soundtracks that are separate from the game.

[thiccframes]

I don't want to have to download the game to hear the soundtrack and since I am on Mac I can't download the game for some of the soundtracks I want to hear, such as Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I would suggest allowing soundtracks to be downloaded or streamed without downloading the game.

[Shailo]

There are DLCs that sell sound tracks separately. Not every game does it, but it is becoming a trendy thing to do, and I've seen them for $10 or more so its non-trivial cash.

To do what you suggest then, would be giving a saleable item away for free, and I doubt that the developers would be happy about that. Nor would Steam for that matter since Steam gets a cut.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by Shailo:

There are DLCs that sell sound tracks separately. Not every game does it, but it is becoming a trendy thing to do, and I've seen them for $10 or more so its non-trivial cash.

To do what you suggest then, would be giving a saleable item away for free, and I doubt that the developers would be happy about that. Nor would Steam for that matter since Steam gets a cut.

I don't think OP is suggesting giving soundtracks away for free, just separating them from games. Because if a soundtrack is DLC, it can't be bought without also buying the game, and it can't be downloaded without also installing the game.

[Shailo]

Yes, I understand that he wants to separate the soundtrack from the game, that is, play the soundtrack without playing the game, indeed, in this case without even downloading the game to his local system. The game obviously already has the soundtrack in it, but separating it out and being able to play it without the game is a feature that is worth money. And we know it is worth money because various DLCs provide that ability for a price.

For Steam to provide that ability as a general feature then, would undercut the developer's ability to gain revenue from selling that feature. Who would buy a soundtrack DLC if you could already play the soundtrack without running the game? For that DLC to have value, it must be the only way to gain access to the soundtrack without running the game, and so Steam will not provide it as a general feature.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by Shailo:

For Steam to provide that ability as a general feature then, would undercut the developer's ability to gain revenue from selling that feature.

No, because I'm still talking about selling the soundtrack. The very first thing I said was that this isn't about giving it away for free.

All that I'm talking about, and all I believe the OP is talking about, is selling it as a separate product instead of, or as well as, selling it as a DLC connected to the game (edit: oops, and yeah, making it usable without downloading the game whether it's sold as DLC or not). Nobody is undercutting anyone, it's still the publisher's product like anything else they put on Steam, and as such they can still charge whatever they like for it.

[Shailo]

So you mean that you want Steam to have a general ability to access soundtracks from games, and to then sell that access to customers through Steam. And this would be done in cooperation with the game developer, and the two would share revenues in some manner. Also, this is different from DLCs because the game would not be required, rather customers would buy the soundtrack as a stand-alone product.

Fine, but I doubt that is what Spazman5190 wanted because he already bought the game and just wants to play the soundtrack from it without downloading the game to his Mac.

That aside, the ability to create stand-alone soundtracks already exists. Developers could just create a stand-alone .exe that provided that ability and sell it under the Music category. Instead they choose to create DLCs that requires a purchase of the game. Frankly, I have no idea why they choose to do this, nor what the advantages are of one over the other, but the reality is that developers already can do both.

Why then, do you think that Steam should become involved? And what advantages are then if they did?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by Shailo:

I doubt that is what Spazman5190 wanted because he already bought the game and just wants to play the soundtrack from it without downloading the game to his Mac.

Sure, I just think if something's worth doing, it's worth doing well. You could give OP what they want by just adding the ability to download DLCs without installing the game; don't get me wrong, that alone would be a great improvement that I'd be happy to see. But since soundtracks are - in my estimation - by far the main reason Valve would be making such a change (probably only some dedicated modders would want to download DLC without the game otherwise), it strikes me as a good opportunity to go a little further and accommodate music properly.

Which means not stopping at workarounds like "creating a standalone .exe". Not to attack you for making the suggestion, since I know you were just listing a way it could be done at the moment which is great, but the prospect of having to bundle an executable just to distribute music makes the engineer in me cringe a bit from its inelegance. And only selling unique executable content is something Valve has already begun to move away from with their streaming movies.

So in terms of advantages, aside from the already stated ones (customers being able to buy and play music separate from games), that would be another advantage: developers not having to fudge anything to create such products. Also I presume this would be accompanied by an explicit store listing for music/soundtracks, as there now is for movies, which would help visibility for devs and discoverability for customers.

[Shailo]

Alright, I can see this as a possible future with some benefits, but it would require a change in the way that games are currently developed, or at least packaged for sale. In particular, the developers would have to create an API of sorts that the retailer would plug into in order to access the various components of the game. This is so the developer or publisher maintains control over content, rather than just giving the raw files to the retailer. The files might even be encrypted and the retailer would get a key that their media player would then use to stream the content to the customer. Increasingly, online is the only way to play some games, even in single-player mode, and such changes portend that as the inevitable future.

This is a fair bit different that the current retail model, since the retailer is currently much more passive. Presumably, too, as the retailer participation increases so too would their share of the profits, and that would have to be offset by increased sales or some other benefit. An environment like Steam provides a signifiant community, and a very focused marketing environment, so perhaps that is enough.

[Gus the Crocodile]

I can't see that that's "required" - depending on the sense you mean that word, that would imply its not possible, or just not good business to sell DRM-free music. The former is clearly untrue and the latter is at the very least not true as a blanket statement - it should be up to developers to decide if they want to place such restrictions on the way customers use their products. So Valve could offer streamed, locked-down music as an option for devs who want to do it that way, absolutely - they've already moved into streaming movies, it wouldn't be any big change.

I don't really know why any of that is suddenly triggered by this particular change. I mean, you're clearly aware people can and do sell their soundtracks on Steam already, which is commonly done as a DLC containing a bunch of audio files. If devs/pubs felt that was them "losing control of their content", they obviously wouldn't do it.

[thiccframes]

If I can stream movies I've paid for, then why not music that I've paid for aside from the game?

Why do I have to download the game to download the music if the music is the thing I paid extra for to listen to?

[Black Blade]

Originally posted by Spazman₅₁₉₀:

If I can stream movies I've paid for, then why not music that I've paid for aside from the game?

Why do I have to download the game to download the music if the music is the thing I paid extra for to listen to?

To be honest i think its something that started as a Workaround by some Dev and outhers join in
Omly recently did Valve set it as something of its own
So i think they do need to start working on moving them from DLC to a standalone so they can be used without the game

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Black Blade (Card Idle):

Originally posted by Spazman₅₁₉₀:

If I can stream movies I've paid for, then why not music that I've paid for aside from the game?

Why do I have to download the game to download the music if the music is the thing I paid extra for to listen to?

To be honest i think its something that started as a Workaround by some Dev and outhers join in
Omly recently did Valve set it as something of its own
So i think they do need to start working on moving them from DLC to a standalone so they can be used without the game

Now see that can bring up a sticky issue in licensing. The devs may not actually have the right to distribute the music without the game. Music copyright can be very, very tricky and depending on the licensing and agreements. The sound track may only be distributed with the game.
I suppose you could say the devs bought the right to use the soundtrack, not sell or distruibute it. Heck this is the reason Bioshock disappeared from the storefront for a while.

[Black Blade]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Now see that can bring up a sticky issue in licensing. The devs may not actually have the right to distribute the music without the game. Music copyright can be very, very tricky and depending on the licensing and agreements. The sound track may only be distributed with the game.
I suppose you could say the devs bought the right to use the soundtrack, not sell or distruibute it. Heck this is the reason Bioshock disappeared from the storefront for a while.

Well it will need to be activated by the Dev, after all they also need to set it up for that, so i do not see that as an issue really, as again the Devs will set it
And i do think most music offered games on Steam is music that was made by the Dev, or that they own, so that will not be an issue

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Black Blade (Card Idle):

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Now see that can bring up a sticky issue in licensing. The devs may not actually have the right to distribute the music without the game. Music copyright can be very, very tricky and depending on the licensing and agreements. The sound track may only be distributed with the game.
I suppose you could say the devs bought the right to use the soundtrack, not sell or distruibute it. Heck this is the reason Bioshock disappeared from the storefront for a while.

Well it will need to be activated by the Dev, after all they also need to set it up for that, so i do not see that as an issue really, as again the Devs will set it
And i do think most music offered games on Steam is music that was made by the Dev, or that they own, so that will not be an issue

Own is not as solid a word as you think.

[Black Blade]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Own is not as solid a word as you think.

I am aware, BTW if you can sell the soundtrack as DLC i think its likely they have the rights for it
and as i said its going to be set by the Dev

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Black Blade (Card Idle):

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Own is not as solid a word as you think.

I am aware, BTW if you can sell the soundtrack as DLC i think its likely they have the rights for it
and as i said its going to be set by the Dev

Again. how it is distributed is the key. Hence why it tends to be done as part of the game. In music. Someone can have the rights to perform a p[iece, another can have the rights to broadcast and another can have the right to distribute physical copies.