What would it take to convince Bethesda to abandon Steam?

[Lachdonin]

 

If the current anti-piracy was the answer piracy would go down not up.

 

 

 

That's a false base for your argument. Video game sales continue to rise, far faster than piracy rates. So the current anti-piracy methods are actually working, but eradicating piracy altogether is impossible.

 

And peoples problems with Steam are not a relevant issue. Some people have trouble breathing, doesn't mean air isn't amazing.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Lachdonin

[Deleted5770650User]

 

 

If the current anti-piracy was the answer piracy would go down not up.

 

 

 

That's a false base for your argument. Video game sales continue to rise, far faster than piracy rates. So the current anti-piracy methods are actually working, but eradicating piracy altogether is impossible.

 

And peoples problems with Steam are not a relevant issue. Some people have trouble breathing, doesn't mean air isn't amazing.

 

 

They are both on the rise, but it is still true. If the current anti-piracy was the answer sales would go up and, piracy would stay the same or go down. Many pirates pirate games to use as a demo, and if it worth buying they will if not delete it. This kind of pirate could be removed by game developers, and publishers releaseing demos.

 

If games are doing so much better why are there less of them? Not just PC, but for consoles aswell

[Lachdonin]

 

If games are doing so much better why are there less of them? Not just PC, but for consoles aswell

 

 

Whaaat? Have... have you been paying attention to PC games? Steam's support of indi-development has spawned hundreds of games over the last year. Its true, it was a rather slow year for Consoles, but that's typical for the first 6-12 months after a new generation releases. Combined with the massive increase in browser games and app-games... Games are definitely not getting fewer in number.

[Deleted5770650User]

 

 

If games are doing so much better why are there less of them? Not just PC, but for consoles aswell

 

 

Whaaat? Have... have you been paying attention to PC games? Steam's support of indi-development has spawned hundreds of games over the last year. Its true, it was a rather slow year for Consoles, but that's typical for the first 6-12 months after a new generation releases. Combined with the massive increase in browser games and app-games... Games are definitely not getting fewer in number.

 

 

That may be. I would not know, I don't find Indie games worth playing. I bought a few, and they had more bugs then your average EA game. Not only that but the developers abanonded them with out one update. With that said I don't count indie games as games.

 

That is unless you count Skyrim as an Indie game.

[Boombro]

 

 

 

If games are doing so much better why are there less of them? Not just PC, but for consoles aswell

 

 

Whaaat? Have... have you been paying attention to PC games? Steam's support of indi-development has spawned hundreds of games over the last year. Its true, it was a rather slow year for Consoles, but that's typical for the first 6-12 months after a new generation releases. Combined with the massive increase in browser games and app-games... Games are definitely not getting fewer in number.

 

 

That may be. I would not know, I don't find Indie games worth playing. I bought a few, and they had more bugs then your average EA game. Not only that but the developers abanonded them with out one update. With that said I don't count indie games as games.

 

That is unless you count Skyrim as an Indie game.

 

That normal, they are indie games and most of them are beta and alpha. They make them buyable to be able to go all the way to the first, full version because hey only have starting money most of time. Most of the time they stop because it gets hard, lose money or real life b&@*$ slap.

 

I was lucky to find some indie games that are Alpha and has less bugs then EA, get updates at least once every two months and having fun, like the long dark (hardcore frostfall.) don't strave and the forest is pretty updated every month and it really cool.

[dayglo98]

The original post made me want to punch someone.

[Deleted5770650User]

The only thing I really hate about steam is "customer support" those ........... never do any good, and love calling customers the absolute worst things they can get away with.

[Hyacathusarullistad]

I use to complain about Steam. A lot. Then I was forced to install Origin in order to play the Mass Effect trilogy, and I will never, at any point during the remainder of my natural life, complain about Steam again. Origin is so much worse in every conceivable way - it requires more resources, is harder to shut down and keep from restarting itself, has no functioning update feature and requires you to manually check for new updates every now and then, and has literally zero actual official support to speak of.

 

Steam can be a pain, yes. I hate having to have it installed, and I can count on one hand the number of games I've purchased digitally through it (I also prefer physical discs). But the alternatives are so much worse.

[Lord Garon]

The OP asked what would be needed for Bethesda to dump Steam. It is, in reality, a very important question in regards to PC gaming. bben argues it is a piracy issue. It is more complex than that, and the piracy argument is especially suspect in a Skyrim forum. Let's look at the non-piracy side of things for a minute. (The following numbers are estimates, but can easily be found via your favorite search engine.)

 

Skyrim cost upwards of $100,000,000 (USD) to produce. Note that NO ONE gambles $100,000,000 on a high risk venture without some assurance of a return. Skyrim SOLD upwards of 20,000,000 10,000,000 retail copies the first year or so. At $60.00 a copy, that's $600,000,000 in revenue. Two years ago. Bethesda admits Skyrim did better than they anticipated. Piracy notwithstanding, Skyrim made a relatively immediate gross return of 6:1. Of course, Bethesda didn't get all of the retail sales, but I don't hear them claiming to have lost money on Skyrim. Consider, as well, that DRM only works for a few days before the typical game is cracked. Skyrim sold millions of copies at full retail AFTER pirates cracked the game. The question, for Skyrim, is not how much money was LOST (none, the game made a profit) to piracy, but how much profit do you need to make compared to a $100,000,000 investment somewhere else? 3%? 10%? 600%? 1% profit on $600,000,000 is $6,000,000. Profit. After all costs are considered. Money in the bank. Party coin. If Bethesda "did better than anticipated" with Skyrim, its not hard to imagine their profits were in-line with, or exceeded, those of similar investments. $100,000,000 can generate investment returns of many tens of percents per year, so I assume Bethesda did better than that, even up to or exceeding 100%. Even in the midst of game wrecking piracy. Let's say pirates d/l'd 10,000,000 copies and didn't buy the game. (They didn't need Steam to play it, either.) Bethesda went from a potential12:1 return, to 6:1. That's a ridiculous amount of piracy, but you can see what I'm getting at.

 

The point here is that a good product will generate good revenue because a sufficient number of honest gamers will actually buy that product. I'm sick of hearing the rationalization that game studios "lose" money because of piracy. The fact is that GOOD products sell, INFERIOR products do not, and piracy simply impacts, if anything, the level of PROFIT on good games. Most people are NOT pirates, do NOT d/l torrents, and will spend money to play a good game. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be a game market. Period. Game publishers KNOW this. They KNOW a viable market exists, else they wouldn't participate in the first place. They aren't stupid. Like ALL retailers, they check markets, do surveys, analyze spending habits, etc, etc, etc, BEFORE committing to a "risky" endeavor. The publishers DEMAND it, or do it themselves; it's their money on the line. The only unknowns are final quality and user perceptions of the actual product, just like in every other retail business. If piracy were actually "game breaking", we simply wouldn't have games.

 

Is piracy bad? YES. Its wrong. Its illegal. Its a criminal act. And it has nothing to do with technology; its a social issue. It will not be solved by technology. Why then, do we have DRM? Beyond the massive profits which entertainment media generates in the world, lies the realm of unrealized profit. A potential gain. A few percent of massive profit is significant money. Yes, I honestly believe DRM is a result of greed, not actual losses (don't confuse LOSS with REDUCED PROFIT). "Awwwoooouuuhhh, we LOSE millions of dollars a year to piracy, aaaahhhhuuu." No. You MAKE hundreds of millions of dollars a year in spite of the piracy. Instead of dealing with known market issues and punishing the criminal elements, studios attempt to craft legislation against ignorance (many users are clueless and see a pirated torrent as just a file they can d/l) and basic human nature (some criminal proclivity) by imposing restrictions and necessity only upon those who DON'T participate in piracy. Pirates aren't impacted by Steam TOS and user agreements which nullify user rights. Pirates don't run unnecessary and intrusive Steam clients. ONLY HONEST, LEGAL GAMERS ARE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY DRM. Pirates crack a game and move on. Honest gamers who spend money are forced to give up consumer rights, load unwanted software, and are forcibly required to maintain a relationship with a 3'rd party company they wouldn't spit on to save from burning.

 

People extoll the "virtues" of Steam; chat, image share, digital d/l, etc. If you simply reflect for two seconds, you realize that NONE of those "virtues" are unique to Steam. In fact, most of them are better accomplished by standalone programs. ANY cloud or storage site (thousands of them) is accessible from anywhere. I mean the Nexus incorporates many of the "virtues" attributed to Steam. Its simply beyond me why anyone would voluntarily register with Steam. In fact, they probably wouldn't, except for the drm requirement to do so. THAT'S why I hate Steam.

 

Of course, it could be argued that Steam allowed a large percentage of initial Skyrim sales. Possibly, but digital distribution doesn't need Steam; Bethesda could have offered it or contracted someone else (Hey, Nexus...) Gamers would have found Skyrim wherever it was offered.

 

EDIT: typo

Edited December 30, 2014 by Lord Garon

[notmyhome]

I think "The Interview" is a nice example of what happens when you abandon all DRM measures: 2 million copies rented, 1.5 million torrented.