BSN:"Valve to take over all PC gaming distribution"

[Badkarma]

Awesome. However, I will only buy games via STEAM if they are below a certain price and only if it's not sold by another digital provider at/near the same price. D2D seems to be keeping an eye on STEAM as they put the same games on sale [usually .01 cheaper] than STEAM.

IE: Civ 4 was on sale at the same price on STEAM and D2D - I chose D2D simply because I don't need Steam to install/run the game and I can easily "gift" the game to whomever I want [the installation only verifies the game key - not who purchased it].

Does that mean you can "gift" any old games that you no longer play to your friends and family without having to buy another copy like Steam? I have several games that I would like to pass it on to my cousin.

Until now I've never bothered with another online service except Steam because I don't want another app sitting in my tray taking it up resources. But what you said intrigued me. I may have to pay attention to D2D sales from now on.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Crysis Complete was $13 during holiday sale.

I came to post this. I would have gone on it but I bought the complete pack in store for $30 not too long before the sale on steam.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Does that mean you can "gift" any old games that you no longer play to your friends and family without having to buy another copy like Steam? I have several games that I would like to pass it on to my cousin.

Until now I've never bothered with another online service except Steam because I don't want another app sitting in my tray taking it up resources. But what you said intrigued me. I may have to pay attention to D2D sales from now on.

If what you said is true about D2D, it'd be VERY cool to see STEAM pick this feature up.

 

[digitaldurandal]

and the inability to resell means i can't justify the price the games cost - whether valve set the prices or not. e.g crysis. i've been looking for both games on steam for ages and the best price i've seen is the pack for £29.99. without being able to resell should i feel the need, the games would have to be half that price for me to buy,

then you have games like COD. a campaign, but also an online mode? i can't be bothered playing online anymore due to shenanigans but why would i pay full price for MW2 when i only want the campaign. on the same note, what about people that bought MW and MW2 but never played the single player? they should be able to buy just the online part of the game.

How much do you pay to go to a concert for a few hours, a movie, a single sports event, a dinner you could have eaten at home, an amusement park ticket?

I really hate the arguement that the game costs too much.

I played 260 hours of COD. That is a bargain. Even if I had only played the campaign the price would not be astronimical by the hour.

I bought Shattered Horizons on sale for 9.99. I played it for two days. 4 hours of gaming = 2.50 an hour = bargain IMO.

If you do not feel there is enough value in that then don't purchase the game and your wallet will speak loudly for you (which seems to be your specific plan of action), but I find a lot of people DO purchase these things and then still complain about the price.

 

[digitaldurandal]

If what you said is true about D2D, it'd be VERY cool to see STEAM pick this feature up.

You get a specific number of downloads and installs from the game, assuming D2D is still the same as it was previously.

Personally I will continue to use steam over d2d. Steam provides a few services to me that I take advantage of and I have heard that more coming down the pipeline. I really enjoy being able to scan my friendslist and jump into a game with my buddies, use the steam overlay, and achievements.

 

[Lonyo]

and the inability to resell means i can't justify the price the games cost - whether valve set the prices or not. e.g crysis. i've been looking for both games on steam for ages and the best price i've seen is the pack for £29.99. without being able to resell should i feel the need, the games would have to be half that price for me to buy,

then you have games like COD. a campaign, but also an online mode? i can't be bothered playing online anymore due to shenanigans but why would i pay full price for MW2 when i only want the campaign. on the same note, what about people that bought MW and MW2 but never played the single player? they should be able to buy just the online part of the game.

So buy Crysis for £6.99 (http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1015...s/Product.html)
And Warhead for £11.53 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electronic-A...4389066&sr=8-4)
And be able to resell either or both as you desire.
Less than 2/3rds of the Steam price and you can resell them. Win/win.

For someone in the UK, looking at Steam at all is pointless unless they have a 66~75% off sale. Even 50% off AvP brought the price down to £12.50, and that was during the sale. The price you could and can get it for from Amazon is £12.98, and that's not a one off sale offer, that's just what they're selling it for.
When Dragon Age was on sale for 33% off, I could purchase it for less from my local supermarket.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

This means no competition. No finding deals. No deciding what harddrive to put games on. No selling of games. No.

 

[Craig234]

I don't see anything good about that. If I buy a game, that game becomes my PROPERTY, and I should be able to sell it to anyone I want at any point. If that is not so, than I am effectively RENTING that game. But if I am renting it, why should I pay a full price for it?

That's not how it works ethically or legally, necessarily.

The technology can affect the licensing. When they sold you an album of music, how could they keep you from reselling it? But I can download songs only once from Amazon.

There's really no reason why publishers should not get to sell a copy of a game to each person who plays it. The law of supply and demand/competition says the prices would drop.

Software normally is licensed, not 'sold'.

 

[BladeVenom]

If that happened then maybe valve could start laying down the law on DRM/GFWL, because neither is neccesary with steam, theyre just extra nuisances to deal with.

+1, GFWL needs to die.

 

[coreyb]

Thank god you can't sell games on Steam. I've had my account hacked once, as have most of my friends. If they had this feature then all my games could be gone right now.

 

[Gothgar]

Steam deals are the devil

lol I buy like 3/4 of them

 

[Badkarma]

If what you said is true about D2D, it'd be VERY cool to see STEAM pick this feature up.

That's what I also want to know. But it sounds too good to be true. If that were the case D2D would lose a fair share of the sales due to people using that feature to resell their games I would imagine. That's the main reason why Steam and other online services wont let you "gift" your games freely.

Can coloumb or someone who is familiar with D2D point out the differences between Steam's and D2D's "gifting" feature?

 

[Nintendesert]

That's not how it works ethically or legally, necessarily.

The technology can affect the licensing. When they sold you an album of music, how could they keep you from reselling it? But I can download songs only once from Amazon.

There's really no reason why publishers should not get to sell a copy of a game to each person who plays it. The law of supply and demand/competition says the prices would drop.

Software normally is licensed, not 'sold'.

That's not what the law says. First Sale doctrine states that once a copyrighted product is sold to someone, the copyright holder no longer gets to control who owns it.

Meaning people are legally able to resell copyrighted products such as software and games.

EULA and other such practices do not supersede American law.

 

[mmntech]

the only problem i have is the whole 2nd hand market dissapears - which is probably exactly why all PC gaming will move to steam and it's ilk.

still going to suck if we can't give our games to others though

The second hand market for PC games has been dead for years anyway. SecuROM saw to that. Publishers are now actively trying to suppress it for consoles as well. They claim it's as bad as piracy. There's a few rumours floating around that the industry wants the resale of games to be illegal. It would have rippling effects if they got their way. Put a lot of people out of business, not just the likes of Gamestop. I've never seen an industry that has so much contempt for its customers.

Anyway, I like Steam. Can't beat the sales they have and most of their titles are DRM free beyond Valve's own. Whether I want them as the sole provider like an iTunes, I don't know. Consumers never really win in monopoly situations.

 

[TehMac]

How exactly would a monopoly on digital distribution mean better service or better prices? Just like the other recent monopolies, I expect prices to go up and services to come down once they can finish crushing their competitors.

*sigh*

You really don't understand how monopolies work, do you?

Sometimes, monopolies end up lowering the prices of products, such as the Whaling Conglomerate that grew up in the late 1800's. The price of oil (used for lamps and so forth) that was obtained from whales actually went down because this monopoly was able to more effectively obtain the oil and sell it to as many customers as possible.

I'm not saying all monopolies are good, or that monopolies are even good but this anti-corporate vibe is 100 years outdated and reflects the fears of your great grandfathers rather than any empirical study (of which there are plenty).

 

[Magusigne]

Everyone that is bitching about the PC game resell market...how many PC games have you really resold recently? Unless its NIB most people are wary about buying a game for fear of a bad CD key or something of the sorts..

and unless its a new release your highly anticipating...typically most people buy the games when they are on the insane steam sales...

 

[Rebel44]

Everyone that is bitching about the PC game resell market...how many PC games have you really resold recently? Unless its NIB most people are wary about buying a game for fear of a bad CD key or something of the sorts..

and unless its a new release your highly anticipating...typically most people buy the games when they are on the insane steam sales...

I agree.

 

[motsm]

Everyone that is bitching about the PC game resell market...how many PC games have you really resold recently? Unless its NIB most people are wary about buying a game for fear of a bad CD key or something of the sorts..

and unless its a new release your highly anticipating...typically most people buy the games when they are on the insane steam sales...

I sell and trade games now and then, maybe 10 or so in recent memory. However, I only buy used games, as I see no reason in getting super hyped over a game and having it on release day. What's the point of buying a game the day it comes out for $60 when I can wait 2 years and get it for $5? Multiplayer focus would be the only enticing reason to hurry with a purchase. Of course if you watch eBay at the right time, you can snag AAA titles a month or two out for nearly the price of shipping.

Either way, even if Valve could match the prices of eBay or Goozex I still don't have the option of getting the box, which is a near must for me.

 

[Martimus]

*sigh*

You really don't understand how monopolies work, do you?

Sometimes, monopolies end up lowering the prices of products, such as the Whaling Conglomerate that grew up in the late 1800's. The price of oil (used for lamps and so forth) that was obtained from whales actually went down because this monopoly was able to more effectively obtain the oil and sell it to as many customers as possible.

I'm not saying all monopolies are good, or that monopolies are even good but this anti-corporate vibe is 100 years outdated and reflects the fears of your great grandfathers rather than any empirical study (of which there are plenty).

Good example of something 150 years ago. Microsoft sold their operating system extremely cheaply, and almost gave it away to OEMs until the last of their competitors was gone. Now their OS is hundreds of dollars, and every piece of discrete software they sell where they own the majority of the market is priced similarly. Plus their service has gone way down since, and they don't even sell enough types of OSes to really give you any choice in what you can buy.

A single source can be more efficient than multiple sources, but without the threat of another competitor, there is no reason to put the effort in to be more efficient. You can set your price to whatever you want, so you can make up for any inefficiency you have. I know that I get lazy when I don't have any driving reason to get better, and most others do as well. It is human nature. I can definitely see it in my line of work, since my contractor is mostly the only option, and they are about as inefficient as you can get.

 

[Fox5]

Good example of something 150 years ago. Microsoft sold their operating system extremely cheaply, and almost gave it away to OEMs until the last of their competitors was gone. Now their OS is hundreds of dollars, and every piece of discrete software they sell where they own the majority of the market is priced similarly. Plus their service has gone way down since, and they don't even sell enough types of OSes to really give you any choice in what you can buy.

A single source can be more efficient than multiple sources, but without the threat of another competitor, there is no reason to put the effort in to be more efficient. You can set your price to whatever you want, so you can make up for any inefficiency you have. I know that I get lazy when I don't have any driving reason to get better, and most others do as well. It is human nature. I can definitely see it in my line of work, since my contractor is mostly the only option, and they are about as inefficient as you can get.

I'd think that a whaling monopoly isn't a true monopoly on oil anyway. There were/are alternatives that could be used for the same purposes, so it's not like they could price it super high. In microsoft's case, they basically are the market, there's a lot of stuff that there is no viable alternative for.

 

[Rebel44]

Good example of something 150 years ago. Microsoft sold their operating system extremely cheaply, and almost gave it away to OEMs until the last of their competitors was gone. Now their OS is hundreds of dollars, and every piece of discrete software they sell where they own the majority of the market is priced similarly. Plus their service has gone way down since, and they don't even sell enough types of OSes to really give you any choice in what you can buy.

A single source can be more efficient than multiple sources, but without the threat of another competitor, there is no reason to put the effort in to be more efficient. You can set your price to whatever you want, so you can make up for any inefficiency you have. I know that I get lazy when I don't have any driving reason to get better, and most others do as well. It is human nature. I can definitely see it in my line of work, since my contractor is mostly the only option, and they are about as inefficient as you can get.

But prices at Steam are set by publishers and even if Steam is in 10 years only place where you can buy games, publishers would have to set prices for which gamers are willing to buy it. Valve is also often saying that games earn much more money during sales compared to normal price.

 

[skace]

Good example of something 150 years ago. Microsoft sold their operating system extremely cheaply, and almost gave it away to OEMs until the last of their competitors was gone. Now their OS is hundreds of dollars, and every piece of discrete software they sell where they own the majority of the market is priced similarly. Plus their service has gone way down since, and they don't even sell enough types of OSes to really give you any choice in what you can buy.

A single source can be more efficient than multiple sources, but without the threat of another competitor, there is no reason to put the effort in to be more efficient. You can set your price to whatever you want, so you can make up for any inefficiency you have. I know that I get lazy when I don't have any driving reason to get better, and most others do as well. It is human nature. I can definitely see it in my line of work, since my contractor is mostly the only option, and they are about as inefficient as you can get.

You don't give MS enough credit. They have a ton of OSes and even their pricing is incredibly good compared to the likes of companies such as Oracle. When multi-cores came out, Microsoft said they'd consider SQL CPU licenses tied to a physical CPU and not a 'core', Oracle said the opposite. Meaning if you had 2 4core CPUs, you needed 8 licenses w/ Oracle or 2 w/ MS. They've also said that if you buy an enterprise license of their OSes, you can tie it to the physical hardware and then install as many virtual machines on that hardware as you want under the same OS.

They may not be perfect, but sometimes people forget what they've done well because they are so blinded by petty shit.

 

[Martimus]

They may not be perfect, but sometimes people forget what they've done well because they are so blinded by petty shit.

What was the point of writing that? One thing I have learned is that no-one does anything without a reason. That includes disliking something. If enough people don't like a company, you better believe that there is a good reason for it. People really aren't that stupid.

 

[xboxist]

Three years ago when I first caught wind of Steam, I initially hated the idea of it. Citing that not having the actual CD and manual and box would annoy the crap out of me.

Today, I don't give a rat's ass about those things and I enjoy having all my games launched and downloaded from one application. I stand behind Steam today.

More on-topic: if Valve really took over all PC distribution and prices steadily went up... oh well. I'll buy it if I want it badly enough. And I still have a nice collection of 75+ games that will take me a lifetime to play through anyway. PC gaming is quite affordable when you wait until those AAA titles are under $10.

 

[TehMac]

Good example of something 150 years ago. Microsoft sold their operating system extremely cheaply, and almost gave it away to OEMs until the last of their competitors was gone. Now their OS is hundreds of dollars, and every piece of discrete software they sell where they own the majority of the market is priced similarly. Plus their service has gone way down since, and they don't even sell enough types of OSes to really give you any choice in what you can buy.

A single source can be more efficient than multiple sources, but without the threat of another competitor, there is no reason to put the effort in to be more efficient. You can set your price to whatever you want, so you can make up for any inefficiency you have. I know that I get lazy when I don't have any driving reason to get better, and most others do as well. It is human nature. I can definitely see it in my line of work, since my contractor is mostly the only option, and they are about as inefficient as you can get.

Very good point and well taken, but complacency on the internet just spurs on the competition even harder. Nothing is static (unless the government makes it so, i.e. rail road industry circa 1880).