7 ms·

I also had a look at Valve's HackerOne policies recently and was unimpressed for a variety of reasons: - The "Exclusions" are very poorly defined: Valve will

I also had a look at Valve's HackerOne policies recently and was unimpressed for a variety of reasons: - The "Exclusions" are very poorly defined: Valve will have the right to determine CVSS classification, report validity, duplications, exclusions and out-of-scope bugs in its sole discretion. - What's "In Scope" is extremely vague. Yes, it's a list of domains, however Steam uses way more domains than that. Even then, not everything is tied to a "domain" as such, for instance Steam provides P2P networking. Executables are indeed mentioned, but again, it's vague. - Payouts seem low. The HackerOne profile is something I would expect of (and would be acceptable for) a 10 person company, not a massive corporation with millions of users.

monster99 7y ago
Steam was essentially a small company in 2004, in fact they grew too fast for their own good. Let us remember until the steam patch nobody wanted in 2004, valve had only released half-life and a few other odds and ends, until half-life 2 in 2004. Where steam began the long process of stealing game files from PC gamers and calling it drm. The whole process which began back in the late 90's with Ultima online in a bid to get people to pay monthly for the same computer role playing games by rebadging PC RPG's mmo's. So everyone with a clue about gaming history should know valve only seems "big" because the internet enabled gave them first mover advantage when they wrapped the steam store around half-life 2 in the mid 2000's, over the next 5-6 years that would make valve a tonne of money as AAA games released on steam until uplay and origin showed up later. Let us remember the reason we have storefronts for every company is because the internet enabled companies to steal PC games out from gamers via server locking games to their companies PC's. Now we're even seeing basic game functions held back and sold for microtransaction money.
- h2odragon 7y ago
  I have to say I think all those problems would have been worse without Valve and Steam, and will become so as Steam becomes "just another" DRM agent. The dream of perpetual rental will never die.
  - otakucode 7y ago
    It greatly depends. Look at what happened with Apple and iTunes. Apple created iTunes, and set up rules for music publishers that wanted to participate. They were required to sell individual tracks. They were forbidden from charging more than 99 cents per track. They were required to permit the user to burn songs to audio CDs. Etc. This ended up putting music publishers in a difficult position. Their retail distribution agreements with record stores explicitly forbade them from doing any of these things. So they either had to re-negotiate those contracts, cancel them, or abandon iTunes. They attempted to re-negotiate their agreements with record stores, but record stores adamantly refused to budge. They wanted to maintain their prior agreements that forbid the publishers from selling their music through other venues for lower prices, before the retailers could stock their shelves, etc. The record companies never budged, and went out of business thanks to their stubbornness. Contrast that with how Valve handled Steam. Valve set no restriction on game publishers. Publishers were never forced into taking advantage of digital distribution at all. They were able to preserve all of their retail distribution contracts by screwing the customer. Digital distribution is profoundly cheaper, enables release of games a week sooner, could rely on Steams DRM without needing third party extra DRM, etc. These are all things Valve could have required publishers to take advantage of to benefit customers. But they didn't. They gave publishers carte blanche and let them do absolutely anything they wanted. If another company had been the one to become the dominant platform, it could have been more like the iTunes situation. This is also the thing which guarantees Steams eventual downfall. Music publishers considered, and a couple even tried, building their own digital distribution service. But, the publishers were incapable (because of institutional restrictions) of building a competent competitor that would be appealing to consumers. The publishers board wouldn't permit things like individual track sales, 99 cent price caps even for popular singles, etc. Steam is a different story. Since there are literally no restrictions on publishers at all, there is also no reason for publishers to refrain from building their own separate platforms and cutting out Valve's cut of the sale. Gamers have established that they are more than willing to install and use however many launchers as necessary, so there is almost no reason for big publishers to use Steam rather than just building their own.
    - pault 7y ago
- jtms 7y ago
  While I somewhat understand and relate to your overall point, Ultima Online and other MMOs that followed were not simply a “rebadging” of previous RPGs - they were a fundamentally new genre that created some of the most important and impressive leaps forward in multiplayer gaming. Even though some companies are using gamer hostile practices such as micro transactions now, the implication that all online gaming was one big conspiracy to “steal PC games out from gamers” is utter nonsense.
  - monster99 7y ago
    No it isn't, there is no reason for any piece of software to be split between your computer and another company. If you buy the argument, you obviously never gamed during the 90's during the heyday of level editors, free maps and mods over IPX emulators like Kali and kahn. It's not utter nonsense, DRM is literally taking files of the game hostage. Go load up overwatch and disable the network card, Go load up quake 3 or Unreal tournament 2004. You can still play Quake 3 and UT2004, you'll notice a big fat error in overwatch because it is logging you into a server required for it to function. Go get never winter nights released in 2002, compared against the "f2p" (aka stolen rpg rebadged an f2p mmo during develpment). https://store.steampowered.com/app/704450/Neverwinter_Nights_Enhanced_Edition/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/704450/Neverwinter_Nights... The original neverwinters had game tools and you could run your own server, vs neverwinter the "f2p mmo" version (aka moniker for the game moving to server locked game). https://store.steampowered.com/app/109600/Neverwinter/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/109600/Neverwinter/ Any gamer in the 90's was expecting more dedicated servers, level editing tools with PC games. Leauge of legends and DOTA 2 would have been fully single player RTS games with multiplayer. So no you and anyone who believes like you is willfully ignorant that we now live in a PC game dystopia. Whereas before League of legends and DOTA 2 would have been coded like Quake 3, Unreal tournament 2004, and warcraft 3, you own the game and can play it multiplayer if necessary without a third party. Diablo 2 we owned it --> Diablo 3 blizzard owns it and can now shut it down Quake 3 we owned it --> Quake champions bethesda owns it and can shut it down. So no, we've gone backwards in time to mainframe and dumb client model of computing because of the average gamer being computer illiterate and not seeing the writing on the wall. So no they were not fundamentally a new "genre" that was what marketing and PR flackeys hoped people like you would buy. Note that private servers prove you incorrect, aka that there exist private servers for Ultima online and World of warcraft, demonstrate tehy would have just been Role playing games with shards players controlled, there was no need for companies to conrol them or the monthly fee. Overwatch is a case in point that you are incorrect, since it's just a multiplayer fps, why is there no level editors, tools, open file specs and GTKRadiant? OH yeah thats right they wanted to lock down the code from a server in their office to resell skins that are sitting on encrypted files already on your machine setting a programming flag to display, when you've "earned" them via the stupid leveling system or gambled for them using their lootbox system.
Strom 7y ago
> I would expect of (and would be acceptable for) a 10 person company, not a massive corporation with millions of users. As it happens, there are only about 10 people [1] working on Steam. [2][3] This is the result of both Valve having only some hundreds of employees total and them being to be able to choose what they want to work on. Not many choose Steam. -- [1] This is not counting customer support staff that is outsourced. [2] Steam employees self-report the team size as 10 in this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwE-K8y-ws&t=8m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwE-K8y-ws&t=8m35s [3] Someone who recently visited Valve observed this to still be true. "There are approximately ten people inside" + "This is the Steam cabal," https://www.joindota.com/en/news/84521-my-visit-at-valves-hq-what-i-learned-about-the-state-of-dota-2 https://www.joindota.com/en/news/84521-my-visit-at-valves-hq...
- Cpoll 7y ago
  Interesting. However, in this case, '10 person company' is more meant to imply the resources (bug bounty budget) available to the company. It's appropriate to categorize it as a 'a massive corporation with millions of users' for this purpose.
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    There's the rub though, right. It's 'a tiny company with millions of users'. QED.

monster99 7y ago

Steam was essentially a small company in 2004, in fact they grew too fast for their own good. Let us remember until the steam patch nobody wanted in 2004, valve had only released half-life and a few other odds and ends, until half-life 2 in 2004. Where steam began the long process of stealing game files from PC gamers and calling it drm. The whole process which began back in the late 90's with Ultima online in a bid to get people to pay monthly for the same computer role playing games by rebadging PC RPG's mmo's. So everyone with a clue about gaming history should know valve only seems "big" because the internet enabled gave them first mover advantage when they wrapped the steam store around half-life 2 in the mid 2000's, over the next 5-6 years that would make valve a tonne of money as AAA games released on steam until uplay and origin showed up later. Let us remember the reason we have storefronts for every company is because the internet enabled companies to steal PC games out from gamers via server locking games to their companies PC's. Now we're even seeing basic game functions held back and sold for microtransaction money.

h2odragon 7y ago
I have to say I think all those problems would have been worse without Valve and Steam, and will become so as Steam becomes "just another" DRM agent. The dream of perpetual rental will never die.
- otakucode 7y ago
  It greatly depends. Look at what happened with Apple and iTunes. Apple created iTunes, and set up rules for music publishers that wanted to participate. They were required to sell individual tracks. They were forbidden from charging more than 99 cents per track. They were required to permit the user to burn songs to audio CDs. Etc. This ended up putting music publishers in a difficult position. Their retail distribution agreements with record stores explicitly forbade them from doing any of these things. So they either had to re-negotiate those contracts, cancel them, or abandon iTunes. They attempted to re-negotiate their agreements with record stores, but record stores adamantly refused to budge. They wanted to maintain their prior agreements that forbid the publishers from selling their music through other venues for lower prices, before the retailers could stock their shelves, etc. The record companies never budged, and went out of business thanks to their stubbornness. Contrast that with how Valve handled Steam. Valve set no restriction on game publishers. Publishers were never forced into taking advantage of digital distribution at all. They were able to preserve all of their retail distribution contracts by screwing the customer. Digital distribution is profoundly cheaper, enables release of games a week sooner, could rely on Steams DRM without needing third party extra DRM, etc. These are all things Valve could have required publishers to take advantage of to benefit customers. But they didn't. They gave publishers carte blanche and let them do absolutely anything they wanted. If another company had been the one to become the dominant platform, it could have been more like the iTunes situation. This is also the thing which guarantees Steams eventual downfall. Music publishers considered, and a couple even tried, building their own digital distribution service. But, the publishers were incapable (because of institutional restrictions) of building a competent competitor that would be appealing to consumers. The publishers board wouldn't permit things like individual track sales, 99 cent price caps even for popular singles, etc. Steam is a different story. Since there are literally no restrictions on publishers at all, there is also no reason for publishers to refrain from building their own separate platforms and cutting out Valve's cut of the sale. Gamers have established that they are more than willing to install and use however many launchers as necessary, so there is almost no reason for big publishers to use Steam rather than just building their own.
  - pault 7y ago
jtms 7y ago
While I somewhat understand and relate to your overall point, Ultima Online and other MMOs that followed were not simply a “rebadging” of previous RPGs - they were a fundamentally new genre that created some of the most important and impressive leaps forward in multiplayer gaming. Even though some companies are using gamer hostile practices such as micro transactions now, the implication that all online gaming was one big conspiracy to “steal PC games out from gamers” is utter nonsense.
- monster99 7y ago
  No it isn't, there is no reason for any piece of software to be split between your computer and another company. If you buy the argument, you obviously never gamed during the 90's during the heyday of level editors, free maps and mods over IPX emulators like Kali and kahn. It's not utter nonsense, DRM is literally taking files of the game hostage. Go load up overwatch and disable the network card, Go load up quake 3 or Unreal tournament 2004. You can still play Quake 3 and UT2004, you'll notice a big fat error in overwatch because it is logging you into a server required for it to function. Go get never winter nights released in 2002, compared against the "f2p" (aka stolen rpg rebadged an f2p mmo during develpment). https://store.steampowered.com/app/704450/Neverwinter_Nights_Enhanced_Edition/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/704450/Neverwinter_Nights... The original neverwinters had game tools and you could run your own server, vs neverwinter the "f2p mmo" version (aka moniker for the game moving to server locked game). https://store.steampowered.com/app/109600/Neverwinter/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/109600/Neverwinter/ Any gamer in the 90's was expecting more dedicated servers, level editing tools with PC games. Leauge of legends and DOTA 2 would have been fully single player RTS games with multiplayer. So no you and anyone who believes like you is willfully ignorant that we now live in a PC game dystopia. Whereas before League of legends and DOTA 2 would have been coded like Quake 3, Unreal tournament 2004, and warcraft 3, you own the game and can play it multiplayer if necessary without a third party. Diablo 2 we owned it --> Diablo 3 blizzard owns it and can now shut it down Quake 3 we owned it --> Quake champions bethesda owns it and can shut it down. So no, we've gone backwards in time to mainframe and dumb client model of computing because of the average gamer being computer illiterate and not seeing the writing on the wall. So no they were not fundamentally a new "genre" that was what marketing and PR flackeys hoped people like you would buy. Note that private servers prove you incorrect, aka that there exist private servers for Ultima online and World of warcraft, demonstrate tehy would have just been Role playing games with shards players controlled, there was no need for companies to conrol them or the monthly fee. Overwatch is a case in point that you are incorrect, since it's just a multiplayer fps, why is there no level editors, tools, open file specs and GTKRadiant? OH yeah thats right they wanted to lock down the code from a server in their office to resell skins that are sitting on encrypted files already on your machine setting a programming flag to display, when you've "earned" them via the stupid leveling system or gambled for them using their lootbox system.

Strom 7y ago

> I would expect of (and would be acceptable for) a 10 person company, not a massive corporation with millions of users. As it happens, there are only about 10 people [1] working on Steam. [2][3] This is the result of both Valve having only some hundreds of employees total and them being to be able to choose what they want to work on. Not many choose Steam. -- [1] This is not counting customer support staff that is outsourced. [2] Steam employees self-report the team size as 10 in this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwE-K8y-ws&t=8m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwE-K8y-ws&t=8m35s [3] Someone who recently visited Valve observed this to still be true. "There are approximately ten people inside" + "This is the Steam cabal," https://www.joindota.com/en/news/84521-my-visit-at-valves-hq-what-i-learned-about-the-state-of-dota-2 https://www.joindota.com/en/news/84521-my-visit-at-valves-hq...

Cpoll 7y ago
Interesting. However, in this case, '10 person company' is more meant to imply the resources (bug bounty budget) available to the company. It's appropriate to categorize it as a 'a massive corporation with millions of users' for this purpose.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  There's the rub though, right. It's 'a tiny company with millions of users'. QED.