I kind of agree with this. Steam is great, but it can be a lot better. More integration of media, a better, more responsive UI, freebies for loyal customers, clamping down on integration of steam works - and making steam works an even better platform, removing third party log ins by providing integrating tools to developers and publishers, and simply putting their foot down.
All these things sound good.
Seconded. My experience with Steam has been overwhelmingly positive. Maybe one bad experience is enough to sour some people on the whole thing.
Yeah, it’s a really good list. #6 is especially good.
I’d add: allow two or three computers to have different games active on the same account at the same time.
It was ridiculous when my ex couldn’t play Plants vs Zombies while I played Skyrim when she was at my house and I had two computers. Hell, I wouldn’t mind if they limited it to unlimited computers, but only as long as they were on the same IP. Sure, make it so that two computers can’t be playing the same game at the same time, but different games? Not allowing that is a huge step backwards from CDs.
I understand the shenanigans they’re trying to prevent, but making it so that every member of a household has to have their own personal copy of a game is ridiculous to the extreme. It reminds me of the old days where you had to get off the internet when someone had to use the phone.
THIS!
I had to set up two accounts in order to be able to play two separate games at the same time.
You can even team up with developers so that they can create games that allow multiple (within a certain limit of course) versions of a game using a single install for say, LAN play.
I think a problem with Valve is it’s structure. It’s a private company, which is good. They don’t have to answer to a bunch of suits. However, they are rather unorthodox, or so I hear. And their internal workings are kept under wraps as much as possible.
It might simply be difficult to get a ton of features added in to Steam without seeming to be “rocking the boat” as it were.
I’m not about to go digging through ancient EULAs but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was usually the case previously. It was just unenforceable in an offline setting.
So, again, what do you do when a company runs their own online service with matchmaking/friends list/all that stuff? Force them to split their community by forcing steam users to play in a completely separate ecosystems with different matchmaking? Just stop selling the game on steam? Demand all games on steam use steamworks? What about older games not currently under development who have established online services. Just remove them from steam?
I think making sure the steam works API can work with other client API’s is critical. Now, this is probably already true. Look at Portal 2. IT’s fully integrated with PSN and steamworks, to the point where PC and PS3 can play together.
If Steam says to developers: you need to use our API, but look, you can still leverage your own API for whatever you need, and simply interface with steamworks - hopefully even with access to UI elements, I think that would be awesome.
There’s no way EA or ubisoft is going to go along with that, nor any upstart competitors to forcing some sort of API or online service into your game. The net result of your proposal is just that a lot of games that are currently available on steam and would otherwise be on steam won’t be.
It also actually hurts in the few instances in which the online service for a game is actually better for that particular game than steamworks would be.
True. I’m sure some publishers would say no. It would be up to Valve to convince them that their user base WANTS Steamworks integration, and that they can customize that steamworks integraiton to their hear’s desire, easily.
As for services that are better than steamworks… can you think of one?
My previous example, relic’s online matchmaking, is most likely superior to steamworks for its particular purpose. I guess we’ll see, since COH2 will have steamworks, but I suspect relic’s service will be better for matchmaking, leaderboards, chat, and public games. According to your suggestion, since I have to log in to a separate account when I launch the game and it’s effectively DRM, they’d have to get rid of their (probably superior) system in favor of steamworks. Or just not put COH on steam.
I see something like how various community websites operate, where you use your Steam credentials to log in. You use the same information for the non-Steam systems and the whole thing is either seamless or one-time.
I would think that, to the extent that Steam is in the business of selling games out of a large catalog, it’s in Valve’s best interest to put as few demands on the publishers as possible. So if a publisher wants GFWL as part of their game for some God forsaken reason, Valve is better off letting them do it than trying to leverage against them. Let the market decide what people want.
As the primary example, Valve decided that all games sold through Steam also must have all their DLC sold through Steam. Electronic Arts decided they weren’t going to go for that. Without debating who is the evilest company since Hitler Inc. for having this conflict, the end result is that if you want Mass Effect 3 or Dead Space 3 or Dragon Age 3 or some other recent/upcoming EA title, you’re not getting it via Steam. Was that really to the customer’s benefit? Did I “win” by having any Steam option eliminated? Wouldn’t it be better to let the customer decide if they’d rather own the base game via Steam and deal with EA for DLC rather than having no Steam option period and only use Origin if they want it? I personally don’t care since I use Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc without complaint but I know it pisses off the Steam Or Nothing crowd to have to deal with this.
Why do people keep saying this? Steam (whether you mean their client or their policies) is not DRM. Publishers can choose to have DRM enforced on their games or not, Steam don’t care AFAIK. Paradox (who I do some volunteer work for) have had no DRM on any of their Steam games since EU3 5.1, over two years ago. You can run their games bought and downloaded from Steam with no Steam client active at all.
They’re actually moving to be Steam-only, as the services they provide to publishers are matchless - Steamworks, MP facilitation, beta handling, and so on.
Steam is clearly a form of DRM. You need an account, there are limitations (one computer per account at a time), etc. It’s not an invasive form of DRM, and it doesn’t hold you down and stick a broomstick up your ass like a lot of other forms of DRM, but it’s within that category.
Edit: Well, I guess the paradox stuff might be an exception. Most games require steam running and authenticated.
If Paradox can do it any publisher can. That is, your beef, senor, is with the publisher, not Steam.
I have no issue with publishers using Steam as DRM but, in the vast majority of cases, it’s exactly that: a way of managing who can use the digital content. The Paradox stuff (and a handful of indie titles that let you run them outside Steam) are the exception. Calling Steam DRM is broadly correct.
I don’t know who actually cares. Would it be great if all my games worked outside of steam? No, actually. I’m on steam anyway, it’s my main IM client, it lets me see what my friends are doing, tracks my gameplay, makes managing my games easier. There’s no downside to it.
From what I’ve seen of it from the Steamwork hooks in a UE3 game I modded on, this is basically what Steamworks is. It’s a fairly abstract layer, they don’t actually -do- much on their side except let you tap into friends list and other social functions and provide stock libraries for things like VOIP and server browser (including running a master server for you) if you desire such things.
If you wanted to do something custom like a Starcraft 2 style matchmaking ladder, you could do that; you would essentially just be using it as a provider and authentication service for Steam IDs. It’s not fundamentally any different from authenticating your own set of user accounts.