To people who disliked Steam.

[Kerosene31]

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.

I got it off Steam for $3.50 on sale. Which by my calculations is less.

 

[MarkC1]

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

Are you seriously still harassing people who dont bow to your Steam overlord? It's been like a half a year dude.. if you're not on the payroll yet you certainly oughtta be.

Why is this guy still allowed to vehemently attack anyone who questions Steam?

Moderator Action: Address the post, not the poster. The payroll accusation is considered trolling, as is accusing someone of attacking others. If you have a problem with a post, report it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PieceOfMind]

It should cost less than $46 on Steam. They are actually over-charging for that software in comparison.

You just committed the fallacy I spoke of in my previous post. There's no real reason that games sold digitally "should" be cheaper than those sold physically. They are priced based on what the market pays, to recover development costs and potentially turn a profit, not the costs of production of cheap tangible items like boxes and CDs.

Regarding Brink, to my knowledge it's a Steamworks title and it can be bought from these stores for:
£24.49 (365games.uk) ( US$40.03)
AU$38.99 (ozgameshop) (US$41.65)

These games get attached to your Steam account. I post these prices here in order to illustrate to you the asking price on the Steam store is pretty much irrelevant to the argument of this thread. Steam doesn't have a monopoly on Steamworks titles.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, they're marked similar to the brick and mortar stores because there's no point in undercutting them and, if they were, those companies might lash out at the publisher (so it's in the publisher's interest to encourage them to keep a price at roughly the same level).

Steam offers convenience of purchasing (and having, since you could lose your hard drive and keep the games) with the negative advantage of it being essentially impossible to sell your games (unless you keep a separate password for each steam game and sell your whole account). I think that's the trade-off. People can choose one side or the other. But I don't think arguments of stealing your information or being a parasitic program are really fair. It's requirement of running is about the same level of inconvenience as requiring a CD in your system.

 

[Kerosene31]

It's requirement of running is about the same level of inconvenience as requiring a CD in your system.

Less in my opinion. The idea of having to put physical media in my CD drive anytime I want to play a game is pathetic. Every time I want to play something different I have to go searching through a pile of DVDs? No thanks.

 

[MarkC1]

Less in my opinion. The idea of having to put physical media in my CD drive anytime I want to play a game is pathetic. Every time I want to play something different I have to go searching through a pile of DVDs? No thanks.

So Im guessing you down own an Xbox or ps3

 

[PieceOfMind]

You could reasonably infer that. You can also use it as a way to distinguish PC and console gaming, in PC's favour.

 

[deanej]

I recently got Supreme Commander 2 (a new game) for $3.50. That's less than a fast food hamburger.

Looks like you got ripped off (on the hamburger). Last time I was at McDonald's, I paid $1.78 for two hamburgers!

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.

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!

I wouldn't care if steam was simply one service in a forest of game stuff. But the fact is, some games REQUIRE steam. Plus digital distribution seems to simply be a move to steam rather than a move to self publishing, so there's very much a reason to speak out.

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

Why should corporations?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Why should corporations?

It's their IP. It's their stuff you're playing with.

 

[Mark the Bold]

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.

......

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?

[/I]

I like to think myself a reasonable man. And I always enjoy a spirited internet forum debate. But when I read people quoting dictionary definitions to me like I don't know what an assumption is, my blood boils. So you want to be a smart-alec huh? Lets rock kid.

Let's start with what you originally wrote:

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

That is what you wrote. The implication is clear from this statement that Steam is making excessive profit by charging too high a cost for their games. Or even more simply put: you are not saving money on games because Steam makes a lot of money. I don't give a rats patooey what you think you were implying. The assumption is clearly displayed by the choice of sentence structure, noun, verb and comparison sentence fragments. I can show this statement to a million people with grade 4 english comprehension and full access to wikipedia and they would interpret it the same. So if that's not the point you were making, spend a little less time quoting smart-a$$ comments from wikipedia, and do a little refresher course of basic english writing and comprehension.

Now as for the insipid bottle cap / orange statements, you obviously missed my point. That point was: revenue ≠ profit. I was making the distinction between the two because you clearly implied that revenue = profit (markup) from your comment towards peaceofmind. Not understanding the difference means that you might as well say that BP charges too high a cost for gas because it made $1million USD on the Deepwater Horizon project. Or that the Titanic charged too high a ticket price because it made $10,000 on its maiden voyage.

So that's where the Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Milton Friedman comments came from. Since you asked where these people come from. They are the most important minds of capitalist thought that explain that all companies must show profit to be successful. Don't know how much of Steam's revenue is profit, but I doubt that it is a very high margin. Why? Because Walmart, the best of the best in terms of keeping costs down, are very competitive to them in pricing.

Now as for your "Steam is not using the correct exchange rate, Mark comment." Do you honestly believe that one of the smartest and most innovative software developers on the planet are incapable of calculating the real-time correct exchange rate between two of the world's largest currencies? Really? REALLY?!??! Let's face facts. Steam is marking-up their products in Europe significantly more than their products here. That's all it is, plain and simple. That fact can be easily reconciled with my earlier comments as to why they do it.

Moderator Action: Please heed the moderator warnings throughout the thread. Address the post, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[tom2050]

You just committed the fallacy I spoke of in my previous post. There's no real reason that games sold digitally "should" be cheaper than those sold physically. They are priced based on what the market pays, to recover development costs and potentially turn a profit, not the costs of production of cheap tangible items like boxes and CDs.

My opinion is that it should be less, because otherwise you are better off dropping the money into your local community at the same price. I've also heard all the other non-sense before. The argument can go on forever with what market pays and what they don't, what they did and what they don't.... of course, you only know for what you are told, or what you saw somewhere, or what you think based on what you like.

I will still stick with: "Steam does have good deals, so do other folks. Otherwise, better off supporting your own community, than to support billion-dollar Steam"

Argue circles all day long, you've been doing it for as long as I can remember PoM, and it's gained you nothing.

Moderator Action: As has been noted in the thread repeatedly, address the post, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Regarding Brink, to my knowledge it's a Steamworks title and it can be bought from these stores for:
£24.49 (365games.uk) ( US$40.03)
AU$38.99 (ozgameshop) (US$41.65)

These games get attached to your Steam account. I post these prices here in order to illustrate to you the asking price on the Steam store is pretty much irrelevant to the argument of this thread. Steam doesn't have a monopoly on Steamworks titles.

They, being Steam, is still asking for it, so it is not irrelevant.

You can find Brink for £23.99 and less, on places like Amazon... Does it matter? not necessarily. and if it was, I don't think I'd care.

Cya! And have a nice day!

 

[PieceOfMind]

That is what you wrote. The implication is clear from this statement that Steam is making excessive profit by charging too high a cost for their games.

Regardless of whether revenue or profit was implied, I think the clear implication was the assertion that steam are "over-charging", whatever that means. Steam has every right to charge whatever they want for the games they sell. I'm pretty sure the usual arrangement they have with publishers is that they have a revenue-sharing contract where Steam take some percentage of the sale price (I see ~30% get thrown a lot but have no idea of its validity - it sounds plausible though, and is probably not a bad estimate, and it probably differs a lot based on individual contracts and the different influences that publishers have in the negotiations).
If Steam is pricing their games too high for the tastes of mosts of its users, they will lose those dollars of revenue to their competitors. The consumer is the one who has the power and incentive to find the best price for their purchase. There is no such thing as "over-charging", only people who are unaware where to find better prices. This would be a different story if Steam were a monopoly, but that it is not.

I expect that Valve (with Steam) is an extremely profitable business, and probably much moreso than its digital competitors. If anything this means they are the ones most likely to be able to pass on savings to their customers. This is not a statement of support for Steam, just a statement of reality.

 

[tom2050]

@Mark:

I never said the Billion was anything other than revenue. You Assumed that. You did.

That means it was your bad, not mine.

 

[Sock Bramson]

Don't worry about games requiring Steam. If you want a given Steamworks game bad enough you will buy it. If you like checking around for the best price, you will do so. Sometimes, it might be better to buy the game at a brick-and-mortar store instead of on Steam. All you have to do is buy it cheap, install it and Steam, and play the game without having to worry about the disk ever again. Often times the completely digital version will be cheaper by one sales-tax unit, so it's easier and slightly cheaper to buy it on Steam. (unless you really really want to have a CD) Given Steam's penchant for offering great sales, there is often the third option of buying it for a much lower price directly through Steam.

If, out of principle, you're hesitant to buy a Steamworks game from ANY source simply because you won't be able to resell it later, then you simply won't get to play the game. Even if it's a really fun game, and even if it's totally worth the $60 average max video game cost, you won't ever play it because you wouldn't be able to sell it later for, say, $10 tops. Of course, if you DO still want to play the game, all you have to do is fork over the "extra" $10/buy it cheaper from a Steam sale. Hopefully, you'll get more enjoyment out of the game than you'll lose from succumbing to Steam in this one instance. (Note: you probably will, actually; you were already willing to pay $50-60 for the game, and the fact that it's on Steam won't stop you from wringing all of the joy you would have gotten from it in any other form)

Now, can we continue this discussion without equating Valve to a diabolical, government-influencing corporation that has its tendrils in everything from advanced repression techniques to human trafficking? (note to tom: this is hyperbole; I am using it to be silly while still making a point. I fully realize that no one has explicitly accused Valve of such things.)
We're talking about the entertainment industry here; video juegos. How mad can we really get when- regardless of Steam's existence- we are still able to have fun playing video games? All that's left is for someone to invoke Godwin's Law. (please don't try to invoke Godwin's Law...)

On a side note, I was a bit confused about the burger comment myself. He might've been talking about the price of a combo meal or something, I suppose. Although, now that I think about it, I want to say I saw Burger King trying to sell burgers for $3 at one point. I think they've fixed that problem by now, though. (if it was ever a problem to begin with)

 

[tom2050]

Regardless of whether revenue or profit was implied, I think the clear implication was the assertion that steam are "over-charging", whatever that means.

I never implied it, and never said it was a bad thing. Now you guys are digging WAY TOO DEEP! Oh my holy goodness. It's like a definite digging way too deep.

They made a billion! Get over it PeaceOfMind and have some PeaceOfMind.

@the other guy: And if you pay over $3+ for a burger, you got ripped off, no matter how good it may have been.



NOW I remember why I don't post here! GOODBYE for another half a year!

Moderator Action: Please heed the moderator warnings from earlier in the thread. Address the post and not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Louis XXIV]

I paid $6 for a burger last time I had one. But it was at Ray's Hellburger in Arlington, which was totally worth the price.

 

[deanej]

It's their IP. It's their stuff you're playing with.

Let's see, the government supplies transportation, military protection from hostile nations, currency, etc. Does that mean that government should control you?

Incidentally I believe that the only rules that should regulate purchasing is the first sale doctrine (which corporations and the courts have butchered by turning EULAs into contracts). Why should the medium change how it's treated? This question will only become more relevant when 3d printers become cheaper and allow for mass copying of physical objects.

There are those such as Richard Stallman that believe that the mass copying allowed by the digital age is reason to abolish copyright rather than strengthen it. I agree with them. Copyright law was designed to provide an incentive for content creators to create content which would shortly thereafter fall into the public domain and benefit society. Today copyright law is used by corporations to milk the public for all its worth and copyrighted works from after about the 1920s will likely never go into the public domain because Walt Disney doesn't want to lose Mickey Mouse and can hire lobbyists to make sure they don't.

 

[PieceOfMind]

My opinion is that it should be less, because otherwise you are better off dropping the money into your local community at the same price. I've also heard all the other non-sense before. The argument can go on forever with what market pays and what they don't, what they did and what they don't.... of course, you only know for what you are told, or what you saw somewhere, or what you think based on what you like.

I will still stick with: "Steam does have good deals, so do other folks. Otherwise, better off supporting your own community, than to support billion-dollar Steam"

Your choice, fair enough. Support whoever you want.
There's no real benefit to my local community regardless of where I buy, so I choose to buy usually from the vendor with the cheapest price.

They, being Steam, is still asking for it, so it is not irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the consumer has the power to simply buy it elsewhere. What is relevant is that the consumer is required to register and activate the game on steam. I can perfectly understand why that is an issue to some people despite it no longer being much of an issue to me.

I never implied it, and never said it was a bad thing. Now you guys are digging WAY TOO DEEP! Oh my holy goodness. It's like a definite digging way too deep.

Ok, so you didn't imply it. What then was the purpose of saying:

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

You say they made $1 billion not because people were saving money. Why did they make $1 billion? It looks a lot like you were trying to make a point. Following that statement with

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.

perhaps gave me the wrong interpretation of what you were trying to say. It looked fairly clear, but I was mistaken.

Let's see, the government supplies transportation, military protection from hostile nations, currency, etc. Does that mean that government should control you?

Incidentally I believe that the only rules that should regulate purchasing is the first sale doctrine (which corporations and the courts have butchered by turning EULAs into contracts). Why should the medium change how it's treated? This question will only become more relevant when 3d printers become cheaper and allow for mass copying of physical objects.

There are those such as Richard Stallman that believe that the mass copying allowed by the digital age is reason to abolish copyright rather than strengthen it. I agree with them. Copyright law was designed to provide an incentive for content creators to create content which would shortly thereafter fall into the public domain and benefit society. Today copyright law is used by corporations to milk the public for all its worth and copyrighted works from after about the 1920s will likely never go into the public domain because Walt Disney doesn't want to lose Mickey Mouse and can hire lobbyists to make sure they don't.

Some interesting thoughts. Tending slightly away from the topic at hand though.

 

[spider1]

At first I hated Steam. But after I built my new PC, they made it very easy on me automaticly updating my game with all the patches and the DLCs I've purchased. While I'm not in love with Steam, I certainly don't hate them anymore. In fact, I'm actually starting to like the idea of DLCs.

I never in my life thought I'd ever be posting something like that, but I guess I just did.

 

[Sock Bramson]

Methinks tom does not post on the forums as much because we simply cannot grasp his mastery of the art of implication. He can twist the underlying implications of others' sarcastic comments into their literal, unintended connotation, all while denying the implications of his own comments. Stunning work.

By the way, I'm implying that your arguments have been somewhat lacking.

Moderator Action: You're again attacking the poster rather than addressing the post. As has been said repeatedly, this is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Deanej- copyright law was implemented to protect a creator's right to their creation, not to allow everybody to make use of it. While Walt Disney may be dead, his company is still in existence and is still in the business of producing entertainment. (cartoon or otherwise) Why wouldn't said company want to keep the rights to one of their characters? Likewise, game developers are still in the business of developing games. In order to fund their projects, they rely on the sales from their other games. (and on investors, sure, but they still need to sell games) It makes since that they want to insure that people buy their games from THEM instead of a flea market. One of the reasons that Steam appeals to game developers is that they can help insure that people are buying their games first-hand. Their no-resell policy was shaped by the concerns of the game developers. If you must balk at the policy, at least recognize that it wasn't invented by Steam solely to piss you off; it was implemented because of the nature of the video game industry.