Is Steam on the verge of being sold?

[Krakn3Dfx]

I've been a big supporter of Valve and the Steam community for years, since I originally bought Half Life 2, installed Steam on my PC, and checked out the initial offerings of Valve's then new baby. It wasn't great, but over the years Steam has vastly improved and become what a lot of people think is the saving grace for PC gaming. I don't know about that, but I do find myself buying games I want through Steam if they're available more than going to retail or through other services.

Lately, the general attitude of Valve regarding issues with Steam has been mediocre at best, they used to spend time responding to issues with the system and trying to rectify problems that users had. For the last 5-6 months at least though, Steam seems to have taken a back seat to internal development. 3rd party developer patches go unimplemented in Steam (I read one post by a developer that said in no uncertain terms that "the guy" who handles setting up new patches on Steam for 3rd party games was out of the office for the week, so people would have to wait for him to be back. Honestly, there's only one dude capable of patch updates on Steam? Sadly, that would seem to be the case.), weird pricing glitches go unexplained, and there's just no general concern for customer issues that arise with bandwidth and Steam general stability.

This all makes me wonder if somewhere on the back end Valve is in the process of handing over Steam and all it's assets to another company. If it's a small company that is tasked with making Steam a priority, then that might not be such a bad thing, but imagine Steam being handed over to a monster corporation like EA. For the first time since Half Life 2, I'm very much worried about the security and longevity of the purchases I've made on Steam over the years (78 games!) and what would happen if Valve was no longer in the driver's seat. I know companies like Direct2Drive and the EA store charge a premium if you want to continue having the option to download you games after a certain amount of time, and I know Direct2Drive even has the option to just take the game off of their servers after a given amount of time to clear up space.

I'm probably overreacting, and I really hope I am, but I'm just concerned, and hope that Valve either picks up the ball and makes things good again or if they do end up selling Steam to another company, they make sure it's a company that will honor the Valve traditions and policies that we've bought into for the past almost 5 years.

 

[Piuc2020]

In my honest opinion, not meaning to be offensive, you are just being paranoid.

 

[Lonyo]

Being paranoid is a GOOD thing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a BAD thing.

You have to realise that while there may be nothing serious going on now, there can and have been problems, there are risks involved, and Steam, while it may seem like it's nice in some ways, is very dangerous when it comes to the rights of the consumer. Just because it's mostly plain sailing so far doesn't mean there isn't a huge risk that you might get screwed over by someone.
The same risk is there with other things such as those requiring online activation, but at a reduced level because (arguably) it's easier to get around some of the protection in those games, and they may not all be tied to the same service (although SecuROM is quite prevalent).

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
In my honest opinion, not meaning to be offensive, you are just being paranoid.

Yeah, hopefully, but I have seen interviews with Doug Lombardi from Valve where he has openly stated that Valve is not at all opposed to selling Steam to the right buyer, so it's not completely out of the question. See here.

But obviously I hope you're right . I have like 80-some odd games in my Steam account, and I'm looking forward to long, uninterrupted access to all of them.

 

[aka1nas]

I am pretty sure that they are just experiencing tremendous growth right now, and their support and related infrastructure is still catching up.

 

[Czar]

I have to agree with their support, its crap, no response from them on the forums thats worth noting.

The only company that could buy them is EA, though its possible that Blizzard might be in the picture.

But if you read any interview with Valve then there are two things that they are extremely proud of, Half Life 2 and Steam. So I'm not sure they are selling, more likely that they are feeling the economic downturn.

 

[Bateluer]

If EA buys Steam, I will insist on DRM-free DVDs for all software purchased on Steam, at EA's expense.

 

[nitromullet]

That's part of the problem with Steam... Valve is a software company, not a service provider. Their service is horrible, but their games rock.

 

[ja1484]

You need shit to do. I wish I had time to worry about details like this in my life.

 

[Superrock]

They are positioning themselves to be service providers rather than purely a software company. I think in the far future they'll charge a nominal fee for better service and consumers like us will welcome it.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: ja1484

You need shit to do. I wish I had time to worry about details like this in my life.

Great response.

Well, not really.

You had time for a smart ass response, so you must have more than you originally thought.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Superrock
They are positioning themselves to be service providers rather than purely a software company. I think in the far future they'll charge a nominal fee for better service and consumers like us will welcome it.

They already charge a nominal fee. It's called inflated prices over retail.
If you want to tell me that the cost for bandwidth/hosting is equal to the cost of manufacture, shipping, retailer cut, then please go ahead.
Until Steam prices games lower than retail they are already charging a nominal fee through their pricing and people are (as this thread would indicate) not getting good enough service.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Superrock
They are positioning themselves to be service providers rather than purely a software company. I think in the far future they'll charge a nominal fee for better service and consumers like us will welcome it.

They already charge a nominal fee. It's called inflated prices over retail.
If you want to tell me that the cost for bandwidth/hosting is equal to the cost of manufacture, shipping, retailer cut, then please go ahead.
Until Steam prices games lower than retail they are already charging a nominal fee through their pricing and people are (as this thread would indicate) not getting good enough service.

I have never paid retail or above retail for any game on Steam.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
In my honest opinion, not meaning to be offensive, you are just being paranoid.

Yeah, hopefully, but I have seen interviews with Doug Lombardi from Valve where he has openly stated that Valve is not at all opposed to selling Steam to the right buyer, so it's not completely out of the question. See here.

But obviously I hope you're right . I have like 80-some odd games in my Steam account, and I'm looking forward to long, uninterrupted access to all of them.

WTF - that article is from Aug 2008. Show me something more recent and then you can be paranoid.

BUT - money talks - so I'm sure if someone came along and offered Valve the right price -they'd sell it [Hell..if someone came along and said they'd buy my car for the right price - I'd sell it too].

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Superrock
They are positioning themselves to be service providers rather than purely a software company. I think in the far future they'll charge a nominal fee for better service and consumers like us will welcome it.

They already charge a nominal fee. It's called inflated prices over retail.
If you want to tell me that the cost for bandwidth/hosting is equal to the cost of manufacture, shipping, retailer cut, then please go ahead.
Until Steam prices games lower than retail they are already charging a nominal fee through their pricing and people are (as this thread would indicate) not getting good enough service.

What they charge for bandwidth is cheap, my old usenet provider had an account that was 10 gigs a month and cost $10. That's pretty typical too. A game is anywhere from 2-8 gigs, so a few bucks seems very reasonable.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Superrock
They are positioning themselves to be service providers rather than purely a software company. I think in the far future they'll charge a nominal fee for better service and consumers like us will welcome it.

They already charge a nominal fee. It's called inflated prices over retail.
If you want to tell me that the cost for bandwidth/hosting is equal to the cost of manufacture, shipping, retailer cut, then please go ahead.
Until Steam prices games lower than retail they are already charging a nominal fee through their pricing and people are (as this thread would indicate) not getting good enough service.

They also have to provide bandwidth and support (even subpar support costs money) to you in perpetuity even though you only give them money once.

I wouldn't mind it if they had some sort of premium subscription for a nominal monthly fee that gave you better access to support (with an SLA) and tossed in a few other features.

 

[alcoholbob]

Dow2, L4D, E:TW and many other games you can buy online (like Gogamer) for $15-20 less than Steam.

 

[skace]

And once again the assumption is that if you can buy a game on Steam for $50 and it costs $50 in B&M, that Valve is somehow collecting that $50 as opposed to the 3rd party developer. I don't understand why people think this way, Valve is not a production studio for everything on Steam.

And yes, If Valve sold Steam there is a good chance that would suck, however I don't see any indication of that happening.

 

[lupi]

There's a reason I never buy a steam drm required game for more than pennies on the dollar; it could be gone tomorrow for all we know and my purchases have been consistent with that.

 

[Red Irish]

There is no need to be afraid. Just keep sucking on the "DRM is OK" juice whilst pointing out Steam's numerous virtues (no, I am not being sarcastic, Steam does offer certain advantages) and you should be fine.

Didn't they promise to offer you an activation revoke tool or make a commitment to ensure that your agreement with them would be honoured in the event of Steam being sold on to another company? What's that, they didn't? Oh well, time for the juice again.

 

[NickelPlate]

I've only bought a handful of Steam games that I couldn't do without, but mainly still avoid it because I share many of yours and others concerns with DRM and if Steam should ever vanish for some reason. But in addition to the "hands offness" you mentioned, it's also apparent in the lack of moderation in their official game forums, of which are littered with the absolute lowest common demoninator of humanity. All the haters, flamers and such make for a very hostile environment and none of the moderators seem to care much. It reflects poorly on the company IMHO.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Didn't they promise to offer you an activation revoke tool or make a commitment to ensure that your agreement with them would be honoured in the event of Steam being sold on to another company? What's that, they didn't? Oh well, time for the juice again.

Valve has had plans in place since the beginning of Steam to unlock all games for people for offline play in the event that they have to shut down Steam. Just think for a minute at the size of the class action lawsuit that would be thrown at Valve if they said "Well guys, sorry we can't keep Steam running and all that money you spent to buy games is gone because we're not letting you play your games anymore. Sorry, but you're SOL." It would be suicidal on their part to operate without such a contingency.

Some other responses on things mentioned in posts here:

Valve still needs to charge full price for games through Steam because of B&M retail stores. Those stores will not sell games if there's a place that is going to undercut their prices right from the get go. Valve compensates for that by offering a lot of sales and discounts - a lot of the time you can pre-purchase for 5% off.

I also doubt Blizzard would be a potential buyer of Steam since they are in the process of turning Battle.net into a similar type service.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Valve has had plans in place since the beginning of Steam to unlock all games for people for offline play in the event that they have to shut down Steam.

"Plans" do not constitute a binding contractual agreement.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I would guess microsoft would be a suitable buyer (I am just speculating here), MS seems to be hitting hard with DLC for the 360, I'm sure steam could compliment that.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

"Plans" do not constitute a binding contractual agreement.

No, that's part of the buyer-seller agreement you enter into with Valve every time you make a purchase. You purchase the right to own a copy of and play that game and therefore Valve must plan for the possibility that Steam service has to be shutoff and people still need to play those games they've paid to own. Not doing so exposes the company to an incredible amount of risk and loss of credibility. Valve are not stupid.

I'm pretty sure they've stated as much as well. I can't search the Steam forums at work, but I've seen the contingency plan talked about on other forums.