Reasonable said:
Do you know Steam isn't as lucrative as Live? I don't. It sells a heck of a lot of stuff and gets a lot of traffic, much of it focused purely on purchasing via Steam. I wouldn't be surprised to find it very lucrative. A lot of full price titles will sell via Steam vs Live, for example, with many PC gamers buying Black Ops from Steam vs retail. In fact, when looking at PC sales it's worth noting a lot of them are hidden from view, taking place via Steam (Ias the market leader on PC) as well as other Digital stores. Also, why should Valve shut up? They've always been vocal and it's part of their identity. I prefer the fact I always have a sense of what Valve really think vs the usual corporate bullshit. I can't think of any other developer where someone like Gabe would jump on a plane to Australia due to a community bet to show commitment to their fans concerns and requests. In terms of these comments in particular, I'd note that Valve seem to be taking the burden of responsibility on themselves - they're stating their assumptions were wrong and didn't pan out. Valve's development approach is different and geared to how they operate on Steam, end of story. Clearly, looking at things from their point of view what they want is: 1 - an open infrastructure where they can deliver and evolve games their way 2 - an easy to program for development environment focused on the SDK and the developer.
Their comments this gen have been consistent and no surprise. Initially they focused on PC and commented on PS3's challenges for a developer because the 360 was, at that time, far better for point 2) above and Valve hoped to evolve a relationship with MS that would also get them point 1) as well. This hasn't happened, and now they are in a situation where PSN on PS3 is clearly better for point 1) and while 360 remains better for point 2) PS3 would appear, on more recent comments from developers, to be pretty close to the 360 in terms of SDK. Therefore, right now, and probably for the rest of the gen, the PSN/PS3 combination is clearly more attractive to Vale specifically. They can put Steamworks on it, they can continue with their way of supporting games and evolving them, and they can develop realitively easily on the platform. I don't see any one side as more or less right or wrong here - it's about the specifics of what different companies are offering/looking for and all that's happened is that from seeming the better choice for Valve the 360 has switched places with the PS3. I personally like Valve's approach, I like the way they see a game as being something in evolution, to be continuously improved over its life. Too many people think they are just releasing bug fixes all the time, which is wrong. They monitor actual gameplay, they alter balance over time to improve the game on the basis of actual observation of the game in action, they release lots of free updates with new content... all of which doesn't fit too well with Live, which doesn't mean Live has to change per se, but that Live isn't that well suited to Valve. Finally, I'd note this doesn't mean they're suddenly backtracking on their earlier comments about the PS3. The thing is I'm sure they still believe them, or believe they were correct at the time, and I suspect they were correct at the time. For a developer like Valve, the PS3 was a bit crap at launch, with a weak SDK and poorly documented libraries vs the great SDK the 360 shipped with. Valve, unlike many people, seem willing to evolve with time themselves, accepting change and responding to it instead of sticking to early assumptions and trying to defend them. They see the PS3 was weak at launch but they respond to its improvements in SDK. They see Live was the better choice at launch for them but respond to changes in PSN which make it the better choice today. Finally, they're not going to abandon 360, they're simply going to put a bit more focus on PS3/PSN for post release efforts vs Live where they feel those efforts are essentially blocked. |
If the numbers are hidden from view, then they might as well never happened. As for the numbers, just consider the yearly million sellers for the consoles vs. PC. I can name plenty of console games who have reached the 3 to 5 million mark in the past 2 years. I can't do the same for the PC. Thus, the PC gaming market is a whole hell lot less lucrative than the console gaming market.
I am not going to go tit-for-tat on open sourced vs. closed source. Both work.
I guess I should have said, "show greater prudence" instead of shut up on my last point. If you like Gabe Newell because he is an in your face, tell it like it is sheriff then good for you. I don't because video gaming, consoles in particular have gone from being run by the devs to including more and more straight up business types like Bobby Kotick. If you want to get to the table to talk business, then you need to speak their language. Furthermore, lambasting a company or companies will mean you as the dev CEO will have a lot of backtracking, ass kissing and explaining for that interview you gave a year or two ago.
My point is Gabe Newell should be more cognizant of his words. They aren't just heard and read by his fans. Potential business partners are tuned in. Why would I want to sit across the table from Gabe if I know he is a reputable backtalker who trashes every company when he doesn't get exactly what he wants or things don't pan out as expected and the deal falls through?
