http://www.mcvuk.com/features/808/OPINION-Retail-vs-Steam
I have read with interest the article ‘Retailers blow off Steam’, as the topic is one I have been focussed on for some time now. Three years ago, I requested of that the 1C management team negotiate and retain the digital rights to all our titles, even when we sell on the boxed rights to other publishing houses. They agreed and for the last two years this decision has born major dividends for 1C. The reasons behind the decision were numerous, but one of the large driving factors was the fact that in the English speaking territories – especially in the UK and USA – we saw a massive decline in the way the PC market was being supported by the bricks and mortar retailers. Shelf space was being reduced on an almost monthly basis in favour of the latest twitch kids console title and it was becoming more and more difficult to get titles listed in any depth – even when those titles were securing review scores of over 80 per cent. It’s not surprising that PC gamers turned to different methods of distribution, and Steam filled that need perfectly. Not just providing a well stocked distribution platform, but a whole social network for enthusiast gamers who were not getting supported elsewhere as their hobby went mainstream. HIGH STREET OUTRAGEWhat is more surprising is the reaction of retail now. I have read it described as the reaction of a small child who threw his toy away because he no longer wanted it, but started screaming as soon as another child picked it up to play with. The metaphor works perfectly, especially in the light of the excuse I heard on numerous occasions. ‘There is no demand’ went the mantra. But is this really true? Not in our experience. I remember fondly the meeting in my office with a red-faced publisher who was explaining why their initial order from a major retailer for one of our new releases was just 30 units. At the time I had my browser open on the Steam product data page, which updates sales numbers every few minutes. “They have taken one unit for each of their top 30 stores” he told me. “There is just no demand from their customers”. I glanced at my screen, hit refresh and advised him: “In the time it’s taken you to tell me that there is no demand, Steam has sold 45 units”. Steam is selling decent numbers of our titles. They are really cool to work with, have a refreshing, knowledgeable developer mentality, and never bully or threaten their suppliers. And for a company such as ours, there is much more to it than that. There is the financial model, which is so often overlooked. Since 1997, when 1C’s gaming division was founded, the company worked on a model whereby a title developed and sold by 1C in Russia was then sub-licensed to our great publishing partners. As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs. When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter. So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30. Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale. Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas. Remind me why we should choose to go with retail and decline to let Steam sell the game? DIGITAL DIVERSITYWhilst the specific MCV story referred to Steam, there are a large number of other digital partners. 1C deals with 26 of them, who report and pay monthly sales varying between hundred and tens of thousands. Steam may be very dominant, but I do believe there is room for innovative and creative partners like GamersGate, Impulse/Stardock, Direct2Drive, GreenMan Gaming and GetGamesGo/Eurogamer to find a customer base who prefer their particular offerings. Unlike at retail, the dominant players in the digital market do not get, nor do they ever ask for, better terms than the other players. So what else, apart from better support, better sales, no inventory, no returns and much better payment terms, have the Romans ever done for us? Another advantage is the ability to boost sales with promotional prices – and you’ll often see an additional sales upturn after returning to the full price. For example, if you run a game of the week promotion, you can sell maybe 20,000 units of your title in that period. You now have 20,000 new users enthusing about your game, which even when the title returns to full price, causes a very obvious knock on effect that can happily double your sales. This creative working of pricing, promotions and catalogue is something I am convinced retail can learn and benefit from. It frustrates me greatly that once a game is six weeks old, it is written off and consigned to the bargain bins, never to rise again. We have a 10-year-old simulator title that still sells regularly on digital platforms. This brings me to a quick recommendation. The Long Tail by Chris Anderson is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the differentials and opportunities offered by the digital platform. In the book, Anderson talks about one outlet that turn 90 per cent of their titles only once a month – but as they stock two million titles that once a month equates to 1.8m sales. Retail has just delivered $360m sales on first day for Black Ops. Those are impressive numbers. Will they really not stock Black Ops 2 next Christmas if it has Steam features included on the PC SKU? Add those numbers to the sales, longevity and depth that digital can offer, and surely we have a decent market model that can work alongside each other without the need for threat and recrimination? Steam is here to stay. Retailers needs to communicate and work with publishers, rather than dictate and pontificate to ensure the same can be said for them.
I have read with interest the article ‘Retailers blow off Steam’, as the topic is one I have been focussed on for some time now.
Three years ago, I requested of that the 1C management team negotiate and retain the digital rights to all our titles, even when we sell on the boxed rights to other publishing houses. They agreed and for the last two years this decision has born major dividends for 1C.
The reasons behind the decision were numerous, but one of the large driving factors was the fact that in the English speaking territories – especially in the UK and USA – we saw a massive decline in the way the PC market was being supported by the bricks and mortar retailers.
Shelf space was being reduced on an almost monthly basis in favour of the latest twitch kids console title and it was becoming more and more difficult to get titles listed in any depth – even when those titles were securing review scores of over 80 per cent.
It’s not surprising that PC gamers turned to different methods of distribution, and Steam filled that need perfectly. Not just providing a well stocked distribution platform, but a whole social network for enthusiast gamers who were not getting supported elsewhere as their hobby went mainstream.
HIGH STREET OUTRAGEWhat is more surprising is the reaction of retail now. I have read it described as the reaction of a small child who threw his toy away because he no longer wanted it, but started screaming as soon as another child picked it up to play with. The metaphor works perfectly, especially in the light of the excuse I heard on numerous occasions.
‘There is no demand’ went the mantra. But is this really true? Not in our experience.
I remember fondly the meeting in my office with a red-faced publisher who was explaining why their initial order from a major retailer for one of our new releases was just 30 units. At the time I had my browser open on the Steam product data page, which updates sales numbers every few minutes.
“They have taken one unit for each of their top 30 stores” he told me. “There is just no demand from their customers”.
I glanced at my screen, hit refresh and advised him: “In the time it’s taken you to tell me that there is no demand, Steam has sold 45 units”.
Steam is selling decent numbers of our titles. They are really cool to work with, have a refreshing, knowledgeable developer mentality, and never bully or threaten their suppliers.
And for a company such as ours, there is much more to it than that. There is the financial model, which is so often overlooked.
Since 1997, when 1C’s gaming division was founded, the company worked on a model whereby a title developed and sold by 1C in Russia was then sub-licensed to our great publishing partners.
As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs.
When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter.
So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30.
Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.
Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas.
Remind me why we should choose to go with retail and decline to let Steam sell the game?
DIGITAL DIVERSITYWhilst the specific MCV story referred to Steam, there are a large number of other digital partners. 1C deals with 26 of them, who report and pay monthly sales varying between hundred and tens of thousands. Steam may be very dominant, but I do believe there is room for innovative and creative partners like GamersGate, Impulse/Stardock, Direct2Drive, GreenMan Gaming and GetGamesGo/Eurogamer to find a customer base who prefer their particular offerings.
Unlike at retail, the dominant players in the digital market do not get, nor do they ever ask for, better terms than the other players.
So what else, apart from better support, better sales, no inventory, no returns and much better payment terms, have the Romans ever done for us?
Another advantage is the ability to boost sales with promotional prices – and you’ll often see an additional sales upturn after returning to the full price.
For example, if you run a game of the week promotion, you can sell maybe 20,000 units of your title in that period.
You now have 20,000 new users enthusing about your game, which even when the title returns to full price, causes a very obvious knock on effect that can happily double your sales.
This creative working of pricing, promotions and catalogue is something I am convinced retail can learn and benefit from. It frustrates me greatly that once a game is six weeks old, it is written off and consigned to the bargain bins, never to rise again. We have a 10-year-old simulator title that still sells regularly on digital platforms.
This brings me to a quick recommendation. The Long Tail by Chris Anderson is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the differentials and opportunities offered by the digital platform.
In the book, Anderson talks about one outlet that turn 90 per cent of their titles only once a month – but as they stock two million titles that once a month equates to 1.8m sales.
Retail has just delivered $360m sales on first day for Black Ops. Those are impressive numbers. Will they really not stock Black Ops 2 next Christmas if it has Steam features included on the PC SKU?
Add those numbers to the sales, longevity and depth that digital can offer, and surely we have a decent market model that can work alongside each other without the need for threat and recrimination?
Steam is here to stay. Retailers needs to communicate and work with publishers, rather than dictate and pontificate to ensure the same can be said for them.
Dark grey on black background is incredibly hard to read
This
Agreed: but other than that, good thread.
Nice.
The other thing this article does not mention is the cost-to-produce disparity between retail and digital.
Once the game is made, you can sell 400 Billion copies for the price of bandwidth and production of the product if you sell digitally.
Sell retail, and you also have to pay to print boxes, create DVDs, ship physical products, incur damage loss, etc, on each and every unit.
Another vote for didn't read since I don't wanna go blind.
I despise Steam - it's a crappy/clunky/unintuitive app, I hate how they do DRM/game launching, etc. I prefer to buy from D2D or Impulse. I'll bite the bullet and buy from Steam when I have no choice.
If you wanna complain about something, complain about Steam getting exclusives. It's lame. Game titles should be available thru ALL digital sources so consumers have a choice and don't have to put up with Steam's BS.
Regardless, I buy all my games thru digital sources.
Nobody owes retail anything. It's capitalism 101. Nobody is guaranteed a profit. Innovation happens. Better products or ways of doing business evolve. Compete, or go away.
hmm so they whine when they chose to stop selling pc games themselves?
Not really my fault if this forum sucks so bad handling copy&paste.
No idea about how to set neutral text, if I set it as white it's unreadable on Impulse forum, if I set it black it's going to be unreadable on Elemental forum, and so on...
By the way, there's a goddamn link to the original text in the first raw. Just click on it.
Pretty much.
A really good article, I don't think I disagree with a single thing.
However, there are still valid arguments against steam as a monopoly in the making. They just cannot reasonably be voiced by the physical retailers.
Also, I think this sentence sounds dodgy:
Does that mean that there's price-fixing going on by the digital suppliers? Edit: I read it again... maybe he just means it is nearly impossible for a monopoly to take advantage of its situation as a digital supplier. I don't agree with that.
That doesn't stop Steram for having ALOT of exclusive titles...granted, Steam didn't twist no one's arms to get those, but still, not a monopoly, but the players are moving torward creating one 'on thier own'
Steam has very FEW exclusive titles. What you people are ranting about, mostly, are titles with Steamworks integrated, which is a very different topic.
Beside, I really can't say I have nothing against Steamworks. It works great and it's available for developers, which Impulse Reactor is not.
They only argument the retailers have is the "Steam now comes with everything." While I don't buy their gloomy monopoly future threats, it's worth thinking about. Once Steam took off with one or two big publishers, everyone jumped in. Add the indie gaming scene, and Valve now occupies this weird role of publisher, distributor and developer. The fact they've been very nice and very professional about it has gotten them this far without problems. I don't see that lasting for ever though. Valve will eventually try to flex it's muscle once sales drop or they feel confident everyone will accept it.
Still, retailers have had this coming to them for a while. They've been fishing the absolute bottom of the market without making an effort to reach out to the older gaming population and its interests. (I regularly buy games a year after they come out.) Steam, and the Internet clicked with our market extremely well, and Valve played all the right cards to get us to accept it. I hope retailers reform out of this mess, and not in a stupid way. I don't want to see them go but....adapt or die.
Lol, epic.
Steam has very FEW exclusive titles. What you people are ranting about, mostly, are titles with Steamworks integrated, which is a very different topic.Of course. Steamworks is Valve stealing customers and forcing everyone to use Steam whether they want to or not. Exclusive titles is Valve offering the best deal so that you send your customers to Valve willingly. In the end, everyone uses Steam.Beside, I really can't say I have nothing against Steamworks. It works great and it's available for developers, which Impulse Reactor is not.If you have nothing against Steamworks then you don't know enough about the history of the PC Software Industry. Add Impulse::Reactor is a viable alternative to developers that doesn't shackle their game to Impulse. Steamworks turns anyone else who sells the game into a Valve re-seller.
I second that. As much as I like steam, I hate exclusives.
AFAIK Impulse: Reactor still isnt available to developers, so right now it ISNT an alternative to Steamworks.
Actually, the problem is that it's too smart for its own good and keeps too much data and formatting. It's the classic case of unwanted features in the background.
A good work-around on Stardock's forums is to copy your stuff into notepad, then copy the text there and put it on the forums. This will remove all the extra data that can cause problems.
From a consumer's perspective, this is semantics. It makes a difference from the business standpoint, to be certain, but for the end-consumer the end-result is indistinguishable: they must use Steam.
Eventually publishers (as EA is doing already) are all going to move to hosting their own services, which will make Steamworks integration far less likely to happen. Some publishers will undoubtedly stick with it for a long time, but I don't expect the biggest ones to touch it.
EA's current store and offering is pretty bad. I mean initially they had some ridiculous thing where you could only download for a handful of days and after that you had to pay for the privlege of redownloading the title you paid for. The publishers might try to compete but their greed could easily cause them to fail. I mean really, how much more greedy can you get than trying to get your customers to pay for your product repeatedly?
I liked the article though, just plain black on white for me. I know exactly what they are talking about too, about PC games getting the boot off the shelf. It's no wonder you have console gamers running around saying PC games are dying; they're look at shelf space and ignoring e-tailers and digi-stores.
So, does it mean that the prices of games could drastically go down with digital stores compared to retailers?
Because that's not what I see in reality. In reality I see no more than 5-10% discount, usually less for new games.
It's not a bad thing.
As a customer I do prefer the electronic stores over retails, if only to keep more order in my house, and the discount is a nice bonus.
But coming from your description, shouldn't the discount be significantly higher?
They are years late to that party. Most have had store pages where you can buy physical copies, but none have been thinking about digital distribution, much less some master frame work that serves as both network and DRM. Standalone DRM is one thing, but no publishers have had a mind to do what all the other DD platforms have done.
With how well Steam has been getting their products out there, they must be figuring the cost of investing in digital distribution (and making their libraries available to consumers) versus just letting Steam manage it. Valve's willingness to not gouge publishers for the right to sell on Steam (other than the deal with Satan they must have cut to get them to agree to bundle Steamworks on the disc), is probably what's kept publishers from going to their own platforms en masse. Considering they shut down game servers quicker and quicker these days, the idea of a massive front end client they have to manage for all their games probably leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
And for me, I don't want to see them do it. The EA Download Manager BS has gone the way of the dinosaur. Ubi is trying their own sort of scheme like that, but it's been plagued with problems relating to DRM and a lot of bad press. I don't want to have 4 separate platforms I need to launch to play 7 different titles. That's just obnoxious.
Hey on that black text thing. I heard the plasma screens were having a real hard time with the color black, so they even went so far as changing the color value for 'black' on the input signal so now plasma TV screens show black better but original CRT TV screens show it worse. As a consequence, original CRT signals are having a problem with yellowish oranges too. You must have a 'new good screen'.
Actually that's a Digital River thing. Software sellers on Digital River often had to offer that pointless protection with it, AVG had the same thing. Never at any point did you actually need it as far as I know.
As of version 7.0 I think EAs current store and offering are very good. And yes, it marks the first time I've been able to say that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account