City of Heroes on Steam with Achievements & Purchasable Starter/Vanity Item Packs
By
8_Ball,
Posted on: 2012-07-09 12:52 in Suggestions and Ideas
it seems like the most vocal anti-steam people are the ones that are against any form of DRM. Sadly, DRM is a reality today it's just a matter of whether it's something that does a quick check in or must have a consistent Internet connection even for Single player mode (like D3)
On Justice
Global @Desi Nova Twitter: @desi_nova Steam: Desi_nova. I don't do Xbox or PS3
Quote:
Constant Internet connections for non-online games are asinine.|
Originally Posted by Desi_Nova
it seems like the most vocal anti-steam people are the ones that are against any form of DRM. Sadly, DRM is a reality today it's just a matter of whether it's something that does a quick check in or must have a consistent Internet connection even for Single player mode (like D3)
|
That's just my opinion.
I bought a single player game to play just that: single. *******. player.
Whether I have an online connection or not shouldn't matter if i never intend to use any of the online features . . . which for single player games, I don't.
Imagine when PSN went down for a month due to hacking last year, if your entire PS3 library of games was unavailable. I'm sure that'd be a lot of fun.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
Again, this is not how steam works. Steam does not take a cut of all future revenue from games sold there, steam does not require that every game it sells have steamworks integrated. Steam is not the mafia.
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
If they could do it where NCSoft/Paragon studios gets all of the micro-transaction money I'd see COH remaining on steam.
The advertising of COH on steam could be good. As long as steam was no suddenly one day required to play coh, I'd be fine with it. I would most certainly NOT be fine if it were announced that every player needed to one day suddenly install steam ON TOP of the NCSoft Launcher. |
Quote:
That's NOT what I said. Re-read exactly what I said. I was talking about MICRO transactions. That is NOT the same as "all revenue from games sold there." That's comepletly different from what I said.|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Again, this is not how steam works. Steam does not take a cut of all future revenue from games sold there, steam does not require that every game it sells have steamworks integrated. Steam is not the mafia.
|
If MICRO TRANSACTION REVENUE (not total revenue or subscription revenue) was not the issue, then why was COH removed from steam?
If it wasn't a revenue issue why remove it from steam?
Also I was going off what Captain said upthread:
One thing I learned that isn't so bad is the fact that Steam doesn't actually take a cut off every microtransaction. That's pure rumor. In the case of some F2P MMOs it DOES take a cut whenever players buy the equivalent of Paragon Points to spend in their various MMOs digital marketplaces. But in the case of some MMOs (like STO for instance), it's STILL cheaper to buy points via Steam than via the publisher's website.
So if Paragon Points were to be available via steam, from what I've been seeing steam would have taken SOMETHING. Perhaps the move to F2P and adding a MTX model was part of the reason Steam was dropped.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
It didn't support f2p titles around the time CoH's conversion was announced, iirc. Very shortly after and by the time it launched it did though.
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Then why was COH removed from steam?
If it wasn't a revenue issue why remove it from steam? |
Quote:
I'm not necessarily against DRM.|
Originally Posted by Desi_Nova
it seems like the most vocal anti-steam people are the ones that are against any form of DRM. Sadly, DRM is a reality today it's just a matter of whether it's something that does a quick check in or must have a consistent Internet connection even for Single player mode (like D3)
|
I'm against LOUSY DRM. And most of the DRM schemes in use today are terrible. They treat paying customers like criminals and don't actually inconvenience the real criminals all that much.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Because I made one offhand comment and had you jump down my throat assuming my knowledge on the subject was somehow limited and that I wasn't 100% "technically" correct in how I said what I said. Big effing deal. It's a gaming message board, not one of my friggin' business classes in college.|
Originally Posted by Tyger42
How did I start it?
|
Quote:
| Sorry, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. You went off on someone over how evil it would be for Paragon to advertise with spam and got called out for obviously misinterpreting another poster's comment, now you're trying to cover your screw up. Badly. |
Have fun shadow boxing kiddo.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Sooooo, why is it not back in steam?|
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9
It didn't support f2p titles around the time CoH's conversion was announced, iirc. Very shortly after and by the time it launched it did though.
|
I think it's more than what you stated but have no evidence otherwise.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
As I understood it, there are two different elements here:|
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9
It didn't support f2p titles around the time CoH's conversion was announced, iirc. Very shortly after and by the time it launched it did though.
|
- the steam API (steamworks), which would allow users to add a game to their steam library, community, achievements, and overlay. This essentially gives the user steam features, doesn't require giving Steam a cut, but also doesn't give the developer any of the steam features like listings in the steam storefront, advertising, etc... the stuff that might help promote the title.
- Steam's distribution agreement, which gives the game a steam listing, results in steam searches & promotion space... the stuff many people think of when they say "on steam." (IIRC) steam's servers hosting the downloads & updates. For these, steam relies on actual product sales, or (in the case of F2P) microtransaction sales through their Steam store (so they get their cut).
Quote:
Clearly a nefarious plot that proves Valve is a company that feasts upon the souls of the unworthy, and is determined to destroy gaming as we know it.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Sooooo, why is it not back in steam?
I think it's more than what you stated but have no evidence otherwise. |
There was also something to do with swapping from the old updater to the NC launcher that caused some issues. I don't know if they ever got resolved or not. That's a Black Pebble question, most likely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
As I understood it, there are two different elements here:
- the steam API (steamworks), which would allow users to add a game to their steam library, community, achievements, and overlay. This essentially gives the user steam features, doesn't require giving Steam a cut, but also doesn't give the developer any of the steam features like listings in the steam storefront, advertising, etc... the stuff that might help promote the title. - Steam's distribution agreement, which gives the game a steam listing, results in steam searches & promotion space... the stuff many people think of when they say "on steam." (IIRC) steam's servers hosting the downloads & updates. For these, steam relies on actual product sales, or (in the case of F2P) microtransaction sales through their Steam store (so they get their cut). |
Admittedly I'm not positive how they handle microtransactions for other f2p MMOs that are already on Steam. At first glance they don't have anything listed for points bundles or something like that for say, Champions, and I don't think there's anything done in-game with it either, but I'm not positive either way.
Quote:
I'm not anti-steam (I make absolutely no use of their community, have everything I can have in it set to private, never look at the achievements, and occasionally curse at it when I want to play an offline game during a stormy evening when the 'internet becomes unreliable, but I don't have any objection to it on principle).|
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9
Admittedly I'm not positive how they handle microtransactions for other f2p MMOs that are already on Steam. At first glance they don't have anything listed for points bundles or something like that for say, Champions, and I don't think there's anything done in-game with it either, but I'm not positive either way.
|
Steam just has no reason to list F2P in its store unless they take a cut somewhere. They're not a charity. They're not a mysterious patron of the arts. They exist to make money.
Since a F2P doesn't make money in initial sales, they've got little incentive to list a title. They may be taking a cut of each transaction or get paid up-front in "finders' fees" or perhaps they get a monthly "advertising" payment to list the product.
They might use all these different revenue methods among their titles, for all we know.
Whatever it is, it costs Paragon/NCSoft money- either up front or in a share of unrealized revenue from microstransaction sales. If steam's benefits really justified this, I think we'd see CoH return to steam at some point.
Quote:
Obviously they take a cut somewhere in the process. I'm just not sure that many people would (or could) retrofit an existing title with Steamworks to take advantage of the built-in microtransaction support there. It's very possible that they take Steam Wallet funds as a payment option in other already existing games like Champs or DCUO, but if one wanted, it'd be rather easy to circumvent doing so (run the game outside of Steam if it relies on the overlay, install from a non-Steam source, etc) which is why I'm skeptical that that's what they do. It could be that there aren't enough people who care enough to work around paying through Steam that it's still a viable choice, but like I said before, this is wild speculation.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
I'm not anti-steam (I make absolutely no use of their community, have everything I can have in it set to private, never look at the achievements, and occasionally curse at it when I want to play an offline game during a stormy evening when the 'internet becomes unreliable, but I don't have any objection to it on principle).
Steam just has no reason to list F2P in its store unless they take a cut somewhere. They're not a charity. They're not a mysterious patron of the arts. They exist to make money. Since a F2P doesn't make money in initial sales, they've got little incentive to list a title. They may be taking a cut of each transaction or get paid up-front in "finders' fees" or perhaps they get a monthly "advertising" payment to list the product. They might use all these different revenue methods among their titles, for all we know. Whatever it is, it costs Paragon/NCSoft money- either up front or in a share of unrealized revenue from microstransaction sales. If steam's benefits really justified this, I think we'd see CoH return to steam at some point. |
If it is that simple though, I imagine the explanation for CoH's absence is just, "our store provider is tough to work with so we can't add support for transactions through Steam." Which seems fairly likely.
Quote:
Granted, you'd have to be a rather hardcore anti-steamer to go through that. Steam could have several ways to handle this with different developers:|
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9
Obviously they take a cut somewhere in the process. I'm just not sure that many people would (or could) retrofit an existing title with Steamworks to take advantage of the built-in microtransaction support there. It's very possible that they take Steam Wallet funds as a payment option in other already existing games like Champs or DCUO, but if one wanted, it'd be rather easy to circumvent doing so (run the game outside of Steam if it relies on the overlay, install from a non-Steam source, etc) which is why I'm skeptical that that's what they do.
|
- if the user opened the game through steam's interface, steam gets a cut (a "use-through" fee).
- if the game's user account was created through a steam install, steam gets a cut on all that user's purchases (a form of "referral fee")
- if the steam wallet is available, steam gets a cut from purchases that use it, nothing else.
Quote:
|
It could be that there aren't enough people who care enough to work around paying through Steam that it's still a viable choice, but like I said before, this is wild speculation. If it is that simple though, I imagine the explanation for CoH's absence is just, "our store provider is tough to work with so we can't add support for transactions through Steam." Which seems fairly likely. |
Quote:
Their "cut" in the case of F2P games tends to be the same as say, Google. They want to be the de-facto game portal people use. Why? So people will view their store and buy stuff. It doesn't cost Valve to list a F2P MMO, but if a player opens steam to play CoH then they have a chance to make a transaction for another game/purchase.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Steam just has no reason to list F2P in its store unless they take a cut somewhere. They're not a charity. They're not a mysterious patron of the arts. They exist to make money.
|
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
No. You're missing several elements there. A few:|
Originally Posted by Snow Globe
Their "cut" in the case of F2P games tends to be the same as say, Google. They want to be the de-facto game portal people use. Why? So people will view their store and buy stuff. It doesn't cost Valve to list a F2P MMO, but if a player opens steam to play CoH then they have a chance to make a transaction for another game/purchase.
|
1) It does cost Valve to list a F2P MMO there. Players have limited time to play games. Time spent on F2P games is time not spent on a title they make money on. A "free" single-player game would be a safe giveaway, as they have finite playability, but an MMO that's potentially frequently-updated has greater potential to draw someone away from other purchases.
2) Being the google of games only works if you get revenue from your listings or paid referrals.
If you want to use Google as an example here, Steam would be charging either a flat listing fee (if you want your game listed in our store, give us $X a month) or a referral fee (for every user you get from us, give us $X or X% of that user's transactions) which is essentially what I had stated they'd do.
3) If steam just wanted to offer "referral" absolutely free, like Google, then they could easily craft their store to provide external links to all sorts of F2P games out there, just a Google shows a "City of Heroes" result when I search "Superhero MMO." Nothing would stop it from offering a store PLUS referral service. It doesn't. It enters into business agreements with specific titles and only then are those titles are listed. That relationship alone strongly hints that it isn't "free" to the developers.
That doesn't mean that they didn't approach Paragon / NCSoft with an offer to enter into such an agreement. It just means that any offer wasn't enticing enough...
Quote:
This line of thought doesn't account for the possibility that F2P listings are loss-leaders to build an environment that allows Valve to better monetize revenue generating listing space.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
No. You're missing several elements there. A few:
1) It does cost Valve to list a F2P MMO there. Players have limited time to play games. Time spent on F2P games is time not spent on a title they make money on. A "free" single-player game would be a safe giveaway, as they have finite playability, but an MMO that's potentially frequently-updated has greater potential to draw someone away from other purchases. 2) Being the google of games only works if you get revenue from your listings or paid referrals. If you want to use Google as an example here, Steam would be charging either a flat listing fee (if you want your game listed in our store, give us $X a month) or a referral fee (for every user you get from us, give us $X or X% of that user's transactions) which is essentially what I had stated they'd do. 3) If steam just wanted to offer "referral" absolutely free, like Google, then they could easily craft their store to provide external links to all sorts of F2P games out there, just a Google shows a "City of Heroes" result when I search "Superhero MMO." Nothing would stop it from offering a store PLUS referral service. It doesn't. It enters into business agreements with specific titles and only then are those titles are listed. That relationship alone strongly hints that it isn't "free" to the developers. That doesn't mean that they didn't approach Paragon / NCSoft with an offer to enter into such an agreement. It just means that any offer wasn't enticing enough... |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Nope, got those, but you don't seem to understand the concept of a "loss leader" in marketing.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
No. You're missing several elements there. A few:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
1) It does cost Valve to list a F2P MMO there. Players have limited time to play games. Time spent on F2P games is time not spent on a title they make money on. A "free" single-player game would be a safe giveaway, as they have finite playability, but an MMO that's potentially frequently-updated has greater potential to draw someone away from other purchases.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
2) Being the google of games only works if you get revenue from your listings or paid referrals.
If you want to use Google as an example here, Steam would be charging either a flat listing fee (if you want your game listed in our store, give us $X a month) or a referral fee (for every user you get from us, give us $X or X% of that user's transactions) which is essentially what I had stated they'd do. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
3) If steam just wanted to offer "referral" absolutely free, like Google, then they could easily craft their store to provide external links to all sorts of F2P games out there, just a Google shows a "City of Heroes" result when I search "Superhero MMO." Nothing would stop it from offering a store PLUS referral service. It doesn't. It enters into business agreements with specific titles and only then are those titles are listed. That relationship alone strongly hints that it isn't "free" to the developers.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
That doesn't mean that they didn't approach Paragon / NCSoft with an offer to enter into such an agreement. It just means that any offer wasn't enticing enough...
|
Going Rogue: Complete Collection Sale on Steam! (one day only, July 15, 2011)
And there were other Steam deals:
Weeklong Steam sale: Going Rogue Complete Collection 50% off (May 23, 2011)
They had City of Heroes available through Steam. I'm assuming that either Paragon Studios or NCsoft decided that they didn't want to sell on Steam for undisclosed reasons (any number of reasons, but at a guess NCsoft wanted their own excuse for a portal, aka the NCsoft Launcher *). I doubt we'll ever know why. Then again, we don't need to know.
* I still don't like that piece of garbage, but we're stuck with it.
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
That is always a possibility, but loss-leaders are intended to be of less value than what's given away. Referring away users to an F2P MMO means you're:|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This line of thought doesn't account for the possibility that F2P listings are loss-leaders to build an environment that allows Valve to better monetize revenue generating listing space.
|
- introducing them to another community that may compete with the social value of your own community. They may anchor to that publisher's social network, not your own.
- introducing them to another product that will compete for a user's finite time investment with other products you could sell them-- and one that, with regular updates, could continue to compete with that time investment for some time
- introducing them to another money sink that you see no part of.
- forego revenue that could be easily realized- many of these games have advertising budgets and referral agreements where they're willing to pay out for visibility, so why the heck NOT require payment for your service?
Now, that's not to say they aren't treating all these as loss-leaders for now, but given that both the microtransaction market and the "social" markets in gaming are considered a growth field, it seems a tad generous to NOT get money off a socially-driven microtransaction game like a F2P MMO.
What makes more sense for steam: Give away a foothold in a growing market to bolster its somewhat-stabilized existing model, or leverage that stable-yet-matured business model to gain an advantage in the emerging-and-growing area?
If you wanted to offer "free" loss leaders, you could probably find safer ones in offering free single-player games. These would have no social network to compete with yours, a finite timesink (no constant updates) and if it offers paid expansions, you may be able to more readily realize that revenue.
Not saying that it can't still be happening, but I believe that if there weren't strings attached, CoH (among others) would already be back on Steam.
Quote:
Now you seem to be ignoring the (edit: one) direct competitor to this game on Steam. Both are F2P with micro-transactions not tied into Steam.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Now, that's not to say they aren't treating all these as loss-leaders for now, but given that both the microtransaction market and the "social" markets in gaming are considered a growth field, it seems a tad generous to NOT get money off a socially-driven microtransaction game like a F2P MMO.
|
In the end I have to ask myself which is the most likely scenario:
- Steam doesn't want F2P games on its service, even if they aren't getting a piece of the micro-transaction pie.
- NCsoft wanting to push its own launcher.
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
Do you KNOW that the competitor to this game is showing up on Steam for free?|
Originally Posted by Snow Globe
Now you seem to be ignoring the (edit: one) direct competitor to this game on Steam. Both are F2P with micro-transactions not tied into Steam.
In the end I have to ask myself which is the most likely scenario:
|
Are you SURE they aren't paying a listing fee for appearing there?
Are you SURE they aren't paying a referral fee for each user that discovers the game through Steam?
Are you SURE they don't flag users that first encountered the game and pay steam a microtransaction?
All of these would be revenue models that Steam could use that would be totally transparent to the user, give Steam reason to promote the F2P game, and help explain why every single developer would opt against a free listing in the service.
Also, I don't play the game and know better than to trust wikipedia, but it does list that game specifically and includes this line: " Valve included support via Steamworks for microtransactions through Steam's purchasing channels for in-game items in these titles, in a similar manner to the existing in-game store for Team Fortress 2" so are you SURE that wikipedia's incorrect in this?
Also, note that one of the other "larger" mmo publishers (hint: another caped competitor) have some of their F2P games up there but not all of them. This may be a sign of "limited resources" on the developer's part or it may be yet another sign that they're putting up only the ones that have a reasonable chance to profit enough to cover the costs of listing there. If it was truly a free no-hassle service, there'd be little reason not to include all your titles. It could actually bring new attention to a dying title and would still be beneficial to Steam as a loss leader. They seemed to put only the ones more likely to generate revenue.
After reading through this most recent page of posts, and without addressing any specific points (it would be a laundry list if I did, and tedious for everyone), I'm going to briefly just make a couple of blanket statements to address the core of the "gain/benefit versus loss/loss leading" arguments here.
In a great many other venues, those might all be arguments worth having. But PEOPLE! In this specific case, with Steam, when ya'll say things like, "I wouldn't want to see Valve take a cut of the money I fork over to Paragon," you're overlooking one huge detail. STEAM. Because even after Steam does take its cut, an MMO's publisher STILL ends up with a crap-ton more money to fork over to its development studios than it had before Steam. The gains dwarf the cuts. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth it for the many MMO publishers who've begun working with Steam over the past year. So, look, all I'm saying is that for the purposes of a fair discussion, maybe we shouldn't be avoiding this GINORMOUS FREAKING DETAIL.
Comparisons to Google aren't technically accurate, but the spirit of the comparison is 100 percent accurate. In a discussion like this, people who don't use Steam or haven't used it in a few years, or who don't like it and avoid it (and avoid knowledge about it beyond hearsay), they're standing next to a colossal elephant in the dark--with absolutely no idea about the size and magnitude of the thing they're standing next to. Go post on the message boards for Star Trek Online or Fallen Earth and tell them that Steam doesn't do an MMO good. Or if you're worried about technical hurdles, post on forums for the handful of multiplayer games (especially well-aged war games) from the early 2000s AND BEFORE THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY who've made a small but profitable come-back, thanks to Steam integration and microtransactions.
Then, come back here to these forums and report, when they're all done laughing at you. 
I'm typing this with a smirk and my tongue is planted firmly in cheek, by the way, in case any of the above reads a little more bluntly from your end of the intertubes. I can and do see where people are coming from with some of the criticisms in this thread, like for DLC, for instance. You love it or you hate it, and people have valid reasons for loving it and hating it. But when the discussion turns toward, "Pfft, what can Steam do for us?", those of us who know better just have to smile and try to formulate a polite and educational response.
@Captain-Electric � Detective Marvel � The Sapien Spider � Moravec Man � The Old Norseman
Dark-Eyes � Doctor Serpentine � Stonecaster � Skymaiden � The Blue Jaguar
Guide to Altitis � A Comic for New Players � The Lore Project � Intro to extraterrestrials in CoH
Quote:
As in free for the customer, yes.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Do you KNOW that the competitor to this game is showing up on Steam for free?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Are you SURE they aren't paying a listing fee for appearing there?
Are you SURE they aren't paying a referral fee for each user that discovers the game through Steam? Are you SURE they don't flag users that first encountered the game and pay steam a microtransaction? |
I'm sure the super hero MMO on Steam has announced their partnership with Steam and has Steam achievements so Valve is getting something out of the deal (if only publicity). Steam has got free advertising at that game's community.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
All of these would be revenue models that Steam could use that would be totally transparent to the user, give Steam reason to promote the F2P game, and help explain why every single developer would opt against a free listing in the service.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Also, I don't play the game and know better than to trust wikipedia, but it does list that game specifically and includes this line: " Valve included support via Steamworks for microtransactions through Steam's purchasing channels for in-game items in these titles, in a similar manner to the existing in-game store for Team Fortress 2" so are you SURE that wikipedia's incorrect in this?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
If it was truly a free no-hassle service, there'd be little reason not to include all your titles. It could actually bring new attention to a dying title and would still be beneficial to Steam as a loss leader. They seemed to put only the ones more likely to generate revenue.
|
The sad thing about this conversation is that we're both speculating as to motives of groups we don't belong to.
I'll end my time in this thread with the following quote from another (not competitor) MMO game developer's blog (game's name hidden):
Quote:
|
Steam is the best digital distribution platform Ive ever seen. Ive spent incredible amounts of money on it, and I own a crazy amount of games on it. It runs great, offers great services like that shift+tab stuff, and it remembers my credit card details so theres no barrier for me when I want to buy a game. The only downside I can think of is that offline mode is a bit flimsy, and that the game list is sometimes full off DLC releases for stuff I dont even own, and those are some tiny complaints! But.. Being on Steam limits a lot of what were allowed to do with the game, and how were allowed to talk to our users. We (probably?) wouldnt be able to, say, sell capes or have a map market place on *******.*** that works with steam customers in a way that keeps Valve happy. It would effectively split the ******* community into two parts, where only some of the players can access all of the weird content we want to add to the game. We are talking to Valve about this, but I definitely understand their reasons for wanting to control their platform. Theres a certain inherent incompatibility between what we want to do and what they want to do. So theres no big argument, we just dont want to limit what we can do with *******. Also, Steam is awesome. Much more awesome than certain other digital distribution platforms that we would NOT want to release ******* on. |
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
As I said before, I can play all of the single player offline games that I have just fine without an internet connection by launching Steam in offline mode. *shrug* Dunno what folks are talking about with "always on DRM" when they talk about Steam. Might be some individual games that have that, but none of the ones I have.
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Constant Internet connections for non-online games are asinine.
That's just my opinion. I bought a single player game to play just that: single. *******. player. Whether I have an online connection or not shouldn't matter if i never intend to use any of the online features . . . which for single player games, I don't. Imagine when PSN went down for a month due to hacking last year, if your entire PS3 library of games was unavailable. I'm sure that'd be a lot of fun. |
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
Quote:
Fight? I corrected you an an obvious misconception you were expressing ( That the poster you were replying to was suggesting using spam to advertise CoH ). Why do so many people on the internet think that correcting them or disagreeing with them = "picking a fight" or "jumping down their throat"?
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Because I made one offhand comment and had you jump down my throat assuming my knowledge on the subject was somehow limited and that I wasn't 100% "technically" correct in how I said what I said. Big effing deal. It's a gaming message board, not one of my friggin' business classes in college.
Oh please. You're the one that decided you wanted to *fight* about this. Have fun shadow boxing kiddo. |
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
If they could do it where NCSoft/Paragon studios gets all of the micro-transaction money I'd see COH remaining on steam.
) etc.
The advertising of COH on steam could be good. As long as steam was no suddenly one day required to play coh, I'd be fine with it.
I would most certainly NOT be fine if it were announced that every player needed to one day suddenly install steam ON TOP of the NCSoft Launcher.
If they do go back to Steam, fine, just make so that those of us who don't want it, can still launch the game the regular way.
I don't give a rats *** if my offline or other gaming friends know what I'm playing. I don't do friends list in XBox Live or PSN. If I want to do multi player I do so, with lists and all that other useless nonsense off. Don't waste my gaming time with extraneous crap.
If i want to chat there's facebook, yahoo chat, gchat, in-game coh chat channles (
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!