Does anyone else remember when Steam was the Evil Empire?

Phoenix Point
1

WARNING: THIS IS A LONG POST

Ok, I’m over 50 years old. I’ve been playing computer games for more than half my life. Hell, I started gaming before Steam had even been invented. So one of the things I find really depressing about this current storm in a teacup is how many young gamers out there have obviously grown up with Steam and think the sun shines out of its every orifice. And I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them don’t even think twice about owning an X-Box or a Playstation to play the games that are EXCLUSIVE to those consoles.

Everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - that is being said about Epic, with the single exception of it being owned by the Chinese, is what we used to say about Steam back in the day.

I remember the outrage we all felt when we bought a disc in good faith in a store, only to discover that we could only play it by downloading the game through Steam - which in those days took 13 HOURS on our crappy internet connections. I remember the frustration of snatching a precious hour of gaming time at the beginning or end of the day - ‘me’ time squeezed out of work or family responsibilities - only to discover that a full half hour of that time was going to be wasted watching some Fr!£**n update bar crawl across the screen because Effing Steam wouldn’t let me play MY game, which I’D bought, offline on MY computer. I remember the crashes, the glitches, the awful customer service. And I’m not the only one…

Luke Plunkett (September 12, 2013). "Steam Is 10 Today. Remember When It Sucked

Now Steam’s improved. Now you can play offline and updates only take seconds on superfast broadband. But when in started, Steam was WORSE than Epic, but because it was the only player in town, you either played through Steam, or you didn’t play PC games at all - now THAT’s what I call a monopoly!

As for having to wait a year before being given everything you’ve asked for: you do not know the true taste of betrayal as a gamer until you have seen your favourite game pulled entirely off PC and handed to X-Box or Playstation on the grounds that they’ve got better graphics engines and will make the game better, only to discover when you dig into it that because of the limitations of those platforms everything that used to make the game great - design your own plays, infinitely adjustable playbooks, micro-managing your stadium, training your promising players - has been junked in favour of better celebration cutscenes in the endzone. If you want to know what that feels like, imagine buying 'Firaxcom ’ and discovering that it’s a dumbed down version of the Gollop masterpiece, only in order to do that you had to fork out around £300 every 3 or 4 years just to buy a console to play it on.

So to call what I’ve been witnessing on some of these forums an overreaction is an understatement.

"We’ve been betrayed!" No you haven’t. ‘Betrayal’ is being forced to wait 11 years before you even have a chance to play the game you love without having to spend a fortune on a different platform. By contrast, as far as I can tell, Snapshot was asked by Epic to give them full exclusivity and refused on the grounds that they had promised Steam/GoG keys to everyone (I remember reading that on one of the forum threads but I can’t be bothered to wade through the vitriol to find it, so maybe UV or JG can confirm this?). The compromise they reached was a 1 year deal, after which you get exactly what you asked for, with extra DLC.

"Epic are evil!" Yes they are, but I refer you to my entire post above. The entire b!**£y gaming business is evil and has been for decades - get some perspective and get used to it.

"We were duped into giving Snapshot an interest free loan." Now this one really annoys me. NO YOU WEREN’T! You were asked to provide the seed capital for a game, and the devs undertook to provide you with a Steam/GoG key to that game in return. THEY ARE STILL GOING TO DO THAT. Just one year later than planned, so that they can secure their long-term future. In return for that minor inconvenience (it’s not like you can’t access the game on release if you REALLY want it), they are going to give you at least 3 packs of DLC for free. Based on current XCOM values, that’s likely to be over £20 worth of additional content. Assuming you’re one of the 3,000 backers of the Digital Download edition, that’s something like a 90% return in kind on your investment. Even if the DLC is only worth $10, that’s still 30% interest paid through free in-game content. So no, you didn’t give them an interest-free loan - you gave them a loan with interest rates that would make Wonga proud of you.

And if you still can’t stomach it, they’re giving you your money back. I ran this past my accountant the other day. He looked at me blankly and said: “Why’s anyone got a problem with that?”

I’m sure I’m gonna get hatemail from this. I’m sure there are those for whom Snapshot’s one year deal with Epic is nothing short of a deal with the devil that will destroy the future of gaming forever.

I’ve got news for you mate. It isn’t. And I’ve lived through much worse shaftings from games companies than this one, believe me.

26 Likes
2

Hello MichaelIgnotus,

I grew up playing games like Space Invaders, Sokoban, SimAnt and many more on PCs my Smartphone would not just call old but ancient and I still remember the first time I installed Steam.
For a time I completely refused, then installed it anyway and hated it but even then with my hormone induced anger spikes I understood the convenience it would bring in the future.

The hassle going on LAN partys was reduced to a minimum because everyone had the same update and I wouldn’t have to waste 4-6 hours explaining and cross-checking the PCs of my not as tech-savvy friends. Before Steam I wasted hours setting up a server with the right files and versions as they couldn’t be bothered to do it themselves.

The internet connections improved and the service of Steam improved vastly albeit not for the developers. I hate the Epic Launcher because it is inferior and it will be inferior for a long time.

But my main concern with it is the exclusivity because I don’t want PC Gaming to turn into the same shitfest that is console gaming.

I’m fairly sure that the EGS will get better and every gamer worldwide can use it without restrictions.
Right now it is a regional locked featureless spyware from a company with unknown ties to the chinese government (via shares, Tencent).

3 Likes
3

Thanks for the post and the perspective. I wasn’t even aware of steams existance until 2008, so no, I didn’t see it when it sucked. From what I understand though, steam used 1st person IP (Half-Life2 and such) to promote their platform, which I believe is a fair thing to do. I understand that what you refer to is decelopers making steam their de facto platform, making it the only way to play even if you buy physical copy.

I don’t like Epic’s Store as so far they provided nothing of value - exclusives they secured created an artificial sense of value. I am not a console user, but I don’t see anything wrong in company like Sony or Nintendo funding to create great games to promote their platform, but I do see an act of paying off 3rd party developers for an exclusive deal as an issue. Games like God of War, Spider-Man or Zelda exist because of those platforms, and they make their platforms better as they wouldn’t exist otherwise. Games like Raise of the Tomb Raider or Phoenix Point exist either way, and companies pay money to add artificial sense of value to their platform, while in fact they are paying to devalue other platforms.

This strategy, while disappointing and creatively cheap, could be beneficial to developers. I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with the deal Snapshot signed - yes, limiting accessibility of the game doesn’t immediately benefit the customers but it can be beneficial to both companies, resulting in both better platform and better game in the long run (that’s the theory anyway). Snapshot’s job is developing a good game, and if signing the deal helps them in achieving that, it is an option worth considering.

The issue is that Snapshot was already bound by a contract - they committed to creating a game on certain terms when they sought funding from backers. I don’t know if it’s legally binding promise; it might be just a promise made on a good will, but no matter how you look at th situation, this “contract” has been breached. If the initial “commission” were signed and funded by a major corporation I doubt Snapshot could break the agreement so easily or without major consequences.

Some people expressed disappointment that Snapshot didn’t “consult” us regarding the decision, as they might if we were a corporate entity. In some ways that makes sense, though I don’t see a way in which they could reastically do it - it’s impossible to renegotiate the terms with every single backer. So they did what they did - they renegotiated it for us, sweetening our deal with free content and later with extra keys for originally promised platform.

For me, personally, it’s a deal I am willing to accept, but not everyone did, nor has to.

I do agree that some accusations are over the top - I also take an issue with the statement that Snapshot treated backers as an interest free loan - that is not true, and doesn’t represent fairly Snapshot actions. Snapshot didn’t betray nor discard their backers, but backers feel betrayed and discarded when the only option they deem as acceptable is getting a refund. And while one can laugh at how emotional people can get about a game being locked behind an app they don’t like, crowdfunding feeds on emotions. There is no logical reason to pay money (in some cases a lot of money) for a product that hasn’t been made and might never be complete, beside goodwill and trust. Successful crowdfunding a result is a positive overreaction of some, and current backlash is a result of negative overreaction of some.

4 Likes
4

Thanks for your considered response Traxxexx.

Exclusivity sucks, but it’s the only leverage Epic has given the dominance of Steam in the marketplace. Ultimately, that will only work if Epic ups its game and improves its cybersecurity. Despite the success of Fortnite, most Gamers will vote with their mice and go elsewhere if Epic doesn’t eventually provide a stable platform with similar features to Steam - and I acknowledge that Steam has improved over the years, even if I still resent having to get most games through it.

The thing that irritates me about the current debate is that no-one seems to appreciate that Snapshot could very easily have totally screwed us all over and gone with a completely exclusive deal witlh Epic (presumably for even more money). Instead they opted for a compromise which at least enables them to honour the Steam/GoG keys at an admittedly later date. That’s a lot better than Ubisoft, for instance. It’s not ideal, but it falls far short of ‘betrayal’ - and if you don’t like it, they’ll give you your money back.

3 Likes
5

I’m an old fart and I too remember Steam when it first came out - and the anti-Steam community at the time. I remember the days of always trying to run games directly from the executable, because there was often a noticeable performance benefit from not launching through Steam.

Which is why I think arguing the benefits of Steam launcher vs EGS is somewhat moot. Competition is good - but the way Snapshot have behaved is not. The crux of the issue is two-fold, in my opinion:

  1. Snapshot have shown complete disdain & contempt for backers
    Snapshot say that they understood that backers would be upset. But then there is a community manager saying that the EGS deal wasn’t even necessary to complete the game, and referring to a backer on Discord as a “cock-waffle”. That’s a complete lack of empathy for backers being upset.

If I spoke to a customer like that, I wouldn’t even make it to the end of the day in my job.

And believe me, if staff at Snapshot feel confident talking to backers like that in public, I guarantee you that the way they talk about backers in private is an order of magnitude worse. There is obviously a culture of disdain towards backers within Snapshot.

  1. Snapshot not thinking through what the deal meant to backers.
    Again, Snapshot say that the deal didn’t come easily to them, and they had to think about it long and hard. However, evidence suggests this isn’t true.

The specific example I would quote is backers in regions that can’t use EGS.

Literally a 30 min pro/con brainstorm between the Snapshot devs should have thrown this up as an issue. People that now have no choice but refund / wait a year (or pirate the game - great move!). Its clear Snapshot spend very little time thinking about the impact of the deal.

I didn’t back the game, as I’m very wary/particular about crowdfunding for this very reason. But I’ve played all of Julian’s games since his ZX Spectrum games - hell, I keep a speccy emulator installed on one of my boxes because I still play Laser Squad at least once a year.

However, I was really looking forwards to buying this game at launch. And I can also guarantee that I won’t be the only person no longer doing that - that kind of income loss is going to be difficult for Snapshot to quantify. The thing that finally pushed me over the edge, was when I read about the whole “cock-waffle” incident. I simply won’t give money to a company that treats it’s customers that way.

For me, every time I go back an play one of Julian’s old games like Laser Squad or X-Com, the experience is going to be tainted for me.

5 Likes
6

Obviously, because community maganer get pissed off by one of the rage kids (or adults) one time. I wonder how other conclusions you have made based on that? Maybe they have some corner there in the office where they throw knives at the backers list hanging on the wall?

And maybe it was an issue they have discussed? They should say: “We won’t make that deal because some players won’t be able to play. Lets risk the future of our project and company, because of that.”? Thankfully they are not so stupid and know how to take care about business.

And what are those refunds and keys handed one year later for? Maybe because they didn’t thought that over? Again your conclusion is probably false. :stuck_out_tongue:

Good for you. Goodbye and have a good life.

1 Like
7

To the topic creator, yes backers were betrayed. Period. Snapshot came asking for funding and offered a specific package for people’s money, including platform of delivery. They flat out lied. If this doesn’t bother you that is totally fine obviously, but stop trying to paint this as if Snapshot has done absolutely nothing wrong.

8

OK Peeps, let’s try to keep this civil please.
There’s enough toxic back and forth going on out there without bringing it into this thread as well.

2 Likes
9

The point I’m trying to make, Azdreams, is that the package they offered was release on a Steam/GoG key. You’re still going to get that - one year later than you’d like, but in return you’re getting a hell of a lot of probably quite expensive DLC for free.

‘Betrayal’ is Snapshot taking the money and running permanently to a different platform, or selling out to Playstation. ‘Betrayal’ is doing everything they’ve just done and not offering you your money back or any other form of compensation.

To be frank, given what I’ve heard about games development, I suspect that if they hadn’t taken this deal, they’d have had to delay release into next year anyway and scrap plans for half the DLC they want to produce (I don’t know this, I’m just speculating, but it seems to be the usual arc of an under-funded new game - and believe me $800,000 IS underfunded for something of this scale and ambition)

So I get that you feel let down, but it’s not like they’re removing any chance of you ever being able to play the game. They’re just asking you to wait a while, if you really can’t stomach playing on Epic, and then thy’re going to give you everything you asked for and more.

3 Likes
10
  1. I disagree complete with point no. 1.
    Lets get the tricky thing out of the way: I won’t be addressing the “cock-waffle” thing - community manager should know better even if the “cock-waffle” really deserved it.

Snapshot has been calm, transparent and honest, even about parts of the deal which they knew backers wouldn’t like. I think they could handle the PR better but I don’t think it would be a sign of respect. For example I wonder if people would react better if the free DLC would be offered after the backlash, to add a sense of victory to angry mob.

The fact that the deal is to support post launch content I see as irrelevant - if the story were that Snapshot run out of money, they would be accused of mismanagement - hell, for some unknown to me reason people were upset that the game was delayed.

I also don’t understand why people are so upset over Snapshot admitting that they expected backlash. Would you believe them if they played stupid? A typical PR no response? (We have heard you, we learned from our mistake, we never expected, we will do better in the future bla bla bla). They apologised, and offered between recommendation or refund upfront, and explained their reasoning. I don’t know what else you can ask for, except for, well, not signing the deal, and perhaps letting people go if game won’t sell well enough on launch. They believe that keeping the team financially secure and being able to develop content post launch was worth the PR hit - that’s fair, and time will tell if they were right. I would certainly want my employer to think this way, Jullian is taking serious hit to his reputation for the PP and his team.

  1. I think they thought about it real hard - content made with Epic money goes to backers for free, game is supposed to be DRM free so you don’t have to use Epic Store any more then necessary. It seems like they did think hard on why people could be upset and tried to mitigate potential complains as much as possible. The china thing sucks big time. I do wonder if it was something they were aware of, or if they missed on this painful detail.
3 Likes
11

Just for the sake of accuracy PP earned much more than that - crowdfunding continued after initial fig campaign and in total earned over $2,000,000.
Agree with overall point though.

12

Let me correct you on a couple of things there. Firstly, I didn’t say that the deal wasn’t necessary to complete the game. As Julian himself explained in the AMA - we have funding to finished development, but after that we’d be completely reliant on sales figures to keep the studio going. This deal meant we’d be able to keep the studio running for at least another year or so delivering more content and sooner for Phoenix Point.

As for the “cock-waffle” thing, yes, it was very unprofessional and I take full responsibility. It was a heat of the moment thing in a stressful situation on very limited sleep. After almost a full 24 hours of toxicity and in some cases straight up death-threats, I lost my cool. I did regret typing it as soon as I had done so and it was removed from my post within seconds.

I am only human, and we all have limits. I am not employed to take abuse, personal attacks or death-threats - especially over a decision which I did not make. On this particular occasion, that limit was reached.

14 Likes
13

Wait, isn’t that what Community Managers are for? :slight_smile:

14

I was one that said about this and I think I should explain a bit more what I was trying to say, for that I’m going to use the example of another software.

I’m an user of Lightwave 3D (3D model software), for some time we were asking for improvements in the modeler part.

At the beggining of 2018 the developers made a survey to gather feedback. Part of the suggestion was implemented in the software.

Also the results for the survey were published, so that gives the oportunity to see and compare what others users (that take the survey of course) though was important.

Something like this is what I was thinking when I talked about consult us.

You can put the options that Snapshot though were more realistic/possible to see the percent of aceptance that they have between the backers and try to use that feedback when the negotiating with Epic.

1 Like
15

I am genuinely curious if Snapshot employees were in open celebration after this deal was made, happy with the pile of money, or if they felt some remorse for selling out. I also wonder if they knew the extent to which backers would be unhappy with this decision.

16

This was the post that was sorely missing in all this backlash. I was thinking in writing something very similar, but work and family weren’t getting in the way :wink:

2 Likes
17

I have been there and when we are tired we can do things without thinking, we are all humans we all make mistakes.

And about the death-threads, you have my support, that stuff is unacceptable in any regard.

6 Likes
18

Well, that’s pretty much saying that the deal wasn’t necessary to deliver what the backers paid for. As far as being reliant on sales, that’s no big surprise either. Many companies rely on selling their product to keep going. Getting money to do more than what original backers paid and asked for is a budget creep, understandable if it hadn’t been at the expense of promises made.

That said, we’re beating a dead horse here. Best of luck in your future endeavors.

19

When Steam launched it was the first of its kind and had to do a lot by trial and error. It was the first streamlined platform for digital distribution, patching and multiplayer, which meant a lot back in the day.

Remember Gamespy ? Steam managed to that and more with time. Naturally any new distribution store after Steam will be better at start, since it now knows what the basic conventions are. Granted, Epic took their sweet time to implement basic things like refund policy and regional pricing, but they did in the end.

It is essentially impossible to compare the two. And like it was already pointed out, that is not the issue.

It is the removal of backer agency. Forget about Steam/GOG/Epic or real-world politics between China, USA and others.

People backed the game hoping that they would be able to influence it from the start and nurture a tailored product for the fans. Then a big company comes in, promises more than the backers have paid altogether so far and all of a sudden they are swiped away by the tide of big bucks.

No mention was made of future support with DLC or extra features after launch during the FIG campaign or the two years of development. Moreover, the game isn’t out yet and they have started planning and probably working on new content for the base game, which hasn’'t properly been tested and appraised ?

Nobody knows whether there will be real desire for additional content. Look at the Real-Time combat in Xcom : Apocalypse. It was an interesting take on the Xcom formula, but it did not merit any additional future content or sequels.

All of a sudden someone decided they the players would be asking for additional content and ready to pay for it. Without even actually checking with the backers what they think about it.

That is why it will be difficult for anyone at Snapshot games to find a good argument to support this decision. It lacked common sense and decency, it was uncalled for and most importantly, it was badly communicated, especially considering the huge backlash from the Metro Exodus’s deal with Epic.

20

Huh?

This is, to quote god knows how many sources, ‘The spiritual successor to X-COM’.
OF COURSE there will be a real desire for additional content. Just look at the current XCOM, just take a cursory look through god knows how many posts on these forums wanting to know what will be added in DLC.

Not to mention the airship expansion that the original funding just missed.

Any developer worth its salt is planning for expansions and DLC before the base build is even complete, because of the voracious appetite of gamers for more stuff. It’s a given no-brainer that the players will be ‘asking for additional content and willing to pay for it.’

Snapshot clearly has a vision for the long-term future of this game. To expect anything less is just wilful blindness. They chose to secure that vision - and the 55 jobs that go with it - by taking the Epic coin. My issue with the current (minority) backlash against this is that it is completely out of proportion to what they’ve done, bearing in mind the compensation packages that have been offered - and the fact that, unlike Metro Exodus, this WILL be available on Steam in a year’s time.

They’re not trying to exclude you from the game, they’re just trying to ensure that even if it isn’t as successful as they hope it will be, they’ll still be around in a year’s time to build on it. And no-one is excluding you from the Backer Builds, so that you can help shape the final product. It’ll just be on Epic for a year before general release, is all.

Hell, Julian Gollop has even given you his blessing to sell on your Epic keys if you want to. Other than refusing to secure the future of his company, I really don’t see how much more he could have done.

2 Likes