Why should I even be connected at all once I buy it?
Once I buy the game I should be able to play it whenever I want. Even if for some reason I have no internet connection at all.
That's my biggest beef, really.
What I was mainly complaining about was paying retail price for games, (20 bucks or more) not getting a disc, and then having to connect to the internet each time I want to play the game I bought.
I have no problem with 10 dollar or less downloadable games.
You don't have to connect after you buy it. If you buy it and then run it once you're golden. You never have to run it online again if you never delete the content from your computer. You can back it up onto disk so you can re-install it later, but if you don't want to you don't have to.
Basically I think your problem with steam is that you're incredibly ignorant about it and don't actually understand what the service is.
But you still need Steam for that backup to be of any use, no?
Why should I even be connected at all once I buy it?
Once I buy the game I should be able to play it whenever I want. Even if for some reason I have no internet connection at all.
That's my biggest beef, really.
What I was mainly complaining about was paying retail price for games, (20 bucks or more) not getting a disc, and then having to connect to the internet each time I want to play the game I bought.
I have no problem with 10 dollar or less downloadable games.
You don't have to connect after you buy it. If you buy it and then run it once you're golden. You never have to run it online again if you never delete the content from your computer. You can back it up onto disk so you can re-install it later, but if you don't want to you don't have to.
Basically I think your problem with steam is that you're incredibly ignorant about it and don't actually understand what the service is.
But you still need Steam for that backup to be of any use, no?
Just the first time you install it on a new machine. But seriously in the age of broad band when the fuck are you not connected to the internet? Every computer I've used in the past 3 years no matter where I was was online and ready to go.
Why should I even be connected at all once I buy it?
Once I buy the game I should be able to play it whenever I want. Even if for some reason I have no internet connection at all.
That's my biggest beef, really.
What I was mainly complaining about was paying retail price for games, (20 bucks or more) not getting a disc, and then having to connect to the internet each time I want to play the game I bought.
I have no problem with 10 dollar or less downloadable games.
You don't have to connect after you buy it. If you buy it and then run it once you're golden. You never have to run it online again if you never delete the content from your computer. You can back it up onto disk so you can re-install it later, but if you don't want to you don't have to.
Basically I think your problem with steam is that you're incredibly ignorant about it and don't actually understand what the service is.
But you still need Steam for that backup to be of any use, no?
Yes, but I fail to see how that's a problem. I don't see people being fearful that Nintendo is going to run away into the night stranding people with only the VC games they currently have downloaded on their Wiis. Why is it different for Valve?
Fear of the unknown is a hard thing to get over. Nobody really knows what will happen the day Steam turns to "Unsupported" status (that day has to come SOMEDAY; nothing lasts forever).
Eh, I think Valve is around to stay. It's going to be like the Universal Studios or MGM of gaming. Especially at the rate other developers are putting their games on Steam.
And if they ever do go under it'll be in a good 25-50 years and no one is going to give a damn.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Because myself and a few others are avid Steam fanboys and don't like ignorant shits bad-mouthing the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long time?
Steam charges full price for games, without the benifit of actually owning the discs or even being able to, you know, actually play them without being connected to the internet.
Difference is, you pay cheap prices because Virtual Console has old console games. SNES and N64 and such. Games on Steam are cheap, and are new games. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic? $20 now. Titan Quest and its expansion? $30. Prey? $20. These games all came out in the past year and a half or so. I don't see year and a half old games on VC. Even if they did do that, where are you going to store the presumably downloaded Gamecube games? On the Wii's hard drive? o wait
Raere on
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Because myself and a few others are avid Steam fanboys and don't like ignorant shits bad-mouthing the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long time?
Hm that's a good reason. :P I just thought that since this was discussed months ago that this discussion would be better put in the Steam thread.
It's been a little bit since I last used Steam, but isn't offline mode a real bitch to get working properly?
Not that I've seen. Ever since Episode 1 all you've had to do is make sure the game isn't updating and run it once online. Then, once steam starts up click offline mode and you're good.
If you can't see the inherent flaw in making an "all your eggs in one basket" product like Steam is where all roads run through Steam. Then sorry, I can't help you.
Fuck Nintendo, That analogy is dumb and It shouldn't have been brought up. VC and Steam are vastly different, but not in the way that was it was brought up as an argument against Steam
My beef is that for the single player experience, Steam is completely unnecessary. But I'm not allowed the choice. Say I do back up my games via steam. 20 years later, I decide to play them again. Oh wait, I gotta download the modern version of steam to use it right? Even if I kept my original install of Steam, It requires you to connect to the internet the first time through and thus, install the current version right? I've got to hope that things haven't radically changed since I backed them up that the new steam even recognizes my old backups right? Let's also hope that Operating Systems haven't changed too radically that steam even supports those ancient games on the new platform. Hell I gotta hope steam even exists as we know it for me to even install it on this future PC because the initial installation of steam requires the internet connection right? How can I restore the backups if I can't install steam?
As I said before, we can't predict the future. But with a hard copy. I don't need to predict the future. as long as I have a working compy and an OS that supports it. I can play that game. for the single player experience. Steam adds another layer that just simply doesn't need to be there.
If we *must* use the Nintendo argument, let's try and do it a little better. If Nintendo/Sony/MS goes bankrupt. so what? I've still got everything I need to play the game 10, 20, 500 years from now if you use the Eric Cartman scenario. But then again even he still couldn't hook it up to the viewscreen so maybe it's still a bad argument
All this for a single player game? when better, faster, less intrusive methods exist in order to play/store my old games. No thanks.
Again, I have zero problem with it being required for multiplayer.
Maybe I'm just remembering the days when the only time an option to click offline mode was when you had no internet connection at all.
Uh, yeah, that's still the way it is. Why is that a problem?
If you can't see the inherent flaw in making an "all your eggs in one basket" product like Steam is where all roads run through Steam. Then sorry, I can't help you.
Sorry, I'm not the one that needs help
Fuck Nintendo, That analogy is dumb and It shouldn't have been brought up. VC and Steam are vastly different, but not in the way that was it was brought up as an argument against Steam
That isn't much of an analogy. Steam and the virtual console are very similar services. The only difference is the virtual console games don't need to be run once while online. Oh, and the fact that virtual console games are tied to one machine.
My beef is that for the single player experience, Steam is completely unnecessary. But I'm not allowed the choice. Say I do back up my games via steam. 20 years later, I decide to play them again. Oh wait, I gotta download the modern version of steam to use it right? Even if I kept my original install of Steam, It requires you to connect to the internet the first time through and thus, install the current version right? I've got to hope that things haven't radically changed since I backed them up that the new steam even recognizes my old backups right? Let's also hope that Operating Systems haven't changed too radically that steam even supports those ancient games on the new platform. Hell I gotta hope steam even exists as we know it for me to even install it on this future PC because the initial installation of steam requires the internet connection right? How can I restore the backups if I can't install steam?
So basically you're afraid that the things that Steam needs to run such as... a PC... Windows... and the internet aren't going to be around in 20 years? Well, I hate to break it to you but in 20 years the internet will still be around. Windows will still be around. And Valve seems to be very interested in making sure that their games (The ones made by Valve) work on new versions of Windows and new hardware configurations. Basically you're argument comes down to you not trusting that Valve will be there in 20-50-500 years.
As I said before, we can't predict the future. But with a hard copy. I don't need to predict the future. as long as I have a working compy and an OS that supports it. I can play that game. for the single player experience. Steam adds another layer that just simply doesn't need to be there.
Unless digital distribution never actually takes off Steam DOES need to be there. As far as I've seen Steam is pretty much the best way to handle the "I want to let people play my game through digital distribution, but I don't want them to be able to pirate it" dilemma.
If we *must* use the Nintendo argument, let's try and do it a little better. If Nintendo/Sony/MS goes bankrupt. so what? I've still got everything I need to play the game 10, 20, 500 years from now if you use the Eric Cartman scenario. But then again even he still couldn't hook it up to the viewscreen so maybe it's still a bad argument
You have everything needed to play the games? But what if you run out of memory on your HD/Flash memory/whatever? Where will you go to re-download your game?
All this for a single player game? when better, faster, less intrusive methods exist in order to play/store my old games. No thanks.
Again, I have zero problem with it being required for multiplayer.
Again, Steam is the best way to handle digital distribution (all of the games on steam). It's also one of the less intrusive was to handle regular piracy (all of Valve's games). Unless you're posting from the library you have the internet. Unless we get bombed back to the stone age the internet is not going away. So there is real reason to complain that steam games require the use of the internet. It's a silly argument.
And as far as Valve going under... I'll eat my own cock the day Valve goes under and doesn't give people a way to play their purchased games.
Maybe I'm just remembering the days when the only time an option to click offline mode was when you had no internet connection at all.
Uh, yeah, that's still the way it is. Why is that a problem?
It's a problem if you have an internet connection that is horrifically slow at weird times, and Steam takes forever to load. Or doesn't load at all.
This isn't a problem for me anymore since I graduated, and wasn't really even then since I could always just unplug the ethernet cord, start steam, then plug back in. But it's pretty damn dumb that I'd be forced to that kind of "solution."
You guys can defend Steam all you want, but there just isn't any denying the entire thing has a few incredibly arbitrary features. I love it, and think it has done a fantastic job of selling games that normally wouldn't get looked at twice in retail, but it'd be great if Valve took another look at the program's design.
You guys can defend Steam all you want, but there just isn't any denying the entire thing has a few incredibly arbitrary features. I love it, and think it has done a fantastic job of selling games that normally wouldn't get looked at twice in retail, but it'd be great if Valve took another look at the program's design.
So basically you're afraid that the things that Steam needs to run such as... a PC... Windows... and the internet aren't going to be around in 20 years? Well, I hate to break it to you but in 20 years the internet will still be around. Windows will still be around. And Valve seems to be very interested in making sure that their games (The ones made by Valve) work on new versions of Windows and new hardware configurations. Basically you're argument comes down to you not trusting that Valve will be there in 20-50-500 years.
Don't be naive, I didn't say they wouldn't be around. But you can't deny that at the rate technology progresses. You can't seriously expect the PC/Windows/internet to continue working in the same fashion it is now. file systems, protocols, compression schemes, all that behind the scene shit you take for granted will all change in unimaginable ways given enough time. You can't guarantee that the old stuff will work with the new stuff and you can't guarantee that those in charge will find workarounds. Especially, given today's example, it's just easier to make you buy another copy that works on the newer technology.
With steam, I have to constantly hope that as things change, they'll maintain backward compatability. With a hard copy, all I have to do is keep my PC in working order and backups of my OS
You keep using the word "best" to describe steam. That alone tells me you just have no clue how technology really works. Everything gets upgraded...everything gets revised. There is no such thing as "the best" there is just "well it worked for its time" You can't tell me with a straight face that you can *guarantee* that 20 years from now people aren't going to say "gee, what were we thinking with that steam nonsense what we use now is so vastly better" It goes without saying that the industry now is radically different than it was 20 years ago. So who are you to say it will continue in a way that makes Steam look so great? Inevitably Steam will give way to a better way of doing things and people will look back and chuckle at how it was done "back then"
Do you still edit your autoexec.bat and config.sys to get your games to play do you still play with dip switches to set your 2400 baud modem to the right com port? don't forget to assign your IRQs
and don't get me started on the whole anti-piracy debate. That whole topic is so full of bullshit and entire companies instilling fear just so that they continue to get a paycheck.
So basically you just don't like digital distribution on the PC and nothing will change your mind.
Because believe me, there isn't another solution to the whole "I'm going to let you download a game from me. Now please don't give this to 1000 of your best friends on bittorrent" other than the way steam has it. Is it flawed? Yes, as much as any copy protection scheme is going to be. Copy protection is and always will be a flawed idea. But no company is going to just give you the files needed to play without some way of making sure you can't upload those files to gamewarez.org or whatever.
As far as the "computers change I'm scared of the bad man mommy please help me" argument... well, it's very simple. If all you need to do with a hard copy is keep your PC and OS from the last time the game worked in working condition, then that's all you need to do with steam. Steam works on Windows XP right now. In 20 years, there will still be a version that works on Windows XP. In 50 years there will still be a version that works on Windows XP. Basically if your argument is that a hardcopy will work on the same physical computer that you have now in 20 years then I have no idea what you're worried about. Because if steam is still around in 20 years it'll still work on the computer that you have now. Why would the remove compatibility?
And yes, Steam is the BEST METHOD OF DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION THERE IS TODAY. Name me one service that handles digital distribution better and I'll shut up right now.
People's arguments against Steam are based on way too many "but what if..."s.
I think it goes back to the fact that people will accept more risk if they feel like they're somehow in control of their risk. People risk far more by driving than by living next to a nuclear power plant, but they will pitch a fit about the plant and continue driving the same as always.
I love Steam. I think it's great and balances out their own data/financial security with ease of use/fairness/cost pretty well.
That said, some of you need to exercise a little understanding here. People are naturally paranoid. And there's precedent. Remember DiVX? And didn't some digital distribution for Prey go dead leaving people with their discs in their hands? (hehe...not really...they didn't even have discs!)
Seriously though I think you all need to realize that you're not really going to talk someone out of their bias against digital distribution. God knows nobody talked ME out of it. I happily own Half-Life 2, the expansion, and a bunch of other shit through Steam, but the adage "you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink it" holds true here, especially when there is a very valid reason for this paranoia. I mean, people have been burned by this kind of thing before. Multiple times, in fact.
Pata et. al: Steam is great. I urge you to rethink your position a bit. I was like you, too. But the fact is, cost is relative and the most important part of your 50 dollars is the game itself, not the physical stuff that comes with it.
Others: Understand that Pata et. al might not give a shit that you've come to peace with digital distribution. They have to come to this conclusion on their own.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
RoshinMy backlog can be seen from spaceSwedenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
I'd be happy with Steam if it didn't crash face first into the ground whenever there's a major release. As for the copy protection bit, Steam has actually made it easier to rip the singleplayer games and distribute them as torrents, not harder.
Roshin on
0
Options
Triple BBastard of the NorthMARegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
The only thing I don't like about Steam is that it lets Valve know more than I would like.
Anyone who doesn't like steam should reformat their computer. Then you will see how "sucky" it is. Believe me I did it. You have no idea how nice it is to be able to install like 5 games that are huge in about 30 minutes and have them fully patched and ready to play when it's done.
Cd's and Dvd's are just a huge pain in the ass to go back to after downloading everything over steam.
And really come on. If you computer cant connect to the internet and also cant run steam why are you trying to play Half Life 2?
randombattle on
I never asked for this!
0
Options
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
It's been a little bit since I last used Steam, but isn't offline mode a real bitch to get working properly?
Not that I've seen. Ever since Episode 1 all you've had to do is make sure the game isn't updating and run it once online. Then, once steam starts up click offline mode and you're good.
There's even a menu option to go into offline mode, now.
I want the OPTION of having a physical copy of the game. I barely trust Steam as it is; if they lose my account, I have nothing to prove I even purchased the expansion in the first place.
Um, if your account, credit card, whatever email account you used, and their bazillion data redundancy centers all disappeared at once, then yea it could happen.
My point of having a physical copy still stands. I like collecting games, and having their boxes displayed where my PC is. Collectors like doing two things:
1. Buying games.
2. Showing said games off to other people.
There's no satisfaction for a collector if you buy the game but have no way to display it for other people to see.
So buy the Orange Box
I have everything else. I bought everything else when it first came out. Buying extra copies of HL2 and HL2: E1 so I could have a physical copy of HL2:E2 is a waste of money. Sixty dollars for a third of a game and Team Fortress 2 doesn't justify having a physical copy.
If Valve wants all their games to be available exclusively online, that's fine. I'll buy it that way.
If they want to distribute them physically, then do so. But my point is that they shouldn't exclude certain games if they're distributing in both ways. To do so alienates people who, like me, are looking to walk into a store and buy a physical copy of the game rather than waiting for it to download from their server the day it comes out.
I know this really won't affect your argument much, but.
Valve said that if you already own the earlier games and buy the Orange box, you'll be able to give those games away to a friend, so you don't have two copies sitting around.
So basically you just don't like digital distribution on the PC and nothing will change your mind.
There is no "so basically" about it. quit trying to put words in my mouth. I have no problem with digital distribution. But steam isn't just digital distribution. So you can't lump people's complaints about Steam into *rabble rabble rabble! You don't like change!! rabble rabble rabble! You don't like digital delivery! rabble rabble rabble!!*
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
Stardock is a vastly better example of what digital distribution should be. you get the product, done. You never see Stardock again unless *you* decide you want to check for updates, etc.
I guarantee you if Steam wasn't married to HL2 and Counterstrike, there wouldn't be so many naive fanboys defending it.
Ogg want to play HL2. HL2 great, HL2 requires Steam, Therefore Ogg think Steam pretty great too!
People's arguments against Steam are based on way too many "but what if..."s.
As if that's a bad thing. Conversely, defenders of Steam base their arguments way too much on the premise that things are going the stay the same way they are now. So what's your point?
So do I bet on things inevitably changing, or do I bet on things staying the same as they are now?
In 20 years, there will still be a version that works on Windows XP. In 50 years there will still be a version that works on Windows XP.
Thank you for continuing to prove your inexperience with technology. That statement is the most laughable thing I've ever heard. That's like saying I should be able to continue to reasonably expect that computer punch cards will still work now. I guess I must have missed that in the bullet list of WinXP features.
If you just said, "but that's different," Guess what numbnuts, it will be different 50 years from now too.
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
I was wary of steam, and yet buying SIN:Episodes convinced me. $10 for what is essentially the same experience I used to pay $50 for? The ability to actually look at reviews, and download demos while shopping? The fact that it uses magic play money so I don't notice how much I've spent?
All grand. Actually, Geometry Wars sold me, too. $2.50 for a game. It's like having shareware that finally actually is priced reasonably. I really hope indie developers like Spiderweb Software sign up for them, I'd love to pay $10 for shareware instead of $30.
And yeah, seeing as how you can keep playing your games offline... the only difference between Steam and something like Stardock is that this one requires you to start it up once with Steam. So... unless you wait 25 years between buying and installing, you're good.
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
It provides a barrier to piracy. That's the purpose once the game is installed.
It also downloads and installs patches automatically, which is a really nice feature.
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Well.
It lets you play the game.
Glad we can agree on something. So tell me. In what bizarro world is more requirements to play a game a good thing? With all normal games. I just need X and Y to play a game. Now I need X Y and Z
Again, let me reiterate that as digital distribution and a requirement for online play, I have zero problem with Steam. But Steam is nothing but a glorified web portal and auto-patcher if all you do is offline play. So I should be able to get rid of it if I don't want it. I can patch and backup my games just fine by myself k thanx! bi-bi now!
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Well.
It lets you play the game.
Glad we can agree on something. So tell me. In what bizarro world is more requirements to play a game a good thing? With all normal games. I just need X and Y to play a game. Now I need X Y and Z
Again, let me reiterate that as digital distribution and a requirement for online play, I have zero problem with Steam. But Steam is nothing but a glorified web portal and auto-patcher if all you do is offline play. So I should be able to get rid of it if I don't want it. I can patch and backup my games just fine by myself k thanx! bi-bi now!
EDIT: I'm not going to derail this even further with a debate on anti-piracy schemes. Let's just leave that out of it. Bottom line is that I don't need steam for offline play, so I should be able to get rid of it. it does nothing inherently necessary that justifies the requirement.
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
So I guess the fact that you can start your games from a desktop shortcut in off-line mode without having to connect to the steam servers with the simple click of a check-box isn't sinking in?
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Well.
It lets you play the game.
Glad we can agree on something. So tell me. In what bizarro world is more requirements to play a game a good thing? With all normal games. I just need X and Y to play a game. Now I need X Y and Z
Again, let me reiterate that as digital distribution and a requirement for online play, I have zero problem with Steam. But Steam is nothing but a glorified web portal and auto-patcher if all you do is offline play. So I should be able to get rid of it if I don't want it. I can patch and backup my games just fine by myself k thanx! bi-bi now!
Bzzt.
Buying a physical copy of a game usually involves driving to the store to pick it up. I'll define that as "Z." If you want to be petty, how about "waiting for your Amazon.com/Gamestop.com order to arrive in the mail." That's another requirement.
You're just replacing Z with another Z, i.e. having to authorize that you really have a license to play the game.
I really think you're grasping at straws here. The reasons you are offering up against Steam are, well, nonsense.
Posts
But you still need Steam for that backup to be of any use, no?
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Just the first time you install it on a new machine. But seriously in the age of broad band when the fuck are you not connected to the internet? Every computer I've used in the past 3 years no matter where I was was online and ready to go.
Yes, but I fail to see how that's a problem. I don't see people being fearful that Nintendo is going to run away into the night stranding people with only the VC games they currently have downloaded on their Wiis. Why is it different for Valve?
How exactly is that "Full price"?
And if they ever do go under it'll be in a good 25-50 years and no one is going to give a damn.
Because myself and a few others are avid Steam fanboys and don't like ignorant shits bad-mouthing the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long time?
Difference is, you pay cheap prices because Virtual Console has old console games. SNES and N64 and such. Games on Steam are cheap, and are new games. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic? $20 now. Titan Quest and its expansion? $30. Prey? $20. These games all came out in the past year and a half or so. I don't see year and a half old games on VC. Even if they did do that, where are you going to store the presumably downloaded Gamecube games? On the Wii's hard drive? o wait
Hm that's a good reason. :P I just thought that since this was discussed months ago that this discussion would be better put in the Steam thread.
Not that I've seen. Ever since Episode 1 all you've had to do is make sure the game isn't updating and run it once online. Then, once steam starts up click offline mode and you're good.
Fuck Nintendo, That analogy is dumb and It shouldn't have been brought up. VC and Steam are vastly different, but not in the way that was it was brought up as an argument against Steam
My beef is that for the single player experience, Steam is completely unnecessary. But I'm not allowed the choice. Say I do back up my games via steam. 20 years later, I decide to play them again. Oh wait, I gotta download the modern version of steam to use it right? Even if I kept my original install of Steam, It requires you to connect to the internet the first time through and thus, install the current version right? I've got to hope that things haven't radically changed since I backed them up that the new steam even recognizes my old backups right? Let's also hope that Operating Systems haven't changed too radically that steam even supports those ancient games on the new platform. Hell I gotta hope steam even exists as we know it for me to even install it on this future PC because the initial installation of steam requires the internet connection right? How can I restore the backups if I can't install steam?
As I said before, we can't predict the future. But with a hard copy. I don't need to predict the future. as long as I have a working compy and an OS that supports it. I can play that game. for the single player experience. Steam adds another layer that just simply doesn't need to be there.
If we *must* use the Nintendo argument, let's try and do it a little better. If Nintendo/Sony/MS goes bankrupt. so what? I've still got everything I need to play the game 10, 20, 500 years from now if you use the Eric Cartman scenario. But then again even he still couldn't hook it up to the viewscreen so maybe it's still a bad argument
All this for a single player game? when better, faster, less intrusive methods exist in order to play/store my old games. No thanks.
Again, I have zero problem with it being required for multiplayer.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Uh, yeah, that's still the way it is. Why is that a problem?
Sorry, I'm not the one that needs help
That isn't much of an analogy. Steam and the virtual console are very similar services. The only difference is the virtual console games don't need to be run once while online. Oh, and the fact that virtual console games are tied to one machine.
So basically you're afraid that the things that Steam needs to run such as... a PC... Windows... and the internet aren't going to be around in 20 years? Well, I hate to break it to you but in 20 years the internet will still be around. Windows will still be around. And Valve seems to be very interested in making sure that their games (The ones made by Valve) work on new versions of Windows and new hardware configurations. Basically you're argument comes down to you not trusting that Valve will be there in 20-50-500 years.
Unless digital distribution never actually takes off Steam DOES need to be there. As far as I've seen Steam is pretty much the best way to handle the "I want to let people play my game through digital distribution, but I don't want them to be able to pirate it" dilemma.
You have everything needed to play the games? But what if you run out of memory on your HD/Flash memory/whatever? Where will you go to re-download your game?
Again, Steam is the best way to handle digital distribution (all of the games on steam). It's also one of the less intrusive was to handle regular piracy (all of Valve's games). Unless you're posting from the library you have the internet. Unless we get bombed back to the stone age the internet is not going away. So there is real reason to complain that steam games require the use of the internet. It's a silly argument.
And as far as Valve going under... I'll eat my own cock the day Valve goes under and doesn't give people a way to play their purchased games.
This isn't a problem for me anymore since I graduated, and wasn't really even then since I could always just unplug the ethernet cord, start steam, then plug back in. But it's pretty damn dumb that I'd be forced to that kind of "solution."
You guys can defend Steam all you want, but there just isn't any denying the entire thing has a few incredibly arbitrary features. I love it, and think it has done a fantastic job of selling games that normally wouldn't get looked at twice in retail, but it'd be great if Valve took another look at the program's design.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Don't be naive, I didn't say they wouldn't be around. But you can't deny that at the rate technology progresses. You can't seriously expect the PC/Windows/internet to continue working in the same fashion it is now. file systems, protocols, compression schemes, all that behind the scene shit you take for granted will all change in unimaginable ways given enough time. You can't guarantee that the old stuff will work with the new stuff and you can't guarantee that those in charge will find workarounds. Especially, given today's example, it's just easier to make you buy another copy that works on the newer technology.
With steam, I have to constantly hope that as things change, they'll maintain backward compatability. With a hard copy, all I have to do is keep my PC in working order and backups of my OS
You keep using the word "best" to describe steam. That alone tells me you just have no clue how technology really works. Everything gets upgraded...everything gets revised. There is no such thing as "the best" there is just "well it worked for its time" You can't tell me with a straight face that you can *guarantee* that 20 years from now people aren't going to say "gee, what were we thinking with that steam nonsense what we use now is so vastly better" It goes without saying that the industry now is radically different than it was 20 years ago. So who are you to say it will continue in a way that makes Steam look so great? Inevitably Steam will give way to a better way of doing things and people will look back and chuckle at how it was done "back then"
Do you still edit your autoexec.bat and config.sys to get your games to play do you still play with dip switches to set your 2400 baud modem to the right com port? don't forget to assign your IRQs
and don't get me started on the whole anti-piracy debate. That whole topic is so full of bullshit and entire companies instilling fear just so that they continue to get a paycheck.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Because believe me, there isn't another solution to the whole "I'm going to let you download a game from me. Now please don't give this to 1000 of your best friends on bittorrent" other than the way steam has it. Is it flawed? Yes, as much as any copy protection scheme is going to be. Copy protection is and always will be a flawed idea. But no company is going to just give you the files needed to play without some way of making sure you can't upload those files to gamewarez.org or whatever.
As far as the "computers change I'm scared of the bad man mommy please help me" argument... well, it's very simple. If all you need to do with a hard copy is keep your PC and OS from the last time the game worked in working condition, then that's all you need to do with steam. Steam works on Windows XP right now. In 20 years, there will still be a version that works on Windows XP. In 50 years there will still be a version that works on Windows XP. Basically if your argument is that a hardcopy will work on the same physical computer that you have now in 20 years then I have no idea what you're worried about. Because if steam is still around in 20 years it'll still work on the computer that you have now. Why would the remove compatibility?
And yes, Steam is the BEST METHOD OF DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION THERE IS TODAY. Name me one service that handles digital distribution better and I'll shut up right now.
I think it goes back to the fact that people will accept more risk if they feel like they're somehow in control of their risk. People risk far more by driving than by living next to a nuclear power plant, but they will pitch a fit about the plant and continue driving the same as always.
That said, some of you need to exercise a little understanding here. People are naturally paranoid. And there's precedent. Remember DiVX? And didn't some digital distribution for Prey go dead leaving people with their discs in their hands? (hehe...not really...they didn't even have discs!)
Seriously though I think you all need to realize that you're not really going to talk someone out of their bias against digital distribution. God knows nobody talked ME out of it. I happily own Half-Life 2, the expansion, and a bunch of other shit through Steam, but the adage "you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink it" holds true here, especially when there is a very valid reason for this paranoia. I mean, people have been burned by this kind of thing before. Multiple times, in fact.
Pata et. al: Steam is great. I urge you to rethink your position a bit. I was like you, too. But the fact is, cost is relative and the most important part of your 50 dollars is the game itself, not the physical stuff that comes with it.
Others: Understand that Pata et. al might not give a shit that you've come to peace with digital distribution. They have to come to this conclusion on their own.
Not like that info could be used for evil.
Unless it's to tempt you to your doom.
Cd's and Dvd's are just a huge pain in the ass to go back to after downloading everything over steam.
And really come on. If you computer cant connect to the internet and also cant run steam why are you trying to play Half Life 2?
I never asked for this!
There's even a menu option to go into offline mode, now.
I know this really won't affect your argument much, but.
Valve said that if you already own the earlier games and buy the Orange box, you'll be able to give those games away to a friend, so you don't have two copies sitting around.
Click me for Sin City Breakfast Tacos! | Come discuss CG with us!
There is no "so basically" about it. quit trying to put words in my mouth. I have no problem with digital distribution. But steam isn't just digital distribution. So you can't lump people's complaints about Steam into *rabble rabble rabble! You don't like change!! rabble rabble rabble! You don't like digital delivery! rabble rabble rabble!!*
Digital distribution is great. But once I have the product download. The delivery system should go away. This obviously isn't the case with Steam.
Stardock is a vastly better example of what digital distribution should be. you get the product, done. You never see Stardock again unless *you* decide you want to check for updates, etc.
I guarantee you if Steam wasn't married to HL2 and Counterstrike, there wouldn't be so many naive fanboys defending it.
Ogg want to play HL2. HL2 great, HL2 requires Steam, Therefore Ogg think Steam pretty great too!
As if that's a bad thing. Conversely, defenders of Steam base their arguments way too much on the premise that things are going the stay the same way they are now. So what's your point?
So do I bet on things inevitably changing, or do I bet on things staying the same as they are now?
Thank you for continuing to prove your inexperience with technology. That statement is the most laughable thing I've ever heard. That's like saying I should be able to continue to reasonably expect that computer punch cards will still work now. I guess I must have missed that in the bullet list of WinXP features.
If you just said, "but that's different," Guess what numbnuts, it will be different 50 years from now too.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Or is that whole check-box thing still just too complicated?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
And why does change have to be for the worse? Why can't things change to be even better?
You're still paying full price for the old games. It just happens to be adjusted to market value.
All grand. Actually, Geometry Wars sold me, too. $2.50 for a game. It's like having shareware that finally actually is priced reasonably. I really hope indie developers like Spiderweb Software sign up for them, I'd love to pay $10 for shareware instead of $30.
And yeah, seeing as how you can keep playing your games offline... the only difference between Steam and something like Stardock is that this one requires you to start it up once with Steam. So... unless you wait 25 years between buying and installing, you're good.
Then tell me why I can't uninstall Steam once I have my game and continue to play? I have my game. I'm not going to play it online. So tell me, what purpose does Steam serve at that point?
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Well.
It lets you play the game.
It provides a barrier to piracy. That's the purpose once the game is installed.
It also downloads and installs patches automatically, which is a really nice feature.
edit: beat
Glad we can agree on something. So tell me. In what bizarro world is more requirements to play a game a good thing? With all normal games. I just need X and Y to play a game. Now I need X Y and Z
Again, let me reiterate that as digital distribution and a requirement for online play, I have zero problem with Steam. But Steam is nothing but a glorified web portal and auto-patcher if all you do is offline play. So I should be able to get rid of it if I don't want it. I can patch and backup my games just fine by myself k thanx! bi-bi now!
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Glad we can agree on something. So tell me. In what bizarro world is more requirements to play a game a good thing? With all normal games. I just need X and Y to play a game. Now I need X Y and Z
Again, let me reiterate that as digital distribution and a requirement for online play, I have zero problem with Steam. But Steam is nothing but a glorified web portal and auto-patcher if all you do is offline play. So I should be able to get rid of it if I don't want it. I can patch and backup my games just fine by myself k thanx! bi-bi now!
EDIT: I'm not going to derail this even further with a debate on anti-piracy schemes. Let's just leave that out of it. Bottom line is that I don't need steam for offline play, so I should be able to get rid of it. it does nothing inherently necessary that justifies the requirement.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Bzzt.
Buying a physical copy of a game usually involves driving to the store to pick it up. I'll define that as "Z." If you want to be petty, how about "waiting for your Amazon.com/Gamestop.com order to arrive in the mail." That's another requirement.
You're just replacing Z with another Z, i.e. having to authorize that you really have a license to play the game.
I really think you're grasping at straws here. The reasons you are offering up against Steam are, well, nonsense.