Steam arguments, Garry'sMod sales figures

[BaRRaKID]

Well, in all fairness, Gearbox made Opposing force, making it much, much, much cooler than Valve.

But Valve made Half-Life, so that makes them (gearbox cool)^2 cool.

[zombie@computer]

Well, in all fairness, Gearbox made Opposing force, making it much, much, much cooler than Valve.

But Valve made Half-Life, so that makes them (gearbox cool)^2 cool.

no. Opposing force was better than Half-life. To turn something cool into someting really, really, really cool you need a very, very, very cool team, such as Gearbox.

Valve
Gearbox

thus: Gearbox - Valve =

savvy?

[source-maps]

... you are the smartest guy on the forum but that's the dumbest thing you ever said

[BaRRaKID]

What would that be °_° i buy a game on steam and they can take it away from me.

Thats in almost every agreement when you click Yes so its not only valve that counts for almost every software agreement except for freeware but i could be wrong
The holder of the rights has always the right to break the contract

Sorry for double post, but people seem to forget this.
You DON'T own any game you buy, either if it's on Steam or on a regular store. The same goes for other types of software. What you own is a license to use a certain service (in this case a video game), and that license can be revoked whenever the entity that gave you the license feels like it, it's what's usually called Software as a Service. Most of the times you don't have to worry about this as long as you follow what's on the EULA, or any other agreement that you have to accept to use the service, but all these agreements state that they are subject to change without warning the end user.
This is what makes legal for the companies to only let you active your game 3 times for example, or to revoke your license after a certain date, or to install DRM software or bloatware (like that games for windows POS) on your computer, or to ban you if you infringe certain rules, etc, etc. They basically can do everything they want since the law about digital media sucks, and whoever wrote it must have his ass full of juice from the entertainment companies cocks.
Also because of this you DON'T have the right to private copy, rent, re-sell, or lend (among other things) your games, because they are not considered goods, just services and licenses.
I believe there is a discussion going on in the EU to approve a new law that will change this, and make digital media be considered goods, but I haven't read anything about it in a while.

[poisonic]

your just a GEARBOX zombie that is zombiefied by Gearbox LOL no offence

[FlynT]

If someone reads the topic title and then the latest posts, im sure he gets very confused
The fact is both of them made/make fucking great games

[stoopdapoop]

Barrakid, you relinked my article, and then you remade my point about software licensing.

I think you're a butt

[BaRRaKID]

Sorry honey, i didn't noticed your posts, I just skimmed trough the topic

[YokaI]

If someone reads the topic title and then the latest posts, im sure he gets very confused
The fact is both of them made/make fucking great games

^^^ That,


Steam is great, I think that valve allows companies to sell games at whatever price they want to sell them via digital distribution (Though I'm sure they are reviewed for said price first, in the case of bionic commando rearmed.) I bet you the reason games are higher price on steam is not because valve scoops a sum of the money away but instead that developers want to make more money selling games digitally and can do so by pricing the game the same price as the store price and avoiding the disc publishers by doing so. I'm sure the money valve takes from each game sold on steam is more respectable than the money EA takes from each developer that they publish games for.


I think the pricing is done similarly to in-store prices mostly because they want to avoid making publishers upset. Remember the EA Valve arguments? Or even further back, the Sierra / Valve arguments? From what I remember It was basically because they tried to sell the game digitally with a lower price than the publisher price, and that would lower the profit of selling valve's games.


AS for steam resources hogging, it really does need to be addressed. I also feel the IM client needs quite a bit of overhaul work. I'm not really a coder, so I can't really state specifically what they could address to reduce memory usage, but I'm 100% sure that they could do something to reduce it!

BTW: Some of the people posting here haven't been here for like ever, what the fuck? Is this a reunion party or something?

@Topic Fuck Steam:
Steam is FREE, you're even debt if you pay too much for a game.

Linux is free. Openoffice is free. I must love all freeware programs! OMG! Is it not possible to hate free stuff?

While I like Openoffice, I feel you make a very valid point there. I hate when people say "well, it's free" and because of that expect me not to have any standards for it. And in some sense, it isn't free at all because every time you pay for a game you can be sure a % of the money goes to the steam development budget. I could go on forever about what linux needs to do, but that's for another day I suppose. I think steam could really use a different base for it's web browsing (Even the Opera browser would be better) and they could certainly work on the UI a little more. I would also love to see Steam In game Community Addons which would act similarly to apple widgets and could be turned on and off via "addons" button on the in game steam community menu. Ugh, this could be for another thread though. /endtangent.

[FlynT]

While I like Openoffice, I feel you make a very valid point there. I hate when people say "well, it's free" and because of that expect me not to have any standards for it. And in some sense, it isn't free at all because every time you pay for a game you can be sure a % of the money goes to the steam development budget.

I never said that you have to love all "Freeware"! The only thing that i try to say is, its your stupidity if you pay to much for a game because of valve's shitty pricing. You HAVE the option to buy the game somewhere else, even Valve Games! And with "Steam is free" i mean Steam is a free download no extra costs or something similar like that, i know that you pay for it at the end of the day.

And comparing Steam with Open Office or Linux is by far a bad comparison. Steam was developed to make more money and to have control over User-Stats, not to bring an alternative to something already existing.
I like Steam but not at all or over all, Steam sucks in some situations. I like, that i dont have to take care about my CD-Keys, CD/DVD's or copy-protections. But i hate Steam if i try to start it offline or if i try to start an external map compile.

[YokaI]

While I like Openoffice, I feel you make a very valid point there. I hate when people say "well, it's free" and because of that expect me not to have any standards for it. And in some sense, it isn't free at all because every time you pay for a game you can be sure a % of the money goes to the steam development budget.

I never said that you have to love all "Freeware"! The only thing that i try to say is, its your stupidity if you pay to much for a game because of valve's shitty pricing. You HAVE the option to buy the game somewhere else, even Valve Games! And with "Steam is free" i mean Steam is a free download no extra costs or something similar like that, i know that you pay for it at the end of the day.

And comparing Steam with Open Office or Linux is by far a bad comparison. Steam was developed to make more money and to have control over User-Stats, not to bring an alternative to something already existing.
I like Steam but not at all or over all, Steam sucks in some situations. I like, that i dont have to take care about my CD-Keys, CD/DVD's or copy-protections. But i hate Steam if i try to start it offline or if i try to start an external map compile.

Sorry, that wasn't necessarily pointed at your post, but it's something I always wanted to say but never was able to say it. It happens all the time with game "betas" (which is another discussion, but open betas are more like prepurchase demos) people try to justify the quality of something free by only saying it's free, which is irritating. Steam itself is a good freeware program, but regardless it could use a few upgrades here and there.

I just feel this article / interview is more like the leader of Gearbox crying that valve has too much conflict of interest. Maybe next time he can make one of the first digital distribution program managers! I mean seriously, valve beat the others to the punch and because of that they get returns. It doesn't mean that valve is unchallengeable though, and regardless valve is pretty good at not being one of "THOSE" companies that tries to cheat others out of their money...

[RobQ]

Sorry for double post, but people seem to forget this.
You DON'T own any game you buy, either if it's on Steam or on a regular store. The same goes for other types of software. What you own is a license to use a certain service (in this case a video game), and that license can be revoked whenever the entity that gave you the license feels like it, it's what's usually called Software as a Service.

Check this article about Autodesk suing someone ("Vernor") trying to resell software on EBay that he bought from someone else ("CTA"):

As the judge sums up Autodesk's argument, "Autodesk believes that it still owns the AutoCAD packages in Mr. Vernor’s possession. It contends that it never transferred ownership of the AutoCAD packages to CTA. Indeed, in Autodesk’s view, it never transfers ownership of AutoCAD packages to anyone."
[...]
Judge Jones ruled this week that Autodesk had in fact licensed its software, but that this was immaterial; what mattered was whether the license "transferred ownership" (more like buying a book) or was a "mere license" (more like renting a movie).

Although groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation called the decision a major one for their side, Judge Jones made clear that the issue was swamplike in its murkiness. The Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction Jones is under, has issued various (and contradictory) ways of thinking about the difference between a "transfer of ownership" and a "mere license."

Jones was unable to reconcile the competing precedents, and so he decided the issue based the "oldest precedent among conflicting opinions from three-judge Ninth Circuit panels." That precedent favored the idea that Autodesk had essentially transferred ownership when someone purchased an AutoCAD license; that in turn triggered "first sale" rights to resell the software; that in turn vindicated Vernor's eBay auctions.

We lose resell ability with Steam games, even though legally it's allowed.

[BaRRaKID]

That's a very specific case where there wasn't a consensus on who was right or wrong. The jury decision clearly goes against the agreement that the user acepted when he purchased the software. If you read the UELA of any game you have, you will notice that most of them clearly state the you can't resell the game, here's an example taken from the Rockstar EULA:

I. LICENSE

LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your compliance with this Agreement. The term of your license under this Agreement shall commence on the date that you install or otherwise use the Software and ends on the earlier date of either your disposal of the Software or Licensor’s termination of this Agreement. Your license terminates immediately if you attempt to circumvent any technical protection measures used in connection with the Software. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by Licensor and, as applicable, its licensors.

OWNERSHIP. Licensor retains all right, title and interest to the Software, including, but not limited to, all copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, trade names, proprietary rights, patents, titles, computer codes, audiovisual effects, themes, characters, character names, stories, dialog, settings, artwork, sounds effects, musical works, and moral rights. The Software is protected by United States copyright and trademark law and applicable laws and treaties throughout the world. The Software may not be copied, reproduced or distributed in any manner or medium, in whole or in part, without prior written consent from Licensor. Any persons copying, reproducing or distributing all or any portion of the Software in any manner or medium, will be willfully violating the copyright laws and may be subject to civil and criminal penalties in the US or their local country. Be advised that US Copyright violations are subject to statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per violation. The Software contains certain licensed materials and Licensor’s licensors may also protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement. All rights not expressly granted to you herein are reserved by the Licensor.
LICENSE CONDITIONS.

You agree not to:

1. Commercially exploit the Software;
2. Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign the Software, or any copies of the Software, without the express prior written consent of Licensor or as set forth in this Agreement;
3. Make a copy of the Software or any part thereof (other than as set forth herein);
4. Making a copy of this Software available on a network for use or download by multiple users;
5. Except as otherwise specifically provided by the Software or this Agreement, use or install the Software (or permit others to do same) on a network, for on-line use, or on more than one computer or gaming unit at the same time;
6. Copy the Software onto a hard drive or other storage device in order to bypass the requirement to run the Software from the included CD-ROM or DVD-ROM (this prohibition does not apply to copies in whole or in part that may be made by the Software itself during installation in order to run more efficiently);
7. use or copy the Software at a computer gaming center or any other location-based site; provided, that Licensor may offer you a separate site license agreement to make the Software available for commercial use;.
8. Reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, prepare derivative works based on or otherwise modify the Software, in whole or in part;
9. Remove or modify any proprietary notices, marks or labels contained on or within the Software; and
10. transport, export or re-export (directly or indirectly) into any country forbidden to receive such Software by any U.S. export laws or accompanying regulations or otherwise violate such laws or regulations, that may be amended from time to time.

However, you may transfer the entire Software and accompanying documentation on a permanent basis to another person as long as you retain no copies (including archival or backup copies) of the Software, accompanying documentation, or any portion or component of the Software accompanying documentation, and the recipient agrees to the terms of this Agreement. The Software is intended for private use only.

This is what you agree on doing (or not doing) when you install the game.

[AcapulcoGold20]

My opinion on the matter is that Gabe left Microsoft to start Valve because he was sick of working for those money grubbing assholes. My other opinion is that everyone eventually turns into what they hate. Gabe, please keep it fair for struggling indie devs!

I mean, just look at the recent campaign for L4D. Free on Steam, 7 bucks on Xbox. Who wants to bet it was Microsoft who wanted to charge for it more than Valve did?

[BillyDa59]

Didn't they already say that Microsoft doesn't necessarily allow free content like that to be distributed over XBL or something like that? So they charge a minimum fee even thought Valve would really rather just give away for free?

The thing with XBL, is that man hours from a different company go into it, so that company will want to be compensated for publishing another companies material.

The solution to this would just be that everyone opens their eyes and goes PC for gaming.