sizable chunk of Piranha's revenue in order to give them a listing and advertisement they don't need. This is why only "desperate" games are on Steam or end up on Steam. A multiplayer game that can actually self sustain effectively by itself is never on Steam.(You don't see WoW on there do you?) This game is already heavily advertised and as soon as the NDA drops it will be EVERYWHERE. They do not need to feed Steam. I bet their servers will be overloaded already when this game hits release just from the demand and they will likely stay loaded for a really long time if the game is good. This is the "1" MechWarrior Online game. It won't need Steam. If worst comes to worst, it will still have its MechWarrior fans.(Just like Old Republic is still alive due to being the only decent Star Wars MMO. It is carried by its genre's fans. This game will be the same.)

So by this logic, the only reason TF2 is on steam is because it's a failing game? How about Left 4 Dead? Maybe you should take a look at this chart.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

[SUSTINET]

ultraviper, on 06 July 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

First of all there are plenty of MMOs on Steam that work perfectly. Second, what would that have to do with MWO which is obviously not a MMO?

Wondering how MWO is NOT an MMO?

[Gamgee]

Hope it gets added in after post launch, love me some Steam. It isn't a deal breaker for me. I do know lots of people who wont touch a game unless it has Steam, I find this ridiculous.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Serious Table, on 07 July 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I've got my fingers crossed that it does end up on Steam much like other Free-to-play games have. Not as a requirement, but much like how LotRO or Star Trek Online, even Global Agenda turned out: an alternative means of downloading and running the application.

First thing I did in Global Agenda was download the standalone client as soon as it came out. Saved me so many frames/second it was like a whole new game.

[Ultraviper]

SUSTINET, on 07 July 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Wondering how MWO is NOT an MMO?

Just because a game is multiplayer and online doesn't make it a MMO. MWO as far as I know is 24 players per game. Or do you consider Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Quake, etc. MMOs? The first M in MMO stands for Massively, meaning hundreds/thousands of players in a persistent environment. 24 is not massive.

[GrantLF]

I honestly don't want to see it on steam. Don't get me wrong though as a PC gamer nearly all of my games are on there, this is just one title that I would want to be separate.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

ultraviper, on 07 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Just because a game is multiplayer and online doesn't make it a MMO. MWO as far as I know is 24 players per game. Or do you consider Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Quake, etc. MMOs? The first M in MMO stands for Massively, meaning hundreds/thousands of players in a persistent environment. 24 is not massive.

So if I get on WoW and queue for a dungeon, the dungeon is not an MMO? Fights may cap at 24 but you still have planets and 6 different factions. It is more or less an MMO. They also said there would be some kind of "out of Mech" roaming outside of fights, which might have a lot more than 24 people in an area. I suppose "MMO" can be defined differently, but I'm pretty sure most will consider MWO to be one.

Edited by Bluten, 07 July 2012 - 04:04 PM.