Civ 5/Steam:Offline Mode Question

So this whole discussion is just over semantics? Or are you people really scared that Steam might hack your porn collection? What the hell is the problem/going on?
 
So this whole discussion is just over semantics? Or are you people really scared that Steam might hack your porn collection? What the hell is the problem/going on?

Yep. Pretty much this.

It's what's known as "desperately grasping at straws".
 
So this whole discussion is just over semantics? Or are you people really scared that Steam might hack your porn collection? What the hell is the problem/going on?

For some, it is a battle while on retreat.
First, we learned that there won't be any access to Steam servers when being in the so-called "offline mode". This was "proven" by quotations of the privacy police and whatnotever.

Then, Ori found some strong indications that there actually IS some access and apparently (small) data transfer going back and forth. Now the "defenders" are on retreat and have turned to semantics (in these regards, you are right with your assumption) and are explaining, that as long as Valve doesn't explicitly exclude such accesses and data transfers, the other side would have no right to complain about the (in their eyes, misleading) term "offline mode".

Actually, since we are all just busy with playing Civ, there is no reason for anybody to be concerned about the p**n collection - just because Civ players have better things to do than to collect such rubbish.
Nevertheless, when I have ordered any of my programs to stay offline, it would really annoy me to have to learn that it actually does not but successfully tries to establish connections.
 
I was considering to sandbox steam, as it doesn't bother me what it spies out in a virtual machine and I can reliably restrain it from breaking out. But then I heard it is reported to not always work in sandboxes. Does anyone have practical experience with that?
The reality is that you, me and everybody else here is so insignificant in the greater scheme of things that the information we contain on our home computers simply isn't worth the time, effort or risk to get at. The greatest risk is that somebody will exploit a vulnerability to show you ads so they can take somebody elses money (the advertiser) or to steal your virtual resources through CPU power and bandwidth to propogate their ads across the Internet with the same goal. Your truely sensitive information, excluding the naked pictures of your best friend's wife anyway, is already stored on a computer somewhere else along with that same sensitive information from thousands or millions of other people and THAT computer is the one you need to worry about. THAT computer also happens to be one that you have absolutely no control over, in fact it may not even be a computer, it may be a HDD from a 'smart' copier that your insurance agent sold to somebody in China that still contains lots of fun things like your birth certificate or extensive medical records. :)

If you're really honestly that concerned about the security of any data on your PC you should probably just pull the plug now and get it over with, otherwise it's always at risk no matter how savvy or cautious you are. Worrying this much about what Steam may or may not be doing when you probably handed your credit card to some pimple faced teenager that you've never seen before last night doesn't really make a lot of sense.
 
Then, Ori found some strong indications that there actually IS some access and apparently (small) data transfer going back and forth. Now the "defenders" are on retreat and have turned to semantics (in these regards, you are right with your assumption) and are explaining, that as long as Valve doesn't explicitly exclude such accesses and data transfers, the other side would have no right to complain about the (in their eyes, misleading) term "offline mode".

Hardly. You see, your entire mindset is based upon paranoia and suspicion. You're seeing a problem in a kilobyte of traffic that just isn't realistic. You cling to the fact that this small, non-mandatory traffic exists as desperate confirmation of your view when it isn't anything of the sort. Its like the creationists saying fossils are evidence of a flood, not of a billions year old planet.

You assume that Steam is evil and then you go looking for "evidence" that proves it. You have no reason to think that the magic kilobyte does anything wrong, but because you think steam is evil, the kilobyte must be evidence of this.
 
You assume that Steam is good and then you go looking for "evidence" that proves it. You have no reason to think that the magic kilobyte does anything right, but because you think steam is good, the kilobyte must be evidence of this.

funny, i only had to exchange 3 words and someone (strawman ;) ) could say it´s your opinion. Only the first "evidence" part doesn´t fit really :(

Its like the creationists saying fossils are evidence of a flood, not of a billions year old planet.

honestly, this made my day :bowdown: using this argument against an european poster :rotfl: i still can´t believe it ...
 
It doesn't work that way. If you think it's evil, provide the evidence for its demonic purposes.

honestly, this made my day :bowdown: using this argument against an european poster :rotfl: i still can´t believe it ...

As an apparent superior European poster, you should be able to spot that it was a comparison and not actually calling you a creationist, no?
 
Now you know i saw that he made a comparision to make his argument, so it´s part of his argument.

It doesn't work that way. If you think it's evil, provide the evidence for its demonic purposes.

let me counter:

It doesn't work that way. If you think it's not evil, provide the evidence for its non demonic purposes.

Why do you believe i think steam is evil? Steam is as evil / as good as any other firm. So why should i trust Valve more than i trust any other firm. Valve, like other firms, wants to make money, nothing bad about this. Always this black and white arguments in this discussion.

Edit: missed something the first time
As an apparent superior European poster
How you was able to see this in my post? It was not suitable and funny, but european superiority :lol:
 
Now you know i saw that he made a comparision to make his argument, so it´s part of his argument.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You saw he made a comparison, so you think it's valid to take that as a sign that he calls you a creationist? Why am I even replying to this?

let me counter:

Why do you believe i think steam is evil? Steam is as evil / as good as any other firm. So why should i trust Valve more than i trust any other firm. Valve, like other firms, wants to make money, nothing bad about this. Always this black and white arguments in this discussion.

What money could they possibly make with a KB of data being transmitted? For godssake, you don't even have an argument, why keep going on about it.

How you was able to see this in my post? It was not suitable and funny, but european superiority
Well, you did find it hilarious that he would call you a creationist (not that he did, but yeah), you being a european and all and apparantly exempt from illogical thought.
 
he did not even said this to me ;)

What money could they possibly make with a KB of data being transmitted? For godssake, you don't even have an argument, why keep going on about it.

Where you found your evidence that i said this or even think this? My point was, don´t demand from someone to show something is bad / not good if you have no willingeness to provide proves that it´s is good. But your post in the Steam FAQ thread of 2k Greg is exactly a good step in this direction

Edit: can i request that you add the emotion to your quote of my edit

Edit 2:
all and apparantly exempt from illogical thought.
You must know me much better than i know myself. Commenting a post is one things. Starting to spread assumption about a poster another.
 
Noone should prove that it is 'good'. If someone thinks there's something fishy going on they should deliver the evidence, obviously. That was my whole point. And I'm not exactly targeting you, it's just such a tiring discussion, not to mention pointless, that I can't help but respond and unwillingly contribute to a horribly tiring circular discussion.

edit: seriously, adding an emoticon to a quote?

And I'm not spreading assumptions. I was referring to what you said, that you misunderstood in my post, that someone else said that was misunderstood by you and that god kill me now
 
Noone should prove that it is 'good'. If someone thinks there's something fishy going on they should deliver the evidence, obviously.

Considering firms i have objections towards this opinion, there should in this special case always the prove of being good or bad (Edit: but because if i can´t prove a firm is good, this doesn´t mean a firm is bad). But i have no problem if we end this with the conclusion, we both have a different opinion about this.

Your feelings about the discussion - i share them. This is atm no discussion i really want to participate. But because i think there is no consent in sight i fear the situation will not improve in the near future.

edit: considering the emotion - yes, i fear without, someone could misread the quote - without this i wouldn´t bother
 
Coyote, it is impossible to prove Steam is not evil. To do that I would need to know the content of every packet sent, that not even one Steam content server was powered by burning puppy blood and that Gabe Newell doesn't wish to consume my pale nerd flesh. Even if I could show no evil by Steam took place on a particular day, I would also need to be able to show that Steam won't cause your computer to burst into flame on 6'oclock of the 6th of June. It never ends. To prove non-evil I would require a totality of knowledge which is impossible.

You on the other hand have the easy job of only needing to find a single piece of conclusive evidence of evil. Innocent until proven guilty might be another way to put it*. Could you do that for me please?



*Also, the difficulty of disproving that dogs can talk, the problem of proving a negative.
 
You dont´have to prove that steam is not evil (honestly and clarifying i never expected that, even if i made a mistake while twisting a quote a bit above), i only requested if someone says steam is good he should prove it too. If there is neither a prove for steam is evil or steam is good, we know nothing new for sure.

In this actual discussion here we only knew that there was trafic - but this did not include that this trafic is bad or even wanted by Valve - like you said we knew almost nothing about the content. The only problem was the mismatch between said words and the observed program behaviour, nothing more*. Also the possibility that it´s a bug was considered. (a actual post in another forum - if i will believe the said story - concludes that it seems to be a bug). But i never concluded that Valve is bad or evil because of this.

Yes, i have my reason why i want to reduce the contact with / avoid steam, but tbh even if they would do everything i expect in my realistic worst case scenario i wouldn´t call them or conclude that they are evil. Someone said once, there is not always only black and white, there is also alot of grey between. Don´t believe that everybody who has objections towards steam thinks steam is evil.

* and also only why the meaning of the sentence was, that if you don´t want to bother with steam, you don´t really have to bother with steam after the first install because of the offline mode.
 
:lol: :rotfl: :rotfl:

This is the funniest thing ever...

But it is correct. Steam might be evil, or they might be very holy.

So if someone says they need proof of wrongdoing, and that they are good. Prove they were good. I can prove partial 'evilness' of Steam as the paranoid ones (<-- took that from Chalks playbook, and I kind of like it!) keep asking for.

But no point to do that, all the small little evil things have already been pointed out, and none of them were that evil to begin with... but those things are not holy either, so they are more evil than holy in the end (<--- It's a fact also!) :lol:
 
90% of the software installed on your computer calls home to check for updates now and then I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.

The only software I have that calls home is Windows and my anti-virus. And I've turned off the auto-update on my anti-virus because of those annoying messages I was getting every day. So that just leaves Windows. I could even shut that off if I wanted to but I find the messages are infrequent enough to be acceptable. So I'm not sure where you're getting this 90% figure. Please provide a list of any programs that call home on a regular basis.
 
You assume that Steam is evil and then you go looking for "evidence" that proves it. You have no reason to think that the magic kilobyte does anything wrong, but because you think steam is evil, the kilobyte must be evidence of this.

There you go again with the notion that we don't want Steam because of some paranoid delusion we might be harbouring. Does it ever cross your mind that there might be other reasons why we don't want to use it? Simply because we don't have any use for the software we're automatically emotionally unbalanced? :rolleyes:
 
Steam stole $20 from me

i got a Half Life 1 complete collection about 3 years ago that i cant play because i dont have my account info and its registered with a email that i dont use anymore so im :):):):)ed out of $20 and thats why Steam can go :):):):) themselves im never again buying a Steam game for as long as i live :mad:

this is how simple it needs to be
1. Install Game
2. Play game
 
Top Bottom