Steamy questions

[BarefootWarrior]

This should be an option, and not required. I prefer dealing with the publisher of the game directly, not someone like Steam. If the publisher can't handle their own security issues, piracy issues, updates directly, then maybe they should not release the game in the first place. Just my thoughts on the subject. :tongue:

 

I'm curious why you think this way. If every publisher handles these issues on their own, then every publisher is duplicating work that everyone else has already done. Every publisher is spending money on creating redundant systems for these issues, instead of on actual games. One of the big advantages of steam is not having to worry about this stuff.

 

Do you have to go and fetch water from a spring every morning? run a generator to make your own electricity? Bad examples if you live rural maybe :P but this is the point of infrastructure. Stuff that everyone needs, might as well be managed by one central party and licensed out. everyone wins in the long run.

 

Sorry, I disagree completely on this, if you are in the business (any business) then you should be able to handle all aspects of that business. I paid for a license from Bethesda..not Steam. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying, but in this instance, Bethesda should be handling these issues. And so far...everyone is not winning. :tongue:

 

You also said.." I don't see any point in clinging to the outdated notions of owning pointless physical property. Whether it be music, games, movies, etc. it's all data. A disc, a manual and a box are all just pointless waste of resources. " Sorry, I could not get the quotes to work...

 

I agree to a small part, but when I spend the kind of bucks that I do for the higher end software..Adobe for an example..I want that physical disc in my hot little hands, not just a digital down load. Smaller applications I can concede too, but not the high end applications. If...and I say if..we get to the point that new games are all digital downloads only, that will end my games. Sadly, as you pointed out (and some others), it would appear that this could become a reality. C'est la vie....

 

Oh, by the way...yes, I have gotten the water every morning and yes..I did have to start the generator...among other things. :thumbsup:

 

just so ya know. LOL! Anyway, to each their own...that's my story and I'm stickin to it.

Edited November 26, 2011 by BarefootWarrior

[stimresp]

I have some issues with their pricing (Euro-Dollar parity) - but I think that is the publisher's decision anyway. Even then it's a little churlish to complain - I buy all my games during the sales - I have a nice catalogue of classics I hope to get around to playing and they all cost pennies. I never played GTA but just bought the entire set for 10 euro. Madness. Skyrim is the first full-price game I've bought.

 

Functionally, Steam has never given me a problem. In fact I love it's convenience. I play Skyrim on my i7 and, when on the road, Morrowind on my netbook (runs perfectly).

 

They were hacked recently. I'm not so paranoid - I take basic precautions.

[zrkonium]

1. I wouldn't have bought the game, personally, if it wasn't available for download. I have enough junk laying around. I also lose things. Often.

 

2. I think this was already covered fairly extensively by WarKirby.

 

3. Not.. really.

 

4. I think so. Gamers are social creatures who often enjoy the company of other gamers. Also have you seen steam sales? I got New Vegas yesterday for five dollars. Not to mention this really cuts back on the consumption of materials used to make PC games. Those plastic cases they come in aren't recyclable, not to mention they're made from petroleum based substances. Did I mention I work at a recycling depot?

 

However, I don't think it should be required. It should be an option, but it shouldn't be required to run the game out of the box.

[Vagrant0]

1. Seeing as how there are clearly so many people with strong feelings against Steam, does tying a game to Steam help or hurt a game publisher?

The degree that it might hurt depends largely on how "tied in" Steam is into the game. If the game just uses Steam to activate the game and search for updates, it is no more damaging than any other service that might do the same. If the game requires a constant connection to Steam to run, for a single player game, you may lose customers because this constant connection is unnecessary for both copy verification and game play. Compared to Securerom and Starforce style DRM, Steam is actually less damaging overall. The main reason why people might have a serious issue with Steam is because they don't have a reliable internet connection on their gaming PC, but again, compared to pretty much every other DRM, this issue would remain the same. The second reason why they tend to rage against Steam is because they see it as extra software that has to be put on their computer... Often forgetting similar DRM management softwares or anti-hack softwares that come with their games (securerom, Punk Buster, and similar) that are also part of the games they play, are also installed without their consent, and are also using up system resources while the game is played.

 

The people who already have Steam installed and use it often usually have few issues with games that require Steam.

 

People tend to complain no matter what.

 

2. What benefits does a game publisher get out of its association with Steam?

Offhand, a means of DRM which is fairly reliable, doesn't need local processing of IDs and accounts, and which has relatively little impact on the user's system. Steam also offers a platform for game updates, game content downloading, allowing people to re-download and verify their game contents should their game get corrupted, broken, or infected. Steam also works as a platform for advertising your game so that people who already have Steam may be more inclined to buy it.

 

For smaller "indie" publishers, Steam provides a platform for producing titles which might otherwise be beyond the scope of those publishers for a percentage of sales, so is a fairly good option for those trying to enter the market. Not only does this mean more sales and publicity for that game, but also means that company doesn't need to spend time and money maintaining update and user servers so that they can focus on just making a good game.

 

3. Are there alternatives to Steam available to publishers that are less controversial, but allow them to derive the same benefits? If so, what are they?

 

Compared to Origins, Steam is a far better choice since Origins constantly scans your entire harddrive to see what is installed to report this information back to EA for "promotional purposes". Origins also has contracts which pretty much tell EA that they can do whatever they want and that you have no right to sue them for anything, ever.

 

Ubisoft had started something similar to Steam for a few of their games, which required a constant online connection for single player games that got its own resistance and many people who have since boycotted Ubisoft.

 

Battlenet is an alternative, but only for Blizzard games, is not as overt as Steam, but has significant security issues related to it, isn't as reliable, and only applies to similar games.

 

Self-hosted networks can be a better option, but requires a company to be established enough to maintain their own update and user servers as well as support, and security. But this option tends to go sour with the inclusion of some sort of draconian DRM policy, constant connections, background scanning for any software that might be related to piracy, disabling of DVD writers, and other silly things.

 

 

All these services are controversial in their own way. In general, people just don't like DRM of any form. It's software that is added to their computer, usually without their consent or prior knowledge that does approximately nothing to stop piracy and only serves to harm paying customers. But, people are always going to express their hatred for things, even when it isn't justified. There are people who hate simply for the sake of hating because it lets them to express their annoyances with the world as it is, in general.

 

4. Or, is Steam, or something like Steam, necessary in todays marketplace? If so, why?

The necessity of Steam or other DRM is arguable. If you accept that people can and will pirate regardless, and that people who like the game and have the money will buy regardless, DRM is not really needed. But piracy is one of those scare tactics used by DRM companies to get publishers to use their, often poorly made, software in hopes of "stopping piracy".

 

For people who have maybe one or two Steam related games, Steam is an annoyance, this extra piece of useless software that is on their PC, requires them to run Steam or connect, which updates constantly, and is "entirely unnecessary", and "a bane to all of gaming". For people who have several games linked through Steam, who have over $200 spent on those games, who make use of the discount deals, who have decent and stable internet, Steam is generally preferred to services they don't have games connected to.

 

There hasn't yet been any company who has decided to change their DRM policy based on customer out-cry. Much of the anger directed towards Steam and other systems is probably based largely in this fact that companies just aren't listening to their customers and instead listen to company reps who assure them that the DRM service their offering is the best one available and will "surely" stop pirates. This is forgetting that whole bit of "if someone is going to pirate one Steam game, they might as well pirate them all, instead of buying that one game they might have, just so they don't lose the ability to play the one they bought." Which, arguably, actually leads to even more piracy.