Jump to content
frez13

sell on Steam?

Recommended Posts

In regard of your agenda, point one is already meet. This company is a prosper one, in the sense of laying a brick after another, sure they are a small one, but on a small niche they're successful. Just compare the credits from Black Sea manual with any other of their games.

Not beeing one of the smarter ones I will abandon this thread now, and let you fight your boredom against more fitting adversaries, but you should consider visiting Steam to enjoy their catalog. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you occasionally actually add anything to discussions, or do you just always troll?

Funny, mord is a very active positive force in this community. He and I have had disagreements at times on stuff but in all this time we have agreed to disagree on those subjects and developed a friendship based on mutual respect and a mutual love of this game. However the steamie-krishnas (yeah I like that Mord, it fits) or at least significant members of that view seem to only participate on this subject essentially harassing Steve to do what you want him to do.

Wanna see a troll?, look in the mirror.

As to this proof that steam has worked because matrix and slitherine are there, that is not exactly accurate. Yes they are there, however the jury is still out as to whether that will end up being a positive thing. Real evidence is based on tangible proof. I doubt even Matrix would be ready to say yet for sure what the long term effect will be for them. Personally I wish them success. Regardless of Steam, this community needs more developers.

Despite the predictions of those who believe BF is doomed for not jumping on the steam mall bandwagon, there is obvious evidence accessible by all of us with very little effort that they are establishing themselves quite well and growing. This in what was an economic downturn. I don't have to just trust Steve's word, I have tangible evidence that BF is doing well. Not only that I have, thanks to BF's commitment to maintaining the game families, a comfortable view of where they are headed. No I don't think they are getting rich, but I think they probably have hit a point where they feel they have a healthy self sustaining enterprise 100% under their control. I envy them. I am betting I probably make more than even Steve or Charles, but they have a satisfaction that I can not compete with.

Kudos to you guys at BF. Thanks for doing what you do and know that you have a solid loyal customer base to allow you to plan another 10 years down the road. At that point I should be hitting retirement and I expect a new engine, a Fulda gap game, a Vietnam game and a France 1940 game or I will start whining at you.

Seriously thanks for the best damn game out there bar none.

Now if you could just add that little kid doing the paper delivery route to the AI triggers, I bet you could grab a whole new audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Specifically we sell products with Apple, Google, and Amazon.

 

Steam can't be compared to Apple, Google or Amazon. Apples and oranges. It's a very bad comparison.

 

 

I've been making war and strategy games for 22 years this year.

 

That's 22 years without any Steam experience. What about the people who do have Steam experience? Many game developers said that, on the PC, they can't become successful without being on Steam. Quite a few niche game publishers went to Steam and have been quite active there for quite a while now. Why do you think that is? Because these days, that's where virtually the entire PC game market is at - from casual gamers to hardcore wargamers who play niche games.

 

 

People told us we'd never make it without retail.

 

...

 

and we have some concerns [steam] could hurt our chances to stay in business.

Doing what you are doing now also hurts your chances to stay in business. You are now that guy who is telling others to stay retail and not innovate. The difference is, 15 or so years ago, you were the innovator, but now, you are the laggard, who is still clinging to the old, supposedly safe ways, and being so sure that he made the right choice to stay retail.

Edited by BlackAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now ladies and gentlemen, a little ode with credits to T Bone Walker.  Ahem, hit it Mord.

 

 

January 5th -

They call it Steamy Monday
But Tuesday's just as bad.
They call it Steamy Monday
But Tuesday's just as bad.
Lord, and Wednesday's worse
And Thursday's all so sad.
The Steamer flies on Friday,
Saturday I go out to play.
The Steamer flies on Friday,
Saturday I go out to play.
Sunday I go to church,
Gonna kneel down and pray.
Steam have mercy,
Steam have mercy on me.
Steam have mercy,
Steam have mercy on me.
Though I'm tryin' and tryin' to find my Steamy,
Won't someone please send her home to me.

 

 

And just cause it is so damn good

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread somebody (I can't remember who. Please forgive me) posted a new idea. The "Put CM on Steam" debate is done.

What about putting a CM demo on Steam? If Steam were to accept it as a free to play game BF could get the exposure without actually losing any kind of control.

 

Please tell me if this still is our horse. I think by talking about the demo we can start hitting the pony.

 

Steve, has this been considered? Would Steam allow a demo, without a full release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread somebody (I can't remember who. Please forgive me) posted a new idea. The "Put CM on Steam" debate is done.

What about putting a CM demo on Steam? If Steam were to accept it as a free to play game BF could get the exposure without actually losing any kind of control.

 

Please tell me if this still is our horse. I think by talking about the demo we can start hitting the pony.

 

Steve, has this been considered? Would Steam allow a demo, without a full release?

 

This has never been done before, and gains nothing for Steam themselves, so will likely be impossible. Steam is still a store, they want products to sell. They are not a free advertising company to direct customers to other stores.

 

Hence my earlier suggestion: put Shock Force on Steam to test the waters. It's got an extensive demo, and its age means it's probably not selling much here on Battlefront anymore. But that suggestion probably got lost between all the insults and white noise generated by certain regulars here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has never been done before, and gains nothing for Steam themselves, so will likely be impossible. Steam is still a store, they want products to sell. They are not a free advertising company to direct customers to other stores.

Hence my earlier suggestion: put Shock Force on Steam to test the waters. It's got an extensive demo, and its age means it's probably not selling much here on Battlefront anymore. But that suggestion probably got lost between all the insults and white noise generated by certain regulars here.

Or the insulting arrogance thrown at Steve. Just in case anyone was missing that the steam martyrs parade is quite capable of that over and over and over.

Ps thanks for the fanboy comment, I almost missed that however for future reference I think fanboi is preferred.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bdzOdPTZ34

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably stop reading this thread but it is interesting to watch the interaction and spot the logical fallacies :D

 

Steve even joined in and explained his reasoning - again.  Wow. 

 

So, here is the thing.  Back in post 133 Steve laid out his reasoning.  The bottom line is that the so called arguments put forward by a few people pushing steam are riddled with fallacies: Aside from the usual biggies Straw Man and Ad-hominem which abound there is also Burden of Proof and then there is the problem of Steam has a bigger pie therefore it will yield more customers which I cannot quite pin down it is some combination of Composition or Division.

 

So to summarize and not call out specific examples there has been plenty of Straw Man arguments, even Steve has a tendency to do slip into this one (I know I do too) mainly because sometimes it is a fine line between committing a Straw Man error and scoring a beautiful Reductio ad absurdum argument.  But the Straw Man and Ad-hominem stuff aside the biggest problem is the burden of proof is ass backwards in they eyes of a few Steam advocates.  I realize you don't see it but *you* have the burden of proof.  Steve has conducted his analysis and has stated several times that he keeps up to date and is open to changing his mind if conditions change.  He is the one that owns the business.  He is the one that is actually producing product to sell.  He is the one that makes his living based on the decisions he makes.  Therefore the burden of proof is not his. It is yours.  Period. 

 

This brings us to half of the real issue (the only half that has been discussed at all): the makeup of the pie.  It is not logically correct to say that exposure to a particular larger community of more people will result in more sales.  It is a fallacy to say so.  You must demonstrate that the larger community actually has the appropriate characteristics to support your argument.  Hint just saying it is bigger does not prove anything.  Several people have given their anecdotal descriptions of the appeal of CM which while not rising to the level of statically significant actually points to problems with the bigger community means more interest in CM.

 

So, if you want to continue this as a worthwhile discussion you should accept the burden of proof and address this issue of “community make up”.  Again remember bigger does not necessarily mean better.  While at the same time avoiding Straw man and Ad-hominem mistakes.

 

The trouble is that only takes you half way there.  The other half is the business side.  If a size of CM interest can been estimated with some kind of confidence then you need to look at how the business side stacks up.  That means more than just quoting some % hold back on Steam’s part.  You have to know how prices are established (no I don't mean say you know some number you have to have the contracts and fully understand them) who controls pricing?  When can they change the price?  What penalties there are for slow sales, high volume, low volume or whatever else is in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely lost in this thread.  I have games on Steam, I have games not on Steam, it doesn't effect me personally either way, or maybe it does and I realize it not.  I had no idea it was such a passionate subject.  Am I the only one whom feels this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has never been done before, and gains nothing for Steam themselves, so will likely be impossible. Steam is still a store, they want products to sell. They are not a free advertising company to direct customers to other stores.

 

Hence my earlier suggestion: put Shock Force on Steam to test the waters. It's got an extensive demo, and its age means it's probably not selling much here on Battlefront anymore. But that suggestion probably got lost between all the insults and white noise generated by certain regulars here.

 

There are a lot of free to play games on Steam, mods, and the ability to link games through Steam even if you bought them elsewhere. Steam doesn't require that you make them money to be on Steam. I can buy a game off of the Humble Bundle store and then register it to Steam. Steam gets no money from that transaction and probably loses money because they pay for server bandwidth to allow me to download the game.

 

At this point Steam (Valve) is competing more for mindspace than actual sales.

 

Na Veske,

 

Personally I would prefer it. I would probably play CM more often, own more CM products, and enjoy my time with CM more than I currently do if it were on Steam. But at this point Steam is much more than a storefront for me.

Edited by Pelican Pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of free to play games on Steam, mods, and the ability to link games through Steam even if you bought them elsewhere. Steam doesn't require that you make them money to be on Steam. I can buy a game off of the Humble Bundle store and then register it to Steam. Steam gets no money from that transaction and probably loses money because they pay for server bandwidth to allow me to download the game.

 

At this point Steam (Valve) is competing more for mindspace than actual sales.

 

But in each of those cases the publisher or developer involved is selling something on Steam. Even in the case of f2p titles there typically is some monetary aspect where Steam is getting its cut. Mods are only on Steam for games that can be bought on Steam. Third-party stores selling Steam keys pay Steam somewhere in the process. Battlefront isn't selling anything on Steam, and in your proposal would merely use Steam as a free advertising service to lure customers to their own competing store. Valve gains nothing at all from your proposal, so why would they allow something like that? If Battlefront wants to try this, it'd be a great step in the right direction but I just don't see it happening.

 

Valve has already long won the competition for mindspace. They've become so big, they rarely bother competing with other online stores anymore which is why third-party stores tend to give better deals on Steam keys than Steam themselves these days. They're in it for the profits now.

Edited by m0317624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/

 

"

Welcome to Steamworks.
Now your game can take advantage of a gaming platform that has over 40 million players worldwide and spans multiple systems. Whether you’re looking for matchmaking, achievements, anti-cheat technology, in-game economy systems with microtransactions, or the next big feature in gaming, Steamworks has what you need.

It’s free: There’s no charge for bandwidth, updating, or activation of copies at retail or from third-party digital distributors.

It’s freeing: With Steamworks you avoid the overhead and delay of certification requirements—there are none. Distribute your game on your terms, updating it when and as often as you want.
"
Edited by Pelican Pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably stop reading this thread but it is interesting to watch the interaction and spot the logical fallacies :D

 

Steve even joined in and explained his reasoning - again.  Wow. 

 

So, here is the thing.  Back in post 133 Steve laid out his reasoning.  The bottom line is that the so called arguments put forward by a few people pushing steam are riddled with fallacies: Aside from the usual biggies Straw Man and Ad-hominem which abound there is also Burden of Proof and then there is the problem of Steam has a bigger pie therefore it will yield more customers which I cannot quite pin down it is some combination of Composition or Division.

 

 

 

Like comparing Steam to an HMO or a Subway. Also now apparently interest in it is a secret conspiracy by Valve to destroy Battlefront (thanks Desertor!) Congrats on your Intro to Philosophy course by the way.

 

Bottom line : I think you people are crazy if you think that Combat Mission, a real time tactical strategy game can't compete with Paradox's 4 different grand strategy games, Eagle Dynamics study sims, Slitherline's hex wargames, or whoever was crazy enough to make Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations / Spreadsheet Simulator and ask $90 for it. Complex niche titles aren't as unique or unpopular as you guys seem to think. Not everyone is content with Call of Duty...

Edited by SgtHatred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fun to see how every single one of these Steam threads boils down to the same exact thing... Steam fanatics insulting and hurtling abuse at everybody that disagrees with them. EVERY SINGLE TIME! That's what happens when people can't win a rational discussion. They have to result to bully tactics to get what they want. Not that it has even a snowball's chance in Hell of working with us. We're not swayed by emotional rants.

It all boils down to this. Someone says they want us on Steam. I say no. They ask why not, since it's so obvious to them that we should be. I explain why. They say I don't know what I'm talking about. I say they don't. They get insulting. It ALWAYS goes this way.

The thing I find most humorous about this whole cycle is that nobody has more incentive for increasing Battlefront sales than Battlefront itself. Since I co-founded the company, I've got the most to gain. Yet I don't view Steam as a vehicle for increasing our bottomline. This gives the Steam fanatics very little wiggle room except to call me stupid. So they call me stupid :D Which makes for a fun discussion to follow, especially since there are few game companies (of any type) that have been around for 16 years. If stupid people can keep a company going and growing for that long, then why are there so few companies that can make the same claim of longevity?

The second most humorous argument I see in each and every one of these threads is the absolute counter-factual argument that the reason wargaming is a niche is because people aren't exposed to it. I'd call this "flawed logic", but it's actually not logical at all and therefore it's simply "flawed".

Baneman summed it up quite when when he wrote this:

I have about 12-15 friends who are gamers. Roughly 8-10 of those are wargamers. I'd regard 2 of them as hardcore wargamers ( like me ).

I've introduced CM2 to all of them.

Only 1 of the hardcore wargamers took to it. He loves it, the others were all "meh" or "too hard". And that was with me explaining and guiding, doing my best to flatten the learning curve.

Face it - hardcore wargames are a niche within a niche.

Which is why none of the Steam fanatics pushing the "exposure" fallacy bothered to try and counter his point.

What some people don't understand is that I've seen the "exposure" argument pushed since I got into this business. It's not new at all and has nothing to do with Steam. And it's never been proven to have any merit. There's not a single hardcore wargame that's crossed over into the mainstream. Yet they are the ones saying that I have to prove the notion false. No, I don't. The burden of proof is on the person postulating something that seemingly has no merit, not the other way around.

The only way a wargame can go mainstream is if it loses its hardcore aspect. In wargaming terms it's called a "Beer & Pretzels" game. Risk is the classic boardgame example, Panzer General is the classic computer example. A game like Civilization isn't a wargame so it's in a different category.

If we decide to make a game that has potential for a wider appeal our calculations about Steam will change. Possibly, perhaps even probably, in favor of putting the game on Steam. But the game will not look anything like Combat Mission, so it changes nothing about the status quo.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line : I think you people are crazy if you think that Combat Mission, a real time tactical strategy game can't compete with Paradox's 4 different grand strategy games, Eagle Dynamics study sims, Slitherline's hex wargames, or whoever was crazy enough to make Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations / Spreadsheet Simulator and ask $90 for it. Complex niche titles aren't as unique or unpopular as you guys seem to think. Not everyone is content with Call of Duty...

And here's the other bad argument. It is ill advised to presume that there is a "one size fits all" cookie-cutter structure to business. What works for Company A with Product 1 does not necessarily work for Company B with Product 2. It just doesn't work that way. Not in wargaming, not in gaming, not in ANYTHING business related.

My guess is that companies like Slitherine don't have the direct sales strength that we do. There's some evidence to back up this presumption, but since none of us have access to their sales numbers it can't be proven. I can say at one point I did see some Matrix sales numbers and they were very unimpressive. I also have a fairly decent understanding of how Matrix operates as a business internally. Again, that might not be the case with all of their products or their sales in general, just saying that I have some sound reasons for my position.

The point here is that a company like Matrix might require Steam sales to stay in business. Therefore, they have everything to gain by being on Steam and everything to lose by staying off it. We feel the opposite is true for Battlefront.

Now, if I were in my early 20s again and starting a game company from scratch, I would likely go with Steam instead of building my own infrastructure. It does offer a lot of benefits, including avoiding the need to become versed in a whole bunch of disciplines that have nothing to do with game development. Not to mention the risks that go along with that. But I'm not in my 20s any more and I've already taken the risks and accumulated the expertise to be successful without Steam. Steam has very little to offer us.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to go mainstream. You just have to make more money out of it.

Which is why we aren't going with Steam :D

Here's a fun filled blog about why Steam isn't great for developers:

http://www.sophiehoulden.com/fuck-steam/

Another blog that shows some actual numbers which are inline with our understanding of how Steam works:

http://thecastledoctrine.net/seedBlogs.php?action=display_post&post_id=jasonrohrer_1389812989_0&show_author=1&show_date=1

What you Steam guys don't seem to understand is that Steam is the online equivalent to the old retail model. It was a model we rejected then and we still reject now. We do not want to put ourselves in a position where others decide our fate. It can have short term benefits with long term negative consequences.

Which is why we have no interest in being on Steam.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this is what really sucks, instead of Steve coming here and throwing a bone for the new year we instead have to listen as he defends his company's business strategy to a handful of people who have zero, zilch, nada experience running a tactical war gaming company on the semi annual steam thread. F**k, what a god damn waste of time

I would so much rather hear some possible thoughts on CMSF2 and what some of the considerations are.

Sorry, rant over

My apologies to the OP, it isn't your fault. Please don't take this to mean you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why we aren't going with Steam :D

Steve

 

And the question is again asked, how could going to Steam in addition to your current setup possibly lead to lower sales? But you've ignored pretty much every other question or fact inconvenient for your argument so far, so I don't expect an actual answer to this one either.

 

 

My guess is that companies like Slitherine don't have the direct sales strength that we do. There's some evidence to back up this presumption, but since none of us have access to their sales numbers it can't be proven. I can say at one point I did see some Matrix sales numbers and they were very unimpressive. I also have a fairly decent understanding of how Matrix operates as a business internally. Again, that might not be the case with all of their products or their sales in general, just saying that I have some sound reasons for my position.

The point here is that a company like Matrix might require Steam sales to stay in business. Therefore, they have everything to gain by being on Steam and everything to lose by staying off it. We feel the opposite is true for Battlefront.

 

The hilarious part is that I remember Erik over at Matrix saying pretty much the exact same thing to dismiss Steam a few years ago.

 

 

Which is why none of the Steam fanatics pushing the "exposure" fallacy bothered to try and counter his point.

 

It was countered numerous times in this thread, but once again that was all completely ignored. As are the insults being thrown around by some of the Battlefront fanboys. Guess this forum's reputation for moderator favouritism is as well deserved as its reputation of aggressively attacking unpopular opinions. I can see why I was warned not to bother coming here.

Edited by m0317624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why we aren't going with Steam :D

Steve

 

With "more" I didn't mean you have to make more money with Steam than you currently do. I meant, you have to make some sort of profit, and then you can still decide to cancel the Steam project. It's not like you have to abandon everything you currently have and go exclusively for Steam. And it's also not like you have to forever use Steam. Steam is not some kind of high risk project since you already have a way to get income that will work just fine in tandem with Steam for at least a few years if you do decide to try out Steam. In everything you said (including from a few other threads), I don't see how a Steam release will compromise the infrastructure and it's income on Battlefront.com.

 

Edit: One of the many things you can do is for example, you can up the price on Steam, link to your own website and tell people they can get it there cheaper.

Edited by BlackAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try sburke -

Steve ? Any chance..., of having an Epiphany Bone ? Today it's the day that the three kings visited our Lord (not Mord :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the question is again asked, how could going to Steam in addition to your current setup possibly lead to lower sales? But you've ignored pretty much every other question or fact inconvenient for your argument so far, so I don't expect an actual answer to this one either.

 

 

Lets have some numbers to play with.

 

current customer base (CCB) is 1000.

 

Price of CM is $50.

 

Currently BFC makes 50,000 dollars for each release.

 

They go to Steam. Now half of their CCB also goes to Steam. price remains the same.

 

BFC makes $42,500

 

Lets say they get 100 new users on Steam.

 

They now make $46,000 because they cannibalized their own user base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try sburke -

Steve ? Any chance..., of having an Epiphany Bone ? Today it's the day that the three kings visited our Lord (not Mord :P)

They were probably there to convince him to sell salvation on Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this is what really sucks, instead of Steve coming here and throwing a bone for the new year we instead have to listen as he defends his company's business strategy to a handful of people who have zero, zilch, nada experience running a tactical war gaming company on the semi annual steam thread. F**k, what a god damn waste of time

I would so much rather hear some possible thoughts on CMSF2 and what some of the considerations are.

Sorry, rant over

My apologies to the OP, it isn't your fault. Please don't take this to mean you.

 

lol, so you feel that if this thread didn't exist, he would roll in here and spill the beans on future projects? seriously?

 

 

Baneman summed it up quite when when he wrote this:

Which is why none of the Steam fanatics pushing the "exposure" fallacy bothered to try and counter his point.

 

 

It's anecdotal evidence and not really worth addressing. Of the ~10 people I play strategy games with, 8 of them became Combat Mission players with the introduction of WEGO multiplayer, but I'm not going to claim that 80% of people exposed to it would play it, because that would be insane. 

Edited by SgtHatred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets have some numbers to play with.

 

current customer base (CCB) is 1000.

 

Price of CM is $50.

 

Currently BFC makes 50,000 dollars for each release.

 

They go to Steam. Now half of their CCB also goes to Steam. price remains the same.

 

BFC makes $42,500

 

Lets say they get 100 new users on Steam.

 

They now make $46,000 because they cannibalized their own user base.

 

Except there are very easy ways to incentivize the current user base to continue purchasing directly from Battlefront, leading Battlefront's revenue to end up at $53.500 instead of a mere $50.000. (Steam's cut is well-known to be about 30%).

Edited by m0317624

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...