Microsoft to take on Steam? Great...

P

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,692
From Shacknews:
Microsoft today announced that its Games for Windows initiative is set to expand with the launch an online PC gaming marketplace this fall. The service will deliver free and paid downloadable game content, along with trailers, demos, and other content comparable to the company's Xbox Live offerings.
Click to expand...
So, odds are what we're looking at is a Steam-like system for downloadable games. It's not a bad thing to have healthy competition in the marketplace, sure, but the beauty of digital distribution via a Steam-like client (one in which an application is launched that grants access to a game library, all tied to a unique account) is that you should ideally only have ONE account and ONE client. If you instead have a Steam account, a Gametap account and a Games for Windows account, how many background applications are required to be running to get access to your games, and how many passwords do you need to remember to even get to those games (for those that don't bother storing passwords)? How many apps do you really want to learn your way around?

It seems like everyone and their mother is trying their hand at digital PC game distribution, when all we really need is a small handful of distributors with 100% game overlap -- meaning all games are available from all distributors. Zero exclusives. I don't want to buy Halo 3 from Windows Live, Mass Effect from Direct2Drive, Portal from Steam or Diablo 2 from Blizzard, I want to buy Halo 3, Mass Effect, Portal and Diablo 2 from ONE digital distributor (Steam is fine), and I want ONE program installed on my machine to search for game servers and download patches and additional content. No complications. No roadblocks.

Now, it's possible that Microsoft could pull off a Steam killer, something that's actually worth a damn, but it's more probable that all they'll do is stir a marketplace that's too damned stirred as it is. I'm a pretty glass-half-full kind of guy, but not when it comes to Microsoft (especially with their Games for Windows bullshit).

Am I wrong?
 
I agree with you, they should partner with steam and give input of ways to make it better, but what makes steam so popular now is look feel and community feedback on it. When has Microsoft cared about what the community say's should be changed?

I hated steam when it came out because it wasnt ready IMO but they listened to the feed back and now its a wonderfull program. Perfect? No but its been around a long time and is highly used and usefull.

I think everyone would find life better (consumers & creators) if they would all just unit behind one way to distribute their programs.
 
I sorta agree. I Have Steam and Gametap and would like to leave it at that.

I use Steam to buy all the AAA titles and Gametap to play the more old school, free games.

All my friends are on Steam and I know a lot of them are content with just Steam. So really I don't think a lot of my friends will be jumping on GFW live, which means I probably won't either.
 
so basically they're putting xbox live online for PCs too? or is this somehow different?
 
Basically that's what it's about, but obviously for PC games and not Xbox games. So, I'm assuming that includes DLC, achievements, a sort of friends sytem and so on. In other words: everything that Steam does quite capably already.
 
looks like online game distros are the next big market, and who can blame them. how much easier can you get for grabbing the impulse buyers?

i feel like it's goign to be a situation where people are eventually going to have to sign up for accounts with multiple companies until either one company buys out the rest, or someone makes a program where you still need accounts but which consolidates everything for you
 
There is a very simple way to meet your goals fellas.

If Microsoft comes out with a sub-par product in comparison to Steam....just don't buy the stuff from Microsoft.

They will get the picture and will have no choice but to pick one of the leaders in digital distribution.
 
Why cant they all just collaborate. After all valve approached microsoft about steam in the first place and MS shrugged them off telling em that they must be crazy. But now that they have been proven wrong by valve now they want to copy em. Jeez, i dont want to support any more microsoft products... and the OP has a very good point of view.

Who wants multiple background operations anyway, if MS does really care about community then they should swallow at least some of their pride
 
I really don't like Steam, and I really don't like digital distribution as the only option for purchasing games. However I would much rather just have to activate a game online like on Steam or whatever and not have rediculous DRM.

Dome said:
so basically they're putting xbox live online for PCs too? or is this somehow different?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. If they put the same amount of thought into it as they do into Xbox Live it could be a good thing.
 
wow. A rant about competition. Heaven forbid someone might possibly push another to be better.

COMPETITION IS GOOD. They obviously still have a lot prove for PC but since they made games for windows live free, it's a possibility now.
 
LoStMaTt said:
If Microsoft comes out with a sub-par product in comparison to Steam....just don't buy the stuff from Microsoft.
Click to expand...

The reason this is scary is because that's not how Microsoft works. Elements like "competition" and "let the best man win" didn't work for the browser wars.

Expect MS to somehow 'update' the OS to cause Steam problems, and expect something like a Halo3 "free download" to anyone who signs up for the service and creates a Passport/Live/Hotmail/(whatever this year's ID scheme is) account.

After starving out Steam, then you get the thumbscrews and suddenly you can't buy games online unless you buy "Microsoft Points" in uneven denominations, and the Live game service only runs on the latest OS that is "Genuine". And even then, you get access only via MSIE8 and Windows Media player.

If MS played fair, I would welcome this prodding to Valve to get their service rounded out better, but right now, it's like watching the canary fall over dead.

If nothing else, this will stall the growth of digital delivery while providers fight one another and take losses trying to edge each other out. The market mavens will cry, "oh look, every content provider is losing money, digital delivery sucks, lets pass more piracy legislation", and things just suck more.

(Why yes, I'm an eternal optimist, why do you ask? :) )
 
Microsoft can just stay away from Steam as far as I'm concerned. Valve is doing just fine by themselves.
 
At least it will be free now...:rolleyes:
Never cozied up to the idea of paying for GFW Live.Most Live PC games came with 1 free month and by the time the month was up,I usually finished the game anyway!:p
 
Too little too late, barley any games actually use GFW Live. DOW2 is the only one in the near future that actually matters.

Steam and Blizzard's redesigned battle net will blow this away.
 
I have Steam and Gamer's Gate and neither one runs as a background app on my PC so don't understand the complaint. Auto loading them with Windows as background apps is optional and not necessary to run any of their games. I don't auto load anything on my PC's except the graphics driver tray tool and the volume control.
 
Netrat33 said:
wow. A rant about competition. Heaven forbid someone might possibly push another to be better.
Click to expand...
There's already tremendous competition. Steam, Direct2Drive, Gametap, Gamestop/EB Games all sell wide a range of games, with a good deal of title overlap, and Blizzard and EA have their own mechanisms for digital distribution of their games. There's also the 'independents' like Stardock, Greenhouse and the upcoming Good Old Games.

The problem is that, with these services, we're not technically buying identical games. What we're buying are different licenses telling us what we can do with these games, and we're running different platforms in order to get those games running. In the retail sector, you buy an identical box containing an identical DVD at EB Games, Best Buy, Circuit City or whatever. Save for unusual circumstances, you install and run the game you bought from Best Buy the same was as the one you bought from Circuit City. The license will be the same, and your rights to that software's use is the same. If digital distribution meant that you download an ISO and load it up with Daemon Tools, then this'd be a different matter entirely, but that's not the case however (at least today).

Think of Steam is sort of the iTunes of PC game distribution. When you buy a regular track off iTunes, you're licensed to play it on five authorized machines, put it on your iPod only, and you're allowed to burn unlimited CDs containing that track. You can't transport that track into, say, URGE and play it on Windows Media Player, or even play it in foobar or Winamp. When you want to listen to that track, you launch iTunes. It's the same deal with Steam. You can create a shortcut on your desktop to launch a Steam-purchased game, but all that's doing is hiding the main interface. You're still running Steam -- it's still a background process, and you have all of the same restrictions (two players can't play be active on the same account, for instance). You can talk to your Steam friends when you're playing Steam BioShock, but you can't when you're playing Direct2Drive BioShock.

So, if you're going to take that route, buying your games through a service like Steam, you want consolidation. You don't want two or three game libraries that all require your machine to negotiate with a main server and authorize your gameplay when you launch a game, you only really want the one. That's the ideal, and it's why Steam should undergo some changes if it's going to keep its position on the digi-distribution roster. Users want to choose the service they want to use based on factors that don't include game selection. Ideally, you'd be able to buy a game from any service that you'd like.

Now, I'm probably jumping the gun by assuming this Microsoft thing is going to work similarly to other digi-distribution services, but if it's fundamentally Xbox Live for Windows games, then it's a good bet it will. You'll likely launch some sort of 'center' before you launch a game, just like you do with Steam. Sorry, but that's a hassle. That's not good for any of us Steam/Gametap/etc. users.

Besides which, digi-distro services already have to compete price-wise with the retail marketplace, so excess competition in the digi-distro sector isn't necessary, especially if it ends up being stifling or annoying to customers. There's clearly no lack of competition here, and if you ask me, the number of channels available already is bordering on excessive because publishers are picking and choosing which services they want to publish on, and there's far too much exclusivity that comes along with that.
 
Microsoft abandoned and screwed over everyone that bought music from them through MSN Music. Same thing if you used Microsoft Gaming Zone.

Trusting MS is for suckers. Especially since they want everyone to game on the Xbox. Sooner or later they'll screw you over to try to get you on their console.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
 
milkweg said:
I have Steam and Gamer's Gate and neither one runs as a background app on my PC so don't understand the complaint.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with Gamer's Gate (I'm checking it out now), but if you launch a Steam game with a shortcut, you're still logging into Steam, and Steam.exe runs as a background process while you're playing. Doing that effectively just launches Steam in a hidden state. Obviously, if you're playing offline, that isn't necessary, but it's necessary to log in to play multiplayer games, download patches, communicate with Steam friends and so on.

Unless there's some sort of alternate mechanism I'm not aware of...
 
Yes, but in your first post you made it look like you need to have all those clients running as auto loading background apps at the same time when you really only need to have the one you are going to use loaded. It's bit of an inconvenience but better than having to go search for the cd/dvd I need to play a game each time. What I am saying is that having multiple clients I can use is not an issue for me because only the one I need at the time is actually loaded as a background app and offers me more variety of games than if I only had one client like Steam. Having one client for all games is just not going to happen on the PC and if it did happen then our PC's would be turned into glorified console boxes. If you want just one of everything then get a Mac. :)
 
I'll never buy anything from Microsoft that is digital distribution, never. "Games for Windows" IS plain STUPID.
 
Is this GfW live thing unified with xbox live ?
I mean same login , same achievment system etc ?
Becouse that would be interesting.
 
Don't understand the uproar against this. I don't like Steam and probably won't like this either, but this can only be a good thing in the end. Just look at how ridiculous prices are in Steam, when compared to retail options, which Valve reduces in every release. Valve's shady practices of reducing retail options, in order to make the still high prices in Steam, more appealing, really need to stop. With this sort of competition, prices in Steam will become much more attractive and that's a good thing for all us, especially those that like digital distribution methods.
 
Michaelius said:
Is this GfW live thing unified with xbox live ?
I mean same login , same achievment system etc ?
Becouse that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes, it already is. Gears pc and Halo 2 pc all use your xbox live login and they both have achievements that go torward your xbox gamertag achievements.

I love steam, but I agree the prices are fairly steep when it comes to aging games. Doom 3 is a prime example.
 
Silus said:
Don't understand the uproar against this. I don't like Steam and probably won't like this either, but this can only be a good thing in the end. Just look at how ridiculous prices are in Steam, when compared to retail options, which Valve reduces in every release. Valve's shady practices of reducing retail options, in order to make the still high prices in Steam, more appealing, really need to stop. With this sort of competition, prices in Steam will become much more attractive and that's a good thing for all us, especially those that like digital distribution methods.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the retail stores themselves that are making digital download games expensive and not a fault of Valve so much. They won't stock games on their shelves if the download version is cheaper than the retail version.
 
One potential problem: with so many competing services you can expect some to fail. And when they do you can expect to lose your games. It's best to stick to what's working well (Steam) or buy boxed games to minimize that risk.

While I normally don't mind competition, I do mind when it undermines the ability to set a standard (arguably something that PC gaming needs) and the cost of failures are passed onto the customer (who loses their 'license' to play the game).
 
MS isn't the only one getting into DD, Stardock is also going to be overhauling their Impulse DD system and making more applicable in the future. Perhaps the only good that can come off= this competition is cheap game prices if a company licenses distribution with all three companies, and more classic games revitalized and made available for download. Although I love Steam and everything they have to offer, I am sure that we will see some benefits if there is competition.

http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1059
 
So far ive been pretty dissapointed in digital distribution mainly on a price standpoint. Wasnt that the major original selling point? Cheaper games? They are same or more expensive on steam. The only thing I have on my steam account is Orange Box. However, I do like being able to format and set steam to dload all my games and install them NP overnight instead of putting in dvds, looking for boxes etc.
 
Ogre67 said:
So far ive been pretty dissapointed in digital distribution mainly on a price standpoint. Wasnt that the major original selling point? Cheaper games? They are same or more expensive on steam.
Click to expand...

Never trust a company to do right.

Just like CDs were supposed to get cheaper once the cost of transitioning from audio tape was recouped. Just like HD titles are more expensive because they cost more to make (by $1 each). A company will not charge you $29.99 when they can charge you $39.99. Eventually, it's retail that is most in danger, as the "pure" profits of direct download are going to put the margin pressure on retail stores and their distribution networks, which easily eat 20-50% or more into that yummy profit figure.
 
They can't sell their games cheaper online, because retail stores (gamespot, best buy, EB, etc.) don't want to lose sales and be under minded. They can only lower the price so much.

Why do you think territory lock outs exist? Because the publisher is saying "F you Europeans! We don't want your money!"

Give me a break!

Retail stores in certain countries tell the publisher that if they put their PC games for sale on digital distribution, they'll take the retail copies off the shelf because they don't want to compete. This is particularly true in Australia where so many games aren't available on steam.

So all this bullsh** about having more online stores equals more competition doesn't exist. More online stores just means the PC gaming community gets even more splintered up.
 
Microsoft should just cut a deal with them or buy them. I doubt Steam would charge MS fees if MS gave Valve a site license for the MS products they use. If you're going to dive into a market that you have no presence in and you have a whole lot of money, you should probably buy your way in.
 
milkweg said:
I believe it is the retail stores themselves that are making digital download games expensive and not a fault of Valve so much. They won't stock games on their shelves if the download version is cheaper than the retail version.
Click to expand...

you shop in stores??? :eek:
havent you heard of gogamer? or newegg?
seriously man, stop living under a rock.

I havent purchased a game in a retail store in years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top