*Let's try to be less sarcastic*Originally Posted by Codex
*Let's try to be less sarcastic*
Last edited by Precarious; 09-10-2010 at 05:38 AM. Reason: Play nice
I think she knows exactly what she's doing and talking about. How about we respect our mods instead of telling them they're doing something wrong. Piracy is theft whether you want to accept it or not, and it's strictly against the forum rules. SPECIALLY on an official 2K Games website. So if she or any of us mods tell you not to do something, you have to listen (which is also a forum rule). We don't go around being big meanies just for the heck of it.
~Mari.
*I'm a little teapot, short and stout*
Last edited by Precarious; 09-10-2010 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Play nice
On official forums talks of piracy are forbidden. If you want to discuss how to get around paying for a game, I suggest you do it elsewhere.
*GLITTER MAGIC*
This debate is about Steam, not about piracy.
Stop hijacking it.
Last edited by Precarious; 09-10-2010 at 05:32 AM. Reason: Play nice
My 2 cents.
Don't use GFWL. My goodness just don't. It didn't do BioShock 2 any favors.
Steam OK, if you have to, although I very much agree with Kleetus' points about Steam.
What I like about Steam is that you can buy a game at retail, getting the nice actual Collector's Edition or whatever (not a "Deluxe Digital" one, blah), and then it installs through Steam, so it means I don't have to have a disc check every time I want to play the game, and worry about my discs being scratched etc. And then there's offline mode which is good.
I haven't heard about this Impulse system before though!
How about just not crippling the game for future use by not drowning it in DRM or tying it to a specific program like Steam, etc.
Bring it back old school to games like Duke 3D. This is Duke, after all.
I like Impulse because the singleplayer game out of the box is DRM free, just the patches and multiplayer require registration. If Steam were like that I would complain a lot less about it.
That said when you have an Impulse game like Elemental that is basically broken in the box and NEEDS to be updated it makes the patches a requirement, which makes activation a requirement too.
I think they really need to find a way to give the consumer a way to choose if they want to use Steamworks or not
Almost like having some type of code that comes along with the game to let you activate it on steam if you want, or you can choose to play the game steam-less
I know you can get some games retail that the code can be added into steam like prey (different circumstances i know, but its the idea it can be done), then of course the issue with that is you can give the disk copy to a friend and he basically got a full copy for free and the company (in this case 2k) lost money on the gift (however MP would be disabled right?...I mean he is using your activated code)
The thought of valve folding and steam shutting down is kinda out there so im not worried about losing my games. For one valve stated that it would just turn off authentication on the server side of things (making your computer play the games almost in offline mode) or two, don't you think another big company like EA or 2K or someone would jump at the chance to buy the Steam client and servers? And in order to maintain the customer loyalty basically keep things the same?
I for one wouldn't mind Duke being steamworks, I won't cry tears if its not, but mostly I would love it if there was some type of choice factor on the part of the consumer. (other than not buying it)
I was thinking about why they are able to have so many issues and I came up with this...
Another reason to not like Steam:
11. It's just not cool when one company has such overwhelming control over a distribution method - Like the way publishers dominate shelf space. They have handled the responsibility fairly well so far by helping smaller companies with free distribution tools and access to their store, but it's just too much power in one company.
I like all of your arguments, and even though I'm a Steam customer, there are plenty of downsides.
Last edited by KO Gilligan; 09-10-2010 at 07:18 PM.
@ point 11 above, couldn't agree more.
I'm not anti-Steam, and in it's defence it's tried to be as minimilist and user-friendly as possible.
But what I'm really against is when games are Steam exclusive.
At least give us the choice, and that way everyone's happy.
It's also a lot more healthy for the industry.
EDIT: I really hope someone from 2K reads this thread and passes our concerns on the people who make these decisions.
Last edited by Kleetus; 09-11-2010 at 05:16 AM.
Courtesy of Reddit: http://i.imgur.com/THnvh.png
That's why I used the word almost and not never.
Consider yourself very lucky, most people aren't as successful.
That's certainly not the norm, and it's much more difficult to get a refund via Steam than a bricks and mortar store.
Not really, Steam have similar refund requirements just like most brick and mortar stores.
Last edited by FISKER_Q; 09-11-2010 at 05:16 PM.
What does this even mean? Don't like Steam because they've turned an initially disastrous product and service into one that is the preferred DD outlet in the industry by both gamers and developers? Don't like Steam because Valve has shown dedication to their customers and competitors alike? Don't like Steam because there's just too much good and awesome?
You must have missed my posts about begging for change. They were earlier on in this thread. The decision on which wrapper will be used on Duke has already been made and is set in stone. No amount of begging/crying/QQing will make a difference at this point. Also, none of what is requested is taken into consideration, anyway. It's about the money. Whichever wrapper is chosen, it will have been chosen because 2K's shareholders saw it as the best opportunity to realize maximum profits from this property.
By your logic, Wal*Mart is nothing but great and super awesome.
and maybe you can explain how Steam is dedicated to their competitors. Because that would de pretty dumb of them.
If you understood the discussion, perhaps even responded to a single point I made, or posted something with any insight at all, I could give you some kind of answer.
The points that were posted by Kleetus and I were good points - a few of his points are insurmountable negatives - In some ways, Steam just sucks. Combine that with the market power that they have, and you realize the industry would be better off if they actually had competition.
You do realize that you're claiming you know that the copy protection has been chosen,
and that stockholders made the decision of which type?
Because that's funny stuff.
Last edited by KO Gilligan; 09-12-2010 at 01:36 AM.
By that logic many of the other DD outlets would've taken the market a long time ago, Steam is the preferred digital outlet, because it's the best among the competition.
gg logic.
Last edited by FISKER_Q; 09-12-2010 at 02:03 AM.
Yes, really, it's much harder getting a refund from Steam.
It's not like I'm the only one who says that, it affects plenty of people.
It's also pretty obvious.
If you were trying to get a refund, would you rather deal via email, or walk in to a store with your receipt?
That's your opinion, and what's so good and awesome?
I've (as well as others) given 10 reasons why I/we don't want Steam.
At least debate the points or issues brought up, instead of posting a statement like this.
And what's wrong with giving the consumer a choice?
You must have missed the bit about this being a discussion and forum.
And no-one is "begging" or "crying", except for you, by your own admission.
We're all well aware it's about money, that's pretty obvious, it's a business.
Yet we all have a right to voice our concerns.
I would rather deal via email, because going to the store with a receipt in my hand only to be declined because i opened the game is pretty much a huge waste of time.
Atleast if i were to claim a refund with Steam, one that i weren't eligible for, then i would've saved a lot of time and frustration, since Steam does refund at the same conditions as a store does, and i have infact successfully gotten around 5 refunds sofar.
If it affects plenty of people then they are no more eligible to a refund in any retail store, but merely bank on complaining loud enough will let the manager figure it's less trouble to just refund you.
Agreed...
The many others were not competitive, my logic stands.
But are you claiming that the invisible hand is fair and just - by it's nature?
Ha, Ha, more funny stuff.
That's your fault for not demanding it.
I don't know where you're from, but in any developed country, you're entitled to a refund if you meet system requirements etc.
The game being opened doesn't change that. I suggest you read up on your rights.
Also, to agree or disagree to the EULA, you have to open the product.
If you stand your ground, you will get a refund.
That's your legal right, and enshrined in law.
Software is the same as any other product, and has the same consumer protection.
Unfortunately, most people simply accept what some casual 17 year old kid behind the counter tells them, and walk out with their tail in between their legs.
It's an Internet myth that just because you've opened a game, then that automatically cancels your rights.
EDIT: Anyway, EB Games let you try a game for a week or so, with no questions asked if you return it.
That's not correct, and just an assumption on your part.
There have been some pretty buggy games released, or where Steam has screwed up the release date or system requirements, or left the game unpatched etc.
Last edited by Kleetus; 09-12-2010 at 02:24 AM.
By your logic, Steam = Walmart.
You guys have mentioned reasons why Steam sucks for you. They are probably also valid points for a lot of other people. The problem is that about half of them are actually positives for me and a lot of other people...not counting number 9, in which the disadvantage is that there are no advantages. Can a disadvantage be a disadvantage? Or did you just run out of items to make an even list of 10? Also, not counting 5. I believe this statement to be entirely inaccurate and false. Also, not counting 3. Because it's just entirely misguided to state that. Also, not counting 7. Because this thread is about Duke and Steamworks not Duke and Steam. If you have the option to purchase a game at retail with or without Steamworks integration, then you have no reason to be upset with Steam's online pricing. Simply, don't buy from Steam. Also, not counting 8, which is just an extension of 7.
So that leaves 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10
While there are downtimes, they have been more frequent as of late due to some massive infrastructure upgrades taking place. The current frequency of them is not business as usual and will become less frequent as these upgrades wind down. You are still able to play all of your games, though, even when the Steam network is down. Obviously, you'll have difficulty trying to play games that offer Steamworks matchmaking services, but it is not impossible. For a game like Duke, where the focus should be on the single-player campaign, you likely would never even notice when Steam was "down for maintenance" in the background.
As far as Valve ever going out of business, I'd take a wager that users wouldn't ever have to worry about that on way or the other. Let's assume that day came. Is there nobody else out there that would want the business that 25 million accounts has offered to Valve thus far?
Eh. Not really. Single-player games aren't required to be automatically updated. If you don't like Steam updating your games for you, tell it not to update them and use offline mode. For multiplayer games, it's a must these days that everyone is on the same version. There not really an argument to be had there. If that update breaks the game, it's up to the developer to fix the problems. If the issues are very widespread, as has been the case a few times in the past, the update will be rolled back.
The big issue I've read regarding Metro 2033 was a missing file or two in this latest Ranger Pack update. I'm not sure what incentive Valve would have breaking a game. They only publish what the developers and publisher provide to them. That "they have no control over Steam servers" seems like a weasely way to duck the problem for the time being, though. They can provide an updated distribution to Valve and it will be published.
Technically, it's a violation of the Steam Subscriber agreement, but for the sake of this argument, this was one of those things that's a positive for me. If I'm buying a used game, then obviously it's a physical copy of a game we're talking about. A physical copy of a game that could be lost, stolen or damaged. As well, a physical copy that I would no longer be able to use as I don't have an optical drive in any of my PCs. Steam is the perfect solution to both of these problems. Most times I can get a game on Steam cheaper than I'll ever see it at retail before it disappears from shelves forever...if it was even at retail in the first place.
I can appreciate that you don't need it, but it's been indispensable to me. My entire gaming life's needs have been met and exceeded by the Steam client. I used to have stacks and piles of boxes and discs and manuals and keys and advertisements and cardboard inserts everywhere. Aside from the cardboard inserts, I still have all these things. They are stored digitally for me now, though. They take up no more space than a standard consumer grade hard drive.
Yes. Problems with Steam may prevent me from accessing these from time to time. Problems with the physical editions of these items will prevent me from using them again unless I repurchase.
Again, something I can appreciate, but this all began taking up way too much space when all I ever touched after buying most games was the disc.
As far as Steam's competition goes, it's there, but not in any significant way where you or I recognize it as something that would be be defined as a competitor. But they're out there. Lots of them.
Also, I'd like to rephrase my statement if you'd allow me to do so. That last thing you paraphrased for me...
The decision on which wrapper will be used on Duke has already been made and is set in stone. It will have been chosen because 2K saw it as the best opportunity to present to its shareholders maximum profits from this property.
Both Kleetus and I have reasons why we like Steam. We are Steam customers - but the reality does set in.By your logic, Steam = Walmart.
In proper context, yes
You guys have mentioned reasons why Steam sucks for you. They are probably also valid points for a lot of other people. The problem is that about half of them are actually positives for me and a lot of other people...not counting number 9, in which the disadvantage is that there are no advantages. Can a disadvantage be a disadvantage? He's saying he does not see a single benefit that Steam provides Or did you just run out of items to make an even list of 10? There were 10, they are valid as concerns even if they don't bother you Also, not counting 5. I believe this statement to be entirely inaccurate and false. Google would quickly prove otherwise. Also, not counting 3. Because it's just entirely misguided to state that. It's entirely true - misguided, or not Also, not counting 7. Because this thread is about Duke and Steamworks not Duke and Steam. Please read the thread title - you cannot claim that Duke and Steam discussion goes elsewhere and Duke and Steamworks discussion goes here. If you have the option to purchase a game at retail with or without Steamworks integration, then you have no reason to be upset with Steam's online pricing. Simply, don't buy from Steam. Because Steam is often the sole DD his point is valid. The games (especially overseas) can be irrationally expensive. Also, not counting 8, which is just an extension of 7.
To be fair, most of his arguments are an extention of that market control - the prices should have an opportunity to be competitive. Console makers, and video game companies are no strangers to being accused of price fixing. It's a gold mine, they are making more growth than nearly any other industry, and they are setting prices skies the limit - like pharmeceuticals, there may be investment costs, and points on both sides, but they are setting their own market. In context, their techniques are predatory and it is not healthy capitalism.
So that leaves 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10
While there are downtimes, they have been more frequent as of late due to some massive infrastructure upgrades taking place. The current frequency of them is not business as usual and will become less frequent as these upgrades wind down. You are still able to play all of your games, though, even when the Steam network is down. Obviously, you'll have difficulty trying to play games that offer Steamworks matchmaking services, but it is not impossible. For a game like Duke, where the focus should be on the single-player campaign, you likely would never even notice when Steam was "down for maintenance" in the background.
Blind Faith Much? I've had problems - we just would rather there not be a 3rd party between us and our game.
As far as Valve ever going out of business, I'd take a wager that users wouldn't ever have to worry about that on way or the other. Let's assume that day came. Is there nobody else out there that would want the business that 25 million accounts has offered to Valve thus far?
Does the massive number of customers stop companies from growing into bloated monsters and shutting their doors - leaving millions of customers burned - welcome to America. Unless you have Blind Faith, of course.
Eh. Not really. Single-player games aren't required to be automatically updated. If you don't like Steam updating your games for you, tell it not to update them and use offline mode. For multiplayer games, it's a must these days that everyone is on the same version. There not really an argument to be had there. If that update breaks the game, it's up to the developer to fix the problems. If the issues are very widespread, as has been the case a few times in the past, the update will be rolled back.
Because game companies always fix their games and patches, and will be dedicated in standing behind their product? Not on Steam, and not in this world.
The big issue I've read regarding Metro 2033 was a missing file or two in this latest Ranger Pack update. I'm not sure what incentive Valve would have breaking a game. They only publish what the developers and publisher provide to them. That "they have no control over Steam servers" seems like a weasely way to duck the problem for the time being, though. They can provide an updated distribution to Valve and it will be published.
Technically, it's a violation of the Steam Subscriber agreement, but for the sake of this argument, this was one of those things that's a positive for me. If I'm buying a used game, then obviously it's a physical copy of a game we're talking about. A physical copy of a game that could be lost, stolen or damaged. As well, a physical copy that I would no longer be able to use as I don't have an optical drive in any of my PCs. Steam is the perfect solution to both of these problems. Perfect? Really? What's wrong with perfect being something a little more like downloading the product, or the install, and less like a propietary 3rd party creation. Most times I can get a game on Steam cheaper than I'll ever see it at retail before it disappears from shelves forever...if it was even at retail in the first place.
Unless I go to GameStop (which ours don't even have PC titles anymore) None of that sounds like my experiences - I've never saved money on a new release game from Steam. Occasionaly they have a deal or a pre-order, but I'll still find a place to save that money elsewhere - Like reputable eBay merchants 3 days after release, or Wal*Mart. I do however like their specials - it's more convenient than the bargain bin.
I can appreciate that you don't need it, but it's been indispensable to me. My entire gaming life's needs have been met and exceeded by the Steam client. I used to have stacks and piles of boxes and discs and manuals and keys and advertisements and cardboard inserts everywhere. Aside from the cardboard inserts, I still have all these things. They are stored digitally for me now, though. They take up no more space than a standard consumer grade hard drive.
I have enough shelf space to actually own a few manuals - those were the good days
Yes. Problems with Steam may prevent me from accessing these from time to time. Problems with the physical editions of these items will prevent me from using them again unless I repurchase.
Unless you have little ones, it's typically not an issue
Again, something I can appreciate, but this all began taking up way too much space when all I ever touched after buying most games was the disc.
As far as Steam's competition goes, it's there, but not in any significant way where you or I recognize it as something that would be be defined as a competitor. But they're out there. Lots of them.
a ton of games are not available DD anywhere else
Furthermore, the ones that just use Steam to authenticate only use Steam-
which completely discredits your "Lot's of them" claim.
Also, I'd like to rephrase my statement if you'd allow me to do so. That last thing you paraphrased for me...
The decision on which wrapper will be used on Duke has already been made and is set in stone. It will have been chosen because 2K saw it as the best opportunity to present to its shareholders maximum profits from this property.
Last edited by KO Gilligan; 09-12-2010 at 04:37 AM.
I know my rights, and that corresponds with what i said earlier, Steam, besides actually having a "one-time i screwed up refund", will refund on the same premise as those laws your retailers are bound by.
Not nessecarily.Also, to agree or disagree to the EULA, you have to open the product.
Exactly as i said, if you cry and whine long enough, maybe you're lucky that a retailer might be inclined to refund you, given that crying and whining may scare of other customers.If you stand your ground, you will get a refund.
Nope, Software infact has special consumer protection, infact without special consumer protection, then that part, about being able to refund the product with an EULA you don't agree to, wouldn't exist.That's your legal right, and enshrined in law.
Software is the same as any other product, and has the same consumer protection.
I'm of course not completely up to speed with US law, but similarly where i come from, you cannot just return a game, again under similar exceptions such as a defective product(FYI, buggy wouldn't be regarded as defective, scratched media, non-working product keys, etc. would be regarded as defective)
It's also an internet myth that the customer is always right, just because a brick and mortar store might be more inclined to cave in to such pressure, doesn't mean that everyone has to.Unfortunately, most people simply accept what some casual 17 year old kid behind the counter tells them, and walk out with their tail in between their legs.
It's an Internet myth that just because you've opened a game, then that automatically cancels your rights.
Great for EB Games, but what has this got to do with consumer rights? This is simply an additional layer of service that EB games got, similar to how Valve got a pretty much "no questions asked"-one-time-refundEDIT: Anyway, EB Games let you try a game for a week or so, with no questions asked if you return it.
Buggy games are not defective.That's not correct, and just an assumption on your part.
There have been some pretty buggy games released, or where Steam has screwed up the release date or system requirements, or left the game unpatched etc.
Screwed up release dates are refundable (as the game is not out yet)
If a game's Minimum Requirements are incorrect, it can be, and has been, upon request.
Leaving the game unpatched is not a defect either, and in this case would be up to publisher to fix that issue, most popularily it's happened with a game like Stalker where the developer have released an unofficial patch which is not supported or approved by the publisher.
Therefor it is illegal for Valve to put up said patch on Steam, and since the product remains functional, it is not a defect.
Last edited by FISKER_Q; 09-12-2010 at 06:27 AM.
Well, if you did, then you wouldn't have had any problems getting a refund, would you?
It has nothing to do with other customers or crying and whining.
It's your right.
Why is software different than buying a television, for example?
You take it out of the box, and if it doesn't work, you're legally entitled to a refund.
This Internet myth that as soon as you open software then that's it, is just that, a myth spread around by the ignorant.
How do you work that out?
The EULA is on the DVD........
A EULA has never been definitively held up in court.
Some judges have ruled that they're valid, and some that they're invalid.
It also depends on the country/jurisdiction you're in.
Anyway, if you believe this, why did you walk out a a store because they refused you a refund?
Again, I don't know where you come from, but in every developed country you can return software if it doesn't work correctly and it's not your fault.
And buggy does mean defective. It should work properly without bugs.
You really need to read up on your consumer rights if you don't know this.
So now getting what you're legally entitled to is "caving in under pressure?
You can't be serious. And you're contradicting yourself, I thought you said it was just as easy to get a Steam refund?
Show me where Steam say that? (And why is it one time?
Yes they are. This isn't a point of opinion, it's law, and it's covered under your consumer laws and Common Law.
No one said it was.
The point was that if a game is a mess, and Steam don't do anything about it, you should be able to get a refund.
Just like on any other product you purchase that the retailer/manufacturer refuses to repair.
I really don't get some of you guys.
What do you have against games not being Steam exclusive?
If you want to buy them from Steam, you should be able to, just like those that don't.
Having exclusive games, or for any other product/market, is bad for the consumer.
As gamers, and consumers, I would have thought you would be all for diversity, choice and competition.
Last edited by Kleetus; 09-12-2010 at 11:24 AM.
Since a lot of this is just a failure on your part to read my post, i'll cut out a few notable parts that i haven't already addressed.
Because a television is tangible, software is not, if you recall, i told that no such rights as returning a piece of software due to the EULA would exist if it wasn't because there were special laws governing software returns.Why is software different than buying a television, for example?
As i said, it doesn't have to be.How do you work that out?
The EULA is on the DVD........
Another internet myth, the reason why some have hold up and others do not is due to the way the EULA is accepted, as long as the EULA does not go beyond law, then an EULA is valid.A EULA has never been definitively held up in court.
The problem has always been shrinkwrap licenses, i.e. licenses where the agreement is made basically after the point of no return, that is why some EULA's have been ruled against in court, and of course if they're not legally viable.
No, it doesn't, this is infact part of new law that the EU is considering, but to my knowledge no other country have any kind of law that defends against buggy games, probably because they are aware that making a game without bugs is impossible.And buggy does mean defective. It should work properly without bugs.
No i said that Steam follows the same laws, that the store accepts your position in order to shut you up is not a legal right.So now getting what you're legally entitled to is "caving in under pressure?
You can't be serious. And you're contradicting yourself, I thought you said it was just as easy to get a Steam refund?
Look for the picture where a person had a game returned further up, it says it there in the bottom of the message. It's one-time for the same reason that EB Games have that one-week return, because it's a service.Show me where Steam say that? (And why is it one time?
One or more non-criteria for a defect product doesn't make them eligible for a return, therefor you must have meant that an unpatched game should be refundable.No one said it was.
That's because you're still arguing from the position that you think, i think that the law states that stores doesn't have to refund a game when the game is opened, this is false, i'm merely stating that you're not above the law in that regard.I really don't get some of you guys.
Exclusive how? Bad how? And using steam was the choice, or are you trying to say that 2K didn't choose to use steam?Having exclusive games, or for any other product/market, is bad for the consumer.
As gamers, and consumers, I would have thought you would be all for diversity, choice and competition.
Last edited by FISKER_Q; 09-12-2010 at 06:14 PM. Reason: Mod Edit: insulting remarks
Hey guys, can we just slow it down a bit? This back and forth arguing each other into a corner just tends to clutter the thread which will only lead to more threads being created on the same topic. So let's pace ourselves, ok? This thread is actually useful and I'd like to see something productive come from it instead of having it locked.
Cheers.
~Pre
do you guys even think its possible to come up with some type of system that would give you (the customer) the choice to play with or without steamworks? And, if that game were to have a MP element, the choice would not split the MP community?
on a side note: i thought the whole buggy game being defective thing was up for debate in EU, not in the US (I currently live in Illinois) I work as a electronic sales associate and have never accepted a return because the game was buggy, so if this is true and there is proof, i would like to see it
Last edited by soundcreepy; 09-12-2010 at 02:21 PM.
I bought my copy from my local game shop
DVD version, had a serial. That's it, no disc check, nothing else. Just a serial.
Here is Australia, a consumer is automatically entitled to a statuary warranty, which is implied by statutes and common law as I earlier stated.
In short, a product must be fit for the purpose intended:
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Co...arranties.html
I've spoken to Fair Trading, and dealt with them personally about this issue, that's why I'm so adamant about this, as I've been there and done that.
And here is Australia, software is no different to any other product.
A customer has the right for it to work properly, just like anything else.
I've already stated why, but here I go again.
It's exclusive because it's Steam only.
It's bad because the less choice and diversity there is in any market, the worse it is for the consumer.
With diversity, no one loses, whether you want to buy via Steam or you don't.
But, releasing games on Steam only removes that, and eventually the market will be a monopoly or duopoly.
In the long run it's bad for everyone, including the developers and publishers.
Unfortunately, bean-counters can only see the bottom-line and don't have a long-term view.
It is not exclusive to Steam only, you can choose to buy from any store you want. Direct 2 Drive is selling MAFIA II and the DLC for it on their website...as well as Civ 5 which are both steam games. so business' like D2D and stores of that sort are still selling and making a profit from it too. Sure you would need to install steam to play the game but that's irrelevant. And your argument is invalid, you are saying that requiring Steam would make it a "monopoly". but that is a fallacy, because Steam/VALVe does not get money from people using their platform. And you can choose to buy from whatever store you desire...so as far as selling a product and making profit is concerned you are wrong
But it still needs Steam. Even if you buy it from D2D or anyone else.
The point is not so much where you buy it from, it's what you're forced into using.
No, it's not irrelevant, that's the exact point.
You HAVE to use Steam, whether you like it or not.
Do you think Steam does this for fun?
They're getting a cut of the profits.
Anyway, that's not the issue.
I'm still amazed at some people's attitude.
"Steam suits me and I like it, so bad luck for everyone else".
What's wrong with choice, you can still use Steam if you want to or not?
My personal view on the matter is that Steam is an excellent digital distribution platform but it shouldn't be required to be able to play a game that I bought in a box from retail.
Steam as DRM - Stupid
Steam as Digital Distribution - Good
Yes, a right for it to work properly, not a right to get a game with no bugs, the laws are quite similar to those of other countries, this law will only cover when it's a serious defect, and not just trivial bugs.
So no, the previous statement i made still stands.
There's plenty of choice both for you as a consumer, and for 2K as a client, and no, less choice and diversity is not nessecarily a bad thing.It's exclusive because it's Steam only.
It's bad because the less choice and diversity there is in any market, the worse it is for the consumer.
You say later your point is that you have to use Steam, not that it only purchasable through steam, obviously that can't be true with a statement like this.With diversity, no one loses, whether you want to buy via Steam or you don't.
If your point is really what you say it is, why don't you complain over 2K not making the game for Linux, why don't you complain about 2K using a proprietary graphics library that similarly ensures you either have to use Windows, or buy a very expensive Mac? (If they're even making the mac version this time around)
I would atleast say that my priorities would be to complain about choices that forces me to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars extra in software or hardware in order to play the game.
Lets just completely forget how Valve infact allows 3rd parties to sell the games, then how is it bad for everyone? Do you care to come up with any examples of why a monopoly/duopoly is bad?But, releasing games on Steam only removes that, and eventually the market will be a monopoly or duopoly.
In the long run it's bad for everyone, including the developers and publishers.
Last edited by FISKER_Q; 09-13-2010 at 01:54 PM.
I agree completely.
I can see the need for the use of some sort of DRM. It's not great for consumers, but it does prevent some small degree of piracy. The problem is finding options that work for consumers.
I dislike the idea of having an online DRM solution. There's too much of a chance of it becoming unavailable when you need it. If your internet access is down, or you don't have any, or you're stuck behind a restrictive firewall, then you're stuck. If the DRM company is shut down, you're stuck. If 10 years go by and the company shuts down the servers that can handle your game, you're stuck. And you can't say that in 10 years time you won't be playing the same games - just look at how the first Starcraft, a 10 year old game, is still going strong.
Disc checks are annoying, but at least they're fairly consistent. If they work the first time, they'll probably work forever.
Steam is god-tier for games. If your account is suspended or banned it's your flipping fault.
man so many of you are a bit clueless
STEAM IS NOT THERE TO PREVENT PIRACY. STEAM IS THERE TO PREVENT YOU FROM RESELLING YOUR COPY OF THE GAME !!!!!!
By killing the second hand market 2K and other such big gredy publishers want to make more money by forcing you to buy a new copy instead of a used one
Wait until they introduce STEAM system to CONSOLES, then you won't be able to resel your console game too
Last edited by Alex1911; 09-14-2010 at 12:08 AM.
I'm not clueless, I don't care to sell my games. What makes me worry about it is that is if I buy a game, I never want a company to go out of business and/or discontinue the necessary support to play that game.
Will Steam ALWAYS let you play the games in your library?
I have no faith in that, and a crapload of games I bought that either need Steam, or are DD.
... and for the person that suggested offline mode (which was given to us because they didn't get away with trying to make us be online every time we play).
- how well does that work if I need to be offline for some of my games, and online for others? - should just authenticate the key on install and be gone forever if that's all it's doing.
Last edited by KO Gilligan; 09-14-2010 at 01:36 AM.
Maybe you not but others might want to resell for different reasons, need money for ther games, don't really like the game etc etc
*whoops* Mod edit: Removed insults
DUDE are you really from another worldWhat makes me worry about it is that is if I buy a game, I never want a company to go out of business and/or discontinue the necessary support to play that game.
after 1-2 years a comapny does NOT care for their games anymore, they are yesterday story
look at EA , they shut down the multyplayer servers for their games after about 1 year not to mention and patches or stuff like that
*snip* Mod edit: Removed insults
so you like UBISOFT system where you have to online all the time and if you lose the connection for een a 1 second the game halts ?Will Steam ALWAYS let you play the games in your library?
I have no faith in that, and a crapload of games I bought that either need Steam, or are DD.
... and for the person that suggested offline mode (which was given to us because they didn't get away with trying to make us be online every time we play).
- how well does that work if I need to be offline for some of my games, and online for others? - should just authenticate the key on install and be gone forever if that's all it's doing.
Last edited by Codex; 09-14-2010 at 02:04 AM. Reason: Mod edit: Insulting other members is not ok.
Can't expect them to keep servers up, but that's not we were talking about.
It is a hassle when they no longer provide a server list, Activision finally shut down server authentication and listing on some of their games. I play EF2 and we have a work around for the handful of people who are left.
I am more concerned about regular installs on single player games. The old games on my shelf will still install and play, and several of them still show available servers, even after 10 years.
Nonethess there is alternatives - I just want to put in my Disk Key and play.
If it means online account with that as well, I don't really like any of them. I know a couple developers have provided patches for older games so you don't need their system to play.
Last edited by KO Gilligan; 09-14-2010 at 06:14 AM.
And why should you? If I buy Beatles CD's, should I then be able to sell those Beatles CD's? No, the game that you buy is too play and enjoy, FOR YOU. That also gives more money to developers and publishers, who in turn can churn out quality products at a better rate.
Posting Permissions
