Valve brings non-game software to Steam | Hacker News Reader

Valve brings non-game software to Steam

neowin.net

64 pointsAndrewDucker68 comments

I hate Steam's DRM. People keep trying to convince people that it does not actually require an Internet connection and all that. Try using it for 6 months with a 0.2 Mbps connection that gets randomly cut every 5-10 seconds. It can literally take 10 minutes "Preparing to launch" a game. I really hope it doesn't expand to other software.

The funniest part is: "Could not connect to Steam network. Start in Offline Mode?". You answer yes. "Error: could not connect to Steam network. This operation cannot be completed in Offline Mode". Maximum trollgaben.

.2Mbps...maybe that's your real problem? DRM is here to stay, and internet drm is increasingly popular. Maybe time to upgrade your connection?

It's barely even DRM... it's more like you just have to be logged in to Steam to launch online games or games that specifically require an Internet connection.

I've started Steam in offline mode to play my singleplayer games whenever I don't have an internet connection quite often, and without issue.

But I agree, his 0.2 MB/s connection is probably the main problem there. The issue isn't with Steam's download speeds... it's with his ISP's.

Yeah. Steam games aren't encrypted, for instance. They aren't locked to your computer. You can copy the game content files, re-install steam, copy them back, and you'll still have your games provided you can still log into Steam.

.2Mbps = .025MB/s

I'm sure if he was capable of upgrading his connection he would. A lot of places (even in the US) are still not equipped with high speed internet. Just a couple of years ago in Washington State I was still on dial up (albiet in a fairly rural area, but still not more than 45 minutes outside Portland, OR.).

Right. But saying you cant have internet based DRM because you dont have a capable connection is equivalent to denying the last 5 years of progress.

"Maybe time to upgrade your connection?"

While I've no idea of the other guys situation, "suggestions" like this really boil my blood. A huge portion of people serving in the milatary, people in crappy college dorms, people working in hotels, people in rural areas, people in countries that are still building infrastructure, all these people can't just decide to get faster internet. It's elitest, rude, and completely ignores a real issue many people don't have a choice but to put up with.

Sure, sometimes you don't have a choice. But saying progress cant be made because it cant accommodate the edge cases is absurd. Dont like Steams DRM? Dont use it. But dont bitch about it because you cant use it properly.

When I bought the games I did on Steam, I was under the impression that it had a functional offline mode. After all, when I'd used it before, it was reliable. But since, the few times when I've tried it, it's failed. It's made me partly regret the purchases I've made, because I thought they would be available offline but now are not.

Again, you don't know people's situation. It's arrogant to criticize (edit: without having better information). "Bitching" about a poorly implemented system is entirely valid. Pardon me for foolishly believing the "Play offline" button would allow me to play my games offline, but it is labelled exactly as such.

Yes, and we should also support IE6 forever!

If users are never annoyed or alienated, it will mean that progress has stopped.

Luckily I'm on a 30Mbps connection now ;-)

Do you still dislike Steams DRM on 30Mbps?

The offline mode only works well when you are online and you know you will want to use it offline next time.

If you're already offline, you're screwed. I remember once having to connect up my phone as a modem just to launch Steam so I could start it online, then switch offline.

Agreed - if they want to have a hope for general application adoption they will need to loosen their DRM somewhat.

Having to use their launcher is also annoying - while it's nice to have the majority of my games in one place, none of my non-Steam games require me to launch a store application before running.

I'm interested to see what they'll do, but I would be very hesitant to buy a productivity application from them as things stand.

I've had steam work fine on a pretty slow connection. The only real issue I had was if the connection degraded, steam would take a long time to load because of the embedded web pages.

Otherwise in my experience .2Mbps is fine. But I'm boggled at a connection that would cut every 5-10 seconds. How could you stand trying to load images on that? What would cause that?

It's interesting to see how this plays out. Valve + general purpose software distribution + linux ports + hardware speculation - Valve seems like the biggest proponent for general purpose, open computing these days (open in the sense of being able to do what you want with your computer). Could Valve be a valid mainstream competitor for the personal computer market? Not all computing can be done from a tablet or console.

"Valve seems like the biggest proponent for general purpose, open computing these days (open in the sense of being able to do what you want with your computer)."

I would have never seen that coming from a company who's most important product is more or less fancy DRM system..., but I surprise myself by finding myself agreeing with you.

I'm not quite sure what that means. Maybe the DRM is more incidental that I thought, maybe they just have their heart in the right place, or maybe the state of things is just that bad.

It has to do with the way Valve has approached it. From day one it wasn't, "How do we stop people from pirating?" It was, "How do we make a more convenient service than the pirates?" And that's where they won. In the early days, people pushed back. But then the brand of Valve as people won out over the brand of Valve as the makers of Half-Life. If you make a good product that has convenience over the alternative (piracy) and charge a reasonable amount, people will pay when they used to pirate. The DRM is incidental to the experience. Valve realized it first, and now you're seeing it replicated in things like Netflix and Hulu.

Steam also succeeds because it is cheap, unless a game is selling well they drop the price by a lot very quickly. I've bought games that are only a year or so old for as little as £7.99 (Saints Row 3, Deus Ex HR etc).

At highstreet stores it was very difficult to get games for less than £15 or so.

My options are:

1) Pirate a game + free - slow download - maybe doesn't work, maybe it's a virus - whatever cracked the DRM might cause bugs - multiplayer rarely (if ever) works

2) Buy from Steam - not free + but, cheap + 2 to 3MB/s download speed + automatic updates + always works, always seamless + "defragment game folder" options, etc, built in + fast, free, re-downloads for life (install as many times as desired)

To add to 2), most games also back up your saves via Steam Cloud now. Not necessarily something you'll always use, but after a reformat, I greatly appreciated it.

However, I have noticed that Steam's offline mode is rather fickle. I try use it when I'm at my friend's house (lack of wireless and a lack of an ethernet port. Weird, unusual scenario, I know), and half the time "Play offline" simply doesn't work. It's put me in the weird position of considering downloading cracks for games I legally own so that I can play them.

Are you putting it in offline mode before you head over or after you get there?

After I get there. I have a desktop PC, not a laptop. I can't really leave it on and then head over. Unless what you're implying is that I need "activate" offline mode on my computer by using it when I'm online here? If so, I really wish Valve would make that much clearer than the infuriating error that pops up now when I try to use offline mode while offline.

Yes, the prescribed way is putting it into offline mode before you lose the connection. It sometimes lets you go into offline without a connection but I don't understand the method it uses to make that decision.

Yeah, if I'm headed to my cottage or some place without Internet access I make sure whatever games I want to play are updated then I switch to offline mode.

Sometimes I can go straight to offline mode but to be on the safe side, switch before you lose network access.

Valve wants Steam to be like Kindle. It's heavily DRM'ed, but available on any platform you can imagine, and therefore you are not restricted by the OS, only by Steam.

That's a very good parallel, and it might give a glimpse into Valve's future.

> open

yeah ... if only there wasn't that problem with valve not accepting everybody on their platform :)

That's a good point. I just assumed that because Gabe decried the windows app store lockin for ARM he would play nice on his own platform. I'm not sure if this would be true or not.

Curated stores are fine and dandy as long as they're not mandatory.

Personally, I love Steam for the fact there there are no $0.99 fart apps or flash games.

Everything is high quality. No games on the store were purchased a thousand+ times with hacked Steam accounts just to get them to the top of the Steam store. Simply because the hacker wouldn't be able to get his shitty game onto the store in the first place.

When I browse through the Apple app store I often feel like I'm sifting through a rubbish bin for something useful I accidentally dropped in there.

Yeah, though there's something to be said about a curated store. All of the games on Steam are of a high quality. Also, Steam Greenlight [1] will make things interesting for app developers too.

[1] http://steamcommunity.com/greenlight/

This kind of got me thinking: What would it take for me to try my hand at developing a desktop app today?

I am a developer. For the most part I've been doing web applications (with a bit of mobile). This is mostly because I feel there isn't any money to be made in desktop apps. Piracy, distribution, etc. Lots of headaches.

Could this change things? Possibly. Just like Java which was download once, run everywhere (haha kidding) we could have apps that are "uniplatform" (yeah I just made up a new word). I buy the app and it is good for desktop, mobile, web. It might give slightly different experiences but my data is still all the same in the back.

One of the closest apps I can think of like this is Google Chat/Talk. I can start a conversation in a web browser window, reply using Pidgin, and finish off a conversation on my Android. It is relatively seamless.

Even better; a Steam application API: write code once and it's available on any Steam-able OS. Cloud storage and desktop power and a huge userbase would make this a tasty platform.

They would be better off just publishing NaCl applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client

How would that be any different than Java?! Of course, except from the fact that Java lacked the distribution channel.

IMO, That's horrible - nightmare scenario. As a Mac user, I hate nothing more than cross-platform apps. They're ugly and lack almost all the features that makes OS X a great user operating system.

You mean like iTunes and Safari?

Because Windows users think the same of cross-platform Mac apps.

Exactly. But they weren't "cross-platform Mac apps". They were poorly-done "ports" (i.e. the UI code was not shared).

iTunes is garbage on all platforms, and its update is long overdue. But Safari (4.0+) is great on OS X. I use it as my main browser (and find it vastly superior to Chrome or Firefox 3.6+ for my needs). The windows port of Safari (which has been discontinued recently, incidentally) was always horrible, much below the standard of Windows apps, and far below the standard of OS X apps.

They were ports?

The fact iTunes needed "Apple Application Support", and ran on Carbon, made me think as a Windows user it wasn't changed much from the Mac versions.

EDIT: Huh, iTunes has since moved on from Carbon.

Yeah, that's pretty much a webapp. Key point is the backend/data is on your side and users access it using a dumb terminal (mobile, web, desktop).

Users can save a javescript webpage and run it from their desktop, but they'd still need web access to get to that data you're storing. Would you class that as a "desktop" app? Or is a desktop app just software that works offline? Or has no other front end software (like a browser) dependencies?

I'm really hoping for a steam redesign. I find the UI to be slow and unresponsive. Hopefully something native (on Windows, Mac, AND now Linux) comes out in the near future.

It's also extremely buggy on the Mac, at least. I can't count the number of times dropdown menus have shown up behind everything else.

They've been improving lately.

Use to drive me nuts when I want a quick game of Bit Trip Runner, the loading time to start up and login then go to the library might take longer than one quick stage.

Why is the comparison being made just between Steam and Microsoft's app store? MS hasn't yet launched their service and what it's uptake will be is yet to be known. Alternately, we have the Mac App Store. It's been around for a while, has a huge uptake, and many developers already have data on how successful (or not) they've been. While Macs are only ~20% of the desktop/laptop market, it's a very lucrative segment.

I would like to see a comparison with how Valve will compete or cooperate with an existing, proven desktop marketplace rather than speculation on something that hasn't launched yet.

Steam isn't just distribution but also offers a lot of features that could translate to apps:

  1. Cloud based saves could become file/settings syncing
  2. Steam Workshop for users to publish plugins and addons
  3. Friends/groups/IM, invite to MP game could become invite to teleconference.
  4. Authentication (OpenID)

But if my app has file associations and user isn't logged on to steam. When they double click the associated filetype will they have to login to steam before my app can open it?

What's interesting is a few weeks back Gabe said that Microsoft were doing bad things with Windows 8, I wonder if this is what got his goat? Steam (I assume) invested a lot in getting software companies on board but if Microsoft had their own app store all this work would be for nothing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18996377

Look closely at what you wrote, you answered your own question :-D

On the other hand, it's been clear that Windows 8 would have an app store for about a year.

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/wind...

I lost respect for valve after they slam windows 8 as garbage without merit and then open a direct competitor to microsoft's app store.

I sort of understand the first point, though I don't think they did it on a whim without any "merit." I don't get your second point though, why do you lose respect for them for competing with a product MS hasn't even released?

Edit: I saw your post in the other thread where you say more clearly that you think the two are related. I'm still not sure why this is an evil thing to do, or why you're convinced the slamming was 'without merit' but it makes more sense now.

Steam pre-dates Microsoft's app store, Apple's app store by a large margin. It's been around for quite a while. Since 2002 I believe.

You make it sound as if they just opened it.

Every other app store has games, too - with the reasonable assumption that Windows' app store would too, Microsoft established themselves as a competitor to Steam a year ago.

Have you used windows 8? The preview is embarrassingly bad, garbage is being generous.

This will dilute the hell out of what I actually use Steam for -- video games.

The Steam front page, though it may seem a little sloppy or insane, is extremely successful at pointing me to games I am interested in, at a cheap price. It's going to get weird, and very nebulous, if a copy of Adobe Premiere is up there in the hot picks slider along with Assassin's Creed 3.

It would shock me if they didn't have separate sections to account for just that. They (hopefully) aren't going to alienate the over 40 million user base they have when currently everyone is expecting to see games there. Productivity related desktop applications will not make sense to a large chunk of those users.

It's brand diluting all the same, though. I guess they (probably correctly) see that they are doing a lot of things right with online purchases/downloads that other places aren't, but part of what I think they are doing right is having and keeping focus. Of course, people said the same thing when Amazon stopped just selling books, and that worked out alright for them.

Valve are going to compete head on with Microsoft then? That's pretty ballsy. Let's hope steam is not left a smouldering corpse.

It's hard to envision this being an extinction event for Steam. Microsoft has just never been able to get people onboard in the way that Valve has with PC game distribution platforms. GFWL was/is a disaster that ended up being more trouble than it was worth. I could see Steam having to back out of software distribution, but I can't imagine Steam dying in the foreseeable future. Not with tens of millions of users voluntarily and enthusiastically locked into the platform.

I think users can be fickle about these things, MS just has to make sure their store tactically undercuts Valve's on some popular products and they could steal a lot of users.

MS also has a trump card here in the form of the Xbox, they can make their Windows stuff integrate with it very well for example allowing you to buy a game once and make it playable on both your PC and your Xbox, or to transfer save games between each etc. Microsoft can also demand Windows Store exclusivity for games to also appear on the Xbox.

Users are fickle, but this play was tried by EA with Origin. You can get them onboard with the big titles like Battlefield 3, but they've been less successful at getting users to buy titles from smaller publishers. Steam offers a better deal to small publishers, and is actively engaged in the community in a way that I doubt Microsoft can replicate.

As for Xbox-PC game interoperability, that would be interesting. I know multiplayer between the two platforms has been ruled out, but transferring from one to another might be attractive. It also makes you wonder why they haven't done it. Games built for the XBLA are written in XNA and can be played with minimal adjustment on Windows. But practically every XBLA-PC success I can think of (Bastion, Orcs Must Die, Limbo, etc.) has been put onto Steam. Makes you wonder why Microsoft isn't already mandating XBLA games be ported into Games for Windows Live if they go to PC.

> I know multiplayer between the two platforms has been ruled out

Thanks for pointing that out. I had thought CS:GO was going to be cross-platform Xbox/PC, but it's not anymore.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-26-ps3-cs-go-suppo...

Agreed. Steam has been something of a trojan horse, building a huge user base in gaming before rapidly switching direction into this market. Good luck to them I say, MS alternatives are nowhere near as polished.

They really aren't even going head to head with Microsoft, since the Windows 8 app store is only for "Metro" apps and this will only be for regular Windows apps.

The real danger for Valve is that people will release games for Metro instead of Steam, this is probably them trying to hedge against that.

I like the idea of a strong platform independent player. I like being in a position where I can switch between Mac and PC fairly painlessly - I like OSX, but sometimes I want the price/performance of a PC tower. The number of critical platform exclusive apps continues to dwindle for me, so a centralized market that minimizes lock-in sounds fantastic.

I'm still unclear how you submit an app to their store? If I have an app with a mac and pc build that I want to submit, what do I do?

I guess you could try reaching out to one of the many indie developers on Steam.

Anyhow, what I suspect though, is that Steam isn't going to become some "app store" like the current Android and Apple ones, rife with fart apps and other useless things. I suspect it would stay highly curated.

For example you don't see hundreds of amateur flash games on Steam, everything is cherry picked which makes for a great consumer experience. I know that any game I buy off Steam is going to be of high quality.

This has the added benefit of not having any of those "scammer" apps around. You know, those apps that get purchased by any and all hacked Apple accounts just to get pushed to the top of the app store.

Right at the top of the FAQ page: http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/FAQ.php "At the moment Steam is currently not accepting new game submissions as we transition to our new Steam Greenlight process."

Previously, I believe you had to contact them and talk to a human being to start the submission process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com