About Steam...

[GreenFlame]

It's already been mentioned, but I travel to a remote cabin in the middle of a forest in NY twice a year, almost every year. I take my laptop. I play Bastion on my laptop, yes, on Steam.
No, it doesn't need an internet connection to run. We don't even have a phone line out there, much less an internet connection. I'd have to drive to a cafe to get an internet connection. Doesn't keep me from playing my games.



This is the best part of Steam for me.

I'm probably in the minority in this thread, but on Steam as a whole, I know my 600+ games look like a child's collection to many. If I want to move over to my laptop and play any of them - all of them - I can. Just by logging in. If I buy a new computer, I don't have to worry about anything except some reinstalling. My entire library moves with me, seamlessly, and many of my games save to Steam's Cloud, so I can pick up right where I left off on a different computer. With no issues.

That. Is fabulous.

In addition, you don't even have to redownload games between PCs because you can transfer game files with a USB or the like. Perfect.

Although I have to disagree on Steam sales. Yes, they're good; no, they're not the best thing ever. The summer and winter sales can be pretty fab, but, I vastly prefer my bundles most of the year, and sometimes other sites do offer significantly better deals. Though you could argue that's all in "friendly competition."
GMG, for example, is really great with pre-purchases and recent releases. Boyfriend bought me Resident Evil Revelations 2 Complete for $10 less than Steam has it. c:

True, they're not the best thing ever. But it's so nice the amount of options you can have with buying games on PC, with the sheer amount of Humble Bundles that feature Steam games and then things like GMG. Steam sales are just one of the ways to get bargains, but they're not always the best deals, even if they're great deals.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

How's that stupid? The game is listed as Multiplayer only on it's store page. (Though, it does support single player.) And even if it did support LAN then you'd still need two accounts, each with their own copies of the game.

I'm just going to be honest here and say I frankly don't care what the store page says, or what came on the box or what you see anywhere. This is how the game works. It has an AI. You play the AI. Or you can do multiplayer. There's a campaign mode in addition to a variety of random maps.

I don't know where the hang-up is here, but internet is not required in any sense for anything except Multiplayer gameplay.


Steam, on the other hand, bitches and moans that we're playing the game at the same time regardless of what we're doing. That's what stupid.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

As I said before, Steam has an Offline Mode, which allows you to play any of your (non-multiplayer) games fully functionally (except no achievements).

Steam hardly takes up enough resources to cause problems. If a computer is weak enough that Steam will noticeably affect performance of not-extremely-demanding games, it's not really designed to be playing games.

There is a feature Steam has called Steam Family Sharing, in which any account that you give permission to can play any of the games in your library on their account once they download them, at anytime that you're not in-game. Why would you need to share discs?

How can you re-sell any PC games in the first place? They're mostly digital now, and those that aren't are single use. But generally they're so much cheaper than games of other platforms that you don't need to resell them, and you'll still be saving money. This is especially the case on Steam, where sales can let you get games much cheaper than you could get them on any other platform.

How is Steam spying on you? Well you know your ISP can see anything you do on the internet. And Google can see anything you search. The only one that used to spy on people was EA's Origin sevice, which it no longer does.

I don't understand what you find actually bad about Steam. The fact that it's DRM doesn't make it bad if it's not actually being obstructive or bad in any way.

Steam lets PC gamers get much cheaper games, download them, share them with their friends and family, and you can play all your games offline. I can't really see anything signifcant there is to dislike about Steam in any way.

Thats all very well, But there is NO NEED what so ever for Steam to be involved in a game I bought from a shop.

It would be ok if installing steam was an optional extra, but no it isnt. No Steam install, no playing the game.

How is that a good thing, its nothing more than shovelware or bloatware.

 

[Yukari]

What happens when one does not have the internet? I for one, was without the internet for a few years (three) on my desktop. Didn't bug me too much, surprise, surprise. Steam requires an active internet connection to register your game. If it can't do that, you can't play offline or online. And let's not forget: companies are fallible. What happens when a huge company falls under?

That's not always online DRM. There's a difference. The game merely has to be tied to your account for you to play it. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to do that, but for the large majority it isn't an issue.

We had ways of getting around this in the 90's. Now you just have to 'buy' another digital copy instead of just one for two home computers.

If you just want to be able to play a game on two computers then just move it to another computer. You can play it on as many as you like, so long as it isn't being played on two computers at once.

That's all very well, But there is NO NEED what so ever for Steam to be involved in a game I bought from a shop.

It would be ok if installing steam was an optional extra, but no it isn't. No Steam install, no playing the game.

How is that a good thing, its nothing more than shovelware or bloatware.

That's not Steam's fault. That's either the store's fault for only providing Steam keys, or developers fault for only providing it on Steam. Either way, it isn't steams fault.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

That's not always online DRM. There's a difference. The game merely has to be tied to your account for you to play it. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to do that, but for the large majority it isn't an issue.

That's exactly what Digital Rights Management is. DRM doesn't matter whether or not you're online, it's still maintains the same restrictions as offline. That's the problem I'm getting at here. Even in 'offline' mode, it needs to be registered online before it can be used in offline, if that makes any sense.

Microsoft's XBox One plan was thus: Buy a game -> DRM -> cannot sell or trade or loan DRM game (unless) -> buy new code offline for disc based DRM game. That's exactly what Steam does. It registers 'your' game to 'your' account so that you can 'use' it. It's a fancy way of say that "Only you can use it forever and always and NO #%$&ING SHARING" - Gabe Newell

If you just want to be able to play a game on two computers then just move it to another computer. You can play it on as many as you like, so long as it isn't being played on two computers at once.

^ Which defeats the whole purpose. I've played games before with friends over LAN (Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars) way back in the day. It didn't take rocket science to figure out how to play with my friends on a local system. While it may be uncouth to not buy another copy, I've introduced my friends to several game series they wouldn't have bought otherwise and vice versa. I don't ride the high seas and normally buy all my games (unless free). Games such as these (back in the day) enabled us to play with friends without having to buy multiple copies of $40 dollar games, and that's what made them great. I didn't make money off of sharing with my friends, I didn't make copies and pass them out at school or work, I didn't steal anything at all, I just shared it with my friends who came over to hang (and C&C). That's why. Not everyone wants to swash buckle, wear pantaloons and get into cannon fights. Some of us (like Senusret) just want to play the game in the same room (or maybe one in the office and another in the living room) with our people.

No. DRM does not. Just not. Or no, whichever you prefer. Also, this exactly and better well put.

 

[Yukari]

That's exactly what Digital Rights Management is. DRM doesn't matter whether or not you're online, it's still maintains the same restrictions as offline. That's the problem I'm getting at here. Even in 'offline' mode, it needs to be registered online before it can be used in offline, if that makes any sense.

First, yes that's DRM, but no it's not always-online DRM. The latter requires a constant connection to a server in order to play. Second why is this such an issue? Yeah, I get that people without an internet connection can't play, but if you don't have an internet connection then you need to reconsider being a gamer, at least on PC. And those who can't even connect to the internet altogether are a small minority. What you're saying makes sense, but it's hardly problematic. Not to mention that a lot of Steam games don't have Steam DRM. (https://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games)

Which defeats the whole purpose. I've played games before with friends over LAN (Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars) way back in the day. It didn't take rocket science to figure out how to play with my friends on a local system. While it may be uncouth to not buy another copy, I've introduced my friends to several game series they wouldn't have bought otherwise and vice versa. I don't ride the high seas and normally buy all my games (unless free). Games such as these (back in the day) enabled us to play with friends without having to buy multiple copies of $40 dollar games, and that's what made them great. I didn't make money off of sharing with my friends, I didn't make copies and pass them out at school or work, I didn't steal anything at all, I just shared it with my friends who came over to hang (and C&C). That's why. Not everyone wants to swash buckle, wear pantaloons and get into cannon fights. Some of us (like Senusret) just want to play the game in the same room (or maybe one in the office and another in the living room) with our people.

To be fair that violates the terms of use for pretty much every game. Steams DRM isn't keeping you from doing anything you were allowed to in the first place: they're just enforcing the rules you agreed to in the first place by purchasing the game. Nobody bitched about it when you were only asked not to do it.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

First, yes that's DRM, but no it's not always-online DRM. The latter requires a constant connection to a server in order to play. Second why is this such an issue? Yeah, I get that people without an internet connection can't play, but if you don't have an internet connection then you need to reconsider being a gamer, at least on PC. And those who can't even connect to the internet altogether are a small minority. What you're saying makes sense, but it's hardly problematic. Not to mention that a lot of Steam games don't have Steam DRM. (https://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games)



To be fair that violates the terms of use for pretty much every game. Steams DRM isn't keeping you from doing anything you were allowed to in the first place: they're just enforcing the rules you agreed to in the first place by purchasing the game. Nobody bitched about it when you were only asked not to do it.

While technically not true, I'll allow it. Using a movie as an example, that you bought, you have the right to loan it, show it, and do whatever you want with it without selling it, using it commercially, or making copies of the games for anyone other than yourself. Seeing as how I used two of my computers in my home, I don't see how it correlates with the exact word base of 'infringement' but I will concede that there may be finer points that line this stuff out nowadays. C&C came out 20 years ago (come this August) and I'm pretty sure the rules and regulations have changed much since that time.

I don't think I ever went against your stating 'always-online' DRM, merely pointing out that one needs to always connect at least once, to the internet in order to play any game requiring Steam. After that it is required to run in offline mode. Why should that even be an option? Offline mode? Shouldn't you just be able to run the games without having to talk to big brother Steam first? Weird. Why didn't I think to mention that before?

Also, I am living proof that you don't need the internet to be a Player (as the term 'gamer' is so worn out and used by all the silly wack jobs. . . 'gamer gate' pffft).

Shoot, SNES, NES, and even all the way up to the current handhelds I've been able to live without the internet as a viable gaming source, and yes, I've been a Player on the computer probably since the day before I even received my first Apogee game (it wasn't Stargunner. It was WOLFENSTEIN 3D! *lightning effects and spooky sounds*). Even today, I have games that don't require the internet at all. TESIV: Oblivion never needed it even with updates (came on discs if need be) and Fallout 3, Men of War, C&C (not 4) and a slew of other great games. So it's possible, just difficult. gotta know where to look.

Oh, and a few exceptions to DRM does not make set mode. Even thought that is a lot of exceptions. There is simply too many standard DRM games for them to even be considered a viable option, in my opinion.

 

[GreenFlame]

That's exactly what Digital Rights Management is. DRM doesn't matter whether or not you're online, it's still maintains the same restrictions as offline. That's the problem I'm getting at here. Even in 'offline' mode, it needs to be registered online before it can be used in offline, if that makes any sense.

Microsoft's XBox One plan was thus: Buy a game -> DRM -> cannot sell or trade or loan DRM game (unless) -> buy new code offline for disc based DRM game. That's exactly what Steam does. It registers 'your' game to 'your' account so that you can 'use' it. It's a fancy way of say that "Only you can use it forever and always and NO #%$&ING SHARING" - Gabe Newell




^ Which defeats the whole purpose. I've played games before with friends over LAN (Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars) way back in the day. It didn't take rocket science to figure out how to play with my friends on a local system. While it may be uncouth to not buy another copy, I've introduced my friends to several game series they wouldn't have bought otherwise and vice versa. I don't ride the high seas and normally buy all my games (unless free). Games such as these (back in the day) enabled us to play with friends without having to buy multiple copies of $40 dollar games, and that's what made them great. I didn't make money off of sharing with my friends, I didn't make copies and pass them out at school or work, I didn't steal anything at all, I just shared it with my friends who came over to hang (and C&C). That's why. Not everyone wants to swash buckle, wear pantaloons and get into cannon fights. Some of us (like Senusret) just want to play the game in the same room (or maybe one in the office and another in the living room) with our people.

No. DRM does not. Just not. Or no, whichever you prefer. Also, this exactly and better well put.

PC is very largely digital now, so the large majority of games you can get on PC are going to need you to be online to get a game, DRM or not. You can't play Minecraft without having been connected to the internet and downloading it first. You generally have to have internet to initially get games on PC nowadays. That's not a fault of Steam. Internet access is a general expectancy for a lot of PC gaming.

And don't a lot of big PS3 titles for example, require you to download a patch on the first day you get it? And other consoles?


I did say before that Steam has Steam Family Sharing...


I pereonally believe that Valve is good enough as a company that Steam has no reason to shut down in such an abrupt way that everyone loses their games. If they were somehow bankrupt or something, I think that they'd sell Steam to another company to allow everyone to at least keep their games and digital property. I don't feel concern for my Steam library getting taken away. Valve is better than that.

 

[kuzronk]

I've always thought Steam is chronically overrated. It's a lot like Amazon: It's a nice service, good value for the customer, lots of stock, and willing to work with other parties. But I don't understand why people are so quick to defend Steam/Valve. They're a massively wealthy and profitable enterprise. They can always stand for some criticism.

Some people working there gives a crap about you. Gabe helped somebody out when support was being bad.

 

[Cerberus87]

DRM is a necessary evil.

If I could choose, I'd live in a world without DRM. In the 90s, that was the norm. But nowadays, devs (especially indies) can't afford to release a game without DRM and see people flock to TPB to download it instead of buying it. It's an illusion to think people are nice enough to reward your work. Most aren't.

The problem is when there's an additional layer of DRM on top of Steam. Like with EA and Ubisoft games. But that's the fault of EA and Ubisoft, who, out of greed, decided to create their own online shops to avoid paying Steam their cut. Ubisoft does this so shamelessly that the game prices on Uplay are the same as on Steam.

 

[Dustmop]

The problem is when there's an additional layer of DRM on top of Steam. Like with EA and Ubisoft games. But that's the fault of EA and Ubisoft, who, out of greed, decided to create their own online shops to avoid paying Steam their cut. Ubisoft does this so shamelessly that the game prices on Uplay are the same as on Steam.

To be fair, Steam started that "fight" with EA -- which is why EA left and did their own thing.

But that's a conversation for another thread.

I pereonally believe that Valve is good enough as a company that Steam has no reason to shut down in such an abrupt way that everyone loses their games. If they were somehow bankrupt or something, I think that they'd sell Steam to another company to allow everyone to at least keep their games and digital property. I don't feel concern for my Steam library getting taken away. Valve is better than that.

I agree with that, honestly. Even now, with GFWL dying, Valve is fully integrating many of its more popular games into Steam. Dark Souls, Resident Evil 5, Dead Rising 2, etc. If Valve for whatever reason had to give up Steam, I'm sure they'd do something so people could continue to play their games.


And I don't think Steam Family Sharing would solve either of their gripes, in regards to sharing games.
It sounds to me like they expect one digital copy to be played by several people at the same time. And I quote, "While it may be uncouth to not buy another copy" - "enabled us to play with friends without having to buy multiple copies of $40 dollar games"

He wants one copy, one product, to be used by him and his friends at the same time. Which, frankly, I still think is unreasonable. One digital copy on a console can't be played on several others at the same time, either. Why is it such a big deal that PC games enforce the same rules and protect their property?

It's not like PC games are nearly as expensive as console games, either. I've spent less on my Steam account's 600+ games than I did on a Wii U, 2 controllers, and 3 games.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

don't a lot of big PS3 titles for example, require you to download a patch on the first day you get it?

No. If you have a disc or even if it's downloaded, you are not required to patch the game to play. There is a few exceptions for this, however, such as 'MMO' only games, such as Ace Combat Infinity and Destiny.

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

No. If you have a disc or even if it's downloaded, you are not required to patch the game to play. There is a few exceptions for this, however, such as 'MMO' only games, such as Ace Combat Infinity and Destiny.

I wouldn't say MMO only. If you need PSN log-in or network features, the patch must be downloaded.

 

[Klippy]

I would say that it's impossible to decide whether it would improve or not without knowing who bought it. I'd probably say I'd be confident if Disney bought it that it would improve. I would give up hope if EA bought it.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I wouldn't say MMO only. If you need PSN log-in or network features, the patch must be downloaded.

That's about accurate. However the ones that require you to stay signed in to PSN that are strictly single player are few and far between. Also, I used the term MMO loosely. I.E. if you want to play online with others I'd say. But I'd also say there are ways around that Patching system unless otherwise designed to be online all the time, simply disconnect the internet and you won't have to patch unless it requires you to be online. Battlefield is a good example I suppose, while it blends single player and multiplayer together, multiplayer takes priority, but even then I was able to play single player without patching it, so I suppose it all depends.