paradox anti-drm? not from my experience.

[Darkrenown]

By not buying your games for me or to give away like I used to.

But EUIV isn't even out yet and none of internal games have been Steam only so far. So you're not just not buying our Steam only games, you're not buying any of our games because we also had Steam versions? Actually, I have just noticed your "Steam is a cancer" sig, so the irrationality of your actions makes more sense now. It's an online games store, not a deadly disease.

You guys do what you want and I will continue to vote with my wallet. Cheers!

Doing that is fine, it was giving out terrible business advice and calling us cheap I objected to. I accept that some people don't want to use Steam, although I don't understand it, it doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when people insult or berate others for not following their belief, act as if their rejection of an everyday product or service makes them somehow superior to those who use it, or proclaim things to be bad based on false information. Unthinking irrational hatred also rubs me the wrong way, I guess.

What I would like to know is whether or not part of Steam's agreement with you guys is that your games MUST use a Steam-specific installer in order for your product to be carried and sold by them?

I have no inside info on the subject, as I'm not involved in that, but given a large part of Steam's function is streamlining and standardising the download/install/running of the games they sell I would imagine so.

 

[Lor Dric]

yeah, sorry I called you cheap that was wrong of me.:sad:

 

[bmountney]

I can see what your trying to do, but if you had read previous messages you would see that even with steam "installing" your game, you are not "bound" to keep installing it on steam.

Now that I've completed the thread, I apologize for having missed both your post and the Paradox developers' posts that made this point. I had previously read the first page-and-a-half intently, but then had started skimming the last half page or so because I had to leave soon, and misinterpreted those posts as referring to Steam's offline mode.

Bill

 

[TheLoneGunman]

I have no inside info on the subject, as I'm not involved in that, but given a large part of Steam's function is streamlining and standardising the download/install/running of the games they sell I would imagine so.

And THAT right there is what I happen to have a problem with. One man's streamlining the games they sell is another man's monopolizing the game industry.

 

[Teurlinx]

And THAT right there is what I happen to have a problem with. One man's streamlining the games they sell is another man's monopolizing the game industry.

And how can they monopolize when they don't own the rights to the games?

 

[TheLoneGunman]

And how can they monopolize when they don't own the rights to the games?

Come talk to me in 5 years when you can't find a game that doesn't require Steam.

 

[Pellaken]

And how can they monopolize when they don't own the rights to the games?

They monopolize the distribution. Check these quotes from a nearby thread

This is nothing to do with Paradox whatsoever.

That still doesn't affect the fact that no one here can give you an official answer about Steam internal policys

Paradox now has "nothing to do" with Paradox games. Or rather, a part of it. The important part, the buying.

I understand the argument made in these two quotes; my argument is that this is a dangerous precedent, not for us the buyers, but for you the sellers, because whenever Steam has a problem, suddenly, Paradox has a problem.

 

[James The 1st]

They monopolize the distribution. Check these quotes from a nearby thread





Paradox now has "nothing to do" with Paradox games. Or rather, a part of it. The important part, the buying.

I understand the argument made in these two quotes; my argument is that this is a dangerous precedent, not for us the buyers, but for you the sellers, because whenever Steam has a problem, suddenly, Paradox has a problem.

How is that a problem? There aren't many industries where the company actually controls how the seller sells their product.

 

[Pellaken]

They can go to other sellers. Once Paradox settles in with Steam, and many others do too, my guess is finding other sellers will be difficult to do once Steam tightens the screw on developers.

 

[James The 1st]

They can go to other sellers. Once Paradox settles in with Steam, and many others do too, my guess is finding other sellers will be difficult to do once Steam tightens the screw on developers.

But that is a hypothetical problem. Why would Steam tighten the screws? It would just kill what they set up.

 

[Pellaken]

I'd also like to add that I don't think the developers see the potential harm in attaching themselves to Steam.

Steam is great for the end user. Steam has to be to attract users in other to drive other game distribution companies out of business. There are those, however, who have an irrational hate for Steam. These users destroy the logical discussion about Steam, and get the developers "backs up" over the issue.

Having all of Paradox's games on Steam is not bad for us the user, or, me personally (I already have Steam and have multiple games on it, as well as am part of a social network there) but it is bad for Paradox, because it gives Steam too much control over Paradox's games - the main product of a company which develops games.



I'd also like to note I made this same argument WRT Toronto Transit buses. Toronto wanted to buy all the same model of buses. Doing so saves millions in maintenance and buying. I pointed out "What if there is something wrong with the bus"

Turns out there was.

Toronto is now buying it's first buses from another company in over a decade.

 

[Teurlinx]

They monopolize the distribution. Check these quotes from a nearby thread





Paradox now has "nothing to do" with Paradox games. Or rather, a part of it. The important part, the buying.

I understand the argument made in these two quotes; my argument is that this is a dangerous precedent, not for us the buyers, but for you the sellers, because whenever Steam has a problem, suddenly, Paradox has a problem.

And if games developers don't want to use Steam they have no other option? Come on, there is no monopoly. Steam has not tools to enforce one except for giving a good deal to developers / publishers and hope they come to them.

 

[Pellaken]

there is no monopoly

More importantly

is

I do not dispute that. I dispute that this will remain the situation.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

And if games developers don't want to use Steam they have no other option? Come on, there is no monopoly. Steam has not tools to enforce one except for giving a good deal to developers / publishers and hope they come to them.

The market is so cornered that by not getting into bed with Steam they end up losing money.

See CK2.

 

[luciusETRUR]

They monopolize the distribution. Check these quotes from a nearby thread





Paradox now has "nothing to do" with Paradox games. Or rather, a part of it. The important part, the buying.

I understand the argument made in these two quotes; my argument is that this is a dangerous precedent, not for us the buyers, but for you the sellers, because whenever Steam has a problem, suddenly, Paradox has a problem.

Paradox Web Shop..?

 

[luciusETRUR]

The market is so cornered that by not getting into bed with Steam they end up losing money.

See CK2.

It's not a monopoly. People use Steam because it's easy, they have great deals and has a huge catalogue. For me, if I buy from GG or GOG I get charged an international fee, so why do that when I can buy from Steam and not? Calling Steam a monopoly is the same mistake that was made in America in late 19th century. Just because someone has large amounts of the marketshare, it doesn't mean it's a monopoly, perhaps they provide the best service?

 

[xoin]

I once thought of buying a game from a different source than Steam, hooded men from Valve stormed into the room and broke my kneecaps.

 

[DrCelt]

I love steam, I use it a lot, but sometimes people are stupid.

Calling Steam a monopoly is the same mistake that was made in America in late 19th century. Just because someone has large amounts of the marketshare, it doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

If someone has a large amount of market share, they have a monopoly (Not a pure monopoly, as in economics this is highly improbable, but a monopoly nonetheless)

Come talk to me in 5 years when you can't find a game that doesn't require Steam.

This is a use of the "Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy." (Google it.)

 

[TheLoneGunman]

This is a use of the "Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy." (Google it.)

Steam's share of sales have steadily rose. They now account for more than half of all digital distribution of PC games, and all of their games require that their client software be installed before the game can be installed (and this isn't even counting the games purchased elsewhere that require you to install the Steam client).

It cornered the market by using its large user base as leverage to make game designers incorporate a Steam client installer into their games. In order to save money and cut down on redundancy, the game designers avoid creating a non-Steam installer.

At this point no other online digital distribution company can change this path. If GamersGate stopped carrying games that didn't use a GamersGate-only installer, GG would soon fade away into oblivion because no developer in their right mind would consider wasting money catering to GamersGate, they're all already busy catering to Steam.

The terms Steam sets with game designers has placed it in a unique position to be both a shop from which to purchase games and a service with which to install and manage games that prevents anyone else from doing the same (once you're down the Steam route, you're not going to switch horses).

 

[DrCelt]

The terms Steam sets with game designers has placed it in a unique position to be both a shop from which to purchase games and a service with which to install and manage games that prevents anyone else from doing the same (once you're down the Steam route, you're not going to switch horses).

Yes, They have a monopoly, Yes, they benefit from Economies of scale (It can be a good thing for consumers too.) - But this doesn't mean they're consolidating their power trying to take over the PC industry and overprice consumers.