Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Valve Is Killing The PC Market Apparently....

  1. #51

    Default

    Yeah, the problem is pretty much that no one else does it as well as Steam. Microsoft could easily, but their focus is on the XBox which is far more lucrative for them. They also have the problem that if they charge for GFWL, then Steam is superior because its free, but if they dont charge for it, they make it kinda clear that XBL customers are getting ripped.

    I think Steam's success shows what a good business head Valve has. Their weekend sales are great at moving units of older games that people didnt buy before. I bought Supreme Commander 2 and its first DLC through them for like R50. Valve's pricing elasticity is a massive advantage that no other company has really thought to use like they do.

    When other companies pull finger and innovate then we will see an end to Steam's dominance. If everyone is going to bitch and moan about monopolies but not do anything to improve, then nothing will happen.

  2. #52
    to0kenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere Set West
    Posts
    8,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by czc View Post
    How dare valve make a fun game like L4D2!
    Haaahahaaaahaaa!

    The audacity! OMG!

  3. #53
    Stefan9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pretoria,for now
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancalagon View Post
    Yeah, the problem is pretty much that no one else does it as well as Steam. Microsoft could easily, but their focus is on the XBox which is far more lucrative for them. They also have the problem that if they charge for GFWL, then Steam is superior because its free, but if they dont charge for it, they make it kinda clear that XBL customers are getting ripped.

    I think Steam's success shows what a good business head Valve has. Their weekend sales are great at moving units of older games that people didnt buy before. I bought Supreme Commander 2 and its first DLC through them for like R50. Valve's pricing elasticity is a massive advantage that no other company has really thought to use like they do.

    When other companies pull finger and innovate then we will see an end to Steam's dominance. If everyone is going to bitch and moan about monopolies but not do anything to improve, then nothing will happen.
    Steam isn't just superior because its free. Its software is vastly superior to games for windows live. Also MS already tried to charge pc gamers for games for windows live, it didn't work. That's why they decide they rather focus on the xbox 360 gamers, who are willing to pay a subscription fee.

    Steam also has a major advantage in content the ms marketplace just pales in comparison to steam and all the other pc digital distrobutors as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by stabularasa View Post
    As if those other companies pose any sort of threat to Steam. Yes, the traditional definition of monopoly is that there is only one source for a product, but in the modern world a monopoly also exists when there is no tangible competition for one hugely dominant force in the marketplace, and that the dominant one can single handedly influence the other players at any time. Steam also engages in anti-competitive practices such as exclusive dealing and product bundling.
    Never said they posed a threat to steam. The point is if the consumer doesn't like steam's offering he has other options. In the cases of telkom and microsoft there is very little to no alternative.

    As for exvlusive dealing steam is hardly the only retailer guilty of this. Gamespot is as guilty of this as steam.

  4. #54
    DenSweeP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa, South Africa
    Posts
    3,361

    Default

    Steam as a online digital distribution platform is very cool.

    BUT, they must stay the FUCK away from the hosting games thing like with COD:M2 and Black Ops. Why do I need to authenticate to Steam first? Why do I need to be connected to Steam to be able to play my games? Incredibly annoying!

  5. #55
    to0kenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere Set West
    Posts
    8,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DenSweeP View Post
    Steam as a online digital distribution platform is very cool.

    BUT, they must stay the FUCK away from the hosting games thing like with COD:M2 and Black Ops. Why do I need to authenticate to Steam first? Why do I need to be connected to Steam to be able to play my games? Incredibly annoying!
    Yes that is a big load of BS. Sometimes when steam is down it's such a MISH to try and play some of the games. Ffs man, last time we wanted to play killing floor, and I was hosting, I had to go get both my international and local IPs to give to my friends so they could join. Everytime I hosted it would choose one of those IPs and they had to join manually. What QaQ!

    If people pay good money for games, why should they be limited to be able to play only when Steam is working?

  6. #56
    smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ministry of Silly Walks
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Anyone tried OnLive? Seem like a decent competitor to Steam - though they are brand spanking new and I really don't know how they will fare but the concept is good.

    EDIT: Tells me I must piss off coz I have a high latency... will try again when I go to Europe.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokey View Post
    Anyone tried OnLive? Seem like a decent competitor to Steam - though they are brand spanking new and I really don't know how they will fare but the concept is good.

    EDIT: Tells me I must piss off coz I have a high latency... will try again when I go to Europe.
    AFAIK OnLive only works in the US at the moment and you have to be within a certain distance of the servers due to latency since the game output is streamed to you. You would need sub 20ms to their servers for it to be playable.

  8. #58
    smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ministry of Silly Walks
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhand View Post
    AFAIK OnLive only works in the US at the moment and you have to be within a certain distance of the servers due to latency since the game output is streamed to you. You would need sub 20ms to their servers for it to be playable.
    I noticed. THough to be honest, I did read that 50-80ms was acceptable. If they base their revenue model on geographic servers, it'll be quite unsustainable.

    EDIT: They are opening UK, Belgium and Lichtenstein/Luxembourg(!!) branches as well.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokey View Post
    I noticed. THough to be honest, I did read that 50-80ms was acceptable. If they base their revenue model on geographic servers, it'll be quite unsustainable.

    EDIT: They are opening UK, Belgium and Lichtenstein/Luxembourg(!!) branches as well.
    They are obviously going to expand =) Its just a fairly new service at the moment so they only have servers up in the US. I think for SA using something like OnLive is a LONG way off though. We would need local servers and the bandwidth and hosting costs of something like that in SA would be completely unsustainable, considering for HD gameplay they need to provide 5mbs of bandwidth to each player AND pretty much dedicate a high end gaming PC to them in the datacentre. I imagine it was difficult enough trying to make it financially viable in the US and UK.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •