First bad thing to say about Steam since HL2

[Ghogiel]

 

 

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...

 

Steams entire point is to be DRM? If that was true that essentially makes it pointless, annoying, extra garbage tacked onto my game, that only fulfils the function of making paying customers dance about like idiots to get the thing to work. I thought Steam was about more than just treating paying customers like potential thieves

 

Even I don't think that, and I don't even like Steam.. and certainly never liked DRM.

 

 

I'm with Sendo on the future of games and now quietly accepting the actual issues that can be seen currently and possible future trends in the industry. I do not believe the trend is leading to better service and product, I just see more hoops, more locked in, and privacy issues coming.

 

*puts on tinfoil hat"

 

Even if it is found to be mere speculation that Steam will be the platform that results in things like sole mod distribution platform for something like future BGS games. It's worth contemplating the possibility of negative trends.

 

in fact, it seems far easier to come up with ways that Steam will lock down on you than making it easier and less intrusive. So if you think DRM will be a thing of a past at some point, or mods will never become monopolised, or Steam won't be spying on you in the future, I honestly ask what makes you think such a thing? You guys can keep yoru rose tinted glasses and I'll keep my tinfoil hat.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Ghogiel

[dazzerfong]

If Steam does really become the future trend for modding games, expect a lot more messy arrangement between modders and developers. To be honest, I won't be too surprised if Steam is compulsory for usage of future SDK's, in which piracy rates would just go rampant as a result.

 

It's already clear that Steam's just trying to dominate the market (well, not try, since it already has) and create an envisioned future where all games are distributed through them. If not for their lucky early successes, I speculate that Steam's commonality would not be present.

Edited January 12, 2012 by dazzerfong

[Illiad86]

Sadly, we can blame the popularity of Half Life and Counterstrike. Back before Steam was around, you just found a server within the game itself. Valve decided to make a client with servers for those games. I remember how plain and lightweight it was. I stopped playing those games for a year or so, come back to Steam, and it was just becoming the store it is today.

 

The offline mode has always been terrible. I remember at school, we had an extended lunch because of senior finals. I brought my lappy and wanted to play some single player HL. But because I wasn't logged on before I went to offline mode, it wouldn't let me do it :( My internet was acting wonky last week, luckily I was logged in and I was able to go into offline mode when it cut out completely. My boyfriend wasn't so lucky. He was just complaining about it, "If it's called offline mode, why can't I log in?" and I told him how it works and he just said that was BS lol.

[sendo75]

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

Just saying.

That is good advice sir. I shall not take you seriously.

 

-snip-

I am thankful for like-minded people and those who disagree rationally.

/bow out

Edited January 12, 2012 by sendo75

[cooltrickle]

:hurr:

 

There was no debate to begin with. You can't win the debate because it's not possible to debate the experiences of another person.Just accept that like the OP, I've had trouble using offline mode. If not, just let it go.

 

And yes, I do find it funny that a simple post would attract an internet tough guy telling me to stop "flapping my mouth" from the safety of his keyboard. That kind of behaviour IRL would attract and deserve GBH.

 

I think I've explained in detail what my problems are and any reasonable person can see that I'm not just whining about Steam, and actually have legitimate concerns. You're obviously not one of these people.

 

I bought version 1.0 Skyrim, but I can't play version 1.0, because Steam insists on updating the game when it should only activate it. I accept that the game should be activated; I have no problem with the DRM part. Why can't I patch the game when I want, especially as the 1.3 patch has spoiled the game I paid for? I played the game pre-patch and had no problems whatsoever. I had to install it again just after the 1.3 patch release. Now the game is choppy, graphical glitches, and CTDs. Is it so unreasonable to want to roll back the patch, or just avoid it until a later time? I don't think so, but Steam didn't give me the option. I suppose I'm imagining this, too?

 

You did get something right; this conversation is over. I'm just repeating myself and if I keep going you'll just beat me with experience. :biggrin:

Edited January 12, 2012 by cooltrickle

[Halororor]

 

That is good advice sir. I shall not take you seriously.

 

Sure, if you want to start getting pissy because people don't agree with you, go ahead.

 

I am thankful for people who agree with me, because I don't like it when someone does not share my opinion.

/bow out

 

Fixed that for you. :)

 

Anyways, I tired of this topic some while ago. It started with valid concerns, but has fast spiraled into what happens with every topic on Steam on these forums. One side goes 'Rah rah rah Steam is teh evil', while the other side goes 'Rah rah rah Steam is not teh evil', and nobody ends up taking anything from the discussion.

 

It would be easier for all if we could settle these differences of opinion like people did in the old days.

A knife fight in a dark alley. :P

[Halororor]

And now on to you, mister.

 

There was no debate to begin with. You can't win the debate because it's not possible to debate the experiences of another person.Just accept that like the OP, I've had trouble using offline mode. If not, just let it go.

 

Once again, I never said that you weren't having issues or that your experiences were invalid. I acknowledged them in every post. My issue with you was that you posted your experience as if it was the experience every Steam user was having.

 

And yes, I do find it funny that a simple post would attract an internet tough guy telling me to stop "flapping my mouth" from the safety of his keyboard. That kind of behaviour IRL would attract and deserve GBH.

 

I think I've explained in detail what my problems are and any reasonable person can see that I'm not just whining about Steam, and actually have legitimate concerns. You're obviously not one of these people.

 

See above part.

 

Also, I'd hardly call myself an internet tough guy hiding behind the 'safety of my keyboard'. While I am by no means strong and not really the type to win a physical fight, that doesn't mean I'm scared to speak my mind when meeting people in real life. If I'm talking to someone in real life and he's merely flapping his mouth, I'll say it. My eagerness to speak my mind has often led to me biting off more than I could chew, most recently when an intoxicated guy decided it was in his best interests to punch me in the face after I told him that the only reason he's homophobic is because he's scared gay guys will treat him the same way he treats women.

 

So no, I don't really consider myself to act any differently behind a keyboard than I would in real life.

 

I bought version 1.0 Skyrim, but I can't play version 1.0, because Steam insists on updating the game when it should only activate it. I accept that the game should be activated; I have no problem with the DRM part. Why can't I patch the game when I want, especially as the 1.3 patch has spoiled the game I paid for? I played the game pre-patch and had no problems whatsoever. I had to install it again just after the 1.3 patch release. Now the game is choppy, graphical glitches, and CTDs. Is it so unreasonable to want to roll back the patch, or just avoid it until a later time? I don't think so, but Steam didn't give me the option. I suppose I'm imagining this, too?

 

And I never said that this wasn't a valid concern. In fact, I also want Valve to change the way Steam patches games, because right now I'm sitting with 5 games I can't play, because I have to wait for Steam to finish updating them first. In fact, Steam announced that it's going to change the way it updates games some time back already.

 

http://mygaming.co.za/news/pc/12960-steam-announces-new-download-system.html

 

I'm not sure if that means we'll be getting standalone patches, but I'm pretty sure it will make it easier to stop a patch from downloading if it doesn't download directly to the game files, but only gets applied after the patch is done downloading.

 

In fact, both being unable to go offline, and being forced to update is pretty much valid concerns that I'd like changed/fixed, even if they do not directly affect me (although I do suspect the patching system plays some part in why my client is so unstable).

 

The only 'concerns' I had an issue with in this entire thread are those brought about by superficial 'evidence' and hysteria. Those issues are that Steam discs are apparently 'crippled' because people believe that not all the data is on the disc, even though we have no empirical evidence to prove this. The other issue is that people seem dead set on believing that Steam is going to lead to the gaming industry selling us games by the hour and other heinous misdeeds, when there is no evidence to support this claim either. In fact, considering the fact that Steam's DRM is no more restrictive today than it was when Steam started 7 years ago, the only observation we can make is that it doesn't seem as if Valve is going to change their DRM and the way they do business at all.

 

And yes, discs for Steam games are just about useless. You're essentially just buying the key to activate it on Steam, and the disc is merely a convenient tool to reduce download time. For some people this an issue, for others, it isn't. That does not, however, make them 'crippled', due to the fact that Steam is seen as an inconvenience to some, but not all. It's a matter of opinion and personal preference. Nothing can be considered crippled just because some people do not like it.

 

You did get something right; this conversation is over. I'm just repeating myself and if I keep going you'll just beat me with experience.

 

It really is rather a pity, as we both seem to have missed each other's intent somewhere along the line. It doesn't help that I've been having a similar debate with someone in another forum, and it did get rather confusing trying to remember which person said what at times. At the very least it would have been nice could we have reached an agreement of disagreement.

[Ghogiel]

And yes, discs for Steam games are just about useless. You're essentially just buying the key to activate it on Steam, and the disc is merely a convenient tool to reduce download time. For some people this an issue, for others, it isn't. That does not, however, make them 'crippled', due to the fact that Steam is seen as an inconvenience to some, but not all. It's a matter of opinion and personal preference. Nothing can be considered crippled just because some people do not like it.

 

Only if you mince Steamworks with Steam the app.. if you don't it is only complete inconvenience.

[Vagrant0]

And yes, discs for Steam games are just about useless. You're essentially just buying the key to activate it on Steam, and the disc is merely a convenient tool to reduce download time. For some people this an issue, for others, it isn't. That does not, however, make them 'crippled', due to the fact that Steam is seen as an inconvenience to some, but not all. It's a matter of opinion and personal preference. Nothing can be considered crippled just because some people do not like it.

Which can sometimes be better than the alternative... Discs that you are constantly swapping out, having to leave on your desk, and which get more and more damaged over time because of the constant loading and unloading of them. If I didn't have the foresight to make a single digital backup of Oblivion I would have had to buy the game 3-4 times now just because the disc I was using became too scratched to use. No longer having a disc constantly in my drive when playing games means a quieter computer, and no longer having to index backup copies of discs means that I can install, activate, and just file the disc away.

 

And having the actual disc does make things easier when you want to reinstall, or decide what games to remove for awhile since you don't have to wait those 15-20 hours to re-download the game when a notion to play strikes you. You just only need the disc when installing, rather than every time you play the game. Which is often the better solution to some of the more annoying ways of checking discs that often doesn't work, and is run every time the game is (aka Starforce).

 

 

Let's face it, a world where there is no DRM would be ideal. But this world is long gone. Better to have a DRM that is only an occasional inconvenience than some of the alternatives.

[Marthos]

If Steam did as it was damn well told to there wouldn't be half the backlash that there is, instead it's programmed to totally disregard the settings that the user chooses, ie DO NOT UPDATE THIS GAME.

 

As for needing to be online to go offline, well which half baked genius came up with that then ?

 

Anyway, we're all too aware of it's shortcomings so no need for me to reiterate them.

 

 

If you like Steam and are happy to put up with it's shortcomings then hey, it's a great service.

 

If you don't like Steam and are unhappy with it goosing your lovingly modded game or throwing a spaz and locking all your games away from you then hey, it's a pile of cack.

 

 

So what's REALLY wrong with Steam then ?

 

 

It's that you have no choice, it's either use Steam or get stuffed and in this day and age, that's a bad thing.