As one Sean Bean, dressed ridiculously as a James Bond villain once said, "Trust, what a quaint idea". Gearbox president, Randy Pitchford, appears to share the same view regarding the Steam digital delivery platform, attached to developer Valve.
Speaking to MaximumPC about the upcoming Borderlands and piracy amongst other things, Pitchford implies a conflict of interest between Valve's developer duties and Steam's retail obligations. "As a guy in this industry though, I don’t trust Valve... I think a lot of the industry doesn’t. It would be much better if Steam was its own business. It’s actually really, really dangerous for the rest of the industry to allow Valve to win."
The issue Pitchford has seems to lie more with Valve's involvement with Steam than with Valve itself; "I love Valve games, and I do business with the company. But, I’m just saying, Steam isn’t the answer. Steam helps us as customers, but it’s also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that’s not totally fair."
So Randy, if you think Steam's not the answer, then by golly, what is?
"Microsoft has every single one of us running Windows, and it could solve this [distribution] problem in a second if done right. It’s not hard, but either the company doesn’t know how to do it, or it’s not willing to invest, or it’s got other priorities." So Microsoft could pick up the slack by integrating its Windows platform more, but again its focus on console seems to be of a higher priority. Next!
"I’d rather buy [digital games] from someone whose only interest is serving me. I’m cool with it being a digital retailer, but I want that to be their only business. And then I’ll really trust them." Alternatively, Pitchford suggests that even brick and mortar stores work because, as a purely retail business, their only interest is to serve the customer.
So basically, the solution is anything other than Valve/Steam, then.
Speaking to MaximumPC about the upcoming Borderlands and piracy amongst other things, Pitchford implies a conflict of interest between Valve's developer duties and Steam's retail obligations. "As a guy in this industry though, I don’t trust Valve... I think a lot of the industry doesn’t. It would be much better if Steam was its own business. It’s actually really, really dangerous for the rest of the industry to allow Valve to win."
The issue Pitchford has seems to lie more with Valve's involvement with Steam than with Valve itself; "I love Valve games, and I do business with the company. But, I’m just saying, Steam isn’t the answer. Steam helps us as customers, but it’s also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that’s not totally fair."
So Randy, if you think Steam's not the answer, then by golly, what is?
"Microsoft has every single one of us running Windows, and it could solve this [distribution] problem in a second if done right. It’s not hard, but either the company doesn’t know how to do it, or it’s not willing to invest, or it’s got other priorities." So Microsoft could pick up the slack by integrating its Windows platform more, but again its focus on console seems to be of a higher priority. Next!
"I’d rather buy [digital games] from someone whose only interest is serving me. I’m cool with it being a digital retailer, but I want that to be their only business. And then I’ll really trust them." Alternatively, Pitchford suggests that even brick and mortar stores work because, as a purely retail business, their only interest is to serve the customer.
So basically, the solution is anything other than Valve/Steam, then.
Comments
DrkStr 8 Oct 2009 12:16
1/4
Errr...How is micorosft any better than valve? I'd trust Gabe and hi grubby mitts before Balmer and his sweaty dance antics.
way 11 Oct 2009 07:45
2/4
I do not use my value account, and buying a store copy of a game to get value to take over with continuous downloading is not the answer. Digital content systems can disappear in a flash, bankruptcy, disaster etc, leaving you with no longterm future for your software. Eventually we may see the long desired software licensing scheme, where you license by the use, day, month year etc, and they can disappear at any time. Locking you to one or more machines is also another issue, as well as hardware upgrades begin identified as a new machine (realize I am talking about digital content in general here not valve in particular). We need something that we can own physically and use on new machines without having to log in, we need a updatable security system like the consoles have.
Any game that requires that you are online to use it for any off lien purpose, or tries to automatically get online, or requires you to swap in the disc each time, is abhorrent. If we had hundred stacker DVD/BD drives and the code was loaded from disc each time, then that would be different.
Any game that requires that you are online to use it for any off lien purpose, or tries to automatically get online, or requires you to swap in the disc each time, is abhorrent. If we had hundred stacker DVD/BD drives and the code was loaded from disc each time, then that would be different.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Dreadknux 12 Oct 2009 12:30
3/4
I'm always curious about the "I don't trust digital distribution because games are expendable and if taken offline will never be recovered". I don't see how that is any different to physical media, just in a different circumstance.
If a physical medium game is out of print, no longer manufactured, then you're already limited in your options of ever getting the game back if you, say, lose your CD or cartridge. You still have eBay, of course, but then couldn't the same be said about memory cards that contain legitimate downloaded copies of games?
The only real thing against digital distribution is the whole DRM process, which as you said would render downloaded games useless if say, EA or Sony's online service disappeared. It would be particularly bothersome if you wanted to change ownership of a downloaded piece of material (which as of yet can't be done anyway and I doubt it will be any time soon) or had to sign into an online account to verify your CD or something.
That's the main argument I'd use against DD. The fact that, if deleted, you'll never get it back again is a bit moot as the same could be said for physical media. Only difference is, instead of stores selling old carts and CDs, they'll be selling memory sticks with data pre-stored on them.
If a physical medium game is out of print, no longer manufactured, then you're already limited in your options of ever getting the game back if you, say, lose your CD or cartridge. You still have eBay, of course, but then couldn't the same be said about memory cards that contain legitimate downloaded copies of games?
The only real thing against digital distribution is the whole DRM process, which as you said would render downloaded games useless if say, EA or Sony's online service disappeared. It would be particularly bothersome if you wanted to change ownership of a downloaded piece of material (which as of yet can't be done anyway and I doubt it will be any time soon) or had to sign into an online account to verify your CD or something.
That's the main argument I'd use against DD. The fact that, if deleted, you'll never get it back again is a bit moot as the same could be said for physical media. Only difference is, instead of stores selling old carts and CDs, they'll be selling memory sticks with data pre-stored on them.
way 13 Oct 2009 14:30
4/4
Svend Joscelyne wrote:
I'm always curious about the "I don't trust digital distribution because games are expendable and if taken offline will never be recovered". I don't see how that is any different to physical media, just in a different circumstance.
If a physical medium game is out of print, no longer manufactured, then you're already limited in your options of ever getting the game back if you, say, lose your CD or cartridge?
-
The only real thing against digital distribution is the whole DRM process, which as you said would render downloaded games useless if say, EA or Sony's online service disappeared. It would be particularly bothersome if you wanted to change ownership of a downloaded piece of material (which as of yet can't be done anyway and I doubt it will be any time soon) or had to sign into an online account to verify your CD or something.
That's the main argument I'd use against DD. The fact that, if deleted, you'll never get it back again is a bit moot as the same could be said for physical media. Only difference is, instead of stores selling old carts and CDs, they'll be selling memory sticks with data pre-stored on them.
If a physical medium game is out of print, no longer manufactured, then you're already limited in your options of ever getting the game back if you, say, lose your CD or cartridge?
-
The only real thing against digital distribution is the whole DRM process, which as you said would render downloaded games useless if say, EA or Sony's online service disappeared. It would be particularly bothersome if you wanted to change ownership of a downloaded piece of material (which as of yet can't be done anyway and I doubt it will be any time soon) or had to sign into an online account to verify your CD or something.
That's the main argument I'd use against DD. The fact that, if deleted, you'll never get it back again is a bit moot as the same could be said for physical media. Only difference is, instead of stores selling old carts and CDs, they'll be selling memory sticks with data pre-stored on them.
I don't have a problem with content you download into physical form that you never have to get online to use, change ownership, or use on a different machine, same with DRM that works like that too. Seamless, simple computing is good. As for longevity, it is as our grandparents might think, that can be better to have something in your hand that will last, then to be entitled to use something until it disappears. Some games will last your lifetime. even a thousand years, and you are entitled to backup, but how many download companies locking you into rights management will last ten or twenty years. The physical rights management I advocate would also be periodically replaced, and old systems eventually opened up allowing backup outside the program (backup being another fair rights use). So by the time one system gets cracked another is already implemented. But this is not about fair use or fair profit, it is all about money and control. We elect governments to make sure there is fair use.
Of course around here, some people have been prone to treat the legal use of emulators, and things that allow emulation of games people actually own, on different machines like it is piracy. Of course download companies selling the same game would love for you to be required to buy it from them too.
The PC industry is stuffed up the way it is done now, go to local shops and the software is lacking, though nicely priced past the mega game, because of anti-drm piracy. There is fair rights management, and then there is unfair manipulative, monopolistic, obstructive, dictatorial, anti-trust control rights management that downloading makes very possible. It is like curing piracy by installing a power hungry dictator and putting all the armed forces on smack. Fair rights management that allows you to fairly use and trade your private property is fine and if done right (optional for titles and maybe a free version) will lead to reduced piracy, maintain lower cost games and a healthier PC game industry. Of course, the other issue is getting PC's to boot up, install and use games as easy as a console. Is there anybody in government and industry listening?
Anyway much to do about very little, much of our time on practices with little merit.