Icon Games' Richard Hall-Whittall asks: If the Valve maestro is attacking closed platforms, why doesn't he lead by example?
I WAS MORE than a little bemused to read about Gabe Newell’s recent attack on ‘closed platforms’ from Apple, Sony, etc.
Speaking as a developer who also self-publishes, I have yet to experience a more ‘closed’ marketplace than Steam (except perhaps XBLA).
Steam is operated slightly like a strange mystical organisation – I have spoken to lots of developers many of whom have the similar stories to tell; Steam never responds to them, they don’t open discussions with developers, Steam will find you if they want your product, and so on.
Incredibly I’ve even heard comments from developers that they try to enter the IGF with the main aim to try and help their chances of getting onto Steam!
If you are lucky enough to get a response (many don’t) the evaluation process is completely closed, and if they reject your title you get an email which basically states: “Unfortunately, we don't comment on our decision making process”.
No further clarification of any sort will be given, and even if you ask if you could make changes or add additional features you will still get no useful response.
This is the ultimate example of a closed distribution platform; we don’t want your game on Steam and no, we won’t tell you why or discuss future developments.
Some of Gabe’s choice quotes include:
"On the platform side, it's sort of ominous that the world seems to be moving away from open platforms... They build a shiny sparkling thing that attracts users and then they control people's access to those things."
Well Gabe – Steam is a really nice shiny PC distribution channel; and you control the access far more than platform holders control their platforms.
Every PC developer I have spoken to about Steam says the same thing – Steam sales are many times more than those of even the next biggest portal. If you don’t get onto Steam your PC sales potential will be significantly reduced.
"I consider Apple to be very closed. Let's say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 per cent gross margins. You can't exist in an Apple world because they want 30 per cent and they don't care that you only have 7 per cent to play with."
But Gabe – if I am lucky enough to get onto Steam then you want 30-40% of all my revenue!
He then went on to say that if Valve were to build a hardware platform it would be open to other distributors, in the interests of healthy competition.
Are you sure Gabe? Really? I’m sorry to say but I don’t really believe that based on how you run Steam!
Apparently Gabe is calling on the industry to open its closed games platforms, adding that the current insular approach is hurting business and stifling creativity.
Well that is exactly what Steam is doing – its doors are closed to many PC developers, and it hurts those developer’s businesses and absolutely stifles creativity by restricting access to a huge section of PC games buyers.
So I would respectfully like to ask Gabe to look at getting his own house in order before weighing in and trying to tackle other inequalities in the industry. Lead by example!
Richard Hall-Whittall is the founder of Icon Games and occasional contributor for Develop. His views do not necessarily reflect Develop's
If you put it like that it does appear like Gabe Newell is a bit of a hypocrit. Gotta agree on the fact that he's got to take the first step himself. Yet it is also true that lots of indie game developers are doing just fine with Steam. I wonder what the exact details on this subject are.
If you open your platform to the potential for distributing your product through their platform a la Steam, then you have opened up your platform to open distribution. Whether or not you chose to accept or deny a product is your business, but anyone can apply. That, by definition, is an open platform.
The critique that Steam don't give reasons or tips on how to edit or change a product to improve a success rate seems ideologically motivated. Steam don't QA games: they give a list of the necessities and tips to promote a high success rate of entry - if your products falls outside of the peripheries of said list, then you don't make the cut. It's a perfectly logical model to work with.
Valve have opened up their latest and greatest games to all major platforms; since Counter Strike for the X-Box.
This article seems ideologically motivated; almost touching on flaming.
I found it a little funny that I just got one of those “Unfortunately, we don't comment on our decision making process” emails two days ago. I guess I was right by not even asking for any input and the possibilities of resubmitting.
I know that it must be incredibly frustrating to not get much submission feedback from Valve - I completely understand this - but I think the real reason is not about a lack of care or attention, but in fact a significant lack of time.
Valve staff are fiendish optimisers for time; it’s certainly in their company culture. They are an operation of about 300 (350?) people that:
* Releases about one game per year on average,
* Provides 24/7 support to the entire Steam platform (inc. meetings, security, contracts, legal)
* Constant updates to existing Valve games
* Monitoring of new Steam games, submissions and
* Constant improvements to Valve’s technology back-end.
It simply doesn't seem feasible to become a global company of this scale with so few people. That's why it's so important that Valve optmises for time, and I think why important things - such as developer feedback - are sadly cut from duties.
When I met the studio in March, I asked Gabe why he doesn't just hire people to help share the load.
His response:
"Well, we’ll hire anyone who walks through the door who can pass our review process. The problem is very few people can do that successfully. The cost of lowering those standards is huge.
“If any of your readers are interested in the philosophical underpinnings of some of our decisions, The Mythical Man Month is a book that is a pretty good start about what we’re optimising for. In the games space, or any rapidly changing space, the fewer people that can get something done, the better it will get done.
“Additional people on a project have their own negative externalities associated with them, and so you’re always better off getting five people to do something than fifty people, as long as the five can do it. The key is finding those five right people, and that’s an incredibly hard process."
(source: http://www.develop-online.net/features/1192/Gabe-Newell-on-Valve)
I completely understand what he’s saying here.
Finally, I'm not sure that an open-door policy to Steam would be a good idea for the consumer or the developer masses. The more selective Valve is - hopefully on quality - the better an influence that will have on the industry itself. I’m not sure that some of the best developers on Steam will be as financially rewarded if Valve's platform was as welcome-all like Apple's.
But I understand what you're saying, Richard, I know a lot of developers that want more feedback from Valve. I'll make sure to ask them about this issue next time I have an interview.
Rob
When Newell was talking about closed platforms, I'm sure he was referring to the way MS/Sony/Nintendo don't allow developers direct lines to customers.
No feedback loops, no analytics, no engagement. These things you get on Steam, whereas consoles act as the middle-men controlling the discussion.
If that makes sense.
I must have missed that list of necessities and tips that you mention, because I didn't see anything of the likes of that in the Steamworks page?
@Michael Douse - no; that isn't an open platform at all. And you could say exactly the same thing with any of the platforms that Gabe is compaining about.
"If you open your platform to the potential for distributing your product through their platform a la Steam, then you have opened up your platform to open distribution. Whether or not you chose to accept or deny a product is your business, but anyone can apply. That, by definition, is an open platform."
