Why did Steam Remove so many videos?

[Labyrinth2 0]

I've noticed particularly in the late 2010s there were licensed movies and TV series on Steam, but so many of them have vanished and there's barely much on the video section of Steam. What happened?

[Ogami]

Because they decided that selling tv series and movies was not profitable for them and retired the entire section including the Steam movie player app.
I still own a few of those tv series you could buy at that time and its a giant hassle to get them to play nowadays, have to use certain browsers and have to pray its a good day for streaming on Steam.

Like with many things Steam wants us to forget existed (Steam boxes anyone?) they just pretend it never existed.

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Ogami：

Because they decided that selling tv series and movies was not profitable for them

Which most likely is because lots of people didn't even know it was there.

As is often with Valve, their lack of communication and marketing doesn't help.

[JPMcMillen]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

引用自 Ogami：

Because they decided that selling tv series and movies was not profitable for them

Which most likely is because lots of people didn't even know it was there.

As is often with Valve, their lack of communication and marketing doesn't help.

It also didn't help that there was no way to watch them on mobile devices.

[Labyrinth2 0]

引用自 Ogami：

Because they decided that selling tv series and movies was not profitable for them and retired the entire section including the Steam movie player app.
I still own a few of those tv series you could buy at that time and its a giant hassle to get them to play nowadays, have to use certain browsers and have to pray its a good day for streaming on Steam.

Like with many things Steam wants us to forget existed (Steam boxes anyone?) they just pretend it never existed.

I admit that I had no idea Steam had video streaming at all. Also, what were Steam boxes?

[かぐや]

引用自 Labyrinth2 0：

引用自 Ogami：

Because they decided that selling tv series and movies was not profitable for them and retired the entire section including the Steam movie player app.
I still own a few of those tv series you could buy at that time and its a giant hassle to get them to play nowadays, have to use certain browsers and have to pray its a good day for streaming on Steam.

Like with many things Steam wants us to forget existed (Steam boxes anyone?) they just pretend it never existed.

I admit that I had no idea Steam had video streaming at all. Also, what were Steam boxes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) It was the original "Steam Deck" back then, but did not sell well. It also had handheld version too.

[Wolfpig]

引用自 かぐや：

引用自 Labyrinth2 0：

I admit that I had no idea Steam had video streaming at all. Also, what were Steam boxes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) It was the original "Steam Deck" back then, but did not sell well. It also had handheld version too.

It did not sell well as those where just rebranded htpc machines which could be bought for years.....

People who needed one probably had already such a thing.... or a normal PC.

Problem with valve is, they try stuff out years after others and then retreat as there are already far better solutions out there

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

引用自 JPMcMillen：

It also didn't help that there was no way to watch them on mobile devices.

That was in the works but Valve stopped selling videos and even the dev working on the app left not long afterwards.

[_veleron]

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

That was in the works but Valve stopped selling videos

They made a big announcement about something with new features for Steam videos coming and then announced they will be removing all non gaming videos from Steam. Very odd. And how was it not profitable?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

引用自 _veleron：

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

That was in the works but Valve stopped selling videos

They made a big announcement about something with new features for Steam videos coming and then announced they will be removing all non gaming videos from Steam. Very odd. And how was it not profitable? :BITRAY_Mistrust:

Licensing is expensive and even if you could get the license, not many actually purchased or rented the stuff here.

Then you have to contend with regional availability, which was and still is balls but is getting slightly better.

Also, bidding for shows/movies was rough with players like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon outbidding the smaller guys like Valve for exclusivity.

And today, there are far too many production companies getting involved, keeping and selling exclusivity like Paramount did with then HBO/Max (now just Max) for Friends. They paid $425 million to be exclusive on HBO/Max. Netflix had it before for $100 million.

[_veleron]

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

Licensing is expensive and even if you could get the license, not many actually purchased or rented the stuff here.

Then you have to contend with regional availability, which was and still is balls but is getting slightly better.

It's not like Valve had to actively pursue the owners or anything, it's the same with games. They have the delivery platform and their cut, that's it. But then they decided *not to accept video content*. Why? The reasons you mention don't seem to apply here.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

引用自 _veleron：

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

Licensing is expensive and even if you could get the license, not many actually purchased or rented the stuff here.

Then you have to contend with regional availability, which was and still is balls but is getting slightly better.

It's not like Valve had to actively pursue the owners or anything, it's the same with games. They have the delivery platform and their cut, that's it. But then they decided *not to accept video content*. Why? The reasons you mention don't seem to apply here.

It actually is completely different than games. Video content is the exact opposite than the game industry in that regard. Valve did have to pursue the owners in order to bid on the rights. This is why they partnered with Crunchyroll for the anime. They already established connections with the companies to help get the ball rolling on bidding.

Even then, some shows were only half available due to licensing being exclusive on another streaming service. Ex... Netflix has show X with seasons 1-3. The available licensing is for only 3 seasons at a time and show X has 8 seasons. Valve bids for the rights on seasons 4-6 but gets outbid by Hulu and Amazon picks up the remaining 7th and 8th seasons. Valve is left with nothing.

[_veleron]

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

It actually is completely different than games.

How is it different? You *need* to forbid video content on your platform if you don't want to or can't get deals with major players?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

引用自 _veleron：

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

It actually is completely different than games.

How is it different? You *need* to forbid video content on your platform if you don't want to or can't get deals with major players?

It's fine if you don't understand how streaming licenses work.

It's the reason why shows like Dr. WHO are going to be exclusive to BBC and Disney+ and removed from MAX, which had the rights to the show after Netflix.

[_veleron]

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

It's fine if you don't understand how streaming licenses work.

It's the reason why shows like Dr. WHO are going to be exclusive to BBC and Disney+ and removed from MAX.

I can't say it's fine that you post while not understanding the points raised, but ok.

[76561198407601200]

引用自 _veleron：

引用自 cSg|mc-Hotsauce：

It's fine if you don't understand how streaming licenses work.

It's the reason why shows like Dr. WHO are going to be exclusive to BBC and Disney+ and removed from MAX.

I can't say it's fine that you post while not understanding the points raised, but ok.

Apples and oranges. At the end of the day licensing is involved which costs money, if valve is not getting enough money in return from customers purchasing videos then it is not profitable, very simple logic.