Future of gaming cuz of HL2/Steam

[Bing_Oh]

I was just thinking, HL2 may be a boom or bust game for alot more then just Valve and Vivendi. HL2 will be the first REAL test of Steam, which may represent the future of gaming distribution. Assuming that Steam passes this test and proves the reliability and ability of the online distribution of a major game, we may very well be entering a new Golden Age of Gaming.

Think about it...the gaming industry has been transforming itself for the past several years. What started as a group of small, independant game makers has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by huge corporations. These corporations aren't really the game makers, per se, but the game distributors (like Vivendi). For the most part, they choose what games will be made by deciding what can make money. Unfortunately, such giant corporations (along with the current trend of multi-year, gigantic-scale game development) need MASSIVE sales of a product to make a profit. Thus, they only make safe bets...ie, we get carbon copies of the most popular games over and over again. Small, independant game makers are all but extinct, because they need a distributor to sell their games.

Steam could, potentially, change all of that. A cheap yet readilly-accessible distribution system could mean the rebirth of the independant game studio. Genres like the adventure game, now all but extinct because they aren't deemed "financially viable" by game distributors, could become popular again. And, small game studios are more likely to take risks and push the envelope, opening up all new genres.

November 16th may mean more then just the release of a long-anticipated game...it may mean a change in the face of the entire gaming industry.

 

[mrxskinny]

Well said. Taking any amount of money from the big publishers is a good thing. In the Final Hours of HL2 article, it said that through publishers, developers would only get about $7 from each game sold. Through Steam, they could make upwards of up to $33!

Although Steam is a great idea, and anyone with a decent internet connection should buy through it, you have to remember that there are those who have no choice but to stick with a 56k and couldn't possibly download something like HL2.

And Steam is a great way to distribute game content to players, but there are those who would prefer to have a nice box in their hands. Unless Valve and future developers could come up with a way to make buying through Steam or a similar platform more worthwhile (maybe a downloadable DVD ISO or something of "The Making of..."), retailers will still have a strong grip on sales.

 

[Ages120]

Wishful thinking. It will happen eventually but steam isn't the key. It's just Valves solution to dealing with vivendi. Mostly because most developers are directly funded by thier publishers.

 

[Bing_Oh]

I'm not saying that Steam, itself, is necessarily the key to change. Instead, I see it as the first real-world proof the online distribution is possible. It's a risky proposition that may change the attitude of the gaming industry.

Also, I seriously doubt that distributors will disappear, even if online distribution becomes mainstream. Poor internet connections will always hinder some people from using services like Steam, and distributors will always be a potential source of financial backing for game-makers. However, I do see them become more "producers" in the Hollywood sense (contributing only financial backing, and moreso for big games then small ones).

 

[mikekirk]

If distribution direct from the developer using systems like Steam become the norm in the future I think (perversely) we will see more expensive games.

At the moment there is competition between retailers, all selling the same product so they compete on price and discounts are the norm. Once you can only buy the game from one place, if people want it badly enough the developer can charge what they like.

 

[Gary_Jones]

we all know the advantages of steam and how the technology has (hopefully, cross fingers) proved itself.

However, I have one problem with this "cutting out the middleman" technology.

Think back to September when Valve claimed "its ready" and sent a fully tested RC to Vivendi. Vivendi testers, being dedicated to testing and a pair of "fresh eyes" found enough bugs to make it last to RC5.

So, lets put ourselves in a world where Vivendi were already out of the equation. Valve would have launched on RC1 day and we would all be experiencing these bugs.

Publishers DO help contribute to games, paying for R&D time (though not in Valves case) and also extensive testing - I hope that Valve is responsible with Steam and hires external testers for coming projects.

Its not a knock on Valve, but a tester should always be "a fresh pair of eyes" before release, you cant have internal testers who were involved in the project.

Other than that, I love steam - just wish they would either drop friends, or fix it.

 

[Raziaar]

we all know the advantages of steam and how the technology has (hopefully, cross fingers) proved itself.

However, I have one problem with this "cutting out the middleman" technology.

Think back to September when Valve claimed "its ready" and sent a fully tested RC to Vivendi. Vivendi testers, being dedicated to testing and a pair of "fresh eyes" found enough bugs to make it last to RC5.

So, lets put ourselves in a world where Vivendi were already out of the equation. Valve would have launched on RC1 day and we would all be experiencing these bugs.

Publishers DO help contribute to games, paying for R&D time (though not in Valves case) and also extensive testing - I hope that Valve is responsible with Steam and hires external testers for coming projects.

Its not a knock on Valve, but a tester should always be "a fresh pair of eyes" before release, you cant have internal testers who were involved in the project.

Other than that, I love steam - just wish they would either drop friends, or fix it.

You don't need publishers to do QA. There are people and companies out there specifically that do quality assurance, and the developers could easily use them.

 

[Gary_Jones]

aye, I know that, I said it in the post - but will they? or will they think - look at the cost (900 pound a day for an individual contracted tester is the norm and you will need several for a period of weeks). Or will they think - we have an online distribution tool that patches - lets just patch the issues.

A'la Microsoft since Windowsupdate.

 

[A.I.]

Isn't it interesting that for the first time we actually know the exact time we will start to play a game? And we take something like Steam for granted...

 

[eiric]

Well said. Taking any amount of money from the big publishers is a good thing. In the Final Hours of HL2 article, it said that through publishers, developers would only get about $7 from each game sold. Through Steam, they could make upwards of up to $33!

Although Steam is a great idea, and anyone with a decent internet connection should buy through it, you have to remember that there are those who have no choice but to stick with a 56k and couldn't possibly download something like HL2.

And Steam is a great way to distribute game content to players, but there are those who would prefer to have a nice box in their hands. Unless Valve and future developers could come up with a way to make buying through Steam or a similar platform more worthwhile (maybe a downloadable DVD ISO or something of "The Making of..."), retailers will still have a strong grip on sales.

More money equals no stress and better games.

 

[Bing_Oh]

I doubt that the way a game is distributed or the elimination of a separate distributor will hurt QA. Gaming companies will have the same backlash from the consumer that they get now when they release buggy games. Though, admittedly, the way a game is produced may change...which might not be all bad.

As for MikeKirk's speculation that game prices may actually rise with exclusive distribution, I serious doubt that as well. After all, technically, today's games come from only one source...the distributor. We would just be trading the distributor's pricing for the game-maker's pricing. Potentially, we could be looking at a low-scale price war in the long run, with game makers still able to make an increased profit with the elimination of the distributors and the possible expansion of the gaming community. More game makers fighting for the finances of a limited market (usually) means pricing competition.

 

[Bing_Oh]

Isn't it interesting that for the first time we actually know the exact time we will start to play a game? And we take something like Steam for granted...

Personally, I don't take Steam for granted. It was my amazement at the potential of such a revolutionary system that made me post this in the first place.

I don't care what the Chinese say, I consider it a privilege to live in interesting times.

 

[Baal]

I have a question.

is EA (Electronic Arts) like Vivendi and just sell the games, or do they do both?

Same question applies to Rockstar.

Rockstar is part of take2games I think....

 

[mikekirk]

Bing_oh, you have a valid point, but I work in the distribution business myself, books not games though.

All book disties also source their products from a single source (the publisher) and competition is fierce. Pricing at retail is not set by the distributor, merely influenced by what discount they give to the retailer. Giving the retailer more or less flexibility to discount to win market share. Different retailers will then be prepared to take more or less margin on that title, which is why you can go into Tesco and buy a bestseller for just £3.84, but go to a bookshop and may pay full list price.

It may not be the same with games, but I would think it probably is. I would guess that big boys like Amazon and Game are paying significantly less, and willing to make significantly less profit per title than your local independant retailer.

 

[czrsink]

Online distribution of paid for software = way forward.

 

[Spartan]

Think about it...the gaming industry has been transforming itself for the past several years. What started as a group of small, independant game makers has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by huge corporations.

The past several years? The gaming industry consisted of small units back in the eighties. The tranformation started well over ten years ago.

A cheap yet readilly-accessible distribution system could mean the rebirth of the independant game studio.

The money goes into development. If development was free, everyone would be making great games and getting them released through publishers (who handle and finance publishing). The reason why small, independent studios aren't doing well is because making games takes so much money.

Genres like the adventure game, now all but extinct because they aren't deemed "financially viable" by game distributors, could become popular again.

To my knowledge, they aren't viable because no one buys them. So there's no reason to publish any.

And, small game studios are more likely to take risks and push the envelope, opening up all new genres.

You make about as much sense a drunken crack-addict on acid. Why would people suddenly come up with new, groundbreaking ideas because they can distribute a game through Steam? If some guy who makes small games for free hears about Steam, does that suddenly inspire him to make a new genre never seen before?

 

[Spartan]

Also: if you look at some Nintendo games, they contain some pretty weirdo ideas, despite being made and/or published by a gigantic company. Small & independent isn't the same thing as quality.

 

[Tkmaster]

I was just thinking, HL2 may be a boom or bust game for alot more then just Valve and Vivendi. HL2 will be the first REAL test of Steam, which may represent the future of gaming distribution. Assuming that Steam passes this test and proves the reliability and ability of the online distribution of a major game, we may very well be entering a new Golden Age of Gaming.

Think about it...the gaming industry has been transforming itself for the past several years. What started as a group of small, independant game makers has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by huge corporations. These corporations aren't really the game makers, per se, but the game distributors (like Vivendi). For the most part, they choose what games will be made by deciding what can make money. Unfortunately, such giant corporations (along with the current trend of multi-year, gigantic-scale game development) need MASSIVE sales of a product to make a profit. Thus, they only make safe bets...ie, we get carbon copies of the most popular games over and over again. Small, independant game makers are all but extinct, because they need a distributor to sell their games.

Steam could, potentially, change all of that. A cheap yet readilly-accessible distribution system could mean the rebirth of the independant game studio. Genres like the adventure game, now all but extinct because they aren't deemed "financially viable" by game distributors, could become popular again. And, small game studios are more likely to take risks and push the envelope, opening up all new genres.

November 16th may mean more then just the release of a long-anticipated game...it may mean a change in the face of the entire gaming industry.

true but it would only be treated as an alternate method of getting the game... retail methods will always be used...
valve said that their games will always be available in retail stores...

 

[Bing_Oh]

The money goes into development. If development was free, everyone would be making great games and getting them released through publishers (who handle and finance publishing). The reason why small, independent studios aren't doing well is because making games takes so much money.

Games DO take money to make...thus my speculation that distributors will, likely, transform into "producers" with mostly financial backing in exchange for a percentage. However, distributors most definitaly have stifled the small game makers through sheer dominance in the marketplace. Thus, opening an alternative marketplace may very well revitalize the small studios.

To my knowledge, they (adventure games) aren't viable because no one buys them. So there's no reason to publish any.

This just isn't so. Look at the long-in-development Sam and Max Strike Back, just recently scrapped by Microsoft because they had their doubts about its financial viability. The game had a HUGE following during development and could have, potentially, been a blockbuster of a game. A paranoid distributor killed it.

You make about as much sense a drunken crack-addict on acid. Why would people suddenly come up with new, groundbreaking ideas because they can distribute a game through Steam? If some guy who makes small games for free hears about Steam, does that suddenly inspire him to make a new genre never seen before?

Nothing like a mature discussion to start the morning, eh? Disregarding the fact than my ramblings take the hue of an intoxicated drug-fiend, I think you're missing the point. Most distributors are simply not willing to take the financial risk of publishing a game that has a high chance of failing. Truly groundbreaking games are few and far between because of this simple fact. I'm not implying that services like Steam will inspire groundbreaking games, but, instead, they will give small studios the chance to actually distribute the groundbreaking games that they want to develop but cannot get published.

 

[Bing_Oh]

Also: if you look at some Nintendo games, they contain some pretty weirdo ideas, despite being made and/or published by a gigantic company. Small & independent isn't the same thing as quality.

Nintendo is a totally different discussion. Many of those freaky Nintendo games were originally developed and published in Japan. The Japaniese have a very different culture from the western world, thus there are a great many differences in things like entertainment.

 

[Spartan]

This just isn't so. Look at the long-in-development Sam and Max Strike Back, just recently scrapped by Microsoft because they had their doubts about its financial viability. The game had a HUGE following during development and could have, potentially, been a blockbuster of a game. A paranoid distributor killed it.

Maybe. But I'm reminded of Grim Fandango which is one of the most highly regarded PC games ever made, and it didn't sell very well. In fact, I read somewhere that it was the only Lucasarts game that never made a profit.

Truly groundbreaking games are few and far between because of this simple fact.

Well, why haven't I seen any amazing, groundbreaking freeware games, then? It's just not money that goes into a "groundbreaking" game.

I'm not implying that services like Steam will inspire groundbreaking games, but, instead, they will give small studios the chance to actually distribute the groundbreaking games that they want to develop but cannot get published.

If the game was really groundbreaking, someone would pick it up. The team would develop it (assuming they would have money to do so) and then they'd show it to various publishers. I'm not really buying into the idea that publishers are so super-paranoid that they only release tried-and-true games. In fact, I think it's largely a myth.

 

[Spartan]

Nintendo is a totally different discussion. Many of those freaky Nintendo games were originally developed and published in Japan. The Japaniese have a very different culture from the western world, thus there are a great many differences in things like entertainment.

Different culture or not, Nintendo games do well all around the world. So I don't see your point.

 

[Bing_Oh]

Different culture or not, Nintendo games do well all around the world. So I don't see your point.

I was simply responding to your statement about strange Nintendo games and the quality of small, independant game studios. They are not the same subject...what the Japaniese consider "quality" gaming does not, necessarily, translate to western consumers.