Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: GuestWait, I've actually got people taking issue with me saying that Valve doesn't do the marketing of other people's games for them, for free.

I think what you've got is people taking issue with you saying that Valve doesn't do (some of the) marketing of other people's games for them, for a 30% cut.

Who's right seems to be coming down to a question of definition: What is marketing? What counts as marketing? I'm not a marketer and I hate marketing, so I avoid knowing what a professional would consider counts. So I don't know the answer to those questions. It does seem as if Valve do some things that stimulate people's games to be sold more.

Valve obviously want people to buy more from Steam, so they'll have incentives for that - various sales, basically. Difference though is that such things are for Steam, or could go so far as to say opportunistic adverts for specific, groups of games. They can't do it for every single game though, and it's not guaranteed, so it simply can't be considered a service that's part of the 30% cut.

I really didn't think it would be such a contentious statement, especially because it's nothing to do with whether the cut is worth it or not, nothing to do with Wolfire.

....and yeah, I should just stop here, walk away. I really should, but if I can't say something that boils down to as simple as "Steam is a marketplace, not a marketing firm" without being attacked, do I even want to be in this community anymore? Maybe I'll just block more users, keep going for a bit longer.

Who is attacking you here? You just talk about markering. I ask you what marketing that would be. You say: there is plenty... What?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)?

I have a serious philosophical problem with what you just said. It is not the case.
Some people think the earth is flat. That is their opinion. It is wrong. The earth is not flat.

The question here is what people would call an opinion. There's a saying: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts." [External Link] I wouldn't call "earth is flat" an opinion.

That's always bugging me so damn much. The dumbest nonsense gets excuses with "it's just my opinion."

Toast Hawaii is disgusting, imho. That's an opinion. Nothing you can prove. The Earth isn't flat. That's a fact. Can't be disputed. Not an opinion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?

Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.

You're making bath faith arguments.

Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.

Bath faith arguments? Is that supposed to mean something? I feel like you're trying to be insulting, but sorry that's entirely lost on me.

I said Valve does no marketing for a game with the 30% cut they take. It's simply not a service they provide that should be counted towards such a cut. They do marketing of a sort - obviously with certain publishers for front page splashes on new releases, or for their own benefit, there are additional factors at play.
However, quite how you see a single title inside of possibly hundreds during a sale as marketing that title, I'm at a bit of a loss about. Also how it comes as a service from that 30% cut?
Valve provide a marketplace with Steam, provides many services, but does not provide marketing. If it were an actual physical marketplace, then Valve (through Steam) would provide the space, would provide notice boards, power, a little hut for wares. They might even try to encourage people into the marketplace area. But they won't market those wares to others, won't make one hut stand out from any other, from the basic area rental (i.e the 30% cut).

...are you saying that Valve actually will? Because that's not a service they can provide for every game. Of course not. Are you saying they're charging for a service they can't provide?

Is there anything Valve could do that you would consider marketing?

Plenty, but I don't think they even should.

Any example?

To what end?

To know what you mean... how hard can it be?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?

Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.

You're making bath faith arguments.

Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.

Bath faith arguments? Is that supposed to mean something? I feel like you're trying to be insulting, but sorry that's entirely lost on me.

I said Valve does no marketing for a game with the 30% cut they take. It's simply not a service they provide that should be counted towards such a cut. They do marketing of a sort - obviously with certain publishers for front page splashes on new releases, or for their own benefit, there are additional factors at play.
However, quite how you see a single title inside of possibly hundreds during a sale as marketing that title, I'm at a bit of a loss about. Also how it comes as a service from that 30% cut?
Valve provide a marketplace with Steam, provides many services, but does not provide marketing. If it were an actual physical marketplace, then Valve (through Steam) would provide the space, would provide notice boards, power, a little hut for wares. They might even try to encourage people into the marketplace area. But they won't market those wares to others, won't make one hut stand out from any other, from the basic area rental (i.e the 30% cut).

...are you saying that Valve actually will? Because that's not a service they can provide for every game. Of course not. Are you saying they're charging for a service they can't provide?

Is there anything Valve could do that you would consider marketing?

Plenty, but I don't think they even should.

Any example?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?

Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.

You're making bath faith arguments.

Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.

Bath faith arguments? Is that supposed to mean something? I feel like you're trying to be insulting, but sorry that's entirely lost on me.

I said Valve does no marketing for a game with the 30% cut they take. It's simply not a service they provide that should be counted towards such a cut. They do marketing of a sort - obviously with certain publishers for front page splashes on new releases, or for their own benefit, there are additional factors at play.
However, quite how you see a single title inside of possibly hundreds during a sale as marketing that title, I'm at a bit of a loss about. Also how it comes as a service from that 30% cut?
Valve provide a marketplace with Steam, provides many services, but does not provide marketing. If it were an actual physical marketplace, then Valve (through Steam) would provide the space, would provide notice boards, power, a little hut for wares. They might even try to encourage people into the marketplace area. But they won't market those wares to others, won't make one hut stand out from any other, from the basic area rental (i.e the 30% cut).

...are you saying that Valve actually will? Because that's not a service they can provide for every game. Of course not. Are you saying they're charging for a service they can't provide?

Is there anything Valve could do that you would consider marketing?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: GuestValve don't really provide marketing

They have millions of pairs of eyeballs they can put your game in front of, and they've invested heavily in putting it in front of the eyeballs of customers that are likely to buy your game, as well as providing detailed sales data about which regions are interested in your game and when interest is generated. If you have a better term for that than "marketing," please share.

Except Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers. It could be argued that way long ago, but not anymore. Steam provides the marketplace, but a developer must still do their own marketing to make it stand out from the rest.

--edit
Again, which is really inconsequential - I don't believe Valve officially offer marketing in general for their normal cut, though obviously will have agreements with certain publishers. That's special case I would think, not part of the generic 30% (or less, if you're one of the bigger publishers that will move enough units).

Steam Next [External Link] festival

Sorry, but is there some point you're trying to make?

Yes, in response to your "Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers" which I have demonstrated is just not true. There are also other mechanisms within Steam that are constantly being developed like recommendation systems, etc.

Well Steam doesn't. The developer/publisher still has to make it happen. Steam is a marketplace - it provides the infrastructure, but don't confuse that with actively marketing someone's game for them. And those other mechanisms all rely on gobbling up existing user data, moving it through some algorithms, and feeding the output back to the users; it's the typical case of Valve having the customer base do such work without Valve needing to put much effort in. Is there some kind of problem with that I'm not aware of?
If Valve put a title up front & centre on their store, then that won't come out of the 30% cut. That's from something extra.

Valve specifically puts on sales for certain games. They are for example planing a "Games from Germany" event that will happen in a few months.

It's their incentive to do that... to sell more games. To sell more games you gotta put them in front of people.

Valve has a sale != Valve will market my games for me.

It's putting the games right on the storefront with a popup. What more do you want?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: GuestValve don't really provide marketing

They have millions of pairs of eyeballs they can put your game in front of, and they've invested heavily in putting it in front of the eyeballs of customers that are likely to buy your game, as well as providing detailed sales data about which regions are interested in your game and when interest is generated. If you have a better term for that than "marketing," please share.

Except Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers. It could be argued that way long ago, but not anymore. Steam provides the marketplace, but a developer must still do their own marketing to make it stand out from the rest.

--edit
Again, which is really inconsequential - I don't believe Valve officially offer marketing in general for their normal cut, though obviously will have agreements with certain publishers. That's special case I would think, not part of the generic 30% (or less, if you're one of the bigger publishers that will move enough units).

Steam Next [External Link] festival

Sorry, but is there some point you're trying to make?

Yes, in response to your "Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers" which I have demonstrated is just not true. There are also other mechanisms within Steam that are constantly being developed like recommendation systems, etc.

Well Steam doesn't. The developer/publisher still has to make it happen. Steam is a marketplace - it provides the infrastructure, but don't confuse that with actively marketing someone's game for them. And those other mechanisms all rely on gobbling up existing user data, moving it through some algorithms, and feeding the output back to the users; it's the typical case of Valve having the customer base do such work without Valve needing to put much effort in. Is there some kind of problem with that I'm not aware of?
If Valve put a title up front & centre on their store, then that won't come out of the 30% cut. That's from something extra.

Valve specifically puts on sales for certain games. They are for example planing a "Games from Germany" event that will happen in a few months.

It's their incentive to do that... to sell more games. To sell more games you gotta put them in front of people.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerThe $100 that developers pay is minimalistic gatekeeping, it doesn't fund anything.

The $100 go to charity.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: berarmaMaybe Valve doesn't care but users should. Proton games come without support, that means the user doesn't have any rights regarding their purchase. In case of issues the developer can answer with "no Linux, play it on Windows" and they're right. Native games are supported, you're entitled to have the game working on Linux as the developer promised and they shouldn't do anything to prevent it.

To date, no Proton game is supported. What does Valve have to say about this?

I guess that's why Valve have the "verified" thing they are now working on.

If they verify it...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIt's quite a non-committal answer, the sort you get from politicians.

Judging from investment and effort, it very much looks like Valve prefer "Proton". Just easier for them, makes complete sense. Supposedly however the Deck isn't as closed up as consoles, so it shouldn't matter what Valve want - it should matter what the community wants, what developers want.

How is it non-committal? And how is Proton easier for Valve? The constantly have to update it and work on it to make new games working. Native games would be easier for them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments