I took a quick look around the forum, but didnt find any info.

I just hope from the bottom of my heart that steam will not be required (dropped Empire Total War and will drop SupCom 2 cause of steam requirement).

JOA

D2D is the future of PC gaming. Although I would prefer Civ V to be on Impulse and any other D2D services.

D2D is the future of PC gaming. Although I would prefer Civ V to be on Impulse and any other D2D services.

I use Impulse and Gamersgate a lot. Bought Majesty 2 at 75% off today, and I am beta testing Elemental War of Magic. Still Steam is a bit too much for me to swallow. I want to buy, not rent games.

I personally dislike steam and all its derivatives.
The ability to hold the CD in my hand is a definite selling point in my eyes.

If steam or any other program is required for purchase or use of the game I would not buy it.

So yes, I sincerely hope that its not steam based.

I believe this answers the OP's question: http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/

I also note in the last 24 hours they've changed the date from 1st Sept to 2nd Sept.

I like steam; but it sucks for MP games. If I wanted to play my family, I'd need to buy multiple copies. At $50 a pop, I'd snatch the retail and just install it a few times for a LAN game.

I want the box in my hand with the attractive box art and the ability to hold the CD in my hand. I won't accept anything else.

I'm not even going to pretend I have any idea whats being discussed in this thread, lol.

I want the box in my hand with the attractive box art and the ability to hold the CD in my hand. I won't accept anything else.
L4D2 was a disk but that doesn't mean it didn't use steam. I've been using steam for a long time so I'm used to it by now but I would prefer that we have a choice in using it or not(unlike Empire:total war) but if there is DRM on the disk then I will certainly buy the download steam version instead.

I believe this answers the OP's question: http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/

Not neccesarily. Wasn't civ4 also available on Steam? Tales of Monkey Island also exists on steam and not on steam.

Not neccesarily. Wasn't civ4 also available on Steam? Tales of Monkey Island also exists on steam and not on steam.

How "not necessarily"? The OP asked if Civ5 would be on Steam, and I provided the direct link to pre-order off Steam. Sorta answers the question if you ask me. ;)

He asked if he would be required to use buy it from Steam, not if it would be available form Steam. It's possible Steam will be just one option to buy it.

I hope steam is NOT a requirement, and I don't think digital distribution is the future. I purchased the collector's edition of Civ4 and will probably do the same for Civ5. I like the tangibility, anticipation, and act of opening a preordered special edition game...at least I think that I do (the only special edition game I purchased was Civ4).

Some people have good things to say about Steam, and they can support their argument and opinion however they want...but I don't like any requirement to sign up just to play. Excpecially if (or when) Steam decides to advertise crap through their GUI and sells your account data to other companies.

Steam as an option is fine, but as a requirement is NOT!

He asked if he would be required to use buy it from Steam, not if it would be available form Steam. It's possible Steam will be just one option to buy it.

If you buy from Steam you will be required to connect to Steam. That's built into all Steam games. That is the DRM replacement.

But otherwise, there's no way they wouldn't sell through B 'n M.

I took a quick look around the forum, but didnt find any info.

I just hope from the bottom of my heart that steam will not be required (dropped Empire Total War and will drop SupCom 2 cause of steam requirement).

JOA

I've seen Empire on store shelves! The problem is finding brick & mortar stores that retail PC games any more.

As for the hard copy (CD, box, etc), yeah, I like that, but I am moving more towards Steam (and online download) for the fact that I am running out of room to keep physical things and I love not needing to put a CD into the drive in order to play a game. (Yes, I am lazy and hate disc swapping... so sue me!)

I think there are some misunderstandings in this thread. The OP is asking if CiV will require Steam in order to run. Empire: Total War required Steam to run, regardless of whether you bought a boxed version or a digital version. Essentially it used Steam as its DRM and patch-delivery service for all versions of the game.

Personally I love Steam, and I buy as many of my games there as I can. This is because it's almost always the cheapest way to get a game in Australia. It's also very convenient - I can switch between all the different games I want to play seamlessly, without having to switch DVDs all the time.

As for CiV, there will almost certainly be a boxed version, and there is going to be a Steam version, too. It's possible the boxed version will require Steam, clearly Firaxis have some kind of arrangement with Valve given that it's already up on Steam.

I do think DD is the future. It's just a more efficient and convenient way to get games from the developper to the player. Just look at some of the indy games up on Steam right now, Torchlight, Osmos, Gratuitous Space Battles etc. DD doesn't nescessarily imply restrictive DRM, either, just look at Good Old Games. It's also better for the environment.

Steam has offline mode now, anyway. And you don't have to worry about losing or damaging your game disks. So many reasons to love Steam.

What the heck is steam and D2D???

I initally thought we were talking about stream in the tech tree but soon realised its a different steam!

What the heck is steam and D2D???

I initally thought we were talking about stream in the tech tree but soon realised its a different steam!

Steam is a method of purchasing and downloading games online. No need to go through brick and mortar stores (like EB). For us in Australia it generally means a price saving of 50%, since the price increases we incur here are INSANE!

I hate steam. will not buy if.

Steam is a method of purchasing and downloading games online. No need to go through brick and mortar stores (like EB). For us in Australia it generally means a price saving of 50%, since the price increases we incur here are INSANE!

wow, a 50% price save, i like it already! whats the catch?

I hate steam. will not buy if.

I enjoy making one sided opinions with out any supporting reasoning as much as the next guy, so, do mind elaborating? ;)

wow, a 50% price save, i like it already! whats the catch?

The catch is that you will always have access to the game, as long as you have a computer (No more CD & DVD's!), and a semi-stable connection to the internet, will be able to chat with friends in-game, get access to frequent sales, amongst other good things.

Wait, did you mean bad things? Valve is one of the few companies who doesn't sacrifice quality for easy money. ;)

The catch is, as I understand it, that you have only a certain number of 'tickets' to use the game, and each tmie you install the disc, you use up a ticket, so that even if you have to renistall on your own machine for whatever reason, there'll come a time when you can't use the game you paid for. That's why people talk about renting not buying. But this could be pasrt of the DRM debate and Steam might not go the DRM way, they might just want to distribute it via online not disc, to save costs. I tried using Steam but couldn't get it to work, so ended up buying the disc version for one game.

wow, a 50% price save, i like it already! whats the catch?

Make sure you set your profile to United States. You also have to pay in US dollars. ;)

Otherwise you get lumped on the Aussie Steam server with no access to R18+ games, and twice the price games. Oh, and a lot of DLC is not available on the Aussie server.

Examples:
Dragon Age: Origins. From EB games in Australia == $109.95 AUD
Dragon Age: Origins. From Steam == $49.99 USD =~ $56.18 AUD

The catch is, as I understand it, that you have only a certain number of 'tickets' to use the game, and each tmie you install the disc, you use up a ticket, so that even if you have to renistall on your own machine for whatever reason, there'll come a time when you can't use the game you paid for. That's why people talk about renting not buying. But this could be pasrt of the DRM debate and Steam might not go the DRM way, they might just want to distribute it via online not disc, to save costs. I tried using Steam but couldn't get it to work, so ended up buying the disc version for one game.

I know steam doesn't use this. One of Steam's biggest features is that you will always be able to download the game and play it.

The catch is, as I understand it, that you have only a certain number of 'tickets' to use the game, and each tmie you install the disc, you use up a ticket, so that even if you have to renistall on your own machine for whatever reason, there'll come a time when you can't use the game you paid for. That's why people talk about renting not buying. But this could be pasrt of the DRM debate and Steam might not go the DRM way, they might just want to distribute it via online not disc, to save costs. I tried using Steam but couldn't get it to work, so ended up buying the disc version for one game.

Steam does not work like this. Part of Steam's conditions is you must use Steam's DRM methodology. You're thinking of EA who use those methods of DRM.

To get around having to reinstall each time, if you change computers burn your steamapps folder to a DVD, install Steam on the new computer and dump the steamapps folder into the new Steam. Steam doesn't need to download the games again.

Licensing/copyright control is set by the publisher, not Valve/Steam. Many Steam games do not have activation limits, forced registration (for online features), or third-party DRM. But there are some that do.

For example, Batman: Arkham Asylum (http://store.steampowered.com/app/35010/) has both SecuROM and a 4 per month machine activation limit. Spore (http://store.steampowered.com/app/17390/) does not have DRM but requires registration for online features. In contrast, all THQ games (http://store.steampowered.com/sub/2539/) have no limits, requirements, or DRM.

I like Steam.
I like the fact I can be on a friends computer - maybe a thousand miles from home. Log into Steam using my account, and download and play the games I 've purchased when I want to.

I still buy hard copy games though. I'd say my purchasing habits are about 50/50 between steam and boxed copies.

Make sure you set your profile to United States. You also have to pay in US dollars. ;)

Otherwise you get lumped on the Aussie Steam server with no access to R18+ games, and twice the price games. Oh, and a lot of DLC is not available on the Aussie server.

Examples:
Dragon Age: Origins. From EB games in Australia == $109.95 AUD
Dragon Age: Origins. From Steam == $49.99 USD =~ $56.18 AUD

I'm guessing that wouldn't be legal.

The other problem with steam that I've heard of, at least with Civ4, was compatibility issues for some people trying to either play MP with non-steam players or playing mods that were not written for the steam version. The whole install drectory structure is different apparently.

I think there are other mild complaints about steam like how it won't let you play a game until it finishes installing an update - something you have no option to avoid. That sucks if you're on, say, a connection that is slow.

Steam, love it or hate it, is great for developers and those steam-loving customers. But a Steam-only game, as the OP feared, would be a huge cut to sales of a game like Civ5 given the number of people who'd not already use steam and not want to have an always on internet connection.

By the way, everyone knows EB is usually a ripoff anyway.

Steam must be optional. I understand the pro-steam arguments given here by some and I respect them, but personally I won't touch a product associated with Steam since it made me unable to play Total War-Empire.

I like steam; but it sucks for MP games. If I wanted to play my family, I'd need to buy multiple copies. At $50 a pop, I'd snatch the retail and just install it a few times for a LAN game.

You can log in and load the game on multiple computers. You (probably) won't be able to play online, but you can still play on LAN. I've done this many times with counter strike source, where I've logged into my steam account on 4 different pcs and we've all been able to play over LAN.

Steam must be optional. I understand the pro-steam arguments given here by some and I respect them, but personally I won't touch a product associated with Steam since it made me unable to play Total War-Empire.

How/Why?

Steam does not work like this. Part of Steam's conditions is you must use Steam's DRM methodology. You're thinking of EA who use those methods of DRM.

To get around having to reinstall each time, if you change computers burn your steamapps folder to a DVD, install Steam on the new computer and dump the steamapps folder into the new Steam. Steam doesn't need to download the games again.

Although Steam will not impose install limits with its own DRM, it is possible for games on Steam to have additional DRM, which may impose install limits.

For example: http://store.steampowered.com/app/33230/?cc=US
Assassin's Creed 2 on Steam still uses Ubisoft's DRM and thus requires an internet connection.

How/Why?I bought the boxed version of Total War-Empire at the store and went home to install and play the game. That was all I wanted. Instead I had to install Steam and it's features and then register on their website. I had no wish for either. Then instead of installing the game from the disc I just bought, Steam began to download the game from the website. My internet connection at the time was so poor it was problematic enough for me to connect just to register. To download an entire game? Well let me just say it's easier for a rich man to get to heaven...
I spent the following days trying to get information from the support sites of Steam (Valve?) as well as the producers and the distributors of the game. I found that I was not the only one having problems; there were pages after pages with complaints and people were in uproar. Some had managed to download the game but still could not play it. I followed all the instructions and tried all the tips I found wich among other things included trying to update all kinds of relevant and irrelevant software on my computer (again with my poor internet connection). I felt that the answers/excuses given on the websites by the concerned parties were given not in humility but with a touch of arrogance. It is noteworthy that one of the given reasons for working with Steam was to prevent illegal copying, but as I searched for answers on the internet I stumbled over several cracks of the game and this was only days after it's release. So that group was apparently one of the few not bothered by Steam. After a couple of days of unsuccessful attempts to install the game I went back to the store and returned it. I felt that I (read: the customer group I belong to) had been very ill treated despite the following facts:

A devoted gamer in general.

A long time fan of the total war franchise and having bought/played all games and expansions since Shogun Total War.

A grown up, with a grown up economy.

Spending a lot of money on games and associated products.

Now, I know turning to big companies with complaints is futile as they care little for one sole customer, but total sales are made up of single customers and so I respond to ill treatment in the only way I can by not buying their products and spreading the word around wich is what I'm doing now.

I can very well understand that others have had better experiences than me with Steam (otherwise the company wouldn't exist any longer) but for me, I need the option of not having secondary programs, not having to connect to the internet to play or download patches every other week. I just want to buy my own copy of a game and play my single-player games being disconnected (from the world ;) )

I had a long post written to reply, but accidentally closed my tab, so I'll post the tl;dr version.

Most people have very few problems with steam. The game can be installed without downloading it. Steam doesn't require an internet connection active for you to actually play the game.

The disk version of Empire: Total War installs from the Disk, if you choose to install it that way. You have to download any patches, but there's nothing new about that.

It's interesting how many false beliefs people have about Steam.

I recently bought Mass Effect 2 from Steam for $50US. It would have cost me at least $90AU to buy it from a shop here in Australia. There is nothing dodgy about this, no catches, all the patches and DLC have worked 100% for me. Steam is a real godsend for us in Australia. Despite our dollar being worth only 5-10% less than the US dollar, we suffer a 40% - 60% markup for games at retail here. It's not uncommon for a game that would be $40 in the US to be $100 here.

Steam also has amazing sales. I got Far Cry for $5 the other week. STALKER Call of Pripyat (that's a new release game) for $20.

Personally I would have no problem with CiV requiring Steam, as I will be buying the Steam version in any case.

I don't want steam because then I can't hack the program to run natively OSX

Steam also has a very strong Indie section: World of Goo, Braid, Trine, Zeno Clash, Machinarium, etc etc etc. And nearly all for less than $10 USD!

The disk version of Empire: Total War installs from the Disk, if you choose to install it that way. You have to download any patches, but there's nothing new about that.

It's interesting how many false beliefs people have about Steam.

I recently bought Mass Effect 2 from Steam for $50US. It would have cost me at least $90AU to buy it from a shop here in Australia. There is nothing dodgy about this, no catches, all the patches and DLC have worked 100% for me. Steam is a real godsend for us in Australia. Despite our dollar being worth only 5-10% less than the US dollar, we suffer a 40% - 60% markup for games at retail here. It's not uncommon for a game that would be $40 in the US to be $100 here.

Steam also has amazing sales. I got Far Cry for $5 the other week. STALKER Call of Pripyat (that's a new release game) for $20.

Personally I would have no problem with CiV requiring Steam, as I will be buying the Steam version in any case.

It is great for us, except when companies sometimes jack up the price for us to match the instore cost (I think it was CoD 4 that was selling for $80US in Steam, leaving it no cheaper than buying from JB Hifi)

Steam also has a very strong Indie section: World of Goo, Braid, Trine, Zeno Clash, Machinarium, etc etc etc. And nearly all for less than $10 USD!

Audiosurf has taken up over 200 hours of my time. Not bad for a $10 game.

Most people have very few problems with steam. The game can be installed without downloading it. Steam doesn't require an internet connection active for you to actually play the game.The disk version of Empire: Total War installs from the Disk, if you choose to install it that way. You have to download any patches, but there's nothing new about that.As I have thoroughly explained above, nothing of this worked when I bought the game because the distributor (sega), the developer (theCreativeAssembly) and the provider of Steam (Valve) rushed a sloppy release thus angering a great number of their fans.
It's interesting how many false beliefs people have about Steam.
Do they really? Maybe it's because they have had no experience of their own with Steam.

I absolutely love steam, was really pleased to see it on the "coming soon" list the other day.

I don't understand why anyone would hate steam. Ultra convenient, no disks, automatic updates - and some of the deals they have are absolutely awesome. I bought bioshock for £2 the other day. At that price, it's pretty difficult to justify not buying it.

I'm just an uber Steam fanboy. Probably to the extent I'll buy something off Steam, even if I can get it cheaper at retail because I can download it in less time than ordering it online would take and I don't have to worry about disks in the future if I ever feel like playing it again.

I don't think digital distribution is the future.

Your bitterness betrays you. You *do* think it might be the future and you resent it :mischief:

I'm a pretty big Steam/DDisto advocate myself, but I can respect that you aren't. What I cannot respect is the bare assertion that it is "not the future" when all the evidence says that it is.

EDIT: The Xbox Live Arcade is nothing but a big test market for going 100% digital. I will not be surprised if the consoles of 2020 don't have disk drives.

I don't understand why anyone would hate steam. Ultra convenient, no disks,

No disks in exchange to a force account, bound to a company.
I prefer the disks, i can do with them, whatever i want, and nobodys says me, what to do with them.

automatic updates

I'm sitting here on my gaming pc, and it has an ultra slow internet connection.
An automatic update over this conncetion, like for example for BtS 3.19 would last 5 hours.
Thanks, i can use the internet conncetion at the university to get it in some minutes. A forced update over an account would annoy me endless.

I'm sitting here on my gaming pc, and it has an ultra slow internet connection.
An automatic update over this conncetion, like for example for BtS 3.19 would last 5 hours.
Thanks, i can use the internet conncetion at the university to get it in some minutes. A forced update over an account would annoy me endless.

Automatic Updates != Forced Updates. You can turn that off. ;)

No disks in exchange to a force account, bound to a company.
I prefer the disks, i can do with them, whatever i want, and nobodys says me, what to do with them.

Bound to a company in what way?

Steam has an offline mode, so you can play all your offline games without an internet connection... so what, you object to the valve company name being related to the game? But 2kgames and firaxis are cool? I don't understand. You dislike games that have been tainted by any company?

And obviously, like the other guy said, you don't HAVE to utilise their automatic update feature if you're connecting to the internet from 1990 - but you can play games while the updates download anyway so who cares if it takes 5 hours? It can run in the background and keep all your games up to date without any interaction. My launcher is just sitting there in the task bar and I know that I'll be instantly running the latest patch for all my games when ever I feel like playing them.

Bound to a company in what way?You're forgetting his user title, paranoid maniac! :p

But seriously, I can see where he's coming from:
a) You and your games potentially trackable by a Valve (since Steam will establish a connection at least once for the first validation) - and you need to hand out your e-mail address, though that's more on the paranoia side (and then, you shouldn't use the internet anyway, unless you're surfing on TOR all the time).
b) You're required to have an internet connection to even install the game (since you need the validate it once), meaning if you don't have internet, you're out of luck. That's , because not everybody has/wants internet.
c) It also means you're bound to the goodwill of Valve if they go belly-up - my old MoO2 CDs still allow me to play it, despite the implosion of Microprose. With Valve/Steam... only if they're nice enough to release appropriate no-Steam patches etc.
d) It is encouraging a shift towards a digital-only distribution.

Now, I have to say, these are mostly theoretical points - I have made great experiences with Steam and wouldn't mind the usage per se, but it still leaves a bitter aftertaste, since it's not my choice (for example, opt-in schemes are things I dig, like Sins of a Solar Empire - it works with the CD only, but if you sign up to Impulse, you get patches and can download the game again, as often as you want to, that's ultra-convenient and still nice for people who don't want to do that).

Cheers, LT.

a) You and your games potentially trackable by a Valve (since Steam will establish a connection at least once for the first validation) - and you need to hand out your e-mail address, though that's more on the paranoia side (and then, you shouldn't use the internet anyway, unless you're surfing on TOR all the time).

Well, I guess it's probably a good thing I'm not trying to hide what games I play.. (?) And if you're worried about steam spamming you (which they don't) you can always just use a throwaway email address for it.

b) You're required to have an internet connection to even install the game (since you need the validate it once), meaning if you don't have internet, you're out of luck. That's , because not everybody has/wants internet.

Forgive me for assuming that I'm probably not currently conversing with any of those people on this internet forum.

c) It also means you're bound to the goodwill of Valve if they go belly-up - my old MoO2 CDs still allow me to play it, despite the implosion of Microprose. With Valve/Steam... only if they're nice enough to release appropriate no-Steam patches etc.

That's pretty far fetched. Not that game companies never go bust, but valve is extremely successful and they are tied to so many third party games that they are probably even legally obliged to allow people to continue to play their games if they go under. This applies to pretty much all DRM these days anyway and Steam is one of the most unobtrusive out there - it's not like we're talking about Ubisoft's retarded "disconnect from the net while playing a single player game and you lose your progress since the last save". I'd certainly trust Steam to stay afloat more than I'd trust 2k or firaxis.

d) It is encouraging a shift towards a digital-only distribution.

Welcome to the future. Assuming that gamers without internet connections are a tiny minority that is only shrinking, what is wrong with digital only distribution?

c) It also means you're bound to the goodwill of Valve if they go belly-up - my old MoO2 CDs still allow me to play it, despite the implosion of Microprose. With Valve/Steam... only if they're nice enough to release appropriate no-Steam patches etc.

Actually, I see this as a good thing. Valve, barring the apocalypse in 2012, has proven they are here to stay. Meanwhile, EA and Ubisoft have shut down activation servers 2-3 years after games come out, saying F U to fans. ;)

Actually, I see this as a good thing. Valve, barring the apocalypse in 2012, has proven they are here to stay. Meanwhile, EA and Ubisoft have shut down activation servers 2-3 years after games come out, saying F U to fans. ;)True, Steam is definitely the lesser evil here! I'd rather see Steam than any other insane online DRM (e.g. what the hell is wrong with you, Ubisoft!?). And it comes with a few cool extra perks.

But my cynicism (and I'm not that old, I'm not even out of uni yet!) makes me afraid: back then, people would probably have said the same about Interplay, Virgin Interactive or Spectrum HoloByte... now they're only living an undead existence as acquired once-famous brands.

Besides, there's the wholly political (and rather hypothetical, in this case) issue of privacy - but that's more a matter of principles etc. and is less important here (because, ultimately, games are something fairly trivial).

Cheers, LT.

valve is extremely successful and they are tied to so many third party games that they are probably even legally obliged to allow people to continue to play their games if they go under

They are now. But being successful now doesn't mean they will be 10 years from now. Collapse comes suddenly as often as not. Three years ago one would have been called insane for having so much as a fleeting thought that housing prices would not go up forever and ever.

I don't think they would be legally obligated to release a no-steam patch if they go under. Most game companies want to limit how long people can play so they will be forced to buy the new version that is exactly the same but with better graphics.

As I have thoroughly explained above, nothing of this worked when I bought the game because the distributor (sega), the developer (theCreativeAssembly) and the provider of Steam (Valve) rushed a sloppy release thus angering a great number of their fans.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Do they really? Maybe it's because they have had no experience of their own with Steam.

I know a lot more people who haven't had an issue with steam than those who have. I've been using steam to play various games for over 4 years without any major problems like you have experienced.

True, Steam is definitely the lesser evil here! I'd rather see Steam than any other insane online DRM (e.g. what the hell is wrong with you, Ubisoft!?). And it comes with a few cool extra perks.

But my cynicism (and I'm not that old, I'm not even out of uni yet!) makes me afraid: back then, people would probably have said the same about Interplay, Virgin Interactive or Spectrum HoloByte... now they're only living an undead existence as acquired once-famous brands.

Besides, there's the wholly political (and rather hypothetical, in this case) issue of privacy - but that's more a matter of principles etc. and is less important here (because, ultimately, games are something fairly trivial).

Cheers, LT.

Valve has gone on record that if they ever do go out of business and have to shutdown Steam, there going to unlock all games brought off of it.

Valve we care about our paying customers

steam rocks but for big title games I still prefer a hard copy.

Steam will be awesome, just having it be required I know will piss people off, and many people wont buy it, which means less money for Firaxis (they deserve it) and less people playing, leading to less demand for good mods.

But... people here are complaining about Empire. IMO that was more of a CA mess up, and the entire game was a mess. Now look at Napoleon. I havent heard of an issue with Steam registration, and the game is really bug free. Coincidence? I think not. Not to mention Steam waay improved multiplayer and even allowed drop-in battles (a friend can drop in and command your enemies army) in single player campaigns

I agree with most of you guys that Steam is awesome. I'll definitely be buying Civ5 on it assuming there's no additional DRM.

The only legit reason I can see to hate Steam is requiring an internet connection to activate and download the game, and that you have to make an account with them. But if you've been keeping an eye on the big titles coming out of Take Two, you'll notice a growing trend of requiring Windows Live and/or other online measures that have the same problems. I guarantee that non-Steam versions of Civ5 will have something annoying like that at release.

I don't think they would be legally obligated to release a no-steam patch if they go under. Most game companies want to limit how long people can play so they will be forced to buy the new version that is exactly the same but with better graphics.

Although this may be true, unless you are theorising that steam will go down after nobody has released a game on it for 6 months, there WILL be LOTS of companies with a bunch of games on there that have only been out a few months - some only a few weeks. Hundreds of thousands of copies sold through steam in the first week, no doubt, then POP none of them work any more.

After looking into it, it appears that they're not obliged to fix it, however, they already have code to disable authentication:

"Unless there was some situation I don't understand, we would presumably disable authentication before any event that would preclude the authentication servers from being available." He added, "We've tested disabling authentication and it works.

[Source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28content_delivery%29#cite_ref-57)

Lord Tirian, Deanej :yup:.

Automatic Updates != Forced Updates. You can turn that off. ;)

Ah, sorry, didn't know that.
But is there the possibility just to download a patch for a steam game without using the automatic update?


And obviously, like the other guy said, you don't HAVE to utilise their automatic update feature if you're connecting to the internet from 1990 - but you can play games while the updates download anyway so who cares if it takes 5 hours? It can run in the background and keep all your games up to date without any interaction. My launcher is just sitting there in the task bar and I know that I'll be instantly running the latest patch for all my games when ever I feel like playing them.

My connection is also instable. It sometimes crashes randomly after a half hour, and then i have to restart my computer to get it work again.
-> This thing really matters for me.

Well, I guess it's probably a good thing I'm not trying to hide what games I play.. (?) And if you're worried about steam spamming you (which they don't) you can always just use a throwaway email address for it.

That you can circumnavigate a thing is clear to me, but it's not good. Is the same like to say, if you don't want to get observed by the state, then go into the underground.
I don't want to circumnavigate these things. I don't want to be forced to use something, which i do not want.



Forgive me for assuming that I'm probably not currently conversing with any of those people on this internet forum.

That you're talking here to people in an internet forum, doesn't mean, that they have internet ;).
I've used for more than a year just the internet connection from my university without having internet at my gaming pc. I've also been active here for that time.
And at this time, i wanted to try out the spore demo, and i couldn't, because i didn't have an internet connection. This sucks.


Welcome to the future. Assuming that gamers without internet connections are a tiny minority that is only shrinking, what is wrong with digital only distribution?

Some people just like hardcopies more.
A disk is something which i really own, there i can feel that.
It also gives the possibility that you'll get a nice manual, which i really want for civ (interesting, that nobody has made a thread about this already).

The criticism here is not digital distribution, but DRM - Digital "Rights" (their rights, not yours) Management. Digital distribution may be a future, but I sure hope that Digital Restrictions, er Rights Management isn't the future.

* As pointed out, it isn't always cheaper, depending on your region. Also I believe it's possible to allow region locking for games. Indeed, be careful of doing this:

Make sure you set your profile to United States. You also have to pay in US dollars. ;)

Otherwise you get lumped on the Aussie Steam server with no access to R18+ games, and twice the price games. Oh, and a lot of DLC is not available on the Aussie server.

Examples:
Dragon Age: Origins. From EB games in Australia == $109.95 AUD
Dragon Age: Origins. From Steam == $49.99 USD =~ $56.18 AUDOtherwise you risk being locked out (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box#Region-specific_versions ).

* Patches are installed whether you want them or not (e.g., issues such as incompatibilities or increasing the requirements).

* No resale is possible.

* Is it true that some games can have activation limits, so you can only install or reinstall a number of times?

* On a similar note, good luck with (re)installing if the activation servers are no longer available. There have been numerous cases of DRM system failing, when the system is closed down for whatever reason:

Actually, I see this as a good thing. Valve, barring the apocalypse in 2012, has proven they are here to stay. Meanwhile, EA and Ubisoft have shut down activation servers 2-3 years after games come out, saying F U to fans. ;)But you're still betting on them staying around, and not shutting down any activation.

Although this may be true, unless you are theorising that steam will go down after nobody has released a game on it for 6 months, there WILL be LOTS of companies with a bunch of games on there that have only been out a few months - some only a few weeks. Hundreds of thousands of copies sold through steam in the first week, no doubt, then POP none of them work any more.Yes, exactly.

But with current games, presumably the companies would secure alternative distribution possibilities, and maybe offer something to users. If you're lucky. But no chance for older games.

I use Steam, but only to purchase older games that are harder to find and are usually under $20.

If it's relatively new I have to have a copy of it in my hands though.

LMy connection is also instable. It sometimes crashes randomly after a half hour, and then i have to restart my computer to get it work again.
-> This thing really matters for me.


The issue here clearly has nothing to do with steam, but to do with your computer system. You can't say steam is bad because your computer is fundamentally broken. If your hard disk breaks are you going to argue that it is a bad things that games need to be installed, and that they should all just run off the CD because your hard disk is broken?

That you're talking here to people in an internet forum, doesn't mean, that they have internet ;).
I've used for more than a year just the internet connection from my university without having internet at my gaming pc. I've also been active here for that time.
And at this time, i wanted to try out the spore demo, and i couldn't, because i didn't have an internet connection. This sucks.

Digital distribution methods are bad for people without internet access, but fortunately they are a tiny minority. Like directx is bad for people who want to play their games on windows 3.1. There comes a time when you have to decide whether or not you want to live in a technological stone age or if you want to be able to enjoy the latest stuff. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that hard for you to acquire a stable internet connection on a system capable of playing the game.

On the tangent of spore, however, I think you dodged a bullet there. It was a terrible game.

Some people just like hardcopies more.
A disk is something which i really own, there i can feel that.
It also gives the possibility that you'll get a nice manual, which i really want for civ (interesting, that nobody has made a thread about this already).

Even if you do really really like disks (they're shiny after all), this is not a "steam is bad" reason, but rather "physical distribution is also good".

Fortunately - just because a game is on steam, it doesn't mean it can't be physically distributed. Half-life 2 was. Every major steam powered game is still physically distributed as well as digitally distributed.

The addition of steam to the mix means that when you next come to install the game, you don't need to dig out your CD (which you've probably lost) or the CD key (which you've definitely lost) to play again.

But with current games, presumably the companies would secure alternative distribution possibilities, and maybe offer something to users. If you're lucky. But no chance for older games.

Alternative distribution possibilities are not the issue if they've already distributed the game to thousands of people. They've already bought the game - selling it to them again through an alternative distribution channel is somewhat missing the point.

The resolution to this issue would be for steam to disable activation, which they can do. And they would do it for every game rather than just picking random ones to deactivate while knowing that all the others will be unplayable.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Yeah, what exactly is Steam doing on your PC? Good luck finding out, they sure won't tell you and don't respond to emails with specific questions. I didn't buy 'Dawn of War 2' because it required steam. Ditto for 'Supreme Cmdr 2'. Fine, more time for CIV4.

Here are three good reasons for not buying from Steam: 'Origin', 'Microprose' and 'Spectrum Holobyte'. Game companys/publishers go belly up eventually. When Steam gets bought out or goes away for whatever reason all your games are gone. Meanwhile, I'm still playing 'Ascendancy' and 'X-Com' from 15 years ago.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Is there evidence somewhere that Steam "rifles" through your computer? I'm seriously asking, because I'd like to know. As far as I know it only looks through your game folders that you've attached to it.

In any case, if you played Civ4 you dealt with Securom, which is quite a bit worse in my opinion. Until people began a class-action lawsuit consumers had no way of removing it unless they wanted to reinstall Windows. It also installed itself with higher privileges than an administrator account, which opens security holes. Worst of all it legitimately rifled through your computer - it would detect any virtual drives/emulation software (which are legal) and would refuse to run the game until you disabled them.

Non-steam Civ5 is definitely going to have something like this, so if you hate Steam you're going to hate the alternatives too.

Yeah, what exactly is Steam doing on your PC? Good luck finding out, they sure won't tell you and don't respond to emails with specific questions. I didn't buy 'Dawn of War 2' because it required steam. Ditto for 'Supreme Cmdr 2'. Fine, more time for CIV4.

Did you email firaxis to ask them what the copy protection on Civ 4 (http://getsatisfaction.com/2kgames/topics/a_complaint_about_civilization_ivs_copyprotection) does to your PC?

Did they reply?

What did they say?

Or did your tinfoil hat slip off during that part of the thought process?

Companies not explaining the functionality of their copy protection methods to the public. What a shocker.

Civ4 uses Safedisc, but all other 2K titles (including all other Firaxis games, both before and after) do use SecuRom.

Did you email firaxis to ask them what the copy protection on Civ 4 (http://getsatisfaction.com/2kgames/topics/a_complaint_about_civilization_ivs_copyprotection) does to your PC?

Did they reply?

What did they say?

Or did your tinfoil hat slip off during that part of the thought process?

Companies not explaining the functionality of their copy protection methods to the public. What a shocker.

Hmmm, it's pretty easy to do a google search and find out what Safedisk does, and while it is a bit of a pain it is nothing more than a CD/DVD check. And unlike anything Steam seems to be doing. Safedisk is not collecting data on you or forcing you to be connected to the internet. So I think we are talking about two completly different levels of copy protection here. One is a reasonable business decision and one is not.

And if you don't like the idea of D/Ling a CD patch, you can always just use disk image and a utility like Daemon Tools to simulate Safedisk 4 copy protection. That is what I did before the 3.19 official patch that removed the DRM for BTS.

CS

Hmmm, it's pretty easy to do a google search and find out what Safedisk does, and while it is a bit of a pain it is nothing more than a CD/DVD check. And unlike anything Steam seems to be doing. Safedisk is not collecting data on you or forcing you to be connected to the internet. So I think we are talking about two completly different levels of copy protection here. One is a reasonable business decision and one is not.

And if you don't like the idea of D/Ling a CD patch, you can always just use disk image and a utility like Daemon Tools to simulate Safedisk 4 copy protection. That is what I did before the 3.19 official patch that removed the DRM for BTS.

CS

It's strange how you say that safedisk is a "reasonable business decision", then go on to tell me how easy it is to remove.

Games companies know that CD check based DRM is no DRM at all, and I'm not sure how you can qualify a complete absence of copy protection as a "reasonable business decision".

It's pretty clear that game publishers can't either, since online activation is the new CD check these days - and Steam is one of the least intrusive.

For Civ 5 to come out with no online activation would put it significantly behind the times. Given that, it's just a case of what vendor you want your online DRM to come from.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Had you bought Counter-Strike from them? Or was it a boxed copy? If Steam can up and decide to delete software other than that which is purchased from Steam that is absolutely awful.

It's strange how you say that safedisk is a "reasonable business decision", then go on to tell me how easy it is to remove.

Games companies know that CD check based DRM is no DRM at all, and I'm not sure how you can qualify a complete absence of copy protection as a "reasonable business decision".

It's pretty clear that game publishers can't either, since online activation is the new CD check these days - and Steam is one of the least intrusive.

For Civ 5 to come out with no online activation would put it significantly behind the times. Given that, it's just a case of what vendor you want your online DRM to come from.

Well if Steam is "less intrusive" than other activation schemes, I would hate to see what the others are doing. Because no one that legally owns a game should have to be online to play it, there are still parts of this planet without constantly on HS internet access.

And I would except online activation, if they didn't try to illegally colllect data from my computer and were upfront about what there software was doing and what it is not doing. And of course they need proactive customer support to deal fairly with people that have issues with the DRM and have a legit copy of the software. I own multiple copies of every version and expansion of Civ ever released. And I have the legal right to play them, whether or not I am online or even if the company goes under.

So while I respect companies rights to protect their IP, they don't have the right to do it at the expense of the rights of the customer to enjoy the game they paid cash for.

CS

Well if Steam is "less intrusive" than other activation schemes, I would hate to see what the others are doing. Because no one that legally owns a game should have to be online to play it, there are still parts of this planet without constantly on HS internet access.Look up the copy protection of Assassin's Creed II. It requires you to be online all the time and the game apparently pauses if it loses the connection to the Ubisoft server, see here (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/02/ubisoft-details-drm.ars).

Compared to that, Steam is not intrusive at all, since it only requires one singular verification per install and at least gives you something in return - the ability to play and re-download your game without a disk.

Cheers, LT.

And I would except online activation, if they didn't try to illegally colllect data from my computer and were upfront about what there software was doing and what it is not doing.

The Steams!! They are in your datas illegally reading your binarys!!"11!

Seriously? Illegally collecting data? Really? Did you just say that? Well why don't you phone the police then and have them stop doing all the illegal stuff that you totally didn't just make up?

Anyway, I've been beaten to it, but I may as well reiterate - you really need to read up on the subject of bad DRM: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17/you-maniacs/

Look up the copy protection of Assassin's Creed II. It requires you to be online all the time and the game apparently pauses if it loses the connection to the Ubisoft server, see here (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/02/ubisoft-details-drm.ars).

Compared to that, Steam is not intrusive at all, since it only requires one singular verification per install and at least gives you something in return - the ability to play and re-download your game without a disk.

Cheers, LT.

Thanks I'll have a look at what bad really is, and personally I have no intention of using Steam(or D2D for that matter) to purchase a game, I like having a box copy. So for me it's not about digital distribution but about the after purchase DRM.

CS

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

I feel your pain, having lost other games for non-steam reasons, but seriously, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. ;)

I think I should clear some things up.
First steam only needs to be online the once, you let the game update and once its all down you just stick into offline mode in which no internet connection is needed.
second steam does NOT riffle through your computer, the only scan it every does is one which it asks you for then it just just scans your computer to see what hardware you have for marketing purposes.

* As pointed out, it isn't always cheaper, depending on your region. Also I believe it's possible to allow region locking for games. Indeed, be careful of doing this:

Otherwise you risk being locked out (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box#Region-specific_versions ).

The region locking is restricted to the CD-keys of hard copies. It's to stop people buying copies of the game really cheaply in those countries with majorly reduced prices and then selling the CD-keys online to people in the regions of the world with higher prices. These copies state clearly on the box that they are restricted a region and this doesn't apply to purchases made on Steam itself.

Setting your Steam store to a different country's page and then buying the game won't work. Your location is checked via other means than the store page you're using. If you do somehow manage to purchase the game somewhere cheaper, region locking isn't going to kick in and lock you out. Not that I'm saying you'll be in the clear; I don't know whether doing that could be viewed as fraud or something.

The Steams!! They are in your datas illegally reading your binarys!!"11!

Seriously? Illegally collecting data? Really? Did you just say that? Well why don't you phone the police then and have them stop doing all the illegal stuff that you totally didn't just make up?

Anyway, I've been beaten to it, but I may as well reiterate - you really need to read up on the subject of bad DRM: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17/you-maniacs/

The irony is saying their activities are illegal could easily be classed as libel, which could get one in trouble with the law, or at least a civil suit. Not that anyone is likely to care.

Can I not delete my own post? :(

(or am I just blind?)

<snip>
But you're still betting on them staying around, and not shutting down any activation.

Yes, exactly.

But with current games, presumably the companies would secure alternative distribution possibilities, and maybe offer something to users. If you're lucky. But no chance for older games.

You can back up all steam games onto a disc, last time I checked.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Not to say that valve can't make mistakes, but I would trust their measures overs you.

Well if Steam is "less intrusive" than other activation schemes, I would hate to see what the others are doing. Because no one that legally owns a game should have to be online to play it, there are still parts of this planet without constantly on HS internet access.

And I would except online activation, if they didn't try to illegally colllect data from my computer and were upfront about what there software was doing and what it is not doing. And of course they need proactive customer support to deal fairly with people that have issues with the DRM and have a legit copy of the software. I own multiple copies of every version and expansion of Civ ever released. And I have the legal right to play them, whether or not I am online or even if the company goes under.

So while I respect companies rights to protect their IP, they don't have the right to do it at the expense of the rights of the customer to enjoy the game they paid cash for.

CS

As has been stated many times, you do NOT have to be connected to the internet to play games on steam.

I also doubt that steam collects data from your computer without your permission.

The criticism here is not digital distribution, but DRM - Digital "Rights" (their rights, not yours) Management. Digital distribution may be a future, but I sure hope that Digital Restrictions, er Rights Management isn't the future.

* As pointed out, it isn't always cheaper, depending on your region. Also I believe it's possible to allow region locking for games. Indeed, be careful of doing this:

Otherwise you risk being locked out (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box#Region-specific_versions ).


Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 are both $50 on the Australian Steam store right now. In the case of DA that's less than half the price in EB Games. ME is half the EB price, 4/9ths of the JB price.


* Patches are installed whether you want them or not (e.g., issues such as incompatibilities or increasing the requirements).

This is simply false. You can turn off auto-update.


* No resale is possible.


The ability to re-sell both ME2 and DA is limited regardless. I think you'll start to see more companies inculde parts of their games as free DLC to people who buy new copies. In any case, it can be argued that this is a good thing, used games hurt developpers nearly as much as piracy. How many places will even do trade-ins for PC games anyway?


* Is it true that some games can have activation limits, so you can only install or reinstall a number of times?


It is true, but it's nothing to do with Steam. Steam is one of the least restrictive forms of DRM around. By default, you may download and redownload your games as many times as you want, and onto as many machines as you want. You can also back them up on DVDs or removeable storage.

Of course, some games have 3rd party DRM, but in those cases you have to deal with the DRM if you get a boxed copy anyway.

* On a similar note, good luck with (re)installing if the activation servers are no longer available. There have been numerous cases of DRM system failing, when the system is closed down for whatever reason:

But you're still betting on them staying around, and not shutting down any activation.

Yes, exactly.

But with current games, presumably the companies would secure alternative distribution possibilities, and maybe offer something to users. If you're lucky. But no chance for older games.


I have legal backups of all my Steam games. Not a problem. Again, for those who missed this: You can burn install disks for your Steam games.

Again, nearly all the problems people percieve with steam are based on predjudices, misconceptions, or outright falsehoods.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Okay your just lying here or something else happen here. I've almost every Virtual Disc program known to man, dencrypters, No-CD cracks, basically my computer is filled to the brim with pirating tools and never been ban.

Yeah, what exactly is Steam doing on your PC? Good luck finding out, they sure won't tell you and don't respond to emails with specific questions. I didn't buy 'Dawn of War 2' because it required steam. Ditto for 'Supreme Cmdr 2'. Fine, more time for CIV4.

Here are three good reasons for not buying from Steam: 'Origin', 'Microprose' and 'Spectrum Holobyte'. Game companys/publishers go belly up eventually. When Steam gets bought out or goes away for whatever reason all your games are gone. Meanwhile, I'm still playing 'Ascendancy' and 'X-Com' from 15 years ago.

First everything that Steam does has been found and figured out till death, you can't hid something on computer. Second Valve has been on record that it would unlock all games once its gone belly up.

Also to the guy on reselling buy a new EA game you notice they are coming up with ways to screw that industry over

Really Steams do your homework before you even try to post something, you just make yourself look like an idiot.

If Civ 5 uses Steam, Firaxis can find another 50 dollars somewhere else. I will not ever use Steam again. The problem many have with Steam is that it in an invasive program that periodically rifles your computer for anything IT deems as suspect.

I stopped using Steam seven years ago before all this invasive software began, they decided that Counter-Strike was on my computer illegally and terminated its CD key. Despite my showering them with mail and email to the contrary, they simply told me tough, if I want to play CS again, I have to buy a new copy. I told them then to shove off.

I WILL NOT USE STEAM.

Probably the most ignorant post I have ever read. Why are so many Civ users so ignorant of Steam? There's this weird stigma amongst the 30-40 year old gamer crowd that they absolutely hate Steam.

Probably the most ignorant post I have ever read. Why are so many Civ users so ignorant of Steam? There's this weird stigma amongst the 30-40 year old gamer crowd that they absolutely hate Steam.

Scared of new technology.

Some of the Steam-fans here are exhibiting a flagrant disrespect for other peoples opinions not to mention a complete disregard for others factual bad experiences with Steam.

This thread contains a group of people stressing the need for Steam to be optional due to their concern/discontent with Steam, be it for reasons of principles, technical or some other. This would leave people with a choice, it's called freedom and it is a good thing.

The Steam-fans however, having had good or even great previous experiences with this third-party software/distribution system appears to wish to impose their solution on everyone else implying that if we don't embrace it we're retarded in one way or another. Needless to say, such an attitude belongs in the trash bin.

I actually like steam.
I still prefer to buy boxed copies and buy very little through steam (except the bargains, HoI3 for 6.99? yes please.) However, even my non-steam supported titles are loaded through steam's interface, including my non-steam CIV.
I have boxed copies of Dragon Age, Empire TW (CE), Nap TW (CE), & MW2, but i love the fact that i can launch almost any game i have through steam's interface. Halfway through one of my friends might even message me for a session.
I've had very few problems with steam. The most regular is that steam's servers go offline for maintenance and i'm booted out of a multiplayer game (MW2, TF2, CS). This hasn't happened in any 'offline' game e.g. Dragon Age, only during multiplayer.
I will get a boxed copy of CiV but I hope it is steam supported.

I also like the mini-patch system. My games are auto-updated in small bundles, especially with regards to balancing. This is where I appreciate match data / game data, being recorded. If something is becoming the 'one true way' to win then it can be rebalanced. e.g. the dual wielded remington shotguns in MW2. There was a set-up that made them lethal at mid range, not the intention of the developers but it was discovered and abused by the community. It was relatively quickly patched out.

This thread contains a group of people stressing the need for Steam to be optional due to their concern/discontent with Steam, be it for reasons of principles, technical or some other. This would leave people with a choice, it's called freedom and it is a good thing.

Steam may be optional, but modern DRM will not be. Since pretty much all the complaints about Steam are actually complaints about modern DRM, it makes no sense.

I want to see this game powered by steam rather than powered by some other DRM system which has a very good chance of being significantly worse.

Others apparently don't want Steam because they think the DRM alternative is magical ponies.

I want Civ 5 in a box on DVD! :) Steam only should be optional, not essential.

Steam may be optional, but modern DRM will not be. Since pretty much all the complaints about Steam are actually complaints about modern DRM, it makes no sense.

I don't care about DRM as long as it is not as idiotic as that thing witch Ubisoft is pulling. What I don't like is the idea of having to register to a third party website that markets and sells PC games in order to activate my game.

Standard registration/confirmation at least registers you with the company that made the game, not a third party company that sells games.

It would be like buying a car and than having to register it at your local grocery store in order to get the keys.

Some of the Steam-fans here are exhibiting a flagrant disrespect for other peoples opinions not to mention a complete disregard for others factual bad experiences with Steam.

This thread contains a group of people stressing the need for Steam to be optional due to their concern/discontent with Steam, be it for reasons of principles, technical or some other. This would leave people with a choice, it's called freedom and it is a good thing.

The Steam-fans however, having had good or even great previous experiences with this third-party software/distribution system appears to wish to impose their solution on everyone else implying that if we don't embrace it we're retarded in one way or another. Needless to say, such an attitude belongs in the trash bin.

I would agree with anyone's decision not to go with Steam if they've burned you in the past. But most of these posts are about misconceptions (if they go under my games won't work, I can't back games up, I'd have to be online all the time to play, can only install on one computer, Steam gives you cancer, etc.). Not only are they just plain wrong, but people keep posting the same ignorant things even when there are corrections in the same thread!

Steam may be optional, but modern DRM will not be. Since pretty much all the complaints about Steam are actually complaints about modern DRM, it makes no sense.

I want to see this game powered by steam rather than powered by some other DRM system which has a very good chance of being significantly worse.

Others apparently don't want Steam because they think the DRM alternative is magical ponies.

Exactly. All the legit complaints about Steam are the same things that other DRM will do, yet your other DRM options won't give you additional features like being able to download the game whenever you want, or auto-patching, or the in-game chat network. Maybe everyone is hanging onto the very small possibility that they will decide to use magical ponies.

If you buy from Steam you will be required to connect to Steam. That's built into all Steam games. That is the DRM replacement.

That is still not answering the question of the OP. The question is if it will be required to buy from steam. Some games you may chose to buy from steam, which will result in you having to connect to steam. But you can buy it at a store which in that case you will not be required to connect to steam. Just like it was for Civ 4.

Some of the Steam-fans here are exhibiting a flagrant disrespect for other peoples opinions not to mention a complete disregard for others factual bad experiences with Steam.

Factual experiences YEARS ago. People have no clue what Steam does for gaming now.

And Windows has been over its crashing problems for years now, but that doesn't mean that the association is gone!

Some of the Steam-fans here are exhibiting a flagrant disrespect for other peoples opinions not to mention a complete disregard for others factual bad experiences with Steam.

This thread contains a group of people stressing the need for Steam to be optional due to their concern/discontent with Steam, be it for reasons of principles, technical or some other. This would leave people with a choice, it's called freedom and it is a good thing.

The Steam-fans however, having had good or even great previous experiences with this third-party software/distribution system appears to wish to impose their solution on everyone else implying that if we don't embrace it we're retarded in one way or another. Needless to say, such an attitude belongs in the trash bin.

The reasons for people wanting to not use steam are based on paranoia and misinformation.

I don't care about DRM as long as it is not as idiotic as that thing witch Ubisoft is pulling. What I don't like is the idea of having to register to a third party website that markets and sells PC games in order to activate my game.

Standard registration/confirmation at least registers you with the company that made the game, not a third party company that sells games.

It would be like buying a car and than having to register it at your local grocery store in order to get the keys.

A better analogy would be that you bought the house from someone (Firaxis), who gave the keys to a friend (Valve) who will let you in when it's confirmed you bought it.

Also, for what it's worth, Valve don't just sell games through steam. They've made some damn popular games themselves, including Half Life, Counter Strike Source, Team Fortress 2 and Portal.

I want Civ 5 in a box on DVD! :) Steam only should be optional, not essential.

You can buy it a box, and steam can still be required.

That is still not answering the question of the OP. The question is if it will be required to buy from steam. Some games you may chose to buy from steam, which will result in you having to connect to steam. But you can buy it at a store which in that case you will not be required to connect to steam. Just like it was for Civ 4.

I have boxed versions of the Orange Box, and Half Life 2 GotY edition, which require steam to be activated. Being able to buy a game in store is irrelevant to whether it requires steam or not.

Having said that, unless other games from 2k are forced to use steam to activate, it would be unlikely Civ5 will require steam.

The reasons for people wanting to not use steam are based on paranoia and misinformation.

....Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Steam Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/) and the Subscription Terms. The Steam Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Steam Software.....

Software is owned, not licensed (http://www.out-law.com/page-10421)

If Steam is required to play Civ5, I won't buy it. I prefer a retail boxed copy that I own without the requirement for an internet connection to play.

Digital distribution methods are bad for people without internet access, but fortunately they are a tiny minority. Like directx is bad for people who want to play their games on windows 3.1. There comes a time when you have to decide whether or not you want to live in a technological stone age or if you want to be able to enjoy the latest stuff. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that hard for you to acquire a stable internet connection on a system capable of playing the game.
Can we please all stop assuming that not having a good internet connection is simply a "choice" or that it's some part of being "technologically backwards". I'm going to assume right now that it's fairly easy to get a half decent internet connection in pretty much any part of the US (even if that assumption is wrong it doesn't change my point) but in many parts of the world in either more isolated areas or where the number of ISPs available is limited (meaning less competition and ridiculously expensive internet costs), having such a nice usable internet connection is a luxury.

For a game that is primarily single player, it is inexcuseable IMO that it be possible a person trying to install the game completely without internet connection be refused play just because he/she doesn't have internet at the time.
Geez, sometimes even weather or other natural occurences (e.g. lightning storms, flooding, a tree branch falling on your phone line in the backyard) can cause interruptions to internet connections

I'm currently in the process of changing internet providers and I've been told the new connection mightn't be available for 2 to 4 weeks. Funnily enough, this is a good time for me to get some games in. :) All those games that require internet to install are useless to me at the moment. I can store the 3.19 BtS patch and use it over and over without having to download it each time (I'm not sure if you have to do that with steam or not, after a windows re-install for example).


The addition of steam to the mix means that when you next come to install the game, you don't need to dig out your CD (which you've probably lost) or the CD key (which you've definitely lost) to play again.

I have never lost a CD nor a CD key. I find it extremely difficult to lose a CD key with hard copies of games because it's extremely easy to put the cd key in the box :lol:. Sometimes I might temporarily "misplace" a game box but that isn't any more likely than me losing an email or some other thing that has a key in it.
Maybe I'm forunate in this sense because I don't have kids or animals that would somehow destroy a disc, but I doubt that that's the main selling point for many people that go with steam.



For me, one of my biggest issues with using Steam (the only game I use it for is TF2 which I play rarely) is that it takes a long time to start up. Maybe you don't need to launch offline games from steam but I have not tried this obviously because TF2 is internet-only anyway (as far as I understand). If BtS required steam to launch, my modding activities would be so tedious I would probably not mod at all. Maybe steam sucks for modders? :confused:

Maybe steam sucks for modders? :confused:

Steam actually has a really nice mod distribution system.

As for the internet connection issues, you are acting like you somehow can't turn on steam's "OffLine" mode where you can play all SP games just fine without the internet. This makes your entire post moot.

Steam actually has a really nice mod distribution system.

As for the internet connection issues, you are acting like you somehow can't turn on steam's "OffLine" mode where you can play all SP games just fine without the internet. This makes your entire post moot.

Do they provide the full install of Steam on the game disc? If not, it most certainly does not make my entire point moot.

If steam was on the disc and you could activate the game using steam without being online, how can that possibly be called "online activation"? You are speaking like this "offline" mode magically makes you not require an internet connection to install the game.

As for the "modding distribution system", I'm more concerned about the the modding process itself, not the distribution. civfanatics already gives me a nice enough system for distributing mods. :)

When you mod, do you do it on a steam-version of Civ4?

In many parts of the world in either more isolated areas or where the number of ISPs available is limited (meaning less competition and ridiculously expensive internet costs), having such a nice usable internet connection is a luxury.

In many parts of the world, having a 3D graphics card is a luxury. Are you going to argue that the game should support software rendering?

In many parts of the world having a computer at all is a luxury! We should make Civilization 5 a board game instead.

The overwhelming majority of the target market have a persistent internet connection. Almost all of those who do not, still have intermittent internet access - more than enough to activate a game online.

The fact is that if you don't have internet access - none at all, even if you wanted it, there is no way you could connect to the net - you are in a minuscule minority of modern gamers.

Whether you like it or not, you ARE living in the past - be it for geographical reasons or what ever. And you are outside of the target demographic of most games which require online activation and it would be ludicrous to think that you are going to have any sway over the direction of a modern game.

Do they provide the full install of Steam on the game disc? If not, it most certainly does not make my entire point moot.

If steam was on the disc and you could activate the game using steam without being online, how can that possibly be called "online activation"? You are speaking like this "offline" mode magically makes you not require an internet connection to install the game.

There's going to be a Steam version and a non-Steam version - it's what 2k/Take-Two have been doing lately. The non-Steam version is still going to have some crappy DRM like Windows Live that requires an internet connection to activate, though. I would bet copious amounts of money on this.

If Steam is required to play Civ5, I won't buy it. I prefer a retail boxed copy that I own without the requirement for an internet connection to play.

I would guess that just about every EULA has something similar in it.

And, as I have stated at least 3 times previously in this thread, you don't need an internet connection to play. You only need one to activate the game through steam, after that you can run it in offline mode.

For a game that is primarily single player, it is inexcuseable IMO that it be possible a person trying to install the game completely without internet connection be refused play just because he/she doesn't have internet at the time.
Geez, sometimes even weather or other natural occurences (e.g. lightning storms, flooding, a tree branch falling on your phone line in the backyard) can cause interruptions to internet connections

Steam or not, it's likely to be part of the DRM on the game.

For me, one of my biggest issues with using Steam (the only game I use it for is TF2 which I play rarely) is that it takes a long time to start up. Maybe you don't need to launch offline games from steam but I have not tried this obviously because TF2 is internet-only anyway (as far as I understand). If BtS required steam to launch, my modding activities would be so tedious I would probably not mod at all. Maybe steam sucks for modders? :confused:

Steam would still have to launch, but once you launch it (in either online or offline mode) the game is available. Any computer that can run civ4 should be able to leave steam idling in the background.

I would say that steam isn't ideal for modders though.

I would agree with anyone's decision not to go with Steam if they've burned you in the past. But most of these posts are about misconceptions (if they go under my games won't work, I can't back games up, I'd have to be online all the time to play, can only install on one computer, Steam gives you cancer, etc.). Not only are they just plain wrong, but people keep posting the same ignorant things even when there are corrections in the same thread!You are quite right cspyr0, it is indeed ignorant not being able to reason. But lumping the ignorant poster(s) you're referring to into the same grouping as the rest of us is not right, nor is turning discourteous as some other posters have.

Take a look at the following quotes. Are they the result of insightful reasoning and good judgement of character or are they just ranging from nonsense to plain insulting?
Why are so many Civ users so ignorant of Steam? There's this weird stigma amongst the 30-40 year old gamer crowd that they absolutely hate Steam.Scared of new technology.Factual experiences YEARS ago. People have no clue what Steam does for gaming now.The reasons for people wanting to not use steam are based on paranoia and misinformation.
To azzaman333; Some posters did provide an substantial description of how well Steam works for them in the beginning of this thread, and I started by saying that I understood and respected the arguments given, but reasonable arguments against Steam and other DRMs can be made as well. When I told about how the release of Empire-Total War turned into a nightmare for a great number of fans/gamers, not only with the installment but also when trying to play the game, and how some of the problems was a direct result of the inclusion of Steam, you responded "then you're doing it wrong" and Badesmofu suggested that I was under some false conceptions as if none of you had actually read what I said. Granted, those installment errors are most probably fixed by now, but I am sure the producers (the CA's) loss of fans/customers is not easily repaired and the story gives a (more than just anecdotal) example of problems that can arise when involving a third party software.

To those of you advocating that DRM is the future and that we are living in the past if we don't succumb to this empirical truth I must emphasise the need to differ between digital distribution, wich most certainly will be one option in the future (any half-decent person within marketing knows the key to great sales lies in making the product easily accessible in as many ways as possible), and DRM as a copy protection wich is not at all working well at the moment and is being abandoned by some of the more clearvisioned actors in the entertainment industry. To create a nuisance for fans and cast suspicion upon 99,9 % of the audience in a futile attempt to prevent what 0,1 % will manage in a couple of hours anyway is not "the future".
I want to see this game powered by steam rather than powered by some other DRM system which has a very good chance of being significantly worse.And I rather have the flu than the chicken pox, but most of all I'd prefer not to be sick at all. Programs designed to protect the copyright of the producer won't prevent illegal copying, it will only create obstacles for normal usage (again, I do not doubt the value for some with digital distribution).

I would guess that just about every EULA has something similar in it....

I guess you missed the fact that the "something similar" as you quaintly phrase it is not legal in the United States.

I don;t use steam, and I don't intend to. Seeing as I have a reliable internet connection during classes, I can't exactly download games, even legally, from behind the massive firewall around the network.

....Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Steam Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement and the Subscription Terms. The Steam Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Steam Software.....
If Steam is required to play Civ5, I won't buy it. I prefer a retail boxed copy that I own without the requirement for an internet connection to play.

The Steam Software is licensed, not sold.

The Steam client, that you didn't pay any money for, is not being sold. It is being licensed. For free. Because it is part of a service. Because this is the only workable system for a DRM enforcement framework. How else do you suggest you enforce the banning of pirates from software with an offline mode if you are not legally allowed to prevent them from using the software? Ah, yes, of course, you must be thinking of the way the magical ponies enforce copy protection. They really have thought of everything.

And I rather have the flu than the chicken pox, but most of all I'd prefer not to be sick at all. Programs designed to protect the copyright of the producer won't prevent illegal copying, it will only create obstacles for normal usage (again, I do not doubt the value for some with digital distribution).

Well, you keep on praying for the magical pony protection™ option.

Regardless of how much you want the game to come with some fictitious form of perfect copy protection, the rest of us here in reality are going to just have to make do with the fact that if they chose Steam as their distribution method, it would probably be the best option available to them.

And by "available to them" I'm only including options that actually exist. Sorry.

The Steam Software is licensed, not sold....

Then I can sell games I have purchased from Steam/Valve to another gamer?

You misunderstand me Chalks. I'm saying as there is no such thing as a perfect copy protection they should let this DRM-thing go altogether. It doesn't serve it's purpose. In fact it is proven to be contra productive if anything.

Then I can sell games I have purchased from Steam/Valve to another gamer?

That has nothing to do with the licensing terms of the steam interface.

You won't be able to resell any game that uses modern DRM.

You misunderstand me Chalks. I'm saying as there is no such thing as a perfect copy protection they should let this DRM-thing go altogether. It doesn't serve it's purpose. In fact it is proven to be contra productive if anything.

They're not going to, though, thus you're living in a fantasy land if you think the question is anything other than "should they use steam or another DRM provider".

You can argue that nobody will ever design an effective DRM system in the history of time (using your all seeing crystal ball) and that games bound to the steam platform or similar suffer worse piracy than popular games that have no copy protection at all (using the studies that you seem to have forgotten to cite) all you want.

That isn't going to change the fact that people in this thread are acting like the question is "would you like steam or complete absence of DRM?". That isn't the question. That would be a stupid question.

Nobody is asking "cake or death?"

That has nothing to do with the licensing terms of the steam interface.

You won't be able to resell any game that uses modern DRM.

That violates First-sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale). What you really mean is that we gamers won't be able to resell any STEAM game.

That violates First-sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale). What you really mean is that we gamers won't be able to resell any STEAM game.

Steam is the only form of online registration DRM?

Steam is the only form of online registration DRM?

I don't speak for every gaming publisher and neither should you or anyone else.

Nobody is asking "cake or death?"Eeehmm...cake, please. :)

Your references to crystal balls and magical ponies are somewhat amusing but completely without substance in terms of argument. If you want to point out that nobody can forsee the future then address those that have tried.
You can argue that nobody will ever design an effective DRM system in the history of time (using your all seeing crystal ball) and that games bound to the steam platform or similar suffer worse piracy than popular games that have no copy protection at all (using the studies that you seem to have forgotten to cite) all you want.
Spore's piracy problem. (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html) Note that this article was published shortly after Spore's release, and that the number of illegal downloads from there just went trough the roof.

Here are some excerpts from speeches given by Cory Doctorow on DRM in 2005 and 2008. I work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a member-supported
charitable organization that works to uphold the public interest in
technology law, policy and standards. For nearly four years, I've
spent my time attending DRM standards meetings, consortia, and treaty
meetings at the United Nations. In that time, again and again, I've
seen tech giants like HP take suicidal measures to voluntarily cripple
their products to make them more palatable to a few entertainment
companies, even though this measure makes them less palatable to
virtually all of your paying customers.
Nothing epitomized this more than Carly Florina's inaugural CES
address in which she promised to put DRM in every HP product. Reading
that in my office in San Francisco (I live in London now), I thought,
well, hell, I guess I'm not buying any more HP products. I'm pretty
sure I'm not the only one.

I've had innumerable conversations with engineers, lawyers and execs
about DRM, but it's rare that I get the chance to systematically
explain how DRM fails as a technology, as a moral proposition, and as
a commercial initiative. I'm grateful that HP has given me that chance
today. I'm looking forward to your questions after my talk.

Now, onto the talk, in which I will try to address the security, moral
and commercial aspects of DRM.

THREAT MODELS

There is no such thing as "security" in the abstract. You can't be
made "secure." You can only be made "secure" *against a specific
attack*. All security discussions must begin with an analysis of a
threat and a proceed to address that threat with countermeasures.

In discussions of DRM, radically different threat-models are usually
conflated to sow confusion and to disguise the implausibility of DRM.
In the paper at hand (as in many other cases), privacy-protection is
conflated with use-restriction. But these have totally different
threat-models:

* Privacy

In privacy scenarios, there is a sender, a receiver and an attacker.
For example, you want to send your credit-card to an online store. An
attacker wants to capture the number. Your security here concerns
itself with protecting the integrity and secrecy of a message in
transit. It makes no attempt to restrict the disposition of your
credit-card number after it is received by the store.

* Use-restriction

In DRM use-restriction scenarios, there is only a sender and an
attacker, *who is also the intended recipient of the message*. I
transmit a song to you so that you can listen to it, but try to stop
you from copying it. This requires that your terminal obey my
commands, even when you want it to obey *your* commands.

Understood this way, use-restriction and privacy are antithetical. As
is often the case in security, increasing the security on one axis
weakens the security on another. A terminal that is capable of being
remotely controlled by a third party who is adversarial to its owner
is a terminal that is capable of betraying its owner's privacy in
numerous ways without the owner's consent or knowledge. A terminal
that can *never* be used to override its owner's wishes is by
definition a terminal that is better at protecting its owner's
privacy.

THE DRM THREAT MODEL

<snip>

The presence of DRM *cannot* entice a user to make use of the
conditional access system to acquire his media. Indeed, DRM acts as a
disincentive (there is no user who woke up this morning crying out for
a way to do less with her music). Where users buy DRM-locked files, it
is *in spite of* the DRM, or in ignorance of the DRM, but never
*because* of the DRM.

<snip>

Big Champagne, a company that monitors P2P networks, says that iTunes-only
tracks (e.g. assets that are only released within DRM wrappers)
typically appear on P2P networks less than three minutes after they
are released to the iTunes Music Store.
To succeed in an attack against a DRM system, a user need not know how
to break DRM, she only needs to know how to search Google or another
general-purpose search tool for a copy that someone else has already
rendered in the clear.

<snip>

DRM AND NON-COPYRIGHT POLICY ENFORCEMENT

Many of the restrictions that DRM is used to enforce are unrelated to
copyright, and no DRM system can accurately model copyright, which is
highly fact-specific.

Copyright is a limited monopoly over the public copying, performance,
display and adaptation of original works. Copyright governs the
ability of commercial entities and a few noncommercial entities to
make copies, display them, etc.

Copyright does *not* confer the right to control "remote viewing" --
the ability to store a show in one place and watch it in another. It
does *not* confer the right to control timeshifting. It doesn't confer
the right to control regional playback, as with DVDs that can only be
viewed on a US player or a European players. Copyright does *not*
confer the right to control re-sale or lending of lawfully acquired
works.
Copyright is used to extend the creator's monopoly into all kinds of
realms, though. Take the so-called "Authorized Domain", a trendy DRM
concept that confers on rightsholders the right to define valid
familial arrangements, something so far remote from copyright as to be
in an entirely different universe.

<snip>

DRM AS A NEGOTIATION

DRM is often characterized as the outcome of a negotiation: "You may
have access to my song if you accept my restrictions." But DRM always
gives rightsholders the ability to unilaterally renegotiate the terms
of the deal to take away rights you acquired when you got your device
and media.

<snip>

The right to store your music and movies, the right to watch your
movies in any country you find yourself in, the right to timeshift and
space-shift, the right to re-sell, the right to loan, the right to
share your media with your family regardless of your familial
arrangements -- these rights all belong to the public. Copyright law
reserves these rights from control by rightsholders.
DRM is a mechanism for unbalancing copyright, for betraying the
statutory limitations on copyright, for undermining the law itself. By
granting rightsholders the ability to unilaterally confiscate public
rights under copyright, DRM takes value out of the public's pocket and
delivers it to rightsholders.

<snip>

The gradual tightening of DRM screws will alienate ever-larger groups
of customers. There are some who believe that if you turn the heat up
gradually enough, the customer will never notice that she has been
boiled. History suggests otherwise. The repeated disastrous attempts
to introduce DRMed CDs into the marketplace tells us once a customer
is accustomed to a use, she is unlikely to accept a product that
restricts it.

<snip>

CONCLUSIONS

I can hardly fault HP for embracing the received wisdom on DRM.
However, the received wisdom is rarely a path to commercial success.
In the global marketplace, HP has numerous competitors, from giants to
smaller, nimbler firms -- and if any company has an appreciation of
the potential of two guys in a garage, it should be this one.

The question isn't *whether* one of these companies will defect from
the DRM game, but *when*. The first to market with better, more
powerful, more capable devices will emerge the clear winner.

<snip>

<snip>

The first one is something called Digital Rights Management technology, which is
predicated on the idea that you can give someone material and then control how
they use it, and stop them from copying it: that you can deliver it to their
computer but then stop them from using it, and this fails some fairly elementary
logical examination. If you know a little about cryptography, it just all kind
of falls to bits.

The historic model for cryptography involves an attacker, a receiver and a
sender. And the attacker, the receiver and the sender are in this triad where
the sender and the receiver want to get a message to each other without the
attacker receiving it, or decrypting it - knowing what the message is. So
everybody is assumed to know what the message is in its scrambled form. This
dates back to the Bletchley Park era in WWII when we went from delivering
messages on paper, or in the era of the Caesar we deliver the messages by
shaving the head of the messenger and tattooing it on their scalp, and waiting
for their hair to grow back and then sending them off. So the message was a
secret back then. After the advent of radio it was kind of a non-starter to
assume that the message itself was secret. So we presume that everyone is in
possession of the message - the attacker, the sender and the receiver - in its
scrambled form.

We also presume that everybody knows the system by which the message was
scrambled, the 'cypher' - and this again dates back to the Bletchley Park era -
the WWII era of codebreaking where it was discovered that the mathematicians who
developed the German cipher, the 'Enigma' cypher, had made some flaws in their
maths that allowed the Polish and British cryptographers working on this to
uncover those flaws and silently decrypt all of their messages, and chortle as
they read about what Hitler was having for breakfast that morning.

At the end of the war, the cryptographers who figured this stuff out gave
themselves a long hard look, and realised that anyone could design a security
system that was so fiendishly clever that they themselves couldn't break it, but
unless they were the smartest person in the world, all they'd determined was
that they had built a security system that people dumber than them would be
foiled by, and it would do them no good if anyone smarter than them happened to
come along. So they hit on the strategy of disclosing the system by which the
messages were scrambled, the cypher, sending them out to as many mathematicians
and smart people as they could find, in the hopes that those people would
discover the flaws in it, so that they could be fixed.

This is standard operating procedure today. If you use a cypher, chances are
that you use a cypher that everyone else uses, it's publicly known, it's
publicly disclosed. The MI5, the CIA, Bin Laden, Amazon.com, your bank and
child pornographers all use the same cypher, because to use your own cypher that
you haven't subjected to this kind of rigorous, long-term attack by smart
mathematicians is to invite the fate of the axis powers during WWII.

So you assume that the attacker, the sender and the receiver have the scrambled
message and the cypher, so how do you keep the message secret from the attacker?
Well, the way that you keep it secret is by having a secret key - a very short
piece of information that, when combined with the cypher and the cyphertext,
pops out the cleartext. So you have the message in cyphertext, you have the
cypher, and you have the key - and if you have all three of those, you can make
the message pop out, but if you are lacking one of them then the message is kept
a secret. So the key is known to the sender and the receiver and kept a secret
from the attacker.

Well, that works in regular cryptography. It's how you do your online banking,
it's how Al-Qaeda does its online stuff, its how MI5 communicates, its how we
all do our thing.

In DRM, though, the idea is that you can take the attacker (that's you, the
person who owns the DVD, or owns the iPhone app, or owns the iTune download or
owns the Zune song, or owns the game on your Xbox) - you can take the attacker,
and give the attacker the cyphertext (that's the scrambled message on the DVD,
or the game, or the iTune), let that attacker know what the cypher is (because
that's published), and then embed the key for decrypting the message on the
attacker's device. So in your iPhone, in your PC, on your Xbox, is the key
that's used to decrypt the message, and then what you can do is pretend that the
attacker who has the key sat there in his sitting room, where he has access to
every conceivable piece of equipment without any oversight or surveillance, will
never, ever, ever get the key out of the device. That no-one will ever extract
the key from the device and publish it on the Internet, and fifty million other
people will get access to it, and then everyone will sit around decoding your
messages, and you'll be Hitler in a bunker, and they'll be Bletchley Park. This
turns out not to work very well.

There's a reason that giant IT companies and entertainment companies spend a
decade and a billion dollars developing these fiendishly clever DRM schemes that
are then broken by teenagers in a morning for fun. It's not because the people
who work for these companies are stupid, it's because they're trying to keep
something a secret after telling you what it is, and it's very hard to keep
something a secret when you actually tell millions of people this bit of
information in the form of a little hidden bit on their Xbox, or what have you.

So to show you how vulnerable this is, a guy (I assume it's a guy) named
Muesli64 - a person of such fearsome ability that he named himself after a
breakfast cereal - extracted a key from the DVDHD player. And it's worth noting
here, that where you have a DRM that's across multiple devices like a DVD player
where you've got hundreds of DVD vendors, each of which embed the key in their
device, all you need to do is break the weakest of those DVD players - the worst
implemented one - and they all fall down. You can now extract the keys from all
the DVDs. So he found a software DVDHD player, extracted the keys and published
them online. It was hilarious, the entertainment industry argued that this long
number - 128 bit number - was a trade secret and that no-one was allowed to
publish it, and there were like fourteen million copies on the Internet, and
they were still saying no-one's allowed to publish it because it's still secret,
and it was kind of ridiculous and funny for a couple of days.

And then someone sent an email to Muesli64 or on a message board said, "You
know, I don't have a DVDHD player, I've got a Blu-Ray player. Do you think you
could break that?" And he said, "I don't actually have a Blu-Ray player, so I
don't know, but tell you what; if you just send me the contents of RAM while
you're playing a Blu-Ray movie on your computer - just send me the RAM dump, the
two gigabytes out of your computer's RAM - I'll just have a look and see what I
can do." And what he did was he reasoned that somewhere in this two gigabytes
was the 128 bit key that was decrypting the video on the screen, so he started
at position one, and took the first 128 bits and tried to decrypt the rest of
memory to see if a DVD fell out, and none did, so then he moved to position two,
position three... It took him about two hours. He'd never actually seen or
touched a Blu-Ray player and like Mycroft Holmes sitting in his cellar he
managed to undo the workings of half a decade's worth of security research in
the seriousness and gravitas that accompanies a man who names himself after a
breakfast cereal.

<snip>

Eeehmm...cake, please. :)
[...]

You can argue that some DRM methods do not work - I would completely agree.

But you cannot argue that a DRM game will be pirated MORE because it has DRM. Spore was massively hyped, if it had no DRM it would have been pirated up to the eyeballs. I guarantee that more copies were sold purely due to the fact that 12 year old kids weren't able to just lend the CDs to all their friends so they all had the game instantly like we used to do back in the days before all of this.

Spore's DRM was really really bad, too. Fundamentally broken, and undermining the rights of the user to play the damn game they paid for.

But that's the sort of thing people are encouraging by saying they won't buy the game if it uses Steam. Steam does DRM well. Infinite, convenient installs without the need for disks, offline mode... it's more convenient for the end user than having to worry about CDs.

But by saying "I hate steam, don't use steam" - all you're saying is "use a different form of DRM that is probably going to be worse". They'll have a meeting about what DRM they want to use in the game, they'll see the big anti steam thread and they'll say - "well, not steam, lets see what else is on the market". Or they will ignore you. I hope they ignore you, I hope to god they do.

By all means, rant about how much you hate DRM in general if you have the overwhelming desire to resell your games. But picking on the best main stream modern DRM system out there, when there are so many utterly terrible ones, is crazy.

DRM is pretty ineffective against piracy. I actually wrote a paper for a computer ethics class about DRM and how the public is distracted from its real purpose - to limit the second-hand market. While profits lost from piracy are always kinda fuzzy, losses due to your selling your game to a friend for $10 are huge in comparison (especially if we're talking about consoles) since these are people that are willing to spend money for the game, but now the publisher isn't getting any of it.

There would be a giant backlash if they came out and said that DRM was there to keep you from selling the stuff you own, though, so instead they wave their hands and scream "PIRATES!!". So when you hear about a new scheme (such as the limited number of installs), think about how it limits resale. IMO this is the main goal of DRM.

I never resell my games, so Steam doesn't bother me in that sense, but I can see why it might bother someone else. I have lent games to friends on Steam before though - to do that I just give them access to my account and they can play whatever games I have on there.

But you cannot argue that a DRM game will be pirated MORE because it has DRM.When people are saying they downloaded a crack to circumvent the DRM that greatly disturbed them then I can and will argue that a DRM game will be pirated more because it has DRM.
But by saying "I hate steam, don't use steam" - all you're saying is "use a different form of DRM that is probably going to be worse".Please don't make up comments and suggest they are mine. Feel free to quote me, though.

Steam might very well be a convenient option for those who prefer digital distribution. But I and many others would prefer a hard back copy and without any programs that messes with our usage. That is what I've been saying all along.

They'll have a meeting about what DRM they want to use in the game, they'll see the big anti steam thread and they'll say - "well, not steam, lets see what else is on the market[...]people in this thread are acting like the question is "would you like steam or complete absence of DRM?". That isn't the question. That would be a stupid question.How would you know what questions the people at Firaxis and 2K are asking themselves? Maybe they aren't contemplating the absence of DRM. But they should. It would not be a stupid question. Judging from what Cory Doctorow (an expert on the matter) says, it would be a very wise consideration.
By all means, rant about how much you hate DRM in general if you have the overwhelming desire to resell your gamesWhen did I say something about reselling games?
Chalks, not only is a great deal of what you're posting without substance, seemingly with the only intent of throwing in a punchline, but it also comes off as slightly aggressive, so if anyone here is ranting it is you. :dunno:

Do they provide the full install of Steam on the game disc? If not, it most certainly does not make my entire point moot.


Yes, you can back up steam games to a disc or harddrive. I do it. Thus, your entire post IS moot.

I have boxed versions of the Orange Box, and Half Life 2 GotY edition, which require steam to be activated. Being able to buy a game in store is irrelevant to whether it requires steam or not.


That's not what I said and that is not my point. The person I quoted was saying that because you could buy Civ 5 on steam that means you must have steam to play it, and I'm saying that is not the case. Some games you can buy on steam, but you are not required to log on to steam to play them if you buy it from a different source than steam, such as a store.

To azzaman333; Some posters did provide an substantial description of how well Steam works for them in the beginning of this thread, and I started by saying that I understood and respected the arguments given, but reasonable arguments against Steam and other DRMs can be made as well. When I told about how the release of Empire-Total War turned into a nightmare for a great number of fans/gamers, not only with the installment but also when trying to play the game, and how some of the problems was a direct result of the inclusion of Steam, you responded "then you're doing it wrong" and Badesmofu suggested that I was under some false conceptions as if none of you had actually read what I said. Granted, those installment errors are most probably fixed by now, but I am sure the producers (the CA's) loss of fans/customers is not easily repaired and the story gives a (more than just anecdotal) example of problems that can arise when involving a third party software.

I don't know exactly what the problems with E:TW were. I would definitively say that it wasn't steam's fault, because no other game has had those problems.

I guess you missed the fact that the "something similar" as you quaintly phrase it is not legal in the United States.

Considering Valve are based in the US, I highly doubt it is.

Then I can sell games I have purchased from Steam/Valve to another gamer?

Reselling used games hurts devs more than piracy, and most EULAs will say that you can't resell them anyway, steam or not.

When people are saying they downloaded a crack to circumvent the DRM that greatly disturbed them then I can and will argue that a DRM game will be pirated more because it has DRM.

A) Downloading a crack to circumvent DRM != pirating a game.
B) How many people download cracks to circumvent steam? And continue to play the game online? And don't end up getting their steam accounts locked?
C) Even if this quote made sense in the way you probably intended it to (ie, people have told you that they pirated the game because they didn't want DRM), it still doesn't follow that more people will pirate the game for this reason than would pirate it because it's free that way. There is a massive, baseless leap of logic there.

Additionally, games that have online play via steam cannot be pirated with these features intact. That means that anyone who wants to play with online features cannot pirate the game, thus reducing piracy even if the DRM is cracked.

Steam might very well be a convenient option for those who prefer digital distribution. But I and many others would prefer a hard back copy and without any programs that messes with our usage. That is what I've been saying all along.

On my shelf to my right is my boxed copy of half life 2. It is a steam powered game. I have a hardback copy of it. Having a hard copy of a game has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is seam powered. Nothing what so ever.

You may want no DRM on your games, but you're not going to get it. Civ 5 will have DRM and they've already got a contract to distribute the game via steam.

Looking at the options we have:
A) 2k games buck the trend, becoming pretty much the only publisher to release a recent big name title without DRM
B) 2k go to a third party DRM provider and get a DRM solution from them. This solution will probably be worse than steam - and even if it is as good as steam, it still means you'll have to have some crappy program that only supports one game running in your system. They will also have to rework the DRM for steam distribution, which we know is going to happen.
C) 2k write their own DRM. As above, but less likely because they probably have better things to do with their time
D) 2k get steam to handle the DRM, since they've already got a contract to distribute via steam, so getting a DRM tie in would be very simple indeed. Then all their updates will be automated too for every distribution of the game.

What do you think is going to happen? Not what you wish would happen, but what you think is actually going to be the reality.

I would love them to not use DRM at all - simply to appease guys like you - if I thought it would mean that the game still did really well and not be plagued by piracy. I just don't think this is a realistic idea. (I would still buy the game via steam even if this was the case, because I don't intend to give it assist any one in pirating it and I am in possession of an internet connection)

I have a laptop that is my primary CIV playing PC.
My laptop does not support an internet connection.
I want to play CIV5 on my laptop.

How do I do that if the game requires steam?

Case closed.

Most EULAs already breach the US Doctrine of First Sale anyway and that's the least of their legal worries.

The ignorance of some people about the way piracy works appalls me. The professional pirates aren't circumvented by DRM and even if they were, it wouldn't do anyone any good. Those pirates WOULD NOT PAY FOR A GAME EVEN IF THEY COULD NOT GET A PIRATED VERSION; they would simply go without. Also, did you know that many people who bought a legitimate copy of Spore installed a pirated copy just so the DRM wouldn't get installed on their computers (my solution for that problem is to install the game in a sandbox (http://www.sandboxie.com) so the DRM won't corrupt my Windows installation). Piracy only very rarely (if ever) results in lost sales. It's a shame few people realize this.

And to those of you who keep pointing out that steam can be required even on a boxed copy completely miss the point - there are those of us who want a boxed copy THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE STEAM; there's more to this debate than digital download vs. hardcopy, or even Internet access. I want to go without steam simply because I want to manage my games myself; I don't want another application running in the background, and I don't want to have to launch through another application.

And to those of you who keep pointing out that steam can be required even on a boxed copy completely miss the point - there are those of us who want a boxed copy THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE STEAM;

No, I'm not missing the point of people saying "I prefer a hard copy" if a hard copy is possible. If they said "I want a copy that does not require steam" then I'd be missing the point. But that's not what they're saying, they're saying they want a hard copy. Maybe they also don't want steam, but the hard copy part of it is utterly irrelevant, so why mention it unless you are under the mistaken impression that steam means no hard copy?

I want to go without steam simply because I want to manage my games myself; I don't want another application running in the background, and I don't want to have to launch through another application.

That is completely arbitrary. Why don't you want to? What if the game has an auto updating patcher that the game runs through, then what? Do you object to this too on the same grounds? Because what, running a binary through a launcher is bad for some reason?

Steam currently has a memory footprint on my system of 15mb. Barely even a blip - so I know you're not coming from a resource hog perspective. It adds no significant loading time onto games, so you're not coming from that perspective either. It doesn't have to load on startup so you're not coming from the perspective of disliking superfluous memory resident processes. You don't even need to load the game through the steam interface, since a normal shortcut to the game works just fine and gets installed on your desktop by default.

So what is it?

Can we stop with the Steam lovefest? Some people don't like Steam; some people have never used Steam; not everybody either needs to or wants to.

I don't like having extra applications running in the background regardless of memory usage - call it OCD if you want. Maybe my perspective is skewed by the fact that civ is the only game I play.

I didn't know the normal shortcut works (don't use steam). I use Vista's (soon to be 7's) games explorer, which has the added benefit of being able to right click on the icon and select which mod I want to run (I have it configured to display as a menu on the start menu, so I don't even need to open it up). I've always thought of games as just like another system application in terms of management, not a special category in and of themselves.

Agree with deanej :yup:.


I have never lost a CD nor a CD key. I find it extremely difficult to lose a CD key with hard copies of games because it's extremely easy to put the cd key in the box :lol:. Sometimes I might temporarily "misplace" a game box but that isn't any more likely than me losing an email or some other thing that has a key in it.


:yup: has also never happened to me.


And the point is also:
If i lose my disc/cd key, it's my fault.

If my internet connection crashes, if the additional needed programs/services do not work, if the servers are down, so i can't play my game, it's not my fault, and i'll become sure f***ing angry because of that.

My CD, my control.

Can we stop with the Steam lovefest? Some people don't like Steam; some people have never used Steam; not everybody either needs to or wants to.

I think you may be in the wrong thread...

I don't like having extra applications running in the background regardless of memory usage - call it OCD if you want. Maybe my perspective is skewed by the fact that civ is the only game I play.

I didn't know the normal shortcut works (don't use steam). I use Vista's (soon to be 7's) games explorer, which has the added benefit of being able to right click on the icon and select which mod I want to run (I have it configured to display as a menu on the start menu, so I don't even need to open it up). I've always thought of games as just like another system application in terms of management, not a special category in and of themselves.

Go buy the orange box (http://store.steampowered.com/sub/469/). Fantastic value of great games that no gamer should be without - and as an additional bonus, you'll get a taste of how steam works.

For me, it just sits in my system tray and I play my steam games as if it wasn't there. Why do I keep it in my system tray loading on start up? Partly because of the auto patching, but also because I load up the main steam window every few days to check what's on offer. Picking up a really great game for like 75% off is worth 15mb out of my 8 gb.

Also, being able to pick up older games for as little as $5 makes up for not being able to resell games, imo. Not that I ever do resell games.

It's not at all clear (as some would like to pretend) that you have the right to resell your games anyway. Not at all clear.

And for the 50th time, if your internet connection goes down, or Steam servers have some downtime, it does not affect your ability to play your games. Offline mode. I'm not exactly sure how long you can go without having to actually log on, but I've had 2 week stints of no internet on a few occaisions recently, and they did not affect my ability to play my games.

For those people without internet connections, all you need to be able to do when buying a boxed copy of a game that requires Steam is log on to the internet once to activate the new game. This is not uncommon these days. Take a look at what Ubisoft are trying to force onto their customers now. That is some outrageous s***.

This post is to clear up information about Steam, since 90% of you seem to be misinformed. This is a list of what steam is and isn't; nothing more, nothing less.

Steam & Offline Gaming

Steam does not require you be online to play your games. It works just fine in offline modes as well.

Note: Certain games from Ubisoft REQUIRE you be online; this requirement is seperete from the steam requirement, and has nothing to do with Steam, but has to do with Ubisoft.

Steam & Digital vs Hard Copy

Steam does not care if you buy a hard copy or digitally download it. They offer both for all Valve games, as do most other companies. Games like Half Life are available in hard copy form. Certain Independent games are only available through Steam, but no big name games are.

Steam & Game Backups

Steam does allow users to install games as many times as they want. Steam allows users to make DVD backup of games, and has a rather nice utility for this.

Note: Certain companies, like EA, may have an install limit for games. This limit is has nothing to do with Steam, it has to do with EA.

Steam & DRM

Steam is not a form of DRM. You do not have to log in to play your games. It's a tool to allow the gaming community better organize through groups and events. You can create user groups and set up events to encourage MP tournaments.

Steam vs Retail Prices

Games on steam almost always cost the same as or less then retail copies. Steam usually has sales every week, especially around holidays. Big name games often are on sale as well.

Steam & Auto-Updating

Users can turn this off in the properties management tab. It's simply there to make it easier for users to keep their games up to date.

Steam & Reselling Games

Steam does NOT allow users to sell their steam games or accounts. This is because when you purchase a game, you aren't buying a game, you are buying a licence to play the game. According to Steam EULA, reselling this licence is illegal.

Steam & Delayed Release of Certain Games

Certain games have had delayed releases on Steam. Most notably, CoD: MW2. This has nothing to do with Steam, and Steam did have the correct date for the release on their store. This is because Retailers would not carry the game unless Steam delayed the release, because modern Retailers are afraid of losing their market to Steam.

Note:
I am not for or against steam. Steam is simply a tool to be used. Being for or against it is illogical, it's like being for or against the use of a shovel, or a pencil.

I have two experiences with Steam, neither of them in person and neither of them positive. First time I heard of it was here on CFC: some people who had bought the game through Steam and couldn't get a mod (I think it was either FFH or Star Trek) to work. I can't remember if they managed to get it to work, but it does leave a negative impression. Second experience (again, not firsthand) is with Tales of Monkey Island. You can buy the game both from Steam and from the company's own site, however: Steam took a few days putting new chapters up for download and you don't get the free DVD-copy (whenever they finally release that, that is). Now I'm sure there are people with positive experiences with Steam, but given the choice between Steam and non-Steam civ V, I'll choose the latter anytime.

I have a laptop that is my primary CIV playing PC.
My laptop does not support an internet connection.
I want to play CIV5 on my laptop.

How do I do that if the game requires steam?

Case closed.

You call yourself a techpriest aspirant but you won't allow your machine to participate in the holy communion of the internet?

Steam & DRM

Steam is not a form of DRM. You do not have to log in to play your games. It's a tool to allow the gaming community better organize through groups and events. You can create user groups and set up events to encourage MP tournaments.


Much as I'm bigging up Steam in this thread, this point really isn't true.

Although Steam can be used to manage any game and has lots of useful and cool functionality on top of the framework, such as chat and social networking - it is a form of DRM for many games.

You cannot install a steam powered game without registering it against your account nor can you buy a steam distributed game without binding it to your account.

That is DRM - a digital method of enforcing who can and cannot access your game.

Much as I'm bigging up Steam in this thread, this point really isn't true.

Although Steam can be used to manage any game and has lots of useful and cool functionality on top of the framework, such as chat and social networking - it is a form of DRM for many games.

You cannot install a steam powered game without registering it against your account nor can you buy a steam distributed game without binding it to your account.

That is DRM - a digital method of enforcing who can and cannot access your game.

Not really; it's like saying all games have DRM, because you need to have a computer first to play them.

Steam accounts are free, and registering it is painless and takes mere seconds.

Steam says release date is sept 1st... 6 months 2 weeks and 22 hours from now. Is the actual date or are they just taking a guess?

..... I have the feeling you don't understand what DRM is.

Either that or I'm going to need someone to come into this thread and explain to me what you just said, because I really don't understand it.

Without DRM, an infinite number of people can play one copy of a game at the same time with no restrictions. DRM is designed to prevent this.

It does not matter that an account is free - it is about identifying individual owners of games and ensuring that they each own a copy.

Steam says release date is sept 1st... 6 months 2 weeks and 22 hours from now. Is the actual date or are they just taking a guess?

Just a guess. They have said Q4 2010, so Steam has pegged it at the first day of Q4 2010 until they get a better date. I think they do it for all games that are added to the list with no confirmed date.

Without DRM, an infinite number of people can play one copy of a game at the same time with no restrictions. DRM is designed to prevent this.


This happens even with DRM. One guy cracks the DRM, gives his cracked version to the pirates.

This happens even with DRM. One guy cracks the DRM, gives his cracked version to the pirates.

Any DRM that uses online activation as its verification method can only be cracked by actively preventing the game from contacting the verification servers. If the verification servers are required for online play, this aspect of the game is crippled in all cracked versions providing a significant deterrent or at the very least incentive to acquire a legitimate copy.

Anyway, I think you have misread what I said. I said DRM is designed to prevent multiple people from playing the same copy of the game without purchasing it - the fact that it does not always perform this task does not change its nature. A car key is designed to prevent people from just driving off with your car. Someone's ability to hotwire your car does not change the purpose of the key.

Any programming can be circumvented with enough effort. Clearly DRM does not stop people from doing what it's supposed to prevent. Therefore it should be removed as the benefit to the company is very small and the detriment for consumers ranges from a slight inconvenience to very large. All modern forms of DRM use invasive techniques (the same ones used by malware) to gain control of your computer; some are just do more harm than others.

PS: not everyone cares about online play. Also I can think of more ways for a brillent programmer to get around DRM that uses online activation that don't break online play.

Treating average users as criminals is not the answer.

Treating average users as criminals is not the answer.

Playing devil's advocate here:

Why not? You do this to everyone else every day. Don't you lock your door when you leave your home? Don't you trust the average person? Why treat average people like criminals?

Any programming can be circumvented with enough effort. Clearly DRM does not stop people from doing what it's supposed to prevent. Therefore it should be removed as the benefit to the company is very small and the detriment for consumers ranges from a slight inconvenience to very large. All modern forms of DRM use invasive techniques (the same ones used by malware) to gain control of your computer; some are just do more harm than others.

Not any programming can be circumvented with enough effort. Sure, client side programming can be circumvented, but good luck connecting to a server that requires validation that you are unable to provide. When you manage that, I expect your next move to be to clear out everyone's online bank accounts, since after all, that's just programming too.

PS: not everyone cares about online play. Also I can think of more ways for a brillent programmer to get around DRM that uses online activation that don't break online play.

Doesn't matter if not everyone cares about online play. The idea is to REDUCE piracy. Not be the ultimate silver bullet cure.

Also, there is no way you can get a client to play on an official server that requires validation without flaws in the authentication process. Your fantastic spelling of the word "brilliant" aside, I really doubt you can think of any way you can bypass client server certification because otherwise the same concepts could be used to break any encryption method used for any identity verification on the web. Banks, online stores... everything.

Well, in the case of locking up your home etc. it only inconveniences someone if they're doing something wrong.

There have been many cases where DRM has harmed legitimate uses. I belive there are many cases where people can't play civ because they have stuff like Nero. Many games can't be played if you have process explorer open. After I installed the Railroads demo (btw, demos still install DRM on the computer, it just doesn't check for anything before letting you launch the game), my XP desktop started having random blue screens of death on startup and shutdown. The DVD drive on that computer also lost the ability to read DVDs around the same time (it was a gradual loss, with the drive being spotty at first, so I'm not 100% positive that was SecuROM, but I consider it likely). The blue screens weren't fixed until I reformatted the hard drive.

@Chalks: I guess it depends on how the validation is set up. If it's server side it would be more difficult, but I imagine the validation could be spoofed with enough effort.

You're ignoring my point that pirates will just go without if they can't get an illegal free copy and would have to get a legitimate version.

There have been many cases where DRM has harmed legitimate uses.

Have you ever locked yourself outside your car before? Your own DRM hurt you. ;)

I have a laptop that is my primary CIV playing PC.
My laptop does not support an internet connection.
I want to play CIV5 on my laptop.

How do I do that if the game requires steam?

Case closed.

How do you do that if the game requires online activation that isn't steam based?

Because based on recent DRM trends, developers will force you to activate your game online in one way or another. Whether it's steam or something else is irrelevant.

Also, I find it extremely hard to believe there are laptops that would be able to play Civ5 that are unable to connect to the internet.

Any programming can be circumvented with enough effort. Clearly DRM does not stop people from doing what it's supposed to prevent. Therefore it should be removed as the benefit to the company is very small and the detriment for consumers ranges from a slight inconvenience to very large. All modern forms of DRM use invasive techniques (the same ones used by malware) to gain control of your computer; some are just do more harm than others.

PS: not everyone cares about online play. Also I can think of more ways for a brillent programmer to get around DRM that uses online activation that don't break online play.

Treating average users as criminals is not the answer.

WRONG!!! Steam in fact must knowingly be installed onto a computer, can easily be uninstalled, and even turned off. These 3 things are something malware doesn't have. But just so I can piss on the anti-Steam crowd and say its raining Stardock DRM is no way malware for you to put legit CD key to get updates.

Any programming can get circumvented? HAHAHAHA, only client side programming can, good luck reprogramming the servers.

I don't like having extra applications running in the background regardless of memory usage - call it OCD if you want. Maybe my perspective is skewed by the fact that civ is the only game I play.

I didn't know the normal shortcut works (don't use steam). I use Vista's (soon to be 7's) games explorer, which has the added benefit of being able to right click on the icon and select which mod I want to run (I have it configured to display as a menu on the start menu, so I don't even need to open it up). I've always thought of games as just like another system application in terms of management, not a special category in and of themselves.

First Steam can be turn on/off whenever you want and second the thing uses no memory (okay uses like a kilo but thats nothing)

I have two experiences with Steam, neither of them in person and neither of them positive. First time I heard of it was here on CFC: some people who had bought the game through Steam and couldn't get a mod (I think it was either FFH or Star Trek) to work. I can't remember if they managed to get it to work, but it does leave a negative impression. Second experience (again, not firsthand) is with Tales of Monkey Island. You can buy the game both from Steam and from the company's own site, however: Steam took a few days putting new chapters up for download and you don't get the free DVD-copy (whenever they finally release that, that is). Now I'm sure there are people with positive experiences with Steam, but given the choice between Steam and non-Steam civ V, I'll choose the latter anytime.

Yes games brought off Steam treat mods differently and most don't realize this screw up the install. In most cases with the second its because of the developer and other D2D services then Valve's fault when something gets released. Not getting a free DVD-copy is the developer's fault not Valve's.

And the point is also:
If i lose my disc/cd key, it's my fault.

If my internet connection crashes, if the additional needed programs/services do not work, if the servers are down, so i can't play my game, it's not my fault, and i'll become sure f***ing angry because of that.

My CD, my control.

Steam only needs a monthly connection not a 24/7 connection, thank you, please come again when you get a real argument.


Now can someone with a real anti-Steam argument please stand up, I know theres a real problem with Steam but none of you bring it up yet.

WRONG!!! Steam in fact must knowingly be installed onto a computer, can easily be uninstalled, and even turned off. These 3 things are something malware doesn't have. But just so I can piss on the anti-Steam crowd and say its raining Stardock DRM is no way malware for you to put legit CD key to get updates.

Any programming can get circumvented? HAHAHAHA, only client side programming can, good luck reprogramming the servers.


I was talking about DRM in general, not steam specifically. Any game that's infected with SecuROM won't tell you that it's installing SecuROM into the kernel where SecuROM will do all sorts of bad stuff (such as block processes like Process Explorer and DVD/CD stuff, change how your CD drive operates, etc.).

You don't have to reprogram the servers. You simply need to fool them, which is probably quite easy. No software is perfect. I would highly recommend listening to the podcast Security Now to learn just how vulnerable software is.

I was talking about DRM in general, not steam specifically. Any game that's infected with SecuROM won't tell you that it's installing SecuROM into the kernel where SecuROM will do all sorts of bad stuff (such as block processes like Process Explorer and DVD/CD stuff, change how your CD drive operates, etc.).

No you were talking about all modern DRM, not some, ALL . Now just say you made mistake and don't know what your talking about.

You don't have to reprogram the servers. You simply need to fool them, which is probably quite easy. No software is perfect. I would highly recommend listening to the podcast Security Now to learn just how vulnerable software is.

Which is still programming on the client side of things which we side you can do, but will throw up reflags like mad when dozens of same keyed games try going on the same server. Thank you for the fail you can go now.

In many parts of the world, having a 3D graphics card is a luxury. Are you going to argue that the game should support software rendering?

No because that would probably make developing the game more expensive and also probably more expensive for the end user. Presumably, packaging DRM with a game doesn't make it cheaper to develop (unless the DRM providers are paying the developer, but I don't think it works that way - I'm not sure).

So your argument here is kinda pointless isn't it?

In many parts of the world having a computer at all is a luxury! We should make Civilization 5 a board game instead.

An attempt at a joke?

The overwhelming majority of the target market have a persistent internet connection. Almost all of those who do not, still have intermittent internet access - more than enough to activate a game online.

The fact is that if you don't have internet access - none at all, even if you wanted it, there is no way you could connect to the net - you are in a minuscule minority of modern gamers.

Whether you like it or not, you ARE living in the past - be it for geographical reasons or what ever. And you are outside of the target demographic of most games which require online activation and it would be ludicrous to think that you are going to have any sway over the direction of a modern game.

I'm living in the past am I? Apparently, to live in the present, you require internet connection.

I'm not expecting to have any sway over the steam-only or steam-optional decision that will (or more likely has already has) be made. Nor should you expect to. At best if Civ5 is steam only, it will be a nuisance to me. I will probably still buy it, but it will not produce any loyalty in me to desire more Firaxis games.

There's going to be a Steam version and a non-Steam version - it's what 2k/Take-Two have been doing lately. The non-Steam version is still going to have some crappy DRM like Windows Live that requires an internet connection to activate, though. I would bet copious amounts of money on this.

Probably.

Yes, you can back up steam games to a disc or harddrive. I do it. Thus, your entire post IS moot.

I know it's not right to say anything "personal" but it seems rude to me to call my entire post moot. Argue against it if you will, but to state one fact and claim it makes my post irrelevant (which I assume is what you mean by moot) to me is like trolling because you make no attempt to say why.

This post is to clear up information about Steam, since 90% of you seem to be misinformed. This is a list of what steam is and isn't; nothing more, nothing less.

Steam & Offline Gaming

Steam does not require you be online to play your games. It works just fine in offline modes as well.

...

For someone who wants to install a game offline, can it be done if it is steam-based?

If not, as I said earlier, it does not make my post moot (I'll even include an exclamation mark to emphasise my point)... !

I have been many times in a scenario where I have had to re-install a game (typically through modding accidents or windows installs) and have not necessarily had a computer connected to the internet (e.g. taking a computer on holidays).

If a Steam-based game can be installed completely offline, including updates/patches, then my problem would be moot. Is this possible?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Why not? You do this to everyone else every day. Don't you lock your door when you leave your home? Don't you trust the average person? Why treat average people like criminals?
:lol: I would have thought the answer to this was quite obvious. You are not trying to sell anything to "average people". Why do you think it is that in most supermarkets that have those alarms at the end of their registers, that when one of them goes off as a customer walks out, no one stops them? Hassling a paying customer over a bottle of shampoo or something that they paid for anyway is probably only going to piss them off and they'll never shop there again.

If I'm trying to sell a product to someone, I'm not going to treat them like a criminal. That would be one of the easiest ways to ensure a lost sale. :lol:

If I went to a bookstore and found a book I thought I'd enjoy, but learned that to open it required first activating it online, and thereafter you had to use a little security keycard in its vicinity to open it, I'm not likely to bother with a purchase because of the extra hassle. DRM lovers would have us believe the way of the future is to make sure this hassle is always there just so devs can feel better that their games are not being copied.

Anyway, I can't remember if I said this earlier in the thread, but my main point is this:
If the game were steam-based only, more than likely it would significantly affect (negatively) the total number of sales. If Steam was optional, and there was an alternative NON-steam hard copy version available, there could only be more sales.

For someone who wants to install a game offline, can it be done if it is steam-based?

If not, as I said earlier, it does not make my post moot (I'll even include an exclamation mark to emphasise my point)... !

I have been many times in a scenario where I have had to re-install a game (typically through modding accidents or windows installs) and have not necessarily had a computer connected to the internet (e.g. taking a computer on holidays).

If a Steam-based game can be installed completely offline, including updates/patches, then my problem would be moot. Is this possible?

I think that the game can be installed offline somehow, but I've never tried it since I've never had the need. I'm not sure about updates or patches, but I would guess that it would be possible provided the patches for the steam version are hosted in such a way that you could save them to the hard drive.

I would just say that if you meet the following conditions, then Steam really is worth a shot.

A) Can initially download ~5GB, and you will have (at the very least) an intermittent internet connection once a month

B) Haven't been personally screwed by Steam

C) Don't care about reselling the game

D) Don't have this weird need to have a physical game box to sleep with at night

The other option is to pray to whatever deity (I recommend baby jesus) that the DRM you get doesn't require internet at all, doesn't scan your computer and limit emulation software, doesn't limit your installs, etc.

I'm living in the past am I? Apparently, to live in the present, you require internet connection.

Yes, yes you are. Like it or not, refusing to utilise the modern world leaves you in the past.

There is no impetus to design games that work for people with no internet access because you are an insignificant portion of the gaming public. There really isn't any excuse. Dial up will do for this purpose. A free AOL dial up CD. Satellite internet exists for remote locations. Even if you are living in a cave that cannot receive satellite and have no phone line in your house it still wouldn't matter because you are such a tiny minority.

Additionally, since you CLEARLY have access to the internet by some method, even if it is an internet cafe simply owning a lap top would allow you to validate the game.

So yes. If you do not have internet access AND do not own a lap top AND do not have a working phone line but you ALSO want to play modern games you are in a tiny minority of people living in a technological stone age but wanting the benefits of 2010.

I'm sure you don't like this fact. That doesn't make it less true.

If a Steam-based game can be installed completely offline, including updates/patches, then my problem would be moot. Is this possible?


Yes, it can. You can back up steam games to a DVD or harddrive, then install them from there. The version you back up it the version you reinstall.

Sorry to seem rude, but your post really is moot, and I'm sick of all this misinformation after 8 pages.

I think we all agree that we would like no DRM in an ideal world, whether we choose to download o buy a boxed game.
I prefer to buy boxed (major titles), but will also buy digital (mainly through steam, and mainly cheap deals).

However we all have to accept there will be some kind of copy-protection. Its now standard. We're all happy enough entering a CD-key for an offline program to authenticate. We did it for CIV. I struggle to see how an online one-time activation is different?

The question here IMO should be: if there is going to be online copy-protection then which type would we prefer?

If there is to be some online verification of authenticity/ copy protection, then IMO steam is by far the best choice. It is a much more attractive method for the consumer than other options, bringing in a good marketplace and social networking interface. One-time activation rather than constant 24/7 authentication.

I fully anticipate being able to buy a boxed copy and then having to use some one off activation online, and probably for future content updates/patches.

As an aside I don't hear anyone complaining that they needed a gamespy account to play CIV multiplayer online.

As a further aside, can these forums link stats off steam direct? Some sort of profile association?

I would not purchase if its on steam. I never play online so I feel to have to deal with that, would just be a waste. Total War did the same thing, and I have not bought one of their games since Medieval Total War 2. PC games should have the option to play even if you do not have the internet. Also I have read that steam has issues sometimes, and you are not able to play if they do.

In any case I am just used to going to the store, and buying the game, and installing it on my computer, putting the game disc back in the box, and putting the box away. Thats a great run on sentence, and I do not want to shorten it with Steam. I like being able to click on my shortcut to start the game, without having to use my game disc. Everyone on here is talking about the future. Why rush things, it will come, but lets wait at least until civ 6 or 7. Civilization is a traditional game to hell with the future. Just because some new idea just shows up does not mean we have to apply it. You know why, because new ideas are usually and suddenly replaced by newer and even better ideas. We should wait, soon steam will be obsolete. For all I no it probably already is. I do know I have read nothing but complaints about it. The reason I do not want to have to play online is a matter of personal privacy, I think that the more we have to do online, the more the powers that be have more access into our lives. Ever seen the Matrix? :lol:

Yes, yes you are. Like it or not, refusing to utilise the modern world leaves you in the past.

There is no impetus to design games that work for people with no internet access because you are an insignificant portion of the gaming public. There really isn't any excuse. Dial up will do for this purpose. A free AOL dial up CD. Satellite internet exists for remote locations. Even if you are living in a cave that cannot receive satellite and have no phone line in your house it still wouldn't matter because you are such a tiny minority.

Additionally, since you CLEARLY have access to the internet by some method, even if it is an internet cafe simply owning a lap top would allow you to validate the game.

So yes. If you do not have internet access AND do not own a lap top AND do not have a working phone line but you ALSO want to play modern games you are in a tiny minority of people living in a technological stone age but wanting the benefits of 2010.

I'm sure you don't like this fact. That doesn't make it less true.

Ah yes, putting down people just because they got no internet access.

No you were talking about all modern DRM, not some, ALL . Now just say you made mistake and don't know what your talking about.



Which is still programming on the client side of things which we side you can do, but will throw up reflags like mad when dozens of same keyed games try going on the same server. Thank you for the fail you can go now.

If the Windows product activation server can be fooled, then surly a game company's server can be fooled. Admit that no programming is perfect and that pirates will always find a way.

Yes, I was talking about modern DRM (such as SecuROM). Thanks for stating the obvious.

@Grey2ham: The US version of civ never had a CD key. I don't know about other versions. What's bad about activating with an online server is that if you want to install the game years from now, that server will no longer be there, and you will no longer be able to play your game.

Ah yes, putting down people just because they got no internet access.

Come back when you have managed to decipher why the fact that gamers with absolutely no internet access are in a minuscule minority is significant. It has been said several times, so please actually read the posts in this thread on both side of the argument before you decide to post something.

If the Windows product activation server can be fooled, then surly a game company's server can be fooled. Admit that no programming is perfect and that pirates will always find a way.

You do not understand the difference between server side and client side authentication.

When windows gets hacked, it is not the windows product activation server that is fooled, it is the LOCAL windows installation that is fooled. You trick your windows installation into thinking it is already activated so it never contacts the activation server to find out otherwise. The server knows it is pirated, but it never gets contacted.

When steam controls the entire online gameplay aspect of a game, it CANNOT be bypassed with this part of the game intact.

Sorry, you really do fundamentally misunderstand how this stuff works.

Playing a pirated game on servers that require a valid game activation is like transferring money out of someone's online bank account without having valid log-in credentials. The server knows you don't have it, so it simply won't let you in.

I have nothing against Steam, but I honestly can't afford it, as my internet has bandwidth restrictions. Ever game I have got is either from stores, garage sales, or eBay (expect for UDK)

I have nothing against Steam, but I honestly can't afford it, as my internet has bandwidth restrictions. Ever game I have got is either from stores, garage sales, or eBay (expect for UDK)

Did you know that the majority of steam-only games are still released in a physical disc format that you can install from the disc, then register on steam?

I have nothing against Steam, but I honestly can't afford it, as my internet has bandwidth restrictions. Ever game I have got is either from stores, garage sales, or eBay (expect for UDK)

And odds are you buy the box version of the game and will have to have it connect once month to the Steam servers.

@deanej See what Chalks said because he got it right.

So what's with the Steam promotion I see in this thread? And why are those of us who don't want Steam being treated like dirt? I see a lot of "answers" that support Steam which are not accurate. The only thing I see that is consistent is that there are some Steam fanboys doing all in their power to sell the idea of Steam.

I don't want Steam. That is my choice. If Civ5 requires Steam in order to install and play as do the last two Total War games, I will not buy it just as I did not buy them.

That's all folks. I'm outa here.

@deanej See what Chalks said because he got it right.

Fine. But my point still holds true for games that do do multiplayer through a central server. Actually, it still holds true for those too, cause the pirate will simply go without the game rather than pay for the game.

Did you know that the majority of steam-only games are still released in a physical disc format that you can install from the disc, then register on steam?

What the point of Steam then? :confused:

So what's with the Steam promotion I see in this thread? And why are those of us who don't want Steam being treated like dirt? I see a lot of "answers" that support Steam which are not accurate.

Show them or GTFO

Fine. But my point still holds true for games that do do multiplayer through a central server. Actually, it still holds true for those too, cause the pirate will simply go without the game rather than pay for the game.


So the companies should now care that pirate isn't will to pay for a game he wasn't going to pay for anyways? That makes no sense.

What the point of Steam then? :confused:

As alternative form of distribution of video games.

If a pirate isn't willing to pay for a game in the first place they won't buy it even if they have to. Therefore it isn't a lost sale so the company has no reason to care - with or without the DRM (which for this argument we assume actually works for its stated purpose), the company's profits are identical.

If a pirate isn't willing to pay for a game in the first place they won't buy it even if they have to. Therefore it isn't a lost sale so the company has no reason to care - with or without the DRM (which for this argument we assume actually works for its stated purpose), the company's profits are identical.

Outside of those pirates that want updated and play multiplayer with there game. Then those guys will have to buy copy because of the DRM.

Outside of those pirates that want updated and play multiplayer with there game. Then those guys will have to buy copy because of the DRM.

There is always a work around it, those pirates will always find a way.

There is always a work around it, those pirates will always find a way.

No we've been over this nobody can fool server, your stuck with messing around with client side code only.

If the pirates actually did infect a server with malware that would let them in they could do it. But that would be more effort than it's worth (at least for a pirate).

I don't think the hardcore pirates are the type that would want MMO play and would probably find a way to get updates anyways. Casual pirates will buy if there is an easy and convent way to do so, and the product isn't overpriced (such as the people who bought Spore and installed a pirated version because they didn't want SecuROM).

No we've been over this nobody can fool server, your stuck with messing around with client side code only.

OK, that makes sense, guess I would not know I tend to play older multi-player games, my two favorites: Jedi Academy, and Civ III

Yes, yes you are. Like it or not, refusing to utilise the modern world leaves you in the past.

There is no impetus to design games that work for people with no internet access because you are an insignificant portion of the gaming public. There really isn't any excuse. Dial up will do for this purpose. A free AOL dial up CD. Satellite internet exists for remote locations. Even if you are living in a cave that cannot receive satellite and have no phone line in your house it still wouldn't matter because you are such a tiny minority.

Additionally, since you CLEARLY have access to the internet by some method, even if it is an internet cafe simply owning a lap top would allow you to validate the game.

So yes. If you do not have internet access AND do not own a lap top AND do not have a working phone line but you ALSO want to play modern games you are in a tiny minority of people living in a technological stone age but wanting the benefits of 2010.

I'm sure you don't like this fact. That doesn't make it less true.

:lol: Interesting read.

When you attach enough qualifiers to any category (e.g. 30 year old coffee drinkers who use an internet cafe and have a cat) of course it's going to be a tiny minority!

Can I also point out that the people who passionately desire this game to be steam-only is a tiny minority?

Yes, it can. You can back up steam games to a DVD or harddrive, then install them from there. The version you back up it the version you reinstall.

Sorry to seem rude, but your post really is moot, and I'm sick of all this misinformation after 8 pages.

Ok that does address many of my concerns. The final concern I have is in regard to modding and whether they use a different directory structure etc. and whether that causes compatibility problems. But then, if the game was steam-only, funnily enough, it would be a non-issue as everyone would be using that version.

The second (:lol:) final concern I have is: Why would I want to use steam when it's possible to play the game without steam? In general, I think introducing more and more systems into any product makes it more and more likely to fail in some way or other. Just look at cars made before the 90s (or whatever the more exact date is) that were entirely mechanical and didn't have much elecronic systems. When they broke down or had a problem, more than often the owner could determine the fault himself/herself (and sometimes fix it) but nowadays we rely heavily on the mechanics who pretty much exclusively know the ins and outs of the complicated cars and we have little freedom to go with other "service providers".
My point here is that unless Steam is actually simpler and requires less system overhead than an alternative DRM scheme, why should I prefer it? Particularly when I'm not interested in the other advantages of Steam including social networking and downloading entire games.

If the pirates actually did infect a server with malware that would let them in they could do it. But that would be more effort than it's worth (at least for a pirate).

I don't think the hardcore pirates are the type that would want MMO play and would probably find a way to get updates anyways. Casual pirates will buy if there is an easy and convent way to do so, and the product isn't overpriced (such as the people who bought Spore and installed a pirated version because they didn't want SecuROM).

And if pirates were able to walk into the office grab the server wheel it out then (yeah this has happen, poor IT guy thought of everything but the good take the damn thing)

Pirates get updates sometimes and I mean sometimes, there games out there that just don't have hackers to ever get updates ever.

Can I also point out that the people who passionately desire this game to be steam-only is a tiny minority?

Can I point out that no one is saying that this should be Steam only? Were just saying put the tinfoil away.

The second () final concern I have is: Why would I want to use steam when it's possible to play the game without steam? In general, I think introducing more and more systems into any product makes it more and more likely to fail in some way or other. Just look at cars made before the 90s (or whatever the more exact date is) that were entirely mechanical and didn't have much elecronic systems. When they broke down or had a problem, more than often the owner could determine the fault himself/herself (and sometimes fix it) but nowadays we rely heavily on the mechanics who pretty much exclusively know the ins and outs of the complicated cars and we have little freedom to go with other "service providers".
My point here is that unless Steam is actually simpler and requires less system overhead than an alternative DRM scheme, why should I prefer it? Particularly when I'm not interested in the other advantages of Steam including social networking and downloading entire games.

Okay to all the anti-Steam guys out there lets get this straight right here right now

THERES AN OFFLINE MODE

Thats right kids you only need to turn Steam on once a month thats it

Ok that does address many of my concerns. The final concern I have is in regard to modding and whether they use a different directory structure etc. and whether that causes compatibility problems. But then, if the game was steam-only, funnily enough, it would be a non-issue as everyone would be using that version.

.

One of the major adavtatges of STEAM for modders is a "verify local files" tool that can search your installs of a game and replace any corrupted/missing files when it finds them. This was invaluble for myself when i toyed with a HL2 mod back in the day, and in my CSS days where random files would just get corrupted from overuse/file to large. (an issue since fixed).

The file structure for CIV4 was different for some reason, however, it was simply a mirrored structure for each expansion, rather than a total rehash. There was a minor issue with online and HOF mods working, but it was a simple fix.

I've been using STEAM since Half-Life 2 and while it hasn't been a storybook marriage, i have hardly any major complaints. Sure, for COD4:MW i had to re-download the whole game because they didn't anticipate 2+million pre-orders corrupting their server files, and being a newcomer to Fanatics, i had to wait till we could solve the puzzle of why HOF mods didn't work. But, i haven't bought a non-STEAM PC game in 3 years at least. I've moved from WinXP to Vista to 7 with it, downloading some 500GB worth of games over each install and failed installs of windows. I used to delete and install CounterStrike every week after a match to keep the installs fresh and bug free. STEAM has never once said anything

In my experience, many of the issues people have with STEAM are their own. I had a few friends at college who swore STEAM was the devil because they couldn't do x. I showed them how, and they now use it with ease. Sure, the HL2 launch was a disaster, and the Total War problems probably could have been solved by some clearer language, but 99% of the time, it just works. With no hassle. Online or off.

All i care about for CivV is the steam version doesn't use the boxed version's DRM, like say Bioshock 2 or Assassins Creed 2.

Can I point out that no one is saying that this should be Steam only? Were just saying put the tinfoil away.

And can I point out I never objected to Steam being an optional method of distributing the game? Read my posts. My objection is to Steam being the only method of distribution. Whether you agree or disagree with my reasons can be argued, of course. Afforess has done the best job of doing that so far.

The possibility that the game be Steam only has been mentioned in this thread so your assertion is in error. IIRC Chalks is one of the posters advocating adopting Steam's DRM exclusively because it's preferable to all other DRM methods.



Okay to all the anti-Steam guys out there lets get this straight right here right now

The second () final concern I have is: Why would I want to use steam when it's possible to play the game without steam? In general, I think introducing more and more systems into any product makes it more and more likely to fail in some way or other. Just look at cars made before the 90s (or whatever the more exact date is) that were entirely mechanical and didn't have much elecronic systems. When they broke down or had a problem, more than often the owner could determine the fault himself/herself (and sometimes fix it) but nowadays we rely heavily on the mechanics who pretty much exclusively know the ins and outs of the complicated cars and we have little freedom to go with other "service providers".
My point here is that unless Steam is actually simpler and requires less system overhead than an alternative DRM scheme, why should I prefer it? Particularly when I'm not interested in the other advantages of Steam including social networking and downloading entire games.

THERES AN OFFLINE MODE

Thats right kids you only need to turn Steam on once a month thats it

:confused:
Are you trolling me or did you not properly read what I wrote. An "offline mode" to me implies the program at least needs to be running. From the info I have read in this thread, it seems that steam-based games need Steam to be running in the background. If steam-based games ACTUALLY mean that Steam simply is the method to install them and after that Steam has no effect, then I would be quite misguided and have been making wrong assumptions.

Using capital letters makes your response look more like an emotional one than a reasoned one.

One of the major adavtatges of STEAM for modders is a "verify local files" tool that can search your installs of a game and replace any corrupted/missing files when it finds them. This was invaluble for myself when i toyed with a HL2 mod back in the day, and in my CSS days where random files would just get corrupted from overuse/file to large. (an issue since fixed).
Ah, that would be neat and would have proved most handy for me on many occasions where it was a single file or two I had either removed or edited by accident (sometimes I could have sworn I never touched a thing, but a re-install fixed anyway).

It makes it into the "plus book" of me considering Steam.


The file structure for CIV4 was different for some reason, however, it was simply a mirrored structure for each expansion, rather than a total rehash. There was a minor issue with online and HOF mods working, but it was a simple fix.
Combined with the unpredictability and sort-of-unreliability of Firaxis for providing timely, bug-free patches, this would always have been a concern for me during the days of Civ4. It was simply safer to go with the version that the majority of users were using, including modders.

Whether it's justified or not, much of the stigma, at least for me, would have been generated from the Bug Reports forum which I would attend fairly regularly. Even if the bug is easily fixed, as with any software, it's generally best to go with something that is known to be reliable than one that is buggy but has known fixes.


I've been using STEAM since Half-Life 2 and while it hasn't been a storybook marriage, i have hardly any major complaints. Sure, for COD4:MW i had to re-download the whole game because they didn't anticipate 2+million pre-orders corrupting their server files, and being a newcomer to Fanatics, i had to wait till we could solve the puzzle of why HOF mods didn't work. But, i haven't bought a non-STEAM PC game in 3 years at least. I've moved from WinXP to Vista to 7 with it, downloading some 500GB worth of games over each install and failed installs of windows. I used to delete and install CounterStrike every week after a match to keep the installs fresh and bug free. STEAM has never once said anything

In my experience, many of the issues people have with STEAM are their own. I had a few friends at college who swore STEAM was the devil because they couldn't do x. I showed them how, and they now use it with ease. Sure, the HL2 launch was a disaster, and the Total War problems probably could have been solved by some clearer language, but 99% of the time, it just works. With no hassle. Online or off.

All i care about for CivV is the steam version doesn't use the boxed version's DRM, like say Bioshock 2 or Assassins Creed 2.

Yes, that would make the Steam version much more attractive and it would probably satisfy both sides of the divide here in this thread.

:confused:
Are you trolling me or did you not properly read what I wrote. An "offline mode" to me implies the program at least needs to be running. From the info I have read in this thread, it seems that steam-based games need Steam to be running in the background. If steam-based games ACTUALLY mean that Steam simply is the method to install them and after that Steam has no effect, then I would be quite misguided and have been making wrong assumptions.

Using capital letters makes your response look more like an emotional one than a reasoned one.

Steam games need steam to be running in the background. It's currently taking up 14Mb of my RAM.

I happily play BtS with nothing of the sort running in the background. :)

(If I'm not mistaken, the latest patch 3.19 ensures not even any DRM is running, correct?)

By the way, it seems to me when playing BtS on the largest mapsizes and late-game, any RAM counts. Even 14MB could make a difference.

I happily play BtS with nothing of the sort running in the background. :)

(If I'm not mistaken, the latest patch 3.19 ensures not even any DRM is running, correct?)

By the way, it seems to me when playing BtS on the largest mapsizes and late-game, any RAM counts. Even 14MB could make a difference.

I could happily play BtS without it running in the background as well. I choose not to because I use steam friends rather frequently.

And the 14mb wouldn't really make a difference, apart from prolonging the crash by however long it takes for Civ4 to leak the additional memory.

When you attach enough qualifiers to any category (e.g. 30 year old coffee drinkers who use an internet cafe and have a cat) of course it's going to be a tiny minority!

Gamers who do not have internet access at their house are a minority.

Out of that minority, most of them own a laptop that they can take to an internet cafe or to starbucks, so they would be able to activate just fine. Those who don't, are an even smaller minority.

Out of that even smaller minority, pretty much every single one of them will have a phone line. They can simply plug their computer into the phone line and use a free trial dial up account to activate the game at absolutely no cost. The number of people in this situation who also do not have a phone line is an absolutely minuscule minority.

Of that minuscule minority, most of them will have friends who DO have internet access, so they could take their PC round to borrow their internet access once to activate the game.

And if you can't do that, then you are in such an absolutely minuscule minority that they could not possibly justify anyone changing their development plans to cater for them.

I do not believe you are part of that minuscule minority. I don't think I'm ever going to meet someone who is part of that minority, because it is so tiny and statistically unlikely for me to meet them.

Which of the above categories do you fit into? Because I am very sure that you could activate this game if you just stopped and bothered to read what I was trying to say instead of just skimming and reiterating that you don't consider yourself to be in a minority because you don't like the idea.

Can I also point out that the people who passionately desire this game to be steam-only is a tiny minority?

That may certainly be true. But that's not what this argument is about. You might think that's what this argument is about, but that's just because you've not been paying any attention.

Civ 5 is going to have DRM. The people arguing for Steam in this thread are arguing for it because they recognise that Steam is the best quality modern DRM they could choose.

You might think you're arguing that Civ 5 should be DRM free by saying "Steam is bad" but you're not. You're just saying Steam in particular is bad. Which just means that if they listen to you, they'll pick some other DRM product and you'll be just as screwed as ever. Except we all will be, because the DRM product will probably be of significantly worse quality with more draconian limitations.

Feel free to hate DRM - but if they choose to have one (and they will), I really pray that they choose Steam.

I'd just like to say that I'd rather Firaxis force me to connect to Firaxis' server everytime I start Civ5 than have Steam (of course I'd rather not have to do either). It's bad and just because it's slightly better than other silly DRM out there doesn't make it any good.

Steam works fine for Counter Strike and Team Fortress, why wouldn't it work fine for Civ?

Steam is evil and there are people who don't want it.
End of story.

Its like buying a car and being told that you also have to get a free train, aircraft and 300 Spartans to ride in the back. Its intruding on my otherwise strictly controlled process list and its evil.


DRM it self is bad, but that is another story.
Statistics show that a large portion of pirates come from the population that does not have the money to pay for the game or the population that legally pays and than gets a noCD crack so they can play without messing with the DRM.

Think about it. Its people who would not play the game at all and people who want to play but are being ****ed up by the DRM.

How is steam evil?

Also, statistics show a lot of things that aren't necessarily entirely truthful.

Steam is evil

If anyone is interested in why I'm treating some of the anti-steam lobby in this thread as if they are raving lunatics, it's because they keep coming out with crap like that.

In the context of a post that actually attempts to justify the comment then maybe it would be ok, but no, it's just thrown out there. As if it was some sort of undeniable truth that requires no explanation.

It's as if PPQ_Purple thought that his reply would be improved by starting it with an emotive, baseless and hilariously over the top accusation. As if the rest of the post would read better if we all thought about those running steam as cartoon style villains, plotting to overthrow civilization, while stroking a pet cat and laughing manically to themselves.

Here's a thought, go away and come back when your post contains substance.

How is steam evil?

Also, statistics show a lot of things that aren't necessarily entirely truthful.

You're missing the point. PPRQ is being dishonest by not even sharing those statistics that informed him with us.

Or perhaps hes just making them up?

Regardless, anyone who claims to be able to not afford games while being able to afford a PC is lying.

You're missing the point. PPRQ is being dishonest by not even sharing those statistics that informed him with us.

Or perhaps hes just making them up?

Regardless, anyone who claims to be able to not afford games while being able to afford a PC is lying.

This, exactly.

I can count the number of people who can afford a gaming PC and a broadband internet connection but can't fork out for a £30 game on no fingers.

This, exactly.

I can count the number of people who can afford a gaming PC and a broadband internet connection but can't fork out for a £30 game on no fingers.

£30? I can't remember the last time I had to pay more than £25 for a new game. Even then, I can delay gratification for a couple of months and usually pick it up for £15 or less.

Check this place out: coolshop.co.uk . They're apparently a Danish bulk buyer thats just moved into the UK. I got CoD:MW2 for £22 by pre-ordering 4 months early. I'm a little suspicious that somethings not right when they're already offering Bioshock 2 for £18 but I've bought 4 games from them since they began operating last year and haven't been burned yet.

Civ 5 is going to have DRM. The people arguing for Steam in this thread are arguing for it because they recognise that Steam is the best quality modern DRM they could choose.

You might think you're arguing that Civ 5 should be DRM free by saying "Steam is bad" but you're not. You're just saying Steam in particular is bad. Which just means that if they listen to you, they'll pick some other DRM product and you'll be just as screwed as ever. Except we all will be, because the DRM product will probably be of significantly worse quality with more draconian limitations.

Feel free to hate DRM - but if they choose to have one (and they will), I really pray that they choose Steam.

Same here. I wish everyone could recognize how much better of a system it is so that other companies would feel pressured to mimic it, and we could do away with the more draconian DRMs. Exclusive Steam games are also extremely complicated to pirate; if all games used a Steam-like system then developers wouldn't be running away from PC games or giving us delayed releases.

Digital distribution is just amazing in how it lowers prices. Publishers of older games that wouldn't be inclined to rebox and sell it just say "sure, make this a special and sell it for $5 for a week".

So what's with the Steam promotion I see in this thread? And why are those of us who don't want Steam being treated like dirt? I see a lot of "answers" that support Steam which are not accurate. The only thing I see that is consistent is that there are some Steam fanboys doing all in their power to sell the idea of Steam.

I don't want Steam. That is my choice. If Civ5 requires Steam in order to install and play as do the last two Total War games, I will not buy it just as I did not buy them.

That's all folks. I'm outa here.

I agree with you completely. I feel I am the one purchasing the game. I should decide whether I want to play online or not, simple as that. If Civ 5 requires steam, I will not buy it, and I will stick to civ 3 and 4.

And if pirates were able to walk into the office grab the server wheel it out then (yeah this has happen, poor IT guy thought of everything but the good take the damn thing)

Pirates get updates sometimes and I mean sometimes, there games out there that just don't have hackers to ever get updates ever.



Can I point out that no one is saying that this should be Steam only? Were just saying put the tinfoil away.



Okay to all the anti-Steam guys out there lets get this straight right here right now

THERES AN OFFLINE MODE

Thats right kids you only need to turn Steam on once a month thats it

To hell with Steam dude, you should not have to even consider using it at al. Now is civ 5 going to require it? If so, thats just ridiculous! They are going to lose money, and I wonder what the system requirements are going to be to play the new civ. Probably have to seriously upgrade my pc. I am not sure this new civ is worth all this. It does not look all nthat much better, from what I've seen.

How is steam evil?

Also, statistics show a lot of things that aren't necessarily entirely truthful.

Because it takes away your basic freedom of choice. It is a socialist concept. I am not going to be told I have to have a program to play a game, I just spent 40-50 bucks on. To me it is just not worth it. I do not and will not play civ 5 or any civ online. It is a single player game to me. I have not played multiplayer since call to power 2. It's just not for me. So if I do not play online, I should not need to be online to run the game. Simple as it gets. I am just not into multiplayer never really have been. Not with any video games I play.

Although, I am not sure about Mogul Baseball 2010. It seems the database is online, for my historical players. I am running the demo, and have the boxed set coming in the mail. If it is online I guess I could live with it, but I used to play another baseball game a few years back, like mogul, but it did not require the internet.

I feel the more we are off the internet the better it is for us. Who needs it really, unless you are big into multi player.

I don't think it Will require steam. It will be available on steam for sure though (like civ 4 and civ3). However, none of the others civs have required steam whats make people think ciV will be any diffrent?

Steam is a socialist concept? That's a new one.

What nokmirt doesn't realise is that hes inviting a program on with everything hes paid anyway. I just happen to think that Steam is one of the less obnoxious DRMs out there.

Gamers who do not have internet access at their house are a minority.

Out of that minority, most of them own a laptop that they can take to an internet cafe or to starbucks, so they would be able to activate just fine. Those who don't, are an even smaller minority.

Out of that even smaller minority, pretty much every single one of them will have a phone line. They can simply plug their computer into the phone line and use a free trial dial up account to activate the game at absolutely no cost. The number of people in this situation who also do not have a phone line is an absolutely minuscule minority.

Of that minuscule minority, most of them will have friends who DO have internet access, so they could take their PC round to borrow their internet access once to activate the game.

And if you can't do that, then you are in such an absolutely minuscule minority that they could not possibly justify anyone changing their development plans to cater for them.

I do not believe you are part of that minuscule minority. I don't think I'm ever going to meet someone who is part of that minority, because it is so tiny and statistically unlikely for me to meet them.

Which of the above categories do you fit into? Because I am very sure that you could activate this game if you just stopped and bothered to read what I was trying to say instead of just skimming and reiterating that you don't consider yourself to be in a minority because you don't like the idea.



That may certainly be true. But that's not what this argument is about. You might think that's what this argument is about, but that's just because you've not been paying any attention.

Civ 5 is going to have DRM. The people arguing for Steam in this thread are arguing for it because they recognise that Steam is the best quality modern DRM they could choose.

You might think you're arguing that Civ 5 should be DRM free by saying "Steam is bad" but you're not. You're just saying Steam in particular is bad. Which just means that if they listen to you, they'll pick some other DRM product and you'll be just as screwed as ever. Except we all will be, because the DRM product will probably be of significantly worse quality with more draconian limitations.

Feel free to hate DRM - but if they choose to have one (and they will), I really pray that they choose Steam.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You're just saying Steam in particular is bad. Show me where I said anything to that effect.

I really can't be bothered wasting time arguing this with you. Perhaps you'd like to check the OP again. Here, I'll repeat it for you.

Title: Will it be steam based?
Quote:
I took a quick look around the forum, but didnt find any info.

I just hope from the bottom of my heart that steam will not be required (dropped Empire Total War and will drop SupCom 2 cause of steam requirement).

JOA

You can't accuse me of not paying attention when actually I am the one staying on topic. ;)

As I said IIRC several times already, my position is one that is against it being a steam-only game. I couldn't care less whether steam is available or not as an optional method of distribution. I also don't care whether or not it's the best modern DRM available - it probably is. That doesn't change my opinion of whether it should be steam exclusive.

By the way, just for the heck of an odd analogy, I'd imagine that most "gamers" (whatever your definition is) have a toaster in their household. Does that make it reasonable that a system requirement for playing Civ5 be that your computer can connect (via wire or wireless, it doesn't matter) to your toaster, even only periodically like every month? After all, any person that can afford a gaming PC or a video game can afford a $10 toaster. So gamers who have no toaster in their household and who can't afford a cheap toaster is an extremely tiny minority. Therefore their opinion doesn't matter. ;)

If you are not arguing that Civ 5 should be steam only then I have nothing to disagree with you about.

As I said IIRC several times already, my position is one that is against it being a steam-only game. I couldn't care less whether steam is available or not as an optional method of distribution. I also don't care whether or not it's the best modern DRM available - it probably is. That doesn't change my opinion of whether it should be steam exclusive.

By the way, just for the heck of an odd analogy, I'd imagine that most "gamers" (whatever your definition is) have a toaster in their household. Does that make it reasonable that a system requirement for playing Civ5 be that your computer can connect (via wire or wireless, it doesn't matter) to your toaster, even only periodically like every month? After all, any person that can afford a gaming PC or a video game can afford a $10 toaster. So gamers who have no toaster in their household and who can't afford a cheap toaster is an extremely tiny minority. Therefore their opinion doesn't matter. ;)

If you are not arguing that Civ 5 should be steam only then I have nothing to disagree with you about.

Maybe he's confused because that's too easy of a question. Yes it will be Steam based, and yes there will be other options. Is anyone actually arguing this? It seems way too obvious to even discuss.

As far as the analogy goes, if the toaster prevented piracy and actually added features (as Steam does), then sure - why not?

Yes it will be Steam based, and yes there will be other options.
Can you clarify what this means exactly? If you call a game steam based, does that imply it requires steam? (i.e. steam running in the background).

I could've sworn it was suggested in this thread that making the game steam-only (including physical distribution of discs where to install the game still requires steam) was a good idea, mainly because Steam is supposedly the least invasive modern DRM available and it is assumed that going without any DRM whatsoever is infeasible.

As far as the analogy goes, if the toaster prevented piracy and actually added features (as Steam does), then sure - why not?
Nice answer. :)

I don't care one iota about the features steam adds at all. Who needs automatic updating for a game that's updated once every six months at best? If I want community, I'll post here at CFC.

I don't see how steam prevents piracy any more than other forms of DRM. Could you explain that?

Look up the copy protection of Assassin's Creed II. It requires you to be online all the time and the game apparently pauses if it loses the connection to the Ubisoft server, see here (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/02/ubisoft-details-drm.ars).

Compared to that, Steam is not intrusive at all, since it only requires one singular verification per install and at least gives you something in return - the ability to play and re-download your game without a disk.

Cheers, LT.

Thank you very much! I was planning to get AC2, but you've saved me that mistake and money. Not that I don't have a permanent Internet connection, but I just don't want to support that junk.

I like Steam generally. Steam games can also run in offline mode, and some don't even require the Steam application to be running (FM09 is like that, just double-click the exe, and the game starts without Steam). And Steam keeps the games for me. My Half-Life 2/CS disk is gone years ago, but it's always there on Steam if I want to play it again, which I do occasionally :) And I figure that Steam has such a big base of users and clients that if they go bust, they will be bought up and the system kept running. It's a worthwhile concept. Civ 5 will of course only have Steam as an option, not a requirement.

Freedom of choice. Limit the choices, limit the freedom.

Is that so hard to understand?

If the choice is narrowed down to Play CivV only on Steam or don't play CivV, then for me Only I won't play (can't speak for others nor do I want to).

Now if steam is one of Many ways to enjoy/acquire the game then there is no beef. All the rest of this discussion is just rhetoric and oneupmanship.

Because it takes away your basic freedom of choice. It is a socialist concept. I am not going to be told I have to have a program to play a game, I just spent 40-50 bucks on. To me it is just not worth it. I do not and will not play civ 5 or any civ online. It is a single player game to me. I have not played multiplayer since call to power 2. It's just not for me. So if I do not play online, I should not need to be online to run the game. Simple as it gets. I am just not into multiplayer never really have been. Not with any video games I play.

Although, I am not sure about Mogul Baseball 2010. It seems the database is online, for my historical players. I am running the demo, and have the boxed set coming in the mail. If it is online I guess I could live with it, but I used to play another baseball game a few years back, like mogul, but it did not require the internet.

I feel the more we are off the internet the better it is for us. Who needs it really, unless you are big into multi player.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY.

I'm not sure how many times it has been said, but this is getting ridiculous.

Freedom of choice. Limit the choices, limit the freedom.

Is that so hard to understand?

If the choice is narrowed down to Play CivV only on Steam or don't play CivV, then for me Only I won't play (can't speak for others nor do I want to).

Now if steam is one of Many ways to enjoy/acquire the game then there is no beef. All the rest of this discussion is just rhetoric and oneupmanship.

Freedom of choice causes problems. The greater the number of different version of the game there are, the harder it is for Firaxis to make patches, and there's a greater scope for problems.

Freedom of choice is not a legitimate reason for Civ5 to not be hypothetically steam exclusive.

I don't care one iota about the features steam adds at all. Who needs automatic updating for a game that's updated once every six months at best? If I want community, I'll post here at CFC.

I don't see how steam prevents piracy any more than other forms of DRM. Could you explain that?

While the examples are rare, HL2 took something like 6 months for hackers to get a full working version out to pirate. Other newer games have code build into their exe's and such to simply look for steam, and if your connected to the net, verify your ownership of said game. Problem is, very few games are actually STEAM exclusive beyond Valve's own games. While i stopped my pirating ways, limiting my knowledge of whats avalible, the one thing for SURE STEAM does is keep pirates from playing multiplayer, and conversly, making griefers who crash games instantly reportable and trackable.

Steam is nothing more than a medium in which to organize all your games, including non-steam games. As a gamer who keeps many games installed at one time, knowing all i have to do is launch steam ( or re-open the window) and i can see all my games on my PC at once. All it requires is one desktop icon vs. the hundreds i could have. Steam-based Friends lists are a nice feature if you want to play CIV4 over Direct IP as well. Instead of using the in-game chat, i generally send offers over my friends list while playing with my MP friends.

The problem with this thread is there are the knowedgable, the brass, the fearmongers and the misinformed. As a diehard Steam user, i could go and point out every flaw in every statement made about Steam, but it doesn't matter. People fear change or try to force it (chalks, be more informative and less brass. Your giving steam users a bad name.)

I said it before, STEAM is the least invasive DRM out there. D2D still has outdated concepts of DRM, Stardock has gotten better, but pure Boxed versions are still the worst offenders. I wont buy a DRM'd game after the whole Securom debacle, and i still wont even if the Steam version has the same DRM. *see bioshock2 and Assassins Creed2.

I wont be returning to this topic, but if anyone has questions about how STEAM works, please PM. I am always happy to inform and bust myths made by the ill-informed.

I don't see how steam prevents piracy any more than other forms of DRM. Could you explain that?

If you go to any torrent site and try to find a game that is on Steam but not Steam-exclusive, I guarantee the game you download will have been cracked from the non-Steam version of the game. Same as ArcadicGamer, I too pirated quite a few games in the past, and Steam-exclusive games were an absolute :):):):):) to make work because it involves cracking the game AND Steam, which usually creates horrible instabilities.

I agree with you Joseph that choice is a good thing. I don't want everything to be Steam exclusive. But I would be happy if Steam were to get more popular to force the competition to be less invasive. A lot of the publishers are moving to worse and worse schemes, like Assassin's Creed 2 which forces you to be online constantly when playing single player. I'd much rather they look to Steam for ideas.

@PieceOfMind: To clarify I mean that there will be a version on Steam that requires Steam to be played, and there will be a version with some other DRM that does not require Steam to be played.

Ok, the steam supporters might attack me to no end for what I'm about to post. I admit I am not making any effort to promote Steam so my comments can be considered as biased.

I don't want flames in return but any answers to the concerning questions I ask is definitely much appreciated. :) Apart from playing TF2 I have limited experience with actually using steam.

I just read the STEAM™ SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/)

5. ONLINE CONDUCT, CHEATING AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR

...

Steam and the Steam Software may include functionality designed to identify software or hardware processes or functionality that may give a player an unfair competitive advantage when playing multiplayer versions of any Steam Software, other Valve products, or modifications thereof ("Cheats"). You agree that you will not create or assist third parties in any way to create Cheats. You agree that you will not directly or indirectly disable, circumvent, or otherwise interfere with the operation of software designed to prevent or report the use of Cheats. You acknowledge and agree that either Valve or any online multiplayer host may refuse to allow you to participate in certain online multiplayer games if you use Cheats in connection with Steam or the Steam Software. Further, you acknowledge and agree that an online multiplayer host may report your use of Cheats to Valve, and Valve may communicate your history of use of Cheats to other online multiplayer hosts for Valve products. Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers. You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so.

So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

Further, Steam has the right to do it without providing you any notice. Not even a warning is strictly necessary.

I have heard stories before of people being banned or having their subsciptions cancelled (e.g. in TF2) and in probably more than 99% of those cases they deserved it. The risk is always there that someone who didn't really deserve it got banned, and those people will forever flame Steam in various forums (though this thread hasn't been affected by such a user I don't think).


I can understand that many of you hold Steam in very high regards and rightly so. I've always held Google in high regard as well, and funnily enough one of their most important mottos for employees is "Do no evil". While I think the ability of people to have faith and trust is a good and valuable thing, it's worth noting that any corporate entity rationally acts in its own interests. While Google has benefited many people around the world with most free services, there is nothing to say they'll never do anything that won't negatively affect its users. Indeed, in Italy Google execs recently were sentenced to prison terms because of a "bullying" video that had been posted on youtube (which Google owns).

A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND STEAM SOFTWARE.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE STEAM SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

If you're a steam subscriber and already have accounts for several games, how awkward a position does this put you in if you do end up in a dispute over something with Steam? All you can do is cancel your account/subscriptions. This means you will not be able to play any games that require steam to be running I presume.

As a Steam user, you're pretty much committed to sticking with steam through and through. So how many people who have used steam extensively, had a problem with steam, have you heard from? Probably not many considering the agreement you have to accept.

You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valve, its licensors and their affiliates from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or in connection with breach of this Agreement, use of Steam or any Subscription, or any User Generated Information or Third Party Content, including, but not limited to, the creation, distribution, promotion and use of any Mods, by you or any person(s) using your Account. Valve reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. In that event, you shall have no further obligation to provide indemnification to Valve in that matter. This Section regarding Indemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.

I'm not really sure what that one means. Maybe someone with some skill in legal jargon can clarify.



As far as I can tell, there is nothing stopping Valve from eventually charging a fee for providing its service. It would have to give you enough notice (30 days I think) but can anyone show me where it says Steam will always be a free service?

14. APPLICABLE LAW/JURISDICTION

The terms of this section may not apply to European Union consumers

You agree that this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of Washington, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in accordance with the law of Washington. You agree that any claim asserted in any legal proceeding by you against Valve shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the dispute between the parties and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts. In any dispute arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses.

This might make things difficult if you ever have a dispute and are outside of America? I don't think this point is very noteworthy but I thought it best I mention it nonetheless.

By the way, Valve's privacy policy can also be read here (http://www.valvesoftware.com/privacy.htm). It seemed to be pretty standard.

Ok, the steam supporters might attack me to no end for what I'm about to post. I admit I am not making any effort to promote Steam so my comments can be considered as biased.

I don't want flames in return but any answers to the concerning questions I ask is definitely much appreciated. :) Apart from playing TF2 I have limited experience with actually using steam.

They pretty much have to be purposely vague about when they can ban you so that they can ban cheaters without getting sued. Cheating is already a problem in TF2 (I also play) - it would be much worse if the 12 year-old bastards weren't afraid of losing the game.

I've read of a lot of people getting banned from TF2 (I frequent the Steam forums), but never have I heard of Valve shutting down the person's entire Steam account (even if they were cheating). So you don't have to worry about losing everything. I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that the ban hammer could never be dropped on someone innocent, but Valve is pretty meticulous about who they punish. Like you said, corporations work in their own interests, and banning people for no reason would bring a P.R. nightmare to their doorstep.

While I'm not too worried about it, Valve having the power to ban people will be a legitimate concern for some people - and I don't fault anyone for that. The activation servers that other companies use will likely have similar catch-all clauses though, so if it is a concern make sure you guys read up on the end-user agreements like PieceOfMind did for whatever DRM you choose. Kudos for reading through that crap by the way, I hate that stuff.

L4D2 was a disk but that doesn't mean it didn't use steam. .

I have L4D1, the (inferior) sequel L4D2, and the Orange Box on Steam. For all games, I have the CD/DVD, because I like a "backup" in case they screw up their servers big time. If Google can have mail problems, Valve can have Steam problems.

Having said that, I'm a big fan of Steam. It updates my games for me, I can put the CD/DVD on the shelf, I can install the game on different computers at the same time. With the coming release of Steam for the Mac, I am hoping that they will include an option to download different versions depending on the operating system -- pick OS X and Windows depending on the machine, for the same price. With Blizzard, it looks like I'm going to have to make a decision, play StarCraft 2 on my Win XP quad core or my MacBook, but not both.

The ease of use far outweighs any worries I have about not "owning" the game. We're not talking about the baby photos of my children, after all: These are games, and the just have to work for about five or six years (though the original HalfLife works fine with Steam, too).

So I am not looking forward to having to keep the DVD in the player and all the other copy protection crap that Firaxis will feel like they have to install. Civ Colonization wouldn't start at first in once instance because the stupid SecureROM mechanism didn't recognize the DVD player. Give me Steam over that any day.

But what the heck is D2D then?

Just to highlight the kind of issue the 'if we're going to have online DRM make it steam' lobby are going for:

Ubisofts DRM servers crashed/overloaded this weekend. People could not play their single player games (Assasins Creed 2, Settlers 7 beta) as they couldn't connect to the authentication servers. Legitamate users were prevented from playing as Ubisoft couldn't maintain their servers. (Side note for firaxis, this actually makes pirated copies that don't require you to be online 24/7 more attractive)

This would not happen with steam. You would be able to run the game via steam's 'offline mode' (caveat: provided you authenticated it 1 time [usually straight after or straight before install - it only associates the CD key to your account]).
e.g. Total War (empire + napolean) can be run offline even if steam's servers are down.

We should be arguing for steam as the online DRM method (Or something equivalent provided by firaxis themselves) but nothing like 'games for windows live' or Ubisoft's evil evil must be online to play system.

Ideally we'd all love no online DRM. Or just a cd-key check.
But do you guys really think thats going to happen?
I don't.

But what the heck is D2D then?

Direct 2 Drive is a digital games delivery platform.
Steam is a slightly more advanced digital games delivery platform that integrates DRM and community features.

So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

This comment is so ludicrous that I'm not even going to answer it. I'm just going to quote it like this. Just going to leave it hanging there at the top of my reply. Yep. There it is. The embodiment of why I have such a hard time taking half the people in this thread seriously.

Wow, you ignore an issue that exists because of the way the policies are outlined? The policy CAN be interpreted that way.

Wow, you ignore an issue that exists because of the way the policies are outlined? The policy CAN be interpreted that way.

By someone who is intentionally misinterpreting it. Congratulations, your defence of this post completely proves my point.

Steam was started as the distribution method for counterstrike.

For your next trick, I assume you are going to say that people could get banned from steam every time they headshot someone.

It is, in every conceivable way, a bloody stupid thing to say. The fact that you grasp so desperately at this intentional misinterpretation shows how tenuous your existing arguments are. It is a sign of true desperation.

No, it's a sign that I recognize that things can be interpreted in different ways. You can't recognize that fact. There's a reason legal documents are over very, very long written in language that's difficult to understand: it limits the possible ways to interpret it (hopefully allowing the document to be interpreted only in the way the writer intends, but this is rarely the case). You need only look at the strict vs. losse interpretation of the Constution debate that took place in the early 19th century to see that my point is true.

No, it's a sign that I recognize that things can be interpreted in different ways. You can't recognize that fact. There's a reason legal documents are over very, very long written in language that's difficult to understand: it limits the possible ways to interpret it (hopefully allowing the document to be interpreted only in the way the writer intends, but this is rarely the case). You need only look at the strict vs. losse interpretation of the Constution debate that took place in the early 19th century to see that my point is true.

Yes, things can be interpreted in different ways. Well done.

I'm not trying to claim that it is not an interpretation.

I am saying that it is a stupid interpretation, and one that is provably wrong.

I don't think we can say that any interpretation is right or wrong. Given that it's steam's EULA, only they can say which is right or wrong. Remember: the company is always right (like it or not, that IS how it works these days).

I don't think we can say that any interpretation is right or wrong. Given that it's steam's EULA, only they can say which is right or wrong. Remember: the company is always right (like it or not, that IS how it works these days).

Yeah, why let evidence and logic get in your way when spreading mindless FUD.

I commend your commitment to the cause.

Just to highlight the kind of issue the 'if we're going to have online DRM make it steam' lobby are going for:

Ubisofts DRM servers crashed/overloaded this weekend. People could not play their single player games (Assasins Creed 2, Settlers 7 beta) as they couldn't connect to the authentication servers. Legitamate users were prevented from playing as Ubisoft couldn't maintain their servers. (Side note for firaxis, this actually makes pirated copies that don't require you to be online 24/7 more attractive)

This would not happen with steam. You would be able to run the game via steam's 'offline mode' (caveat: provided you authenticated it 1 time [usually straight after or straight before install - it only associates the CD key to your account]).
e.g. Total War (empire + napolean) can be run offline even if steam's servers are down.

We should be arguing for steam as the online DRM method (Or something equivalent provided by firaxis themselves) but nothing like 'games for windows live' or Ubisoft's evil evil must be online to play system.

Ideally we'd all love no online DRM. Or just a cd-key check.
But do you guys really think thats going to happen?
I don't.

I've also read this, and if i had been one of the players, i would never ever buy a game from Ubisoft anymore. Ths is just ridicilous.


I'm not trying to claim that it is not an interpretation.

I am saying that it is a stupid interpretation, and one that is provably wrong.

Well, i would like to see the proof...

Well, i would like to see the proof...

I just shot someone in counterstrike and did not get banned.

How utterly astonishing.

Please forgive me if I do not reply again immediately, I think I need to get over how incredibly shocked I am that I am able to decrease someone's enjoyment of the game by beating them and not get banned. I'm going to have to sit down for a bit while weeping for joy.

Anyone else want to completely destroy their credibility by trying to claim that you are going to get banned from steam for breaking a Civilization peace treaty?

Please do. It makes a nice change from having to reply to people who aren't saying things that a 5 year old could understand are utterly stupid.

Doesn't matter I am getting the collector's edition. You can't get that in a download.

Wow, you ignore an issue that exists because of the way the policies are outlined? The policy CAN be interpreted that way.

But it won't be. It's vague so valve can ban people who are cheating in some way they may not have forseen.

Indeed it is (I highly doubt they would use it for any other purpose). Most of the time stuff like that is inserted in case of lawsuits. But Chalk's attitude is what gets me. As far as I can tell, he sees anyone who disagrees with him as wrong.

I love steam, it is the most convenient and best service. I hate buying a physical copy of the game, if it gets scratched or lost I'm screwed.
I urge all of the dissenters to try it out, I imagine most of you would end up liking it.

PS: during the holidays steam was selling Civ4, all the xpacs, and colonization for $13 total. I already owned Civ4 on CD, but bought it anyway simply because I like to have it on steam more.

Indeed it is (I highly doubt they would use it for any other purpose). Most of the time stuff like that is inserted in case of lawsuits. But Chalk's attitude is what gets me. As far as I can tell, he sees anyone who disagrees with him as wrong.

And your attitude is that you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, and only concede the point if someone else reiterates it.

It's a match made in heaven.

PS: during the holidays steam was selling Civ4, all the xpacs, and colonization for $13 total. I already owned Civ4 on CD, but bought it anyway simply because I like to have it on steam more.

I must have missed that - I've been waiting for it to go on discount on Steam for a while. Having it all online is nice. I remember a long time ago having my Max Payne disc break, and they of course wouldn't replace it even though they always argue that you don't "own" the game, you "license" it. Well if I own a license I should be able to get the game again for only the cost of the packaging! Oh well, Steam fixes that at least.

And your attitude is that you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, and only concede the point if someone else reiterates it.

It's a match made in heaven.

No, I just happen to disagree with 90% of what you say.

No, I just happen to disagree with 90% of what you say.

And this just proves him correct.

And this just proves him correct.

First of all, he was saying I disagree with him 100% of the time.

Second of all, he was saying I disagree with him just to disagree with him. This is false. We just happen to have very different views. If others were saying the same thing I would disagree with them too.

I'm just plain tired of the steam fanboys saying everyone who doesn't think steam is the greatest service ever invented is wrong. Chalks just happens to be the most annoying of them (and the most vocal).

I'm done here.

First of all, he was saying I disagree with him 100% of the time.

Second of all, he was saying I disagree with him just to disagree with him. This is false. We just happen to have very different views. If others were saying the same thing I would disagree with them too.

I'm just plain tired of the steam fanboys saying everyone who doesn't think steam is the greatest service ever invented is wrong. Chalks just happens to be the most annoying of them (and the most vocal).

I'm done here.

Again he said you would disagree with anything he said and then you disagreed with him. He won, you lost.

I just shot someone in counterstrike and did not get banned.

How utterly astonishing.


:rolleyes:
a) you'll sure not get banned because of playing a game with the game rules, yes, that's clear to me.
b) that does not mean, that you cannot get banned because of doing something legal but unwanted.

:rolleyes:
a) you'll sure not get banned because of playing a game with the game rules, yes, that's clear to me.
b) that does not mean, that you cannot get banned because of doing something legal but unwanted.

Which isn't what the person was trying to claim... so what thread do you think you are replying to?

They said that steam would ban you if you broke a peace treaty in Civ.

You've quoted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8972468&postcount=208) this:
So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

I must have missed the part where the steam terms of service has anything what so ever to do with that.

So you're saying that you can just make up some random rules, and if someone breaks them they get banned from steam?

Cool story.

PieceOfMind has quoted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8964902&postcount=202):

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.

This is so unprecise, that you can call it random.

[So negatively affecting the enjoyment of other steam users is reason enough for your subscription or account to be terminated. Suppose you go online to play multiplayer in Civ5 and you "backstab" a couple of other players who were in an alliance with you. Given that a lot of people don't enjoy losing, it could negatively affect their enjoyment of the game and Steam has the right to cancel your subscription.

This comment is so ludicrous that I'm not even going to answer it. I'm just going to quote it like this. Just going to leave it hanging there at the top of my reply. Yep. There it is. The embodiment of why I have such a hard time taking half the people in this thread seriously.

Like it or not, that's the wording in the official subscriber agreement.

I noticed you bring up an even more absurd example than mine. Obviously, doing a headshot in a game like CS is pretty standard whereas backstabbing a player in a Civ game where you've invested many hours has more potential to piss someone off. Anyway, let's even ignore that example too because I agree it is a bad one.


Imagine this scenario... You have a bad internet connection and attempt to connect to an existing online game. The game seems to hang (maybe it's a bug, maybe your internet connection) but you wait out a few minutes to see if it will resolve. It doesn't, so you terminate the game's process and try again. Meanwhile, in game, the current players are getting annoyed. The actions the joining player are taking could be interpreted by some as griefing. It takes a few players to get annoyed at this behaviour and report that person. Steam then have the right to exercise their power to cancel that player's subscription.

Imagine other scenarios like a non-English speaker entering a game and comitting some sort of "faux pas", annoying the players who then report him. You I'm sure would agree that not all players you meet on the internet act completely fairly and level-headedly. They especially are not always kind or helpful to newer players who don't know their way around and aren't familiar with the local etiquette.

It may seem far fetched, but tell that to someone reading the subscriber agreement who has no prior experience with Steam. It reminds me of what bits of your life you had to sign away with the "ToS" for WoW, though that game's agreement is far far worse obviously.

Insult me as much as you want, and ignore the point as much as you want, but I'll continue to consider real possibilities. As has been said many times before, no system is perfect, Steam included. Stop pretending the system is perfect and that just because you've never had a problem with it no one else ever will.

I'm fairly confident Steam is responsible in how it cancels subscriptions and bans users, but I'm also almost certain that not all 100% of cancelled subscriptions would have completely deserved it. As any person who's ever had that happen to them I'm sure would attest, cancelling a subscription is going to be controversial most of the time. The fact that they even can cancel your subscription is concern enough. As others have said, you merely have a license to play the game assuming you follow x,y,z condtions else you be banned. If I'm having a bad day, playing a game of SP and call Monty a "freak"ing idiot, I needn't worry about losing my right to play the game - I might just upset my significant other (on second thoughts, maybe I would lose my right to play the game! :lol:) or scare the dog. Call someone a "freak"ing idiot in MP and you could be reported as being abusive or whatever and with maybe one or two more similar reports you might risk losing your subscription. It's written in the agreement.

As mentioned, they don't even need to provide a warning.

These are real concerns and no amount of you saying, "You're being ludicrous", will change my mind that Steam have the authority to carry out the actions that are agreed to in the subscriber agreement.

By someone who is intentionally misinterpreting it. Congratulations, your defence of this post completely proves my point.

I am not intentionally misinterpreting it. I'm not even sure it's possible to "intentionally misinterpret" something, maybe to "intentionally misrepresent" or "intentionally mislead" but I'm doing neither of those either. What I have admitted to is not going out of my way to promote Steam, singing praise about their wonderful features like social networking or backing up of games. That seems to be your primary objection to most of my posts, that I don't hold it in the same high regard as you do. There's something called opinion and as you've noticed, mine differs from yours.

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or which otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.
As they write, any conduct or activity that negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other subscribers means Valve may terminate your account.

Are you trying to argue that negatively affecting the enjoyment of other subscribers in game does not imply negatively affecting the enjoyment of Steam. That's about the only way I can think of that I might possibly be misinterpreting it. If I'm playing a game on Steam and someone is negatively affecting my enjoyment in game, is that affecting my enjoyment of Steam, since I am using Steam to play the game? It seems to be open to interpretation, or am I mistaken? ;)

Are you actually tring to say I'm just being paranoid and that companies like Steam just write phrases like that for shiz and giggles, never intending to actually carry them out?

************


Onto another subject..........................
I quickly read the EULA for Civ4 and interestingly:
-backup copies of the game (even strictly for private use are prohibited). I know many of you already know this/ ;)
-You are allowed to sell the game (i.e. the rights to that particular game). It appears this is not the case with Steam-downloaded games (correct me if I'm wrong). I have sold games I didn't want anymore and I have bought old games from people who didn't want those games anymore. Everyone raves about buying old games cheaply off Steam. You can also buy old games cheaply second hand. They will sell those games cheap on Steam because it reflects the market value of the game i.e. in the second-hand market, assuming the game can even be sold on the second-hand market (many modern games can't). I would be very surprised if there were cheap games being sold on Steam that were significantly cheaper than on the second-hand market. (e.g. at least 10 or 15 dollars difference).

As someone (I forget who) remarked much earlier on, digital distribution could easily be argued as being mainly motiviated by a desire to cut out the second-hand market. For a developer, that is probably the biggest advantage for a Steam-like distribution method. For budget conscious gamers, I would assume the resale potential of a store-bought game will often factor into their decision when buying an expensive game.

Imagine this scenario... You have a bad internet connection and attempt to connect to an existing online game. The game seems to hang (maybe it's a bug, maybe your internet connection) but you wait out a few minutes to see if it will resolve. It doesn't, so you terminate the game's process and try again. Meanwhile, in game, the current players are getting annoyed. The actions the joining player are taking could be interpreted by some as griefing. It takes a few players to get annoyed at this behaviour and report that person. Steam then have the right to exercise their power to cancel that player's subscription.

...

I'm fairly confident Steam is responsible in how it cancels subscriptions and bans users, but I'm also almost certain that not all 100% of cancelled subscriptions would have completely deserved it. As any person who's ever had that happen to them I'm sure would attest, cancelling a subscription is going to be controversial most of the time. The fact that they even can cancel your subscription is concern enough.

...

As someone (I forget who) remarked much earlier on, digital distribution could easily be argued as being mainly motiviated by a desire to cut out the second-hand market. For a developer, that is probably the biggest advantage for a Steam-like distribution method. For budget conscious gamers, I would assume the resale potential of a store-bought game will often factor into their decision when buying an expensive game.

You bring up good points which mirror what I've said in a lot of posts - I'm the one who said DRM is primarily (and sneakily) used to attempt to cripple the second-hand market. I never sell games so I don't care, but it's a legit concern for some.

As far as them having the power to ban you, yeah they have it and there is a possibility they could exercise that power. It's extremely low, and not even a concern if you're not cheating though. Valve does NOT ban for griefing or cursing or even if a hundred people report you for something. The procedure to get someone banned is to let Valve know the person's username, at which point Valve investigates and if they personally witness cheating then they ban.

It's seriously like a innocent until proven guilty kind of thing, which is good because it means they won't make many mistakes banning people, if any. It can actually be frustrating to me in multiplayer games, though, to see someone blatantly cheat and not have a way to get them banned in a timely fashion. Honestly I see where you're coming from about their vagueness giving them awesome power over your games, but it's really common (and will probably be in the other DRM's you get to choose from) and not much to worry about. Especially if you're not cheating and even more so if you only play single player.

No Steam for me, thank you. If Civ V requires it, I won't buy it and that will be the first Civ game I miss...with great reluctance, too.
I don't want any game that requires a connection to the internet just to play. Registration, one time, OK, but not every time you launch...that is too sneaky and obtrusive in my book.

You've quoted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8972468&postcount=208) this:


"Backstabing", which i think means here breaking peace treaties and not-attacking-pacts, is also a reason for getting banned out of our multiplayer league (if i remember correcty; i don't play MP), if you do it to often.
And the policies can be interpreted in that way, that if you report it, you can get kicked and will not be able to play your game even in single player.

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

No Steam for me, thank you. If Civ V requires it, I won't buy it and that will be the first Civ game I miss...with great reluctance, too.
I don't want any game that requires a connection to the internet just to play. Registration, one time, OK, but not every time you launch...that is too sneaky and obtrusive in my book.

So whats your problem with steam? You only have to authenticate it once online, then you can play the game without an internet connection.
:rolleyes:


Other DRM options may require a constant internet connection (cough Ubisoft cough), but steam doesn't, you can launch the game offlinethrough steam's 'offline mode' after authenticating it once. Steam is the superior DRM of the online authentication variety.

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

BuT MaYbE iT wIlL!1!!

It's a losing battle against people who's only purpose here is to twist things out of context. You won't convince them without a signed contract from every single decision maker at Valve saying that they don't do something that everyone knows they're not going to do, because they are desperate for anti-steam arguments, no matter how ludicrous.

This game is already confirmed for a Steam release, as you can find it: http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/ <- Right there.

Now please stop arguing. Please just let this thread end or lock it or something, Steam gamers will enjoy ease of access and paranoid\old fashioned\collection-based\single-player oriented (not insulting, just truth bearing) gamers will enjoy their discs. Everyone is happy.

It's already been floating around that this game will support Steamworks, so that's even better for people who aren't scared of Valve. Steamworks is a service that allows you to hop into games using your Steam friends list and view what your buddies are doing, it's honestly a great system and pretty much essential for any modern multiplayer game.

Unfortunately we need to keep bumping it as theres already repeats by steam-haters being posted. Hopefully having one on the first page will draw them in here rather than making new topics.

[...]

:agree:

It will never be interpreted in such a way.

I guess, your crystal ball tells you this?

BuT MaYbE iT wIlL!1!!

It's a losing battle against people who's only purpose here is to twist things out of context. You won't convince them without a signed contract from every single decision maker at Valve saying that they don't do something that everyone knows they're not going to do, because they are desperate for anti-steam arguments, no matter how ludicrous.

PieceOfMind has shown you some examples, where the subject could be interpreted as a violation of the rules.
You don't know, if there's really any person sitting there, which investigates the reports. There's a big chance, that there's just a system, in which you'll get banned, when enough people have complained about you, and then you have to argue with Valve to get your account back.

Rejecting a possible option is just idioty.

Rejecting a possible option is just idioty.

Perhaps you are the idioty?

Go find an example of the hypothetical situation happening. Seriously. THere have been a couple of alleged incidents of false positives for cheats detected but I@ve never heard of someone being banned for that part of the EULA. And with the unreasonable steam hatred that people have, they would be publicised.

PieceOfMind has shown you some examples, where the subject could be interpreted as a violation of the rules.
You don't know, if there's really any person sitting there, which investigates the reports. There's a big chance, that there's just a system, in which you'll get banned, when enough people have complained about you, and then you have to argue with Valve to get your account back.

Rejecting a possible option is just idioty.

Valve does NOT ban for griefing or cursing or even if a hundred people report you for something. The procedure to get someone banned is to let Valve know the person's username, at which point Valve investigates and if they personally witness cheating then they ban.

This is how Valve operates - I know from reading about it a lot on their forums. I'm not going to say it's impossible that an innocent could get banned, because it is possible. Then again it's also possible that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a love child that will one day be our messiah.

^That's not true at all. Valve has it's own anti-cheat program called VAC, which is an automated robotic program that tracks online activities in VAC enabled games for hacking activity. Atleast don't spread false stories.

Even if you go into a game and threaten to murder someone and list exact details of when\where you're going to do it, Valve will do nothing, ever, at all. There's absolutely no Valve-personal moderation on the Steam platform.

The only time Valve steps in is over hacked accounts.

^That's not true at all. Valve has it's own anti-cheat program called VAC, which is an automated robotic program that tracks online activities in VAC enabled games for hacking activity. Atleast don't spread false stories.

Even if you go into a game and threaten to murder someone and list exact details of when\where you're going to do it, Valve will do nothing, ever, at all. There's absolutely no Valve-personal moderation on the Steam platform.

The only time Valve steps in is over hacked accounts.

You're right - people used to post replays on the forums of hackers and I guess Valve didn't like that. Looks like their policy now is to only rely on VAC. That's good since it won't make mistakes. Also bad because there are quite a few hacks that get around VAC, though.

BuT MaYbE iT wIlL!1!!

It's a losing battle against people who's only purpose here is to twist things out of context. You won't convince them without a signed contract from every single decision maker at Valve saying that they don't do something that everyone knows they're not going to do, because they are desperate for anti-steam arguments, no matter how ludicrous.

[Attempt to end an argument by discrediting those you don't agree with, labelling them as desperate and ludicrous and accusing them of twisting things out of context.]

You might have better luck with convincing others if you didn't make your arguments so personal. ;)

For example, I'm not a steam-hater, though I'm pretty sure you believe I am one. I play a game on Steam and have found it satisfactory for that game. I don't think it's absolutely wonderful i.e. I'm not a Steam fanboy, so I have no obligation to make Steam sound like a perfect product. On my current setup for playing Civ4, loading up Steam all the time to play Civ would be another hassle for me because my computer is not always on (I have many on-off cycles) and Steam does not load up in a trivial time (IIRC it's something on the order of a minute rather than mere seconds - that could vary with other computers obviously).

Back on the point,
It would not be hard for Steam to fix their subscriber agreement so that it does not have a ridiculously open "negatively affect enjoyment of steam by other subscribers" clause, or even for them to implement a compulsory warning before being able to ban. Even cheaters IMO do not necessarily deserve being banned entirely. If they're cheating in MP, sure, ban them from MP, but do they get prevented from playing SP as well?
Cheaters are still paying customers (probably;)).

(EDIT... With a bit of reading, I think it's the case that banned "cheaters" can still play single player so my last question there is answered for me.)

You bring up good points which mirror what I've said in a lot of posts - I'm the one who said DRM is primarily (and sneakily) used to attempt to cripple the second-hand market. I never sell games so I don't care, but it's a legit concern for some.

As far as them having the power to ban you, yeah they have it and there is a possibility they could exercise that power. It's extremely low, and not even a concern if you're not cheating though. Valve does NOT ban for griefing or cursing or even if a hundred people report you for something. The procedure to get someone banned is to let Valve know the person's username, at which point Valve investigates and if they personally witness cheating then they ban.

It's seriously like a innocent until proven guilty kind of thing, which is good because it means they won't make many mistakes banning people, if any. It can actually be frustrating to me in multiplayer games, though, to see someone blatantly cheat and not have a way to get them banned in a timely fashion. Honestly I see where you're coming from about their vagueness giving them awesome power over your games, but it's really common (and will probably be in the other DRM's you get to choose from) and not much to worry about. Especially if you're not cheating and even more so if you only play single player.

That's actually useful information to me and others reading the thread so thanks for pointing it out.

I posted this on another thread like this, but...

As we know, we have an in game mod browser with the possibility to connect to civfanatics, and possibly the entire web. Steam has an in game browser too, but no mod browser such as what they mentioned. Because of their differences, it seems safe to assume Civ will not use the Steam browser, and as I see no reason to have both browsers in the game, I think it will not be be
Steam based

I guess, your crystal ball tells you this?

What possible reason would Valve have for banning someone for such a reason?

Back on the point,
It would not be hard for Steam to fix their subscriber agreement so that it does not have a ridiculously open "negatively affect enjoyment of steam by other subscribers" clause, or even for them to implement a compulsory warning before being able to ban. Even cheaters IMO do not necessarily deserve being banned entirely. If they're cheating in MP, sure, ban them from MP, but do they get prevented from playing SP as well?
Cheaters are still paying customers (probably;)).

(EDIT... With a bit of reading, I think it's the case that banned "cheaters" can still play single player so my last question there is answered for me.).

I'm not sure if they can still play single player, but they can definitely play games that don't use the same engine. So if you get banned in CoDMW2, you won't be banned in Counter Strike, and vice versa.

There's a big chance, that there's just a system, in which you'll get banned, when enough people have complained about you, and then you have to argue with Valve to get your account back.

There isn't.

This is how Valve operates - I know from reading about it a lot on their forums. I'm not going to say it's impossible that an innocent could get banned, because it is possible. Then again it's also possible that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a love child that will one day be our messiah.

That's not how it works. What cspyr0 said isn't accurate either. Valve don't ban people for griefing in-game. They don't disable Steam accounts for cheating either. A distinction must be made between accounts being disabled and being VAC-banned.

If an account is disabled access to it is lost completely. It requires something like suspected credit card fraud to trigger your account to be disabled.

A VAC ban is a triggered by Valve's anti-cheat. VAC bans are triggered when cheats are detected. There is no way of reporting somebody so that they'll be VAC banned. The system is purely automated. If you do get VAC banned, you still have access to your account and all your games. The only restriction is you will not be allowed to play on multiplayer servers that are VAC-secured and are running a game on the same engine as the game you got banned in.

What possible reason would Valve have for banning someone for such a reason?

Good question.
Easiest thing: Could be an accident.

(yes, i can't really see, why they should do it, but it doesn't negate the option that they can)

There isn't.

You're working for Valve, i guess?