• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Valve missed a huge opportunity to be the "first party" of PC gaming

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
I am masking nothing by writing several paragraphs. I'm making points that only seem to fly over your head. It's not personal at all. You continuously ignore half of the responses here and keep making the same stupid arguments like an idiot console warrior would, so the idea of it being rooted on a disagreement of opinion is long gone.

Valve aren't capitalizing on your dream scenario of making "at least a dozen" VR titles, when it took them years to create the best one yet. VR/AR is still not widely adopted and they aren't going to release games unless they're ready. They put in the work to support the ecosystem. Their attitude of building the tools and kicking the technology upstream has worked and failed in the market. As you say, Steam Machines, VR, Steam Controller were put out there and haven't taken off. Ignoring the successful growth of Steam and other things they are doing, it still all negates the points you're trying to make that they have done nothing.

So it seems you blame the market failures on the lack of software support now. OK. Again, stupid arguments leaning on the closed ecosystem, console warrior thought process, dismissing Valve's continuous growth, success, and actual software support on the back end that allowed them to try these things in first place. You cry about their impending doom, hand wave the defacto leader in the industry with "massive failure" talk, and praise old garbage like PSVR as some sort of benchmark they are losing ground to; and you wonder why people like me point and laugh why calling things stupid.

Valve never assumed the risk of selling a console under Steam Machines, they provided the ecosystem. OEMs tried and didn't want to keep losing money competing with their own products in the open hardware market. Steam controllers were an extension of that, and brought new ideas to standard controllers that anybody could use the R&D from. It wasn't hugely successful. Steam Link was successful enough and they rolled it out to other devices for remote play. They forked Wine into Proton and completely blew the doors open for Linux gamers.

"Valve does nothing" though. They are doomed. They aren't trying to sell us consoles, controllers, and VR headsets. PC is an open platform and they should be out there losing money trying to lock it down and shit on consumers like Epic Games, Facebook, etc. Right? Thoughts? Bubble wrap?


More childish insults hidden in a wall of text. I pity anyone that has to deal with you on a regular basis IRL. Ignored.
 

junguler

Banned
Sep 1, 2019
961
1,221
460
30
iran
junguler.github.io
steam is already the best choice for pc gamers and many of us completely ignore anything that's not on it. they might as well be the pc gaming's first party but without all the negatives of having a walled garden environment has like it is in the consoles (having to pay for online play, not being able to mod games, etc ...)
as for valve being lazy and not developing new games, it might have been a big issue back when i started playing steam because of the limited number of available games but it sure as hell is not an issue now.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,159
13,092
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
You don't stay on top by standing still when your competitors are working hard.

You haven't established how Valve's competitors are "working hard". Only thing Valve's competitors have done is buy timed exclusives. They haven't boosted their ecosystem by even remotely attempting to build a community like Valve did a long time ago. They haven't invested in their studios. Where is all this hard work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SegaShack

Sorcerer

Member
Jul 4, 2012
4,335
308
800
Microsoft and Epic are competing by losing money, giving things away practically. Maybe if they are desperate enough they will pay players to use their services next. Both Epic and Microsoft can't keep this up forever. They will burn their storefronts to the ground in the long run. Meanwhile Valve is making money hand over fist. Money in the bank >than begging for customers to use your service.
 
Last edited:

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
Microsoft and Epic are competing by losing money, giving things away practically. Maybe if they are desperate enough they will pay players to use their services next. Both Epic and Microsoft can't keep this up forever. They will burn their storefronts to the ground in the long run. Meanwhile Valve is making money hand over fist. Money in the bank >than begging for customers to use your service.

They are spending money to get market share. It's a well tested strategy. Meanwhile Valve just hoards the billions they have made from Steam. Not sure why anyone would argue against the idea that they should be putting it back into the gaming medium.
 

SegaShack

Member
Jul 13, 2013
5,610
856
735
www.twitch.tv
They are spending money to get market share. It's a well tested strategy. Meanwhile Valve just hoards the billions they have made from Steam. Not sure why anyone would argue against the idea that they should be putting it back into the gaming medium.
I miss their games but game development is expensive and risky, running an established and popular storefront is not.
 

IYAOYAS2019

Member
Apr 21, 2019
143
152
300
Steam emerged because of Microsoft’s failures through “Games for Windows” and gamers thought Steam was rolling now they might have rivals like Epic games, Games Pass etc.
Steam launched in 2003, while Microsofts Games for Windows – Live aka GFWL launched in 2007. Steam did not emerge due to Microsofts failures with GFWL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ratburger

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
15,839
4,924
1,765
They are a a privately owned company. They made so much money that they stopped being hungry and pursued their true interests, steam machine, vr, new controller, etc.

I don’t blame them for failing to become bigger. I appreciate that they didn’t sell out and tried to do what they believed was best to move the industry forward. Stopping yourself from developing more Half Life games when you know you don’t have a good idea takes courage and wisdom.
 

QuantumZebra

Member
Dec 5, 2013
10,393
3,223
990
Atlanta, GA
OP I'll join you in the group of people sad that we're probably never getting a legit pipeline of Counter-Strike, Half-Life, Team Fortress, Left4Dead, etc... games.
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
I miss their games but game development is expensive and risky, running an established and popular storefront is not.
You have to take risks and innovate if you want to stay successful in a very competitive market.
 

Optimus Lime

Gold Member
Dec 24, 2010
1,369
2,596
1,035
The level of ignorance of history on display here by self-declared 'PC gamers' is truly stunning to behold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssringo

CitizenZ

Member
Jan 14, 2021
1,228
1,129
360
As a reminder during one of the, if not , biggest online gaming tournaments you will not find ONE Valve banner or promotion in any way for Steam. That's all you need to know about a successful business leader.
 

Brofist

Member
Jun 15, 2004
11,114
1,458
1,765
Steam doesn't need to dump a hundred mil into a cinematic single player game to be "risky and innovative".

You want the PC to feel like a console, go play consoles.

Steam is in a position that MS, Epic, EA and every other contender envies to be in.
 

DynamiteCop!

Banned
Mar 3, 2018
5,091
12,672
870
EGS isn't a threat to Steam, their sales are peanuts, and people just wait for a Steam release.
 

packy34

Member
Dec 12, 2014
1,869
431
485
PC gamers don't want anyone to be "first party". The platform is open and should remain open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amiga

theclaw135

Member
Oct 1, 2014
1,588
623
630
PC gamers don't want anyone to be "first party". The platform is open and should remain open.

It isn't. To be accepted by the overall PC gaming community, a game must be made available on Steam. Publishers get bashed left and right otherwise. People whine how there's too many storefronts if a company sells their own game on their own store, or call foul on moneyhatting if the game is exclusive to places like Epic.
 

packy34

Member
Dec 12, 2014
1,869
431
485
It isn't. To be accepted by the overall PC gaming community, a game must be made available on Steam. Publishers get bashed left and right otherwise. People whine how there's too many storefronts if a company sells their own game on their own store, or call foul on moneyhatting if the game is exclusive to places like Epic.
Wrong.

People have been accepting of different/competing storefronts for as long as Steam has been around. Some people got a little mad when EA left Steam to start up Origin, but in the end, it was accepted. (Origin is the reason Steam does refunds, by the way - EA did it first!) It's true that there's always a small but vocal outcry when something isn't on Steam, but that's all it is - small.

EGS is a different story - people are mad about how Epic is choosing to do business, not the fact that a different storefront exists. Steam has co-existed with GOG, uplay, Battle.net, Origin, and per-game launchers forever. It just seems bad now because EGS sucks so hard and that's all anyone talks about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amiga

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
They are in the game storefront market, not the game development market. No you dont have to take risks continuously to be successful. That's just ignorant.

You're wrong. Stagnate and die in a competitive market. There are so many examples. Sears was once the top retailer in the US. There used to be a Blockbuster on every corner. Tesla is now the most valuable US automaker worth more than every other US automaker combined. In comparison Valve is a small company with a very limited grip on it's market.

Sony, Oculus and Microsoft are also in the game storefront market. They make exclusives to grab market share of 3rd party software sales.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Amiga

SegaShack

Member
Jul 13, 2013
5,610
856
735
www.twitch.tv
You're wrong. Stagnate and die in a competitive market. There are so many examples. Sears was once the top retailer in the US. There used to be a Blockbuster on every corner. Tesla is now the most valuable US automaker worth more than every other US automaker combined. In comparison Valve is a small company with a very limited grip on it's market.

Sony, Oculus and Microsoft are also in the game storefront market. They make exclusives to grab market share of 3rd party software sales.
Sounds like you must be a CEO then and run a very high profile business. Tell McDonalds they should start making garden tools. Valve is a storefront and they can get money being a storefront. If they feel their marketshare is thereatened they can start reacting at that time.

"Limited grip on the market"? LOL.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssringo and Topher

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Aug 28, 2019
9,242
16,994
660
You're wrong. Stagnate and die in a competitive market. There are so many examples. Sears was once the top retailer in the US. There used to be a Blockbuster on every corner. Tesla is now the most valuable US automaker worth more than every other US automaker combined. In comparison Valve is a small company with a very limited grip on it's market.

Sony, Oculus and Microsoft are also in the game storefront market. They make exclusives to grab market share of 3rd party software sales.
Steam could lose half their market share and Valve would still likely not have to change a thing about how they run their company.

You just don't seem to grasp they are a 300 person company; more dominant in their space (PC gaming) than any retail company ever has been in retail... done w/ who do projects they are passionate about, not what would grow the company in size.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Topher

mxbison

Member
Dec 9, 2020
796
1,050
315
They probably have like 90% market share and a diehard fanbase that straight up boycotts games on other store fronts. Just chilling and making billions.

I doubt they missed any huge opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Topher

Sorcerer

Member
Jul 4, 2012
4,335
308
800
You're wrong. Stagnate and die in a competitive market. There are so many examples. Sears was once the top retailer in the US. There used to be a Blockbuster on every corner. Tesla is now the most valuable US automaker worth more than every other US automaker combined. In comparison Valve is a small company with a very limited grip on it's market.

Sony, Oculus and Microsoft are also in the game storefront market. They make exclusives to grab market share of 3rd party software sales.
I can buy every single current Microsoft Xbox game on Steam. I just finished Horizon on pc and it looks like Sony is letting their exclusives come to pc in the near future.
 

Amiga

Member
Jul 8, 2020
1,834
2,779
520
Sounds like you must be a CEO then and run a very high profile business. Tell McDonalds they should start making garden tools. Valve is a storefront and they can get money being a storefront. If they feel their marketshare is thereatened they can start reacting at that time.

"Limited grip on the market"? LOL.

McDonalds has a rotating menu in addition to classic items. they keep changing real-estate locations and continuously evolves supply chains. if they were managed by Valve they would offer nothing but the happy meal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuinGuin

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
Sounds like you must be a CEO then and run a very high profile business. Tell McDonalds they should start making garden tools. Valve is a storefront and they can get money being a storefront. If they feel their marketshare is thereatened they can start reacting at that time.

"Limited grip on the market"? LOL.
By the time they see it then it's too late. Ask Blockbuster. The time to react was 5 years ago.
 

LazyParrot

Member
Mar 19, 2019
1,918
3,947
445
if they were managed by Valve they would offer nothing but the happy meal.
I swear some of you people must live in an alternate universe where Valve hasn't added a single new game or feature to Steam since 2004. If McDonalds were Steam then Burger King, KFC and Subway would be lining up to pay for the right to sell their own food at Valve's restaurants.
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Dec 9, 2012
13,022
3,077
1,070
One thing I’ll give Epic credit for is using their mountains of cash to get games ported to PC. I do not think that KH would’ve ever got those ports if Epic didn’t pony up.

Valve has used their mountains of cash to invest into making Steam better. And they have done fantastic work like the user generated controller profiles, workshop, etc.

2 different approaches but I would’ve liked Valve to put some money into the pockets of JP publishers years ago to get their games on Steam. Worked out in the end because nearly everything comes to Steam now but Valve couldve done more.
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
I swear some of you people must live in an alternate universe where Valve hasn't added a single new game or feature to Steam since 2004. If McDonalds were Steam then Burger King, KFC and Subway would be lining up to pay for the right to sell their own food at Valve's restaurants.
7 games since the launch of Steam. ONE real VR game when Valve supposedly believes VR is the future. May as well be nothing compared to other companies with billions of dollars in the bank.
 

LazyParrot

Member
Mar 19, 2019
1,918
3,947
445
7 games since the launch of Steam. ONE real VR game when Valve supposedly believes VR is the future. May as well be nothing compared to other companies with billions of dollars in the bank.
And yet they've got more users than ever. Steam's ability to compete as a storefront has very little to do with the number of games Valve themselves release on it. Long term TF2, Dota and CSGO have each brought in more money and committed long-term users than a dozen AAA Half-Life spinoffs ever could have.

And as I've already pointed out, Epic isn't doing shit on that front either. Their entire store essentially only exists because of Fortnite and they know it, so almost all of their game developers are busy keeping that cash cow going. Instead of using their newfound riches to take risks and fund interesting passion projects (you know, the kind of shit you want Valve to do?) they shop around for high profile games already in development and offer to cover potential losses with Fortnite money in return for exclusivity.

Remember how they instantly axed Unreal Tournament and Paragon the second those Fortnite billions started rolling in? At this point it wouldn't even be wrong to say that post-Fortnite Epic has killed more games than it has created.
 

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
462
707
315
Togliatti, Russian Federation
7 games since the launch of Steam. ONE real VR game when Valve supposedly believes VR is the future. May as well be nothing compared to other companies with billions of dollars in the bank.
I'm just really curious why is it that you think that a company that essentially dedicated itself to being the PC gaming industry's service provider, and continues making untold amounts of profit (literally untold, as they're not telling) doing so, has to make games to somehow... not fail? Succeed harder? You've said it yourself, Valve made like a halfdozen games since Steam's inception (good ones anyway), and by all accounts are doing just fine - why the demand for more?
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
I'm just really curious why is it that you think that a company that essentially dedicated itself to being the PC gaming industry's service provider, and continues making untold amounts of profit (literally untold, as they're not telling) doing so, has to make games to somehow... not fail? Succeed harder? You've said it yourself, Valve made like a halfdozen games since Steam's inception (good ones anyway), and by all accounts are doing just fine - why the demand for more?

Because first party content is what will keep people interested and not leave for another service. That's why Netflix makes their own content, consoles live and die in first party content, etc. "killer apps" have been a thing since the Apple vs IBM days
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,159
13,092
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Because first party content is what will keep people interested and not leave for another service. That's why Netflix makes their own content, consoles live and die in first party content, etc. "killer apps" have been a thing since the Apple vs IBM days

That's funny because IBM became the dominant company in computing not because of its first party, but because of "killer apps" from third parties. If first party content on PC was so important then Steam would have dried up long ago. First party content is NOT why Steam is popular. It is popular because it provides a superior service for games overall than anyone else on PC. To me, it seems like you are looking at Steam from a console gamer point of view. That just doesn't work. PC gamers typically don't care about the same things as console gamers. This whole "exclusive" business wasn't a consideration at all until Epic Game Store brought that silly practice to PC. And yet Steam is still the preferred platform. As Sean Mirrsen Sean Mirrsen pointed out, it is about the "service" Steam provides.
 
  • Love
Reactions: derExperte