Is Valve's Steam Client Bad & Damaging For Linux?

[GreatEmerald]

I'm an active member of the Steam for Linux Hub on Steam and wonder everytime why other distros suck so much ass. This probably why I stopped
distro hopping the moment I installed Arch Linux. I know this sounds like the typical Arch elitist bullshit ( I'm far from a real Linux guru) but from my point of view unless a distro offers me 3 free wishes I will never use anything else then Arch.
All other distros simply have major disadvantages and offer nothing I can't have on Arch.

I have never understood the point of Arch. If I want to configure everything manually, I'll go full on out and use Gentoo. If I want something that doesn't require tinkering, but still has all the functionality, then I'll use openSUSE. Arch is in an odd middle ground.

[DDF420]

Ok, some devs love them and others are strongly opposed to Steam (Minecraft and Gearbox)

whats the big deal here anyway. You bring out a game and you choose how to distribute it. If you want it on steam you go through the greenlight submission process and if approved you sign the NDA and then choose to either accept their cut or not. With so many titles on steam its obviously not that much of an issue to most game developers.

Come on... What's next? Valve invented the Internet?

Why is it so hard to believe ??

http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/Releases/NVIDIA-Delivers-Massive-Performance-Boost-to-Linux-Gaming-8ac.aspx

[DanLamb]

whats the big deal here anyway. You bring out a game and you choose how to distribute it. If you want it on steam you go through the greenlight submission process and if approved you sign the NDA and then choose to either accept their cut or not. With so many titles on steam its obviously not that much of an issue to most game developers.

I would agree that developers should have the full freedom to choose distribution options to serve the interests of themselves and their customers. If Steam makes sense, that's fine, and if it doesn't, that should also be fine.

Self-proclaimed community advocates such as Michael Larabel are voicing heavy support of Steam without justification. Why tell other developers to give such a large cut of revenue to Valve? Why sign over rights to Valve? Why does Valve deserve any of this for a piece of software that was developed without any aid from Valve? Why not stress the rights of developers to serve their interests and the interests of their customers over the interests of Valve?

Why is it so hard to believe ??

http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/Release...aming-8ac.aspx

It is not that I am doubting that they have had some involvement with contributing to driver efforts. Of course that is true. And it is worthy of praise since it benefits even non-Valve customers.

I do suspect that Valve's contributions are being overstated. I suspect Valve is a relatively minor player among those who are driving the major improvements to the Linux ecosystem of drivers and hardware compatibility.

[Gps4l]

It is not that I am doubting that they have had some involvement with contributing to driver efforts. Of course that is true. And it is worthy of praise since it benefits even non-Valve customers.

I do suspect that Valve's contributions are being overstated. I suspect Valve is a relatively minor player among those who are driving the major improvements to the Linux ecosystem of drivers and hardware compatibility.

Only since steam I see the amd drivers on linux improve.
Graphic card, a hd5750, which is already how long on the market ? 3 years ?


This forum is created because Valve talked with amd.

http://devgurus.amd.com/community/steam-linux

http://steamcommunity.com/app/221410/discussions/4/846939614929131085/

[jayrulez]

I would agree that developers should have the full freedom to choose distribution options to serve the interests of themselves and their customers

Don't they?

If Steam makes sense, that's fine, and if it doesn't, that should also be fine.

It is fine.

Self-proclaimed community advocates such as Michael Larabel

Source?

are voicing heavy support of Steam without justification.

Explain what needs to be justified and to whom!

Why tell other developers to give such a large cut of revenue to Valve?

Source for this? Are you privy to this?

Why sign over rights to Valve?

What rights? How?

Your claims lack specifics.

Why does Valve deserve any of this for a piece of software that was developed without any aid from Valve?

To host your game on their storefront and provide visibility in the form of Steam's large user base. You or anyone else is free to put up a website and sell your game there.

Do you want Valve to offer this to you for free or at a cost that is not economical to their business?

Why not stress the rights of developers to serve their interests and the interests of their customers over the interests of Valve?

Valve is a business, they look out for themselves. Game developers look out for themselves.

No developers is forced to use Steam as their distribution mechanism. If they find Valve's terms acceptable, they are free to use Steam. If they do not accept the terms then they are free to not use Steam.

You are trying to create an issue where there is none.

Do you hear game developers complaining about Valve and steam?
Why are you complaining? Is Valve and steam causing issues for you?

It is not that I am doubting that they have had some involvement with contributing to driver efforts. Of course that is true. And it is worthy of praise since it benefits even non-Valve customers.

I do suspect that Valve's contributions are being overstated. I suspect Valve is a relatively minor player among those who are driving the major improvements to the Linux ecosystem of drivers and hardware compatibility

Do you have a source or evidence to justify your claims or is this something you made up and thought would support your claims?

What is your agenda here?

[IanS]

All I can say is that I am glad I am not a dead horse as I watch the way you keep beating that damn thing; can't you see it isn't getting you anywhere? 2 threads and nearly 30 posts back your point of view was made quite clear to everyone, it was understood and unceremoniously tossed aside like the refuse it so clearly resembles. Just accept that most people don't agree with you and move on.

Why tell other developers to give such a large cut of revenue to Valve? Why sign over rights to Valve? Why does Valve deserve any of this for a piece of software that was developed without any aid from Valve? Why not stress the rights of developers to serve their interests and the interests of their customers over the interests of Valve?

Your ignorance is impressive though, I will give you that. Do you actually know the raw deal game developers have been getting for decades now? Services like Steam are a fresh ray of hope shining down on the battered survivors of an apocalypse event for those who are finally seeing an alternative to the shackles put on them by the traditional publisher-dominated retail game market. Most 3rd party game developers looking for a publishing deal will be offered 15-30% royalties on average after the publisher takes their cut and after expenses have been covered (that is if those aren't coming directly out of their royalties). Here is an interesting article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...ideo-game.html

So on a $60 game, on average $27 of that is going to the publisher, and publsihers are only going to pay you based on a percentage of what they get. Plus take into account that the publisher always gets their money first, until their administrative fees are covered you don't see a penny of royalties. You would have to sell ~60k units just to cover the publishers initial fees. Usually most games would not be considered successful until they pushed out about 250k units, with modern high profile games needing to pass 1m or more to be considered successful, though those are often in-house titles for the big publishers. So lets take the 250k mark as the example and cut out the 60k that the publisher eats. At $27 a unit that means roughly $5.13m that you will be getting your royalties cut from. At 15% that is ~$770k at 30% it would be double that. But now lets compare that to what the game brought in over all: $15m. So after everyone got their cut of the sale, the game developer is on average only getting about a 5-10% cut. They also sold away all rights to their IP to the publisher to get even this.

Now enters Steam. By all accounts they have very simple contracts with no loopholes or gotchas, you retain full ownership of your IP rights, and based on anecdotal evidence you end up getting a 70% or better cut of the sales price. Valve also eats the cost of bandwidth/hosting themselves and they will help you every step of the way with pricing and promoting your title through their service to maximize your profit (and theirs) and give you real time access to your games current sales stats.

The only people who have a real beef with this are the greedy publishers who don't want the status quo changed and who are likely jealous they didn't think of doing something like this first, which is why we are seeing many of them rush to do their own now.

[archibald]

I have never understood the point of Arch. If I want to configure everything manually, I'll go full on out and use Gentoo. If I want something that doesn't require tinkering, but still has all the functionality, then I'll use openSUSE. Arch is in an odd middle ground.

You might describe it as an odd middle ground, but others might describe it as the sweet spot between doing everything yourself and having everything done for you.

Not that I've used Arch, you understand :-)

[DDF420]

I would agree that developers should have the full freedom to choose distribution options to serve the interests of themselves and their customers. If Steam makes sense, that's fine, and if it doesn't, that should also be fine.

I do suspect that Valve's contributions are being overstated. I suspect Valve is a relatively minor player among those who are driving the major improvements to the Linux ecosystem of drivers and hardware compatibility.

So here we have valve who have produced some of the highest selling games on a PC (half life 2) to date.Valve announces steam for linux and their intention of a linux based console. It is in valves best commercial interests to have linux graphics drivers as good as if not better than windows for the console to be a success. Its in NVidia's or AMD/ATi best interest,especially since they are likely competing to have one of their graphics cards in said console, to produce better linux drivers. I see nothing but a WIN for all GNU/linux

So how exactly is it overstated??

[DanLamb]

...

jayrulez, your responses are merely antagonistic and lack any intention of understanding or reasoning.

So on a $60 game, on average $27 of that is going to the publisher, and publsihers are only going to pay you based on a percentage of what they get.

The traditional game publisher provides up front funding and takes on huge financial risk. If the project is a dud, they lose their investment.

Steam generally doesn't do that for outside games. They are accepting completed games and are not taking on the role of a high-risk investor. That is completely different.

Now enters Steam. By all accounts they have very simple contracts with no loopholes or gotchas, you retain full ownership of your IP rights, and based on anecdotal evidence you end up getting a 70% or better cut of the sales price.

It seems to me that developers can get 100% of the sales price or much closer to that rather than some number that Valve has legally hidden but we have inferred to be around ~70%.

can't you see it isn't getting you anywhere? 2 threads and nearly 30 posts back your point of view was made quite clear to everyone, it was understood and unceremoniously tossed aside like the refuse it so clearly resembles. Just accept that most people don't agree with you and move on.

But you clearly don't understand me. Neither does Michael Larabel who stated the primary objection is that Steam isn't open source, which is just completely not the point being made.

I'm saying that Valve does not deserve 30% of the revenue of an indie game that they did not take risk on. That is nuts. I think there is misguided community advocacy that Steam is somehow a greater good and that crowd is simply blind to reason.

[jayrulez]

jayrulez, your responses are merely antagonistic and lack any intention of understanding or reasoning.

Nonsense! You are unable to back up your claims so you decide to write that instead. I sincerely want you to answer each of my responses.

From what I can see, all you are doing is inciting unsolicited, unjustifiable and probably unwarranted fear, uncertainty and doubt against Valve and Steam.