uh-oh! Xbox 2|Next not looking so hot according to one supposed programmer-developer dude

[Waco Paco]

LOL

You basically said the same thing over and over again. Learn to support
your arguments.




sayNO2steam wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:
>
>
>>new here, so I'll feign ignorance and claim that I don't know better. But I
>>felt compelled to respond to this, and ask a question or two. Then I'll
>
>
> first let me tell you the main reason i'm here is to exchange ideas
> with others gamers like yourself, that's what i like and what i want
>
> fell free to ask anything!
>
> and btw, many in this group only have as mission discredit myself so
> don't pay any attention to them
>
>
>>"publishers like valve trying to create monopolies"
>
>
> yes, they are by taking away all kind of choice in the pc game market
> they want to monopolize the way you buy pc games
> you will only be able to buy pc games in one way, in one place, only
> from them and killing the very useful retail channel
> they want to monopolize the way you play pc games
> you will only be able to play pc games in one way, using steam and
> having control over you and your gaming habits
> they want to monopolize the way you patch pc games
> you will only be able to patch pc games in one way, using steam and
> only via the internet, again having total control over you
>
> steam is pure monopoly
> steam is monopoly at its best!
> with steam you don't have any kind of choice, none!
>
>
>>A) You know that Valve is a developer, yes? And not a publisher?
>
>
> with steam its not relevant, valve are the developers and publisher
> they are everything
>
>
>>B) Do you know the difference between a publisher and a developer? I'm not
>>trying to be a d*ck, I'm just asking.
>
>
> like i told you its not relevant cause valve with steam is at the same
> time, developers, publisher, distributor... so that's not the point
>
>
>>C) You know the kind of cut that the publisher gets out of the retail price?
>>(It's a large one.)
>
>
> i will not accept the margin excuse for steam
> sorry i will not
> i already discuss this will other gamers in this group and i will not
> accept that excuse
> steam is way too damaging! way too intrusive for you or valve or any
> other excusing it with the margins a publisher takes in pc games
>
> a developer has to know how to negotiate margins with the publisher
> in everything in life you must know how to negotiate
> and btw the publisher has an essential role in pc games! essential!
>
> if valve wants more profits from their games, be their own publisher
> in retail, which is the issue... in steam they are their own but in
> retail they are not
>
>
>>D) In what way is Valve "trying to create a monopoly"?
>
>
> yes! like i told you before valve with steam is trying to create a
> monopoly in the pc game market by:
> killing the retail channel, which is the best one for pc games and
> the one with the most competition and the best pricing for us
> and making you be totally controlled to buy, install, play pc games
>
> retail channel has flaws like everything but its still and will be
> always be best for defending competition in the pc game market for
> defending pc games as package box cd/dvd physical products and too
> give pc gamers choice and freedom as consumers!
>
>
>>I'm just curious, that's all. I happen to think very highly of Valve, even
>>though Steam admittedly sucked.
>
>
> please fell free to ask me anything!
> i'm someone who cares for pc games, who cares for fellow pc gamers!
> i also think steam sucks and must be stoped so our rights as consumers
> are protected!
> if we unit we can beat valve and steam!
> look at me as a friend as a fellow pc gamer!
> my agenda is only keep being a pc gamer and buying and play pc games!
> that's the only thing i want... i swear!
> my motivation is only and purely pc games!
>
> --
> post made in a steam-free computer
> i said "NO" to valve and steam
>
> against steam campaign
> http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
>
> steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
> http://www.steamwatch.org/
>
> please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

[xTenn]

Re: uh-oh! Xbox 2|Next not looking so hot according to one supposed
programmer-developer dude
Please do not use mime, HTML, rtf or exended character sets when posting to
newsgroups that are non-binary. It causes havoc on some systems and some
programs.

thanks

[Stephen Craft]

Okay, but... um...

Steam is written by Valve, distributed by Valve, and only used by Valve.
Only Valve games are distributed on Steam. How are they going to take away
the distribution rights of other developers and publishers? KOTOR, for
example, was developed by BioWare and published by LucasArts. Halo was
developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. How, exactly, could Valve
*force* LucasArts and Microsoft to distribute their cames through Steam as
opposed to through retail? When it's Valve vs. Microsoft in a court of law
(especially if Valve is trying to force Microsoft to do something, and not
the other way around), I don't see Valve coming out on top in that fight.
Without Valve being able to force other developers to publish games through
their medium, I fail to see how they're going to be able to establish any
kind of monopoly.

I find your argument a little puzzling, that's all. I was certainly less
than pleased when, after waiting for years for HL2, and buying it (on
release day) and installing it, that I had to wait an additional day for
Steam to work. I was not happy about that. On the other hand, I also
understand that Steam is the first foray into this kind of distrubution, and
that almost by definition, the first tries are going to have bugs and
hiccups. I do *not* agree that Steam should be used as an anti-piracy
system (forcing a single-user game to connect online doesn't seem to make
sense), but as a publishing and distribution system, to me it's a good idea.
Historically, many publishers have been responsible for weakening games by
releasing games before they're ready; editing content; and restricting
developers' freedom to develop games as they see fit. If a developer has
the guts and the capacity to distribute a game without a big-name publisher,
I say more power to 'em.

*That* is the purpose publishers play -- Valve on its own is a comparatively
small shop, and doesn't have the finances, muscle, or clout to buy space on
retail shelves around the country. If they're going to ship actual physical
boxes to stores, they need help to do it, and they have to pay for that
help. That (fairly sizeable) chunk of the money that goes to the publisher
does *not* (obviously) end up in the pockets of the developer, and therefore
does *not* go toward developing future, better games. As an aspiring
game-maker myself, I choose to side with the little guy.

The first paragraph is all I'm really curious about, all you need to respond
to: how is Valve going to force other developers and/or publishers to
distribute their games through Steam?


"sayNO2steam" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ps7g21p818omtdh3s3d6cbqf1f7mg0kcla@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:
>
> > new here, so I'll feign ignorance and claim that I don't know better.
But I
> > felt compelled to respond to this, and ask a question or two. Then I'll
>
> first let me tell you the main reason i'm here is to exchange ideas
> with others gamers like yourself, that's what i like and what i want
>
> fell free to ask anything!
>
> and btw, many in this group only have as mission discredit myself so
> don't pay any attention to them
>
> > "publishers like valve trying to create monopolies"
>
> yes, they are by taking away all kind of choice in the pc game market
> they want to monopolize the way you buy pc games
> you will only be able to buy pc games in one way, in one place, only
> from them and killing the very useful retail channel
> they want to monopolize the way you play pc games
> you will only be able to play pc games in one way, using steam and
> having control over you and your gaming habits
> they want to monopolize the way you patch pc games
> you will only be able to patch pc games in one way, using steam and
> only via the internet, again having total control over you
>
> steam is pure monopoly
> steam is monopoly at its best!
> with steam you don't have any kind of choice, none!
>
> > A) You know that Valve is a developer, yes? And not a publisher?
>
> with steam its not relevant, valve are the developers and publisher
> they are everything
>
> > B) Do you know the difference between a publisher and a developer? I'm
not
> > trying to be a d*ck, I'm just asking.
>
> like i told you its not relevant cause valve with steam is at the same
> time, developers, publisher, distributor... so that's not the point
>
> > C) You know the kind of cut that the publisher gets out of the retail
price?
> > (It's a large one.)
>
> i will not accept the margin excuse for steam
> sorry i will not
> i already discuss this will other gamers in this group and i will not
> accept that excuse
> steam is way too damaging! way too intrusive for you or valve or any
> other excusing it with the margins a publisher takes in pc games
>
> a developer has to know how to negotiate margins with the publisher
> in everything in life you must know how to negotiate
> and btw the publisher has an essential role in pc games! essential!
>
> if valve wants more profits from their games, be their own publisher
> in retail, which is the issue... in steam they are their own but in
> retail they are not
>
> > D) In what way is Valve "trying to create a monopoly"?
>
> yes! like i told you before valve with steam is trying to create a
> monopoly in the pc game market by:
> killing the retail channel, which is the best one for pc games and
> the one with the most competition and the best pricing for us
> and making you be totally controlled to buy, install, play pc games
>
> retail channel has flaws like everything but its still and will be
> always be best for defending competition in the pc game market for
> defending pc games as package box cd/dvd physical products and too
> give pc gamers choice and freedom as consumers!
>
> > I'm just curious, that's all. I happen to think very highly of Valve,
even
> > though Steam admittedly sucked.
>
> please fell free to ask me anything!
> i'm someone who cares for pc games, who cares for fellow pc gamers!
> i also think steam sucks and must be stoped so our rights as consumers
> are protected!
> if we unit we can beat valve and steam!
> look at me as a friend as a fellow pc gamer!
> my agenda is only keep being a pc gamer and buying and play pc games!
> that's the only thing i want... i swear!
> my motivation is only and purely pc games!
>
> --
> post made in a steam-free computer
> i said "NO" to valve and steam
>
> against steam campaign
> http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/
>
> steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
> http://www.steamwatch.org/
>
> please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

[Shawk]

Stephen Craft wrote:
> Okay, but... um...
>
> Steam is written by Valve, distributed by Valve, and only used by Valve.
> Only Valve games are distributed on Steam. How are they going to take away
> the distribution rights of other developers and publishers? KOTOR, for
> example, was developed by BioWare and published by LucasArts. Halo was
> developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. How, exactly, could Valve
> *force* LucasArts and Microsoft to distribute their cames through Steam as
> opposed to through retail? When it's Valve vs. Microsoft in a court of law
> (especially if Valve is trying to force Microsoft to do something, and not
> the other way around), I don't see Valve coming out on top in that fight.
> Without Valve being able to force other developers to publish games through
> their medium, I fail to see how they're going to be able to establish any
> kind of monopoly.
>
> I find your argument a little puzzling, that's all. I was certainly less
> than pleased when, after waiting for years for HL2, and buying it (on
> release day) and installing it, that I had to wait an additional day for
> Steam to work. I was not happy about that. On the other hand, I also
> understand that Steam is the first foray into this kind of distrubution, and
> that almost by definition, the first tries are going to have bugs and
> hiccups. I do *not* agree that Steam should be used as an anti-piracy
> system (forcing a single-user game to connect online doesn't seem to make
> sense), but as a publishing and distribution system, to me it's a good idea.
> Historically, many publishers have been responsible for weakening games by
> releasing games before they're ready; editing content; and restricting
> developers' freedom to develop games as they see fit. If a developer has
> the guts and the capacity to distribute a game without a big-name publisher,
> I say more power to 'em.
>
> *That* is the purpose publishers play -- Valve on its own is a comparatively
> small shop, and doesn't have the finances, muscle, or clout to buy space on
> retail shelves around the country. If they're going to ship actual physical
> boxes to stores, they need help to do it, and they have to pay for that
> help. That (fairly sizeable) chunk of the money that goes to the publisher
> does *not* (obviously) end up in the pockets of the developer, and therefore
> does *not* go toward developing future, better games. As an aspiring
> game-maker myself, I choose to side with the little guy.
>
> The first paragraph is all I'm really curious about, all you need to respond
> to: how is Valve going to force other developers and/or publishers to
> distribute their games through Steam?
>

I'm sorry but you are talking sense. That is not permissable in threads
where Steam has become the subject. Yes, you do score points for being
completely off the subject the OP started, and you do get bonus points
for perpetuating difool/sayno2x's crap and bringing it back to the
attention of the folk that have KF'd him but I am afraid that having a
reasonable argument has really let you down. If you wish to continue to
discuss Steam please talk crap.

BTW - I do agree with you (except for waiting a day to play HL2 - guess
I was one of the lucky ones) and for once I'd be interested in the
replies (though I'll have to see someone quote them - I'm afraid I can't
see them anymore).

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?

[Stephen Craft]

LOL... sorry about that. Like I said before, I'm new in this NG, and
haven't been exposed to this fellow's particular brand of logic, so I guess
I'm just curious how it works. I promise I won't argue long.

:) Stephen

ps -- i have a MPFC day-by-day calendar on my desk, and the nudge-nudge
scene was last week. your sig made me laugh.

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote
>
> I'm sorry but you are talking sense. That is not permissable in threads
> where Steam has become the subject. Yes, you do score points for being
> completely off the subject the OP started, and you do get bonus points
> for perpetuating difool/sayno2x's crap and bringing it back to the
> attention of the folk that have KF'd him but I am afraid that having a
> reasonable argument has really let you down. If you wish to continue to
> discuss Steam please talk crap.
>
> BTW - I do agree with you (except for waiting a day to play HL2 - guess
> I was one of the lucky ones) and for once I'd be interested in the
> replies (though I'll have to see someone quote them - I'm afraid I can't
> see them anymore).
>
> --
> I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
> 'done it'...
> What do you mean?
> Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
> Yes...
> What's it like?

[Shawk]

Stephen Craft wrote:
> LOL... sorry about that. Like I said before, I'm new in this NG, and
> haven't been exposed to this fellow's particular brand of logic, so I guess
> I'm just curious how it works. I promise I won't argue long.
>
> :) Stephen
>
> ps -- i have a MPFC day-by-day calendar on my desk, and the nudge-nudge
> scene was last week. your sig made me laugh.
>

No worries - only meant in fun. Difool is 'mostly harmless' but damned
frustrating - sense he makes does not.

Glad the sig brought a smile. It's usually MPFC or H2G2. Used to drive
folk mad quoting them with a mate over pints - now I do it on here.

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?

[Doug Jacobs]

In alt.games.video.xbox Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

> sayNO2steam/DiFool is a completely insane troll. Any attempts to have
> a rational discussion with him are a complete waste of time. Feel free
> to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
> the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.

He is fun to kick in the head a few times, then when you get bored, just
killfile him.

[Stephen Craft]

I'm still waiting for the guy to respond to me. :/

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:112hptvgd09oncd@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.xbox Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
>
> > sayNO2steam/DiFool is a completely insane troll. Any attempts to have
> > a rational discussion with him are a complete waste of time. Feel free
> > to try, but it is better to just killfile him now and save yourself
> > the stress of trying to understand what is going on in his head.
>
> He is fun to kick in the head a few times, then when you get bored, just
> killfile him.

[sayNO2steam]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, "Stephen Craft" wrote:

> Steam is written by Valve, distributed by Valve, and only used by Valve.
> Only Valve games are distributed on Steam. How are they going to take away
> the distribution rights of other developers and publishers? KOTOR, for

valve is "forcing" steam into pc gamers and at the same time is trying
to "seduce" other developers and publishers to use steam for their own
pc games

valve has made it public they are trying to convince other developers in
using steam

valve made it very clear, steam will not be only for valve games it will
be for all kinds of pc games!

in a way its ironic, they don't want a publishers and distributor like
sierra for their own pc games so they can have full profit but they want
others to use it cause obviously valve will get profits from other games
from other developers and publishers that use steam

valve want to take the place of every retail distributer in pc games...
and isn't this wanting to create a monopoly? for me yes!

valve are unbelievably cleaver... basically they want to become the only
and exclusive distributor of pc games, a little bit what happens in the
console world where the console manufacturer "eats" the profits of every
single game published

but i agree they are not "forcing" steam to other developers but only
cause they can't
valve can force steam into pc gamers cause they are stronger than us
valve can only seduce other developers and publishers into using steam
cause they are not strong enough to force it

but if microsoft buys valve which is possible, then microsoft has the
complete power to "force" steam into every single developer/publisher
making the pc like a console and creating a monopoly

the future is very worrisome
we must unit!
we must defend our consumer rights!
i know you are worried, its natural, we all are except those extremely
fanatics that trust valve blindly

> developers' freedom to develop games as they see fit. If a developer has
> the guts and the capacity to distribute a game without a big-name publisher,
> I say more power to 'em.

i already defending why not a group of developers joining together and
create an independent "indie" type pc game publisher?
developers together can make a difference!
but using the traditional retail channel!
the retail channel is the best for us pc gamers!
if the retail channel is very expensive for individual developers they
can join together and create their own pc game publishing label with
enough resources to distribute using the retail channel

> does *not* go toward developing future, better games. As an aspiring
> game-maker myself, I choose to side with the little guy.

even if the little guy is using procedures to favour themselves and
damage us pc gamers?
i want developers to have more and more profits from their games
i want developers to be able to produce better games
i want developers to earn more money and even become millionaires
but not sacrificing our own consumer rights
better for developers yes, but not if it means damaging us

don't they say... the ends can never justify the means

pc game developers are my personal heroes! but i can't agree with them
when they act in a selfish and greedy way which is what valve is doing

> The first paragraph is all I'm really curious about, all you need to respond
> to: how is Valve going to force other developers and/or publishers to
> distribute their games through Steam?

valve is bought by microsoft
microsoft includes steam in its own windows operating system
then all developers, publishers and distributors will be forced with
it and we the pc gamers will be completely DOOMED!
this is for me the pc games final apocalypse
the end

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

[Stephen Craft]

Wow. That's quite an... interesting... theory. It's also quite a bit of a
stretch, but whatever fills your twinkie, guy.

"sayNO2steam" wrote

>
> valve is bought by microsoft
> microsoft includes steam in its own windows operating system
> then all developers, publishers and distributors will be forced with
> it and we the pc gamers will be completely DOOMED!
> this is for me the pc games final apocalypse
> the end
>

[Hank the Rapper]

Stephen Craft wrote:

> Wow. That's quite an... interesting... theory. It's also quite a
> bit of a stretch, but whatever fills your twinkie, guy.

That bird brain of his is really drinking now isn't it? No you know why it
is pointless to have a discussion with him.