The difference between a teenager and an adult is that teenagers don't know how to be total jerks yet, so they can only become jerks.

Has anyone ever read the multiplayer lobby chat for Civ4? Omg that was some serious wtf there. Arn't you people suposed to be sophisticated stratergy gamers?!?! Why are you talking about how you would bang a horses ass in front of "leetCivMan's" mother? Or the person obssed with the word penis. I like them too but you don't have to spam the word in the chat box for a minuet....

 

lol

There were fun, bug free games before steam, so it's not a prerequisite.  Do you think a steam-Civ5 game will be funner/bug freer than a non-steam civ5 game (factoring in the $ that goes to Valve being instead spent on development/etc.)?

Of course it has a budget, and gains in one area might be available for other areas (like CEO bounses?), and no one is denigrating civ5 production values.

Your response quotes but doesn't address my question.  Perhaps I was unclear so I'll try again...  First the points I'm considering, then putting it together:

-Valve, 2k, and Take2 are taking a cut from civ5. 

-Today the net has changed (or can change) the old model for distribution/etc. -- the stuff publishers typically do for studios like Firaxis. 

-Firaxis is a proven success, and doesn't have to shill for $ like an unknown, unproven startup.

So, could Firaxis take the $ that's going to Valve, 2k, and Take2, and self-publish/etc., and implement themselves all the useful things steam does (without the stuff like sharing personally identifiable info with unspecified third parties), and still make as good a profit and be as successful?  The bonus is that they'd be masters of their fate -- no outside party dictating how some things should be done.

The studio-publisher-steam model is just getting going, but the net may be making another model as or more viable. 
Consider what's happening to the music industry as a possible example of what the future may hold.

Anyhoo that was my question that you quoted and apparently tried to respond to with your above quote.

The stuff that steam handels will be more bug free than if they made it themselves...

Working on the assumption that they have the same manpower, budget, and time in both scenarios? Yes. There is no replacement for Steamworks that you can simply drop in, they'd have to use something inferior (GFWL or Gamespy) or roll their own solution. Creating their own solution is time spent building, testing, debugging, testing, implementing, testing, rolling out servers... and testing. Locklear93's post on the last page talked about that, from the perspective of QA.

Worrying about money going to Valve here is like saying that FPS games would be better if they built their own graphics engine instead of licensing a solution. Does anybody really think that money spent on the Unreal/Crytek/whatever engine isn't worth it compared to every FPS developer building their own? How about Havok for physics (for an Elemental example)? Havok's not free, but Brad licensed it anyway. Developers do that for a reason: it's cheaper to buy an already built and largely proven solution over building your own, especially when you don't have the knowledge to do so in house already.

What Steamworks provides is no different, and it's a business decision. Valve can provide that code more cheaply then each developer can implement it themselves due to scale. Developers can focus on their game and not on the little details of how to implement a friends list and provide server infrastructure for it. (Blizzard can do that, and is rolling out their Real ID solution today for WoW/Starcraft 2 in fact, but Blizzard has their own little empire and has more money then some European countries.)

Pretty sure I did answer it, but alright. The budget doesn't change because of Steamworks. If the cost of Steamworks is less then the cost of implementing the same feature set and supporting infrastructure, Firaxis comes out ahead by using it. Since the budget doesn't change, less money spent on those features/infrastructure means more money spent on gameplay and artwork. Since the budget is fixed, the only way a CEO bonus goes up from it is if the game sells more due to being more polished due to having more developer time spent on gameplay (and less on achievements). If the CEO gets more money because they put out a better game? I'm cool with that, the better game part is what I care about as a customer.

If it's sold on Steam at all, Valve would already take a cut from those sales. Take Two owns Firaxis, so strictly speaking they earn whatever Firaxis does anyway. 2k gets a cut as the publisher...

According to Brad, the overwhelming majority of game sales are still retail. I believe he's in a position to know the numbers, as the owner of a company in the business. That being true, publishers still play a role in the logistics of actually getting a game boxed and out to retail, as well as marketing.

They *could* do it, but it means hiring networking guys, buying servers, server admins, and so on. They'd then need to contract someone to handle the logistics of shipping retail copies, or hire staff to do it. Same thing with marketing. Of course they won't need those marketing/shipping people until they're ready to ship an expansion, so those would be temporary contract workers or put out to third party companies to do... which is pretty much what a publisher does.

On the networking side, they need to pay for those servers as long as people are playing Civ 5, even if no particular revenue is coming in from it. Firaxis isn't a big company and they don't exactly put out a ton of games. I'm not seeing any particular gain for them in paying money to do things they have no internal skill in doing, when they can contract out to companies that are already providing those services and can do it with the benefit of economies of scale.

So no, I don't see how they'd do better by going on their own. In terms of having control themselves... they seem to have control over Civ 5 for the most part anyway. Gameplay wise there are a lot of radical changes happening, and corporate suits tend to dislike radical changes in proven franchises when sequels that don't change things much sell reliably. Does anybody really think someone from 2k came in and said "hey, completely redo the entire combat model"?

The only decision likely made by 2k here was a release date and Steamworks... and really, there isn't a better option then Steamworks right now if you want the functionality it provides.

Didn't Brad mention steam getting 30%?  That's not enough to do the 'good' parts that steam offers (and considering firaxis has to put effort into integrating steamworks, that ups the cost beyond 30%)? 

I understand what you're saying but experience tells me there's another side to this that isn't being presented.  We're mainly seeing the views of those convinced this is the way to go.  I'd like to see the other side present their case.

The game (pun intended) is changing, with the music industry leading the way.  The game industry is different but similar.  Valve, 2k, and Take2 have a financial motive to present this as a fait accompli and the best/only way to progress.  That's a sales job and when we hear it it's prudent to hold on to our wallets and seek out the other side of the story.

I'm still curious to know how much Valve, 2k, and Take2 will take out of the Civ5 pie, and how much will be left to Firaxis, and what Firaxis could do with all of the pie.  I'm also curious if the cost/benefit to steam was done by Firaxis or 2k/Take2, and who's benefit was considered, as they're not necessarily the same.

Anyhoo, thanks for the effort you've put into responding, and your polite and well-reasoned replies

Are you talking about unit sales on steam or some sort of "kickback" from using steamworks? These two things are not linked are they. (?)

That's the Steam store cut. That's the amount Valve would get if you bought Elemental on Steam (in fact he mentioned that in a "put Elemental for sale on Steam" thread IIRC). Obviously Elemental doesn't use Steamworks. Impulse and the others also take a cut, though I don't know the size. That's how the DD stores make their money.

Funny thing is that strictly speaking, Firaxis is almost certainly still making more money even with that 30% cut then they are off retail copies, given the lack of need for disks, boxes, shipping, and a cut to Walmart.

Most of this thread is people saying they don't like Steamworks, and its really only in the last few pages you've gotten a lot of pushback against that. The difficulty is that the people who dislike it do so for totally different reasons then the people who don't. You've got single player folks who want their game unencumbered by this stuff, and programmers telling you why it's a better way of doing things for the online features. So it kind of goes in circles.

Music and games are drastically different. Music is created by a small group, and can be done mostly at home. All you need to create a good CD is the musical talent, and some money to book time at a proper studio to do the cut. AAA games have budgets in the millions.

If you take Valve's cut out, the game can't be sold on Steam. Taking out similar cuts for Stardock et al, and you're left with just retail... and Walmart/Gamespot's cut, which isn't any smaller. Firaxis could set up their own store and keep the whole pie for themselves, but then they have to set up download servers and an online store. And marketing. Most of the "cuts" here aren't just some greedy guy taking money out of the pie, they're providing essential things required to actually sell the game, and which pretty well everybody has to pay when selling something.

Considering how many games are using Steamworks lately (even switching from other solutions), it seems like someone with access to the numbers thinks its a good idea. Fallout NV is a good example for you - Bethesda is their own publisher. There's no "what's good for the publisher but not the developer" line of reasoning going on there, and they still made the switch from GFWL to Steamworks. If they didn't think it was a better solution, what reason is there for doing that in their case.

 

Edit - According to this news story and the Steamworks page, Steamworks itself is free. So yeah, I can comfortably say the cost of using Steamworks is considerably less then rolling your own solution. It's hard to beat $0. The 30% cut is typical of the Steam store and doesn't depend on Steamworks.

What does Valve get out of it? Well, every game with Steamworks increases the value of Steam as a platform, and drives more users (in particular retail customers who may not know about it) to Steam. You can't buy marketing like that.

I use steam (mostly because some of the games I wanted to play require it) and while I do find it intrusive it is not a deal breaker..

I use Impulse.. I have been a fan of stardock ever since galciv. so when they launched impulse it was natural for me to give it a go. It does feel less intrusive to me.

impulse feels more like a source for the download then big brother forcing me to use his choice.. (this is how it seems to me)...

I fall in the camp that does not like games that only work on steam, or for that matter games that on work on games for windows live, as a whole I choose not to buy many of these types of games.. this is largely because I do not like limiting my self to only once source of friends, software, and expanded content..

so will i buy civ 5 ... probably some day ... but i am in no hurry now....

Steamworks isn't free.  From the FAQ page:

 

And from the Steamworks page, first paragraph: "Steamworks is entirely free." Also from the brochure:

"Distribution" is selling a game on Steam. You go through that if you use Steamworks or not. There's no extra charge for using Steamworks.

Tridus and Dale are correct, Steamworks is free.

Also, for people who didnt notice, Firaxis is owned by Take Two (2K) so both developer and publisher are same company.

As a holder of several advanced degrees from the School of Hard Knocks, the more I learn about steam the more it resembles an old man driving a windowless van, offering free candy.... errrrr.... free steamworks to every kid he sees -- and we're the kids he's targeting.

Right now we're in the free candy phase.  How that changes once he gets enough of us into his van and he closes the doors, we'll have to wait to see.

Nothing in life is free.  No deal is too good to be true.  Stay out of land wars in Asia.

The salient comparison from my line of questioning is how much Firaxis would make if they offered a DD civ5 themselves -- that's the apples-to-apples comparison.

The interest of programmers/players/publishers/whoever are all different, which is one of my points.  Valve just has to sell itself to Take2 and they'll bring along 2k and Firaxis.  The players are the tail end here.  As a player that's where my interest lies.

The FAQ is troubling in how it hints to Valve's selection criteria.  Once/if steam becomes the de facto standard, by virtue of which games Valve deems steam-worthy they'll affect what games we'll get to choose from.  In the 'old' days it was 'studios' (often 1 person like Garriott) who determined what games we'd see, then it was studios + publishers, now it'll be studios + publishers + valve between us and our games (unless/until Valve moves in on the publishers...).

You're comparing apples (big budget games) and oranges (small budget music).  Comparing similarly-sized projects in music and games and the difference is much smaller, enough that comparisons to the new models can be informative.  If I was Valve I'd be making your 'no comparison' argument as that best serves their interests.

 

Get off my lawn! My apologies for missing a time when I was a teenager and when people played the multiplayer games we made for my BBS they were well educated and if unbearably sarcastic and arrogant at least were respectful when they pwned you. It is a delicate balance of insolence and playful fake-cruelty that is lost on today's crowd.

Steam took the blame and was working with her to fix the problem. It only happens on steam on all games she has on steam and they're working on a fix for the last six months. Maybe you know more than they do as I don't know your pc expertise and since I used to do tech support ages ago I know most of us weren't the most knowledgeable but maybe things have changed.

The handful of times I decided to try Gamespy multiplayer on any of the previous civ versions it was terrible and terrifying from nasty racism to homophobia. Most gamers who are online may be adults but most multiplayer gamers are a younger demographic and they aren't upset and disgusted by the nastiness and take it for granted.

Are you considering these kids in their mid twenties adults? 26 is the new 18 or so I hear. Reading the average freshman or sophomore essay is enough to make me cringe. When you don't see a single glaring terrifyingly bad mistake and feel relieved it is a bad sign.

Jerks I can handle. I was on teh intertubes on my c64 and ran into jerks and eventually flame wars but a terrible insult back then wouldn't even phase someone today. Nowadays whenever I'm forced to interact with the popular "xbox crowd" it saddens and sickens me. Which is why I mention Left4dead which was a fine multiplayer for about six months until it became popular. I simply cannot play the game with random people. When I had my PS3 it was quite noticeable the lack of trolls, douches, and the young which was a major reason for buying it besides as a bluray player. There were a lot of jerks but that is ok as every group has jerks but I never had people telling one of my best friends that they were going to tar and feather then skin him alive just because of his skin color on PS3. That is the one really major negative about user friendliness and ubiquity of the internet and products that use it.

When you had to be a nerd of some sort to be online you might have had autistic/ausperger's savants being dicks but it was very rarely malice behind cruelty but more social incompetence which is much more forgivable as everyone is ignorant about something.

Your actual question was if they'd make more money by doing all the stuff Steamworks gives them for themselves. Since Steamwork costs $0, I've pretty well established the answer there is no.

This isn't much different. How much would it cost Firaxis to set up their own DD store, download servers, and so on? Considering they'd have to support it for an indeterminate number of years while people who buy Civ 5 from it come back to download the game?

That kind of infrastructure is not cheap, especially when your usage of it is fewer then one game a year. Comparatively, Steam, Impulse, etc do it with lots of games for a fixed cost to the developers.

You see some companies trying to go their own way on this, and the results are usually awful. Ever tried the EA store? That thing is just terrible, and if that was the only place offering Dragon Age I would never have bought it.

You're the one who brought up music originally. There is no similarly sized project in music, you don't put together a team of 100 people to create a CD. The big expense in music is in marketing. The big expense in games is the game.

My line of questioning is how it'd be if Firaxis went it alone, which includes DD sales themselves (that's part of how the net is changing the old model).  Your response "Firaxis is almost certainly still making more money even with that 30% cut [using steams' DD] then they are off retail copies..." compares store-bought vs steam DD -- apples&oranges, not firaxis DD vs Steam DD -- apples&apples -- which is my line of questioning.

Which has nothing to do with your apples&oranges store-bought vs steam DD point.

Again, you're comparing apples&oranges.  If you refuse to accept the premise of my question that's fine, but don't change it then claim you're answering it