From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


There's a variety of articles* on the gaming websites discussing
GameStop's failed attempts to create an online competitor to Steam,
and why it failed when Valve's attempt didn't. The common theme seems
to be that Steam won out because of 'it created community' whereas its competitors didn't. But it got me wondering, is that really so? Was
that the sole reason that Steam monopolized the PC gaming market while
others struggled? What is the reason for Steam's success?

Certainly we shouldn't discount the community features of Steam.
Obviously having chat (in-game and out), and discussion forums, and
groups and all the rest were important. But were they alone the secret
sauce that made Steam what it is today?

Because there are other things too. Steam's openness to allowing
others onto the platform --and for relatively low cost-- helped a lot, especially in the beginning. Even as other companies noted (and tried
to imitate) Steam's success, still many of them limited their
marketplace to their own games. EA/Origin was just for Electronic Arts
games. UPlay was just for Ubisoft games. Battlenet was just for
Blizzard games. But Steam wasn't just for Valve games; it was for all
games.

And --unlike brick-n-mortar stores-- it wasn't only for big-name games
either, that had major publishers behind it. Steam was one of the
first to open its storefront up to Indie developers (which was an
opportunity of mixed blessings, as evidenced by the amount of slop
flooding the marketplace). Still, at least at the start it was an edge
Valve held over its competitors. People bitch about the 30% cut Valve
takes to list games on Steam, but compared to brick-n-mortar stores,
that was fairly low and it opened the market to a wide variety of new
games.

Then, of course, you got things like the built-in voice-chat, and
native screenshots, and the workshop and all the other stuff Steam
offers that many of its competitors don't. Or the sheer amount of
games people have accumulated on Steam that makes it difficult to
migrate elsewhere. There's a lot of little parts that help Steam
maintain its position in the market. What made Steam a success? What
is it that keeps it in its #1 position? I don't know for sure.

But I know that there is one thing that often goes unmentioned about
Steam that keeps me coming back.

Trust.

I trust Steam. I trust Valve.

And I know, you should never trust a corporation really. They're
psychopathic entities that don't care about their customers and will
do whatever is in their best interest. That's as true about Valve as
it is about any of its competitors. But Valve seems to be just a
little better than the others, perhaps because it is more reliant on
the goodwill of its customers than Electronic Arts or the rest.

But it helps that Steam has survived this long, and doesn't seem to be
in any danger of disappearing. You can't say that of many of its
competitors. Origin is gone (albeit replaced by EA App). Same with the
original UPlay (now replaced by Ubisoft Connect). Other services have disappeared entirely (e.g., the GameStop digital client). Valve isn't disappearing games from your library like Ubisoft does. Valve isn't
using third-party exclusives to drag you to their marketplace. Valve
isn't resting on its laurels and never adding new features. They're
constantly tinkering and changing and trying to improve the overall
experience. It doesn't always work... but when it doesn't, Valve also
takes responsibility for those mistakes.

Whether you want to or not, Valve comes across as a company you can
trust. So when it comes to asking, 'where should I spend my money' and
'which company do I trust to maintain my library of licensed games',
the easy answer is Valve. I can't even say the same for GOG. As much
as I prefer their no-DRM and fully-downloadable installers, I just
don't have the same confidence in the company. They're tiny, their
marketing team is a mess, they've fewer games and I've no idea if GOG
will be around in ten years. Certainly none of the rest inspire any
confidence. But Steam? Gabe willing, Steam will be there.

And that's a secret to success I wish a lot more companies would
understand.








* here's one https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/an-architect-of-gamestops-long-forgotten-steam-competitor-explains-why-he-thinks-valve-came-out-on-top-what-steam-did-better-than-anybody-else-was-to-create-a-community/

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


[replying to my own post; how gauche!]

Speaking of which, according to a post on Reddit, online gaming
service "RobotCache" just reported that it's shutting down and --once
it does-- any games that were purchased through that service will
become unplayable.*

Now, if you're like me, you probably never heard of RobotCache
before... which is probably one of the reasons its shutting down. It
was a digital marketplace for video-games similar to Steam founded by
Brian Fargo (of "Fallout" fame). While small, it wasn't /entirely/
limited to weird never-heard-of-em games (for instance, titles such as "Torment: Tide of Numenera", "Bards Tale IV" and "Shadow Tactics" were featured; not HUGE games certainly, but they had some success).

The platform's gimmick was that --through the power of blockchain technology!!!!!-- you could not only buy games but also resell them to
other RobotCache users. "You own your games" was a big part of its
marketing. Which makes its shutdown (and the subsequent loss of all
purchased games for its users) all the more ironic...**

But it does go back to the thesis of my previous post about how
people's trust in Steam is a major --if unspoken-- reason for its
success. No, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening to
Steam users: if Valve were to fold up shop tomorrow, we'd all lose
access to our games there. But Steam has been around long enough that
seems unlikely, and Valve has operated in a way that makes people
believe --rightly or wrongly-- that if they WERE to shut-down, that
the company would do its best to ensure that people would continue to
have access to their games.

It's a trust that other services haven't earned yet, and shut-downs
like RobotCache are another example why.






----
* The Reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1sc6r5r/robotcache_closes_and_gamers_lose_all_their_games/

** It also shows how pointless all the blockchain nonsense was to its operation. There was nothing RobotCache did that couldn't have been
done without traditional databases, and the inclusion of blockchain
didn't do anything to give the end-users any more control over their
purchases. But that's another rant entirely ;-)



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

[replying to my own post; how gauche!]

Speaking of which, according to a post on Reddit, online gaming
service "RobotCache" just reported that it's shutting down and --once
it does-- any games that were purchased through that service will
become unplayable.*

Now, if you're like me, you probably never heard of RobotCache
before... which is probably one of the reasons its shutting down. It
was a digital marketplace for video-games similar to Steam founded by
Brian Fargo (of "Fallout" fame). While small, it wasn't /entirely/
limited to weird never-heard-of-em games (for instance, titles such as "Torment: Tide of Numenera", "Bards Tale IV" and "Shadow Tactics" were featured; not HUGE games certainly, but they had some success).

The platform's gimmick was that --through the power of blockchain technology!!!!!-- you could not only buy games but also resell them to
other RobotCache users. "You own your games" was a big part of its
marketing. Which makes its shutdown (and the subsequent loss of all
purchased games for its users) all the more ironic...**

But it does go back to the thesis of my previous post about how
people's trust in Steam is a major --if unspoken-- reason for its
success. No, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening to
Steam users: if Valve were to fold up shop tomorrow, we'd all lose
access to our games there. But Steam has been around long enough that
seems unlikely, and Valve has operated in a way that makes people
believe --rightly or wrongly-- that if they WERE to shut-down, that
the company would do its best to ensure that people would continue to
have access to their games.

It's a trust that other services haven't earned yet, and shut-downs
like RobotCache are another example why.

----
* The Reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1sc6r5r/robotcache_closes_and_gamers_lose_all_their_games/

** It also shows how pointless all the blockchain nonsense was to its operation. There was nothing RobotCache did that couldn't have been
done without traditional databases, and the inclusion of blockchain
didn't do anything to give the end-users any more control over their purchases. But that's another rant entirely ;-)

How come Spalls never mentioned the FBI investigating Steam games for
malware inclusion? That was a pretty big news item and he conveniently overlooked it. Spalls a Steam shill? Probably so! How many Steam games
contain malware? Quite a lot!
--
Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a
sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.
The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath,
whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There
Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/5/2026 2:57 PM, phoenix wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

       [replying to my own post; how gauche!]

Speaking of which, according to a post on Reddit, online gaming
service "RobotCache" just reported that it's shutting down and --once
it does-- any games that were purchased through that service will
become unplayable.*

Now, if you're like me, you probably never heard of RobotCache
before... which is probably one of the reasons its shutting down. It
was a digital marketplace for video-games similar to Steam founded by
Brian Fargo (of "Fallout" fame). While small, it wasn't /entirely/
limited to weird never-heard-of-em games (for instance, titles such as
"Torment: Tide of Numenera", "Bards Tale IV" and "Shadow Tactics" were
featured; not HUGE games certainly, but they had some success).

The platform's gimmick was that --through the power of blockchain
technology!!!!!-- you could not only buy games but also resell them to
other RobotCache users. "You own your games" was a big part of its
marketing. Which makes its shutdown (and the subsequent loss of all
purchased games for its users) all the more ironic...**

But it does go back to the thesis of my previous post about how
people's trust in Steam is a major --if unspoken-- reason for its
success. No, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening to
Steam users: if Valve were to fold up shop tomorrow, we'd all lose
access to our games there. But Steam has been around long enough that
seems unlikely, and Valve has operated in a way that makes people
believe --rightly or wrongly-- that if they WERE to shut-down, that
the company would do its best to ensure that people would continue to
have access to their games.

It's a trust that other services haven't earned yet, and shut-downs
like RobotCache are another example why.






     ----
* The Reddit post
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1sc6r5r/
robotcache_closes_and_gamers_lose_all_their_games/

** It also shows how pointless all the blockchain nonsense was to its
operation. There was nothing RobotCache did that couldn't have been
done without traditional databases,  and the inclusion of blockchain
didn't do anything to give the end-users any more control over their
purchases. But that's another rant entirely ;-)

How come Spalls never mentioned the FBI investigating Steam games for malware inclusion? That was a pretty big news item and he conveniently overlooked it. Spalls a Steam shill? Probably so! How many Steam games contain malware? Quite a lot!

Mr. On the spectrum Retardo strikes again!!!
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2