First bad thing to say about Steam since HL2

[Marthos]

Easiest thing to do would be to hoick your rig round to a friends house and hitch a ride on their wi-fi and set Steam to offline mode.

 

Once you get home, block Steam in your firewall because their version of offline isn't the same as yours and mine, just remember to unblock it once you get your broadband installed.

[nosisab]

That's OK, I would need only to unplug a ton of cables, maybe we must be thankful we still can block it on firewall.

[Vagrant0]

That's OK, I would need only to unplug a ton of cables, maybe we must be thankful we still can block it on firewall.

Peerblock... Just saying.

 

I use it mostly for diagnostics and preventing bad P2P/web connections (like EA/facebook), but it is a bit more accessible than your typical firewall once you have it figured out and works well as a first line defense against connections over a P2P service (like most online games these days).

[Halororor]

I'm sorry you did not see the relation with the topic.

 

Edit: I'm not actually contrary to the idea of a place like steam, just it is taking too much and getting too far in that relation with the consumer, well, actually the whole IP thing is.

 

I actually did, I just thought it a really ridiculous analogy. People like to make Steam out as the big bad corporation, when Steam is pretty much the best option out there when it comes to digital distributors. It's the only place I know of that puts really good games up for sale so you can buy more than 10 really, really good games for under $50.

 

I also find it to be the least intrusive DRM out there. Easy-to-use interface coupled with not having to trawl sites for 100s of patches is why it's my preferred way of obtaining videogames. In fact, unless it's a really good game, I have a strict policy of no Steam, no buy.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Halororor

[Marthos]

In fact, unless it's a really good game, I have a strict policy of no Steam, no buy.

 

 

 

Which is good for you because thats what you want and what you choose to do.

 

 

Others don't feel the same way that you do and that is also their choice.

 

Take a look at Dark0nes problem here, he's forked out the cash for 80 plus games, he's paid his money for his single player games, but because of the way Steam does things he is blocked from using what he has paid for through no fault of his own and thats a poor outcome considering that you say Steam is the best one out there.

 

If this was any other product people would be screaming blue murder.

[Halororor]

If this was any other product people would be screaming blue murder.

 

Oh, don't get it wrong, people always scream blue murder about Steam, especially on these forums. However, and entire distribution platform cannot be condemned because a select few users experience issues with it. Steam is optional. If you don't like or don't want to use Steam, don't agree to the SSA, return the game to the store, and look for an alternative that doesn't require Steam, like a console version.

 

Bethesda has chosen to use Steam twice now, and chances are they'll do it again. If someone doesn't want to use the PC version of their game under their terms, that person is just going to have to miss out on the advantages the PC version brings.

 

I would suggest that people who are unhappy with this petition Bethesda to release the game without Steam, but one might find that a counter-petition would go up because the group of people who feel that the pros of Steam far outweigh the cons is also rather gigantic. I prefer my boxed copies to use Steam, seeing as exchange rate fluctuations often cause full-priced games on Steam to be much more expensive than retail copies.

 

Still, the best way to go about it is to make your voice heard and approach Bethesda directly on the matter.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Halororor

[nosisab]

The point in my previous comment is not the DRM, I don't even believe the whole thing is only to prevent piracy (let me just tell the pirate plays the game and don't need connection of any kind and the steam thing is not even activated). The target of such measures first and foremost is the legal user, that one who go there and buys the game and keep the industry going. Just I believe they are going too far with the marketing model and the way they are trying to control the situation.

 

It's an unilateral accord, just read the Agreement you must accept to be "legal", you are the only one making concessions except those so blatantly abusive conditions they can't enforce because the law doesn't allow where it was not yet bought... I say so because the same thing would not be considered acceptable in Any other contract that not that of entertainment in particular and IP in general. No other contract allow such absolute, no defined scope as "All rights reserved".

 

But this is not enough, to play you need (almost forcibly) to connect to them and be targeted by massive advertizement (no, being able to go offline is not enough to justify contestation of this claim because only a very small parcel of the total base does it, and you still can do it because the control is not yet complete, not because they are being nice to you). Even those who are actively willing to prevent that annoyance need to be above average user if not expert or search the Internet for the know how. Now add that most actual users are children and teens and imagine how that maketing model pays for all the troubles it creates to those who can only complain but are tied anyway.

 

Still that is not the whole point, the market is trying the consumers and their limits and taming them in the process. The small concessions of today accumulate and soon becomes a huge concession the consumer can't prevent anymore. And when the time comes you'll be renting the time you'll play your single player game, the amount of sessions you can have in certain time span and whatever else can be thought to generate money beyond the selling.

 

The picture is not ready yet. To achieve the needed level of control the TC needs to be implanted (named Trusted Computing by some, Trustworthy Computing by MS and Treacherous Computing by those looking beyond the advertized half truth into the other half that is not mentioned). In practice it means not only the software will be under control of the producer as the OS will be too and the hardware rigged to grant it. The law don't allow the implementation yet, not at the extent it can reach at least. But human law is flexible when high interest comes to the stage. If things evolves as expected (not by me and not by you, know you this already or don't) we will be pretty much in a 1984(the book) world.

 

Maybe I'm exaggerating, I really hope I'm mistaken or being more pessimist than I should, I really hope so. just I have lived across the process from early stages and followed the evolution of it since then, I can't just shove my head in a hole on the floor and pretend I'm not seeing where the road is leading.

[Halororor]

The point in my previous comment is not the DRM, I don't even believe the whole thing is only to prevent piracy (let me just tell the pirate plays the game and don't need connection of any kind and the steam thing is not even activated).

 

No, it isn't to prevent piracy. Developers choose to use Steam to prevent day one piracy. In a lot of cases if a pirate can't get a game day one, he's not going to sit around twiddling his thumbs while his friends tell him how awesome it is.

 

It's an unilateral accord, just read the Agreement you must accept to be "legal", you are the only one making concessions except those so blatantly abusive conditions they can't enforce because the law doesn't allow where it was not yet bought... I say so because the same thing would not be considered acceptable in Any other contract that not that of entertainment in particular and IP in general. No other contract allow such absolute, no defined scope as "All rights reserved".

 

While I agree the gaming industry pushes its limits at times, I haven't felt any abuse from Steam, or found myself in a position where I felt negatively impacted by the terms and conditions of Steam. Valve is a company that actually cares for its target market, so I barely read through their terms and conditions, as I'm not worried at all. EA or Ubisoft on the other hand, I don't trust them at all, so I read theirs down to the last detail.

 

The only concession I have to make with Steam, and which directly impacts me, is that I have to run their client to play my games and that I can't access games purchased in certain regions when I'm not in that region, which is two non-issues for me entirely. Add on top of that the fact that Valve is a US based company and doesn't consider requiring an internet connection to activate and download games an issue at all. The vast majority of their target market has at least a some form of internet available to them.

 

But this is not enough, to play you need (almost forcibly) to connect to them and be targeted by massive advertizement

 

What?! Valve has the most minimalist marketing scheme out there. From time to time when you start the client or exit a game, a popup might show the latest promotions, and that's it. You don't even HAVE to read it. The main interface from which you access your games has absolutely no advertisements whatsoever.

 

And yes, you have to connect to them to activate your games. If the user doesn't like that, he simply shouldn't agree to it. However, most of us aren't backwards enough to really care about something as trivial as that, and even less of us are going to consider it part of a vast conspiracy.

 

(no, being able to go offline is not enough to justify contestation of this claim because only a very small parcel of the total base does it, and you still can do it because the control is not yet complete, not because they are being nice to you).

 

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. If the games require the client to run, it makes sense that it would still require the client in offline mode. :/

 

Even those who are actively willing to prevent that annoyance need to be above average user if not expert or search the Internet for the know how.

 

In our household, Steam is installed on 6 PCs. Mine, my desktop PC at my flat, my netbook, mom's netbook, mom's desktop and my brother's PC. I haven't once had an issue getting it to run in offline mode on either of them. You need to be able to google, read and follow instructions if you're having issues with offline mode. That's it. Methinks you're talking out of your bunghole here.

 

Still that is not the whole point, the market is trying the consumers and their limits and taming them in the process. The small concessions of today accumulate and soon becomes a huge concession the consumer can't prevent anymore. And when the time comes you'll be renting the time you'll play your single player game, the amount of sessions you can have in certain time span and whatever else can be thought to generate money beyond the selling.

 

Maybe if it wasn't for piracy, we wouldn't be forced to make such 'concessions', hmm? We've only got ourselves to blame. Sure, pirates can play the games without issues, but it's still piracy that spawned DRM.

 

The picture is not ready yet. To achieve the needed level of control the TC needs to be implanted (named Trusted Computing by some, Trustworthy Computing by MS and Treacherous Computing by those looking beyond the advertized half truth into the other half that is not mentioned). In practice it means not only the software will be under control of the producer as the OS will be too and the hardware rigged to grant it. The law don't allow the implementation yet, not at the extent it can reach at least. But human law is flexible when high interest comes to the stage. If things evolves as expected (not by me and not by you, know you this already or don't) we will be pretty much in a 1984(the book) world.

 

LOL!

 

If I ever meet you, remind me to get you a tinfoil hat.

 

Maybe I'm exaggerating, I really hope I'm mistaken or being more pessimist than I should, I really hope so. just I have lived across the process from early stages and followed the evolution of it since then, I can't just shove my head in a hole on the floor and pretend I'm not seeing where the road is leading.

 

So instead of waiting and seeing what happens you'd rather sit around thinking up all manner of conspiracy theories.

 

THe gaming populace will only allow themselves to get pushed so far. Have you noticed how atrocious PC sales for Ubisoft titles have been since uPlay started? I think the new Driver title only just managed to sell over 13k copies. From Dust was released earlier this year, and buyers were told it wouldn't use uPlay. After release, it turned out that it does actually use uPlay, and thousands of buyers demanded refunds, which they received. The industry has its limits.

 

Anyway, Silverfall literally just finished downloading on Steam. I picked it up for a steal at $5, so I'll be playing that for the next few hours.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Halororor

[sendo75]

Still that is not the whole point, the market is trying the consumers and their limits and taming them in the process. The small concessions of today accumulate and soon becomes a huge concession the consumer can't prevent anymore. And when the time comes you'll be renting the time you'll play your single player game, the amount of sessions you can have in certain time span and whatever else can be thought to generate money beyond the selling.

 

Exactly, kudos sir. Game companies are only concerned with their own interest(profits). If they can slap on a weak justification to impose more on the customers, they will certainly head in that direction in the name of money.

 

For the non-believers, just take a moment to imagine how these additional measures can lead to more money for them and how easy it is to mislead the masses with a righteous and ineffective justification.

Edited January 10, 2012 by sendo75

[Halororor]

Exactly, kudos sir. Game companies are only concerned with their own interest(profits). If they can slap on a weak justification to impose more on the customers, they will certainly head in that direction in the name of money.

 

For the non-believers, just take a moment to imagine how these additional measures can lead to more money for them and how easy it is to mislead the masses with a righteous and ineffective justification.

 

Educate me then, how does Valve make more money from Steam, apart from game sales? They don't rent servers, they don't charge download fees, they don't charge you to play the game, they don't charge you a subscription... Valve makes no money past the sale of the game, unless selling DLC, which also counts as a sale.

 

Hell, as much as I hate Origin, not even they make money past the original sale, unless it's from advertisements.

 

Just because you have to be online/activate your game online doesn't mean they're suddenly going to start charging us per hour for games we bought. Just listen to how absolutely ridiculous that even sounds.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Halororor