First bad thing to say about Steam since HL2

[dazzerfong]

To be honest, I don't like Steam. Main reason is, like Dark0ne, I use a 3G Internet Modem (in Australia), but it doesn't do what Dark0ne expressed, thankfully. Unfortunately, my family has two computers: one for general browsing of the Net, the other for modding and gaming. As you can guess, I only have one modem, the other one rarely gets online. In fact, the only time the other computer gets online is when Steam gets ballistic over me, even when I specified for all my games that I don't want to auto-update. But it seems that every time I reboot, it gets checked. So, that being said, I constantly have to switch modems around just for a game or so.

 

All in all, Steam is a great concept: like Ebay, except your chances of getting cheated are very small. However, and especially for single player games, I wish that Steam would not be stringent on the restrictions, because whether they like it or not, piracy is just going to go around them. If it didn't work for Ubisoft's crazy DRM for Assassin's Creed II, which required you to be online at all times, I highly doubt it would work for Steam. That's just my opinion, and please, for the love of God, Halororor, respect the fact that nothing in this world is unanimously praised.

 

Addendun: even if someone with a problem is making a 'baseless claim', the problem is still there. You can't deny confirmed facts by rebuttal subsequent secondary claims if the primary claim is already established.

Edited January 11, 2012 by dazzerfong

[RitualBlack]

>snip<

From the way this discussion is turning out it should be moved to the debate section :laugh: .

 

Good idea, however. we had one, started October -11, that would be kinda necromancy to revive that :thumbsup:

 

Igor, bring in the cadaver, we can resurrect it! *Pulling leaver, raising the thread up, lighting striking, thunder rattling loose lab equipment*. It...its revived! Muahahaha!

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have no intention of getting banned, but if I ever felt like it than comical thread necromancy would be the way to do it :laugh:. Back on topic. Vagrant0 you always have something wise to say which is both true and brings everyone onto equal grounds :happy:. Steam is the best of what one could call a 'bad' situation :sweat: . I find steam to be a good service, but if you look at online game distribution there are a lot more poor choices out there than there are good. I can only think of four major distributors off the top of my head which are supposed to be good. Obviously there is Steam, GOG.com is really good, D2D is supposedly a good service but I haven't heard much since they switched over their business model or whatever they did, and Desura is apparently good.

[sendo75]

It also ended essentially the same way this one is starting to go. People who hate steam and refuse to use it making claims about fictitious problems and potential problems, rather than focusing on the real ones which actually exist.

Because present issues affect the future of this industry. You can't say for sure the concerns are ficticious but you are free to disagree with potential problems.

 

I'd much rather spend my energy trying to think of ways to make draconian DRM like Origin or uPlay adopt a DRM model like Steam, rather than think up reasons for why Steam is going to lead to the gaming industry demanding DNA tests every time we want to play our games.

 

I can understand that some people don't like Steam or have numerous issues with it, but what I can't understand is why people need to make it out to be the Hitler of the gaming industry. (Also, with the invocation of Godwin's Law, the thread has officially gone to the dogs. :P)

If you are willing to put up with inconveniences doesn't imply others have to. And your sarcasm and misinterpretation on the opposition has contributed significantly to how this thread has gone. Be skeptical all you want but you don't need to downplay or make fun of the concerns of others.

 

What I meant were those things about Steam which people would have real reason to be upset over, and things which don't have much reason for existing in the first place...

...

Invalid reasons from your perspective perhaps but it doesn't apply to others. Some might agree with you and others won't, nothing strange about diversity at all.

 

That's just my opinion, and please, for the love of God, Halororor, respect the fact that nothing in this world is unanimously praised.

Bless you son.

Edited January 12, 2012 by sendo75

[Halororor]

What I meant were those things about Steam which people would have real reason to be upset over, and things which don't have much reason for existing in the first place...

 

Like having to load up steam or connect occasionally for single player games, even when you run them directly from the .exe.

 

Or the way that they force you to update a non-online game when it is run even if your settings say to not update that game.

 

Or the inclusion of VAC on singleplayer modes of some games.

 

 

Stuff like that. I personally don't mind Steam since I have a reasonably stable connection and don't have many games through it at the moment. And it is still far better than Origins or what Ubisoft has been pulling. But Steam is far from being perfect. What ever happened to the middle ground?

 

Oh indeed, don't get me wrong, I don't consider Steam perfect by a long shot. I'm still waiting for Steam support to get back to me on why the client is so damned unstable the last while. Just last night I was halfway through purchasing Shogun 2 when the instability caused the client to crash, and the money got deducted from my credit card, but no game showed up in my inventory. And that's the second time that happened. I had the exact same issue with Brink a while back.

 

The only one of your examples I don't agree with is the singleplayer one. In its simplest form, Steam is still nothing more than DRM, so it makes sense that if multiplayer games have to be run from the client, all games have to be run from it. Other than that, I've had many issues that have had me tugging at my hair, and it doesn't help that Steam support is notorious for being rather unhelpful at best.

 

The only thing I take issue with is that people seem to love badmouthing Steam simply for the sake of it, then making up, as you said, fictitious issues. There's nothing wrong with healthy speculation, but we've got full-blown conspiracy theories going on in here, complete with references to 1987. The industry has shown that it will only allow itself to get pushed so far, as can clearly be seen by how absolutely atrocious PC game sales have become for Ubisoft titles after the introduction of uPlay. Just look at these sales figures from VGChartz (and yes, I know they might not be 100% accurate, but they give a rough estimate);

 

Driver San Fransisco:

PS3 - 508,879

360 - 376,865

PC - 41,497

 

Assassin's Creed 2

PS3 - 4,896,690

360 - 4,731,771

PC - 86,603

 

Splinter Cell: Conviction

360 - 1,899,145

PC - 78,403

 

Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands

PS3 - 572,257

360 - 514,581

PC - 1,313

 

All released with uPlay.

 

Then have a look at this excerpt from a PCGamer article entitled "Opinion: Ubisoft, piracy, and the death of reason":

 

However, Ubisoft provides a test-case. We are almost two years into its aggressive attack on PC piracy. Recently, Ubisoft called its “always-on” DRM a success, claiming “a clear reduction in piracy.”

 

In terms of actual sales, however, the results seem decidedly mixed. Michael Pachter told Eurogamer that Ubisoft’s “PC game sales are down 90% without a corresponding lift in console sales.”

 

Pachter framed the problem in terms of piracy, as I’m sure Ubisoft frames the problem, but a 90% decline in PC sales is a catastrophic number. If piracy were the problem, then their “successful” DRM policy should have prevented such a free-fall.

 

 

Instead, PC gamers have stopped buying Ubisoft games. In fact, the decline of sales even calls into question the decline in piracy rates. All we know for sure is that Ubisoft have stopped people from playing their games. Full stop.

 

My point with all this is that those people with their conspiracy theories should really reconsider their positions on the matter. PC gamers aren't the pushovers that you're making us out to be. Even we have our limits. We're not about to let the gaming industry do just whatever the hell they want.

 

If you are willing to put up with inconveniences doesn't imply others have to. And your sarcasm and misinterpretation on the opposition has contributed significantly to how this thread has gone. Be skeptical all you want but you don't need to downplay or make fun of the concerns of others.

 

If people don't like their concerns being laughed at, they shouldn't have such funny concerns. :P

Edited January 12, 2012 by Halororor

[sendo75]

My bad, should have realized the varying levels of maturity in an open forum discussion.

[Vagrant0]

My bad, should have realized the varying levels of maturity in an open forum discussion.

It helps when you don't misquote people.

 

This

It also ended essentially the same way this one is starting to go. People who hate steam and refuse to use it making claims about fictitious problems and potential problems, rather than focusing on the real ones which actually exist.

Because present issues affect the future of this industry. You can't say for sure the concerns are ficticious but you are free to disagree with potential problems.

Directly conflicts with this.

What I meant were those things about Steam which people would have real reason to be upset over, and things which don't have much reason for existing in the first place...

Invalid reasons from your perspective perhaps but it doesn't apply to others. Some might agree with you and others won't, nothing strange about diversity at all.

 

Or are you trying to say that the present issues which concern the industry, that you are clearly against... Are also valid, and therefore should exist?

 

Just because someone suggested that perhaps there isn't a very good reason why some of those things exist. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that what I was saying was that:

 

A). There are things which people SHOULD be concerned about, that likely exist for no reason other than controlling paid customers.

 

B). There are things that people make up, get wrong, or are just uninformed about that they mention in relation to A, when those things don't actually exist, have a fairly substantial reason for existing, or just fall into that tinfoil-hat category.

 

C). That people really need to differentiate A from B more readily, and probably be more concerned about those things in A which actually exist and might even be fixed over time... Rather than focusing on B, ignoring A, and continuing the cycle of panic and misinformation.

 

Hope that clears things up. I know, it's hard to see anything valid middle ground when you're so determined to shoot down everything that doesn't come out of your mouth or resonate completely.

[sendo75]

My bad, should have realized the varying levels of maturity in an open forum discussion.

It helps when you don't misquote people.

I don't get what you trying to say. The last post made by Haloror is exactly what I was referring to. How is this misquoting? Unless you think I should quote him specifically. It certainly helps if posters respect differing opinions instead of brushing it off with comments like "funny conerns" adorned with emoticons. You can blame me for the sarcasm though.

 

You feel people should focus on current issues instead of worrying about possible future issues. I am telling you current issues lead to future problems and are therefore valid. I don't see any conflict regarding this despite rereading.

 

Or are you trying to say that the present issues which concern the industry, that you are clearly against... Are also valid, and therefore should exist?

I am saying reasons perceived as invalid by you might not be perceived the same way as others assuming I understood what you said.

 

Just because someone suggested that perhaps there isn't a very good reason why some of those things exist. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that what I was saying was that:

I had bothered to read multiple times so no need to assume otherwise, you can clarify if you think I didn't understand you. I have not been rude in my disagreement.

...

Hope that clears things up. I know, it's hard to see anything valid middle ground when you're so determined to shoot down everything that doesn't come out of your mouth or resonate completely.

A baseless unfair accusation, how have I been shooting down arguments that don't resonate with me? Not once have I assumed I am always right and others are wrong. I have also acknowledge disagreement with respect so far but have not been given the same courtesy.

Edited January 12, 2012 by sendo75

[Halororor]

I don't get what you trying to say. The last post made by Haloror is exactly what I was referring to. How is this miquoting? It certainly helps if posters respect differing opinions instead of brushing it off with comments like "funny conerns" adorned with emoticons. You can blame me for the sarcasm though.

 

Maybe you should stop taking everything so seriously all the time?

 

Just saying.

 

You feel people should focus on current issues instead of worrying about possible future issues. I am telling you current issues lead to future problems and are therefore as valid. I don't see any conflict regarding this despite rereading.

 

Is there any concrete proof that this is going to lead to those future issues? Idle speculation is just that, idle speculation. The gaming industry might or might not actually lead in that direction eventually, but sitting around speculating about things which are only possible, and also highly unlikely, doesn't help anything.

 

Also, you completely missed Vagrant's point with regards to current issues. He was talking about issues like Steam auto-updating games when expressly told not to, and other tangible issues like that. How is technical issues going to lead to issues such as us being charged per hour to play games?

 

Also, did everyone just conveniently ignore my argument that excessive measures lead to poor sales? The gaming community won't stand for just anything, as has been proven by uPlay. That's evidence to the contrary of what people here are speculating about.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Halororor

[cooltrickle]

:facepalm: << me

 

99% of my first post was not about crippled disks, yet this is the focus of your argument. It has to be, because you're wrong everywhere else. You're even implying that I'm pirating the game. The retail disc only contains .sid files. I can't open these files nor have I tried. Perhaps it does contain the .exe, but since I can't use it until Steam deems the game ready, it's irrelevant. I never attacked your posts, you did that. You're also making many assumptions about me, while accusing me of doing the same. I didn't want this argument, you created it when you just wouldn't let me do what everyone else has done, and just post their personal experience with Steam. Also, I've done nothing to endanger this thread being locked; it's you that is being offensive to me, saying I'm "flapping my mouth", and I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

I'm going to put your posts down to a mixture of solipsism and internet tough guy syndrome. Thanks for the laughs, mate. :biggrin:

Edited January 12, 2012 by cooltrickle

[Halororor]

 

99% of my first post was not about crippled disks, yet this is the focus of your argument. It has to be, because you're wrong everywhere else. You're even implying that I'm pirating the game.

 

Where did I imply this? I merely said that the only way in which the lack of an .exe can harm a person is if they tried installing the game by illegal means. It would be utterly retarded for me to claim you pirated it, because then you wouldn't be complaining about Steam, would you? You really didn't think this one through very well, did you?

 

 

The retail disc only contains .sid files. I can't open these files nor have I tried. Perhaps it does contain the .exe, but since I can't use it until Steam deems the game ready, it's irrelevant.

 

God...that's the entire point of Steam...

 

I didn't want this argument, you created it when you just wouldn't let me do what everyone else has done, and just post their personal experience with Steam. Also, I've done nothing to endanger this thread being locked; it's you that is being offensive to me, saying I'm "flapping my mouth", and I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Maybe if you didn't flap your mouth and get your facts straight properly, I wouldn't say that you're doing it? I never invalidated your personal experience with Steam, I merely responded to it because your post sounded like you were trying to pass your experience off as the experience every Steam user is having.

 

Also, this;

 

I also read people trying to persuade him that it must be his imagination because they don't have that problem.

 

You're making baseless claims again in an attempt to appear witty, and it's only making you look a fool. Seeing as you claim to have read the entire thread, the only logical conclusion is that your reading skills are a bit lacking, therefor I'm going to highlight the part you seem to have misinterpreted.

 

Halororor, on 05 January 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Oddly, mine never does that. The moment my connection dies, I can go into offline mode without a hitch, unless there's no login details saved on my PC. I've heard of other people having the issue though, so it seems to be very hit and miss.

 

Now, does it still sound like I'm trying to convince the OP that his issue is imaginary?

 

wasn't an assumption. It's pretty much proof that you didn't read the entire thread, or lied, or struggle to understand what you're reading.

 

I'm going to put your posts down to a mixture of solipsism and internet tough guy syndrome. Thanks for the laughs, mate. :biggrin:

 

Lol? I see this one all the time. The moment someone runs out of arguments or the debate reaches an impasse, one person always wants to accuse the other of being a troll/dick/internet tough guy.

Seeing as you just invoked the Debate Breaker™, I consider our argument concluded.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Halororor