The End of Publishing Comments by Rob Fahey

The more power to the little guy (dev) the better, IMHO. Digital distribution should lead to lower prices. Lower prices should lead to increased sales and lower piracy. In theory everyone wins.

If only Valve would lower their prices so they approach what can be bought in retail/on da web; they would rule the world...

/Gets coat and leaves thread before he is lynched.

Couldn't you have found a higher-res image of the Steam logo? Just looks quite unprofessional on the front page.

I for one really don't care about having a physical copy if it's a great game that I'll want to play again down the line rather than trade in (most anything developed by Valve, then). I know some people feel very strongly that they need a physical copy or that the various DRM approaches make digital distribution a rip-off (or illegal?), but I just really don't care enough. Anything that lowers the amount of clutter in my flat and helps save the environment by not needing to manufacture plastic boxes that just sit on a shelf is a much better approach for me personally.

When a company wishes to place an advert on a radio station, they can do all the work themselves, hire the talent, the recording studios etc and send in the tape and buy a slot on air. Or the company can contact a department at the radio station who can help create a jingle for them. They have voice acting contacts and more knowhow in general, and for a small company this is the ideal way for them to get themselves on air.

To me, this is how I can see digital distribution pushing forward. Companies like Steam could handle all the advertising and marketing in general, as well as be a platform for distribution. Steam would just take a larger percentage of profit depending on which marketting plan you went for. How much of step is it for developers to then contact Steam and say "Hey guys, we generated a ton of sales for you on our last project, you fancy throwing some money are way for this next title?" Then bingo everything changes. With the massive back catelogue that Steam can rely on to fund future projects as well as comparativerly very low budget requirement, you could see them taking a bigger chance on more risky projects, fuelling the creative industry even more.

Going at it from this angle, I cannot see a scenario in which the traditional publisher can survive the party. The invites dry up until in a few years time, everyone is dancing to the next great hit they heard on the radio, someone asks "What happened to those guys with the boxes and harse suits?" Before the next tune picks up.

In truth I think this is an idealised version. I can see Steamand others demanding a bigger and better cut for their services, asking for complete exclusiveness, sitting in on development meetings, influencing design descisions in the same way things currently are. In the end nothing changes except the delivery method.

I too care less for the drummings and bangings about how important optical/retail version is, there will come a time where everything you bought for will be recognised as associated to you, virtual, online or whatnots.

Retail version is worthless as well as there will come a time when the platform you use, ie X1080 or PS6 using 256 bits operating system and cannot read the retail version from 15 years ago as there are no longer any optical drive to put the game in!

I m delighted for devs, especially indies who can more effectively communicate their creativitiy via dic, but then again how can we separate out wheats from chaff? There will still be a need for Steam-like publisher to help majority of consumers to pick their interest.

Retail wont last forever, as second hand is what hurting the business on top of piracy which may be better managed as well via dlc platform.

While its cheaper buying a retail copy I will never buy a game through steam, anyone that pays double the price for a game on steam is clearly an idiot

JJKrista1
Digital distribution should lead to lower prices. Lower prices should lead to increased sales and lower piracy. In theory everyone wins.

You would think. But compare the launch prices of games on Steam compared to Retail. For example Dawn of War 2 could be bought in the shops for £15 cheaper than on Steam. I have bought a lot of games on Steam but mostly during weekend deals and when they have been cheaper than retail.

I agree with digital distribution being cheaper and these savings in turn should be passed to the consumer. And I beleive cheaper games can help combat piracy. But as usual with the big companies they are resistant to change, they want to charge the same RRP for a digital version of the game. That just isn't going to work.

I'm all for digital distribution, as long as it is done right. I understand developers wanting to protect their games from piracy and thats fine. As long as it isn't done is such a way that I may end up with a game that a few years later I cannot download or more importantly cannot "activate"

Mooks: "While its cheaper buying a retail copy I will never buy a game through steam, anyone that pays double the price for a game on steam is clearly an idiot"

Which games are actually twice the price than in shops? I agree that is is cheaper than buying it online, I for one am happy to pay a little bit extra to have all my games stored away on a sever to download whenever I want. One thing I used to hate was having to dig out the cd/dvd to put in the drive, or looking for the manuals to enter the cd keys etc.

Steam is a business, they are in it for the cash, as long as the marktet allows them to have the price a little higher then they will. I imagine this will come down a little in time when the other online distributors catch up.

So althougth I can see your point about the games being more expensive, I believe there is sufficient differences in the sales model to at least allow for the case to be debated, not merely label everyone stupid who considers using the service.

Which games are actually twice the price than in shops?

Dawn of War 2 as mentioned above. Even now it's 34.99 on Steam, I saw it Game a couple of days ago for 17.99.

Another example, Empire Total War 29.99 on Steam 19.99 on ShopTo
Fallout 3 26.99 on Steam, 14.99 from Gameplay.

I would pay a couple of extra quid but 10, 15 or even 20 more? No chance. I rarely remove games once they are installed so installing them once isn't much hardship if saving that much money.

Why are suits equated with soulless leechees living off the scarps of others? I'm a corporate lawyer by profession, therefore the stereotypical stone hearted materialist. Yet I also love Okami and World of Goo.

HELP ME I HAVE AN EXISTENTIALIST CRISIS!

Why are publishers necessary?

If a dev makes a good game, or has made many in the past - they are already known.

And with digital distribution solving a lot of the logistical problems, I really don't see the need for a middle man if the focus shifts more towards this way of selling games.

I don't know about PC but if consoles go DD only we are all screwed. Just look at how much MS charge for originals (no way I'm paying that for Payne now) and PSN with new PSP releases (although in fairness the old crap they put up is reasonably priced).

Of course across the board with competition in retail gone with a DD world we'll probably miss those greedy publishers as devs start charging more when we have no other choice but to pay their price. Just look a the increasing prices on Live/PSN, if we want the products we have to pay that, no matter how old it is.

For DD to work with full price retail games, companies would need to acknowledge that tiny little thing they all hate called the 2nd hand market, bring the price down with time, or something like that, and DLC could work. I doubt their are many people who buy all their games full price and many need to use old games to fund the new ones, that's WHY 2nd is so big. Certainly some do this already, like the half price L4D deal but I don't have confidence (from what I've already seen from download services and the tactics/method adopted by companies - particularly the consoles) in that being the norm...

/ hugs valve

@Kazzahdrane - computers, bandwidth, servers - all resources too so unless you can calculate that boxes are more damaging the environmental angle doesn't hold up. The space issue is a matter of choice, could always use slip cases and folders, but for me as with others here Steam is the Beatport of game downloads, they are just too expensive for me to support.

Problem is its all tied into one another, piracy, second hand sales keep RRPs very high knowing online sites will undercut them by a large amount to compete, so unless the industry resolve that they'll stick to those prices both on the highstreet and with online services like Steam and PSN.

I'm all fine and dandy with DD, but for the real classics I still want a freaking tangible version. It's the collector in me I think.

People have been crying that game publishing is dying the same they say print is dead- and yet, thousands of magazines are still going. but the fact is, a lot of people will always be more comfortable buying things they actually can own.


Also, look at xbox originals on live...despite no manufacturing costs, they STILL cost more than any physical copy you are likely to find, not to mention you can't trade online games.. That's why things like the second hand, physical market will probably always be around.

Digital distribution I believe will actually lead to higher prices for games as publishers have more control over the pricing structure discounts etc while reducing piracy and destroying the second hand games market. The sole reason games cost more on Steam is the simple fact that greedy publishers want to make more money. I think Valve need to distance themselves from such practices as it discredits their reputaition signifcantly.

@Mooks: The reason games cost more on Steam IIRC is because Valve are unwilling to upset retail, so charge boxed copy RRP for any games that are also available at retail as standard. Shops, and online shops particularly, frequently undercut them shortly after a game's launched because they have no such restrictions.

These days Steam does have some great sales on older stuff, but for new games it's often massively more expensive than getting hold of a phsyical copy, which is just plain daft.

give steam age verification and equal prices between eur and $ and im in

MS need to change their policy on Community Games, make it a larger part of the whole experience (allowing games to be larger, for example) and making it so that game developers feel like they aren't being cheated out of money if their game is doing well.

Publishers are necessary and publishers can change their ways. Publishers can be a more organic part of the process. Digital distribution doesn't mean the publisher disappears, it just means they have to change the way they operate. Getting games on shelves matters less and less, and when there's eventually no shelves left, it's all about negotiating a vantage point in the digital realm.

I'm not really sure that anyone with a pragmatic approach these days wants to do away with publishers, they just want a more balanced relationship. They can go it alone if they want, but I know plenty who are quite happy working in tandem with their publisher.

I actually think that where everyone spent a long time bemoaning companies like EA, they've changed their tack in recent years and have become generally a force for good in the industry - as well as producing some fine games under their own banner, like recent FIFAs attest to.

Digital distribution still has a way to go, talking about how it will affect producers is a little premature.

when you consider the pre existing problems. I have to go out to buy points cards for the 360 cause of its ridiculous credit card acceptance rules. This is the same across many services, at least steam direct to drive accept paypal but its still faff for what should be a simple process.

Bandwidth still isn't high enough for impulse purchases of larger games, for many.

Ownership is still a major issue, and we still get charged the same, and I don't think this will ever change.

The reason games cost more on Steam IIRC is because Valve are unwilling to upset retail

It's the publishers who are unwilling to upset retail, not Value.

Ordinarily retail gross margin accounts for approximately 50% of the price of a game, so if a game costs £30 then £15 goes to the retailer selling it. Using classic retail economics the retailer can reduce the price in the hope that increase in volume of sales due to the lower price makes up for the lower margin, so their total profit is greater.

One might think that digital distribution works in same way so the base product should cost £15 to the "retailer", in Steam's case Value, and the retailer makes the other £15; and they similarly can choose to discount the same way as a physical retailer. But it doesn't work this way, instead the publishers are keen to earn more money for digital distribution and not to upset the retailers so they price the product to Valve at Recommended Retail Price minus Valve's cost and margin instead; so the publishers get say £25 per title instead of £15 and Valve get £5, and the publisher also saves the cost of making and distributing a physical product too so their costs are lower.

"Positive word of mouth buzz, spreading through mediums ranging from SMS messages to Facebook to Twitter, is driving sales more effectively than any above-the-line campaign ever could."

Beg to differ...

A Reminder Of How Small A Group "We, Gamers"' Are

216. I just counted my games and that's how many I have. Of that I have 3 that I bought via a download service, namely Geometry Wars, Super Stardust HD and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2. Looking through my collection there are probably 5 or so more that I can buy through a download service if I want.

Download services are supposed to be the future for video games offering a number of benefits to the game developers and publishers. They can reduced costs in getting a game to us, the players. They can easiily flog their dead horses by providing DLC (something I assume means Downloadable Content because I've never seen it explained). They can beam a smile at the knowledge that video piracy will be dead.

But what are the advantages to us? From what I've read of download services the supposed advantages are not that numerous and can be summarised as:

- Games will be cheaper because of the reduced costs incurred by the developers and publishers
- Instant download means we don't have to wait as long to play the game because it will be available in just a few hours, rather than having (God forbid) to trudge to a shop.
- Fixes for games will happen automatically thus removing our need for us to trawl a million crappy servers that allow us the right to download the patch if we just register for their mailing list.
-As smallers developers take advantage of the download systems we will get access to a more varied catalogue of games.

Well, bullshit, that's all I can say.

Nearly every week I have a gaming session with a mate of mine. We play loads of different games but generally have one FPS and one RTS that we concentrate on. Up until COD 4 and Supcom everything seemed ok. Once-in-a-while we would have to download a "patch" from some server somewhere and install it.

However the last few games we have bought have relied on virtual stores and our sessions have been ruined because of them.

First up there's Steam.

There we were on seperate occasions, Dawn of War and Empire Total War in hand, whacking in the DVDs to install and play them. Straight away there are humongous "patches" to install. I'm sorry but 500MB downloads do not constitute a patch in my opinion. Off it trudged at 30kB/s. then it failed, then it started again then it failed. And that was on just one PC, we had to update on two PCs. No longer could we simply download a patch once and use it twice.

Then, eventually, at 12.00 at night, the patches finished and we managed to get a game. Except Dawn of War 2 spluttered and juddered and eventually lost itself up it's own arse and crashed on one of the PCs. Total War was just too slow, despite the PC meeting minumum requirements.

It's fair to say that just about every time I load Steam there is an update to install for Left 4 Dead, Dawn of War 2 or Empire Total War and I have to wait an unspecified amount of time while the developers try to fix the shit code they released in the first place.

Next up is Impulse, what an utter steaming pile of bollocks that service is.

I have been gagging to play Demigod for weeks. I noticed it became available for download over Impulse ahead of the shop release in the U.K. (where I would have got a nice box and manual too). Sod the box, I wanted to play it that day. So I handed over my cash, well, typed in my credit card numbers, and downloaded it. The game downloaded very quickly as it happened, and installed without a problem. Would it run though? Would it shite. Well that's not true, it would so long as I turned off the sound using the /nosound command, which I found out about after a fair bit of reading online. They had sold me a game that they knew full well had stupid shitty problems that they were going to fix later. In other words I was beta testing their code, at my expense, using my broadband technology and (most importantly), my gaming time.

I couldn't get it to work even after at least 5 hours research and driver updating. A couple of days later an update became available which Impulse duly tried to download. Except it got an error. My registration is not valid apparently. Well kiss my arse. Now I have a game that I spent the best part of £30 for, which I can't update and won't work until it is updated. Assuming the update fixes my problem, which I'm willing to put a crisp groat on that it won't.

So much for the "ease of update" advantage. So much for the "available to play almost instantly". So much for the "games are cheaper". ASDA charge £27 for most of their new games. You find me a new game for less than that on any download service.

Now let's jump ahead a few years, because I'm sure that eventually the developers and publishers will work out how to resolve their shit software and start releasing good finished products (or at least we will have all gone fibre optic and will be able to download the patches in a nanosecond).

Looking through the 216 games, stopping after about 3 foot of scanning the shelves, there's one called Spellbound. You might not have heard of it. Many moons ago, when I were a lad, it came out for the C64. I had a quick game and thought, "I'll do this one day, when I have more time". It's still there, waiting.

How many games from now will be available in 25 years time if they are only released in digital download? In 25 years will I still be able to play Geometry Wars and Super Stardust HD, just like I can still play Stardust and Super Stardust? I doubt it. I suspect that once my hard discs die then that will be it, the games will be lost forever.

Companies go bust, Woolworths proves that. Will Steam and Impulse be around in 20 years time? What about 50 years time? And when they go bust what will happen to the games they host... Oblivion, I'll bet.

That's the biggest problem for me. Not that the only advantage of digital download is for the developers (to get me to spend 6 hours beta-testing their code), but that the history of video games will be lost. It'll stop now. You'll be able to play anything you like in the future, just so long as it came out before now, because someone somewhere will still be selling the hardware and the software to play whatever game it is you want to play.

Digital distribution marks the end of video game history unless distribution companies step up to the plate and release the games so they can be stored on media, for free, and played without protection codes once they have been flogged to death and no longer provide revenue.

Steam, Impulse, Awomo and Onlive along with the console download services are going to kill video game history, I'm sure "the masses" don't care, but I do.

Cheers

Lee

Digital distribution does empower the developers, who were previously under the oft over-"protective" wings of a publisher.

I agree with @JJKrista1 over pricing. A lot of the pricing issues with a publisher involve additional overheads. I suppose with the developers in direct management of their resources, we should be quite right in expecting more parity in terms of costs to the consumer. Without being bound to a rigid retail structure as well, I'm thinking that tiered and incidental pricing can be applied for flexibility. For example, guerilla tactics through early cut-throat pricing, occasional discounts. It can be an evolving schema.

In terms of marketing, if the developer can, via the Internet and relying on word-of-mouth, capture the connected audience, they've gone some distance. But that's the thing, it's only [i]part[/i] of the market. Where the publishers usually come in is with IP management and traditional marketing techniques. It'll always be a compromise but I think we're starting to see an inexorable shift in control.

@dan234: Do you think "We, Gamers" are the only people in the world using SMS, Twitter and Facebook to talk about the stuff we like and buy?

I assure you that plenty of sales of things like Wii Fit have been driven by people chatting to each other about it, be it face-to-face word of mouth or, as is increasingly common, buzz on sites like MySpace, Facebook etc. The idea that all games talk online is hardcore-focused misses out on the fact that while hardcore gaming may be a niche activity, Internet usage certainly isn't any more.

"Hardcore" gaming IS a niche market... and that niche market prefers to pirate games than buy them...

Which is why game makers are moving more towards the market of people who actually BUY games....


[quote]
The reason games cost more on Steam IIRC is because Valve are unwilling to upset retail
[/quote]

That's funny.. i bought the "orange box" on steam last week for 5 quid...

And left 4 dead today for half price...

As for madworld... The only type of gamers who think blood and guts are still "cool" and would rush out to buy a game solely because it's ultra violent.. and kids between the ages of 11 and 15 (i.e. much younger than the age rating for the game).

Kids between 11 and 15 wouldnt be seen dead playing a wii..

"[quote]
The reason games cost more on Steam IIRC is because Valve are unwilling to upset retail
[/quote}

That's funny.. i bought the "orange box" on steam last week for 5 quid...

And left 4 dead today for half price... "

That would be a great point to make if I hadn't mentioned that there are some great sales on older games on Steam. I'm not denying that at all.

Orange Box is 18 months old. History.

Left 4 Dead's a bit more recent but still getting on in game terms (where shelf-life is generally a month at best). FWIW, Steam has it on sale at the moment at 40% off - £16.19. ShopTo.net have it at £13.95.

The only issue I have with digital distribution is that admittedly there are a fair amount of bargains to be picked up online especially during the steam sales BUT the majority of AAA titles released on steam and other such places are mostly still higher in price than buying the actual product from a supermarket or play/amazon.

This worries me.

I have on purpose not bought any title that is more online than I can buy cheaper elsewhere and if the trend continues for download only software with a increased price for a virtual product than a physical one, then my money is going to be going elsewhere.

I hope that there is never just the one way to get software as that way you can control the market with no competition and charge whatever price you like as there will be no other way of getting the game you really really want without paying a stupidly high price.

Publishers aren't the real problem. Retail are.

@shinji:

I assure you that plenty of sales of things like Wii Fit have been driven by people chatting to each other about it, be it face-to-face word of mouth or, as is increasingly common, buzz on sites like MySpace, Facebook etc. The idea that all games talk online is hardcore-focused misses out on the fact that while hardcore gaming may be a niche activity, Internet usage certainly isn't any more.

There's a difference though. With (e.g.) Mad World, you probably wouldn't even know it existed unless you actively follow the gaming press (or the Internet version).

Whereas you'd have had to just come back from a year on the ISS not knowing what Wii Fit is as Nintendo have wall-to-wall advertising everywhere (and even then they probably know what it is in the ISS). So if the advert grabs your attention, you can do a search for 'Wii Fit opinions', 'Wii Fit reviews', or look on Facebook or MySpace before deciding to put down your cash. But who's driving sales, teh Internets or Nintendo?

The Internet on its own might drive sales, but given all the raving about Mad World on most gaming sites and boards, 66,000 is a pretty poor number.

>Orange Box is 18 months old. History.

so because it's 18 month old, it's not worth playing?

Who said anything about it not being worth playing? It's 18 months old, so it's cheap on Steam was the point.

As a sidebar to this debate, Amazon.com just started offering 360 Marketplace content to US users, undercutting Microsoft's own pricing direct through the 360. The reason MS offered them the chance to do this was because due to the increased exposure they are making more money even though the prices have been cut. Which simply goes to say that digital distribution is as much of a frontier these days as retail.

I loath the day digital distribution takes over! iTunes, is wank. Steam, is wank. Movie rentals via consoles, is wank. Its all utter shit and mainly done by the kiddies who dont want to pay an extra quid or two for a box.

I have most of the consoles and a gaming PC, and i cant stand any of the download services. being a collector im sorry but having a product in hand is much more worth the money than shitty downloads I dont care how cheap. Sure I have some download games bouight off the console services etc, but only if they are not available to buy. GT Prolugue for example. Straight to the shop to buy the nice version, rather than the "what do I have in my hand for the money i've spent" version.

The only worrying thing for me about digital distribution is the destruction of the second hand market. Whats then to stop devs or publishers charging whatever they want for games that are 10 years old, when previously you could go buy it from a bargain bin for 4 or 5 quid?

Easy, they just work out some way of selling digital rights on. Now you own it, now you don't, and you can't play it. That'll be how it works out.

Digital distribution isn't for me. I much prefer a physical copy and buying a retail copy playing it and selling it is cheap. Digital distribution will mean higher profit and lower sales pricing many people out of gaming. Seeing games in shops generates a lot of awareness of titles even if you buy elsewhere. Removing games from retail shops may not work. It will all become clear when the first all digital download console appears and how it competes with a existing download and optical drive console of the same generation. A blu-ray disc can hold upto 50 gig (upto 200gig in the future) and I personally wouldn't want to download large games before playing.

I really don't mind digital distribution in one way because I don't have the space to store shelves of CDs, DVDs, games, etc...

What I do mind is the publisher being able to pull the plug when they feel like or when they're forced to (going under). Valve have said that they'll push out an update which will get rid of Steam phoning home, but maybe circumstances will mean they can't do that (their can't keep their servers up as they get hammered by every single customer downloading updates and redownloading what they've previously deleted to save space).

I also mind arbitrary limitations. The Wii Shop is an example of this, my shop account is linked to my Wii's serial number. If (in a fit of madness) I buy another Wii I can't download what I've bought on the other Wii on the new Wii. I can't transfer it by SD either.

If anything iTunes is the best, it's got a limit of five devices which is workable and everyone, including Apple, knows they can burn songs to virtual CD and rip them if they want MP3 versions.

Microsoft is an example of digital distribution at its worst, changing DRM formats and taking down servers when they feel like it.

Or at its best, on Xbox Live, which is far better than the Wii which you cite the problems of.