Originally posted by blackout23
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is Valve's Steam Client Bad & Damaging For Linux?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostOk, some devs love them and others are strongly opposed to Steam (Minecraft and Gearbox)
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostCome on... What's next? Valve invented the Internet?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DDF420 View Postwhats 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.
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?
Originally posted by DDF420 View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostIt 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.
Graphic card, a hd5750, which is already how long on the market ? 3 years ?
This forum is created because Valve talked with amd.
AMD has opened a new forum ( http://devgurus.amd.com/community/steam-linux ) for those of you using Linux AMD graphics drivers. The purpose of the AMD forum is to provide a direct line to AMD for feedback on their graphics drivers. Currently before you can post you will need to create a new AMD forum account and request access to the forum. Currently, the forum is private but that will change to public very soon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostI 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?
Your claims lack specifics.
Why does Valve deserve any of this for a piece of software that was developed without any aid from Valve?
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?
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
What is your agenda here?Last edited by jayrulez; 09 April 2013, 04:54 PM.
Comment
-
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.
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostWhy 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?
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.Last edited by IanS; 09 April 2013, 06:58 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostI 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.
Not that I've used Arch, you understand :-)
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View PostI 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 how exactly is it overstated??Last edited by DDF420; 09 April 2013, 08:50 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jayrulez...
Originally posted by IanS View PostSo 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.
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.
Originally posted by IanS View PostNow 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.
Originally posted by IanS View Postcan'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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View Postjayrulez, your responses are merely antagonistic and lack any intention of understanding or reasoning.
From what I can see, all you are doing is inciting unsolicited, unjustifiable and probably unwarranted fear, uncertainty and doubt against Valve and Steam.Last edited by jayrulez; 09 April 2013, 09:40 PM.
Comment
Comment