To people who disliked Steam.

[Psyringe]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you think steam could actually get away with pulling your access to titles you buy through them in the eyes of game developers?

In your scenario Steam is still staying in business, meaning they'd still be interested in keeping their business relations with said developers/publishers. Under these conditions, the risk that Steam pulls those games without their consent should be very small. I can see some scenarios which could lead to this result nevertheless, but I don't consider these as very likely (or as only likely in special cases):

1. The devs/publishers could see the pulling of their old game as a good thing. At first sight, this probably sounds pretty odd - after all, old games produce revenue for very little cost, they can be sold cheaply to people who want to check out a series and who might then be interested in buying newer games of the same series, etc. However, consider a game series with high release frequency, and few changes between releases - the EA sports series is a prime example. Here, the "old" game can be seen as competing against the "new" game. Example: Many people who had already bought Football Manager 06 were disappointed with the changes proposed for FM 07, so they decided to keep playing FM 06, skip FM 07, and wait for FM 08. This meant lost revenue for EA. In such (and similar) cases, the publisher would actually profit if the old game were pulled by a third-party distributor.

However, this example is probably a special case. I don't expect it to be a model for the gaming market in general, for several reasons (including technical progress, and the limited replayability of most games; ask if you want me to elaborate). Slightly off-topic addition: I do think that EA would immediately change the distribution of its sports series to a yearly subscription fee if it could get away with it, for the reasons you stated in your previous posts abouts businesses and markets, with which I agree btw.

2. As variation of the above: I'm not entirely sure whether or not the publishers are paying continuously (and per game) for the services that Steam provides. If they do, then pulling a game that doesn't sell anymore, but still costs maintenance, may be in the publisher's interest.

3. The pulling of the old game may have been fixed in the contract between Steam and the publisher from the beginning. In this case the publishers would have already agreed to the pulling and can't object to it later. Even if the publishers would prefer their games to stay in Steam, Steam currently dominates its market in a way that it probably could get away with forcing such a clause on publishers - accepting it would still be more profitable for the publishers than foregoing Steam as a platform.

The question is if Steam would actually _want_ to shrink their catalogue. If there are enough games which cost them maintenance without bringing in new sales, then they might eventually consider this, but even then they'd probably not do it by pulling individual titles. The more "acceptable" way (for the market) is to change the platform to something like "Steam 2.0", improve it slightly, and inform players that the new and better Steam unfortunately can't support a couple of older games that "no one plays anyway".


But as I said, I don't consider these scenarios as particularly likely. I think the people who are concerned about the long-term availability of their games, mostly think about different scenarios, like:
- Steam going under (discussed extensively on the previous pages)
- Steam "upgrading" their platform and "losing" games that create more expenses than revenue (as described above)
- Steam changing their license in a way that makes it undesirable to stay with it (example: If Steam ever thinks that their quasi-monopoly is strong enough to enforce a monthly subscription fee on its users, then the current license allows them to do so - customers who disagree with that have, according to the license they agreed to already, 30 days to either accept the change, or leave Steam and all their games with it)

 

[ohioastronomy]

..and that's exactly my point: the inability to resell a game shouldn't (and usually doesn't) make it's purchase undesirable. That's why I find it odd that people see this as a major downside of Steam simply because they can enforce a rule that was already commonplace.

Just because you don't agree with the no-resell clause doesn't mean that you lose your money and the ability to use a product. You still have a perfectly playable game. If you choose not to play it just because you can't sell it later (which seems to be the only gripe people have with Steam's EULA), you're simply wasting the money you spent through your own volition.

Basically, our rights aren't being trampled on. We either have the right to buy a game through Steam with the understanding that we can't resell it, we have the right to NOT buy the game because we disagree with the aforementioned policy, or we have the right to buy a game that doesn't require Steam in the first place.

You're enthusiastically defending corporate policies which take rights away from you. You may not care about those rights, but others do. And they have other consequences down the road. For example, you can combat resale by...creating games with a lot of replay value. But if people are stuck with what you sell then you have no particular incentive to do so. Or you can encourage people to register paid copies by providing freebies (e.g. new civilizations in the civ series.) But if you have a captive audience you can then soak them for DLCs.

"I don't care about this right, so anyone who does care is wrong" is an incredibly poor argument.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're enthusiastically defending corporate policies which take rights away from you. You may not care about those rights, but others do. And they have other consequences down the road. For example, you can combat resale by...creating games with a lot of replay value. But if people are stuck with what you sell then you have no particular incentive to do so. Or you can encourage people to register paid copies by providing freebies (e.g. new civilizations in the civ series.) But if you have a captive audience you can then soak them for DLCs.

"I don't care about this right, so anyone who does care is wrong" is an incredibly poor argument.

Unfortunately, those who care are getting overwhelmed.

 

[Smokeybear]

But it's still a control over your game. The CD restriction is preventing you from using your product freely. If the CD is damaged, it's possible to not be able to play the game at all.

Hehe... exactly. Despite all the whining about how Steam somehow takes away your freedom/ability to play games, I'll bet my life savings that far, FAR more people have ended up losing their ability to play a game, or have had to repurchase a game, due to a game's CD/DVD's being lost, stolen, scratched, melted, eaten, or otherwise rendered useless... than have ever been (or likely ever will be) so affected by anything Steam-related. And that's not *even* getting into all of the crappy, destructive and gadawfully annoying CD-based DRM strategies the industry has come up with in recent times.

Steam- yes. The future is here, and it didn't come packaged on a CD.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Just think of games bought on Steam (or any digital distributor) as really really long rentals. I think it goes without saying that most people would pay more for a full game than they would for a rental of that game.

You don't own the game and you acknowledge there's a really small chance that at some time in the distant future you will no longer have access to that game.
You also recognise that no matter how many games you have now, there are probably only a very select few which you'll have a desire to play at that distant future time (more likely you'd be playing newer games) and that if your steam account for some reason no longer allows you to play them there are probably other means to play those games, and the cost of doing that is probably easily covered by investing any of the money you save now in buying a cheaper but more limited license (i.e. a license where no-resale is actually enforceable).

TMIT is spot on when he highlights the importance of market forces here. If there are a large proportion of gamers who are ok with the way things are currently going re licensee rights, a disgruntled few are not going to do anything to change that.

I respect anyone who has the determination to stick up for a cause they believe in and by doing so sacrifice something they enjoy. However when the battle is already lost, and the cause really not that important, ... at that point I don't know what to say (to them).

I have no problem with the owner of some IP (e.g. software) wishing to stipulate that licenses to use that IP are non-transferable. As a consumer it just means I will value that non-transferable license less than a transferable one, and obviously be willing to pay less. I pay, for non-transferable game licenses now, probably less than a third of what I used to pay for transferable licenses, and that's ignoring inflation.

People using Steam oftend end up with a backlog of games they haven't played because they can afford to buy games at a rate faster than what they can play them. At some point (as games get cheaper), the opportunity cost of the time spent playing a game becomes the most important factor in deciding what games to buy. Average/mediocre games literally reach a point where they are worthless and would not be worth playing even if they were free. (Valve/Steam actually take advantage of this by selling dated games dirt cheap - an ultra rational gamer would realise some of these games are not worth buying for any cost. The metric of dollars spent over time spent playing, which many gamers use to value games, plays right into the seller's hands. ) The price of many games sold by digital sellers can be low enough (x) that even if you got the game for $0.01 on ebay you'd still pay more than x for the postage.
For most PC gamers now the main cost of their hobby is probably by far the cost of their hardware (or the energy that hardware consumes, or the time they waste ). If they're being ripped off by a few dollars here and there because each game they buy is not transferable, they probably don't care, for good reason. They have bigger costs to worry about.

 

[Kerosene31]

using hyperbole to deride them, is not a very constructive form of reply imho. [/QUOTE]

Some people have very reasonable concerns, but others make claims which I feel are false and need to be questioned.

I think these are the "legit" concerns (if I ignored anyone, it was simply a post I missed):

1) Steam going away and losing access to your titles
2) You just don't like it and don't want it (opinions against it are perfectly fine, my only problem is when they are based off ignorance or incorrect facts). Anyone who understands Steam and still doesn't like it, how can I argue with that? I can't, and I haven't (although people think I do).

Still I just feel people are making a huge issue out of something that to many is not. There are 2.5 million people on Steam right this moment. It isn't going away anytime soon. If it ever does? Well at that point I think you would be within your rights to "pirate" a copy. I never, ever support piracy, except in a hypothetical situation where you lost access to something you legitimately purchased.

Situation before Steam (and similar services): People were legally entitled to re-sell video games if they liked to. Licenses prohibiting this were invalid due to violating national laws.

Situation after Steam: People are legally bound to Steam's prohibition on re-selling video games.

That's an objective and undebatable reduction of rights, even the court that issued the ruling said so.

We don't disagree, it is just that German and US law are very different on this matter. In the US, this is perfectly legal to do (and as I showed with Civ 4 has been for a very long time). In the US people aren't losing rights that they never had (Germany is different obviously).

 

[Becephalus]

Just think of games bought on Steam (or any digital distributor) as really really long rentals.
...
I respect anyone who has the determination to stick up for a cause they believe in and by doing so sacrifice something they enjoy. However when the battle is already lost, and the cause really not that important, ... at that point I don't know what to say (to them).
...
I have no problem with the owner of some IP (e.g. software) wishing to stipulate that licenses to use that IP are non-transferable.
...
They have bigger costs to worry about.

Good post. I and the several steam games I have bought for under $10 and then barely played agree 100%.

 

[tom2050]

@PeaceOfMind: Steam made $1 billion in 2010; and it's not because people were saving money.

It's been shown many times that the average Steam price is not necessarily lower than the average store price, and depending on where you live, it's much higher. Unless someone has a case-study going on, and there is proof that Steam prices on average are substantially lower in all areas around the globe, then the point is moot.

As a case-in-point:
Steam has been ripping Europeans off with the 1€ = 1$ exchange rate. Here is the group against that. I don't follow all this stuff closely, so don't know the 'latest', and know there are exceptions to these cases... but to generalise that Steam is cheaper is an irresponsible statement to say the least. On average, it seems Europeans pay 40% or more on Steam. Oh, what terrific savings.

I respect anyone who has the determination to stick up for a cause they believe in and by doing so sacrifice something they enjoy. However when the battle is already lost, and the cause really not that important, ... at that point I don't know what to say (to them).

Kind of like the determination for sticking up for the cause of making people think Steam around the globe is cheaper than everything else... but the battle has already been lost, because it's simply not true?

 

[Maniacal]

You do realize that when everyone says its cheaper they are referring to the sales, right?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

the only thing I hate about steam is that if its not working, your games arent working.

 

[MercuryP]

Kind of like the determination for sticking up for the cause of making people think Steam around the globe is cheaper than everything else... but the battle has already been lost, because it's simply not true?

It's a losing battle because people are going to buy the games they want and very few people are willing to forgo buying the games they want just because of the delivery mechanism of those games. The majority rules, and the majority isn't really interested in making statements.

I'm not a fan of Steam. I like to have total control over my computer, keeping my hard drive free of processes that aren't absolutely necessary. I want to run files to make things happen, not connect to some server somewhere to download things. I want to minimize the number of clicks it takes to do things. Steam takes a lot of that away from me. But if a game I really want is only available via Steam, I'm still going to buy it. There are precious few games that interest me nowadays, and I can't really afford to be choosy.

We all have a right to complain, but expecting it to make a difference is extremely optimistic.

 

[Mark the Bold]

@PeaceOfMind: Steam made $1 billion in 2010; and it's not because people were saving money.

Steam didn't make 1 billion. They had 1 billion in revenue. There is a big difference. And even if they did make 1 billion, it can still save people money at the same time. Walmart makes huge money and the average poor American saves thousands of dollars shopping there. Its called capitalism. So Steam has to be non-profit in order to save us money? Explain your logic. Please I insist. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman are all buffoons apparently.

@PeaceOfMind:
As a case-in-point:
Steam has been ripping Europeans off with the 1€ = 1$ exchange rate. Here is the group against that. I don't follow all this stuff closely, so don't know the 'latest', and know there are exceptions to these cases... but to generalise that Steam is cheaper is an irresponsible statement to say the least. On average, it seems Europeans pay 40% or more on Steam. Oh, what terrific savings.

Do any of you actually live in Europe? Any of you done business in Europe? We're talking about the land of $6+ a gallon gas, $120 + <snip>-brand jeans, $20 / beer pricing in Sweden, Scotland & Switzerland, virtually prohibitively expensive car licensing / registration, etc. etc.

There are SO many VAT's, surcharges, government graft in basic commodity pricing, that everytime I go there for work my colleagues practically offer me everything short of sexual favors to bring over basic clothing and electronics at MSRP pricing.

And lets not get started on the fact that the EU consistently raises the bar on anti-trust EU lawsuits payouts (i.e., legalized confiscation) against US tech companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, etc. etc..

Hell I'd mark-up 40% easy if it were my company just to make sure I can cover my ass for all the future lawsuits / taxes that most accountants here don't even know about. Like in Germany its technically illegal to have any kind of swashtika in any kind of entertainment product.

So please, give it up. Europeans complaining about high pricing on Steam is so duplicitous and disingenuous. EVERYTHING in Europe is way more expensive than here. Socialism does that. AND you vote for it every year in droves. Deal with it.

Moderator Action: Please do not evade the auto-censor. Rephrase in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sock Bramson]

Ohio, I never argued that people are wrong for worrying about the inability to resell games simply because I don't have an issue with it. In fact, I said that people who DO see that as a major issue probably shouldn't use Steam.

What I am arguing for is that the minor rights you agree to lose by buying games off of Steam are greatly outweighed by the benefits of the program. We're really only quibbling about one right: the right to resell games. Not having the option to resell an old game for $5-10 isn't going to break the bank, nor is having the option going to make anyone rich. If you still want said option, well, buy your games from a different source.

The other major complaint people have against Steam is based on the fear that they will lose the right to play their games in the future if Valve goes under or tries to screw us over. I don't see this as an issue because a) it hasn't happened yet, nor do I think it will happen, and more importantly b) if it did happen, there are easy ways to get around it and keep playing your games. Like Kerosene, I would have no issue with pirating/hacking/etc a game I have already bought. If the dystopian future cometh, as some people fear, then we can fight back. (and win, to boot)

In your discussion of ways to combat resale, you seem to suggest that Steam doesn't provide games with good replayability and screws people over with DLC instead of offering freebies. However, many of the games I bought through Steam have ridiculous replayability, such as the Total War series, Fallout 3, and (with more scenarios and mods coming out) Civ V; I bought them on Steam because I knew I was going to play the crap out of them. Steam also provides freebies for using their service, and not just TF2 hats. DLC is not new or Steam-only, and customers are never forced to buy it. The argument for or against DLC is a different can of worms than we're digging through right now, but the fact remains that it is completely up to the customer whether or not they buy the extra content.

tom- it's all about the sales. If you keep your eyes peeled, Steam offers games for next to nothing; even if you add an extra 40% to said deals, you're still not paying that much. The dollar-euro equivalency does sound like it's a bad deal in general, though. Here in the US, Steam is cheaper than retail across the board even without the sales because they don't tack on any sales tax; a $49.99 game is exactly $49.99. UK gamers sound like they're doing fine as well, so the rest of you Europeans need to stick to retail/ do anything in your power to show Valve that you aren't going to pay higher prices. Let's just hope your retail prices don't start to increase, too.

celtic- your games can still work without an internet connection. All you have to do is double check your settings (i.e. make sure you're allowing Steam to save credentials to your computer) and use offline mode.

 

[deanej]

We don't disagree, it is just that German and US law are very different on this matter. In the US, this is perfectly legal to do (and as I showed with Civ 4 has been for a very long time). In the US people aren't losing rights that they never had (Germany is different obviously).

That's because, while European courts actually care about consumer rights, in the US the courts have been bought and paid for by our corporate masters. Their decisions can be characterized in one phrase: "Shut up, slave".

 

[Sock Bramson]

Mark- don't be too quick to blow the old socialism whistle, now. Yes, for the most part European countries have more socialist policies in place than the US, and some of them may very well account for higher prices. However, there are many other factors that you have to take into account, namely the challenges of successfully switching over to a single currency while dealing with the complications involved with a market that spans several different countries. Heck, things here in the US can get complicated enough when all we have to deal with is the comparatively minor difference between the federal and various State laws.

Socialism is merely government intervention in any form; it is not, as some people mistakenly assume, Communism. I'm not accusing you of making this mistake because you have not done so. However, it's still a bit reactionary to think that all forms of Socialism are bad. Taxes are an example of Socialism, and while nobody wants them to be high, they undoubtedly help countries function and- as they say in academic circles- "pay for stuff." Some socialism is needed to keep things running smoothly; you just want to make sure that it doesn't get to "Big Brother" levels.

Bringing this back around to the discussion at hand, I can continue to justify to compromise I make with Steam the same way I can justify paying taxes. While I do give up certain rights (i.e. the right to keep every cent of my monies), I gladly(ish) do so because I benefit from the government taking care of infrastructure, law and order, civic defense, education, etc. The same holds for Steam, in a way. Fortunately, I don't have to pay them taxes. I simply forfeit the right to resell games, and in exchange I get a reliable, disc-free game cache with a solid social network and access to fantastic sales. If they try to take away the games that I paid for, I'll go rogue and hack them back into a working state. Likewise, if the US government tried to implement forced-castration, you better believe I'm gonna take some guns, foodstuffs (mostly alcohol), and my precious satchel to a hidden forest compound and use guerrilla tactics on my would-be surgeons.

edit: While we're getting all political here, deanej, the courts are actually the one place where corporate scumbags can get their comeuppance. (suck it, Madoff) Note: corporations are not always bad, nor are they always completely bad; it's usually a few douche-nozzles at the top who are at fault. Besides, the real corporate slaves are the factory workers in the worlds poorer countries. Yes, there are problems that need to be addressed in America and other developed nations, but we have it a damn sight better than most of the world. So buck up, buddy, and eat a greasy burger while bikini-clad blondes wash your 6 extra-large SUVs. (that's what us Americans do on a typical day, right?)

 

[PieceOfMind]

To readers: Another long post from me, but if you're a regular steam user, it might be worth reading.

@PeaceOfMind: Steam made $1 billion in 2010; and it's not because people were saving money.

Some time ago I too was in the boat claiming that Steam's prices were nothing special, if not blatant rip-offs most of the time. Actually that's still mostly true. Aussie prices are often marked up by more than 50% of the US price, sometimes even more than 100%, so I'm no stranger to the regional pricing issue. Also some games are region locked to my region.

The thing is, those familiar with steam find ways around both of those issues. All one needs is a simple paypal account and a trustworthy North-American friend to carry out the transaction and gift the item to you.

It's been shown many times that the average Steam price is not necessarily lower than the average store price, and depending on where you live, it's much higher. Unless someone has a case-study going on, and there is proof that Steam prices on average are substantially lower in all areas around the globe, then the point is moot.

As a case-in-point:
Steam has been ripping Europeans off with the 1&#8364; = 1$ exchange rate. Here is the group against that. I don't follow all this stuff closely, so don't know the 'latest', and know there are exceptions to these cases... but to generalise that Steam is cheaper is an irresponsible statement to say the least. On average, it seems Europeans pay 40% or more on Steam. Oh, what terrific savings.



Kind of like the determination for sticking up for the cause of making people think Steam around the globe is cheaper than everything else... but the battle has already been lost, because it's simply not true?

As Scamp pointed out, it's mostly about the sales. Actually Valve are very clever here. I hinted in my last post that Valve take advantage of people's willingness to part with a small amount of money on a game they'll probably scarecely get the time to play. Steam trends gamers towards more frequent but cheaper purchases by having regular sales which usually put the price cheaper, sometimes significantly cheaper, than the typical retail price or price on other digital distributors. Other digitial distributors certainly have sales too but they seem to be less organised and receive much less attention from gamers.

Steam constantly is tempting the users of its program with sales of items from its vast catalogue. A large proportion of its gamers have gotten used to the pattern of waiting for a sale before they purchase a game. The old mentality of deciding a game you want and then shopping around for the best price is gone, and has been replaced by looking at the current game on sale and wondering whether it's worth buying. Because of the way that people value games (which I think is actually inadequate for the modern world of low-price games in an extremely saturated market of mostly mediocre games - the idea of $spent/hrs played is only useful for people who have way too much spare time), they often find deals too good to pass up. When they're shown a deal which is to them still "ripping them off", they exercise the little power they have to refuse that deal, but at the same time Valve (or its publisher partners) are reinforcing the attractiveness of its better sales.

Steam entirely changes the model for how PC gamers approach buying and selling games. (The changing of selling is simple - it's prohibited )

Steam does have its disadvantages, and there are many. One of them is that its "retail" prices are often just as high if not higher than the prices in brick-and-mortar stores. Steam users often complain about this, usually referring to how much cheaper it should be to sell a digital copy than a physical copy (server maintenance vs. CD production, booklets, plastic boxes, shipping etc.). Actually they're missing the point. Game licenses are sold in the market based on their intangible value, not their physical value. Obviously the main costs in a video game come from its lengthy development process (at least this is the case for most big budget games). They don't sell games for the prices they do to try and recover the costs of printing some CDs and manuals.
Steam allows the practice of selling games for a high price at release to continue because it works and it's mostly necessary so that publishers can recoup the development costs. Those too lazy to shop around might be happy to pay those prices. Those familiar with one or two import stores can often get a game significantly cheaper, so they come out winners too, even on games which are Steamworks titles. (case in point, I bought civ5 for $40 at release... It was, and still is, $80 on the Steam store for my region). The market price for a game will gradually decrease over time, and each time it increments downwards it captures a new section of the market who are finally satisfied with the asking price. This model rewards those who pay the most for the game at release, with obviously earliest access to the game (more important for MP games), while still managing to get as much revenue as possible from more budget-conscious gamers.

By constantly stuffing sales and prices into the faces of gamers Steam manipulates gamers into making more frequent thoughts about the prices of games. Having high base prices probably actually helps Steam and its partner publishers a lot. Steam's Top Sellers lists is based off revenue rather than units sold, yet still, like clockwork, whenever there's a steam sale the game/s on sale tend to shoot to the top of that 'highest revenue' list, suggesting a large chunk of Steam's revenues and game sales happen at sales. Of course there is also the old-fashioned way of high revenue from the selling of the game at high retail price at release following a strong marketing campaign designed to convince people to part with their money asap, sometimes even well before the game is launched. Sometimes gamers don't even need to be tempted with goodies included in their preorder... the hype alone is enough to get them enthusiastic to buy.

Anyway, the point is that Steam users who end up with a backlog of unplayed games (and it's surprisingly easy to become one of these people) are not becoming so while losing all their savings to ripoff prices. You have to give some credit to people for their ability to pay attention to prices. Steam just manages to convince people to buy games they never would have bought if they didn't go on sale and get splashed all over Steam's front page.

Kind of like the determination for sticking up for the cause of making people think Steam around the globe is cheaper than everything else... but the battle has already been lost, because it's simply not true?

What the? That's not a cause I'm fighting for, nor is it one that requires the sacrifice of something I enjoy. As you'll gather from above part of my post, Steam's regular prices are almost always poor value. Notice that recently Impulse started selling Steamworks titles on its store. D2D have been doing it for longer. Finally Steam is finding more competition in the digital space. (Remember Steamworks titles are those that need to be activated and attached to a steam account.)
The point is gamers can shop around at other stores - other digital stores and import stores, and gosh even brick-and-mortar stores if absolutely necessary - to find the prices they are happy with.

I'm not here to advocate you or anyone else switching over to Steam exclusively so you can get ripped off. If you're unwilling to consider the prices that Steam offers during some of its sales it's your loss (or potential loss). Steam doesn't force you to part with your money. It's just remarkably good at tempting you.

 

[Kerosene31]

@PeaceOfMind: Steam made $1 billion in 2010; and it's not because people were saving money.

It's been shown many times that the average Steam price is not necessarily lower than the average store price, and depending on where you live, it's much higher. Unless someone has a case-study going on, and there is proof that Steam prices on average are substantially lower in all areas around the globe, then the point is moot.

That must just be your exchange rate, because Steam is at the very worst the same price as brick and mortar retailers here in the US. I could walk into a store here and still be charged $40+ for Civ 4 gold.

Games on sale on Steam are massively cheaper than anything you can get anywhere else. I recently got Supreme Commander 2 (a new game) for $3.50. That's less than a fast food hamburger. Last holiday season they had some incredible sales. I spent like $40 total and got countless great games.

That's because, while European courts actually care about consumer rights, in the US the courts have been bought and paid for by our corporate masters. Their decisions can be characterized in one phrase: "Shut up, slave".

I'm glad we don't live in a nanny state then. Your ideas about Steam are simply silly. Steam is cheaper for me as a PC gamer, and simply, better. I don't know why that is so hard to understand?

You are entitled to your opinion on it, but stop insulting those with an alternative viewpoint. You're arguments are silly and childish.

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with a post, report it rather than making accusations. Address the post, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I love being able to play Civ V and have a friend send me a message to play some Portal 2 co-op. Maybe I'm just a corporate slave? I enjoy PC gaming and enjoy communicating with friends. What a tool I am!

Why should my government restrict me from doing what I want?

 

[ohioastronomy]

Come off it. I can connect with friends on social networks without being forced to buy my games on the same social networks.

 

[tom2050]

You do realize that when everyone says its cheaper they are referring to the sales, right?

Nice assumption. He didn't say that, I won't assume it. You are comparing Steam sales prices to full-priced store software. Well duh, of course it would be cheaper.

If you compare Steam sales to store bargain-bin prices, probably not much difference.

Steam didn't make 1 billion. They had 1 billion in revenue. There is a big difference. And even if they did make 1 billion, it can still save people money at the same time. Walmart makes huge money and the average poor American saves thousands of dollars shopping there. Its called capitalism.

They made 1 billion. In revenue. Did I really need to add the word revenue in there? What else would it be? They didn't make 1 billion in bottle caps, They didn't make 1 billion in oranges.

Now if I said 1 billion in profit, then you could say something, and rightly so, but I didn't say that, and I didn't imply that either. You assumed it, and you are wrong to assume anything. It's obvious what that meant, but you purposely ignored it.

So Steam has to be non-profit in order to save us money? Explain your logic. Please I insist. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman are all buffoons apparently.

Who ever said anything about Steam being non-profit? I never said that, and I also never implied it. I never even mentioned anything closely related to anything of that sort. You want me to explain something you assumed, which I never even thought about. Perhaps explain why you keep assumptions? From wiki:

An assumption: In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.

And who said anything about people being buffoons. Where do you come up with this stuff at?

Do any of you actually live in Europe? Any of you done business in Europe? We're talking about the land of $6+ a gallon gas, $120 + $hit-brand jeans, $20 / beer pricing in Sweden, Scotland & Switzerland, virtually prohibitively expensive car licensing / registration, etc. etc.

There are SO many VAT's, surcharges, government graft in basic commodity pricing, that everytime I go there for work my colleagues practically offer me everything short of sexual favors to bring over basic clothing and electronics at MSRP pricing.

And lets not get started on the fact that the EU consistently raises the bar on anti-trust EU lawsuits payouts (i.e., legalized confiscation) against US tech companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, etc. etc..

Hell I'd mark-up 40% easy if it were my company just to make sure I can cover my ass for all the future lawsuits / taxes that most accountants here don't even know about. Like in Germany its technically illegal to have any kind of swashtika in any kind of entertainment product.

Steam is not using the correct exchange rate, Mark. That is the reason Steam prices are higher for Europeans. Not because of anything else you said or mentioned. The exchange rate they are using is 1&#8364; = 1$. That is why Europeans are getting ripped off by Steam. They can buy software at local stores cheaper in most circumstances from what I've read. I don't live in Europe BTW, sorry Mark.

tom- it's all about the sales. If you keep your eyes peeled, Steam offers games for next to nothing; even if you add an extra 40% to said deals, you're still not paying that much. The dollar-euro equivalency does sound like it's a bad deal in general, though. Here in the US, Steam is cheaper than retail across the board even without the sales because they don't tack on any sales tax; a $49.99 game is exactly $49.99. UK gamers sound like they're doing fine as well, so the rest of you Europeans need to stick to retail/ do anything in your power to show Valve that you aren't going to pay higher prices. Let's just hope your retail prices don't start to increase, too.

So I guess that means that PrinceScamp is incorrect, because he said everyone that says Steam is cheaper is talking only about the sale prices only. I have no prob with that, see a good deal, pick it up.

Brink (PC) just released
Brink on Steam is $49.99 + no tax = $49.99
Brink at my Best Buy is $46.99 + tax (8.45%) = $50.96
Brink at Walmart is $46.54 + tax (8.45%) = $50.47

Less than $1 saved, and it's a digital download compared to a full boxed package. That's not exactly a deal for you, although it may seem it. It should cost less than $46 on Steam. They are actually over-charging for that software in comparison.

This is just the first game I looked at, since it just released the other day. Of course, I'm sure you could find games to support either side. Furthermore, sales tax is charged on Steam for state of WA I believe. So in WA, they would be better off going to a store.

Furthermore, in this case, I would rather spend the same amount and support my local community with sales tax, then to give it to Valve who is charging $3 more for the same product.

 

[tom2050]

That must just be your exchange rate, because Steam is at the very worst the same price as brick and mortar retailers here in the US. I could walk into a store here and still be charged $40+ for Civ 4 gold.

Games on sale on Steam are massively cheaper than anything you can get anywhere else. I recently got Supreme Commander 2 (a new game) for $3.50. That's less than a fast food hamburger. Last holiday season they had some incredible sales. I spent like $40 total and got countless great games.

I don't own any exchange rates, sorry; so it's not mine.. it's the exchange rate Steam uses, which is that 1 USD is equivalent to 1 Euro which makes Europeans pay a whole lot more for the same game.

No one ever said good deals can't be found. Old games can be found for good deals all over if you look.

Current Supreme Commander 2 costs I found:
Steam: $14.99
Amazon: $5.99 (normal cost $9.00)

Steam is $5.99 higher cost than Amazon's normal cost for digital download. Is that a great deal? I'm talking about general costs; it is a bit disingenuous (not you, but in general) to take only the absolute sale of all sales and generalise it.

@PeaceOfMind: I got rocked by alot of people in these forums, because I mentioned that Valve has hired a Psychologist to mind-skull people into buying. If you think you are getting a good deal, then it's great, although overall you are not on non-sale items. In Europe, you really are not. In Australia, you aren't either. Those in Europe should keep their taxes in their country, rather then paying Steam an outrageous amount because they jack-rig the exchange rate. Everyone should consider the same thing if they buy a non-sale item.

I certainly would like if everyone on Steam only bought extremely cheap sales items. You would see that practice quickly change by Valve if it was the case for long enough.