Steam

Ok, I will try not to be completely inflammatory in this one, but holy shit, this crap is getting old. As of this morning, Microsoft now officially owns ZeniMax Media (Bethesda’s parent corp), and wasted no time telling us that there will be Bethesda games exclusive to PC and Xbox in the future.

As you may surmount by my intent to restrain myself from writing an entire post of just expletives, I don’t like platform exclusivity. I fucking hate it.

I hate Epic Game Store with a fiery, burning passion and have never spent a single dollar of my own money in there because it is a shallow, contemptable cesspit where competition goes to die. And yes, this is me holding back. I will likely have a rant about EGS alone at some point in the future.

Better than Unebin Games | Epic Games Store | Know Your Meme — It true, tho.

Platform exclusivity is anti-consumer. Plain and simple.

I know, I may have already lost some of my audience due to my language, or because I might be coming across as a Steam fanboy (I am, a little), but just hear me out: exclusivity on a platform that should and can be open (like PC) is a cancer that burdens the consumer with less choice, more complication and ultimately, encourages piracy.

I wasn’t going to go in on this today, but fuck it, we’re here, so let’s do this. Get ready for a long rant about why exclusivity is bad.

First, let’s talk a bit about film and music.

Back in the late 90s and early 00s, digital piracy was all the rage. Napster and other early file share programs were credited with killing both the film and music industry. (More so the music industry, but that’s not particularly relevant). And of course it did. Not only did it change the price of a $20 CD or DVD to free, but it also made it incredibly easy to find anything you were looking for. Both free and convenient. Hard to beat that kind of value.

But as some of us will remember, quality was often lacking, and there was always a risk you might download something illicit, or harmful to your computer. So when iTunes, Netflix and Spotify came along… it was a breath of fresh air. Suddenly, I can buy any song for $0.99, or just pay a monthly subscription and get a huge library of content that I can access anywhere at any time. Plus, now I’m at least giving something back to the artists.

May be an image of 1 person and text that says "App Salesman: slaps streaming service this bad boy can fit so much fucking exposure in it Spotify" — Daniel Elk is still a dickhead, though.

Yet, as we’re all well aware, these days it’s become less simple, at least for film and TV. Music remains fairly available across most platforms, but movies and TV shows are being more and more sectioned off as they were when they were on cable and network television. When before, you just had Neflix and Hulu, now there’s also Amazon Prime, HBOMax, Disney+, CBS All Access, CRAVE, Crunchyroll, and a host of others. Most of these have exclusive content which was at one point, (or even still, depending on what country you’re in) on Netflix. What was once a $8/month sub, has become $80-100/month, which is basically what we were paying for cable in the before times.

This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. This is why millennials and younger generations ditched TV in the first place. It’s expensive, riddled with advertising, and sectioned off into “packages” which very intentionally kill consumer choice, because we really have no options when it comes to service providers. Even in a big city, you rarely get more than 2 or 3 options that are worth anything.

maybe: brigid on Twitter: "Comcast is out across the country and it reminds me of the South Park episode where the cable companies would get off on inconveniencing their customers lmaooo… https://t.co/PItEGAFXxp" — Been a while since I’ve made a good South Park reference.

So what happens? We go back to piracy. I’m certainly not paying for 6 or more subscription services. I’m paying for one or two at most–and then I will find the shows and movies that are otherwise unavailable, via other means–or just not watch them.

I feel the same way about gaming platforms, and especially those which are available on PC. Some of you will say, “well a launcher is just a launcher. You can still play it on PC, so what does it matter if it’s on Steam or Epic?”

A lot, actually.

First, let’s talk about platform features and software design.

I wouldn’t mind other launchers so much if they weren’t absolutely atrocious in their design philosophy. While Steam is by no means perfect, and can be a bloated, dated looking mess sometimes… it’s nearly 18 years old. It’s old enough to vote, as of this year. As such, it has features that other platforms have never even considered adding that I can tell, and it blows my mind, since this should be the bar of quality we’ve come to expect. Especially considering Steam was virtually the only combined DRM platform and store that existed on PC without any competition for years. It is nearly single-handedly responsible for the entire marketplace of modern PC gaming as we know it.

GameSpy arcade. So many demo games played through here, as my parents wouldn't buy me any computer games : nostalgia — Anyone remember GameSpy Arcade?

So why can’t we have the same standards for design on other platforms? For example, no other platform has default controller compatibility other than their own. Sure, Sony supports Dual-Shock controllers, and Microsoft supports XBox controllers, but Steam supports any controller, fully in-UI whether in full-screen or desktop mode. Even the Switch Pro Controller, which was never given any official PC support by Nintendo–Valve just took it upon themselves to make it work. No other platform even attempts this kind of stuff.

Certainly not EA, with Origin which has been around nearly as long as Steam at this point, and not Ubisoft with UPlay, which has also been around almost as long. So why should I support their platforms when they bring nothing to the table? Plus, at least EA and Ubisoft, for all their faults, still bring most of their games to Steam, and allow you to use both launchers (awkwardly).

The good people at Valve added support seemingly overnight, with little fanfair.

So at this point, you start to look at some of the exclusivity that publishers like Epic and Microsoft are trying to pull lately, and I just have to ask, “why?” What is the value they believe they bring to the table? If anything, exclusivity agreements have caused actual irreparable damage to some games and developers. The recent fiasco with Hitman 3, for example, wherein the developer intended to include content from Hitman 1 and 2 for those who already owned the game, but this turned into a technical impossibility, because Hitman 2 doesn’t exist on Epic Store, and Hitman 3 is a timed Epic exclusive, so no one can get Hitman 2 content for Hitman 3 on Epic Store without having to individually buy the content. It’s a fucking mess that could have been avoided simply by not enforcing exclusivity. People who already own the first two games on Steam could be enjoying all the content in Hitman 3 right now on PC, but they can’t, and the only honest answer to “why not?” is greed.

I wouldn’t even mind Microsoft having platform exclusivity if the XBox software on PC wasn’t so horrendously bad. For some reason, they hide game files behind complicated hidden folders, which causes games to crash. This is common problem, and I’ve solved it more than once by purchasing the same game again on Steam. And again, because these files are hidden, it makes it harder to hook the game as a “non-steam game” (a feature Steam has that allows you to hook games outside of Steam so you can use Steam-releated features like 3rd-party controller compatibility). So I can’t use my Switch Pro Controller with Xbox Gamepass games without complicated workarounds. Which sucks, because I otherwise think Gamepass is a pretty good idea.

So, when I see Sony release first-party Playstation titles on Steam and other PC stores a couple years after they release, I see a publisher who understands that branching out to other platforms is good for business.

More games on the way from Sony (allegedly).

Because here’s the thing:

People often argue in favour of Epic’s exclusivity deals because they are pro-developer. Admittedly, they are, especially for tiny devs who would otherwise not get the exposure, or financial runway. When a multi-billion dollar publisher comes along and offers you millions for a one-year exclusivity deal, it’s hard to turn down, and in some cases, I would totally say it’s worth it for the developer. Epic also takes a comparatively low cut from sales.

But why can’t they do both? Why can’t a game launch on both Epic and Steam at the same time? Wouldn’t the developer stand to make more money since both platforms are popular and well-funded? It would be the best of both worlds, really. Epic advertises as a smaller, but curated list of games that has fewer overall customers but takes less of a cut, whereas Steam has the mass appeal and larger potential outreach. It’s a win-win for an indie developer.

Stardew Valley is playable on everything including your latest smart refrigerator, and is developed by one man.

Besides, Epic doesn’t do any of this out of some sense of nobility, or “pro-developer” sentiment: they just want their slice of the pie. As is evident in their on-going legal battle with Apple, they just want to have their own store on every platform, so they can continue their effort to establish their exclusive brands. They aren’t fighting “against” Apple and Steam’s 30% cut, they just want to cut off a bigger piece of the industry for themselves while appearing to stick it to the man.

It’s not David vs Goliath, it’s King Kong vs. Godzilla. Sure, it’s fun to watch, but the result is a destroyed city that neither of them have to clean up. Or in this case, a joke of a “AAA” gaming industry that cares more about revenue than QA, because consumers will flock to a popular franchise, just because it is popular. They don’t give a shit about quality control. Hence, the abomination that is the recent Avenger’s game.

Platform exclusivity just encourages people back to piracy. It’s doing it for TV and film streaming, and it will do it to games, as well. In an ideal world, we’d pay artists directly, and tell major publishers to fuck right off.

King Kong vs Godzilla as Donkey Kong and King K Rool | Godzilla | Smash bros, Smash bros funny, Super smash bros memes — This is scientifically the best G vs KK meme, and if you don’t get it, I feel bad for you.

We can look back to Dark Souls as an example. The first PC port was an afterthought. It was locked at 30fps, low texture resolutions, and had terrible online functionality. Despite this, it was still a hit, and resulted in From Software not only remastering it, but also releasing every subsequent Souls’ game on PC, simultaneously with console release. Same with the release of their latest IP, Sekiro. None of this would have happened had From decided to keep Dark Souls a Playstation exclusive.

Exclusivity does not breed competition, or innovation. It only stifles consumers and reduces potential outreach, while encouraging piracy and other alternative means. While I excuse a few companies like Nintendo, because they often have a platform which is dramatically different from others in a way that makes it worth while just for its unique features… the fact that Breath of the Wild emulation and modding on PC is so popular should be evidence enough that Nintendo could stand to make even more money with an official PC release.

Not that I’m expecting Nintendo to start pushing Mario and Zelda to Steam any time soon, but it’s a nice dream.

/gameon

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild mod turns Link into Waluigi - The Verge — Because who doesn’t want to play Breath of the Wild as Waluigi?

Off with their heads!

Over the past few days, the PC gaming community has been up in arms over the new paid modding system Valve implemented into its flagship Steam Community Workshop. Almost as quickly as it arrived, it was shunned and then shuttered only days later. It’s a rare occasion for Valve to blunder so violently in such a short time, however I will give them credit for responding as quickly as they did. So what happened?

The majority of the backlash started with one mod which was removed within hours of the paid program’s launch. The controversy began due to the mod’s creator having used assets from another mod by another creator. As should be expected, using another’s content to get paid is rather frowned upon.

Well that escalated quickly.

However, Steam Workshop was never set up to have the kind of regulation you might expect from a paying service. The mod mentioned above wasn’t even removed by Steam, but by the developer for having received so much negative press. Yet, with Valve offering paid options for modders, not only does it infringe on some of the communities’ ideologies, but potentially creates an atmosphere where mods might become exclusive to Steam due to a developer’s interest in profits. The proprietor of the Nexus modding community Robin Scott weighed in on Reddit asking:

“Can you make a pledge that Valve are going to do everything to prevent, and never allow, the “DRMification” of modding, either by Valve or developers using Steam’s tools, and prevent the concept of mods ONLY being allowed to be uploaded to Steam Workshop and no where else, like ModDB, Nexus, etc.?”

It’s fair question considering what a mod actually is: a contribution to an already finished product. It’s kinda like if you took a painting, added your own character to it, then asked to be paid for your work. While you may have legitimately improved upon the artwork, and perhaps put in nearly as many hours as the original artist, the fact remains that it was never yours to begin with. So the question stands: does a modder deserve to be paid at all?

"I call it: 'Dog Bridge' by Monet and Carol. Isn't it better?!"

It’s a tricky question. While the point still remains that mods are not original contributions, there’s no arguing that some mods have evolved into highly successful standalone games on their own merit. DayZ for example, was a mod to the ARMA 2 engine by a single developer (who did happen to work for Bohemia Interactive before it was appropriated by them, however), and is now one of the highest selling games on PC. Counter-Strike and Team Fortress Classic began as mere mods to the Half Life engine as well, and have also gone on to become two of the most highly celebrated and influential games in the industry. Not to mention the original DOTA having been a Warcraft 3 mod.

Successful mod developers have come forward, unsurprisingly, in favour of the paid system. Garry’s Mod creator Garry Newman suggests that the market would balance itself, rewarding quality over quantity. He is convinced that people won’t pay for unimpressive mods, while the better ones will shine through and receive the funding they deserve. Shawn Snelling, a prominent modder and map designer for CS:GO also believes modders should be compensated for their time.

A lovely satire piece from The Beaverton.

I just want to be clear in my position that I do not disagree with their sentiment. Of course hard-working modders deserve compensation, and many of them have already been rewarded. Again, some of the most successful titles we know today began as mods, and wouldn’t be as such if not for their developers having made the decision to monetize their efforts. But mods like DayZ didn’t become paid, standalone versions overnight. The decision to sell was almost always after they had become celebrated, and provided enough content to be sold as complete games. Even still, the original DayZ mod for ARMA 2 can be had entirely for free.

The issue here was strictly implementation.

With almost no warning or advisement from the community, Valve issued an option to allow the content creators to decided whether or not their work had value, when point of fact, it should have been at the discretion of the community itself. Right out of the gate, there were already mods with little effort done by the developer, and/or stolen assets, wrongly asking for payment with absolutely no regulation nor communication from Steam. Anyone could put in as little effort as they liked, and still demand payment just for you to download it. As one can imagine, this kind of honour system doesn’t work on the internet without oversight. “Protest mods” even appeared, some asking for $hundreds to provide a single, worthless asset, just to prove how ridiculous the new system was.

While I don’t see this as the last we’ve heard from this kind of program, my hope is that it comes back in the form of a “tip” system, where customers can chose to donate to mods deemed worthy of compensation and recognition. This way, both the consumers and the developers can get a more realistic idea as to whether or not a mod should be monetized or perhaps made into its own game.

Feel free to weigh in yourselves. Do you think it’s fair to charge for mods before they’ve had any recognition?

/gameon

"From one Redskin to another... Go fuck yourself."

The Hyperbolic Gamer

You can't be accused of hyperbole if you're always hyperbolic

Something, Something Game News – Microsoft, Bethesda and Epic Games: Why Exclusives are bad

Something, Something Game News – Pay2Mod: Why Steam’s paid workshop failed so hard so quickly