Steam Release?

[cherryfunk]

Thanks for the posts but we have a strategy which has worked well for the last 13 years ...

Famous last words? I think the French army said the same thing in the spring of 1940.

Guys, I love your games, but holy crap do I hate the way you market and sell them.

[Donthatetheplayer]

Hi there,

i will wait for a Steam Release, because i never play any game that does not exist in Steam - there ARE
no games worth a manual Installation, those games just don't exist for me !!

So please release on Steam because i think Pandora - First Contact will be a fantastic game to play,
and it will sell very well on Steam too. If you don't put it on Steam, you will not sell it in any satisfying
ammount, so it will be realeased on steam later, after you failed. I can wait.

Good luck.

[BlueTemplar]

i will wait for a Steam Release, because i never play any game that does not exist in Steam - there ARE
no games worth a manual Installation, those games just don't exist for me !!

Um, I think you forgot the /sarcasm tag?

[boulugre]

i will wait for a Steam Release, because i never play any game that does not exist in Steam - there ARE
no games worth a manual Installation, those games just don't exist for me !!

Um, I think you forgot the /sarcasm tag?

Gosh, I never realized there was some steam "nazi's" out there

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, nobody ever plays World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Starcraft 2, Battlefield 4, World of Tanks. Nope.

[ErissN6]

a fantastic game is no worth a manual Installation

nor deserves such a lazy fellow (even playing without their so valuable hands)

[HitmanN]

Note that he ended his sentence with "for me", so it wasn't generalized. Games worth a manual installation don't exist, for him.

Some people might not have but an hour or two every now and then for gaming. It's not unreasonable for them to wish to spend that little time playing rather than going through web stores, authorization emails, download pages, installation wizards and whatnot. Steam might not be perfect, but it's at least convenient and saves time, precious for some people.

While perhaps not perfectly worded (I wonder how many here even speak English as their first language. I don't.), it seemed to me pretty clear he was explaining his personal feeling, not claiming any of it to apply to the entire world. The beginning of the latter part of his post also includes "I think", which further defines his starting point, that he thinks, or is of the opinion, that the game will not sell well unless put on Steam. A point which I personally also think is true.

[BlueTemplar]

I've noticed that people that don't play a lot of video games generally tend to view Steam as an annoyance.
They will usually prefer to buy a boxed copy of the game, and won't bother with any downloading, registration, etc... and often won't do any patching either.

[HitmanN]

I've noticed that people that don't play a lot of video games generally tend to view Steam as an annoyance.
They will usually prefer to buy a boxed copy of the game, and won't bother with any downloading, registration, etc... and often won't do any patching either.

True. I know couple of people like that too. But I also know several of the opposite.

In any case, my point was that busy people who prefer to stick to Steam exist. Mocking them and considering them lazy or whatever is not cool.

[FrenchTart]

Still no Steam release? That's a shame. I'd quite like to try this out but not enough to mess around.

[TheBean]

Still no Steam release? That's a shame. I'd quite like to try this out but not enough to mess around.

+1. Still hoping for a Steam release. This (among other games of theirs) would be instant purchases if released on Steam.

[Dr. Foo]

I'm curious. I have Steam and I have bought games through it. I have no complaints with it and I like it. However, I also buy games that are not on Steam...no problems there either. So, why the Steam or nothing stance? Steam games are not anymore stable than game bought off of Steam, at least, in my experience. Steam has great sales and it's a good place to pick up a game for really cheap but this game is already pretty cheap at 30 bucks.

Do you guy work for Steam?

Seriously, please explain why it has to be bought on Steam or you won't buy it at all. I'm confused.

[jdmillard]

It's because they're purists. They want their whole collection to be on steam. If they have 21 games on Steam and 1 that's not, then not only has the "gaming feng shui" been disrupted, but they have to remember to hold on to the cd, box, key, download link, or whatever it be.

I can actually sympathize with them on that point of view, but I don't share the point of view because I only have a few games and they are not the center of my universe. For me, I can see it from both sides.

I support the idea of Pandora on Steam (I'm not radical about it though) for another reason. It would get more publicity. Forget about sales...Listen: I've only ever been on Steam a few times, but I imagine that there's a "suggested for you" section somewhere. If there's not, that's a huge oversight on Steam's part. Anyways, Pandora would get "suggested" to all the gamers out there who already have 4x and/or strategy games on their account. Honestly though, if Slitherine and Proxy Studios decide to take the Steam route, I'd rather the game go live after they work out the AI quirks, Diplomacy, and Growth balancing issues (all of which are well within the bounds of "fixable")... so that the game will get killer reviews and explode once it hits the Steam market.

[BlueTemplar]

Yes, there is a recommended section (though I only see games from my wishlist on them, but probably because I have so many of them).

I wonder... do they never buy non-Steam high-profile games like Starcraft 2, Ligue of Legends and Battlefield 4?

[arraamis]

Gosh, I never realized there was some steam "nazi's" out there

Me either ..... And I can't quite figure it out.

(From someone who doesn't use steam) What does steam offer, that is so effective that guys won't purchase a game unless steam distributes it. And the key term is "DISTRIBUTE" Because as far as I can tell all steam does is distribute game code packages along with their future upgrade packages.

Steam server download + patch distribution --- internet --- Computer for install
Slitherine\Matrix server download + patch distribution --- internet --- Computer for install

The mechanisms for end-user activation are the same, with steam managing an additional repository for backups -- But I registered my purchase here at the forum's backup repository so there no real advantage there either.

The only difference I can discern, is that in one case I have to install a steam client and in the other, no third-party clients are necessary.

What am I missing????

[Dr. Foo]

What am I missing????

I use Steam for Civ 5 and a few other games, but I would never not buy a game because it was not on Steam. I guess the advantage is you never have to worry about anything, no disks, no keys, no searching for the latest patch. It's all there and it's all done for you linked to your Steam account. There are some pretty good sales I got Civ III for $1.99! And you can get early alpha access to a lot of game in development for well below the release cost. They have game forums and chat, but I do not participate, so I don't know how good it is.

It's funny, because I remember when it was announced that Civ 5 would only be on Stream. People were throwing fits and saying they would not buy the game if it forced them to install Steam! Now people are saying I won't buy a game unless it's on Steam.

[Dragoon.]

If I ever reach a point where I say, "I don't buy a game unless it's on Steam, or any other specific system" I would stop playing strategy games since my abilities of adaptation and improvisation are clearly impaired.

[HitmanN]

It's funny, because I remember when it was announced that Civ 5 would only be on Stream. People were throwing fits and saying they would not buy the game if it forced them to install Steam! Now people are saying I won't buy a game unless it's on Steam.

Which clearly shows that it'd be better to have the game available BOTH as stand-alone installer AND Steam release, because the audience is divided. Steam has the advantage that it automatically, without much user influence, promotes the game to friends and other Steam users, which usually results in waves of sales. Stand-alone installers rely on users to do the promotion manually, using things like social media.

I'm yet to hear of any publisher/developer losing sales or reporting profit losses because their games are on Steam. In most cases it's the extreme opposite. So... WHY NOT?! (a question aimed at Slitherine, actually).

[TheBean]

One of the reasons I prefer all my games through Steam is because of download quota: each month I get a limited amount of downloads before my speed is capped at 64k.

My ISP offers unmetered downloads through Steam. This means every demo, game or patch I download through Steam does not count towards my monthly usage. With games not only being updated more frequently than in the past, but also larger patches, unmetered downloads is absolutely essential for me.

Plus, I just like having all my games in one place. Steam offers a great service, so that's where I have chosen.

[Hertston]

As time goes on, the Slitherene/Matrix/Ageod sales model looks increasingly more sensible to me - much as I hate to admit it. The trouble with Steam sales, even after publishers/developers have got past all that Greenlight rubbish, is that while they might generate an immediate spike in sales, after that everyone expects a sale sooner rather than later so sales then fall dramatically. Sales in turn might case further spikes, but with decreasing revenue - and an overall devaluation in the 'value' of the game. With most games that's generally acceptable as that devaluation is accepted across all retail sources, but with genre stuff such as wargames and simulations it's often better to hold out for a long-term, stable price, sales model

And these days there's a further problem - the huge amounts of stuff being released on Steam as 'early access'. Either SMA becomes uncompetitive by continuing to finish them before selling them (hopefully Buzz will be a one-off in that regard), or every game is first sold as an alpha/early beta with minimal financial incentive to finish the thing properly. No thanks.

SMA has a particular issue of it's own; their games probably split down the middle into those that would benefit from Steam and those that wouldn't, with the WitP's on one side and Panzer Corps' and Pandoras on the other. Somehow, they have to adopt a consistent policy out of that. I'd always go with non-Steam, because with an all Steam model we can kiss titles like WitE and Command Ops goodbye; the reverse is not true.

BTW, those musing on the benefits or otherwise of Steam exclusivity as a means of purchasing games may wish to also ponder on some of the possible consequences of a monopoly. Their competitors certainly have.