Valve head talks digital ownership
Valve boss Gabe Newell talks about the tricky legal ground of digital ownership, and how service providers must take care of their customers to avoid conflicts.
Analysts are constantly proclaiming a digital future for games, but that notion is still uneasy for some customers. The lack of a physical object brings up questions of ownership, and Valve boss Gabe Newell has addressed those concerns head-on in an interview.
"It's sort of like this kind of messy issue, and it doesn’t really matter a whole lot what the legal issues are, the real thing is that you have to make your customers happy at the end of the day," he said.
Speaking to The PA Report, Newell side-stepped the legal issue brought up by a recent customer complaint, and consistently stated that satisfaction must be the number one priority. "If you're not making your customers happy you're doing something stupid and we certainly always want to make our customers happy," Newell said. "And I think we have a track record of having done that."
The instance of the Russian gamer who lost his games, in particular, is being dealt with from a customer service angle. "If you're asking me to render a legal opinion then I'm just not the super useful person to render a legal opinion," he explained. "At first blush it sounded like we were doing something stupid and then we'll get it fixed."
He also points out that the issue of ownership doesn't worry customers as much after they've had some experience with Steam. "So, you know, people were worried when we started using Steam initially because, oh my gosh, if I don’t have my discs what happens when I get a new machine?" he said. "And after they’ve done this a couple times they're like 'oh my god, this is so much better, I'm so much more likely' - you know, this isn't a legal argument, this is a real world argument - 'I'm so much more likely to lose my discs than I am to have any problem with my Steam account, that seems way better than having a physical token that I use to access my content.'"
While the question of ownership isn't fully settled, Newell's remarks are a good reminder that customers can vote for their wallets. If Steam or a service like it mistreats its customers as we burrow more heavily into the digital future, they can at least be held accountable by taking business elsewhere. Of course, doing such would mean sacrificing all semblance of "ownership" one has over their purchased digital content.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Valve head talks digital ownership.
Valve boss Gabe Newell talks about the tricky legal ground of digital ownership, and how service providers must take care of their customers to avoid conflicts.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
You could also argue that people in lower cost-of-living parts of the country are paying a higher premium for their software than people who live in California/New York.
-
[deleted]
-
-
"Cost to produce" doesn't really apply to digital media.
-
-
I'm dumb and misread it. Nothing to see here. Carry on.
-
-
Yup, games like Left 4 Dead 2 and BF3 don't cost anything to produce.
-
-
I understand your desire to get something you like for less money, but making the argument that "oh, they get it for less than why shouldn't I" is akin to making a fuss over the fact that the kid in front you in the lunch line in high school is getting a discount on his slice of pizza because his parent's are poor. Or your dorm mate got more money in scholarships because he came from the projects while you came from suburbia.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
But the fact that we are willing to pay more says that it's WORTH that price to us. People won't pay more than the games are worth to them, right?
And it sounds like you are arguing that they sell games in poor countries at a "loss" that is subsidized by sales in rich countries. But that implies that not selling the game at all in a poor country (and keeping the rich-price the same) would make the publisher more money. So why don't they do that? I think you have to assume they make money on every sale of a digital product since the incremental cost to "produce" a copy is tiny.
So basically I think it comes down to the fact that publishers charge as much as they can, which is as much as people will pay. If the aggregate global revenue is higher than the total development/marketing costs then a game makes money in the end and no customers in any country are getting screwed.-
[deleted]
-
It sounds like you are saying that if they are making money on the Russian pricing then why not make that money with lower Russian pricing in the US. But that means less revenue per sale, so you have to be assuming they would make it up by selling more copies. I think that's a tough argument without any data because it's just basically saying the pricing is incorrect in the US and they'd make more total money selling more copies at a lower price. And that would be true regardless of the "rest-of-world" pricing.
Or maybe you mean the poor world should pay the same price as the rich world, but I think we agree that you would just not sell many copies in the poor world because they can't/won't pay that much. So that loses you revenue, too.
I guess I just don't see how variable pricing is a bad idea for publishers. Globally "rich world" prices means same sales in the rich world and less everywhere else (net loss in revenue). Globally "poor world" prices means the same sales in the poor world and increased unit sales for the rich world at a lower unit revenue (plus you cut off any cross region trading like you seem to dislike). So unless you get a really big spike in sales in the rich world to offset the lost unit revenue you will make the same, less, or equal money. But the difference seems to come down to ONLY how the rich world market deals with lower prices. So it's not really even an global pricing issue, right? It's just whether the rich world price is too high.-
[deleted]
-
The problem with saying that they should all wait is that people don't want to wait. If you wait, you're either losing sales to the next big thing, or you're losing sales to piracy. Publishers realize this even if you don't, and that is why they make new games available at prices that consumers in less affluent countries can afford from day zero.
-
No need to be defensive. "It sounds like you are saying" is me literally trying to make sure I understand what your argument is, because it wasn't clear to me.
Now I understand that you mean everyone should get the rich world price, and the poor world should just wait for the eventual price drop. Is that right? if so, then you are proposing that publishers trade "low price sales in Russia now" for "low price sales in Russia later when the price drops" which is a terrible proposition for a publisher. It's better to have $10 now on that sale and earn interest for a year than to wait and get $10 in a year. If you aren't familiar with how this is calculated you can look up "net present value" for the math used to make these assessments.
Segmentation based on geography (really, based on local markets) may be unintuitive but can you explain why global pricing would make more money for publishers?
-
-
-
-
This post right here is spot on. It's the stuff they teach you in Econ 101. Consumers in wealthy countries pay more because they are willing and able to pay more. See Economic Surplus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
-
-
-
No.
-
[deleted]
-
This is the argument for a single global gov't with a single currency. Then we get Starfleet. Then we get the alien babes.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
I guess it's not exactly the peace of mind you want, but Valve is insanely profitable and 100% privately owned, and there is pretty much no chance of them being bought or taken over since most of the employees are only there in the first place because they like being private. Any attempt to buy out Steam would only be laughed at.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Great interview. Make sure you check out the full thing at: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/valves-gabe-newell-talks-wearable-computers-rewarding-players-and-whether-w/all
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I'm not quite sure why Steam always seems to get a 'free pass' just because Gabe is a good guy. I have some real issues with the way everything you 'own' on Steam is linked directly to your single account, and you can't easily sell your old games. No trading with friends/family, which is especially problematic for short single player games. Total loss of control of your purchased product. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually has some decent support, but it is extremely lacking (like not having a phone number to call - no 'live' people to ask questions to). So when there is a problem, it's often impossible to get it fixed. Or if it is fixed, it may be after the weeks it took to get an actual response.
A recent personal example, which IMO should not have been an issue at all. Especially with Valve/Steam being a bunch of 'really nice guys'. I bought a game (rollercoastrer tycoon) on a Christmas sale for my kids. Great game by the way... but I made the mistake of buying with my Steam account and not creating a new one for the kids. So, whenever they want to play on 'their' computer in the back room, I have to go and physically type in my password, logging off of Steam on my primary desktop. So I can't even browse the Steam store, much less play my own games while they are playing a singleplayer game OFFLINE in the other room. Within 2 weeks of the purchase I contacted Valve support to try to switch the game to the kids' account, but I got the boilerplate letter 2 weeks (shouldn't take that long to get a response) later stating that games can't be switched, no matter what. Very frustrating and pointless.
This should have been easy for Steam. The game is obviously meant for kids. I've had an account since HL2 came out and have never bought kids games before. There should have been no issues switching the game over.
More generally, there is no rational reason why single player offline games should be tied to a single online account. This applies to Blizzard at well. I bought Starcraft 2 last year specifically to play on my laptop while I was out of town working at a field camp. Guess what... no internet at camp = no play. Ridiculous. I still haven't got around to installing on my home computer.
end rant
TLDR summary: I don't understand why Steam has such loyal Fanbois. It's no better than lots of other DRM. And their support needs to be improved dramatically before I will ever feel comfortable long term. I would never buy a game full price on Steam. I don't mind so much with the heavily discounted sale prices, because I fell that those prices reflect the risk somewhat.-
[deleted]
-
-
This is absurd. You made the mistake when it clearly gives you two options for purchase and this is Valve's fault why?
-
-
-
-
An this is where the bullshit comes in: "... the real thing is that you have to make your customers happy at the end of the day,"
How do you know you are a customer that fits into that group. The formula is such: majority - # unhappy customers < profit goal = unhappy shit out of luck -
And how do you prove who's in a family? Start giving Valve personal information they wouldn't otherwise have, or maybe start banning family-linked accounts if they log in from IPs too far apart?
A group of friends could just set themselves up as friends, and collectively buy 1/4 the games they otherwise would.
I would imagine worries like this cause the "no transfer ever" thing to be part of publisher agreements. Otherwise, sure it would make sense to allow 1-2 transfers here and there for established customers.
-
-
-
-
It's not absurd. It's called basic customer support. It was an honest mistake, and I would think that my 7 year relationship with Steam would show that I am a 'responsible' (if we want to categorize Steam users) user of their services who has never bought kids games before. I don't think I have even gifted a product. I contacted them right away once I realized my mistake, and they told me that I just had to 'eat it'. You would think my 'clean record' would speak for itself. They know my age etc. and it's pretty obvious I'm not a college student playing hours of multiplayer with my buddies and trying to get a free game. It's Roller Coaster Tycoon for crying out loud.
I don't see how my mistake should be uncorrectable. That is my problem with the whole situation. Just the fact that I am even mentioning my past history with their service gives me the creeps (and it should to you too). Does Walmart check your history before deciding if they should allow you to return that couch that doesn't fit in your living room after all?
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
TLDR: Entitled gamer fucks up and blames somebody else, film at 11.
-
I know that I shouldn't even bother replying to this dickhead comment, but I will anyway.
I don't feel entitled at all, except that there needs to be a better way to manage customer mistakes in the system. For one thing, Steam support needs to respond in less than 10 days. They need to have a phone number to call for problems that don't fit into their very specific reporting categories. I'm not trying to return the game. I'm not trying to gift it to a multiplayer buddy. What if I had meant to gift it and had clicked the wrong button accidentally during the purchase of a game I didn't want?
If I had known the system better, I would have set up the kids' account first and then purchased it from there. But I didn't. Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be a way to correct mistakes?
-
-
Prices are definitely not fair.I live in Europe.Most game on steam, I can order a freakin retail copy for 30% less money.I admit that buying indie games is good, and getting games for TF2 items, but the prices are crap most of the time.Example: Modern Warfare 3 on steam - 60 euros, Price on Zavvi.com - 31 euros and that includes shipping.Scratch 30%, it's 50% less expensive.
-
-
The second sentence of your TLDR is flat wrong. It *IS* better than pretty much any other DRM. That's what you're missing, and that's why you don't "understand" why people like it. (I figure you really understand, you just don't agree)
It's a fantastic system that make the PC platform a joy to use, frankly. The fact that my games are tied to a simple single account, and that I have my entire library just a click away any time I log in to a different machine, and the complete ease of installation, uninstallation, updates, and even DLC are unmatched.
-
-
Maybe I'm just 'oldschool', but I like to think of my purchases as things I own. For example, I could take a book off my shelf and sell it to my neighbor, or I could just give it to him.
Generally, this is not a real problem. Often it will expand the awareness of people to the author and if it is good, it will likely lead to more sales for that author in the future as more people look forward to his new books.
I realize that the publishers are slowly trying to move away from this 'old' model when it comes to intellectual property 'products', and it seems that they are getting pretty successful at it.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
All that I know is that back in the day, I could loan my brother StarCraft, he could play it, and then give it back when he was done/I wanted to play it. Separate houses, same game copy. How does this work? He can play it because I don't have access to it. Same as loaning out a movie.
Why can't a game be disabled on my account and enabled on my brother's on a loan basis? And when I want it back, being the owner of said copy, I re-enable it on my account, and it is automatically disabled on any other account. Hmmm?-
That is up to the developer or publisher if they want to give out guest keys. I know Blizzard in the past used to have "spawn" installs that lets that copy play with the person who paid for the original copy. It wouldn't be hard to implement something but there isn't obvious money in doing it. The best you can get now is free weekends and passes.
-
-
Steam gets a 'free pass' because Steam as a service and the people running it aren't dicks, take care of shit when it's broken, provide the best service on earth for what they offer, promote the SHIT out of the PC as a gaming platform, give tons of free shit away for FREE, and generally make me the customer feel loved and important.
-
-
-
When I first started using steam, I had issues with not actually owning anything physical. But honestly, after having used steam for many years now and owning over 300 games I actually feel more ownership towards steam games than physical copies of games. If I purchase a physical copy (which I haven't in years) and I cannot attach it to Steam I feel like a pirate. It just doesn't feel official and it isn't "linked" to anything. It's just another game installed on your PC that you'll forget you own after uninstalling. I can't exactly explain what I mean but I'm sure you'll understand.
-
For me it's not so much the "official" feel of linking it to my account, but disc-based games definitely do feel detached and almost crude in comparison. I love how once I have a game in steam, it's so easily available in perpetuity. I know I'm not the only one (not even close) to have re-purchased games that I have on disc, especially when you have GOTY editions really cheap and things like that.
-
-
