OnLive/Steam Founders Slam Each Other

[killbits]

There's a huge difference between having a "monopoly" and simply building a large market share by having the best product.

Steam is simply the best way to purchase and play PC games. And usually the cheapest, as well. OF COURSE they are going to have the highest market share.

It would be different if they didn't have a unique product, or if they used unethical business methods to gain customers.

Obviously GameStop and Walmart etc. are going to complain because they didn't get on the digital distribution train quick enough.

 

[rantoc]

I tested OnLive but it was no where near gaming quality!

It had weak gfx, extreme latency issues in multiplayer games (no surprise when first your client sends the information what your doing to the onlive server, the online relays that to the game server, the game server responds to the onlive server, the onlive server renders the updated gfx, it then compresses it (even more latency) and finally sends it to your computer involving how many steps? Most funny is that the rendered game reports the ping between the onlive server and the game server. Not from you-onlive-gameserver-onlive-you that is the real latency) and the 720p compressed gfx stream it offers is poor to low at best.

I guess it could be a option if there is no computer worth bearing the name around but otherwise i wouldn't recommend it for other that turn based games!

So OnLive to me = The weak console equivalent in "pc" gaming! You get what you pay for!

 

[steelbox]

Steam have the monopoly on the market, but you still don't need to pay to play at anytime. OnLive will have the monopoly on what you own. Buying on OnLive you surely will own nothing. And you will have to pay to play. The only way to make OnLive worth for the regular people is to buy more games that what you will pay for the subscription, every month.

 

[feeddagoat]

what was the statistic I read yesterday.....Retailers only give 30% of profits to developers while valve give 70%.

Maybe if retailers actually offered a download service rather than bitching about valves then there wouldn't be a monolopy. Also 2nd hand games are killing high street too. I've went into game looking for say MGS4 and only ever found one copy of it 2nd hand for £25. Several other games I've never found for consoles and as for PC games section....its non exsistant. That turned me to amazon which had MGS4 for £19.99 new and is often cheaper than steam. Its only a monolopy cause you opted out of the market! You don't even sell PC games due to DRM making 2nd hand market impossible.

Retailers should at least be competive with valve but they've failed in putting the customer first. How many times have you walked into a store looking for something to have some pre pubessant monkey try to ram "product of the week" down your throat or sell you everything apart from what your looking for. Other gripes include being too busy talking to each other to acknowledge your there or the odd occasion making snide remarks. Heck I don't want to be grunted at when I ask something or watch you throw a mini strop for making you walk to the store room. Tbh the point is retail needs to be about the personal experience of buying a product. Not what it currently is otherwise why should I waste my time travelling into town to be put through all that? Cut out the middle man and buy online!

 

[ubercake]

The whole idea of OnLive is pretty revolutionary. I haven't tried it yet, but I will. I have to find out first-hand how this service performs. Could you imagine never having to upgrade hardware again?

If netflix (see comparison in article) has become successful in what they do, given their cost to deliver, then it makes sense that OnLive would as well.

 

[shinmalothar]

There is no monopoly as far as I can tell, I have bought digital games from Steam, Direct2Drive, Impulse, Battle.Net, EA Store etc. Just because Steam happens to be the best and most complete service, it doesn't make it a Monopoly, after all... its the devs/publishers that decide who to ship their games through!

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]thefog101[/nom]Did you ever think that maybe some individuals dont have enough cash to purchase a new system? that they might still be using their 4-5 year old PC just because they cant afford another? that maybe everybody else out there who likes to game possibly doesn't have as much money as you do? hmmmm? Didn't think so. Thinking before speaking is the secret. you should check out some of the lengths that these people ("http://groups.google.com/group/intel9x-gaming?pli=1") go to to make games work on their low end systems so they can play games which you take for granted[/citation]

Like onlive is a cheap alternative? And you will need the fastest connexion available, 100$/m?

 

[millerm84]

I don't understand the gamestops of the world on this issue. The retailers don't want to sell a video game that might lead people purchase games from a competitor. So they lose the sell of the steam game in question and if no brick and mortar retailer sells that steam game then the only way the customer will get that game is to go to steam which is what the stores were trying to avoid in the first place. That's what I like to call a lose-lose situation and now we know why the retailers are losing market share.

I understand wanting people to use your download service, and getting miffed that your customer may choose someone else because they activated the game with Steam and found its awesome service. However don't stop selling the games, negotiate with the publishers to have the game ask if the customer wants to register the game with your store or with steam. There is only so many copies of any given title that are going to be sold, and by refusing to sell titles you only further line Steam's pockets honestly amazing the people behind this kind of business plan are allowed to steal oxygen from the rest of us.


Onlive vs Steam is like MS vs Dell. Both give the consumer what they want (in this case playing PC games) one gives you the platform and titles with varying results, the other gives you the titles and allows you to build the platform and thus decide the results for yourself. Onlive for tabs, phones, netbooks, and a box that you can take anywhere and play anything when you get there has a certain appeal. And honestly I could see paying for the service if I could upload my current game titles and take them with me where ever I went. But then again that's why I invested in a laptop with a discrete graphics card. Been to several L4D2/BF:BC2 LAN parties where I carried everything I needed in one laptop bag with game settings on medium to high and it beats the hell outta lugging my old rig around for 10-20 more frames/sec(read old rig).

 

[tetracycloide]

Steam might not be abusing thier monopoly from an end-user perspective since they offer competative pricing on a day to day basis and literally unbeatable prices on sale items fairly often. However the later is coming at the expense of their competitors and at the expense of independant deveopers. It's a lot like how amazon and wal-mart opperate by cutting out the middle man they can offer a superior price to the end-user but the leverage their huge marketshare when negotiating with their suppliers that are usually much smaller because they're making an end run around the class of middle-men that used to exists between retail and original wholesale. So even though they're in a position to offer better deals to developers because of their clout and the reduced overhead they usually offer them the same deal they otherwise would because steam/amazon/wal-mart make more in the end by passing as much saving as possible to the consumers.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]tetracycloide[/nom]at the expense of independant deveopers[/citation]

Wait a minute... You must be joking right? Steam is a wetdream for most indie dev... The world of goo, Super meat boy etc.

 

[borisof007]

Anybody ever heard of Direct 2 Drive from IGN? It's a competing service, but Gabe positioned Steam better and it won.

The community will dictate the market as long as there's options. It's just that right now, the community chooses to use Steam because it offers great sales, a huge selection of titles from AAA to indie developers, and it integrates everything into one place in terms of game management, friends lists, and playing online (valve titles). Now with the PS3 getting Steamworks, they'll have cloud based saving, platform agnostic progress, cross platform integration for playing online, and more (/jealous 360 gamer, I'll give Sony props for that one).

Steam is a real innovator in the game and publishing industry and they deserve the respect that they've earned.

 

[borisof007]

[citation][nom]chrisjust98[/nom]They also have the Sims 3 on Steam now. Plus, my brother can play L4D2 on his Macbook Pro and we all know that that's not exaclty a high-end machine.[/citation]
Heh, high end in terms of cost maybe, ; )

 

[tidex]

Thing is though, steam has a huge following of loyal gamers willing to send their paychecks to Gabe without a second thought because they know they're getting exactly what they payed for at a much lower price and that valve puts a lot of effort into making their customers happy.

Onlive on the other hand, who gives a f**k? Steve Perlman is a nut and the program itself leaves a lot to be desired.

Its like google, they may be a huge monopoly but they do things right and thats what the customer cares about above all else.

 

[sirrah]

I have been a steam customer for several years. I became involved with steam because I wanted to play portal. For myself I will avoid any game that requires steam. I bought the orange box game which would not allow play straight out of the box until I downloaded literally gigabytes in data to update the software. Worse on occasion they insist on making changes and make things unplayable until such time as things get updated. The steam model may work for some, but for me it is retentive. If Microsoft attempted the same behaviors they would be sued out of existence, but we are expected to accept it for game play.

 

[rantoc]

There are competition like impulse and d2d but it seems steam have managed to get many exclusives and if its by sinister persuasion (sorry you wont get your game on our service if you offer it elsewhere or you will get less $ if you offer it elsewhere) then its monopolistic behavior that likely would end bad in court.

I like steam beside the euro prices that are steep so they haven't had as many sales to me lately as they used to, i choose my right to vote with my cash. Pay 50€+ (67 us$) for a game is a robbery imo!

 

[Benihana]

[citation][nom]tetracycloide[/nom]Steam might not be abusing thier monopoly from an end-user perspective since they offer competative pricing on a day to day basis and literally unbeatable prices on sale items fairly often. However the later is coming at the expense of their competitors and at the expense of independant deveopers.[/citation]
True their prices are competitive, but it's important to remember that Valve does NOT set the price for products other than Valve's own games. Those prices are set by the developer or publisher, but NOT Valve. So competitive pricing is irrelevant, because if the pricing is different than retail, well it was not Valve who set the price.

And there are several indie developers who say that Valve's Steam platform is actually better for indie developers rather than going through a retail or alternate digital distribution service. Google "steam indie developer" and you'll find a few pages on it, here's a link from the first result:
http://csnation.totalgamingnetwork.com/showthread.php?180367-Indie-Developers-Speak-Out-About-Steam

 

[pocketdrummer]

Wait, you mean I can pay a subscription AND buy the games and have a laggy half second long delay in the controls and inevitably get disconnected mid game with onlive?! Where do I sign up?!

Onlive is for people running netbook class PCs. Anyone who even remotely appreciates a solid system will probably want to build a gaming PC and have the ability to play games offline. Not to mention, OnLive is an FPS player's nightmare. You might as well play with a joystick because it'll slightly mask the craptacular feeling. Though, and Xbox would be a better investment.

Besides, video cards aren't only for gaming. I doubt OnLive will provide a Folding @ Home option.

In essence, thanks but no thanks.

 

[Benihana]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Wait, you mean I can pay a subscription AND buy the games and have a laggy half second long delay in the controls and inevitably get disconnected mid game with onlive?! Where do I sign up?!Onlive is for people running netbook class PCs. Anyone who even remotely appreciates a solid system will probably want to build a gaming PC and have the ability to play games offline. Not to mention, OnLive is an FPS player's nightmare. You might as well play with a joystick because it'll slightly mask the craptacular feeling. Though, and Xbox would be a better investment. Besides, video cards aren't only for gaming. I doubt OnLive will provide a Folding @ Home option. In essence, thanks but no thanks.[/citation]
Give this man a cookie for having a brain!

Seems nowadays big companies try to cater to people who think Farmville is a hardcore MMORPG. You know, casual gamers, professional idiots.

Other than that, I cannot see a solid reason for using OnLive. High end gaming on a mobile platform? Who hunches over a laptop to play a serious game? Might as well as use the trackpad while you're at it.

 

[eddieroolz]

I think OnLive was onto something good, but the way it is right now, it's just a simplified version of a console.

 

[sgtmattbaker]

Valve can't be a monopoly because there are plenty of other options. Direct2Drive, Games for Windows, Impulse are DIRECT competitors. OnLive, GameTap, GOG.com, and Gaikai are competitors, but they are not one to one competitors. OnLive and Gaikai do the streaming thing so they're a bit different, and GameTap and GOG offer (mostly) older games.

Valve also can't be a monopoly because I have seen no evidence of vendor lock-in with them. If you buy a game through them all you have to do is run the FREE Steam program and connect to the internet like once a month. That is it. I've also heard before that if Steam were to ever go under they have a system in place to make sure nobody loses the games they OWN.

Also, one of the reasons Steam is popular is because publishers get 70% of sales for a Steam sale, while other places only give them 30%. That is called attracting people to your service. I have not heard of a single thing regarding Valve doing anti-competitive practices with Steam. I may be wrong, but it seems like they're actually being ultra-competitive, so much so that all these other companies with greedy shareholders can't one-up them (Valve is a privately held corporation thank god)

OnLive? To quote from another OnLive article I posted at: The last time I heard someone ask OnLive about what happens to purchased games if they don't make it their response was basically: "for people concerned about the viability of the OnLive platform, perhaps renting games is the more attractive option for them." Not to mention with OnLive you don't even own the games to begin with. You pay for them and then to continue to play them you have to pay more money per month. Talk about vendor lock-in. It isn't like they are even multiplayer games. Paying a monthly charge is acceptable for an online MMO or something but not a single player game you paid full price for.

Robochump: yes, ISPs will not like this. Expect a special "gaming" package from your local cable ISP. Only $200 a month with a 3 hour a day cap, because they can't afford all that bandwidth. (Yeah right).

The part where it said: "The fear is certainly understandable: a customer installs the game, installs Steam, and discovers other great digital titles that can be purchased, downloaded, and stored in the cloud without having to leave the house. This also keeps potential customers from purchasing the same digital games from distribution platforms offered by the major retailers." Oh god! Monopoly! Oh, wait, you're saying you're scared because Steam's store does a good job of offering sales, special discounts and related titles? Sounds like you're just mad that they are doing good advertising. "All without having to leave their house"? Um, that is what every other digital distributor does. Steam isn't keeping them from buying from them.

Brick and mortar stores can screw it. Gamestops have a tiny little rack that most people don't even know what it is. What is it? The PC game rack. They have no right to complain. Don't they think consoles are more profitable anyway? Oh wait, they have seen that Steam has found a way to make PC gaming more profitable and they don't like it. Get over it.

You can't imagine how mad I would be if some idiot politicians decided these whiners were right and tried to break up Steam.