Talk is Cheap: example #738647 by Blizzard & Valve

[Richard]

Blizzard and Valve want consoles to unite online

Then why can't I buy Diablo 3 off Steam or play Half-Life 2 through my Blizzard Account?

Hate to play devil's advocate for Microsoft and intellectually oppose something I actually agree with but this smells like two companies that want to monetise their future games without having to pay royalties. Did I mention I actually agree with the underlying idea?

They also mention cross-platform play with PCs.

 

[ERP]

Everyone wants to own the customers info.
It's not rocket science to understand why. Advertising $, the ability for a customer to spend your version of points on micro transactions at any time.
I think about the best we can hope for is a common login for multiple services, but I just can't see anyone given up even that ownership at this point.

 

[Tea2]

Well if there is a company powerful enough to put some pressure on platform holders in this respect, its either Valve or Blizzard. If they can't, nobody can.
I actually think the console release of Diablo III depends on how much control Blizzard will have over the game on PSN/XBL. I'd imagine they would want something more out of it than just regular co-op/arena gameplay.

 

[patsu]

It's not impossible once they factor in new players like Apple and Google, and their audiences. ^_^

It will be easier if the networks offer more unique/exclusive services. Not easy but I think some companies are already making headway.

 

[Squilliam]

It'll be a cold day in hell before Microsoft gives up control of Live or Sony does likewise for PSN.

 

[patsu]

It is a matter of setting up the fences. If they really want, they can keep PSN closed but SEN open (PSN is part of SEN for now, may be same thing in the future... I don't know). Kaz talked about porting Playstation Suite to iOS and Windows. And PSS will run on Playstation as well.

Sometimes, Sony can execute weird moves like this because they span the entire value chain in the contents business. If they don't earn money here, they can earn it from another area.

They also have not gone all out and built server infrastructure everywhere. Probably not tied down too much by server side contracts (They created and renamed the new NPS division from scratch).

EDIT: Hopefully, Sony will learn from their integration with Steam, DUST514 and FFXIV.

 

[BoardBonobo]

It'll be a cold day in hell before Microsoft gives up control of Live or Sony does likewise for PSN.

Then its going to be a long cold winter for both Sony and MS if they don't follow the current market trending because Apple, in all likelihood, will.

Convergence has been a word that's been bandied around for decades now ever since a calculator was cross bred with a watch. IMO, technology is at the point that is ripe for true convergence but any hardware needs good software and for a platform as complicated and complex as a fully converged media device and in the likes of PSN, Live, and Steam we have the basics needed. But no one provider covers all the bases. Yet.

 

[AlphaWolf]

heh apple is even more protectionist than either MS or Sony, not quite sure where you're going with that idea.

 

[BoardBonobo]

heh apple is even more protectionist than either MS or Sony, not quite sure where you're going with that idea.

I not sure how long that current perspective will last with Jobs leaving. They are very hungry for new markets and if Sony or MS falter then Apple are in the best position to move in.

 

[TheChefO]

I not sure how long that current perspective will last with Jobs leaving. They are very hungry for new markets and if Sony or MS falter then Apple are in the best position to move in.

Apple's walled garden isn't going anywhere.

They will expand the walls of said garden, but they will never take the walls down.

It's counter to how they make their money and their edge in the marketplace.

As for Blizzard and Valve ... pot meet kettle.

 

[ERP]

Apple is trying to drive all post sale transactions through the app store and I don't see that changing.
The battle going on here is who controls the flow of post sale revenue, I don't see any of the big players giving that up until they reach the point they can't compete.

IMO more and more of the revenue in titles will slowly move post sale.

There are a lot of players who could encroach on the traditional console markets if a transition to software as a service happens in the next 10-15 years, I'd count Apple, Google, Facebook and even new players as possibilities, but Sony and MS will be trying to solidify themselves in that space as well.

To win in that space you have to own how players spend money and you drive use of your service through social tools. What you want is players logged on to your service all of the time with the ability to make impulse purchases anywhere.

 

[patsu]

The concept is not new. Just look at the Internet. Software as services everywhere, but owned by not one single party. I am pretty sure the Asian countries will want to set up barriers so that their own online entities can thrive there.

Apple has its wall but it will only be one of the key players. If it takes 10-15 years for game developers to move their games to service model, then I'm pretty sure Sony Entertainment Network would have matured further. And that is an open environment, supported by all Sony and partner devices. They can't afford to lock it down.

Nintendo don't have the ambition to own a closed network to begin with.

As long as Apple and Google leave iOS and Android open enough to run OpenFeint (or equivalent), that would be the natural next step. Micro-transactions can happen later.

Noone is saying it will be as easy as talking, but the gears have already started to turn. I don't know which exact way it will fall yet, but the picture has already started to evolve.

EDIT: For now, I would love to see Steam, Sony, FFXIV, DUST514 work well first. Blizzard is of course always welcomed, but something on the Android and iOS side would be nice since I have iOS games at home.

 

[Rangers]

Everyone wants to own the customers info.
It's not rocket science to understand why. Advertising $, the ability for a customer to spend your version of points on micro transactions at any time.
I think about the best we can hope for is a common login for multiple services, but I just can't see anyone given up even that ownership at this point.

Exactly, never happen, why would MS essentially give up control to the Valve's of the world?

And Valve is not the "good guy" in this despite common thought on the internet, they have an vested interest in Steam the same as MS in Live and Sony in PSN. I'm sure Valve doesnt enjoy giving over control to MS when they put their games on Live, they'd rather the whole video game business was under their control on Steam (witness the EA-Valve fight for the fact Valve does impose conditions on others as part of it's own service). But Valve does it anyway for the time being so they can make money on Microsoft's console which is necessary to them at this point in time, but I'm sure they dont love it.


That's besides the other issues, common login, you'd need common rules for such things as trivial as when to ban somebody, wouldn't you need common protocols for countless things like voice chat too? We all know the issues with that on PSN...doesn't PSN allow mouse/keyboard and Live doesnt? I cant even wrap my head around how a common network would possibly work...

But, there's a lot of things software makers want that hardware makers dont. The software makers would love for the consoles to be priced at 99 bucks right now too of course if it was up to them. It's just a case of conflicting interests. Valve would have to prove this would benefit everybody, and actually prove it would benefit the hardware makers more than the status quo does.

 

[RobertR1]

Everyone wants to own the customers info.
It's not rocket science to understand why. Advertising $, the ability for a customer to spend your version of points on micro transactions at any time.
I think about the best we can hope for is a common login for multiple services, but I just can't see anyone given up even that ownership at this point.

Exactly. I expect, atleast on the PC for things to diverse even more.

I think of Steam like Netflix. The studios now want to break away and try to replicate the formula.

The common login won't work if someone is allowed to advertise/monetize the landing page. It'd have to be a clean page with no ad's or promotional activity. At that point, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who'll take on the liability.

 

[patsu]

Then don't advertise on the landing page. ^_^
google.com doesn't advertise on the landing page. Many services don't advertise on the landing page, or the registration page, or the payment pages.

If a business model is limiting, then change it. Or adopt multiple models, and keep evolving.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Convergence has been a word that's been bandied around for decades now ever since a calculator was cross bred with a watch. IMO, technology is at the point that is ripe for true convergence but any hardware needs good software and for a platform as complicated and complex as a fully converged media device and in the likes of PSN, Live, and Steam we have the basics needed. But no one provider covers all the bases. Yet.

Convergence isn't remotely what is happening now.

We are now entering an era of greater and greater divergence. Up until recently, Valve have acted as a defacto point of convergence on the PC with Steam.

Blizzard however, was the first to setup a system where they were the only point at which you could purchase their games online. Activision on the other hand still values a centralized point of purchase in Steam.

More recently, EA has decided they are going to go their own way with their Origins system. And while they still allow some of the smaller and less relevant online shops to sell their games electronically, I expect that to come to an end at some point also as EA tries to have a Blizzard like system where they are the only point of electronic purchase.

You can also see some fledgling efforts by other vendors towards this (UBIsoft and THQ have their own electronic storefronts, for example) although most still value the centralized purchasing point that Valve's Steam represents.

Apple is adamant about doing things their way. MS will want to keep control of their offerings. Sony is unlikely to release control over what and how things are presented on PSN.

Basically, I don't see any signs at all pointing to any sort of convergence among the major players.

Regards,
SB

 

[BoardBonobo]

Convergence isn't remotely what is happening now.

We are now entering an era of greater and greater divergence. Up until recently, Valve have acted as a defacto point of convergence on the PC with Steam.

Blizzard however, was the first to setup a system where they were the only point at which you could purchase their games online. Activision on the other hand still values a centralized point of purchase in Steam.

More recently, EA has decided they are going to go their own way with their Origins system. And while they still allow some of the smaller and less relevant online shops to sell their games electronically, I expect that to come to an end at some point also as EA tries to have a Blizzard like system where they are the only point of electronic purchase.

You can also see some fledgling efforts by other vendors towards this (UBIsoft and THQ have their own electronic storefronts, for example) although most still value the centralized purchasing point that Valve's Steam represents.

Apple is adamant about doing things their way. MS will want to keep control of their offerings. Sony is unlikely to release control over what and how things are presented on PSN.

Basically, I don't see any signs at all pointing to any sort of convergence among the major players.

Regards,
SB

I agree that the software platforms appear to be diverging in that their operators are trying to create their own controlled environments. But in doing that they are all working on ways to perfect the integration and delivery and that will converge on one single point. When steam started it was like the corner piece in a very large jigsaw, you could see the pattern but not the whole picture.

Now that hardware platforms are starting to converge on a single market, and that's the casual one, all it will take is one single software platform that provides the tranquil, and seamless, user experience to provide media rich applications be it games or the latest facetwitterspace trend for music et al and then suddenly the whole system is on the next wrung.

 

[AlphaWolf]

uh the reason for divergence is money. They don't want to give steam 30% (or whatever the cut is) when they can do it themselves for less.

Someone will need to start making a lot of sacrifices on their end to create any sort of convergence.

 

[patsu]

I think both divergence and convergence are possible. It's a matter of who's willing to spend large sum of money first to grab and sustain consumers' attention.

Apple is able to do it because they were here first, and they moved early enough to corner all the key pieces. The other followers will have to share the leftovers, or spend more to achieve what Apple has done because partners are either equally powerful or less "stupid" now. They can see where the money is.

That said, it is mostly still up to execution. If your partners think that they are as good as you, there is little/no reason why they want to let you do it alone.

 

[patsu]

I guess this is related:

EA's Origin Hosting Third-Party Content 'Very Soon'; 4M Client Installs:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...arty_Content_Very_Soon_4M_Client_Installs.php

Publisher Electronic Arts is putting major focus on its digital strategy, and a key component of that is the company's new Origin digital distribution platform, where it currently sells EA-published games.

But the scope of Origin is set to expand beyond EA's walls, putting the service in more direct competition with other digital distribution platforms such as Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive.

"Initially, Origin is set up to deliver EA games, but very soon, we'll be delivering third-party content to Origin," said EA CFO Eric Brown at a UBS conference in London today.

He said EA plans to "leverage our backend infrastructure -- the 130 million-plus registered users that we have, the multitude of digital payment methods, et cetera" in order to attract other companies' games to its service. The exec did not specify which third-party games and companies that are headed to Origin.

A wholly-owned digital download business would be extremely attractive to a major publisher such as EA. By selling a digital game directly to customers, the company could bypass retailers, increasing margins substantially.

...