Support NeoGAF

[Derrick01]

Did they hurt Your family or something? No one even mentioned EA in a whole topic, no one... [ok except one post about Brutal Legend ;p].
But seriously, You have a problem, in every topic even only simply related to Steam You have to bash EA/Origin, thats strange to say at least.

Stump beat me to it. I'm not just name dropping EA in every thread possible, what I said is true and I do enjoy pointing out their lies when I actually get a chance to. We're talking about Steam's patching system and how it's pretty much the best available on PC and consoles and EA's comments fly in the face of everyone else's thoughts.

If they just came out and admitted what they did was a pure cash grab I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

 

[CecilRousso]

If he didnt lose credibility after purposely lieing during the build up of Brutal Legend, he never will.

Say what?

Microsoft has easily one of the strongest independent dd lineups this year. Fez/Spelunky alone look spectacular. People keep saying they will lose support and they still have games.

Of course they still have games, but they don´t keep their developers. People such as Jonathan Blow, Team Meat and Introversion doesn´t seem the slightest interested in working with Microsoft again, and if you keep the developers, you can go from good to awesome.

 

[chickdigger802]

All I can think about was Jonathan Blow's XBLA rant at the giantbomb e3 podcast thingie.

Wonder if there was any cost or certification process to patch the (rare) wii game?

 

[Burekma]

I think it's perfectly plausible that both are correct. Different kinds of game could easily have different T&Cs with Valve. Big publisher games will likely have bigger patches and bigger install bases, increasing costs past a threshold where it would otherwise become a significant cost to Valve.

According to their steamworks faq there aren't any restrictions on updates, no mention of size limits in the fine print. They don't even have any QA as far as I know.

 

[TheOddOne]

Of course they still have games, but they don´t keep their developers. People such as Jonathan Blow, Team Meat and Introversion doesn´t seem the slightest interested in working with Microsoft again, and if you keep the developers, you can go from good to awesome.

To be fair, none of them want anything to do anything with console development after their experiences.

Oddly though, Blow pitched a Kinect project to Microsoft and it got approved. He backed out of it though, saying he disagreed with a lot of policies MS put up (such as achievements, leaderboards).

 

[Grecco]

Also the thread title makes it sound like its just XBLA hes talking about when he talks he mentions PSN too.

 

[Deepo]

EA's stated reason for needing Origin is that Steam's patching process is bad because it imposes too much of a burden on them. This does not jive with what we know about Steam. In this case, a developer is saying the exact opposite, suggesting that either Schafer is wrong, EA is wrong, or EA is lying and their actual reason for Origin is something else (like, for example, because they believe they'll make more money).

Yeah, I love how they call that a burden for them.

I just recently bought and started playing Dragon Age 2 on Origin. I noticed after a good 2 hours that performance was really bad. Did a bit of checking, and it turns out it wasn't patched to version 1.03, it was still 1.00. So I had to manually patch it, even though I'd downloaded it through Origin. Now that is more of a burden for ME, in my opinion

 

[PumpkinPie]

Don't release broken games, problem solved?

 

[Grecco]

Say what?

Its no secret the RTS were never shown to the media because nobody would buy the game if they were in preview builds. Its a funny joke the whole RTS thing now. Even Tim jokes about it on his twitter!

 

[CecilRousso]

Its no secret the RTS were never shown to the media because nobody would buy the game if they were in preview builds. Its a funny joke the whole RTS thing now. Even Tim jokes about it on his twitter!

So you cant trust him about his opinions about patching on XBLA because you weren´t satisfied with Brutal Legend? Seems odd, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[herod]

According to their steamworks faq there aren't any restrictions on updates, no mention of size limits in the fine print. They don't even have any QA as far as I know.

I think being on Steam and using Steamworks are two very different things.

 

[LiK]

Wow, expensive.

 

[Oppo]

Aren't XBL title updates limited to 4 MB, as well?

$10,000 per megabyte. Crazytown.

 

[Sponge]

Yikes, how horrifyingly pricey.

 

[Raide]

Aren't XBL title updates limited to 4 MB, as well?

$10,000 per megabyte. Crazytown.

Pretty old info. Some games have had well over 1Gb updates.

 

[Row]

I don't even know why anyone would go for XBLA over PC+Steam or iOS devices. You're buried in the system, have higher costs, and less profit potential.

 

[EGM1966]

EA's stated reason for needing Origin is that Steam's patching process is bad because it imposes too much of a burden on them. This does not jive with what we know about Steam. In this case, a developer is saying the exact opposite, suggesting that either Schafer is wrong, EA is wrong, or EA is lying and their actual reason for Origin is something else (like, for example, because they believe they'll make more money).

I'd say it's pretty clear patching isn't really the issue. Steam T&Cs and FAQ seem easy to access and don't hint and anything plus no other developer has an issue.

Personally I believe EA's beef is that with Steam patches, etc. go through Steam - i.e your on-going relationship stays more with Steam/Valve than EA. I notice EA are happy to have their games available for digital sale where you're just buying the game and then it's over to Origin after that.

Seems to me they want their games to be sold through other channels only and all support, online tools, etc. to be through Origin.

So I reckon it has to be money - i.e they want you locked into them for stuff and spending stuff directly with them. They basically want a closed EA ecosystem apart from initial sale of the goods it seems to me - which of course is why they clash with Steam/Valve who won't go for that.

 

[Interfectum]

I don't even know why anyone would go for XBLA over PC+Steam or iOS devices. You're buried in the system, have higher costs, and less profit potential.

Yup.

Steam + iOS seems the way to go these days.

 

[Atomski]

Don't release broken games, problem solved?

Have you even bothered to read the thread?


Anyways hopefully we see more big indie games heading straight to Steam. Seems like the trend is most developers getting on xbla.. finding out what a bitch it is then jumping ship for Steam. Just skip that middle part guys .

Drives me nuts thinkin I will probably have to wait a bit longer for a Fez on Steam release.

 

[Clever Pun]

I think being on Steam and using Steamworks are two very different things.

Are you implying that Steam charges for patches if the games isn't a Steamworks game? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Oppo]

Pretty old info. Some games have had well over 1Gb updates.

I know about the big Battlefield update, but aren't most of them still sub-4MB? I bet that BF update cost even more considering the size and hosting of it.

 

[Effect]

That is a lot of money but I do like the idea of a deterrence of some kind in place as long as the first few times are free. I'm sick of games coming out with publishers/developers having the "we'll patch it later" attitude. Either cut things out the game or better yet plan better or listen to the developer and let them finish. However if a price is going to be listed it should at least be scaled. Or at least I hope it is. This may suck for developers but I can see why Microsoft and others would have it. Allowing your digital service to be flooded by buggy games tarnishes the reputation of that service and the platform holder would have the bulk of negativity directed at them. It happens with consoles already.

 

[Anth0ny]

That's fucked. Steam ftw.

 

[Raide]

I know about the big Battlefield update, but aren't most of them still sub-4MB? I bet that BF update cost even more considering the size and hosting of it.

I guess it depends on the developer also. Many of the smaller ones might not have loads of time to make extensive updates, so they might just be fixing the basic stuff. That would explain why the majority of XBLA games get little to no updates.

If MS are charging 40k for 4mb updates, then it is crazy but the more popular the title and the more it needs updates, MS has to store all that stuff somewhere.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Monstrous stuff, especially when you look at the state of XBLA.

 

[Burekma]

I think being on Steam and using Steamworks are two very different things.

Their steamworks faq covers steam games in general.

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/FAQ.php#Business

7. What other fees come out of my revenue share?

There are some specific adjustments made depending on such things as fraud and returns and these are outlined more fully in our distribution agreement that we will send to you if your game is going on Steam. We do not make deductions for marketing or bandwidth.

And on the main page:

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/index.php

It’s free: There’s no charge for bandwidth, updating, or activation of copies at retail or from third-party digital distributors.

 

[Madrical]

Look out for the X720 and PS4 to adopt a model similar to Steam if this is the case. I've definitely jumped ship from PSN to Steam, I used to buy every game available on PSN nearly, haven't bought one for years now. It's more expensive, and doesn't have all the bells and whistles of PC gaming.

 

[herod]

Are you implying that Steam charges for patches if the games isn't a Steamworks game? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I don't know, but there are obvious advantages for Valve if devs choose Steamworks. All I'm pointing out is that there are still too many variables before you can directly compare EAs and Schafers comments on the matter. I don't think it's an either/or at all. For example, the revenue split is not discussed.

 

[whalleywhat]

I think he's saying eShop is what's up.

 

[Valnen]

I see why they charge so much for patches. Every time you booted up you'd be greeted with a patch, if not.

That would be a good thing. Ongoing support is always amazing. It's why PC gaming is still alive.

 

[Raide]

Look out for the X720 and PS4 to adopt a model similar to Steam if this is the case. I've definitely jumped ship from PSN to Steam, I used to buy every game available on PSN nearly, haven't bought one for years now. It's more expensive, and doesn't have all the bells and whistles of PC gaming.

If MS can combine Steam and all its features with XBLA and Indie titles, that would be pretty awesome for both sides.

 

[Gustav]

$40,000 sounds like a good incentive to release a properly tested game.

 

[herod]

Their steamworks faq covers steam games in general.

Uh, your certainty of conclusion there is entirely ambiguous to me, coming as it does under a steamworks url. And we also only have assumptions on the revenue split as well, which seems could be entirely variable to me.

 

[qizah]

Wow fuck - $40K to release a patch is ridiculous.

Looking at the kickstarters thing that happened with double fine, makes me realize how awesome our industry is though! I'm sure a lot of other devs will follow suit.

 

[beril]

Are there any examples of Valve dictating the release date and pricing of a Steam release?

I don't know about the details but there was a pricing dispute over Bionic Commando Rearmed, which resulted in the game hitting Steam much later than everywhere else. If I'm remembering correctly Valve wanted the price at 15$ but capcom wanted to sell it for 10$ like on the other platforms, or maybe it was the other way around.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

On a related note, have you guys ever had a reasonable argument with a Steam hater who doesn't mind paying for XBL but who despises digital distribution, DRM and hence Steam? I mean, is there a downside for using Steam at all? Everyone I've argued with so far, who slagged Steam off has been either uninformed, a hypocrite or just plain ignorant. Honestly, I've yet to hear a single legit contra against Steam.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think it's perfectly plausible that both are correct. Different kinds of game could easily have different T&Cs with Valve. Big publisher games will likely have bigger patches and bigger install bases, increasing costs past a threshold where it would otherwise become a significant cost to Valve.

There is no evidence to support this claim.

 

[Raide]

$40,000 sounds like a good incentive to release a properly tested game.

They should have made it more expensive for Bethesda, especially after all the PS3 Skyrim issues.

On a related note, have you guys ever had a reasonable argument with a Steam hater who doesn't mind paying for XBL but who despises digital distribution, DRM and hence Steam? I mean, is there a downside for using Steam at all? Everyone I've argued with so far, who slagged Steam off has been either uninformed, a hypocrite or just plain ignorant. Honestly, I've yet to hear a single legit contra against Steam.

I think it just boils down to people who hate having to use a PC to play games. The downside to Steam is that you have to know how your PC works. Not all updates are a simple 1-click thing, sometimes you have to mess around with deleting and re-installing games just to get updates working.

 

[JaseC]

Uh, your certainty of conclusion there is entirely ambiguous to me, coming as it does under a steamworks url. And we also only have assumptions on the revenue split as well, which seems could be entirely variable to me.

It's also mentioned in the Steamworks brochure:

Notice that "Steamworks features" is listed independently of the other aspects.

 

[Clever Pun]

There is no evidence to support this claim.

And considering the way people are coming out to complain about the restrictions on other services, I think we would be hearing about it if Steam started charging developers for patches.

EDIT: plus what JaseC just posted.

 

[Aaron]

I don't know about the details but there was a pricing dispute over Bionic Commando Rearmed, which resulted in the game hitting Steam much later than everywhere else. If I'm remembering correctly Valve wanted the price at 15$ but capcom wanted to sell it for 10$ like on the other platforms, or maybe it was the other way around.

No. It was Capcom who goofed by locking themselves to $10 on XBLA by asking how much people wanted to pay. They wanted to charge more for the PC version, which they did initially. It was the public outcry that made them lower it. The only reason it came out later is because they finished the XBLA version first. It was a pretty small team that made it, and didn't have the manpower to do both versions at once. Valve really wasn't involved here.

 

[Erethian]

The sooner Microsoft and Sony (and presumably Nintendo) adopt a lower barrier to patching games, the better.

At the moment it's just a hinderance to better post-release support.

 

[Burekma]

Uh, your certainty of conclusion there is entirely ambiguous to me, coming as it does under a steamworks url. And we also only have assumptions on the revenue split as well, which seems could be entirely variable to me.

Well, all I'm doing is using common sense.

The FAQ clearly discusses getting games on Steam in general and all the quirks involved, not making them steam exclusive. Nothing ambiguous about that. And afaik, steamworks SDK has to be used by everyone that wants to put their game on Steam, for the steam version of course, even if they don't use anything visible to us consumers, like achievements and cloud.

EDIT: As for the revenue split, it has always been rumored at 70/30, but we never knew for certain. It could be that they have different splits for different partners.

 

[mugurumakensei]

That is a lot of money but I do like the idea of a deterrence of some kind in place as long as the first few times are free. I'm sick of games coming out with publishers/developers having the "we'll patch it later" attitude. Either cut things out the game or better yet plan better or listen to the developer and let them finish. However if a price is going to be listed it should at least be scaled. Or at least I hope it is. This may suck for developers but I can see why Microsoft and others would have it. Allowing your digital service to be flooded by buggy games tarnishes the reputation of that service and the platform holder would have the bulk of negativity directed at them. It happens with consoles already.

Not all patches are to fix content, sometimes patches add content. At least, this is the casr on Steam. However, i know microsoft likes that no free content aside from fixes or as part of a gold promotion schtick

 

[DrWong]

Are there any examples of Valve dictating the release date and pricing of a Steam release?

Nope and it would be difficult to find some (public/official) as these things are settled before release by agreement or just... done. You have really no choice if the game is Steam DRM/full Steam: you haven't the technical ability to release (=activate the keys) the game by yourself, even if you wanted to bypass everybody. You can just wait. Keep in mind I'm not talking from an end user perspective.

 

[Drkirby]

Does Apple charge anything for patches in IOS? I'm guessing not since they're pretty frequent.

I don't think so, but I think the patches have to be approved, which can takes weeks or even longer. I have a few Apps where the developers submitted the last patch in December and still haven't had the patch gone though.

 

[NemesisPrime]

Aren't XBL title updates limited to 4 MB, as well?

$10,000 per megabyte. Crazytown.

2006 called.

 

[szaromir]

On a related note, have you guys ever had a reasonable argument with a Steam hater who doesn't mind paying for XBL but who despises digital distribution, DRM and hence Steam? I mean, is there a downside for using Steam at all? Everyone I've argued with so far, who slagged Steam off has been either uninformed, a hypocrite or just plain ignorant. Honestly, I've yet to hear a single legit contra against Steam.

Not everything is better on Steam. The overlay is terrible, very few games have demos and achievements are useless since you need to click through 5 menus to check them. That's on the user end, it seems Steam has much better policies for developers.

 

[JaseC]

Nope and it would be difficult to find some (public/official) as these things are settled before release by agreement or just... done. You have really no choice if the game is Steam DRM/full Steam: you haven't the technical ability to release (=activate the keys) the game by yourself, even if you wanted to bypass everybody. You can just wait. Keep in mind I'm not talking from an end user perspective.

You're speaking from experience with publishing a game on Steam?

EDIT: As for the revenue split, it has always been rumored at 70/30, but we never knew for certain. It could be that they have different splits for different partners.

One of the rumours surrounding EA's kerfuffle with Steam is that the former desired/s a larger cut. No idea if it's true or misinformation grown from general resentment of EA; both are equally plausible.

 

[Duxxy3]

It's also mentioned in the Steamworks brochure:

Notice that "Steamworks features" is listed independently of the other aspects.

Holy shit - why would indie dev's even release their games on anything else??