Why isn't GW2 sold on Steam?

Basically the title, I think it would be great for the game's visibility as steam has a large user base.

I think Arena Net prefers direct sales, especially for digital sales. Although they have also worked with other internet game retailers to deliver key only versions of their boxed product. Steam isn't a very good storefront for visibility, TBH, and GW2 has it's own delivery platform. Also, while I doubt they have a problem with how Steam would handle sales of the boxed products, as they do work with retailers which would have a similar retail price margin, they might have problems about how they can handle gem sales between direct sales VS giving the steam store a gem buying function. Would they be required to put a gem buying option on steam, and what would the profit share be in that case?

I think GW2 does have some visibility problems, but the contracts with Steam probably wouldn't be clear cut ans straight forwards. Direct Sales allows Arena Net to keep most of the sales price. It is up to ANet, as they handle their own publishing. They probably considered it, but have determined it is not something that would improve their profits.

@"PseudoNewb.5468" said:I think Arena Net prefers direct sales, especially for digital sales. Although they have also worked with other internet game retailers to deliver key only versions of their boxed product. Steam isn't a very good storefront for visibility, TBH, and GW2 has it's own delivery platform. Also, while I doubt they have a problem with how Steam would handle sales of the boxed products, as they do work with retailers which would have a similar retail price margin, they might have problems about how they can handle gem sales between direct sales VS giving the steam store a gem buying function. Would they be required to put a gem buying option on steam, and what would the profit share be in that case?

I think GW2 does have some visibility problems, but the contracts with Steam probably wouldn't be clear cut ans straight forwards. Direct Sales allows Arena Net to keep most of the sales price. It is up to ANet, as they handle their own publishing. They probably considered it, but have determined it is not something that would improve their profits.

I disagree in many parts. First visibility isnt an issue in steam, the page features daily on a diff window games that go on sale and during big sales it includes all the games in categories with good ui and all.

Secondly the contracts are clear cut and straight forward. Im not sure on the exact numbers but a simple google can give u exactly what steam takes from sales and what anet does.

I can see tho some reasons for anet to not have done it yet.

Steam client: for a bunch of mmos i played through steam the client can be buggy, i specifically remember having to istall ESO multiple times to open. Same experience with ff14 and rarely with bdo.

The contract: steam up to until recently basically had monopoly and that showed in the contracts (something around a 75%25% cut basline going up to 85%15% depending on sales im not entirely sure)

That ofc is a trade for more visibility for the game tho a trade many dont want to do, prob anet included.

The visibility: steam shows active player counts (using the steam launcher) thats sort of a double edged sword. While for a stong and healthy game it can work as a way to boost sales (since a number of ppl do research whether the game they are interested in is "alive" the opposite can occur of the game isnt doing so well.

This was brought up around release and from what I recall, there were two main deciding factors for why Arenanet decided to not put GW2 on Steam.

First was how big a cut of sales Valve would take. Given GW2 has no sub price and GW1 and GW2 are the only IP's that Arenanet has, it was not deemed financially viable to have another company take a significant portion of their revenue when Arenanet could distribute the game themselves.

Second was that having a game on Steam that requires frequent patching -- and GW2 patches every couple weeks -- means running the proposed patch by Valve for approval beforehand. This gives up some control to another company for no reason, and if Valve or Steam is slow or something bugs, it's not Valve that takes the player salt, it's Arenanet. Patches and in-game content would also have to comply with Valve's ToS and I believe there was also something about how they would have to essentially have two patches, but I can't remember quite what that was about.

Bottom line is Arenanet opted for less visibility to retain full control and income from GW2. Could being on Steam have increased visibility? For sure. Would it have resulted in more money? We don't know. Would it have benefited anyone to have a second set of red tape for stories and patches to go through? Not really.

If running GW2 through Steam was anything like running Elder Scrolls Online through Steam I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Steam players seem to have more trouble with that game than everyone else put together. I'm not sure why exactly, but it doesn't surprise me that adding another layer of connections and programs having to approve your access to the game also adds another layer of problems.

Guild Wars 1 was (and still is) available on Steam, and most of the stated issues above with other MMO's on Steam are not exactly accurate as it is up to how the publisher decided to integrate it into Steam.

As far as Guild Wars 1 nothing is handled through Steam for patches, in game purchases, etc. It simply unlocked (and retained/provided a game key) the game on Steam and required you to download (the initial official install may have been provided up front) and patch from ArenaNet. Once purchased you did not have to even run Steam (or even have it installed on the computer) in order to launch Guild Wars 1 and play since everything requires the default launcher as if you bought it retail or direct from ArenaNet.

Personally I don't like how some companies have over integrated their MMO into the steam interface, but they choose to do it that way (for example Crowns in ESO) as one more way to allow customers to access in game sales. If done right this is a good thing seeing as some people may not have as easy of access to obtain currency through the in game interface, and they may be able to get Steam funds (i.e. Steam cards) easier than finding that games cards locally.

Because it negatively effeceted the bottom line.

@Michael Fejervary.8576 said:Guild Wars 1 was (and still is) available on Steam, and most of the stated issues above with other MMO's on Steam are not exactly accurate as it is up to how the publisher decided to integrate it into Steam.

As far as Guild Wars 1 nothing is handled through Steam for patches, in game purchases, etc. It simply unlocked (and retained/provided a game key) the game on Steam and required you to download (the initial official install may have been provided up front) and patch from ArenaNet. Once purchased you did not have to even run Steam (or even have it installed on the computer) in order to launch Guild Wars 1 and play since everything requires the default launcher as if you bought it retail or direct from ArenaNet.

Personally I don't like how some companies have over integrated their MMO into the steam interface, but they choose to do it that way (for example Crowns in ESO) as one more way to allow customers to access in game sales. If done right this is a good thing seeing as some people may not have as easy of access to obtain currency through the in game interface, and they may be able to get Steam funds (i.e. Steam cards) easier than finding that games cards locally.

I played GW1 starting around 2006 still go on it today it was never on steam until a few months ago. My version is still going and it is not on steam either. So your comment of Guild Wars 1 was and still is available on steam is completely false. It is now but can run without or with steam. Guild wars and Guild wars 2 are updated behind the scenes then we have to restart the game which then it adds the updates the game takes only a few minutes depending on a persons connection. Unlike most MMO's that take the game offline for a few hours to update them

Steam has a refund policy.

GW2 is doing great. MMOs come on steam to die. Why pay Gaben 30% when you doing great?

@Rhyse.8179 said:Steam has a refund policy.

So does ANet.

The big advantage of Steam for a lot of companies (besides an additional marketing opportunity) is that it allows them to let someone else handle the mechanics of patching & verification of installs. It's a pretty big tech job and most firms don't have the expertise to do it smoothly. That is, it's not just a money maker for them; it's a cost saver.

ANet, however, has one of the first engineering teams (for MMOs) that figured out how to patch games without taking down the servers each week, and allowing everyone to continue to play after the patch was out (under limited circumstances sometimes). For them, it's a distinct disadvantage to coordinate patches with another company. Combine that with lost revenue from sales, and it's a "lose lose" for ANet, even as it's win win for others.

And have steam take 30% of the cut? For what?Steam will provide services A-net already has.(mainly servers and the money side of things) It makes no sense. GW2 is not unpopular because of a lack of advertising or peoples awareness of the game.

@Rhyse.8179 said:Steam has a refund policy.

And? So does A-net.Im not sure how they are doing things now but back when GW2 first launched they were refunding people up to a whole freaking month after purchase regardless of hours played.Steams refund policy is a joke, its better than nothing but thats really ALL it is - better than nothing. Play 2 hours over the first few weeks or no go. Played 2 hours and 2 minutes or waited 15 days? Oopsie.

Successful MMORPGs do not need to go the Steam route. They might even consider it if it was as easy as snipping their fingers and there they are on Steam ready to earn more money. In reality however, they would have to invest a lot of their own time and effort to make this happen, plus additional work through post-release support as having your game on Steam comes with a lot of problems. All of that for a possible increase in players they might not even be ready for. Not to mention the cut in revenue due to Valve's Steam policy.

I'd like to see it on Steam too, since it seems there's plenty people who don't touch any game beyond Steam. Still, I have to wonder if a Steam release would help that much. It didn't save Wildstar, which was an obvious competitor for GW2 (and undeniably a good MMO, I'd say a great one). Maybe the MMO masses don't check Steam that much, who knows.

I think in the end it may have been better. Both ESO and FF14 are now more popular it seems. Steam is quite essential. But I am not a professional gaming distributor, so not sure if it's better.

I'd like to see GW2 on Steam, but there are issues even beyond the 30% cut taken. Steam has a built in steam community for each game that would then have to be managed by ANet. Bad PR is bad PR so even if you think they could just let the community run itself, you'd be surprised how an unchecked toxic community can do brand damage.

A better option would be GW2 on the Epic Launcher or at GoG. Both take substantially less of a cut and Epic doesn't have a forum system.

@Zephire.8049 said:This was brought up around release and from what I recall, there were two main deciding factors for why Arenanet decided to not put GW2 on Steam.

First was how big a cut of sales Valve would take. Given GW2 has no sub price and GW1 and GW2 are the only IP's that Arenanet has, it was not deemed financially viable to have another company take a significant portion of their revenue when Arenanet could distribute the game themselves.

Second was that having a game on Steam that requires frequent patching -- and GW2 patches every couple weeks -- means running the proposed patch by Valve for approval beforehand. This gives up some control to another company for no reason, and if Valve or Steam is slow or something bugs, it's not Valve that takes the player salt, it's Arenanet. Patches and in-game content would also have to comply with Valve's ToS and I believe there was also something about how they would have to essentially have two patches, but I can't remember quite what that was about.

Bottom line is Arenanet opted for less visibility to retain full control and income from GW2. Could being on Steam have increased visibility? For sure. Would it have resulted in more money? We don't know. Would it have benefited anyone to have a second set of red tape for stories and patches to go through? Not really.

Unless I’m seriously uninformed; there is no such a thing as update approval on Steam. However updates do take some time to process on Steam (depending on build size), but I doubt there is any form of direct control over what gets uploaded there. I’m saying this as a head of QA of a big publisher with over 100 games on Steam. Everyday we have at least half a dozen of updates for different games. Imagine now the amount of manpower Valve would had to have in order to control their entire library of games and daily updates. It’s unrealistic.

Also there is no compliance testing for Steam - at least not anything close to PS Store or Microsoft’s. Other than that; you’re probably right - they are better off on their own.

The issue is that Valve would take a 30% cut of all sales including in-game sales. They did modify their policy last month so that if you meet certain revenue thresholds then that percentage would decrease but it’s still a very significant percentage that would not go to Anet.

Steam is a platform if you don't already have a digital distribution system of your own. ANet has that. Money spent with Steam is better served as direct advertising if that is the goal versus upping the cost to players that would download the game. No thanks. I already regret any game that I have to patch thru steam and I was a fan of Value until they decided to try and get between me and my games.

what about no third party crap and let them run it, i really don't want steam to ruin yet another game.

Selling on steam is not free.

because of how stream operates.

@Omernon.9762 said:Unless I’m seriously uninformed; there is no such a thing as update approval on Steam. However updates do take some time to process on Steam (depending on build size), but I doubt there is any form of direct control over what gets uploaded there. I’m saying this as a head of QA of a big publisher with over 100 games on Steam. Everyday we have at least half a dozen of updates for different games. Imagine now the amount of manpower Valve would had to have in order to control their entire library of games and daily updates. It’s unrealistic.

Also there is no compliance testing for Steam - at least not anything close to PS Store or Microsoft’s. Other than that; you’re probably right - they are better off on their own.

It's likely that your contract probably puts the obligation on the publisher to vet updates (whether the software teams work for you or not). I imagine the policy could be different for an indie shop that self-publishes, but it's hard to imagine that Valve does anything more than check to make sure you meet their requirements for an update. They can't possibly QA someone else's code.

Regardless, as I've said before, one of the big advantages (especially for firms like you) is that Steam figures out how to apply updates to every sort of configuration of PC (or other eligible system). For GW2, that's actually a step backwards, because their update system is already robust. (For GW1, it only became possible long after GW1 was put in maintenance mode; that game doesn't get substantive updates any longer.)