ginnyfizz Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Well said, Herculine and billyro. You have both summarised the case against very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 My point is that I should only have to pay for that game once, as opposed to having to pay an extra utility bill each month so that I might be permitted to play games that I've already paid for. I'm sorry, but if you would prefer not to have internet in 2011 you might want to go back to 2001. Not even the poor people in my country can go without the internet for a day. The internet has become an extension to everyone's daily activities yeeeears ago. It's time to catch up. Also, for those moaning and groaning about updates, etc (claiming to have problems which I never even had on dial-up), there's this: A week ago the Steam networks were brought to their knees – not by angry hackers or disgruntled employees, but by an inundation of bargain-hunting PC gamers refusing to miss out on a good deal. In response to this, Valve has now announced a “better, stronger and faster” download system. While Valve didn’t offer much in the way of a technical explanation of the process, they did say that downloads will go through a more firewall-friendly HTTP system, and “will automatically take advantage of web-caching proxies installed at ISPs.” What SA gamers can really be excited about, however, is the change in the way patches will be downloaded. The current method is somewhat flawed, in that it forces you to download both the patch and the file it is patching. On the new system, however, only the patch needs to be downloaded, which should save a ton in internet bills. Unnecessary downloads is certainly something that most of us can’t afford, so this is an extremely welcome resolution to a frustrating issue. This also of course means you’ll have much less waiting around to do before jumping in a game. Valve has also said that in the near-future, this new system can serve as a platform for implementing new features many have been wanting for quite some time, which they say will include “download scheduling, bandwidth throttling, and prioritizing which games get downloaded first.” These improvements may be in response to perceived competition from EA’s new Origin system, although it seems unlikely Steam will be dethroned anytime soon. Another exciting feature for South Africans suffering with slow internet is Valve’s claim that you’ll “also be able to download an update to a game while you’re playing that game. Steam will apply the update after you exit." Hell, it’s about time. Also, I use Steam as my primary social platform with my friends. It's even happened, on occassion, that I'd buy a game I already own a box copy of on Steam, just so I can play it with the Steam overlay and chat to my friends without alt-tabbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) The ridiculous part of this "DRM" is that it's completely ineffective at doing what it's supposed to do. If anything, it could be argued that the use of DRM is actually hurting the sales of games because of people who would rather not deal with the DRM. I bet that there are people out there who would pay for the game outright, but pirate instead specifically to avoid the DRM, (which of course nobody here does, has ever, or ever will condone). The bottom line is that DRM actually hurts the bottom line. Plus, devs actually have to pay for this junk. Now Steam is a gray area for me because a lot of people like the extra fluff that steam has to offer, like a buddy list... and the ability to buy and download games. That kind of stuff is actually pretty cool, and Steam has some great deals for games, but Steam should always be optional. Also, for the ridiculous people out there who refuse to think bandwidth is an issue in this day and age, consider big inner-cities. Many of the people that live in these areas do not have high speed internet and are reduced to dial-up or satellite internet because the infrastructure cannot support anything else. It IS still an issue for thousands of people. Edited July 30, 2011 by draconix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoreai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) Totaly agree that steam should be optional, i dont see a reason why should i have always an internet connection to play a game i bought...saying things that we could just go back to 2001 has absolutely nothing to do with and i see it as a desperate reason to counter some valid points that people brought up here. Anything can happen that can make your connection not to function, go down or whatever...and then you are left with a game that you bought but cant play...that's indeed a step forward. Edited July 30, 2011 by pavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hector530 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 The ridiculous part of this "DRM" is that it's completely ineffective at doing what it's supposed to do. If anything, it could be argued that the use of DRM is actually hurting the sales of games because of people who would rather not deal with the DRM. I bet that there are people out there who would pay for the game outright, but pirate instead specifically to avoid the DRM, (which of course nobody here does, has ever, or ever will condone). The bottom line is that DRM actually hurts the bottom line. Plus, devs actually have to pay for this junk. sorry but no. if it were true then companys wouldn't be rushing to put stuff on DRM. you really think they would invest time and money if it didnt work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkayjiya Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 sorry but no. if it were true then companys wouldn't be rushing to put stuff on DRM. you really think they would invest time and money if it didnt work? Lol. Yeah companies are never wrong. They are also omniscient while we're at it. DRM => Hacking => DRM... It's a vicious circle and everybody in it is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) Also, for the ridiculous people out there who refuse to think bandwidth is an issue in this day and age, consider big inner-cities. Many of the people that live in these areas do not have high speed internet and are reduced to dial-up or satellite internet because the infrastructure cannot support anything else. It IS still an issue for thousands of people. Har har har. Assumptions much? Do you know the state of internet in my country? It's pathetic. I'm paying the equivalent of $30 for an uncapped 384mbs connection, where I'm shaped to hell and back, and if I use more than 10gb a week, they throttle my internet until I'm crawling around like 56k. My line speed is standard, unthrottled, 40kb/s max download speed, 12kb/s max upload speed. Before I got this uncapped account, which I got on special (reduced price for the rest of the time I'm subscribed, but there was only 100 accounts available), I sat with a 2gb bandwidth limit, and I STILL loved Steam. I understand bandwidth issues. First world countries really have nothing to complain about. Totaly agree that steam should be optional, i dont see a reason why should i have always an internet connection to play a game i bought...saying things that we could just go back to 2001 has absolutely nothing to do with and i see it as a desperate reason to counter some valid points that people brought up here. If you read properly, you'd see I said that people should go back to 2001 if they can go without internet access at home, not that you should go back to 2001 if you don't want to use Steam. Ironically, it seems most people ignored the news article I quoted that spoke about the drastic changes being made to the Steam download system, which pretty much would solve most of the problems stated in these 'valid points' you speak of. Edited July 30, 2011 by Halororor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EviloMEN Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Halororor it's going to be on steam as well regardless, so as you love steam get it for steam. I don't love steam, and I don't want to be forced to use it. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hector530 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 sorry but no. if it were true then companys wouldn't be rushing to put stuff on DRM. you really think they would invest time and money if it didnt work? Lol. Yeah companies are never wrong. They are also omniscient while we're at it. DRM => Hacking => DRM... It's a vicious circle and everybody in it is guilty. companies main purposes is to make money. if DRM didnt bring in more sale then they wouldnt invent time and money on it. end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoreai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) Also, for the ridiculous people out there who refuse to think bandwidth is an issue in this day and age, consider big inner-cities. Many of the people that live in these areas do not have high speed internet and are reduced to dial-up or satellite internet because the infrastructure cannot support anything else. It IS still an issue for thousands of people. Har har har. Assumptions much? Do you know the state of internet in my country? It's pathetic. I'm paying the equivalent of $30 for an uncapped 384mbs connection, where I'm shaped to hell and back, and if I use more than 10gb a week, they throttle my internet until I'm crawling around like 56k. My line speed is standard, unthrottled, 40kb/s max download speed, 12kb/s max upload speed. Before I got this uncapped account, which I got on special (reduced price for the rest of the time I'm subscribed, but there was only 100 accounts available), I sat with a 2gb bandwidth limit, and I STILL loved Steam. I understand bandwidth issues. First world countries really have nothing to complain about. Totaly agree that steam should be optional, i dont see a reason why should i have always an internet connection to play a game i bought...saying things that we could just go back to 2001 has absolutely nothing to do with and i see it as a desperate reason to counter some valid points that people brought up here. If you read properly, you'd see I said that people should go back to 2001 if they can go without internet access at home, not that you should go back to 2001 if you don't want to use Steam. Ironically, it seems most people ignored the news article I quoted that spoke about the drastic changes being made to the Steam download system, which pretty much would solve most of the problems stated in these 'valid points' you speak of. Dosent change anything about why i should have an internet connection to play the game i bought..you practially say people who dont have an internet connection or dont have a constant connection should just F-off and go back to 2001..now that's really a great point. I tell you why there are people that dont like steam...for a simple reason...choice, if i cant make my own choice if to choose or not steam then it means im being forced even though i spent money on the game, wich should be enough reason why i should be able to play anytime, anywhere and without internet connection. Edited July 30, 2011 by pavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts