Tripwire Interactive president defends Steam
by JC Fletcher 
{ Oct 13th 2009 at 10:28AM } 
"So, is Valve exploiting independent developers?" Gibson wrote. "In short: absolutely not. Without pulling any punches, I can say with certainty that if it weren't for Steam, there would be no Tripwire Interactive right now." He praised Valve's contract, calling it "the first one we had seen that didn't have any land mines in it."
More importantly, Gibson also praised just how paid he has gotten from Steam. "Ask the Tripwire Interactive employees if they feel exploited," he said, "as they move into their new offices paid for by the money the company has made on Steam. Or me, as I drive away from the company that was built from the royalties we made on Steam, in my sports car paid for by the royalties we make on Steam, to the home that I pay for with the royalties we make on Steam" -- where he has the option to eat vegetables bought with royalties made on Steam, and then steamed.
Gibson admits that the situation does represent a potential conflict of interest for Valve, but, "What really matters is how they have handled this conflict of interest. In our experience Valve has handled it very well; other companies, not so well."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
pfxcasey @ Oct 13th 2009 10:43AM
Fair enough.
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 10:44AM
Pitchford _did_ say he trusts Valve.. I think his whole point wasn't what Valve and Steam were doing right now, but it's what they might be capable of if they became the sole, viable point-of-sale for digitally distributed PC games. It would essentially be a monopoly, which we tend to frown on in general. Apple virtually runs one with its App store, considering the popularity of its device (although it's still less ubiquitous than PC's), and consumers and developers have suffered some consequences from that.
copa @ Oct 13th 2009 11:06AM
"Pitchford _did_ say he trusts Valve."
Whatever. First line in the interview:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/randy_pitchford_talks_borderlands_piracy_and_why_he_doesn%E2%80%99t_trust_valve?page=0%2C2
"As a guy in this industry though, I don’t trust Valve."
You know who I'm getting a little sick of? Randy Pitchford.
Gearbox built their entire company off doing expansions and sequels to franchises when the original developers couldn't be bothered, and then Randy Pitchford starts slamming good development studios for not being creative enough:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/22/gearbox-ceo-wants-bungie-and-infinity-ward-to-move-beyond-establis/
Then Randy Attention Whore tries to start a fake rumor that they will be developing a Halo game:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/28/gearbox-doesnt-not-admit-halo-involvement/
Then Randy comes up with a name for their new title, that is NOT intended to make you think of Activision's highest-selling franchises:
www.joystiq.com/2009/06/24/gearbox-trademarks-modern-war-hero-instrument-compatibility-u/
Then there's Valve, who gave Gearbox their big break by letting his overrated development team do an expansion to the legendary Half-Life franchise. As thanks, he starts publicly bitching about his Steam royalty percentages, which are a much better deal than you get from XBLA or PSN. (Gearbox, it should be noted, is large enough to find another publisher if they feel like they are getting raped so bad)
You know what's worse than Bobby Kotick? A Bobby-Kotick-wannabe.
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 11:16AM
reposting from my mis-post below--bear with me while I learn the kinks:
Quoting from the joystiq article that referred to that interview:
"Pitchford quickly couched that statement saying, 'I, personally, trust Valve. But I'm just saying, honestly, I think a lot of the industry doesn't.' "
I don't think the quality of Gearbox's games should be considered an indication of Pitchford's ability to appraise the business impact of a monopoly. For all we know (warning: probable fiction ahead), Bobby Kotick has incredibly fantastic game development ideas, and is a huge team player in ice hockey. (fiction off) That doesn't prevent him from being a douchebag CEO.
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 11:54AM
Not sure how you even think he's anything remotely like Bobby Kotick. Did you even read the interview? I just read the whole thing and there's nothing in there about keeping your employees in line with fear, or focusing solely on the bottom line. In the interview, he doesn't even complain about Valve's royalties! He's only complaining about the conflict of interest, which sounds like a valid concern to me.
And "slamming" Infinity Ward and Bungie? That's a little extreme. He said he wants to see what they're capable of if they branch out. Are you anti-new IP or something? You can say he's a Bobby Kotick-wannabe...which makes absolutely no sense if you read his comments and compare them to Kotick's.. Or you could say he thinks Infinity Ward and Bungie are better than his company, and are more capable of coming up with something new.
Courtney @ Oct 13th 2009 11:58AM
Copa, talk about trying to start rumors and misconstruing the facts. None of your conclusions or summations about those things are accurate.
Pitchford didn't slam IW or Bungie, he said he would love to see what they could do outside of CoD and Halo, because he has such a respect for the talent they have. Many, many, many people would love to see what those two devs could do with a new property. That's not a shocking statement.
Pitchford didn't start a Halo rumor, it was already being reported on in the press and he was directly asked about it. He said he couldn't talk about it, then the official PR rep present said he couldn't talk about it.
Trademarking something means nothing, at all. A ridiculous number of trademarks are filed every week that will never actually be used.
He wasn't bitching about his royalties, he was expressing concerns about having a major distribution channel in the hands of a developer/publisher because it can create a conflict of interest. Which is an entirely reasonable concern. If EA or Activision controlled the most well known digital distribution channel, people would constantly bring this up. But because it's Valve, it's a taboo subject.
Pitchford probably does need to learn the fine art of keeping his mouth shut some days, as he tends to be a lot more open in interviews than a number of other devs, but I appreciate that some days. Gives me something to read about and it's refreshing to get some different answers than the typical safe, PR speak that so many others give.
You're either a Valve fanboy or a Gearbox hater, as you have similar posts as this in other threads.
copa @ Oct 13th 2009 12:53PM
"Pitchford didn't start a Halo rumor, it was already being reported on in the press and he was directly asked about it."
Courtney, read more carefully. The Halo rumor originated in Variety, and it came from a Gearbox source.
Gearbox started the false rumor, and then refused to shoot it down in subsequent interviews with the gaming press just to keep it alive.
Randy is an annoying attention whore:
"I don't trust Valve! (Or I do trust Valve, but there are other people who don't trust Valve. Trust me.)"
"We're making a Halo game! (I don't know where you heard that. I will not confirm or deny that delicious rumor that you really should print."
"Bungie and Infinity Ward should stop being so boring and make something new! (Please hire us to make the next Halo / Modern Warfare game)"
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 1:01PM
copa, you still have failed to provide any compelling evidence that
Pitchford is a dorkface...and even less evidence that he's anything
like Kotick. I mean, you've provided ample evidence that you don't like the guy, by coloring otherwise neutral stories with words like "slamming", but you've given nothing of substance. As for the rumor thing, who cares? Rumors are rumors. For all we know, when that rumor started, it was true. If you're going to hold everyone accountable for rumors, I think the problem is on your end.
Courtney @ Oct 13th 2009 1:25PM
@copa, and again, you're twisting (or just flat making up) stuff to feed your dislike of Gearbox.
Variety didn't start the Halo rumor, OXM did.
"More Talent to Work on “Halo Things”
Microsoft Game Studios just nabbed some A-list talent to work on the Halo franchise. Folks from Kojima, Gearbox, id Software, Bungie, and Pseudo Interactive have recently joined the company in order to “develop new and exciting projects within the Halo universe,” Microsoft’s Phil Spencer told Gamasutra. Spencer told GamesIndustry.biz last month that “there are more than two or three teams building Halo things right now.”
http://www.oxmonline.com/article/features/week-xbox/week-xbox-103
Sooo, perhaps you should read more carefully (that OXM was the originator was pointed out by Joystiq).
All you've done is make up quotes that don't actually reflect what was said or reported. The source for your hatred is nothing other than your own imagination.
copa @ Oct 13th 2009 2:19PM
Courtney, I can't tell if you are trying to deliberately spread false information, or if you are typing faster than you are thinking.
The text that you quoted is from October 3, 2008. It is an article about how MGS hired employees from other studios (including at least one from Gearbox) to work on an INTERNALLY-DEVELOPED Halo title. It has nothing to do with Gearbox involvement on Halo.
What I think you were trying to reference is a rumor that was posted on August 25, 2008, more than two months prior to the completely unrelated article you referenced.
Let me quote from the August 2008 article:
"The kids at OXM sure remembered and they sent their spies deep undercover into Gearbox territory and came back with one heck of a rumor for their October issue: Gearbox is working on Halo 4 as a launch title for the next Xbox."
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/25/oxm-rumor-gearbox-developing-halo-4-as-launch-title-for-next-xb/
I'm not sure about you, but I am actually trying to keep the facts straight here. So I stand corrected: Gearbox spread this bullshit rumor to OXM BEFORE they spread this bullshit rumor to Variety BEFORE they started issuing coy denials to the gaming press so that people would think they were associated with Halo 4. Which is absolute bullshit.
Let's see how Borderlands turns out. But so far, Gearbox has been better at making up imaginary stories about developing great games, than actually developing great games.
Courtney @ Oct 13th 2009 3:39PM
I did note the time difference between the Joystiq pieces and the online OXM pieces, but as near as I can tell, the stuff that the 'stiq is referencing was only put in the print version. Often, print mags don't update their sites with the print content for weeks, if ever. That was the closest post relating to Gearbox and Halo (within about 5 weeks of when the original Joystiq/Variety posts went up). As recaps of other sites content don't always capture the context of quotes, I much prefer the original source, but that doesn't appear to be available. Joystiq didn't even directly quote whatever was in OXM print, so we have no idea what that was.
You're spinning this into something much bigger, and more malignant, than it ever was. Look at the original Variety post that you keep going on about:
"I checked with a source I have who is close to Gearbox and the best info I can confirm is that Gearbox has definitely had conversations with Microsoft about doing a new "Halo" game and is very excited at the prospect. However, last my source heard, there was no deal in place."
That sounds quite valid, given that we know that MS is in fact outsourcing Halo to studios not named Bungie (see Halo Wars), and that Bungie has flat said they are done once Reach is finished. That isn't Pitchford trying to claim they are working on Halo 4 ("We're making a Halo game!" as you put it). It's someone related to Gearbox saying, "Yeah, we're in talks, and it's exciting."
You're the one who's been making up quotes and conclusions to fit your dislike of Pitchford and Gearbox. I'm not sure I've ever even played a Gearbox game (though I am looking forward to Borderlands), so I don't have any dog in this race. But your insistence on calling this out over and over again on posts just seems ridiculous and designed to spread false information.
Courtney @ Oct 13th 2009 10:44AM
I think that Pitchford's concern isn't necessarily for the here and now though, it's how things go in the future. Newell and company may not always control Steam (there have been weirder buyouts). Or if something happened to Newell. Assuming that because things are fine now means that things will be fine in the future is not terribly good business sense.
CaramelZappa @ Oct 13th 2009 4:24PM
Yea, but if something like that happened, people would notice. If steam stopped being better than the rest of the competition, customers and developers alike would abandon them. There's no evidence that some disaster at valve is about to happen, so assuming they're going to turn around and backstab the sources of their livelihood for no reason is kind of silly.
C.A. @ Oct 13th 2009 10:48AM
I don't like Steam because I don't like having to install a program that starts with boot up just to play games. Other than that, the guys at Valve seem great.
michas_pi @ Oct 13th 2009 11:00AM
You know that you can disable that feature?
Archon (Charity Game-a-thon with live feed on Sat: arhn.eu ) @ Oct 13th 2009 11:00AM
Well... Remove it from startup then. It's running in the background for updates and friend activity notifications.
C.A. @ Oct 13th 2009 11:03AM
Well in that case, I'm dumb and have no problem with Steam.
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 11:34AM
I just don't like it because a lot of games that don't really need it seem to want to use it. If I want to play Empire: Total War offline, I need to be online to authenticate after installation. This means I can't just toss it in a bag and install it on my laptop if I am going to travel with no internet. I mean, I understand it's not THAT onerous, I just don't see why it's necessary for a lot of games.
boing.inc @ Oct 13th 2009 10:50AM
Yah, I would love to hear further explanation on what Randy Pitchford *actually* meant with his statement on Valve. (he only said two very short and not very revealing comments on Steam/Valve)
Because obviously Tripwire aren't the only company to really benefit from Steam. The maker of Audiosurf only has praise for the platform, seeing as it made him rich and he said in an interview that Audiosurf would have never seen the light of day in that form (or never reached as many people) if it weren't for Steam.
boing.inc @ Oct 13th 2009 10:55AM
Sorry for the double post, but I just realised that on the surface, Gibson says the same thing as Pitchford - which is that on the surface Steam+Valve does represent a slight conflict of interest.
So actually both these guys statements are somewhat similar except that Pitchford doesn't harp on about all the things the royalties gave him :P
Impartial Third-Party @ Oct 13th 2009 10:52AM
I think Pitchford meant what he said, then back-peddled because he realized what kind of a statement it was.
Give me a call when GearBox makes a game that is worth playing.
LegendaryRedass @ Oct 13th 2009 10:57AM
Ring ring. Hello, it's borderlands? Here, it's for you.
boing.inc @ Oct 13th 2009 11:00AM
Ring! Ring! Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30
Einhanderkiller @ Oct 13th 2009 7:32PM
Gearbox made the Half-Life expansions.
Dr. Bradwart [100% Reagan Conservative!] @ Oct 13th 2009 11:00AM
Maybe I should make a game and release it on Steam if you get sports cars...
Seriously, though, it isn't an issue at this point, like he said. And it's not like D2D doesn't exist, and retailers will likely be selling PC games for a while.
kojo87 @ Oct 13th 2009 4:29PM
you know you only get a sports car if your game is good right?
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 11:14AM
Quoting from the joystiq article that referred to that interview:
"Pitchford quickly couched that statement saying, 'I, personally, trust Valve. But I'm just saying, honestly, I think a lot of the industry doesn't.' "
I don't think the quality of Gearbox's games should be considered an indication of Pitchford's ability to appraise the business impact of a monopoly. For all we know (warning: probable fiction ahead), Bobby Kotick has incredibly fantastic game development ideas, and is a huge team player in ice hockey. (fiction off) That doesn't prevent him from being a douchebag CEO.
Scott @ Oct 13th 2009 11:15AM
Oh for frak's sake.. If I click on an email to reply to someone who replied to me, it always starts a new one?
Otis Whitaker @ Oct 13th 2009 11:15AM
"Steam isn't exploiting any of us because Steam helps us!"
That really makes no sense, and avoids the issues stated by the other guy all together :x
Wasn't the guy's whole point being that Steam is about the only good venue for indies out there, and because of that, Steam has a stranglehold, and Valve takes more money than they should?
Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean that that isn't true.
Einhanderkiller @ Oct 13th 2009 7:36PM
2D Boy said that Steam was the fairest out of all the publishers they went to.
"Valve’s digital distribution agreement is the simplest and most developer friendly agreement I’ve seen so far, and we’ve signed over a dozen of those. Also, no other digital distribution service I know of, PC or console, pays a higher cut of the revenues out to developers."
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/12/the-steamy-issue-of-digital-distribution/#more-19483
chrisredfield31 @ Oct 13th 2009 11:55AM
they missed the point. Reason why Pitchford said he doesn't trust Valve is because, without competition, companies that get really big have total control over the market, and once they are there, they can do anything they want to the consumer.
In this interview, they talk about Developer/Publisher partnership and on that end, of course it's a good partnership. Without one, the other cannot profit. Think of Steam like a gang. That's the idea that Pitchford was talking about.
Stevetrop @ Oct 13th 2009 12:05PM
The power of Steam!
Abi @ Oct 13th 2009 12:55PM
Randy Pitchford came from being a douche to a douche with nozzle included.
Flankenstein @ Oct 13th 2009 1:12PM
I think Randy Ptichford's argument was theoretical.
Everything is corruptible. Sure, the Valve guys right now are honorable and do right by their customers and developers, but they won't be around forever and some tool-bag will eventually find a way to screw the developers in someway.
avan @ Oct 13th 2009 3:02PM
valve gets as much... not valve gets most of its money from running steam, so they know they cant use it to get their games over the competition, who ever said so is an idiot.
CaramelZappa @ Oct 13th 2009 4:03PM
I just don't see how valves situation is any more exploitable than Microsofts, Sony, or Nintendo. In fact, if anything they have less of a chance at exploiting developers. Valve has to compete with D2D, developers own digital distribution methods, AND retail. An xbla or PSN game has to go through microsoft or sony. Plus, Valve makes the development tools free for everyone, while last I checked dev units for consoles were costly, and don't you need approval as a worthwhile dev just to recieve one in most cases? Steam is nothing but good for indie developers. Pitchford is talking out of his ass because he doesn't like that Valve games sell better than his.
CH3BURASHKA @ Oct 13th 2009 6:07PM
What's up with Pitchford being all weird all of a sudden? First the made-up story about the Gearbox name (that implied Newell wanted Gearbox for himself), and then he says Steam is a hazard to the industry, which is refuted (albeit by one source). I'm sensing some bad blood between him and Gabe, or Valve as a whole.
zaglis @ Oct 14th 2009 11:15AM
So were are the numbers?